Animal Companions - so many choices

[Whisperer in Darkness]

there are various advice pages and posts out there. Most are older but offer some reasonable advice. I've read them and it seems to be somewhat of a mess so while I've come late to the party I'll add my advice.

1) replacing an animal companion has no cost it just takes some time, so it is really more about roleplaying continuity or being down a class benefit for the rest of an encounter or two. Nobody wants to put their old companion out to pasture, but hey, nature and game design are a cruel thing. So plan to replace your companion at 3rd or 4th, 7th, and maybe 9th. yeah...
This WILL impact costs as animal gear can be overly specific but it isn't anything daunting. The scrolls or potions you use on your creature will far exceed the gear cost. One thing to keep an eye on is body slots, especially in PFS. This is mainly about slotted magic items so if you want to get an odd form, make sure you can use the item during the companion's hiatus (the companion will change again in a few levels).

2) ask your GM about racial bonuses. Don't be surprised if your GM says your animal companion has none. The 'newer' animal stat blocks have been shying away from racial modifiers and putting them under Special Qualities and Feat descriptions where they are not accessible by companions. Mostly it is just 4-8 skill points that have an environmental restriction. So read the creature(monster) description closely.

3) don't forget about proficiencies and skills. Light armor training is almost mandatory. If the companion has scent he needs a rank in Survival. At 5th level make sure your companion has a rank in Fly skill.

4) Feats... so many options but it really comes down to basic needs and a melee strategy, aka Str or Dex based, pouncing or flying or a special attack.

5) The list of Tricks have expanded. This makes a Bridle of Tricks better (Deliver, Guard, Rescue) at 900gp. A PC has to roll Handle Animal with every command for a trick (unless the animal will do it naturally as the situation demands). So a PCs Handle Animal skill needs to get to +11 or better, so yes, Animal Companions are a drain on skill points.

6) that first ability point gain... +1 INT. This is for the ubiquitous meta-gaming that goes on in the game. PCs want their animal companions to act intelligently and expect it, so put your point where it will help the most in command and control. Your companion will understand common but won't be able to speak it (with a very few uncommon exceptions).

Lastly, realize that an animal companion is a moderately squishy combatant particularly when it comes to spells or complex situations. They are not a Paladin or Barbarian replacement (mostly).

Choices are somewhat stylistic but my ranking is below. It is top down(higher on the list is better).
I only considered small to large sizes as dungeon crawls are a thing AND I only list PFS acceptable creatures.

Pterosaur Quetzacoatlus sz:lrg level:9, fly is clumsy.
--- 7th level ---
Roc sz:lrg lev:7, fly-avg.
Dinosaur Velociraptor sz:med lev:7.
Big Cat (Tiger) sz:lrg lev:7 (and not bad at 3 either).
Dinosaur Tyrannosaurus sz:lrg lev:7.
Devil Monkey sz:lrg lev:7. Biped[hands] so can grasp AND has all slots.
Megafauna Megalocerous sz:lrg lev:7.
{not as good as the top 6}
Shissah Horse sz:lrg lev:7. This is for those with restricted mounts.
Yolubilis Heron sz:lrg lev:7, fly-avg.
Megafauna Baluchitherium sz:lrg lev:7.
Dire Bat sz:lrg lev:7, fly-gd.
Owl Great sz:lrg lev:7, fly-avg.
Ape sz:lrg lev:7. Biped[hands] so can grasp AND has all slots.
Megafauna Chalictherium sz:lrg lev:7, climb.
Lizard Monitor sz:med lev:7, swim.
Pterosaur Dimorphodon sz:med lev:7, fly-avg.
Mome Rath sz:med lvl:7, climb.
Faerie Mount dog sz:med lvl 7.
Lizard, Giant Chameleon sz:lrg lvl:7, climb.
{many others...}

--- 3-4th level ---
look at the above. In general 7th level advancers are better than the bulk of 4th level advancers. Options are;
Allosaurus sz:med
Ankylosaurus sz:med
Arsinoitherium sz:med
Deinonychus sz:sml
Diplodocus sz:med
Elasmosaurus sz:med
Elephant sz:med
Rhinoceros sz:med
Mantis, Giant sz:med

--- 1st level ---
Heavy War Horse sz:lrg lvl:1. Advanced template means it's better than most 1st and 2nd level animal companions, Surprise! Sure it's not a flier BUT equipment is plentiful and cheaper than exotic gear thus perfect for low level. At lev:3 it can become your mount and pick up a companion for fighting. So at level 1 & 2 your animal companion should be considered disposable and you should not spend any gold on their equipment. It sounds harsh but that 500gp can be spent elsewhere and to better effect. Choose a big cat or other highly rated animal and don't worry too much about it.
Dire Bat is sz:med but a good choice for smaller PCs who want a flier.
Dire Bat, riding, combat trained sz:lrg is a good purchase choice outside of PFS(which restricts the purchase of "dire" animals) at low level IF you are going to do Dire Bat at 3rd,4th or 7th lev. If your sensible GM follows CR restrictions on animal purchases you can't get this until lev:4.

[Magda Luckbender]

You missed axe beak. It's one of the strongest choices available.

[doomman47]

Spinosaurus is better than a t-rex in several situations.

[Slim Jim]

Magda Luckbender wrote:

You missed axe beak. It's one of the strongest choices available.

Your much-liked post in that linked thread is unfortunately incorrect, because animal companions do not get the base creature's abilities. They only get what's in their "Starting Statistics", where the Reach property is conspicuously absent from the Axebeak's 4th-level "Special Qualities" set. --Do you want a non-nerfed axebeak with reach? You'll pay through the nose for it, and it won't be an animal companion.

Yes, I know that 90% of axebeak riders are doing it wrong, and most GMs aren't aware of it (YMMV), but play correctly by RAW, an-cap axebeaks don't have reach.

~ ~ ~

My favorite animal companions:

1) Dog. --Yes: the humble, ordinary, lovable dog that is welcome in many places most animals would not be permitted. Sure, you might exchange it after 4th (because its advancement package is terrible), but its Str 13, Dex 17, Con 15 physical stats might just be the highest combined starting package of those three.

2) Horse. --Best low-level mount for normal-sized races, for the same reasons. (Most towns are not going to have an exotic creature stables, and particularly not one for carnivorous species that panic "prey" animals. Any GM worth his salt should play up mass hysteria whenever PCs with a T-Rex trudge into an unfamiliar town, with severe penalties to social interactions accordingly. Basically, you're like ISIS roaring in on "technical".)

3) Arsinoitherium. --This is the Tuskblades-applicable single-attack DPR champ (and so ideal for Combat Reflexes AoO mounted builds sharing Teamwork feats). Great for Primal Companion Hunter / Mammoth Riders.

4) Roc. --If what you care about most from your mount is that the dumb thing die as seldomly as possible while you're on it, this bugger has an incredible base AC of 20 when its Large size, dexterity, and Natural Armor bonuses are tallied, before counting advancement bonuses and equipment. Oh yes, and it flies, and it's one of the fastest and best (80ft, average maneuverability) fliers, and has three attacks and Grab!

[LordKailas]

I find it depends on what you want your animal companion to do. Any of the following can be good if built to take advantage of their natural abilities:

Tramplers) Arsinoitherium is the only animal companion to get trample naturally.

Strikers) T-Rex[x2 str on dmg], Dimetrodon[Imp Crit],Ankylosaurus[Stun], Mokele-Mbembe[15ft reach], Spinosaurus[high str], Dragonfly[Flyby atk], Yolubilis Heron[high str flyer].

Trippers) Ceratosaurus[blood rage,ferocity], Stegosaurus[high ac]

Grabbers)Warcat[Pounce], Slithering Sundew[high dmg Constrict(Acid)]

Large Flyers) Roc[Grab], Giant Owl[Rend]

Small Flyers)Falcon[spd:90], Whisper Vulture[high dmg for a small creature]

Swallowers) Gulper Plant is the only animal companion you can get that has swallow whole

IMO Dragonfly and Ankylosaurus give you some of the most interesting options. A dragonfly has a speed of 80, perfect maneuverability, a 2d6 bite attack and flyby attack. This means it can use hit and run tactics via vital strike. The ankylosaurus has one of the best ACs you can get on an animal companion, equaled only by the stegosaurus and roc. It has a 2d6 tail attack that has a built in stun effect that scales with the animal companion. This means it can frontline better then most other animal companions.

But in terms of shear power, the war cat is hard to beat. It gets everything a big cat gets(grab, pounce and rake), but it has a higher str(+2) and more natural armor(+3) at the cost of a bit of dex(-2). The only real challenge is justifying having one.

[Lelomenia]

Slim Jim wrote:

Magda Luckbender wrote:

You missed axe beak. It's one of the strongest choices available.

Your much-liked post in that linked thread is unfortunately incorrect, because animal companions do not get the base creature's abilities. They only get what's in their "Starting Statistics", where the Reach property is conspicuously absent from the Axebeak's 4th-level "Special Qualities" set. --Do you want a non-nerfed axebeak with reach? You'll pay through the nose for it, and it won't be an animal companion.

Yes, I know that 90% of axebeak riders are doing it wrong, and most GMs aren't aware of it (YMMV), but play correctly by RAW, an-cap axebeaks don't have reach.

3) Arsinoitherium. --This is the Tuskblades-applicable single-attack DPR champ (and so ideal for Combat Reflexes AoO mounted builds sharing...

i tried to chase that down once, and what I came to was a Brock forum post from ~2011 that said “yes [, large ape animal companions do have reach]”, implying that for PFS purposes, animal companions in general maintain body-shape based reach independent of AC stat block. Brock has been overruled in many things since, but lacking any counter indication, I kind of accept that as the officialist answer we will see.

[LordKailas]

Lelomenia wrote:

i tried to chase that down once, and what I came to was a Brock forum post from ~2011 that said “yes [, large ape animal companions do have reach]”, implying that for PFS purposes, animal companions in general maintain body-shape based reach independent of AC stat block. Brock has been overruled in many things since, but lacking any counter indication, I kind of accept that as the officialist answer we will see.

So far as I can tell a wolf is better then an axe beak. Either they both get reach or neither one does and unlike the axebeak it gets a free trip attempt with every attack not just when it charges.

[Cavall]

I like my ankylosaur. My character is 8th level and his pet rocks 30 ac and had compel hostility and vengeance strike for when that fails.

That's just fun times.

[Lelomenia]

LordKailas wrote:

Lelomenia wrote:

i tried to chase that down once, and what I came to was a Brock forum post from ~2011 that said “yes [, large ape animal companions do have reach]”, implying that for PFS purposes, animal companions in general maintain body-shape based reach independent of AC stat block. Brock has been overruled in many things since, but lacking any counter indication, I kind of accept that as the officialist answer we will see.

So far as I can tell a wolf is better then an axe beak. Either they both get reach or neither one does and unlike the axebeak it gets a free trip attempt with every attack not just when it charges.

bestiary wolves don’t get reach at large size, bestiary axebeaks do.

[LordKailas]

Lelomenia wrote:

LordKailas wrote:

Lelomenia wrote:

i tried to chase that down once, and what I came to was a Brock forum post from ~2011 that said “yes [, large ape animal companions do have reach]”, implying that for PFS purposes, animal companions in general maintain body-shape based reach independent of AC stat block. Brock has been overruled in many things since, but lacking any counter indication, I kind of accept that as the officialist answer we will see.

So far as I can tell a wolf is better then an axe beak. Either they both get reach or neither one does and unlike the axebeak it gets a free trip attempt with every attack not just when it charges.

bestiary wolves don’t get reach at large size, bestiary axebeaks do.

I thought pathfinder did away with long and tall designations for size categories and instead just gave creatures like centaurs the undersized weapon "ability" to keep them from getting reach in spite of their large size.

[Slim Jim]

Lelomenia, that opens a huge can of worms (especially with the greatly expanded list of available animal companions over the years). For example, if a player with an ape or an axebeak animal companion gets to pull Reach out of the Bestiary special abilities block, then why can't I pull Swallow Whole out of the tyrannosaurus entry? (Some players already assume they get to do this.) Virtually every animal companion's list of stats and abilities is inferior to the base creature's Bestiary entry, and that is by developer intent.

By RAW, you only get things that the rules say you get. Everything else is wishcasting or Deus Ex GM.

[Lelomenia]

Slim Jim wrote:

Lelomenia, that opens a huge can of worms (especially with the greatly expanded list of available animal companions over the years). For example, if a player with an ape or an axebeak animal companion gets to pull Reach out of the Bestiary special abilities block, then why can't I pull Swallow Whole out of the tyrannosaurus entry? (Some players already assume they get to do this.) Virtually every animal companion's list of stats and abilities is inferior to the base creature's Bestiary entry, and that is by developer intent.

By RAW, you only get things that the rules say you get. Everything else is wishcasting or Deus Ex GM.

reach isn’t a Special Ability and axe beaks don’t get it in bestiary from their special abilities stat block. If you want to argue “rules as intended”, I haven’t seen any developer comment. RAW to me includes FAQs and other official rulings, however.

[LordKailas]

So, it's interesting. I did some additional research and pathfinder did remove the long and tall designations from creatures (you won't find anything in the bestiary with either designation) but it is listed both on d20pfsrd and archives of nethys. If you look at creatures that traditionally had the long designation (like horses for example) you'll find that they have the reach of a long creature without any explanation.

I understand trying to simply things by removing the designations since creatures that occupy rectangular spaces on the battle-map become awkward to deal with, but removing the tag completely seems to be an incredible disservice to players and dms alike. Since it makes it unclear what happens when certain creatures change size and items like the dire collar don't help.

If I take a medium sized AC axe beak and cast animal growth on it what is it's size and reach? What if I do the same to a wolf? By the RAW if I stick a dire collar on either of them and it makes them large they gain 10 foot reach since the effects mimic enlarge person not animal growth. You can use the bestiary to figure out which animals are "supposed" to be long vs tall but even this breaks down if its something that isn't normally bigger then medium size such as a flying squirrel. It should probably be considered long since it has four legs, but a Formian has four legs and they are large creatures that have 10 foot reach even though they are described as being "centaur like". Other examples could be found I'm sure.

When a creature changes size, its size and reach should adjust consistently regardless of what's causing the size change. Creatures should of kept their long and tall designations so that players and DMs could reference the size chart to know what a creature's size and reach "should be" when its not otherwise specified. Instead we are left with creatures having their reach be seemingly arbitrary, even moreso when it comes to animal companions.

[Slim Jim]

Lelomenia wrote:

Slim Jim wrote:

Lelomenia, that opens a huge can of worms (especially with the greatly expanded list of available animal companions over the years). For example, if a player with an ape or an axebeak animal companion gets to pull Reach out of the Bestiary special abilities block, then why can't I pull Swallow Whole out of the tyrannosaurus entry? (Some players already assume they get to do this.) Virtually every animal companion's list of stats and abilities is inferior to the base creature's Bestiary entry, and that is by developer intent.

reach isn’t a Special Ability...

(I stand corrected, but will observe that this isn't important to the point I was making.)

Quote:

...and axe beaks don’t get it in the bestiary from their special abilities stat block.

The point was, they get it in the bestiary. An animal companion is not the bestiary animal; all of them give up aspects that would otherwise be available in exchange for end-loaded leveling up benefits.

[Whisperer in Darkness]

well, I've noted that there's a lot of opinion and preference as to what animal is the "best". I pointed out that it is a stylistic choice and a melee strategy choice, so that will vary based on character play style and magic item purchases. Still, the point of my post was to winnow down the many choices to about 5 and leave the rest as options.
My analysis was based on a CR like calculation and honestly there's not a lot of difference between the excellent choices. Sadly there's a lot of average to poor choices(I only posted down to Faerie Mount as there were more but why post average or worse or similarly average choices, I'm also cognizant of other reviews). I didn't have time to run every choice through my spreadsheet so I expect I'd miss a few. Many had similar numbers but really it is about the top 10 or so. I'll check a few that others have posted and liked.

In play (as opposed to theory crafting) people tend to stick to the same companion and that is not a wise choice. People should change out their companion ever couple of levels through 9th and not worry to much if the companion dies.

by 7th level axe beaks are a poor choice and at 4th level there are better choices. It really is a level by level thing and streamlining your gear and magic item purchase improves their efficiency and impact in the game and lessens the paperwork.

I limited my review to PFS acceptable creatures. Why? It is a published set of 'close to core' choices which has been reviewed. It tends to allow poor or under-designed choices so those have to be identified separately.

[Whisperer in Darkness]

People tend to use the monster/creature entry rather than the animal companion entry and that's wrong. It is right if it is a purchased animal. So there's some built in confusion there. The fact that most of the bestiary entries are better than the corresponding animal companion entry doesn't help.
The racial benefits (which do apply to companions and are just referenced in the opening animal companion text) ARE in the monster/creature/bestiary entry. So that adds to the confusion. As I mentioned the more recent published material tends to hide the racial data under other headings which effectively deprives the animal companions of the minor boost. Yes, it takes a GM to adjust the creature entry.

As usual there's inconsistencies in the game. Simply reviewing the horse entries highlights the problem. Horse(animal companion), light riding horse, heavy war horse, shissah(horse). Adding Docile post 3.5 with text about combat training didn't help the situation. Does other training get rid of Docile?... 'nuff said.

[LordKailas]

Whisperer in Darkness wrote:

People tend to use the monster/creature entry rather than the animal companion entry and that's wrong. It is right if it is a purchased animal. So there's some built in confusion there. The fact that most of the bestiary entries are better than the corresponding animal companion entry doesn't help.

The racial benefits (which do apply to companions and are just referenced in the opening animal companion text) ARE in the monster/creature/bestiary entry. So that adds to the confusion. As I mentioned the more recent published material tends to hide the racial data under other headings which effectively deprives the animal companions of the minor boost. Yes, it takes a GM to adjust the creature entry.

as I've pointed out the problem is much more fundamental then "looking at the bestiary entry instead of the animal companion entry"

Answer these questions
What is the space and reach of a 1st level ram animal companion?
What about a 10th level ram animal companion?
What rules section can you look in to find said answer? (it's in there)
What is the space and reach of a 1st level Amargasaurus companion?
what is the space and reach of a 10th level Amargasaurus companion?
Is there any reason you'd be using a different rules section for this one over the previous one?

The problem is, we know from the animal companion section that both of these creatures increase in size. The size of something impacts many things outside of the animal companion listing. I don't see anywhere in the animal companion details where it states that this increase in size "doesn't count" when it comes to rules that check what size something currently is (like CMB for example).

[Magda Luckbender]

Slim Jim wrote:

Magda Luckbender wrote:

You missed axe beak. It's one of the strongest choices available.

Your much-liked post in that linked thread is unfortunately incorrect, because animal companions do not get the base creature's abilities. They only get what's in their "Starting Statistics", where the Reach property is conspicuously absent from the Axebeak's 4th-level "Special Qualities" set. --Do you want a non-nerfed axebeak with reach? You'll pay through the nose for it, and it won't be an animal companion.

Yes, I know that 90% of axebeak riders are doing it wrong, and most GMs aren't aware of it (YMMV), but play correctly by RAW, an-cap axebeaks don't have reach..

@Slim Jim: There's a fine line between RAW and common sense. Line up two nearly-identical mature Axe Beaks. One is a normal beast, while the other is an Animal Companion. By RAW, Slim Jim, you are correct: one has reach and the other does not. At the same time, that's absurd, as they two beasts are identical.

@Slim Jim: It seems pretty obvious that the people who transcribed animal stats to the Animal Companion blocks made an error. Just like the people who transcribed the Pathfinder rules for reach forgot to transcribe the 'diagonal exception', only that omission was large enough to warrant a Developer Correction.

For PFS play Slim Jim is, arguably and on the absurd side, correct. Most GMs able to apply a lick of common sense would rule otherwise. E.g. Slim Jim, if you're GMing your own home non-PFS game, will you allow an Axe Beak animal companion to have reach?

[Lelomenia]

Slim Jim wrote:

)

Quote:

...and axe beaks don’t get it in the bestiary from their special abilities stat block.

The point was, they get it in the bestiary. An animal companion is not the bestiary animal; all of them give up aspects that would otherwise be available in exchange for end-loaded leveling up benefits.

animal companions are certainly not the same as their bestiary counterparts. However, they also aren’t formless blobs of animal companion rules modified only by their animal companion statblocks; their physical shape, which isn’t listed in the statblock, does matter for rules interaction purposes. For example, item slots. Second example, carrying capacity. So the question was whether reach is fundamentally a shape property, or is it more of an ability? Pathfinder has never really handled it clearly, but in general for other purposes people have handled it as being fundamentally an intrinsic function of shape. For example, what is your reach with a non-reach weapon when you Giant Form into something large? Why? Polymorph effects only give the listed abilities, right? What about Monstrous Physique into something large?

Paizo’s official answer on this question for PFS years ago was that large animal companions that have reach in the bestiary also have reach as animal companions. They may have reversed that stance in recent years, and I would be interested in hearing if that’s the case.

[Java Man]

So the combat chapter in the CRB does give different reaches for tall or long creatures, the bestiaries just make us guess which a creature is by looking at what reach it has. If we make the (valid to me) asumption that animal companions have the same body shape as their bestiary equivalents, then ACs will have benefit from the increased reach of being "tall" when applicable.

[Whisperer in Darkness]

I'd have to say that Reach is muddied and it's left to the GM to sort out, in a RAW world you get the animal companion block of data and that's it. Using the creature entry in a bestiary makes sense... alas, GM territory.

I'd remind people that an animal companion is an option in the Druid class under Nature Bond(Ex), and the options should be balanced. The other options are; 1)an extra domain spell per spell level (and I tend to think that's a better choice past 9th level), 2) animal companion, 3) Druidic Herbalism.

[Cavall]

Line up 2 axe breaks, one will have intelligence, feats, and natural armour.

They aren't really the same, to be honest.

Personally I allow the reach, but I know the RAW says (or rather doesn't not say) otherwise.

[doomman47]

Whisperer in Darkness wrote:

I'd have to say that Reach is muddied and it's left to the GM to sort out, in a RAW world you get the animal companion block of data and that's it. Using the creature entry in a bestiary makes sense... alas, GM territory.

I'd remind people that an animal companion is an option in the Druid class under Nature Bond(Ex), and the options should be balanced. The other options are; 1)an extra domain spell per spell level (and I tend to think that's a better choice past 9th level), 2) animal companion, 3) Druidic Herbalism.

If they get reach from the bestiary stat block I want my Spinosaurus to get pounce from its stat block and for my drake companions to be able to use more than one magic item.

[Whisperer in Darkness]

ya know, it's not a rules thread and you are free to make your argument there... The opening line under Druid Nature Bond and then under Animal Companion is all the guidance you get. The logical argument for using the monster data is the term "racial traits" in the second referenced quote and then the link between a racial trait and reach is tenuous at best. Feats, Spc Atks, Spc Qual, are not racial traits. I did mention inconsistencies in the game earlier...
GMs make their decisions at their tables and players rejoice or pout. Reach isn't critical or a game breaker either way. 10ft Reach on large critters does make the creatures tougher and from a balance perspective IMO they shouldn't be. But that's just my opinion. If you need reach use Share Spells and cast Long Arm (Wiz list).

[Slim Jim]

Magda Luckbender wrote:

For PFS play Slim Jim is, arguably and on the absurd side, correct. Most GMs able to apply a lick of common sense would rule otherwise. E.g. Slim Jim, if you're GMing your own home non-PFS game, will you allow an Axe Beak animal companion to have reach?

For game balance reasons, I might not. For similar reasons in the existing game, nobody gets a huge-sized animal. It's not that the animal couldn't have whatever capability, it's just that the one you could find to bond with you didn't.

Who knows? Maybe your critter instinctively adapted to a beta role under a guardian alpha (you) because it is an inferior specimen of its species and is finding survival difficult.

[Cavall]

I would appreciate it if Slim Jim wasn't pointed out as absurd and without a lick of common sense for pointing out the actual rules of the game.

He isn't trying to loophole or be hyper technical. If it does not get reach it does not get reach without GM fiat.

As a GM I would allow it, but that's a personal choice for my games and not something I would expect in all games I played.

[Cavall]

Whisperer in Darkness wrote:

ya know, it's not a rules thread and you are free to make your argument there... The opening line under Druid Nature Bond and then under Animal Companion is all the guidance you get. The logical argument for using the monster data is the term "racial traits" in the second referenced quote and then the link between a racial trait and reach is tenuous at best. Feats, Spc Atks, Spc Qual, are not racial traits. I did mention inconsistencies in the game earlier...

GMs make their decisions at their tables and players rejoice or pout. Reach isn't critical or a game breaker either way. 10ft Reach on large critters does make the creatures tougher and from a balance perspective IMO they shouldn't be. But that's just my opinion. If you need reach use Share Spells and cast Long Arm (Wiz list).

Share spells must be on the list of the class that grants and animal companion. Wizard is not such a class. So that may not fly.

[Magda Luckbender]

I hope Slim Jim knows I wasn't intending to insult him and doesn't feel slighted. In fact, upon reflection, I might agree with Slim ;-)

@Cavall: Thanks for pointing out improper use of Share Spells. It's actually quite difficult to legally get reach on an Animal Companion, which is what spawned this digression in the first place. Share Spells gives the advantage to Sylvan Sorcerers and Clerics with Animal Companions over Druids, because those former classes have better Share Spells buffs than do druids. Enlarge Person, available to both Sorcerers and some Clerics, but not to Druids, is a standout.

@Everyone: There's an old thread on these boards that demonstrates various Animal Companion roles and suggests how to match beast with role. Would someone care to find that thread[s] and link it? Roles had names like Mount, Charger, Grappler, Bodyguard, etc. I coined the term 'polearm pet' to describe a pet with reach and combat reflexes, quite powerful and the reason I might agree with Slim Jim on the basis of Game Balance.

[Slim Jim]

Resolved, we're naming him "Shortbeak".

[Cavall]

Animal growth (ranger druid hunter) is one way to get a companion to get reach.

Another is inquisitor and righteous might, which I'd they are of the sacred inquisitor archetype and have share spells would get them to cast on their pets while ignoring type and range.

Long wait for those though.

[Slim Jim]

The easiest way is Primal Companion Hunter, who can grant his animal two 1pt evolutions as a swift action.

[doomman47]

Or just taking the evolved companion feat.

[Cavall]

doomman47 wrote:

Or just taking the evolved companion feat.

"Benefit: Select a 1-point evolution other than pounce or reach"

Nope.

[doomman47]

Cavall wrote:

doomman47 wrote:

Or just taking the evolved companion feat.

"Benefit: Select a 1-point evolution other than pounce or reach"

Nope.

Hmm figured the companion and the familiar one would have been the same guess I was wrong.

[Java Man]

So, am I the only one that uses the size table in the combat chapter that gives different reach for long or tall creatures?

[LordKailas]

Java Man wrote:

So, am I the only one that uses the size table in the combat chapter that gives different reach for long or tall creatures?

It's what makes sense to me. So long as you can find a version of the creature in the bestiary that is large or larger it's pretty easy to figure out if it should be treated as "long" or "tall". The druid spell animal growth seems to expect this and I don't see why you wouldn't follow said charts when the animal companion block says that your animal companion becomes large.

I demonstrated this earlier in this post but my post seems to have been completely ignored by all parties.

[Wonderstell]

Yeah I'll throw my vote in with Java Man and LordKailas.

The statistics for Animal Companions only mention the reach of an attack if it differs from their natural reach, which is why most companions lack any mention of reach.

Unless there's a rule saying that all animal companions always have 5ft reach, we already depend on their base statistics and the size table to conclude that they have 5ft reach as medium creatures. So tall creatures would obviously have increased reach as large creatures, if nothing states the opposite.

[Slim Jim]

Wonderstell wrote:

The statistics for Animal Companions only mention the reach of an attack if it differs from their natural reach, which is why most companions lack any mention of reach.

We don't know that if that's the actual reason. It's just an assumption.

[Magda Luckbender]

Slim Jim wrote:

Wonderstell wrote:

The statistics for Animal Companions only mention the reach of an attack if it differs from their natural reach, which is why most companions lack any mention of reach.

We don't know that if that's the actual reason. It's just an assumption.

True. Can anyone think of a better explanation, applying Occam's Razor?

[JiaYou]

Nah, I think you're right (and hope so, since I might be building a Chivalry Inquisition Monster Tactician with an Axe Beak for an upcoming game, unless I can be (re)convinced that Magus is better). In a game I'm currently playing in, we're monsters and I suggested it's illogical that the Troll's AoO should come from its bite and not its claws.

My real-world issue with the Axe Beak is that the conceit is that it has reach with a beak attack. Granted, its legs are pretty much all the way at the back of its body so the beak has some distance from the base, but is that as much reach as a troll's claws? Rules-wise I'd argue yes, since the rules also say that a halfling with a glaive significantly out-reaches an elf with a rapier.

It's just to make small creatures actually combat viable that they have the same reach as medium creatures (I'm playing a Gremlin and being Tiny has proven to be a SLIGHT challenge in certain situations). Realistically, large bipeds with natural claws should have something like a 7.5-foot reach, which would pretty much satisfy the whole 25x25 thing but the very furthest four corners aren't threatened. That way a medium creature with a reach weapon would be pretty much on par in real world terms...but obviously then you'd have a small character be outmatched in real world terms.

Ah, verisimilitude.

[Slim Jim]

I'm just glad that no dev has had the bright idea to start handing out trolls as companions. <cross fingers>

[avr]

Are there actually any animal companions which explicitly give reach, rather than relying on implicit body shape stuff?

[Jeff Merola]

avr wrote:

Are there actually any animal companions which explicitly give reach, rather than relying on implicit body shape stuff?

As far as I can tell animal companions only mention reach in four cases. The Giant Frog and the Giant Chameleon both gain the ability to use their tongues to attempt a grab/pull at 15'. The giant caterpillar mentions reach only in that if you try to hit it with a non reach weapon bad things happen. And finally the Mokele-Mbembe from Bestiary 6 has a tail slap with 10' reach as a medium creature and 15' when it grows to large at 9th level.

There are no other mentions of reach in animal companion rules.

[Lucy_Valentine]

So Mokele-Mbembe is the new polearm pet?

[Wonderstell]

Lucy_Valentine wrote:

So Mokele-Mbembe is the new polearm pet?

The tail slap is unfortunately a secondary natural attack, which has its downsides. If you have some way to make it lose its Bite attack so that the tail slap is upgraded to a primary, it would be a strong contender.

[avr]

Unless all large, tall animal companions adopt the posture of shame to avoid getting reach this strongly implies to me that yes you are expected to figure out which are tall and which are long from the bestiaries. If they were going to tell us directly they'd have done so at least once.

[Whisperer in Darkness]

most of the animals mentioned by others have special requirements and/or are not acceptable in PFS(and not on boons/chronicles) thus your home game GM should review them closely. Notable requirements; Dinosaur Druid archetype, the handler needs to be (or should be) an Orc or Goblin, etc.

Some familiars and possibly animal companions don't show on the lists in Archive of Nethys as their Bestiary listing backdoors them in as such. Soulbound doll (familiar) is one such entry (and is on a chronicle for PFS). I haven't finished running critters through my animal companion analysis and catching exceptions comes after basic analysis. It's likely I won't go looking for exceptions in animal companions.

[doomman47]

Whisperer in Darkness wrote:

most of the animals mentioned by others have special requirements and/or are not acceptable in PFS(and not on boons/chronicles) thus your home game GM should review them closely. Notable requirements; Dinosaur Druid archetype, the handler needs to be (or should be) an Orc or Goblin, etc.

Some familiars and possibly animal companions don't show on the lists in Archive of Nethys as their Bestiary listing backdoors them in as such. Soulbound doll (familiar) is one such entry (and is on a chronicle for PFS). I haven't finished running critters through my animal companion analysis and catching exceptions comes after basic analysis. It's likely I won't go looking for exceptions in animal companions.

Why should a home game GM even care what kind of Bad wrong fun PFS rules put in place, that's the whole reason its a home game and not a PFS game we don't have to follow the stupid PFS rules.

[Ryze Kuja]

Wonderstell wrote:

Yeah I'll throw my vote in with Java Man and LordKailas.

The statistics for Animal Companions only mention the reach of an attack if it differs from their natural reach, which is why most companions lack any mention of reach.

Unless there's a rule saying that all animal companions always have 5ft reach, we already depend on their base statistics and the size table to conclude that they have 5ft reach as medium creatures. So tall creatures would obviously have increased reach as large creatures, if nothing states the opposite.

Yeah, this sounds right. Large creatures (tall and long) should have increased reach.