Hi All,
I have tried several searches in the forum but found nothing answering my questions - if I did not run the correct searches just a link would enough as answer ;-)
Ok my problem:
At the moment in my group there are a druid, ranger, orace, paladin.
All of them can get an animal compenion based on the druid animal companion.
But all of this seems not to be balanced.
1. Druid get an animal compenion chosen out of the lists in core etc. The stats are clearly stated. Everything fine so far.
2. Rangers can choos also out of those lists and their effective druid lvl references to Ranger-3. Seems ok for me because he gets it later and is some sort of hybrid in this case.
3. Paladin and Oracle become a companion referencing to there classlevel as effective druid lvl. Beside this they get several additional advantages like starting INT of 6 and gaining in case of the paladin extra goodies like celestial template, magical beast and instant summoning to her side later on. Also it is explicit stated that they get a 'heavy horse'. In the bestiary it is stated that a heavy horse gains the simple advanced template.
Now my questions regarding this three points:
- did I understand the rules like stated above correct?
- If I understand the rules correct, how can I explain my players that strong to nature bonded classes like ranger or especialy druid are getting even weaker companins like a paladin woh has nothing to do with nature?
At the moment my players are a bit pissed (besides the oracle and the paladin ;-) ) and I hope you can bring me some light into the darkness :D
Best regards
Alandia
I don't see any rules violations.
The rangers companion is bound to be weaker since its behind the druid and the paladin's mount.
The advantage of a druid's companion is that he can take a large cat with pounce. The damage it does puts the paladin's horse (and underoptimized characters) to shame.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The rules are correct.
A druid's animal companion choices are the strongest though. They can choose any animal that is available as a companion. Also, if a companion dies they can in one day choose a new and different companion. The paladin must wait 30 days, which in some games can be forever. The oracle can only choose a mount.
The ranger gets an expanded companion list but not the full list like the druid.
Do not underestimate the value of different animal companions. A druid can choose a companions that fits the campaign. A mount will not be so useful in a dungeon. A snake can be.
You can not just focus on the animal companions. Comparing the oracle and druid you find they are very similar in powers. The druid gets a larger selection of animal companions and can turn into an animal. The oracle gets other stuff. They have their own strengths.
Comparing the Paladin and ranger you see a similar parity. The paladin gets heavier armor but the ranger gets free weapon feats. The paladin gets a horse and the ranger has a selection of animals.
The druids and rangers are not getting weaker companions. The are getting more choice. Some companions are weaker and some are stronger depending upon the campaign. Druids and rangers get the flexibility to change.
Thank you both for your answers.
Just to be sure on a thing. I took a closer look gain to the horse.
It seems as if the horse from the compnion list is already a hybrid between the normal horse and the heavy horse - so the advanced template should not be applied on top.
My guess is the paladin and oracle get their companions from the list the druid provides and not from the Bestiary. If they would get them from the bestiary the gap would be even grater because the seem far out of balance with their ststs.
Thank you all for the answers!
Personally I would also prefere the paladin mount as level -3 like the ranger. It would even it out a bit.
|
I disagree with Paladin - 3 mount. The reality is, the mount is mostly worthless in so much of campaigns, so unless you play a small race the mount is mostly irrelevant compared to taking Weapon Bond.
The Ranger/Druid companions are far, far more useful - even at -3 lvls the Ranger companion is way more powerful than the mount - He shares the Rangers Favoured Enemies! Add the fact you can get a feat to make the Ranger companion equal to his lvl (Boon Companion) and you have a very effective extra player on your team. The companion has things like:
-Favoured Enemy - When you are 5, he is 2 and with Favoured enemy he is able to hit and deal decent damage to monsters higher than him! (in fact if the Rogue is unable to sneak attack he is probably being embarressed by it)
-Going into dungeons with you
-Being fast and small enough to move into flanking positions easily to give you and it +2 to hit and give Rogue Sneak attack opportunities
-The ability to trip on a successful attack (against favoured enemies this is especially potent)
Meanwhile, lets look at the Paladin Horse:
-Too big to enter dungeons unless small race
-Too big to move around a battlefield effectively to flank (assuming you are not mounted on it)
-Doesn't share the Paladin Smite
-Its only real combat purpose is charge (which is very good if you design a small char for it, but then the Horse is not independantly attacking so its lvl is somewhat irrelevant)
-If it dies you are screwed for 30 days!! (Assuming you designed your char to make use of the horse)
You have to build the Paladin based on the Horse to make it useful and it is mainly useful for only himself, the Ranger companion is always useful and can be a great help to the party
Mostly the Paladin Horse is for flavour. If you said to me that I could choose to have a horse my lvl or a Companion at -3 like the Ranger, then I would be going with the Companion moreorless everytime even without getting the feat to increase its lvl (and even without sharing Smite with him!)
-Its only real combat purpose is charge (which is very good if you design a small char for it, but then the Horse is not independantly attacking so its lvl is somewhat irrelevant)
As far as I understand the rules - the horse is combat trained and can attack on its own? It gets feats and everything a companion also gets. Ok you have problems in dungeons or inhouse but otherwise it is a full companion.
It gets on top things like celestial template etc. So in my opinion lvl -3 would be fair.
It gets on top things like celestial template etc. So in my opinion lvl -3 would be fair.
Level -3 would be unplayable for a mounted paladin.
1) the damage the horse does isn't that much. Its already stuck with a 3/4 base attack bonus, is a level or 2 behind the pcs, doesn't have a magic weapon, and has a harder time sending its strength into the stratosphere.
2) The celestial template is not that great. Its a CR +1 or a cr +0
Celestial Creature (CR +0 or +1)
Celestial creatures dwell in the higher planes, but can be summoned using spells such as summon monster and planar ally. A celestial creature's CR increases by +1 only if the base creature has 5 or more HD. A celestial creature's quick and rebuild rules are the same.
Rebuild Rules: Senses gains darkvision 60 ft.; Defensive Abilities gains DR and energy resistance as noted on the table; SR gains SR equal to new CR +5; Special Attacks smite evil 1/day as a swift action (adds Cha bonus to attack rolls and damage bonus equal to HD against evil foes; smite persists until target is dead or the celestial creature rests).
Celestial Creature Defenses Hit Dice Resist Cold, Acid, and Electricity DR
1–4 5 —
5–10 10 5/evil
11+ 15 10/evil
The horse essentially gets DR 5/ evil. How useful is that when you work for a paladin? Its like being a fireman and wearing cold and acid resistant clothing.
3) With that few hit points the horse is just going to die, repeatedly. the paladin can't get it back for a month. Loosing a class feature for a month every time you get hit by a fireball isn't any fun.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
There is no need to reduce the paladin mount's power level.
A mount is an underpowered choice for an animal companion; even at full druid level with 6 Int and the celestial template, it still doesn't measure up to much better druid choices. It's great for mounted combat, and that's about it.
My biggest complaint is that the paladin's mount is better than the cavalier's.
I agree. This doesn't pass the sniff test for me, either.
Does everything you fight have evil aligned weapons? Maybe they changed things in pathfinder, but as I remember in 3.5 being evil wasn't enough to overcome dr/evil- only magic effects like unholy weapons and outsiders of the evil subtype worked.
Anything with the evil subtype works.
A creature with an alignment subtype (chaotic, evil, good, or lawful) can overcome this type of damage reduction with its natural weapons and weapons it wields as if the weapons or natural weapons had an alignment (or alignments) that matched the subtype(s) of the creature.
So any demon is going to cut right through the horses DR.
|
|
from the pfsrdThe second type of bond allows a paladin to gain the service of an unusually intelligent, strong, and loyal steed to serve her in her crusade against evil. This mount is usually a heavy horse (for a Medium paladin) or a pony (for a Small paladin), although more exotic mounts, such as a boar, camel, or dog are also suitable. This mount functions as a druid's animal companion, using the paladin's level as her effective druid level. Bonded mounts have an Intelligence of at least 6.
usually a horse.
you can change the mount into a diretiger if you want or another creature acceptible for a mount such as a hippogriff.
IF your GM allows it. While some may be happy to give various animals, many will tell you that a Tiger is not a suitable mount (despite He-Man having one!) for a Paladin unless you happen to be in a campaign that would make it more feasible.
More realistically your choice is going to be a horse or a camel. The minute the GM starts saying 'sure a Dire Tiger is cool' then a Ranger can turn around and complain about his companion sucking - but as far as I am concerned as soon as you are deviating from a typical mount, you are houseruling - at which point you should consider improving the Ranger companion, or changing the Paladin mount to -3 because essentially you have given him a fully usable Druid companionAs for the Cavalier issue. I totally agree, they deserve much better.
But, comparing the Paladin mount with a Ranger companion, even at -3 I consider Ranger companion a far better choice.
Hi all!
An additional question came up in our session.
It is cleared that the paladin horse bases on the template for the druid companion.
What is the statement for the extra mentioned heavy horse? Does the template 'heavy horse' also comes on top of the base stats of the druid companion horse?
Best regards
Alandia
The Paladin only gets what's directly specified as available. It's not the druid list, only a choice of horse, pony, or riding dog. So while it's effective level is a little bit higher than the ranger it's nowhere near the combat utility. The effective greater number of hit dice is mainly so that it has a better chance of surviving a dragon's flame when the Paladin lance charges one.
Ok from what list would you choose the stats for the horse? Also James Jacob stated that the Horse war trained becomes its hooves as primary attacks - giving a horse full 3 attacks. In my eyes far away from a not combat relevant companion.
Another question: What about the feat cleave for a horse? Is it physically able to do a cleave? I have some imaginative problems with that ^^
Oh btw is there somewhere a descent FAQ regarding this? tis seems very irritating gamemechanism whitch really need clarification from official
sources...
Horse
Starting Statistics: Size Large; Speed 50 ft.; AC +4 natural armor; Attack bite (1d4), 2 hooves* (1d6); Ability Scores Str 16, Dex 13, Con 15, Int 2, Wis 12, Cha 6; Special Qualities low-light vision, scent. *This is a secondary natural attack, see Combat for more information on how secondary attacks work.
-You get the stats from the druid animal companion stats.
Ok from what list would you choose the stats for the horse? Also James Jacob stated that the Horse war trained becomes its hooves as primary attacks - giving a horse full 3 attacks. In my eyes far away from a not combat relevant companion.
Its supposed to be relevant. Its just not supposed to be dominating. A pouncing dire tiger or a velociraptor with a little bit of gear will out dps rogues in their sleep and sometimes pass the fighters.
Another question: What about the feat cleave for a horse? Is it physically able to do a cleave? I have some imaginative problems with that ^^
There's no reason a horse can't smash its hoof through 2 peoples heads. However a horse is only doing 1d6 +3 or 4 points of damage. That shouldn't be enough to regularly cleave: you'd never call cleave in advance for that little damage. A horse is used to charge, or make 3 attacks, not one pitiful standard attack.
Oh btw is there somewhere a descent FAQ regarding this? tis seems very irritating gamemechanism whitch really need clarification from official
sources...
There's a design tuesday on it.
Man, weird Paladin Mount Hate.
One cool thing about the Paladin mount, is that because is has 6 int, it's able to take class levels, and that also means it can take combat feats, so long as it meets the requirements.
Also, no need to nerf it, You're only able to get the normal horse from the companion list, the heavy horse reference is a typo in the rules. And if the Ranger feels really bad about his nerfed animal buddy, he can choose to spend a feat to make it @Lvl, as opposed to Lvl-3.
I'm playing a Paladin right now who's horse is taking Fighter(Savage Warrior) Class Levels, and he's been doing pretty grand. Not too overwhelming, but he's been a great asset since essentially he's another melee character.
Hi All,
some interesting things here.
Man, weird Paladin Mount Hate.
I think this is a big misunderstanding. Bothe me and my group are new at pathfinder and we are playing it with a lot of fun. Just to be clear no one of us hates paladi mounts. We just try to understand different parts of the rules correct. We are just able to express our feelings from reading the numbers not from a multiyear expirience of playing. And at he moment ist is our feeling just from looking at it as if the companion would be to good in comparison. In realy play it might not. But thats the reason we decided to ask for advise and information here :-)
One cool thing about the Paladin mount, is that because is has 6 int, it's able to take class levels, and that also means it can take combat feats, so long as it meets the requirements. I'm playing a Paladin right now who's horse is taking Fighter(Savage Warrior) Class Levels, and he's been doing pretty grand. Not too overwhelming, but he's been a great asset since essentially he's another melee character.
Sorry but you have lost me compleately on this thing. Taking classlevels? I thought it is just leveld appropiate to the companion table of the druid?
Also, no need to nerf it, You're only able to get the normal horse from the companion list, the heavy horse reference is a typo in the rules. And if the Ranger feels really bad about his nerfed animal buddy, he can choose to spend a feat to make it @Lvl, as opposed to Lvl-3.
Again noone want it to nerf when we understand the complete mechanics and everyting figures out to be appropiate. Sorry for this but perhaps I am a bit slow in understanding every passage of the rules - at least we try :-). This is btw another point whitch seems a bit confusing to us. We already found that feat. But why to hell has he to take this feat and not a paladin? Both become their companion later at a lvl and not from the beginning. Both classes hasve to choose to take a companion or to take another option in there classabilities. Both classes are not initially designed around haveing a companion but the paladin has not to take the feat and gets also other templates on top (we know the ranger can take also other companions with more flexebility for combat etc.). This 'feels' for us at the moment not fair.
|
Hi All,
some interesting things here.
One cool thing about the Paladin mount, is that because is has 6 int, it's able to take class levels, and that also means it can take combat feats, so long as it meets the requirements. I'm playing a Paladin right now who's horse is taking Fighter(Savage Warrior) Class Levels, and he's been doing pretty grand. Not too overwhelming, but he's been a great asset since essentially he's another melee character.Sorry but you have lost me compleately on this thing. Taking classlevels? I thought it is just leveld appropiate to the companion table of the druid?
Again noone want it to nerf when we understand the complete mechanics and everyting figures out to be appropiate. Sorry for this but perhaps I am a bit slow in understanding every passage of the rules - at least we try :-). This is btw another point whitch seems a bit confusing to us. We already found that feat. But why to hell has he to take this feat and not a paladin? Both become their companion later at a lvl and not from the beginning. Both classes...
Also, no need to nerf it, You're only able to get the normal horse from the companion list, the heavy horse reference is a typo in the rules. And if the Ranger feels really bad about his nerfed animal buddy, he can choose to spend a feat to make it @Lvl, as opposed to Lvl-3.
JR has it wrong. it was mentioned in a blog article that intelligent animals CAN take class levels, but an animal companion only uses whats on the druid chart.
JR is referencing something out of context, under a very very nice GM's allowance. its not the norm.
Horse
Starting Statistics: Size Large; Speed 50 ft.; AC +4 natural armor; Attack bite (1d4), 2 hooves* (1d6); Ability Scores Str 16, Dex 13, Con 15, Int 2, Wis 12, Cha 6; Special Qualities low-light vision, scent. *This is a secondary natural attack, see Combat for more information on how secondary attacks work.
-You get the stats from the druid animal companion stats.
Ok we are all clear at that. these are the stats of an druid companion horse out of the druid list. That was what I meant. And after reading the post of LazarX again I think he was meaning it also. He just whanted to clarify that it is not the entire druid list where a paladin can choos from. Sorry got that first on a second reading now.
Its supposed to be relevant. Its just not supposed to be dominating. A pouncing dire tiger or a velociraptor with a little bit of gear will out dps rogues in their sleep and sometimes pass the fighters.
I also think it should be besides a roleplaying view relevant. I also think domination would be bad. I do not think at the moment it would dominate the game but it feels a bit unbalanced in comparison to the other companions. Some of this feeling is already gone by clarificaton from where to take the stats etc.
There's no reason a horse can't smash its hoof through 2 peoples heads. However a horse is only doing 1d6 +3 or 4 points of damage. That shouldn't be enough to regularly cleave: you'd never call cleave in advance for that little damage. A horse is used to charge, or make 3 attacks, not one pitiful standard attack.
Ok I am with you here. We completly oversaw the statement in the feat description that cleave is a standard action - also for characters ^^.
Ok but besides that regarding my imagination problem whith the physically possebility of a horse cleaving. When a horse attacks with its front hooves or bite it hase to rear up and comes down in a streight line for its hooves to attack. No way to get a swing with this sort of attack to get another foe adjectant to it in this motion sequence?
There's a design tuesday on it.
Sorry it seems this is a knowledge gap because to be new at pathfinder. But I did not read about somthing like this util now. Can you give me a hint where to find mor about this design tuesday(s)?
Also, no need to nerf it, You're only able to get the normal horse from the companion list, the heavy horse reference is a typo in the rules.
After reading through it agion I have to ask something in addition. In the erratas nowhere is mentioned 'heavy horse' is adressed as typo. Where is that from? It would completlely whipe out the issues with this heavy template on top of the companion.
JR has it wrong. it was mentioned in a blog article that intelligent animals CAN take class levels, but an animal companion only uses whats on the druid chart.JR is referencing something out of context, under a very very nice GM's allowance. its not the norm.
Ok thank you on this one :-) Is it possible to get a source from one of you? *sucking up every bit of information I can get ;-) *
|
|
I think the key issue that is causing you to feel the Pally mount is unbalanced compared to the Ranger is not quite realising the limitations of the Paladin mount.
Aside from the Trip/flanking and tactical positioning the companion offers, ther are some simple realities that need to be taken into consideration (The following is assuming the Paladin is of medium size):
With the exception of very few campaigns, a Paladin mount will spend most of its time in the ether - as in, it won't be involved in a lot of the adventuring, pretty much only appearing to travel from A - B then disappearing. Meanwhile, the Ranger companion will be with him at his side for the entire campaign and actively participate.
On the rare occasions the mount is actually actively used in battles, it is usually just used as a means to transport the Paladin around the Battle Field, allowing him to charge - the actual attacks will not be used very frequently.
The Paladin mount is going to be subject to alot of abuse because the Paladin will be riding into trouble and be a real target. At -3 lvls that mount is going to be dead very fast.
Unless the player knows that the campaign is going to be predominantly outdoors, a Paladin will almost always take Weapon Bond as the alternative to the mount.
If the Paladin mount was at -3 lvls, the 'iconic' Pally and Holy Steed would disappear into oblivion because no one would bother with it instead of Weapon Bond.
The Pally is more Feat starved than the Ranger, forcing him to take a Feat to increase the Mounts level would be a greater penalty than it is for the Ranger (even if the mount was nearly as useful as an actual animal companion)
|
|
I think the key issue that is causing you to feel the Pally mount is unbalanced compared to the Ranger is not quite realising the limitations of the Paladin mount.
Aside from the Trip/flanking and tactical positioning the companion offers, ther are some simple realities that need to be taken into consideration (The following is assuming the Paladin is of medium size):With the exception of very few campaigns, a Paladin mount will spend most of its time in the ether - as in, it won't be involved in a lot of the adventuring, pretty much only appearing to travel from A - B then disappearing. Meanwhile, the Ranger companion will be with him at his side for the entire campaign and actively participate.
Paladin mounts in Pathfinder are not like the ones in 3.x. They're not summoned 1/day from the celestial plane they're simply horses that are bonded in the similar fashion that a druid's companion is. Which means that a Paladin can't simply dimiss it when they're through riding, they've got to stable and take care of it like any other mount.
But yes, every Paladin I've ever made so far has preferred the divine weapon option over the mount. For those who whine about the 3 level difference. Take the Dire Tiger of a Druid and have it face the mount of a Paladin of equal level. The outcome is pretty much foreordained, unless the tiger rolls an unbelievably long string of 1s.
Correct, making the mount even more inconvenient as it sits tethered outside while you go through a dungeon (assuming you even bothered bringing it at all).
I think the paladin horse gets the heavy template out of the beastiary applied to the horse out of the druids animal companion list.
The only class where it is clearly said that the mount is a heavy horse is the paladin.
While the oracle (nature mystery) class-ability of taking a mount is relatively equal to the paladins there is only one difference: The mount there is adressed as horse, not heavy horse.
At all class descriptions from classes which get an animal companion in any form there is only a horse on the list. The only exeption is the paladin. I don't think this is an accident.
So the heavy template of the bestiary has to be applied.
Now someone could say, only the core rulebook should be used, beastiary has nothing to do with the horse animal companion. But if this was right, why would you apply the feature that with combat training the hoofes attacks become primary attacks, which is also postulated in the beastiary. (This fact was approved by paizo officials as far as I know)
It would be very nice to get some sort official statement to this specific problem.
I also think it should be besides a roleplaying view relevant. I also think domination would be bad. I do not think at the moment it would dominate the game but it feels a bit unbalanced in comparison to the other companions. Some of this feeling is already gone by clarificaton from where to take the stats etc.
-Right. We're saying don't worry about it, the druid animal companion will kick the paladin's animal companion's keister in usefulness.
Ok but besides that regarding my imagination problem whith the physically possebility of a horse cleaving. When a horse attacks with its front hooves or bite it hase to rear up and comes down in a streight line for its hooves to...
I'd imagine that if for some reason you got the horse this feat, this the horse would rear up , kick out and smash someone in the face, turn slightly and bring the hoof back in on the next persons head.
Sorry it seems this is a knowledge gap because to be new at pathfinder. But I did not read about somthing like this util now. Can you give me a hint where to find mor about this design tuesday(s)
http://paizo.com/paizo/blog/tags/designTuesdays
SCroll down to monkey see monkey do.
http://paizo.com/paizo/blog/tags/designTuesdaysSCroll down to monkey see monkey do.
This is an interesting source!
http://paizo.com/paizo/blog/tags/designTuesdaysScroll down to monkey see monkey do.
I also read through this, and nothing bars an Int 6 Horse from taking class levels.
It mentions is that it might be difficult for the creature to learn language, and it also mentions that only Feats that is reasonable for the animal to be able to do/use should be allowed. So obviously a Horse should not be able to take feats that give him great sword proficiency.
Nothing there says that a Paladin's Mount (Which is a really special case because its intelligence isn't 3, but 6, almost on par with unintelligent humans) Cannot under go fighter or barbarian training. (Wouldn't that be a sight, Paladin riding a Chaotic Mount that gets really angry...)
So under that design Tuesday, an awakened animal can't serve as companion, Weapon Feats only apply if it's reasonable for the animal to use that weapon as a tool, and languages might be difficult to teach.
I would like to add that my DM said that the first 5 lvls of the Horse would be calculated as normal, only that every level after 5 would there be Fighter training involved.
Of course GMs are allowed to rule as they please, but I'm always of fan of more of-beat/cool things.
As for the Cavalier issue. I totally agree, they deserve much better.
I also agree that the Cavalier should get a better horse.
I have another question...
For a paladin Divine Bond saids:
The second type of bond allows a paladin to gain the service of an unusually intelligent, strong, and loyal steed to serve her in her crusade against evil. This mount is usually a heavy horse (for a Medium paladin) or a pony (for a Small paladin), although more exotic mounts, such as a boar, camel, or dog are also suitable.
For a Calavier Mount ability saids:
The mount is always considered combat trained and begins play with Light Armor Proficiency as a bonus feat. A cavalier’s mount does not gain the share spells special ability.
What is the different between the Paladin's "heavy" horse and Cavalier's "combat trained" horse?
Despite it's intelligence it is not an independent free-willed sentient. If it stopped being a mount it would lose that intellect.So... no.
Where does it say that?
My search-fu is weak, so I couldn't find anything that mentioned the topic, and the Paladin entry only mentions what happens when the mount dies, not vise versa.
Furthermore the sentence fragmment "gain the service of an unusually intelligent, strong, and loyal steed to serve her" implies the mount was intelligent prior to service, and nothing in the remainder of the sentence implies anything to the contrary (or the rest of that section.)
As an aside, what constitutes an independent free-willed sentient in pathfinder (not a pedantic question, I'm curious)
|
|
http://paizo.com/paizo/blog/tags/designTuesdaysScroll down to monkey see monkey do.
I also read through this, and nothing bars an Int 6 Horse from taking class levels.
Despite it's intelligence it is not an independent free-willed sentient. If it stopped being a mount it would lose that intellect.
So... no.
Correct. A paladin's warhorse is treated as his animal companion and animal companions can't take class levels. They advance per the druid animal companion chart.
Correct. A paladin's warhorse is treated as his animal companion and animal companions can't take class levels. They advance per the druid animal companion chart.
Nowhere does it say in the Druid's animal companion chart that the animal cannot take class levels as an alternative to advancement.
In fact, I don't think the issue of animal companion class levels is ever addressed in any of the animal companion sections.
Nowhere does it say in the Druid's animal companion chart that the animal cannot take class levels as an alternative to advancement.
Animal Companions
An animal companion's abilities are determined by the druid's level and its animal racial traits.
The Animal has zero say so in its level, it is based solely off the PC's and uses the animal companion advancement chart. The rules do not give it any other option.
The Animal has zero say so in its level, it is based solely off the PC's and uses the animal companion advancement chart. The rules do not give it any other option.
That's fair, yet also quite boring.
Really limits the options for customization.
/shrug.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Customize your Pc. The animal companion is pretty good as is, ya can still select feats and such but no lion Ac 2/Rogue 9
That's not customization, that's munchkin powergaming.
Customize your Pc. The animal companion is pretty good as is, ya can still select feats and such but no lion Ac 2/Rogue 9
That's not customization, that's munchkin powergaming.
Hey, now, no reason to be calling names here.
Besides, what's not to love about a swashbuckling lion/guerrilla/what-have-you.
|
|
You should really calculate out what the horse companion looks like at 12 or so. I don't think some people realize how tough companions get, even horses.
Ability Scores
Str 22 +6
Dex 18 +4(Lvl 4 stat increase)
Con 18 +4(Lvl 9 stat increase)
Int 6 -2
Wis 12 +1
Cha 6 -2
Size Large;
Type: Magical Beast
HitDice: 10 (100 HP using 1/2+1 per d8)
BAB: +7
Saves: F=11 , R=11 , W=4
Speed 80 ft (50 ft in plate I think)
SR 16
DR 10/Evil
Resist Cold, Acid, and Electricity : 15
AC 34 = 10 + 12 natural armor + 10 Armor -1 Size + 3 Dex
Attack: +12 bite (1d4+6), 2 hooves +8(secondary) (1d6+3)
10 skills ( 4 Acro(+8), 1 swim(+7), 1 climb(+7), 2 perc(+6), 2 stealth(+2))
5 feats (Light Armor, Med Armor, Hvy Armor, Combat Reflexes, Toughness)
5 bonus tricks
+1 Mithril Full Plate Barding(+10 armor, -3 ACP, +3 max dex)
Horseshoes of Speed
Special Qualities Darkvision, low-light vision, scent, combat trained.
You should really calculate out what the horse companion looks like at 12 or so. I don't think some people realize how tough companions get, even horses.
** spoiler omitted **
That horse is pretty rad. Kinda terrible on the attack part, but I'm more interested in it staying alive than anything else because the penalties for death are astronomical. 34 AC and 100 HP go along way to insure that.