I appreciate the limits the system have put on animal companions, but they are not restrictive enough.
They still leave the player with an animal companion soaking up twice the table time of other players. Maybe it should be the player gets 3 action to use anyway he wants between his character and companion. Or give everyone 5 actions with the same 3/2 split for the PC/AC combo.
Players should be choosing to play characters with AC's because they want that flavor in their build not so they have basically two characters to everyone else's one.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
I appreciate the limits the system have put on animal companions, but they are not restrictive enough.
They still leave the player with an animal companion soaking up twice the table time of other players. Maybe it should be the player gets 3 action to use anyway he wants between his character and companion. Or give everyone 5 actions with the same 3/2 split for the PC/AC combo.
Players should be choosing to play characters with AC's because they want that flavor in their build not so they have basically two characters to everyone else's one.
Except that the pet is utterly worthless and dies if someone breaths on it hard.
| 7 people marked this as a favorite. |
I thought the OP was going for sarcasm, but I'm not sure.
|
They still leave the player with an animal companion soaking up twice the table time of other players. Maybe it should be the player gets 3 action to use anyway he wants between his character and companion.
If the player and animal companion are taking a long time i'm not sure if a simple action reduction fix is going to help.
If your slow player played a monk instead and had pseudo extra actions (flurry of blows for an extra attack) would he be faster? I think he would, even with the extra pseudo action, because there's less thought involved on what to do and only some additional math.
I think you're probably right that it does take some players longer to think about what their PC and animal companion are doing because they want to accomplish independent actions (above and beyond just having 1 extra action).
If you want to speed them up i think instead of making a strict 3 action rule between PC and animal companion (which is the system a trained animal uses and would have few PCs take an animal companion) you could try to impose an "action tax" when the animal companion is farther than 10' from your character to encourage the PC and the Animal Companion to usually both act as a team, i.e. "Me and my animal companion both go and attack that guy, with me flanking!".
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I've played a druid with animal companion at level 1, 4, and 5.
The level 4 was a bit of a special case. The druid was primarily a wild shaping druid and he took the animal companion specifically to see if it would be of any use at all.
My opinion based on these actual playtests is that the animal companion is neither under powered or over powered. Even the low powered companion had its uses
With the level 5 druid the bear was a good contributor, bringing the druids contribution up to being on par with the martial characters.
Given that the animal companion effectively adds ONE to the actions taken I certainly don't think that it dominated the game nor made the druids turn take too long. Most of my thought process was deciding what Team Druid did. Actually doing the actions was simple The animal almost never bothered attacking twice. Usually moved and either attacked or used its Work together benefit together with a single attack).
The level 4 companion actually went a bit better than I thought it would. About 1/2 the time it wasn't worth the action to actually use so it just stood there. The rest of the time it was worth the action (usually for its work together benefit more than for its attack).
Didn't take much damage as the GM didn't feel like wasting attacks killing it :-).
Had a reasonable level of power for a single class feat (my level 4 feat went to better wild shaping).
|
|
WORK TOGETHER
Your animal companion assists you. You gain the benefits
listed in your companion’s Work Together Benefit entry. Your
companion can use its other action only to move in order to get
into position to take advantage of the Work Together benefits; if
your companion doesn’t have the mount special ability and you
are riding it, it can’t use any other actions this turn at all.
If it Works Together the other action has to be a move. This is easy to miss.
Yeah... I'm going to play a Ranger with a Cat animal companion with an HP of 10 and AC of 13. I'm at a loss at how I'm supposed to keep it conscious. The 'Bestiary' versions of the animals available as animal companions are for some reason stronger than the Animal Companion counterparts at the same level.
In my experience it is equal to any of the characters in combat, and since the Druid is always there pumping more hit points into it it has yet to go down.
I may have to start counting it as a PC in setting the encounters since at 8 players their is never a single monster on the bear.
I've played a druid with animal companion at level 1, 4, and 5.
The level 4 was a bit of a special case. The druid was primarily a wild shaping druid and he took the animal companion specifically to see if it would be of any use at all.
My opinion based on these actual playtests is that the animal companion is neither under powered or over powered. Even the low powered companion had its uses
With the level 5 druid the bear was a good contributor, bringing the druids contribution up to being on par with the martial characters.
Given that the animal companion effectively adds ONE to the actions taken I certainly don't think that it dominated the game nor made the druids turn take too long. Most of my thought process was deciding what Team Druid did. Actually doing the actions was simple The animal almost never bothered attacking twice. Usually moved and either attacked or used its Work together benefit together with a single attack).
The level 4 companion actually went a bit better than I thought it would. About 1/2 the time it wasn't worth the action to actually use so it just stood there. The rest of the time it was worth the action (usually for its work together benefit more than for its attack).
Didn't take much damage as the GM didn't feel like wasting attacks killing it :-).
Had a reasonable level of power for a single class feat (my level 4 feat went to better wild shaping).
I didn't find it over powered particularly. They always function as another PC. My problem is that the AC doubles the number of actions one player has, and so they wind getting twice as much time in each combat round as the other players. Which leads to a lot of discontent from the other players.
They still leave the player with an animal companion soaking up twice the table time of other players. Maybe it should be the player gets 3 action to use anyway he wants between his character and companion.If the player and animal companion are taking a long time i'm not sure if a simple action reduction fix is going to help.
If your slow player played a monk instead and had pseudo extra actions (flurry of blows for an extra attack) would he be faster? I think he would, even with the extra pseudo action, because there's less thought involved on what to do and only some additional math.
I think you're probably right that it does take some players longer to think about what their PC and animal companion are doing because they want to accomplish independent actions (above and beyond just having 1 extra action).
If you want to speed them up i think instead of making a strict 3 action rule between PC and animal companion (which is the system a trained animal uses and would have few PCs take an animal companion) you could try to impose an "action tax" when the animal companion is farther than 10' from your character to encourage the PC and the Animal Companion to usually both act as a team, i.e. "Me and my animal companion both go and attack that guy, with me flanking!".
The player isn't particularly slow, it's just that the system basically gives him twice the time in each round as anyone else, and the AC winds up getting kills others in the party would have gotten so players feel like the guy with the AC has two characters not just one. I think this system has actually improved that with the 2 actions for the AC, it's just still a situation that steps on the toes of all the other players.
|
|
If it Works Together the other action has to be a move. This is easy to miss.
Yeah, I missed that. Thanks for pointing it out.
I'm not sure how much effect it would actually have had in my Level 5 playtest. MOST of the time it moved and attacked or moved and Worked Together. Or attacked twice. But I don't remember the details at this point.
I don't think that I Worked Together and Attacked enough to invalidate my experience
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
My problem is that the AC doubles the number of actions one player has
4 really is NOT double 3 (the action to handle the animal really doesn't count. I never even bothered stating that was what the druid was doing).
And the Animal Companion is definitely significantly LESS effective than any vaguely well built martial character
The AC doesn't even nearly double your actions. You have to spend 1 action to give it 2, meaning you effectively have 4 actions instead of 3 if you're spending to command the companion and that's assuming the AC's actions are as effective as your...I didn't find it over powered particularly. They always function as another PC. My problem is that the AC doubles the number of actions one player has, and so they wind getting twice as much time in each combat round as the other players. Which leads to a lot of discontent from the other players.I've played a druid with animal companion at level 1, 4, and 5.
The level 4 was a bit of a special case. The druid was primarily a wild shaping druid and he took the animal companion specifically to see if it would be of any use at all.
My opinion based on these actual playtests is that the animal companion is neither under powered or over powered. Even the low powered companion had its uses
With the level 5 druid the bear was a good contributor, bringing the druids contribution up to being on par with the martial characters.
Given that the animal companion effectively adds ONE to the actions taken I certainly don't think that it dominated the game nor made the druids turn take too long. Most of my thought process was deciding what Team Druid did. Actually doing the actions was simple The animal almost never bothered attacking twice. Usually moved and either attacked or used its Work together benefit together with a single attack).
The level 4 companion actually went a bit better than I thought it would. About 1/2 the time it wasn't worth the action to actually use so it just stood there. The rest of the time it was worth the action (usually for its work together benefit more than for its attack).
Didn't take much damage as the GM didn't feel like wasting attacks killing it :-).
Had a reasonable level of power for a single class feat (my level 4 feat went to better wild shaping).
Not mathematically double but you have one player controlling two creatures that each have 2 actions. I think it would be better to eliminate the action needed to direct the AC, and let the player have 3 actions 2 of which can be used by the AC. That way 1 player 3 actions. Getting two first attacks in melee is a pretty big bump, but it's not about power its about one player getting demonstrably more table time than other players, its a real disatisfier.
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Az,
I have to say I agree with you that a Player can and frequently WILL take up extra time when sitting around the table to finish their turn and it ends up being frustrating when you're just waiting to move and drink a potion.
I am not however convinced Animal Companions make the PC significantly stronger as to unbalance the party level.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I think it would be better to eliminate the action needed to direct the AC, and let the player have 3 actions 2 of which can be used by the AC. That way 1 player 3 actions.
That would make Animal Companions an utterly atrocious choice. Oh, it works passably well when everybody is already in melee with each other but it falls totally apart when movement is required, or the druid wants to use a shield, or something similar. Suddenly the druid and animal companion can both move and get ONE attack? No.
Losing one action balances the Animal Companion fairly well. Anything less than that and it would be better to remove Animal Companions from the game entirely as they'd become a complete trap option
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I already find the existing limit egregiously restrictive, making it worse would be horrible.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
The player isn't particularly slow, it's just that the system basically gives him twice the time in each round as anyone else,
Well, no, it doesn't.
When you compare the amount of time spent at a real table looking up rules for spells, feats, and skills, versus the trivial actions an animal companion can take, you'll find this a non-issue. "Stride, stride, strike." Seriously, that's nothing compared to "oh, crap, what kind of bonus does inspire courage actually grant, and does it stack with Bob The Paladin's ability?"
If you decide it's okay for Bob The Paladin to take feats despite them being time-consuming, then it's got to be okay for someone else to have an animal companion which can only mostly Stride and Strike.
and the AC winds up getting kills others in the party would have gotten
Err, not cool. If Bob The Paladin uses a feat which lets him do more damage than if he didn't have that feat, he gets kills others in the party would have gotten. Do you disallow Power Attack because it causes kill-stealing?
so players feel like the guy with the AC has two characters not just one.
I can't help it if players feel like their ears are made out of chocolate, and the rules shouldn't need to take this disorder into consideration.
I think this system has actually improved that with the 2 actions for the AC, it's just still a situation that steps on the toes of all the other players.
Sorry, no, it isn't. The PF1 Leadership feat could be viewed that way, sure. But this isn't PF1 and this isn't Leadership.
Politely requesting that players refrain from bringing companions/familiars/cohorts etc to the table is a far more effective fix IME.
I'd suggest that's as fair as politely requesting that players refrain from using any ability whose rules don't fit entirely on their character sheet.
Keeping track of an animal companion's position is literally as simple as putting its mini on the table. Keeping track of its stats is literally as simple as writing them on the character sheet*.
*Disclosure: I - and all of the players in all of my gaming groups - use standard statblocks instead of character sheets, so I admit that doing this sort of thing is trivial for us.
This was definitely a problem in Pathfinder First Edition. So far, I've only had two sessions with a player who had an animal companion and it only marginally extended her turn time. It didn't seem like a big problem - the alchemist still took longer than her trying to decide what to make with quick alchemy.
That said... I'm curious to see how summoning holds up here. It was often a nightmare of spreadsheet proportions in Pathfinder First Edition and would bog down the entire game.
Edit: Misunderstood the OP. On a second read I can't say that I agree. Other players had the choice to get companions and they decided not to. What's so unfair about that?
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I have had multiple players take animal companions in PF2E. All of whom have expressed dissatisfaction:
1) When not directed the animal companion does nothing, not even in self defense.
2) The animal companion does not move unless directed.
Also if an enemy group has an animal or vermin as part of its group (say a group of Gnolls with a pet giant scorpion) the enemy pits seem to be under no such restriction.
|
|
I have had multiple players take animal companions in PF2E. All of whom have expressed dissatisfaction:
1) When not directed the animal companion does nothing, not even in self defense.
2) The animal companion does not move unless directed.
Note that for the companions of Druids of the Animal Order who take Full Grown Companion (ie, all of them at level 4 :-)) the animal DOES get one action a turn even if not commanded (stride or strike).
I think Druid companions are fine. Haven't seen or really studied how non druid companions do.
To be clear, animal companions have been weakened significantly from PF1. But that is probably a good thing (and I say this as a player who has LOTS of animal companions). They're silly powerful (by themselves in the early game, and when appropriately buffed in the mid to late game)
|
|
I have had multiple players take animal companions in PF2E. All of whom have expressed dissatisfaction:
1) When not directed the animal companion does nothing, not even in self defense.
2) The animal companion does not move unless directed.
Note that for the companions of Druids of the Animal Order who take Full Grown Companion (ie, all of them at level 4 :-)) the animal DOES get one action a turn even if not commanded (stride or strike).
I think Druid companions are fine. Haven't seen or really studied how non druid companions do.
To be clear, animal companions have been weakened significantly from PF1. But that is probably a good thing (and I say this as a player who has LOTS of animal companions). They're silly powerful (by themselves in the early game, and when appropriately buffed in the mid to late game)
The issue so far is that 2/3rds of those animal companions are Ranger animal companions, and there is a lot that competes for the Ranger's actions in a turn.
There's a lot to compete for a Druid's actions too, since if a druid wants to move in order to best position a spell effect their animal companion (if not lvl 4+ Animal Order) is likely to just sit still and get whacked by goblins.
Players get real attached to their imaginary pets.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
The player at our table with an animal companion honestly takes less time to complete his turn than the Paladin who has to agonize about positioning so he has a chance of using his main class feature (RS). The companion is already overly restricted and doesn't need to be more so. Hard pass.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I've played a druid with an animal companion and it really doesn't take so much more time or spotlight than anything else. An animal companion's actions are quite simple and always will be, since they have very few options. Because of this, it takes little time to make decisions. Also, some people seem to forget that animal companions can never get more than two actions in a turn. 4 actions total instead of 3 isn't anywhere near double the time other characters have...
The player isn't particularly slow, it's just that the system basically gives him twice the time in each round as anyone else,Well, no, it doesn't.
When you compare the amount of time spent at a real table looking up rules for spells, feats, and skills, versus the trivial actions an animal companion can take, you'll find this a non-issue. "Stride, stride, strike." Seriously, that's nothing compared to "oh, crap, what kind of bonus does inspire courage actually grant, and does it stack with Bob The Paladin's ability?"
If you decide it's okay for Bob The Paladin to take feats despite them being time-consuming, then it's got to be okay for someone else to have an animal companion which can only mostly Stride and Strike.
and the AC winds up getting kills others in the party would have gottenErr, not cool. If Bob The Paladin uses a feat which lets him do more damage than if he didn't have that feat, he gets kills others in the party would have gotten. Do you disallow Power Attack because it causes kill-stealing?
so players feel like the guy with the AC has two characters not just one.I can't help it if players feel like their ears are made out of chocolate, and the rules shouldn't need to take this disorder into consideration.
I think this system has actually improved that with the 2 actions for the AC, it's just still a situation that steps on the toes of all the other players.Sorry, no, it isn't. The PF1 Leadership feat could be viewed that way, sure. But this isn't PF1 and this isn't Leadership.
Well at my table players need to have their spells ready to go when it's there turn, they have 7 other players moves to get ready for theirs so no excuse for needing to do research during their turn. So the only one taking extra time is the guy with the AC.
As I've said this seems to be an improvement from PF1, but still doesn't get the AC being in the flow of the game and not a burden on the rest of the party.
Well at my table players need to have their spells ready to go when it's there turn, they have 7 other players moves to get ready for theirs so no excuse for needing to do research during their turn. So the only one taking extra time is the guy with the AC.
As I've said this seems to be an improvement from PF1, but still doesn't get the AC being in the flow of the game and not a burden on the rest of the party.
No excuse? I'm just checking, because I know I pay plenty of attention at the table both as player and DM, and the number of times per combat that I have my plan ready in my mind, only to have it change because the player after mine makes a choice... or the player after them... or the player after them... or the player after them.
I agree in principle being ready is being responsible. But there are plenty of circumstances where being ready just isn't a thing.
The on-topic application of which is that an animal companion's choices are always trivial, and can be decided on-the-fly, where many other class abilities are massively, massively less-so.
I've never run a group of 8 players, but one thing that has helped me in the past with a group of 6 is asking other players later in the initiative order to step up and play summons and Companions. That gives them something to do while waiting for their turn, and usually summons and Companions have quick, dirt simple turns so it's hard to screw up.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I appreciate the limits the system have put on animal companions, but they are not restrictive enough.
They still leave the player with an animal companion soaking up twice the table time of other players. Maybe it should be the player gets 3 action to use anyway he wants between his character and companion. Or give everyone 5 actions with the same 3/2 split for the PC/AC combo.
Players should be choosing to play characters with AC's because they want that flavor in their build not so they have basically two characters to everyone else's one.
I utterley dissagree.
Animal companions grant 2 actions but they cost 1 to use. Often that extra action is just to move the animal so its not really an extra action.
If the Animal Companion is being used as a mount it ends up sharing the multiple attack penalty with its rider, so the free movement action it gives the player is effectively lost by common attack penalty.
Animal companions fall slightly behind players in terms of defenses so they are always going to need extra healing.
I think they have done an excellent job here.
If Animal Companions are taking up too much for the GM to handle then they should simply ask the players to use other builds. They are helpful for small parties. For sure they are a problem if there are 6 of them in a party, but let the gamers make that decision - not the game designers.
If animal companions are nerfed further then they would be pointless. IE you end up with the limp wristed 5th Ed D&D ones that nobody wants at all. The restrictions on their actions are an important balance. They do cost to use. Its a reasonable compromise.
|
|
The issue so far is that 2/3rds of those animal companions are Ranger animal companions, and there is a lot that competes for the Ranger's actions in a turn.There's a lot to compete for a Druid's actions too, since if a druid wants to move in order to best position a spell effect their animal companion (if not lvl 4+ Animal Order) is likely to just sit still and get whacked by goblins.
Players get real attached to their imaginary pets.
Agreed.
Paizo has a very difficult job making sure that the Druids animal companion is balanced and the rangers companion still useful.
I suspect the eventual solution will be a variant on what is done in PF1. Some feat (or feats) to bring the rangers companion up to a "proper" companion.
But I also suspect that won't make it into the playtest and very well may not make it into the Core Rulebook.
Lets keep in mind that in Core PF1 the situation was pretty much the same. Druids companions were useful (arguably too useful even in core) and Rangers were far less, sometimes to the extent of almost being a liability to the party if the party role played caring about the companion
|
|
In just about every situation, animal companions come off as brain damaged idiots relative to their non-companion brethen, which is immersion breaking, especially when it's things like the paladin on his mount, galloping as a double action, for 100 ft per round, has absolutely no hope of catching the bandit on his horse, galloping and then striding for 140 ft /round...
RAW you're partly right. You're wrong about the bandit, he should be following the same rules as the PCs.
However, I think that the vast majority of GMs would use common sense when dealing with animals OUT of combat.
Any GM who both allowed a normal animal 3 actions and restricted Lassie to 2 would be a bad GM (I believe that GMs who too slavishly follow the rules as written are bad GMs. The rules REQUIRE some application of reason and common sense).
I don't really care if Paizo clarifies the rules for Animal Companions out of combat. Its "obvious" how they SHOULD work :-) (and yes, I know that obvious to me isn't obvious to somebody else).
|
|
Maybe I am not reading the rules right, but animal companions, familiars , summons, and so forth all have the minion trait (p416) :
I thought that I was clear but apparently I wasn't.
I completely agree with you that RAW work the way that you say that it does.
I just think that it is "completely obvious" that those rules are intended to be used with some degree of "common sense".
Writing that, I think that I realize that I'm wrong.
Paizo should add a rule to minions something along the line of
>> The minion can take 3 stride actions.
(ie, uses both its actions to stride 3 times)
And something like
"In encounter mode and downtime mode minions, mounts, etc do NOT need constant guidance. They can be set to a single task (moving, going to help Timmy who has just fallen down a well, etc) and will spend all 3 actions a round going about that task.