Animal Companions - More AC please

[Data Lore]

Is there any way Animal Companions can get some kinda AC bump? Like maybe they can get some "tough hide" or some such which increases their AC by one every time they get an "upgrade"?

[Fuzzypaws]

Animal Companions need more love in general. They can start by letting them benefit from enchanted barding and other items, and letting them scale properly so a higher level companion can actually put out level appropriate damage.

[N N 959]

Fuzzypaws wrote:

Animal Companions need more love in general. They can start by letting them benefit from enchanted barding and other items, and letting them scale properly so a higher level companion can actually put out level appropriate damage.

That's a double-edged sword for Paizo. The real problem with AC's is that Paizo is using the same mechanics for two classes: Druid and Ranger. What's fair for one class, my be unfair for another class. Worse, Druids have an Order that is more focused on leveraging the AC, so if the AC is good as a default, I might be too good if invested in. Conversely, if you make it balanced when invested in, it might be crappy by defaul.t

I personally think ACs should hover on the edge of combat viability. This is more of the crappy by default and good if invested in. I would rather not see an Animal Druid's companion be a stand-alone equal to a martial class. I don't think it's remotely fair for a class to have a combat proxy equal to that of a fighter, and have level 10 spells on top of it.

The Ranger has a similar problem. Invest in the animal and it becomes a major factor in damage, don't invest in it, and it's almost a liability. Personally, I would explore separating the companions by class. Druids get a different mechanic than Rangers and the default Druid companion is not an every-round combat option.

The Ranger companions should be combat durable, but give more tactical options as opposed to straight damage i.e. more teamwork type of benefits, combat maneuvers. Of course that makes the game more complicated, so I'm sure Paizo won't do what I'm suggesting.

[thenobledrake]

Fuzzypaws wrote:

Animal Companions need more love in general. They can start by letting them benefit from enchanted barding and other items, and letting them scale properly so a higher level companion can actually put out level appropriate damage.

I'm confused.

For the 9th level chapter of the playtest, my party has a wizard, a paladin, and the druid. I'll leave the wizard out of this comparison because he should, obviously, deal superior damage when spending limited resources like spell slots. But that leaves the Paladin and Druid with companion.

The paladin has a +2 longsword, so on a typical turn he'll raise his shield and strike twice for 3d8+4 damage, one at +16 and the other at +11.

The druid, on a typical turn, will command her companion, strike with her +2 scimitar, then use her savage slice feat. So the druid will be making attacks at +11 for 3d6, then +6 for 4d6, and her companion will be making attacks at +14 for 3d8+4, then +10 for 3d6+4.

Those seem within the same band of appropriateness to me, so what am I missing?

[Draco18s]

thenobledrake wrote:

The druid, on a typical turn, will command her companion, strike with her +2 scimitar, then use her savage slice feat. So the druid will be making attacks at +11 for 3d6, then +6 for 4d6, and her companion will be making attacks at +14 for 3d8+4, then +10 for 3d6+4.

Uh, why is your druid's attack bonus 5 lower than the paladin?

[Data Lore]

Personally. I think animal companions are fine offensively.

They just need some more armor.

Not a ton more armor mind you. +1 per "upgrade" would still make it lower than PCs but not a crit sponge like it is now. This would be on top of the Expert/Master Unarmored bonus some upgrades grant.

This could also be done through special magic collar items and the like instead.

[thenobledrake]

Draco18s wrote:

thenobledrake wrote:

The druid, on a typical turn, will command her companion, strike with her +2 scimitar, then use her savage slice feat. So the druid will be making attacks at +11 for 3d6, then +6 for 4d6, and her companion will be making attacks at +14 for 3d8+4, then +10 for 3d6+4.

Uh, why is your druid's attack bonus 5 lower than the paladin?

I thought that would be obvious from the numbers provided, but it does look as though I flubbed the Paladin's attack bonus math (it should be +15 and +10); the Druid has a +0 Strength modifier while the Paladin has a +4.

[Fuzzypaws]

thenobledrake wrote:

Fuzzypaws wrote:

Animal Companions need more love in general. They can start by letting them benefit from enchanted barding and other items, and letting them scale properly so a higher level companion can actually put out level appropriate damage.

I'm confused.

For the 9th level chapter of the playtest, my party has a wizard, a paladin, and the druid. I'll leave the wizard out of this comparison because he should, obviously, deal superior damage when spending limited resources like spell slots. But that leaves the Paladin and Druid with companion.

The paladin has a +2 longsword, so on a typical turn he'll raise his shield and strike twice for 3d8+4 damage, one at +16 and the other at +11.

The druid, on a typical turn, will command her companion, strike with her +2 scimitar, then use her savage slice feat. So the druid will be making attacks at +11 for 3d6, then +6 for 4d6, and her companion will be making attacks at +14 for 3d8+4, then +10 for 3d6+4.

Those seem within the same band of appropriateness to me, so what am I missing?

Companions top out at 4 dice, and don't get there without heavy feat investment and after players will already have 5 dice from a +4 weapon. Much like wild shape, companions are too weak at the lowest levels, actually pretty decent (if absurdly fragile) at mid levels, then too weak at high levels.

[thenobledrake]

Data Lore wrote:

Personally. I think animal companions are fine offensively.

They just need some more armor.

Not a ton more armor mind you. +1 per "upgrade" would still make it lower than PCs but not a crit sponge like it is now. This would be on top of the Expert/Master Unarmored bonus some upgrades grant.

This could also be done through special magic collar items and the like instead.

Uh... what "crit sponge"?

Again, looking at my 9th level party:
Wizard AC/TAC: 24/24, +1 each when he cast's shield.
Druid AC/TAC: 24/23, +2 each if she raises her shield (which is rare for reasons that basically boil down to animal-companion riding)
Animal Companion AC/TAC: 25/25
Paladin AC/TAC: 29/26, +2 each when he raises his shield

The 2nd best AC in the party is a "crit sponge"?

[Data Lore]

I dunno, for one action, you get one or maybe two attacks that dont suffer from your MAP. You also get an extra set of HP and a body out there on the battlefield.

Sure, it costs you feats. It kinda should. If investment wasn't heavy, it would be an auto-choice.

Sure, it doesn't equal a PC. But, well, it shouldnt. That would be silly. Who would expect an Animal Companion be be as good as a PC?

It should be able to survive though. Hence, my AC suggestion. That is what this thread is about (its in the title, right?).

[thenobledrake]

Fuzzypaws wrote:

Companions top out at 4 dice, and don't get there without heavy feat investment and after players will already have 5 dice from a +4 weapon. Much like wild shape, companions are too weak at the lowest levels, actually pretty decent (if absurdly fragile) at mid levels, then too weak at high levels.

So you're saying that you don't think companions effectively giving a character an extra action every round, another place for monster attacks to be spread around to, and other benefits as well, is worth a single feat investment?

They'd have to get all of that, plus all the further increases that come with the "heavy feat investment", and also still a little bit more on top of that before you would feel that the cost is worth the benefit?

[Data Lore]

thenobledrake wrote:

Data Lore wrote:

Personally. I think animal companions are fine offensively.

They just need some more armor.

Not a ton more armor mind you. +1 per "upgrade" would still make it lower than PCs but not a crit sponge like it is now. This would be on top of the Expert/Master Unarmored bonus some upgrades grant.

This could also be done through special magic collar items and the like instead.

Uh... what "crit sponge"?

Again, looking at my 9th level party:
Wizard AC/TAC: 24/24, +1 each when he cast's shield.
Druid AC/TAC: 24/23, +2 each if she raises her shield (which is rare for reasons that basically boil down to animal-companion riding)
Animal Companion AC/TAC: 25/25
Paladin AC/TAC: 29/26, +2 each when he raises his shield

The 2nd best AC in the party is a "crit sponge"?

Wow, my 7th level Fey Sorcerer has 24 AC (without Shield or what not). Those casters are built terribly for level 9.

Anywho, an Animal Companion having higher/the same AC than two back row casters who don't prioritize armor shouldn't be a surprise but its still not good enough.

Also remember that the Druid gets Animal Companion upgrades faster than say a Ranger or Cavalier. So, whats true for the Druid isn't true for all Animal Companion users.

[Fuzzypaws]

I am fine with animal Companions taking multiple feats to fully spec up, one feat is obviously too good. But it shouldn't take almost every feat you get. They should top out at 5 dice since players go to 6. And they shouldn't be crit magnets from debilitated AC, unless that's specifically a voluntary choice you made to create a glass cannon or other intentional custom build. (And speaking of, they should be more customizable generally.)

[Data Lore]

Ya, the "crit magnet" aspect is what I think needs to be addressed most. I really don't care too much how they do it but a bit more armor is fairly key IMO.

The more I think about it, I would suggest that maybe items is the way to go (magic collars, etc) since that would help ensure that Ranger/Cavalier companions can keep up a bit with the Druid ones (since it would be decoupled from the Animal Companion feats that the Ranger/Cavalier gain at later levels).

[Megistone]

The AC needs AC, because an AC without AC is... nothing?

[thenobledrake]

Data Lore wrote:

Wow, my 7th level Fey Sorcerer has 24 AC (without Shield or what not). Those casters are built terribly for level 9.

Built terribly? Because the wizard has more Charisma to use magic items more, more Con & Wis for saves (and perception), and has accepted a less-than-maximum Dexterity value?

I don't think so.

The druid you almost have a point with, since the player is insisting on sticking with light armor instead of medium despite having a low enough dexterity that medium armor would just be better - but she's a gnome and she doesn't want to have a higher strength, and can't not be encumbered if she wears any bulkier armor. But even then, you seem to be committing the fallacy that either you have the best possible thing, or you are "terrible" There are a whole lot more degrees between those two.

[Ediwir]

IMHO if companions had a tiny bit better survivability at the first couple of levels - and if the Ranger had something like "If you do not Command your animal companion, it can still take one action to Stride or Strike against the target you're Hunting", things would be a lot better.

[dnoisette]

It's not just the first couple of levels that are problematic, you need to go Nimble/Ambusher if you want your companion to last for more than one round in a fight.

[Data Lore]

Ya, it would help if they could wear a single body slot (in addition to collars) that could have either:

1. Barding that could be made magical and have properties/etc like armor
2. Bracers of armor (harness of armor?)

That would take care of AC and saves so the thing doesn't instagib

[Ediwir]

Data Lore wrote:

Ya, it would help if they could wear a single body slot (in addition to collars) that could have either:

1. Barding that could be made magical and have properties/etc like armor
2. Bracers of armor (harness of armor?)

That would take care of AC and saves so the thing doesn't instagib

You can already do that. However, it is prohibitively expensive for low level characters, which is why I mentioned early survivability boosts as a possible help.

[Data Lore]

Rules state barding cant have magic runes and they explicitly state that animals dont benefit from item bonuses other than barding.

So, no, you cant currently do that.

Also, having to shell out some dough to outfit the companion is fair, IMO.

[Gortle]

Fuzzypaws wrote:

Animal Companions need more love in general. They can start by letting them benefit from enchanted barding and other items, and letting them scale properly so a higher level companion can actually put out level appropriate damage.

Possibly.

As I see it Animal Companions fall behind the curve by the amount of the Players magical armour bonus. If the players are all in +2 magic armour you will see that the Animal Companion is about 2 points behind in AC.
You can fix it a bit by going down the nimble rather than savage path.
Probably the savage path could do with the expert rank in unarmoured defence like the nimble gets.

But its a trade off for Paizo. Animal Companions can't be too strong.

[dnoisette]

Data Lore wrote:

Ya, it would help if they could wear a single body slot (in addition to collars) that could have either:

1. Barding that could be made magical and have properties/etc like armor
2. Bracers of armor (harness of armor?)

That would take care of AC and saves so the thing doesn't instagib

The solution that would not require changing anything to the current rules for animal companions could be to allow for +3 and +4 barding.

Make it expensive if it has to be but it should be an option to choose between better armour for yourself or an AC.

[Data Lore]

Well they also should consider adding some sort of unarmored version (ala bracers of armor, hence my harness of armor suggestion) for pets that focus on their unarmored proficiency.

Also, I think they should let the bonuses just match the PC armor/bracer ones. Use the same rules for upgrading barding as PC armor. Let animals just wear bracers of armor. The animal companions have much a lower dex bonus and the base barding ac bonus is only as good as studded and it comes with speed penalties.

So, its not like the animal companion will out-tank a pc. It will always be worse (and it should) even with top quality gear.

[pauljathome]

Ediwir wrote:

IMHO if companions had a tiny bit better survivability at the first couple of levels - and if the Ranger had something like "If you do not Command your animal companion, it can still take one action to Stride or Strike against the target you're Hunting", things would be a lot better.

Its not perfect but an animal companion focused ranger could multiclass into Druid and get that particular ability

[Ranishe]

pauljathome wrote:

Ediwir wrote:

IMHO if companions had a tiny bit better survivability at the first couple of levels - and if the Ranger had something like "If you do not Command your animal companion, it can still take one action to Stride or Strike against the target you're Hunting", things would be a lot better.

Its not perfect but an animal companion focused ranger could multiclass into Druid and get that particular ability

new archetype rules wrote:

you don't gain any other abilities from your choice of order

That's debatable, and still 3 feats to get if it does work.

[pauljathome]

Ranishe wrote:

That's debatable,

I agree the wording is unclear but

Mark Seifter made the intent clear

(the topic is different but the point clearly applies to this too)

Quote:

and still 3 feats to get if it does work.

Well, I did say it wasn't perfect :-). At least the 2 prerequisite feats are useful and not complete feat taxes

[Ediwir]

My mistake then :)

Point still standing however is that Companions have early issues, and that isn’t solved by gold (you don’t have it yet!). I... suppose I can appreciate that companion are not meant to be a gold sink (throwing gold at your features to make them better feels good, throwing gold at them to make them useful does not) but then we are back to the same problem, early (and late) survivability...