| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Animal companion classes - Ranger, Druid, Paladin - face the same problem that killed 5Es beastmaster ranger: action economy. Animal druid kind of gets a break here in that once you hit 4th you don't have to use one of your actions to command one of the moves but essentially the problem boils down to having only 3 actions. Turns in encounter mode end up by rules looking like:
>1st action: handle animal to even be able to command
>2nd action: Command animal to move
>3rd action: Command animal to attack/work together/other.
Even without handle animal, players are sinking 2 actions into handling their companion leaving them one to attack themselves, cast, or attack. I got around this by being mounted so my companions movement moves me, but it hits the same action economy point where you are asking players to sacrifice their actions in order for their companions to see action. While the balance of this can be argued, companions and their advancement are core class features on par with any of the others and there should not be action tax to use them. My group is house ruling that there is no handle animal check and that you only need one command per round to move and attack; however this hurts the benefit 4th level druid gets. (Our group has each companion class so its a visible hit to druid). If anyone has feedback on how we can fix this for the system that would be great. I like pet classes and I'd hate for them to become pariah like the did in 5E.
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
I don't think that's how it works. The Animal Companion section says that for animal companions specifically its one action of the Druid/Ranger to give two actions for the companion, overriding the general rules where it is one to one. Also you don't need to use handle animal because your animal companion is already obeying you.
So it's never more than one action to command an animal companion.
EDIT: "Animal companions are loyal comrades who follow your
orders. They have the minion trait, so they gain 2 actions
during your turn if you use the Command an Animal
action to command them; this is in place of the usual
effects of Command an Animal" P. 284
So basically your "house rules" are the actual rules.
I don't think that's how it works. The Animal Companion section says that for animal companions specifically its one action of the Druid/Ranger to give two actions for the companion, overriding the general rules where it is one to one. Also you don't need to use handle animal because your animal companion is already obeying you.
So it's never more than one action to command an animal companion.
EDIT: "Animal companions are loyal comrades who follow your
orders. They have the minion trait, so they gain 2 actions
during your turn if you use the Command an Animal
action to command them; this is in place of the usual
effects of Command an Animal" P. 284So basically your "house rules" are the actual rules.
Thanks. The GM was pushing for the normal effects from the command animal skill use due to that rules section until we plead to be functionable. Knowing that theres a companion specific rules change is a lifesaver.
|
| 10 people marked this as a favorite. |
Animal companions should not take an action and they should get three actions unless you are doing a trick or something special. Yellibg attack should not require an action.
No thanks. I much prefer the idea that one player's turn is not twice as long as another player's. Keep in mind a druid could also be summoning as well. If animal companions did not take an action, the druid could have a turn like this:
3 actions to summon, two actions for the summoned creature, animal companion's actions. The next round would be even worse, as the druid would be able to take his turn, the summoned creature's turn, and the companion.
Other characters are going to have 3 actions total. Let's stick close to that number so everyone has a chance to shine.
|
Other characters are going to have 3 actions total. Let's stick close to that number so everyone has a chance to shine.If so the animal companion then needs to be far better than it is.
Is this based on playtesting or theory crafting?
I've created (NOT yet played) a druid with bear companion. It looks like together they'll be doing LOTS of damage. The bear is fairly fragile but that is what heal animal is for :-).
Sure, as a practical matter once they're actually IN combat they're likely to only get 1 attack each (my druid will ready his shield, command the bear, and whack. The bear will Work Together and whack). But that is 2 attacks at no penalty, one of which does an extra dice of damage.
Its all theory crafting at this point but that looks QUITE adequate to me.
With spells etc as gravy on top :-) :-)
I agree that they need to be better, or at the very least more durable. If dealing a lot of damage is unbalanced, which i could see being the case since your Pc will also be dishing out hurt, they should at least not go down in a single round.
Animal companions should not take an action and they should get three actions unless you are doing a trick or something special. Yellibg attack should not require an action.No thanks. I much prefer the idea that one player's turn is not twice as long as another player's. Keep in mind a druid could also be summoning as well. If animal companions did not take an action, the druid could have a turn like this:
3 actions to summon, two actions for the summoned creature, animal companion's actions. The next round would be even worse, as the druid would be able to take his turn, the summoned creature's turn, and the companion.
Other characters are going to have 3 actions total. Let's stick close to that number so everyone has a chance to shine.
Which is why Summoning is usually banned at tables or face restrictions.
Really Paizo, why give us this if most the community either breaks the game with it or bans it outright?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I have problems when games distinguish one group of NPCs from another because people own them. Imagine your character is a pirate and gets into a barfight and his entire crew jumps in to help. How would you run that fight?
In general I think if that answer a game's answer is any different running that situation than it would be for a ranger's animal companion, or a necromancer's troupe of skeletons, something isn't working right.
The world is full of NPCs. Some of them are going to help you out. You can't try and craft an entire subsystem to make this work differently in the effort to try and streamline things. Trying to eliminate any way to make it happen seems like a bad solution too.
I'm sure in that barfight you probably aren't going one by one through every crewmember, having them take one action to break a beer bottle on the bar, then move toward another brawler, then shivving them. The fight would take forever and none of it would have anything to do with the characters. So you pull out the battle rules. You roll to see what the NPCs contribute to the fight and how much damage they take, you narrate, the story goes on.
The answer is a good system for adjudicating NPC impact on a battle in a nice, clean off camera way and then apply it to everything.
Anyone know the DC to Handle or Command an animal? I can't find it.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I have problems when games distinguish one group of NPCs from another because people own them. Imagine your character is a pirate and gets into a barfight and his entire crew jumps in to help. How would you run that fight?
In general I think if that answer a game's answer is any different running that situation than it would be for a ranger's animal companion, or a necromancer's troupe of skeletons, something isn't working right.
The world is full of NPCs. Some of them are going to help you out. You can't try and craft an entire subsystem to make this work differently in the effort to try and streamline things. Trying to eliminate any way to make it happen seems like a bad solution too.
I'm sure in that barfight you probably aren't going one by one through every crewmember, having them take one action to break a beer bottle on the bar, then move toward another brawler, then shivving them. The fight would take forever and none of it would have anything to do with the characters. So you pull out the battle rules. You roll to see what the NPCs contribute to the fight and how much damage they take, you narrate, the story goes on.
The answer is a good system for adjudicating NPC impact on a battle in a nice, clean off camera way and then apply it to everything.
Does the pirate PC have full control of exactly what each pirate pal does on their turn? Because that is the situation with animal companions and other "minion" creatures.
Anyone know the DC to Handle or Command an animal? I can't find it.
I don't think command requires a check but I cannot find one for handle. I really wish they just had a table of DCs for each skill like they did in PF1.
I'm finding it very difficult to find things in this book. :-(
Does the pirate PC have full control of exactly what each pirate pal does on their turn? Because that is the situation with animal companions and other "minion" creatures.
Probably not, but it's not hard to envision having a mercenary hireling who does whatever you say. Now there's the question of whether you control every one of the actions of a guy like this? Like some kind of domination effect?
I didn't think that was how animal companions were supposed to work--according the lore anyway. I thought it was more thatyou have a trained attack animal. For my buck that feels more like an NPC ally than someone you have complete mind control over.
In which case, yeah. Treat them like an NPC ally.
The problem here is having to command the animal for the animal to act makes no sense.
When you command an attack dog to attack, it does so. Non-stop until you tell it to heel. In PF2, the dog will attack once. And then if you don't tell him to do anything. He'll just stand there. Even if the opponent is whacking him with a sword. HE'LL JUST STAND THERE. Unless you command him to flee or attack.
That is crazy and unrealistic.
Other characters are going to have 3 actions total. Let's stick close to that number so everyone has a chance to shine.Are we all really so saddened by someone else taking more time to resolve their actions than others? "DMmy, it's not fair, he gets 5 minutes of your attention and I only get 3." I've never understood why people were so upset that someone else's build gives them more (usually weaker) actions than normal.
On this note though, how is necromancer going to play out. It takes a command per minion. They can have up to 4. There goes their entire turn. Because you have to "push" each minion instead of group commanding.
Also as a note on summoning: you have to concentrate which is a bigger cost in 2.0 than the base game.
Longer turns arent bad. They exist in some form for most classes. We dont rip into rogues for going off and pick-pocketing the populace or combat maneuver builds for taking multiple checks in a single attack action. In the past the minion classes haven't drug table time into 15 minutes for a single player and as long as things are happening the game stays interesting. The only time I've ever seen it degrade into too long of a turn was with open Leadership feat abuse which we dont have in 2.0.
I'm pretty okay with losing an action to gain two for a companion. Trading an action to let a companion get into flanking position AND get an attack seems like a good trade, even if it doesn't do quite as much damage as you would. The ones without a dex boost are pretty vulnerable early on due to low AC but that should even out as they grow.
The skills seem off to me though. I understand certain species being better at certain things, but they're wild animals. They should all be able to survive in the wild. And since when are wolves not stealthy? Maybe just pick a skill for each that they are expert in instead of just trained.
It is pretty much the mechanic type mode from starfinder and losing one of your actions to gain two seems very reasonable. And like the mechanic they start getting better at control as you go so eventually you get your full three actions while your minion does its thing.
I think this was done to head off the whole insanity that the summoner turned into in PF1.
Anyone know the DC to Handle or Command an animal? I can't find it.I don't think command requires a check but I cannot find one for handle. I really wish they just had a table of DCs for each skill like they did in PF1.
If Command (or Handle) doesn't need a check, and it can be done by anyone, even the untrained, what does it have to do with the Nature skill? Something fundamental seems to have gone missing...
OTOH, if it does require a die roll every round to get your mount or AC to behave, that's going to be incredibly frustrating.
Potential Solution: What if summoned minions, allies and animal companions had scripted attack routines like they do in adventure statblocks? Would that help maybe? So you don't have to waste actions on it or whole rounds of the player directing every minion. You summon them, they do their thing. You can direct them to stop, but otherwise they have a prefab list of actions and can just be lumped in with the other NPCs the GM is playing?
Or...
Maybe mechanically they just reduce an encounter by certain amount--making a severe difficulty encounter into a high difficulty one, or a high to severe level boss into a low to high level one, leaving the GM to describe the actual narrative of what they do? Or better yet, just reduce the encounter as though there were extra players in the party--because effectively that's what's happening.
In the past the minion classes haven't drug table time into 15 minutes for a single player...
I have seen exactly that at a table.
I have problems when games distinguish one group of NPCs from another because people own them. Imagine your character is a pirate and gets into a barfight and his entire crew jumps in to help. How would you run that fight?
Check out the rules for Lemures (page 51 bestiary). You could adapt this to any group of non-"minion" entities and their boss.
Also fun fact, by limiting a minion to 2 action and taking an action to command, they're put closer on par to say, the monk (which has some good ways to increase action economy, as do the other martials).
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Maybe I play quite differently from most, but I find I'm taking less time with my companion builds in PF1, and PF2, than a lot of the other players in my various groups. It isn't that hard to just put in the effort to plan what you do and/or roll attack and damage dice together.
Yes, sure, I put all my efforts into my companion so my actual PC does little (maybe cast a spell or use some other special ability) but even my 5-attack-pounce companions are taking less time than other people's sorcerers or rangers.
My real disappointment is I can now no longer have my companion as the real powerhouse of the duo. I'm sure this will get better as new content is released, but I feel for the amount of investment I'm putting into my companion, I'm getting very little out of it.
I'm pretty okay with losing an action to gain two for a companion. Trading an action to let a companion get into flanking position AND get an attack seems like a good trade, even if it doesn't do quite as much damage as you would. The ones without a dex boost are pretty vulnerable early on due to low AC but that should even out as they grow.
The skills seem off to me though. I understand certain species being better at certain things, but they're wild animals. They should all be able to survive in the wild. And since when are wolves not stealthy? Maybe just pick a skill for each that they are expert in instead of just trained.
They ... um ... they're babies when you first get them. They get up to 4 upgrades, which ends up with them having either a master or a trained and an expert skill. It'd be a little overpowered for them to be master-ranked at level 1.
Also, you have to be Trained in HA to command Indifferent or Friendly Animals, but apparently not domesticated animals/animals that have been trained.
I missed that. In fact I had to read it twice to actually take in the rule as written, because the term-of-art word helpful wasn't highlighted in any way. And this problem crops up elsewhere in the rules as written, with terms like Quick.
My real disappointment is I can now no longer have my companion as the real powerhouse of the duo. I'm sure this will get better as new content is released, but I feel for the amount of investment I'm putting into my companion, I'm getting very little out of it.I suspect Paizo wants to monitor this. An animal that is a powerful as a martial with a full caster behind it is overpowered. The problem is the Ranger's AC's are getting screwed by the need for Paizo to keep Druids in check.
I certainly hope they are monitoring this.
Why do these Rangers need to have the same exact rules for their AC as a Druid? If the Rangers are not dedicating their training to magic, shouldn't their other skills be bolstered? Instead all AC are nerfed?Nonsense.