Wolf or Horse for Animal Companion???


Rise of the Runelords

Dark Archive

I am playing a Ranger nearing the end of the first book so far. I will be hitting level 4 shortly and will gain my animal companion. Originally I was inclined to use a wolf as my companion but after recent events involving a horse, I'm wondering if it was meant to be. So I guess my main question is, "is a horse a useful companion in this adventure?"


It depends on what you feel your companion is best able to do... and what type of Ranger you are playing. (Ranged combat? Close combat tactician?)

Dark Archive

I play a Switchhitter Ranger with a golf bag of options. Rest of party is a Tanky Pally, Wizard, Witch, and Knifemaster Scout Rogue


I assume "switchhitter" means you are good at both ranged and melee fighting?

With a horse, there are places where your companion would be forced to wait behind. Wolves are able to follow into places. (Also, wolves will get larger in time, meaning eventually you'll have a wolf large enough to ride, crazily enough! I've a half-elven Paladin who rides a wolf in one game.)

Dark Archive

I'd take the wolf out of those 2. A horse is useless in dungeons.

You could also opt for a regional creature:
- Cindersnake (Viper)
- Donkey Rat (Dire rat without disease)
- Fire Pelt (Small cat)
- Storm Roc (Bird)


I'd pick the wolf - but basically I would plan ahead from the early stup and make my character actually "like" wolves etc... If' I'd play a ranger... The horse might be sensible if there were less indoor fights or encounters in areas less physically restricting in the campaign. Horses in dungeons ? Or climbing mountains ? Not the greatest of choices.

Nevermind that I personally am a great fan of the wolf's Improved Trip, and all its implications for prone opponents. Plus its ability to actually sniff up opposition if properly trained.

So, for more punch pick the wolf, if ingame roleplaying "wants" you to pick the horse, more power to you for playing the character, not the stats-sheet^^


Greetings, fellow travellers.

I sure favor the wolf and have played rangers with wolf and horse as AC.

Mechanically neither AC is better suited for dungeons or up in the mountains since both can take up Climb as a skill - how well each one can climb up a tree is purely GM country from my experience (not the exaggeration here).
Both are quadrupeds, both are large (eventually), both can be ridden, both have low-light vision and scent, movement rate is the same, natural armor is the same (at later levels), Dex will also be the same...

Horses are for sure better suited to follow you into civilized areas like Sandpoint and Magnimar.

If looking for optimization a tripping AC might actually proof detrimental when it comes to attacking a tripped target...

Hm. Looks like it comes either down to style/flavor or the attacks each AC provides.

Ruyan.


RuyanVe wrote:

Greetings, fellow travellers.

I sure favor the wolf and have played rangers with wolf and horse as AC.

Mechanically neither AC is better suited for dungeons or up in the mountains since both can take up Climb as a skill - how well each one can climb up a tree is purely GM country from my experience (not the exaggeration here).

Ahh, rules as written, not as intended ! Meet Reinhold Horse, mountaineer par excellence, freeclimbing the walls of the Enchanters castle^^

RuyanVe wrote:


If looking for optimization a tripping AC might actually proof detrimental when it comes to attacking a tripped target...

I sure do hope they have at least one frontline fighter in the party, if not a second one with the ranger. Who will usually be thankful for the target having to get up (and offering an AoO), finding it very hard to cast on the ground or shoot and generally being unable to full-attack for one round. Nevermind the sizable bonus to hit ?

Oh, and the horse ending up with an STR 18 , the wolf ending up with Str 21 and CON 19 vs the horse's CON 17. Basically getting the "toughness" feat for free.

Nevermind, if your companion dies, you can turn the wolf into a cozy blanket or cloak, which is sort of uncool with the horse's hide /irony OFF
Plus getting "Game of Thrones" bonus points^^


The tripping AC and the detrimental effect was meant for the ranger attacking at range where the prone target receives +4 AC vs ranged attacks.

While the increased STR of the wolf is all fine and dandy, the horse does have 3 attacks though--get a number cruncher to churn out the details...

The CON difference stands as is, true.

Ruyan.


RuyanVe wrote:

The tripping AC and the detrimental effect was meant for the ranger attacking at range where the prone target receives +4 AC vs ranged attacks.

While the increased STR of the wolf is all fine and dandy, the horse does have 3 attacks though--get a number cruncher to churn out the details...

The CON difference stands as is, true.
Ruyan.

The wolf himself will likely get an AoO, after all he just tripped the poor sod. Everyone else = bonus points^^

And the horse needs to go full attack to use the secondary hooves, and the damage bonus for the principal bite is also lower. *shrug*

But in all honesty - I just have some roleplaying problems with a horse as an offensive fighter, which might affect my take.

I just hope we helped the OP in making his decision.

Dark Archive

Yeah I think I will stick with the original plan and go with my wolf. It was after finding a warhorse in the campaign did I change up the idea of taking THAT horse and building it up for a companion.

Dark Archive

Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

Yeah, mechanically, the wolf is the better choice. Storywise, it'd be awesome if you took Shadowmist as your animal companion. I say go for it!


vikingson wrote:
But in all honesty - I just have some roleplaying problems with a horse as an offensive fighter, which might affect my take.

.

Spoken like someone who has never seen the kind of damage a wild horse can do. Don't even get me started on trained Warhorses...


Irnk, Dead-Eye's Prodigal wrote:
vikingson wrote:
But in all honesty - I just have some roleplaying problems with a horse as an offensive fighter, which might affect my take.

.

Spoken like someone who has never seen the kind of damage a wild horse can do. Don't even get me started on trained Warhorses...

Well thanks I have seen the damage a shying/rampant horse can do. Too many stables around here, and a lot of over-confident kids. But I am lacking a large (horse-sized) sized wolf for comparative purposes^^.

Seeing what a tiger or lion (usually not horse sized) can do I feel queasy about wolves going to "large". And horses, usually, are not, of an overly aggressive temper or hunting predators, perhaps excepting stallions.

Dark Archive

Misroi wrote:
Yeah, mechanically, the wolf is the better choice. Storywise, it'd be awesome if you took Shadowmist as your animal companion. I say go for it!

Yeah I was the one who got that bucking bronco to actually stop so thats what made me consider it. Then theres that Game of Thrones kick I'm on where a wolf would be cool as all get out later turning into a mount much like Princess Mononoke.

Dark Archive

Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

Of course, if you're wanting to use your animal companion as a mount, a horse does that right now. Ultimately, it's up to you!


It's not the answer you want, but when I did switch hitting ranger, I did Cheetah for the trip and the charge speed, I can't remember if wolf gets trip on the bite attack, but if it does the trip is awesome. It can delay enemies from getting to you or your party members, and you can move up and flank him when he stands for 2 AoO.

Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder Adventure Path / Rise of the Runelords / Wolf or Horse for Animal Companion??? All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.
Recent threads in Rise of the Runelords