RAW, Warped Bloodlines are Archetypes (Such as Sylvan), not necessarily alternate bloodlines...
which is why I was giving myself crap for not reading what was actually said in the first post properly.
As for the bloodline arcana thing, the more I look at it, the more that seems to be accurate. The thing is, the cost should be about right. If an animal companion costs more than three feats, then a druid shouldn't be a full caster, at least that's how I look at it.
For that matter, how much are spells worth? Some feats would suggest that one feat is worth about one spell per day. If that is so, then the fighter is woefully underpowered.
Can't really evaluate how much spells are worth; it's a class based system, not a point based one. Can't really be converted :/
|
Another problem with the Eldritch route:
The bloodline gives you a companion as a druid 3 levels lower. The heritage gives you the bloodline as a sorcerer 2 levels lower. That would result in a companion 5 levels lower. Besides of course the fact that you need a very dubious interpretation of the rules ("it's okay to also get an Arcana for free..."); I wouldn't allow that. It it looks like you hard to torture the text to make the rule "work", you're on thin ice.
-------
I've been thinking over the Wild Cohort feat. In general I like it, but not completely. The 3.x version uses some rules for the druid's level determining what kind of creature would be suitable - HD limits, IIRC. Pathfinder doesn't have animal companions that only become available at later levels.
The problem is if you can take any animal from the bestiary and slap on the Wild Cohort bonus. Why take a horse when you can take a tame bear mount? The bear will have higher base HD.
So I guess you'd have to select animals from the druid list then; that'd make them equal in HD and stuff. But then you have to give the feat a lot of wordiness to demonstrate that the animal won't be following druid animal progression.
--------
Isn't it a good idea to start looking at the ranger's animal companion, rather than the druid's? After all, this feat shouldn't outshine the ranger either; the goal is to provide a surviving mount, not a mount that steals the show.
they should be getting a mount at about rangers level of power If they have a skill focus prerequisite. The boon companion feat would work as well on the ranger as it would on this feat.
I wouldn't worry about what animal a person is getting as a mount. If someone is paying the feat tax, they should have free reign as to which animal they can ride (as long as it can be found in the region).
I honestly didn't even notice that the bloodline power was both an arcana and a power. I wouldn't have suggested it had I thought it was illegal. I still think that a companions power has to have a measurable value, and if that value is more than three feats then something needs to be fixed.
Can't really evaluate how much spells are worth; it's a class based system, not a point based one. Can't really be converted :/On an unrelated note, I disagree with your statement.
One can evaluate worth. Set parameters. Then judge based on them.
I know about the tier system (though I have issues with it). It is in no way relevant to this. I'll not say it's IMPOSSIBLE to evaluate it, I just say it is to complex to allow anyone ever to do it. There has been a few tries on turning D&D into a point based system, and they all horribly failed.
To a large degree, this is because of synergy. The more variables you have the larger the ability to optimize. This means if your players aren't good with optimizing they'll end up at very different levels of power due to accident. If your players ARE good at optimizing, they'll completely break the game unless you also optimize the opposition to a degree where characters feel like just numbers on a paper instead of people.
Basically, if you balance the point cost of an ability after it's optimal usage, anyone not optimizing will pay far too much for it. If you balance it for an average situation, those optimizing will get completely insane.
There's a large difference between being able to roughly evaluate how powerful a druid is and being able to evaluate how powerful Woodland Stride and the ability to cast Stone Shape is. You can feel it in, but the more abilities can be chosen this way the harder the game will be to play.
EDIT: Just look at the ARG and how easily it can be abused and broken. Or the item creation rules. Both of those are kind of point-based and incredibly easy to abuse - not only (though to some extent) because abilities where poorly evaluated, but also because of their synergistic nature.
|
|
I wouldn't worry about what animal a person is getting as a mount. If someone is paying the feat tax, they should have free reign as to which animal they can ride (as long as it can be found in the region).
I disagree; people should get roughly the same value for taking the same feat here. If you take a horse, you shouldn't be feeling foolish because you could've also taken a 6HD base animal mount instead.
Which is why the druid/ranger animal companions are probably the best starting point, because those creatures have been equalized a bit more.
Sorry, what I was inferring was that an animal that becomes awakened is automatically under the control of the DM. Let me see if I can find that post....
actually, here's why it can't be a companion, which is what I thought was being suggested. Yay for reading comprehension! /facepalm
"An awakened animal gets 3d6 Intelligence, +1d3 Charisma, and +2 HD. Its type becomes magical beast (augmented animal). An awakened animal can't serve as an animal companion, familiar, or special mount."
Nowhere in there it states that you can't RP it out with it/him/her and from then let him be part of the party and let your pc ride it.
How about a feat that gives your mount hp as if it had toughness based on your HD?
It's certainly weaker than what was proposed here but it would make the mount stronger and is based of one of the more level feats not the powerful ones.
And remember, the fighter who cares for his mount can always invest some money into it.
For example he could buy blanket (cloak) of protection for it.
Or a variant bracers of armor.
How about a feat that gives your mount hp as if it had toughness based on your HD?
It's certainly weaker than what was proposed here but it would make the mount stronger and is based of one of the more level feats not the powerful ones.And remember, the fighter who cares for his mount can always invest some money into it.
For example he could buy blanket (cloak) of protection for it.
Or a variant bracers of armor.
Bracers of armor won't do anything that mithral chain shirt barding will. Far cheaper too.
Can't really evaluate how much spells are worth; it's a class based system, not a point based one. Can't really be converted :/On an unrelated note, I disagree with your statement.
One can evaluate worth. Set parameters. Then judge based on them.
I know about the tier system (though I have issues with it). It is in no way relevant to this. I'll not say it's IMPOSSIBLE to evaluate it, I just say it is to complex to allow anyone ever to do it. There has been a few tries on turning D&D into a point based system, and they all horribly failed.
To a large degree, this is because of synergy. The more variables you have the larger the ability to optimize. This means if your players aren't good with optimizing they'll end up at very different levels of power due to accident. If your players ARE good at optimizing, they'll completely break the game unless you also optimize the opposition to a degree where characters feel like just numbers on a paper instead of people.
Basically, if you balance the point cost of an ability after it's optimal usage, anyone not optimizing will pay far too much for it. If you balance it for an average situation, those optimizing will get completely insane.
There's a large difference between being able to roughly evaluate how powerful a druid is and being able to evaluate how powerful Woodland Stride and the ability to cast Stone Shape is. You can feel it in, but the more abilities can be chosen this way the harder the game will be to play.
EDIT: Just look at the ARG and how easily it can be abused and broken. Or the item creation rules. Both of those are kind of point-based and incredibly easy to abuse - not only (though to some extent) because abilities where poorly evaluated, but also because of their synergistic nature.
Okay, so you basically latched onto the least relevant aspect of the argument I made. And the fact that your telling people in the home brew forum that they shouldn't try to evaluate class features to balance their custom content is just absurd.
Why would you even post in the home brew forum if your unwilling to even guess at the equivalent value of a class feature? Doesn't that defeat the whole purpose of home brew?
I stated that the animal companion class feature is worth three feats to achieve equivalency with a druid. That's a huge investment and is far from optimal for most builds. If you created a fighter with an animal companion he would still feel the feat loss, and any other class would struggle to accomplish anything with feat until into the mid levels.
@Ascalaphus. Sorry, I meant that a character should be able to choose a mount from those available from the druids list. Obviously it would need to be one that could serve as a mount. ;)
|
|
PF is kind of vague on what exactly constitutes a suitable mount. I think in general it needs to be "flat" enough (quadruped/winged bird), and one size larger. That leaves in a lot of unconventional options, like bears.
I don't have a problem with that in principle, because this is supposed to be fantasy, so riding a bear is okay, just like saddling a triceratops with a howdah is okay.
But you do need to keep an eye on balance. If you take a normal animal from the bestiary, the Large bear has about 5HD and the horse 2. So if you just recklessly add on that Wild Cohort level, horses are a very weak choice.
The PC druid critters are more balanced I guess, although you need some rules text about when/if certain critters upgrade to level 4/7 stats and sizes.
Also, did anyone notice that the starting-level Horse companion is a lot weaker than the Heavy Warhorse?
Okay, so you basically latched onto the least relevant aspect of the argument I made. And...
Sorry if I was vague, causing a misunderstanding. I didn't mean you can't evaluate class abilities, I meant you cannot just apply a specific point value to abilities and get out a decently balanced formula. You can't make a "a feat is worth this many spells" chart because there are too many variables.
Of course a class can be evaluated, but it should be evaluated in its whole; just picking out a single feature is practically impossible since no two classes have just that feature as a difference.
I can agree with getting a full-powered animal companion for three feats can be a balanced approach, but it depends completely on what kind of feats these are and what they give in addition. Being combat feats means they are easier to access (making it more powerful) and having high requirements means they are harder to access (making them less powerful).
However, animal companion is a quite simple class feature as there aren't that large variables within the ability, and the ability mostly stands on it's own, rather than enhancing other abilities (it does to an extent but it's main power comes from itself).
My initial comment was about evaluating _spells_, not animal companions (i've already stated that the feats seem fair upthread). It was an answer to this question: "For that matter, how much are spells worth? Some feats would suggest that one feat is worth about one spell per day. If that is so, then the fighter is woefully underpowered."
You cannot simply put a "1 spell per day is equal to X feats" because ray of frost 1/day isn't even worth a trait while wish 1/day is worth several. You cannot even put a "1 spell level per day is equal to X feats" as those aren't created equally either, and because there's no statement on how many spells known we are talking about.
Bracers of armor won't do anything that mithral chain shirt barding will. Far cheaper too.How about a feat that gives your mount hp as if it had toughness based on your HD?
It's certainly weaker than what was proposed here but it would make the mount stronger and is based of one of the more level feats not the powerful ones.And remember, the fighter who cares for his mount can always invest some money into it.
For example he could buy blanket (cloak) of protection for it.
Or a variant bracers of armor.
Bracers of armor will become useless in a dead magic zone. :)
