| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Fresh off the presses, we dive into the world of animal companions, everyone's favorite murder-fluffs.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Been waiting for this! Glad to know my choice of the vulture is pretty alright.
It would be interesting to see your analysis about how MCing to get an Animal Companion works out.
Fresh off the presses, we dive into the world of animal companions, everyone's favorite murder-fluffs.
Thank you.
Nice. I'd probably rate the snake a little lower because it is slower to move around. The GM could freak out when you put barding on it - simply not allowed in PF1.
Many wasted actions getting it into place or even slowing the party down.
Have you done the numbers on animal companions at high levels. It's not good.
Nice guide. :-)
Nice. I'd probably rate the snake a little lower because it is slower to move around. The GM could freak out when you put barding on it - simply not allowed in PF1.
Many wasted actions getting it into place or even slowing the party down.
I did consider that, but I think their constrict is sufficiently good to counterbalance that.
Have you done the numbers on animal companions at high levels. It's not good.
I have. There is a reason why I value AC on them so highly, given that a savage bully bear is almost not missable by an equal level creature.
Two, quick notes/questions
1) Indomitable Companion is only allowed for Megafauna (might want to note that)
I didn't distinguish because as far as I can tell, the only difference between a regular and megafauna companion is you have to declare it one or the other, given that all of the companion types can theoretically be a form of megafauna and no rules are actually given for what can be a megafauna and what can't be.
2) If you are playing a medium race and want a mount, you will need to take Savage since Nimble does not increase size. Given that you rate secondary DPR at 2 stars and mount at 3 stars, would you suggest medium size races take Savage everytime?
I wouldn't, I would suggest they take Indomitable every time because Indomitable creatures also go to Large.
Fresh off the presses, we dive into the world of animal companions, everyone's favorite murder-fluffs.Have you done the numbers on animal companions at high levels. It's not good.
Not good at all.
It takes full investment to maintain an animal as a secondary combatant, which makes sense since the Druid remains a full caster. Frankly, I don't know how Ranger ACs are meant to survive without getting Heal/Heal Animal more often than they can supply. Maybe in easier home games?And that's just melee combat. Add in AoEs & spells and you'll find your PC is the one protecting the AC rather than the other way around.
If there ever is a way to make an AC into a primary combatant, expect it to downgrade the PC into a secondary role (which might be unwise and/or lethal.) I expect when we see the Summoner we may get that mechanic.
As for MCD to get an animal, it's not worthwhile, as then you're getting a tertiary combatant since your AC is always one stage behind! Okay, so maybe for scouting or non-combat travel or some utility I'm overlooking, but not for power. You may as well buy trained animals for most uses, maybe even getting an animal through those general feats instead.
Or Summon. Those guys are easier to replace.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
In PF2, the ACs are meant to be secondary/tertiary combatants (minion killing, bodyguard, etc). PCs are the stars and should never be overshadowed in design. Thinking they are bad because they would die horribly as frontliners is a little odd.
The issue is that they're designed to be frontliners. All three of the roles I laid out in this guide require the companion to be moving into melee combat unless they're serving as a mount for an archer or mage. There are no other roles, they're either going into melee or they're doing nothing. I completely agree that they needed to be nerfed from PF1's standards, but I think this level of squishiness is an overcorrection.
Fresh off the presses, we dive into the world of animal companions, everyone's favorite murder-fluffs.Have you done the numbers on animal companions at high levels. It's not good.Not good at all.
It takes full investment to maintain an animal as a secondary combatant, which makes sense since the Druid remains a full caster. Frankly, I don't know how Ranger ACs are meant to survive without getting Heal/Heal Animal more often than they can supply. Maybe in easier home games?
And that's just melee combat. Add in AoEs & spells and you'll find your PC is the one protecting the AC rather than the other way around.If there ever is a way to make an AC into a primary combatant, expect it to downgrade the PC into a secondary role (which might be unwise and/or lethal.) I expect when we see the Summoner we may get that mechanic.
As for MCD to get an animal, it's not worthwhile, as then you're getting a tertiary combatant since your AC is always one stage behind! Okay, so maybe for scouting or non-combat travel or some utility I'm overlooking, but not for power. You may as well buy trained animals for most uses, maybe even getting an animal through those general feats instead.
Or Summon. Those guys are easier to replace.
In PF2, the ACs are meant to be secondary/tertiary combatants (minion killing, bodyguard, etc). PCs are the stars and should never be overshadowed in design. Thinking they are bad because they would die horribly as frontliners is a little odd. In addition, thinking that a 2 feat investment (the initial MCD gives a nice set of cantrips already) should be on par with even secondary combatants is also a little unbalancing
*edit* The PF1 days of the AC tanking the BBEG while the rest of the party Derps it down or the AC providing half the derp are long gone (thank you).
You misunderstand my opinions about game balance. I actually agree an AC should be secondary (at most) being as it only represents a series of feats. I have no qualms with their position in the game, it's just I have little interest in investing so much for its returns.
But many players are going to assume with full investment they get a full combatant (not necessarily an OP PF1 AC, but a functional melee force.) But ACs aren't full combatants, rather secondary ones that need a lot of maintenance. That's not in their description so expectations mismatch. Who gets a bear thinking they have to guard the bear?
You can see it in much of the advice for Rangers to get an AC to support you or flank for you, as if that AC will thrive up front. (Some are even silly enough to think the GM won't attack them if they don't attack.)
Getting an MCD is fine on its own, yes, but getting an AC that's behind the AC curve which is behind the modest PC curve is tossing away a feat, or several, when you could simply buy an animal.
(Note that I did waste feats just so my gnome librarian could have a cat, but I knew exactly what I was (wasn't!) getting. First action in most combats was to have it flee!)
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
In PF2, the ACs are meant to be secondary/tertiary combatants (minion killing, bodyguard, etc). PCs are the stars and should never be overshadowed in design. Thinking they are bad because they would die horribly as frontliners is a little odd. In addition, thinking that a 2 feat investment (the initial MCD gives a nice set of cantrips already) should be on par with even secondary combatants is also a little unbalancing*edit* The PF1 days of the AC tanking the BBEG while the rest of the party Derps it down or the AC providing half the derp are long gone (thank you).
The Animal Companion is an extension of the PC. It is very expensive in actions to use. That is their major cost, more so than the feats.
Falling 2 points behind the martial PCs for AC and to hit is expected. 5+ points is not. Even more if you don't take the most optimal build path. Each point is 10-20% more damage. Then there are the critical specialisation effects that they will suffer.
You have to look at the role playing value. If the animal companion is not effective in its role as a big scary bear because its actually a bit of a wuss then players won't take it. Most of them are melee combatant and they need to be able to stay in melee.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Comparing an AC to a martial demonstrates how skewed expectations are.
As a feature of a full caster, an AC should be compared to a full caster in melee yet worse. A full caster able to have stats for max blasting + an AC that can add Strikes as if the caster also had stats for striking (all in the same round and with a pool of extra hit points, while the actual PC is in a (hopefully) safer position) would be broken just as it was in 3.X/PF1.
Unfortunately, that puts ACs in a very tough spot as auxiliary melee combatant, which many combats have no use for.
(It's also why I like the relatively weak bird w/ Flyby Attack, due to ease of use.)
Yet, with Bards, allies instilling fear, Clerics doing AoE Heal, and so forth, that AC is another party member that can benefit. I can imagine a party focused on such support benefiting greatly from numerous ACs.
Which is another reason ACs can't start particularly strong.
Is their anyway to get item bonuses to your companions attack?
Item bonuses, other than to AC or Speed, are specifically disallowed by the Animal Companion rules, which is a bummer.
If you start with a finesse creature and take agile and daredevil for master Unarmoured AC and +8 Dex your AC isn't bad.it best in the game but not bad.
At level 16 with Nimble and either Daredevil or Ambusher your companion is looking at 26+6 (proficiency)+2/3 (starting Dex)+5 (Dex boosts)=39/40 AC (depending on if you took a Dex companion type or not). A standard fighter at the same level will have 26+4 (expert armor)+5 (Medium Armor's AC cap, could go up or down 1 but that would be average)+2 (armor potency)=37 AC, 39 with a shield or parry. So your companion can have a good armor class, although it's still sitting there with literal wizard hp in melee and that AC makes no guarantees; an equivalent level creature is swinging at you for +32-33, which hits the highest AC you can have for this creature on a 7 and crits on a 17.
That's why I rate Nimble and the two Dex specializations so highly, because the next step down for AC is Indomitable and a non-Dex specialization which only comes out to 26+4 (proificency)+6 (barding cap)=36, and now you're suddenly getting hit on a 3 and crit on a 13 with your slightly higher wizard hp, and if you went savage you're looking at 2 lower than that and even less hp. All of this is ignoring that your party will fight a fair amount of creatures that are higher level, which will have sharp spikes in attack bonus that turn your companion to tissue paper.
Of course, this all applies to PCs too, since as we've seen the Nimble guy is actually ahead of the fighter (now, at level 15 it was actually still behind), but the difference is that our fighter has about 64 more hp than the companion does (plus or minus depending on if they've been maxing Constitution and if they took Toughness, but the answer to at least one of those questions should be "yes" anyway so I'm inclined to go with plus more than minus).
Companion damage keeps up really well with PCs if they hit (which is another issue that deserves its own post to break the numbers down if someone wants to hear it) and their tactical and support benefits are pretty solid, but my own experience with companions as well as the numbers point to them being very difficult to keep alive.
It seems to me that if you want to compare apples to apples you should compare a character with an animal companion to a character of the same class who doesn't have one.
So are there any considerations one should make as a Ranger with an Animal Companion that don't apply to the Druid with an Animal Companion, or vice versa?
Thus, the key choices are what evolutions do I take bearing in mind that dex is almost idiotic to take after you hit +5 (+6 gives you +1 attack and NO AC advantage since you are of course using +2 light barding). Notice there is no soft cap on strength and especially con, so those stats are slightly more valuable
You are not, in fact, using +2 light barding because +2 light barding doesn't exist.
PossibleCabbage: In addition to what siegfriedliner said, ranger companion has a more limited free action, since it has to move towards your hunted target and can't attack anyone else, making them less good for a mount while ranged, and druids also get the ability to heal their companion. These are considerations I'll be including in champion guide coming out this Sunday and the druid guide coming out Soon(tm).
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Comparing an AC to a martial demonstrates how skewed expectations are.
As a feature of a full caster, an AC should be compared to a full caster in melee yet worse. A full caster able to have stats for max blasting + an AC that can add Strikes as if the caster also had stats for striking (all in the same round and with a pool of extra hit points, while the actual PC is in a (hopefully) safer position) would be broken just as it was in 3.X/PF1.
Unfortunately, that puts ACs in a very tough spot as auxiliary melee combatant, which many combats have no use for.
(It's also why I like the relatively weak bird w/ Flyby Attack, due to ease of use.)Yet, with Bards, allies instilling fear, Clerics doing AoE Heal, and so forth, that AC is another party member that can benefit. I can imagine a party focused on such support benefiting greatly from numerous ACs.
Which is another reason ACs can't start particularly strong.
No I totally disagree with your rationale.
1) The AC does fall a couple of points behind the full casters. But the full casters are not supposed to be in the front line the animal companion - say a bear - is. It needs to be compared to the martials as it will be facing the same opponent in melee. A caster will be casting a more efficient cantrip rather than using his pathetic melee attack anyway.
2) Your contention is that it much be as equivalent as possible to the other classes. I say that is a flawed concept that leads to the bland hell that was 4th ed D&D.
There is a story concept of a ferocious pet. Players want it. The game should support it. Even if they have to sacrifice a few more abilities on the main character to get it.
There is no point in creating a savage bear that is crushed in the first round of every combat.
Stories are more important than balance.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Stories are more important than balance.
If AC Rangers become better than Barbarians, then you just killed the story concept of a ferocious barbarian :)
Balance makes stories.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
The beastmaster archetype is inherently overpowered.
Let me rephrase this for you: The expectations of the player base regarding the power level of the beastmaster archetype is complete nuts.
This is an RPG and you are exactly playing one character and one character only, so if there ever is a requirement to split that characters powers, then split it be.
That having said, in an ideal world a ranger going full bow, a ranger going full dual wield and a ranger going full AC should roughly be on the same page when it comes to ingame effectiveness (which does not mean that they need to be able to pull the same tricks or otherwise play almost identical).
In order to achieve this they should have gone the way they went with other classes. You chose melee ranger? You will only be at basic power level at range and only have a pet. You chose bow ranger? You will only be at basic power level in meleee and only have a pet. You chose beastmaster? You will only be at basic power level in meleee as well as at range because you now have a mighty animal companion at your disposal.
Nonetheless I wholeheartedly agree that an AC that a character has fully invested in needs to be able to carry his weight, else they do not need to offer one at all.
Speaking of Beastmasters, I confess to a strong liking for Andre Norton's original concept: a "commando" type fighter with stealth and, call them hunting skills, who isn't fantastic at either close or ranged combat, but is decent at both. With a team of "animal companions" with particular skills that are useful in different situations.
Hosteen Storm's team consisted of an African Black Eagle named Baku, an Apaloosa horse (acquired after he and his team retired from the military) named Rain-On-Dust, a sand cat named Surra, and a mated pair of meerkats named Ho and Hing. None of these (except the horse) are large animals. Meerkats are tiny, and sand cats and black eagles are small. Storm communicates telepathically/empathically with his team, and uses their native skills — long and short range scouting, sneaking and thieving, transportation — in his adventures. Surra's pretty good in combat, btw, but by no means a "front line fighter". These are genetically engineered animals, with enhanced intelligence and perhaps other abilities.
I guess my points are that animal companions should not necessarily be limited to just one, and it's the synergy of the companions' abilities as a team that matters, not whether a particular animal can go one on one with an equal level bad guy.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The beastmaster archetype is inherently overpowered.
It simply must be. The AC can't be a weak link, or it can't be sent into melee. (It can't fulfil its "story purpose" of being a badass tiger or a huge bear or whatnot) And you yourself can't be gimped too much, since you're supposed to be a full player character. And the total package needs to be *much* better than just buying animals, or using hirelings etc.
This isn't completely true. One thing you can do is benefit from the action economy of PF2 to limit the beastmaster's power.
Right now, it costs an action to use the companion. You can add other actions giving your companion strong moves at the cost of your own actions. Even actions with the attack trait to limit even more your ability to play your Ranger and your Companion at the same time.So, you'll end up with an acceptable Ranger and a strong Companion, but you will be able to play only one of them at the same time.
Well, what my experience tells me is that a "balanced" Beastmaster is an holy grail - an unattainable ideal.
I haven't played it enough to be sure, but 4Es ACs were at a good spot in my opinion. Balanced and powerful enough for the player to feel he has a strong companion.
But every time you wanted to use your companion, it was through a specific power. So there was no issue with having 2 characters as you were not able to play more than one at the same time.
|
The beastmaster archetype is inherently overpowered.
It simply must be. The AC can't be a weak link, or it can't be sent into melee. (It can't fulfil its "story purpose" of being a badass tiger or a huge bear or whatnot) And you yourself can't be gimped too much, since you're supposed to be a full player character. And the total package needs to be *much* better than just buying animals, or using hirelings etc.
I like this as an analysis why designing AC rules is sooo hard.
I'm not quite as defeatist, I think something could be done by also designing other classes to be somehow "split" or "double" too. For example, give every wizard a substantial familiar. Give every champion a squire. Give the alchemist a battle homonculus. Give the death priest a zombie, the artificer priest a golem and so forth. It gets harder with the "mundane" classes, you have to wholly reimagine what your standard classes are.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Well, you know, making your AC durable but not overpowered are not mutually exclusive options if for example you provide just enough armour class, hit points, saves and possibly even player death mechanics. Note that by doing so, the AC will probably take a hit in the damage and action economy department.
However I agree that at the moment ACs usefulness is extremely limited due to their fragility. Our party ranger selected a large dog/wolf as his companion and after a couple of trys now keeps his AC out of most melee combats for roleplaying reasons because experience told us that even one single mook can pretty much drop an AC with a lucky dual or triple attack.
Apart from that I am 100% against empowered classes, because if we do those, why aren't wizards empowered, they are always the strongest in most novels and all of fantasy literature?
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
This is the reason why you end up with a melee animal that can't be used in melee.
Just an example, let's say they release a new Hunter's Edge saying that:
You animal companion has a +2 circumstance bonus to AC and Saves against attacks, spells and effects originating from your Prey. It also gains a +2 circumstance bonus to attack and damage against your Prey.
It would clearly make the companion far better on the survival part, better also on the offensive part, without touching the Ranger class features. And it doesn't look overpowered to me (I think we could even go as far as +3, maybe for the Masterful Hunter ability).
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
As a player, I'd much rather have balanced characters than provide "some players" with 50% more power because they want it. The idea that demands for more strength is some areas without any balancing weaknesses must be honored, or rules pages are being wasted is silly. The game is full of hard choices. Being good at something means you are less capable at something else.
It might be worth examining which make the best mounts as well, because bird, as it turns out, is actually horrible. You can only use land speed if mounted on anything without "mount" and can't both move and use support. Bird, with this limitation, is pretty bad overall.
Flyby Attack works well for its defense.
Not so good for Rangers who are Striking due to MAP, but fine for Druids casting as a side perk. Being able to apply Bleed at range is pretty nice (though I'd likely only use it on casters w/o melee or monsters that wouldn't/shouldn't bother with a bird.)ETA: Flying companion mounts seem off limits until 20th by design.|
You can get flying companions or a flying mount or companion mounts, though the perma-fly/extra-mobility seems limited to Champions for now.
And if you're light enough or the bird's strong enough, you could have the bird carry you, albeit likely at a slower rate due to encumbrance. Haven't seen numbers on this yet.