I have a question for this one I can't see answered yet but I may not have found it, so apologies if it's here somewhere.
I am looking at taking a druid for one of my playtest games, and taking the animal companion route. I have a few ideas around this but I did want to know what do animal companions do when not commanded in combat rounds?
I get that if you are yet to command them to act they may stay next to you/where they are. but if they are being actively attacked by something I would find it hard to believe they would not retaliate. granted you can use an action to specifically command them to hold an attack (which would require a command on your part). Do they always require an command to act or do they continue doing the last thing they were commanded to do?
RAW in the playtest rulebook says each round they get 2 actions if you command them so that would imply that if for example you commanded them to attach one round, then the next round took a full round action (all 3 actions) to cast a spell, the animal companion would do nothing but let themselves get wailed on.
Might be a balancing issue but I do find that hard to believe common sense wise.
what do you think?
[ Quote: Do they always require an command to act or do they continue doing the last thing they were commanded to do? They require a Command Animal every round unless a you have a feat that says they can act without being commanded (see Druid, Paladin)
Quote: if they are being actively attacked by something I would find it hard to believe they would not retaliate. Animal Companions have the "minion" trait.
p.416 wrote: Minion A creature with this trait can use only 2 actions per turn and can’t use reactions. A minion acts on your turn in combat when you spend an action to issue it verbal commands (this action has the concentrate trait). If given no commands, minions use no actions except to defend themselves or to escape obvious harm. If left unattended for at least 1 minute, mindless minions don’t act, whereas intelligent ones act as they please. What does it mean to defend oneself? A GM could rule that means to attack, or, it could rule the animal runs away. There's no "devotion" quality like in P1, so YMMV.
Quote: Might be a balancing issue but I do find that hard to believe common sense wise.
what do you think?
It is a balancing issue. Paizo apparently wants to stop Druids from getting three actions on their own, three actions from a companion, and whatever other actions they might get from a summoned animal. Taking one action from the Druid and turning into two actions for the Companion means the character benefits from four actions instead of six. Problem is this totally screws over Rangers who were never overpowered to begin with. Plus, Rangers don't get a feat which allows the animal to act on its own, sand Command.
I'll need to read on that feat to act on their own. Those minion rules are open to heavy interpretation on the GMs part but maybe that's for the best... Or worst depending on your GM!
Yeah I was wanting to test how many animals I could have out at once with summon nature's ally so I can see it being a bit of a balance thing. I also saw the bonded animal feat but it does state you can't have a bonded animal and an animal companion (there goes my wolfpack idea... Or Pokemon master?) Should be fun to play with either way. Sucks for the Ranger though.
Cheers
N N 959's interpretation fits mine as well.
Its kind of a strange decision -- I never really found Druids to be overpowered in PF1E (unless we're talking strange builds with large apes and swords, and even then they weren't really gamebreaking), but given that we're now on a 3-action system, I guess I can see the concern that one player getting six actions (even though some of them are animal actions) might be a bit much.
Personally, I'd prefer a basic "AI table" for animal companions out of combat, so that the players can at least plan on them reacting in some way. The current system is a little weird, because it relies on either the GM allowing activity that isn't technically included in the rules (because by RAW animal companions that aren't commanded get *no* actions, and aren't just "under the control of the GM), or running on the expectation that a loose animal companion literally won't take any actions until commanded again (the 'robot' interpretation).
Even if that table literally just says "if (commanded to attack single target last turn){ for(all actions) {attack target}}" or something like that, it would give players and GMs something to work with, and Druids/Rangers who have animal companions (or players with familiars, etc) the option to cast 3-action spells without potentially leaving their animal companion vulnerable.
|
2 people marked this as a favorite.
|
What I would prefer is if the minion always gets two actions according to a "basic AI script" if not commanded (which should allow it to fight back and attack foes / defend its Master with uncomplicated move / interpose / basic attack if in combat), but the player can spend an action to give it a full 3 action turn under the player's control. I've never seen companions get out of hand at the table except with "pack Master" shenanigans, which are easily left out of this edition. Requiring an action to command still acts as a balancing factor, preventing the player from fighting at full capacity if they have multiple summons or a summon and companion.
Fuzzypaws wrote: What I would prefer is if the minion always gets two actions according to a "basic AI script" if not commanded (which should allow it to fight back and attack foes / defend its Master with uncomplicated move / interpose / basic attack if in combat), but the player can spend an action to give it a full 3 action turn under the player's control. I've never seen companions get out of hand at the table except with "pack Master" shenanigans, which are easily left out of this edition. Requiring an action to command still acts as a balancing factor, preventing the player from fighting at full capacity if they have multiple summons or a summon and companion. I like that a lot, but I think I'd prefer a slight reversal -- always three actions if not commanded, two actions if commanded. Commanding them guarantees the player more control over what they're doing and how they're doing it (and hey, they could add in some buff spells or effects that only occur during the round the minion is commanded), so its worth the slight loss in activity. In return, this brings minions a little closer to animal standard (since NPCs in general get three actions per round), but still provides command with an associated cost.
I agree, the only 'unbalanced' animal-control builds I've seen have been pack master setups.
I'd also like to note that would-be necromancers are super screwed over by the current setup, as uncontrolled mindless undead just stand around all day, so your "skeleton horde" is three skeletons max, and one of them has to carry you around so you can keep commanding them. I know NPCs don't necessarily use PC rules, but its unfortunate that PC necromancers don't really work (even if they were kind of trivial in 1E).
Wow... I just read the mounted rules. I don't know how, but they made mounted combat even worse and more pointless than before.
Even as a Paladin or Druid the rules are bad (though not abysmal). Way to completely discourage a fun style of play Paizo!
Recent threads in Playing the Game
|
