| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
Back in 3.5 (and probably earlier), a number of core classes had automatic pets. Druids and Rangers had animal companions, Sorcerers and Wizards had familiars, Paladins had mounts. You had to have them. You couldn’t not have them. The most you could do if your vision of a character with one of those classes didn’t include a mandatory pet is “forget” you had it, dismiss it, wait for it to die in combat and then never bother to replace it, or the darker option of hastening its death. All rather unpalatable and all a lackluster solution, in that you’re ignoring a class feature and not gaining anything in place. The 3.5 PHB2 introduced replacement options for all these, though I’m trying to remember how long it took for them to release that book.
Then Paizo introduced Pathfinder and the CRB had all of those classes, none of which mandated a pet. You could still pick one, but if a pet just wasn’t a part of your idea of a Ranger, you could select something else instead. Ditto the others*.
Paizo, you nailed this one on the nose. I’m not against characters with pets (I’ve got a Monk/Druid character with an entourage of awakened creatures), just against the lack of choice. Familiars, mounts, and animal companions are a core aspect of many types of heroic characters and they should still be expressible. BUT, picking one of those classes should not saddle a player with a pet (that is, a burdensome sack of hit points) if it just doesn’t fit his PC.
Paizo, please repeat this aspect from the P1E CRB next go around, too. By which I mean, repeat and expand upon. How many Cavaliers were Daring Champions, just to avoid having a mount? And my point actually isn’t about how many so much as if it was any at all. Same with the Witch, the Shaman, or the Hunter.
I’m just saying, let’s have pets, not burdens, companions and not obligations.
*
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
I really want for there to be a way (via archetypes) to trade away most class features. Like rogues without sneak attack (<3 the phantom thief), Druids who don't turn into animals, rangers and Paladins who don't cast spells, etc.
Fighters who can't use weapons and wizards/clerics without spells is a bit of a stretch but if someone has a good idea for one...
I'm fine with shaman dropping the required spirit animal for something still thematic to someone who worships and calls upon spirits, but hunters were a class fully designed around working in tandem with their animal companion and I don't expect or want that to change. Cavaliers should be able to do without, and I have no real comment on witch.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
A bonded item, without which you had to succeed at a caster level check just to use your primary class feature. Guh! Still a burden.
This one was always weird to me. The downside was both unnecessary and selectively punitive. The staff, weapon and wand options were ill-conceived given those downsides, since it made spellcasting require two hands rather than one (one hand to hold the bonded item, one to provide somatic components). Even under ideal circumstances where you didn't have to worry about being disarmed this was rarely worth the downsides. They were functionally newbie-trap options. The amulet and ring bonds were much better, and the downsides would only rarely come into play. However, when those downsides did come up they were completely crippling and took your character out of commission for a full week.
I just don't get why this downside even exists. It doesn't really balance anything, since under normal circumstances the penalty doesn't come into play. All the penalty does is render certain varieties of bonded item unviable, and massively penalize wizards in rare and contrived situations.
The only class I liked that had a "forced" pet (pretty sure there are archetype that don't, but we'll keep it vanilla) was the Witch. The theme and savor is just good. It fit. All the others are, at best, a "nice to have" and not integral to the "trope"/theme of the class.
And even the witch has archetypes that replace the familiar.
|
The only class I liked that had a "forced" pet (pretty sure there are archetype that don't, but we'll keep it vanilla) was the Witch. The theme and savor is just good. It fit. All the others are, at best, a "nice to have" and not integral to the "trope"/theme of the class.And even the witch has archetypes that replace the familiar.
With a pile of gold and gems even.
Wanna know what I wish could be traded away? Casting period. There are a number of classes I'd Love to play that are 2/3rd or full casters because of their other stuff, but that have casting... Do I still use those classes, sure? Do I use them to their full potential? Not really, and its because of the casting. They gave us Shifters and Mooncursed Barbarians for non casting Wildshapers, Rogues can have Bardic Performance and Hexes, Untouchable Bloodragers have Bloodlines w/out casting, and they're removing Extracts from Alchemists in 2e.
Now can I get Shaman Spirits/Oracle Mysteries w/out Casting? or Hunters, Inquisitors, and Occultists w/ non-Casting options please?
Why do you view ACs and Familiars as "burdensome", Tectorman? This crux of your premise isn't covered in the OP.
Yeah I really don't get this. Unless a player really, really likes all the class features except the animal.
And even then, aside from Wizard, Witch, and Cavalier they can do it without the need for archetypes. And all three of those have archetypes to remove your AC.
I don't mind having Archetypes to get rid of them, but really, a Cavalier having a Mount and a Witch having a Familiar by default is fine.
I'm definitely for providing alternatives, and also for removing the penalties associated with the pet / bonded object options. Like with bonded object... that kind of implement should make me better when I have it, not weaker when I don't have it.
For "less than full casters" like the Paladin, I would actually prefer if they were built in such a way that at 1st (or whatever) level you choose a Path. One of these Paths gives you spellcasting, the other gives you other abilities of equal value to spellcasting that are just as flavorful to the class in their own way. That way, you don't even need an archetype to get rid of the casting. Archetypes ALWAYS change other things, and maybe the only thing I actually want changed is the casting.
Why do you view ACs and Familiars as "burdensome", Tectorman? This crux of your premise isn't covered in the OP.Yeah I really don't get this. Unless a player really, really likes all the class features except the animal.
And even then, aside from Wizard, Witch, and Cavalier they can do it without the need for archetypes. And all three of those have archetypes to remove your AC.
I don't mind having Archetypes to get rid of them, but really, a Cavalier having a Mount and a Witch having a Familiar by default is fine.
Half of it is the unfounded assumption that somehow playing a Cavalier or a Wizard or a Witch auto-equates to “Of course that means you also want a pet; how could you not?”. I think any class that forces a pet as part of its class features is stepping outside the bounds of what a class should even be doing.
The other half is how an enforced-pet-class-feature, by its very nature, ties the player’s ability to retain all of his class features to that most annoying of video game objectives:
the Escort Mission. A Fighter’s Bravery isn’t dependent on keeping some other sack of hit points alive. Yeah, he needs to keep himself alive, but that’s a given. Ditto a Barbarian’s Rage or a Rogue’s Sneak Attack or any number of other classes. Sure, you might have the odd escort mission now and again, but signing up as a Witch should in no way mean agreeing to be saddled with a constant Escort Mission from levels 1 to 20.
Put them together and they are very much burdensome.
Why do you view ACs and Familiars as "burdensome", Tectorman? This crux of your premise isn't covered in the OP.Yeah I really don't get this. Unless a player really, really likes all the class features except the animal.
And even then, aside from Wizard, Witch, and Cavalier they can do it without the need for archetypes. And all three of those have archetypes to remove your AC.
I don't mind having Archetypes to get rid of them, but really, a Cavalier having a Mount and a Witch having a Familiar by default is fine.
Half of it is the unfounded assumption that somehow playing a Cavalier or a Wizard or a Witch auto-equates to “Of course that means you also want a pet; how could you not?”. I think any class that forces a pet as part of its class features is stepping outside the bounds of what a class should even be doing.
The other half is how an enforced-pet-class-feature, by its very nature, ties the player’s ability to retain all of his class features to that most annoying of video game objectives:
the Escort Mission. A Fighter’s Bravery isn’t dependent on keeping some other sack of hit points alive. Yeah, he needs to keep himself alive, but that’s a given. Ditto a Barbarian’s Rage or a Rogue’s Sneak Attack or any number of other classes. Sure, you might have the odd escort mission now and again, but signing up as a Witch should in no way mean agreeing to be saddled with a constant Escort Mission from levels 1 to 20.Put them together and they are very much burdensome.
I mean, the Witch Familiar and Cavalier Mount (much like the Hunter's Companion or Shaman's Spirit Animal) are integral parts of their kit, flavor, and class description.
Why would you want to play a Cavalier if you don't want to be a mounted knight though? I mean that's like, a third of the class description, and a lot of the flavor. You're a mounted knight of yore, charging through the battlefield to challenge your foes to honorable single combat.
Similarly, how are Witches familiars burdensome? They come inbuilt with Improved Evasion, meaning even if the are with you in combat (and there's no reason for them to be, they can hang back) the only way they'll get hit aside from an AoE is the GM deliberately targeting it, which is about as big a dick move as sundering the wizard's spell book/bonded object.
There's nothing really wrong with Paizo deciding that a class' flavor means it requires a pet, if they so choose.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
All my favorite Witch and Cavalier archetypes traded away the mount and familiar, FWIW. Ley Line Guardian, Green Knight, Daring Champion, etc.
It would be a shame to avoid doing fun stuff like that in the future.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
All my favorite Witch and Cavalier archetypes traded away the mount and familiar, FWIW. Ley Line Guardian, Green Knight, Daring Champion, etc.
It would be a shame to avoid doing fun stuff like that in the future.
I mean, I'm not saying don't do it. Have all the Archetypes you like, I just think the Base Class by itself being rigid in some respects is fine.
FWIW, my favorite archetypes from those two were Gendarme and Winter Witch.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
With the Cavalier, specifically, the Mount being the central feature made it unusual in that it was unsuited to a lot of campaigns just because you were going to be indoors, in crowded cities, climbing mountains, climbing stairs, on a ship, etc. a lot which isn't a problem other people have.
When it comes to Cavalier Archetypes, Job #1 should be "how can one still play this class in a campaigns where a horse is inconvenient."
Familiars you can at least take anywhere, and animal companions can go to more places depending on which one.
With the Cavalier, specifically, the Mount being the central feature made it unusual in that it was unsuited to a lot of campaigns just because you were going to be indoors, in crowded cities, climbing mountains, climbing stairs, on a ship, etc. a lot which isn't a problem other people have.
When it comes to Cavalier Archetypes, Job #1 should be "how can one still play this class in a campaigns where a horse is inconvenient."
Familiars you can at least take anywhere, and animal companions can go to more places depending on which one.
My good man, there's the simplest of all solutions to this!
Play a small Cavalier! Sir Eskel Proudfoot, Halfling Cavlier of the Order of the Sword never had any trouble getting his faithful hog steed Gulli into the most terrible of dungeons, henceforth to bring down all evildoers!
But in all seriousness, I understand. As I've said, put the options in, I don't care. But I also don't care if the options aren't put in, either.
I agree with this. Animal Companions and Familiars can be cool, but no corebook class should have to have them.
I Agree. That said, I could see a 'beast master' class that's main thing IS a companion [or 3].
I agree with this. Animal Companions and Familiars can be cool, but no corebook class should have to have them.I Agree. That said, I could see a 'beast master' class that's main thing IS a companion [or 3].
Which is what the Hunter is, I just wish it wasn't also tied down with casting.
Which is what the Hunter is, I just wish it wasn't also tied down with casting.I agree with this. Animal Companions and Familiars can be cool, but no corebook class should have to have them.I Agree. That said, I could see a 'beast master' class that's main thing IS a companion [or 3].
Yeah I could go for a spell-less hunter class. I usually went for the trap option for my rangers.