Animal Companion Analysis


Advice

51 to 71 of 71 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>

1 person marked this as a favorite.
graystone wrote:
J-Spee Lovecraft wrote:
I think it would be really crazy if someone picked a companion just because they liked the animal instead of being concerned with the math, but that's just me.

That's like saying 'I don't understand why people just don't pick a car that looks nice and instead worry about things like 'can I drive a stick shift' or 'does that electric car have enough range to get me to work''.

The game is built on math so, IMO, it's be "crazy" to ignore the math: it's freeform storymaking if the math doeesn't matter.

I should've said "overly concerned". It's great to choose options that help make your character more viable. I'm not opposed to that. But sometimes it's exhausting when people so thoroughly dissect the game. I mean, no shade to OP, but they have charts. That just seems so joyless and mechanical to me.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
J-Spee Lovecraft wrote:
I should've said "overly concerned". It's great to choose options that help make your character more viable. I'm not opposed to that. But sometimes it's exhausting when people so thoroughly dissect the game. I mean, no shade to OP, but they have charts. That just seems so joyless and mechanical to me.

Part of it is the game itself telling people "every plus matters" is one of the cornerstones of the game. As such, the range from suck to viable is much smaller then the old pathfinder. Add to that the new crit ranges and a few points difference might mean more crit fails for players or more crit successes from foes.

I'm all for picking a companion you like but IMO what it brings to the table as far as mechanics is as much a deciding factor on "like" as other factors, as the mechanics make them all play differently and help enable different tactics. Dromaeosaur with is move and support ability make an awesome flank buddy, A cat can set up a ranged rogue for sneak attacks, horse is a Mount, snake stops reactions from foes so a ranged ranger can fire in melee...


graystone wrote:
J-Spee Lovecraft wrote:
I should've said "overly concerned". It's great to choose options that help make your character more viable. I'm not opposed to that. But sometimes it's exhausting when people so thoroughly dissect the game. I mean, no shade to OP, but they have charts. That just seems so joyless and mechanical to me.

Part of it is the game itself telling people "every plus matters" is one of the cornerstones of the game. As such, the range from suck to viable is much smaller then the old pathfinder. Add to that the new crit ranges and a few points difference might mean more crit fails for players or more crit successes from foes.

I'm all for picking a companion you like but IMO what it brings to the table as far as mechanics is as much a deciding factor on "like" as other factors, as the mechanics make them all play differently and help enable different tactics. Dromaeosaur with is move and support ability make an awesome flank buddy, A cat can set up a ranged rogue for sneak attacks, horse is a Mount, snake stops reactions from foes so a ranged ranger can fire in melee...

while in general i agree, it seems that the "tight math" are so tight that in fact the difference in choice (between 2 equivalent things) isn't making THAT much difference in pure numbers.

a +/-10% is ok to just pick up whatever you like imo.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
graystone wrote:
J-Spee Lovecraft wrote:
I should've said "overly concerned". It's great to choose options that help make your character more viable. I'm not opposed to that. But sometimes it's exhausting when people so thoroughly dissect the game. I mean, no shade to OP, but they have charts. That just seems so joyless and mechanical to me.

Part of it is the game itself telling people "every plus matters" is one of the cornerstones of the game. As such, the range from suck to viable is much smaller then the old pathfinder. Add to that the new crit ranges and a few points difference might mean more crit fails for players or more crit successes from foes.

I'm all for picking a companion you like but IMO what it brings to the table as far as mechanics is as much a deciding factor on "like" as other factors, as the mechanics make them all play differently and help enable different tactics. Dromaeosaur with is move and support ability make an awesome flank buddy, A cat can set up a ranged rogue for sneak attacks, horse is a Mount, snake stops reactions from foes so a ranged ranger can fire in melee...

See, that's great. They should all have special uses that make them viable and unique. I'm down for that. It's just annoying when people are like, "I've run the simulation over 500 times. Your favorite is trash." Like, just play the damn game. I'm not anti-data or whatever. People just sound like robots and I know that's partially due to the nature of this new edition.


shroudb wrote:

while in general i agree, it seems that the "tight math" are so tight that in fact the difference in choice (between 2 equivalent things) isn't making THAT much difference in pure numbers.

a +/-10% is ok to just pick up whatever you like imo.

In a single choice, maybe. You just have to make sure they don't start adding up in a bad way.

J-Spee Lovecraft wrote:
I'm not anti-data or whatever. People just sound like robots and I know that's partially due to the nature of this new edition.

IMO, it's just people trying to figure out where the baseline of things are: if one animal companion does less/more damage or has less/more AC it's something to take into account with it's other factors. It's not so much saying any are trash but knowing what each companion is good at so you aren't surprised later.


Thier expected damage likely goes up on a ranger if you take the precision edge. Since both the ranger and the pet benefit from the edge, you both can lay the extra damage on hunted prey.

Seeing those AC numbers, I would go dex companion every time.

Verdant Wheel

1 person marked this as a favorite.

J-Spee Lovecraft,

Some folks are math nerds. Some folks are story nerds. Engaging in a math-story game, and expressing excitement, in their own way. Maybe it sounds like different languages to the other's ears?

Me personally, I want both. Good math, good story. As they are not mutually exclusive by any means.

If it bothers you so much, consider that it may have more to do with you than with them?


I think it's mostly just a side-effect of the new system. As many people point out the bonuses are much smaller in this game. To some that means that hey, they can play whatever they like and it won't really impact their character much. To others, it makes those bonuses feel more important and special because every +1 matters now more than it did in the earlier edition where you could grab +2s, +4s, and even +8s as a matter of course.

For me I kinda dig it because it means that I can get excited over math and bonuses ... until I no longer feel like doing it and then sit back and enjoy my character, and then get excited over testing numbers again later if I feel like, something further supported by the retraining system.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
J-Spee Lovecraft wrote:
graystone wrote:
J-Spee Lovecraft wrote:
I think it would be really crazy if someone picked a companion just because they liked the animal instead of being concerned with the math, but that's just me.

That's like saying 'I don't understand why people just don't pick a car that looks nice and instead worry about things like 'can I drive a stick shift' or 'does that electric car have enough range to get me to work''.

The game is built on math so, IMO, it's be "crazy" to ignore the math: it's freeform storymaking if the math doeesn't matter.

I should've said "overly concerned". It's great to choose options that help make your character more viable. I'm not opposed to that. But sometimes it's exhausting when people so thoroughly dissect the game. I mean, no shade to OP, but they have charts. That just seems so joyless and mechanical to me.

It seems that way because you came into a thread that primarily revolves around discussing the mechanics. If anything it's really rude for you to come in here and derail the thread with "think about the RP"


I mean....what is there to DEBATE and DISCUSS about in regards to RP and fluff?


The topic of roleplayers vs rollplayers has been discussed to no end. personaly I feel like the ones that start the nagging (either one of them) is in the wrong.

I have personally experienced more drama and campaign ending from "roleplayers" saying that's how my character would act (then doing x thing that destroys fun for z amount of players) than optimizers.

Regardless this is a "math" thread, those that feel the need to promote their superiority as "true" roleplayers and lay bare the error of our way of thinking need not apply.

Back to the main thread, I think it would be more useful to have the highest dps class as ceiling of shorts for this analysis, but in general compare apples to apples.

what I mean is there are very few classes that can benefit from animal companion so it would be best to have a companionless ranger vs a ranger with an animal companion etc. and have their total damage as 1 unit compared to the highest dps class.

PS: From the analysis between the bear and the wolf, I would almost always choose the wolf due to the AC despite being less damaging and not being able to carry (as a mount) a medium creature. Things I am still considering, A champion with a reaction can grant DR to the bear so maybe that can help the lack of good AC. The support action of the bear and the extra attack might make a significant difference in damage to make the bear more desirable.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Subjecting a party to either the whims of "what your character would do" or your hyperoptimized build can both be detrimental to a campaign.

Its up to the dm to set the tone and let folks know that all this stuff is ok in moderation and ultimately players need to remember that they are playing with other people. Meaning they have to look beyond thier own selfishness in wanting to try out some optibuild or realizing thier character's every motivation.

So, making your character effective is fine but pouring over every DPR chart and using obscure ability combinations to outshine every party member and regularly negate challenges is not. Similarly, rping your pc is fine so long as you dont sour the experience for other players or remove the agency from other players.


Mechanically, is there any justification for not going Dex animal? Savage seems so much worse than Nimble.


Liegence wrote:
Mechanically, is there any justification for not going Dex animal? Savage seems so much worse than Nimble.

To get a large animal: it's the ONLY way other than horse to ride your animal companion.


Yes, this feels almost like an oversight. Seems like the strength animals should have gotten increased proficiency in barding but didn't for some reason.

That difference in ac is huge.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
J-Spee Lovecraft wrote:
I think it would be really crazy if someone picked a companion just because they liked the animal instead of being concerned with the math, but that's just me.

Yes, but when you are surprised several levels later and wonder "Why is my companion so weak?" or "why is it dying constantly?", you might sour on using it. The effectiveness of a character is also a factor in a person's enjoyment.

Rather than getting surprised like that, you could instead understand and consider the numbers, and then decide to build around a way to make your preferred companion effective in other ways.


graystone wrote:
Liegence wrote:
Mechanically, is there any justification for not going Dex animal? Savage seems so much worse than Nimble.
To get a large animal: it's the ONLY way other than horse to ride your animal companion.

Unless you’re a gnome/halfling, right? Because they grow to Medium at mature.

Poor Savage animals I feel they got the shaft. A bear doesn’t even get a higher damage mod to his support feature if he’s savage :(


citricking wrote:
ChibiNyan wrote:
Can they use mighty fists to get improved attack mods and offensive runes?
I don't think so, the rules say the only item bonuses they can get are to speed and AC.

But Elemental Runes don't give item bonuses. In my opinion, they can benefit from them, they can also get a 4th die of damage through Striking runes and even get crazy jaws attack (if they don't have one already) through Bestial Mutagen. That would solve the problem you are showing in this thread.


SuperBidi wrote:
citricking wrote:

I don't think so, the rules say the only item bonuses they can get are to speed and AC.

But Elemental Runes don't give item bonuses. In my opinion, they can benefit from them, they can also get a 4th die of damage through Striking runes and even get crazy jaws attack (if they don't have one already) through Bestial Mutagen. That would solve the problem you are showing in this thread.

the only item bonuses they can benefit from are to speed and AC (their maximum item bonus to AC is +3). An animal companion has the same level you do.

So you're saying to give them handwraps, best of level for potency to add max number of runes. And if striking helps, add that too.

So level 18 -> +3 major striking handwraps with greater flaming, Frost and Shock. 3d8+8 would become 3d8 +3 (base) + 1d8 (major striking) + 3d6 elemental (ignore resistance) + crit effect for elemental runes.

Add bestial mutagen and you get d8 -> d10 and weapon spec damage added. You lose AC and reflex.

But I agree that given what the rules say, this should work.

I think the +3 handwraps + 3 runes would be the best help (cost effective). Attack is not good enough to to really invest heavily in the striking part for a small gain, and AC is important to keep them alive.


Yes, I also agree with you. The Major Striking Rune is only efficient during a few levels, very expensive and I could understand a DM having an issue with it as Animal Companions have a progression in damage dice on their own.
But the runes are for me kind of a no-brainer. Maybe not going up to +3 Handwraps (we are speaking of an Animal Companion, you don't want to give it crazy equipment), but even +2 Handwraps with 2 level 8 elemental runes would give a nice damage boost for a very limited cost.

The Mutagen is more interesting if you have a companion with low damage dice, like D6 damage dice. And anyway it's only really valid at level 11+.


Eoni wrote:
Xenocrat wrote:
Eoni wrote:
Electric Arc isn't too worrying since there's a proliferation of things with Electricity resistance and outright immunity in the bestiary.

Not really.

Aeon, Arbiter (3)
Aeon, Axiomite (10)
Veiled Master (immune)
Demon, Vrock (10)
Dragon, Blue (immune)
Dragon, Bronze (immune)
Drake, Destert (16)
Electric Eel (7)
Genie, Shaitan (10)
Giant, Storm (immune)
Golem, Flesh (immune)
Kobold, Blue (5)
Demilich (5)
Mukradi (20)
Gelatinous Cube (5)
Ochre Jelly (immune)
Roper (10)
Shambler (immune)
Skeletal Whatever (5)
Uthul (immune)

Some of these are iconic and at least somewhat common (although Skeletal X's have similar resistance to all elements), but it's not by any means pervasive.

Ah gotcha. I hadn't done an analysis yet and was going by your thread where you mentioned there were a lot of enemies lacking it as a weakness.

Yep. Electricity is one of the better forms of energy to use, especially if you add in Overwhelming Energy.

51 to 71 of 71 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder Second Edition / Advice / Animal Companion Analysis All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.