|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
You've definitely convinced me to do at least one proficiency bump. I'm not totally sure beyond that. There's an awful lot of combinations of species stats, specializations, and Barding levels to account for.
I mean, not really. All Animal Companions have three possible amounts of Dex at 1st level: +1, +2, or +3. All will automatically get +3 to that over their career as they level, at a minimum, and the absolute highest any species can get is +9 taking both Specializations that add to Dex (technically, there are also the genie Specializations, but those are tied to only getting +1 Dex at the Nimble/Savage stage, and are optional, so they don't change the maximums or minimums).
So that's a range of +4 to +9 at high levels.
All will also, inevitably, get +3 to Str (and max at +8 Str), by the way, +4 (max +9) if you follow the House Rule of giving +1 Str when they become Specialized to make it match Dex.
The particular pet I'm looking at is also taking the boost to intelligence over raw physical power, which definitely skews the perspective compared to any other animal companion.
It does to some degree, but I don't think it should do so to the tune of both -1 to hit and damage (that it's gonna get either way) and -2 or -3 AC (which is what it does if you give some other Specializations Master Barding, but not that one).
Side note: cavaliers eeem like they should be the new meta for mounts, because good lordy. Those protection feats themselves do a lot to protect what could otherwise be a squishy ride. The only problem is Cavalier's Charge doesn't work with the horse support benefit, but that is more a problem with the support benefit to be honest. It doesn't work with anything.
I will say they did a lot to patch holes in mounted combat in the playtest, at least.
I must admit haven't done a deep dive looking into Cavalier yet. I'll have to do that some time.
Looking at it, I am think my preferred fix is now..
1. Savage grants expert barding proficiency
2. Upon becoming specialized, all companions gain +1 str (in addition to previous bonuses).
3. All specializations that do not bump unarmored, bump barding proficiency instead (Up to expert. Or if savage, up to master).That should net the Savage companion 4 more AC (when in heavy barding) and 1 more attack by the end.
So, it would be around 2 AC behind at the Savage/Nimble break and around 3 AC behind by the end. But it would not be behind at all in attack.
This is basically my solution as well, only I'm also upping the Max Dex Mod of Heavy Barding by 2 as well, getting the ACs almost equal (in practice, the Str Companion is still almost always one point behind if wearing Heavy Barding...but only one).
There are a couple of Animal Companions who walk upright, and would get 10ft reach at Large per CRB Table 9-1. Ape and Arboreal Sapling come to mind specifically.
That said, I can't think of a combination that leverages that reach bonus to be as good as +7 AC.
I mentioned that for the ape later in the same post. :)
I honestly don't think the very small number of companions who can maybe get Reach (it remains entirely a GM call, after all) should be accounted for in comparing the power level of Savage and Nimble. They're too small a minority of animal companions for that.
Myself I'd say Ape, Arboreal Sapling, Bird, Bear and Dromaeosaur could be counted as tall. For birds I'm thinking of secretarybird and seriemas, long legged birds of prey.
Bear and Dromaeosaur are arguable, I guess, though bears rarely actually fight upright, but Bird is pretty specific that it's something like a hawk, owl, or eagle, and I don't think people should receive a mechanical benefit for saying 'oh it's a secretary bird' rather than one of those. That leads to weird metagaming and I'm against it.
Bird and Dromaeosaur are also verging on impossible to make Large permanently at the moment. You specifically need to be a Cavalier to do it, then get GM permission for your Pledge to include them, then get GM permission to count them as Tall while still being a valid mount. I think that's gonna fall apart at some stage there.
I mean, I know I as a GM would be amenable to bird or dinosaur riding...but I would not be amenable to riding Tall creatures in general, and don't think most other GMs are in for ape riding being standard practice either.
So those two are very niche situations.
Bear and Dromaeosaur are arguable, I guess, though bears rarely actually fight upright, but Bird is pretty specific that it's something like a hawk, owl, or eagle, and I don't think people should receive a mechanical benefit for saying 'oh it's a secretary bird' rather than one of those. That leads to weird metagaming and I'm against it.
Bear: Google Pedals once. A bear hurt it's front paws, so it started walking around on 2 legs. Even without it check out the article here that has an attached video.Bear Fight It shows what I've myself seen: it's a fairly common tactic for them to stand up to leverage a claw/bite/grabbing attack.
Dromaeosaur: Given their bipedal and forward leaning stance, they seem to me to have a better reach for their bites than an ape that stands straighter kitting with a fist. Now talons most likely wouldn't get reach.
Bird: It says "Your companion is a bird of prey, such as an eagle, hawk, or owl." secretarybird and seriemas ARE considered birds of prey, hence why I listed them. It's a bigger catigory that a lot of people think. The diurnal birds of prey are formally classified into six families of two orders.
Accipitridae: hawks, eagles, buzzards, harriers, kites, and Old World vultures
Pandionidae: the osprey
Sagittariidae: the secretarybird
Falconidae: falcons, caracaras, and forest falcons
Cathartidae: New World vultures, including condors
Cariamidae: seriemas
Bird and Dromaeosaur are also verging on impossible to make Large permanently at the moment.
I was more commenting on what could be counted as [tall] and could be targeted by Enlarge as it's only 2nd level and lasts 5 min so at levels where you could get a large animal companion, you could manage to use it every fight [and I'm not overly familiar with higher level companion options]. There is also then Enlarge Companion focus spell for rangers and Beastmaster for huge.
This is basically my solution as well, only I'm also upping the Max Dex Mod of Heavy Barding by 2 as well, getting the ACs almost equal (in practice, the Str Companion is still almost always one point behind if wearing Heavy Barding...but only one).
I think that brings the AC too close, imo. Seems to me the difference in AC should be niether overly punishing nor negligible. Like the difference between a Raging Giant Barbarian and Crane Monk or something.
Wouldn't mature animal companion and savage animal companion make any animal companion large? Thus if your GM gave you that an Ape or other creature is bipedal it should get reach.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Seeing the 5 to 7 point AC advantage Nimble companions had over other options certainly gave me pause. But if those numbers assume taking three specializations, then I’m a little less concerned. The opportunity cost of taking a 2nd and 3rd specialization is quite high, and comes with significantly diminished returns. That being said, I do hope we see some errata / new specializations in future products. My Druid is a PFS character, so I’ve got time for things to get improved. (Effective max level is 8 right now, and 10 in June, so at the Nimble/Indomitable stage things aren’t too bad just yet).
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I think that brings the AC too close, imo. Seems to me the difference in AC should be niether overly punishing nor negligible. Like the difference between a Raging Giant Barbarian and Crane Monk or something.
The thing is that a Raging Dragon Barbarian does 4d12+27 damage for a total of 53 points, while the Crane Monk does 4d6+10 for a total of 34. So a bit north of 64% of the same damage. With elemental Runes it can approach 70%. But then there's HP and Resistance, which the Barbarian is much higher on both of, as a compensating defense.
The difference between a Str Companion's 3d8+15 (for 28.5) and the Dex Companion's 3d8+8 (for 21.5) results in the Dex Companion doing more like 75% of the same damage. The two have identical HP, and identical lack of Resistance.
That's a much better deal for the Dex Companion than it is for the Crane Monk. Too good, IMO.
Seeing the 5 to 7 point AC advantage Nimble companions had over other options certainly gave me pause. But if those numbers assume taking three specializations, then I’m a little less concerned. The opportunity cost of taking a 2nd and 3rd specialization is quite high, and comes with significantly diminished returns. That being said, I do hope we see some errata / new specializations in future products. My Druid is a PFS character, so I’ve got time for things to get improved. (Effective max level is 8 right now, and 10 in June, so at the Nimble/Indomitable stage things aren’t too bad just yet).
The numbers, sadly, do not rely on additional Specializations to be true. Additional Specializations add only a single point of AC to the Dex Companion. The Str Companion is still at -6 AC even without them (-4 with Indomitable).
The numbers, sadly, do not rely on additional Specializations to be true. Additional Specializations add only a single point of AC to the Dex Companion. The Str Companion is still at -6 AC even without them (-4 with Indomitable).
Oof. Yeah, that’s still too much. A specialization that gives Master in Barding would help, and probably be enough for me. Unfortunately, I feel like that would become a Must-take specialization. Then again, ambusher/daredevil sort of already are for Nimble companions.
The fact that the rare specializations in Legends only give Expert Barding isn’t a great sign. That really needs to come online at nimble/savage.
I think that brings the AC too close, imo. Seems to me the difference in AC should be niether overly punishing nor negligible. Like the difference between a Raging Giant Barbarian and Crane Monk or something.The thing is that a Raging Dragon Barbarian does 4d12+27 damage for a total of 53 points, while the Crane Monk does 4d6+10 for a total of 34. So a bit north of 64% of the same damage. With elemental Runes it can approach 70%. But then there's HP and Resistance, which the Barbarian is much higher on both of, as a compensating defense.
The difference between a Str Companion's 3d8+15 (for 28.5) and the Dex Companion's 3d8+8 (for 21.5) results in the Dex Companion doing more like 75% of the same damage. The two have identical HP, and identical lack of Resistance.
That's a much better deal for the Dex Companion than it is for the Crane Monk. Too good, IMO.
I think I will be keeping the difference in AC in the 2/3 range in my games. It is a clear improvement and it makes the STR pet playable compared to the current implementation.
The way I see it, player's don't think mathematically about these things when its close. They favor offense in my estimation. Also, if you make them too samey, then that isn't good either.
Not that this is hard rules text about how animal companions should work, but:
All large bears in the bestiary have 5-ft reach. They're considered long creatures.
Apes and Arboreal creatures have 10-ft reach when they're large.
As far as basically-bipedal dinos go:
Hadrosaurid's attacks (tail and foot) use the (longer) reaches of a tall creature.
Iguanodon's tail uses the longer reach of a tall creature, while its thumb spike uses the shorter reach of a long creature. Tails in general tend to have longer reach, even when the creature is unquestionably long, like a Stegosaurus, so it feels like Iguanodon is just reckoned as "long."
Pachycephalosaurus's skull attack uses the longer reach of a tall creature.
Spinosaurus's bite has the longer reach of a tall creature, and its claws use the shorter reach of a long creature.
Tyrannosaurus's bite has the longer reach of a tall creature, and its claws use the shorter reach of a long creature.
Other basically-bipedal dinosaurs are small enough that their reach would be the same regardless of whether they are considered long or tall.
All flying bird-like creatures use the shorter "long creature" reaches for things like jaws and talon attacks (or even shorter ranges!), but, probably unsurprisingly, the game does not currently have stats for secretary birds. (Wing attacks often have extreme ranges, but the Bird companion doesn't have a Wing attack.)
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Oof. Yeah, that’s still too much. A specialization that gives Master in Barding would help, and probably be enough for me. Unfortunately, I feel like that would become a Must-take specialization. Then again, ambusher/daredevil sort of already are for Nimble companions.
The fact that the rare specializations in Legends only give Expert Barding isn’t a great sign. That really needs to come online at nimble/savage.
In fairness, those are paired with an alternative to Savage (or Nimble, or Indomitable) that does not provide any increase at all, and are obligatorily paired with it.
A generic option that raised Barding Proficiency would almost certainly use the same language about raising an existing Expert Proficiency that Ambusher and Daredevil do. That'd work with Indomitable and/or an errata'd Savage just fine.
And Ambusher and Daredevil are indeed obligatory, but that blow is decidedly softened by the fact that they're the only two Dex Specializations available, meaning anyone Dex based needs to take them anyway.
I think I will be keeping the difference in AC in the 2/3 range in my games. It is a clear improvement and it makes the STR pet playable compared to the current implementation.
That's certainly true. It's definitely a vast improvement over the official ones, and probably closer to what we'll eventually get officially with new options and errata.
The way I see it, player's don't think mathematically about these things when its close. They favor offense in my estimation. Also, if you make them too samey, then that isn't good either.
I don't know if similar AC is 'too samey'. Almost all PCs have pretty similar AC and I don't think people find that 'too samey'. I do agree that people will actually take Savage under your House Rules, I just always favor making House Rules as balanced as I can manage, rather than simply balanced enough.
I don't know if similar AC is 'too samey'. Almost all PCs have pretty similar AC and I don't think people find that 'too samey'.
Sure, but other classes and builds are differentiated by things like Flurry of Blows or feat trees like the Snagging Strike line. While the pets have some varying abilities, its not really on the same level as a PC.
Also, I disagree with your conception of balance. Mathematical balance is one way of looking at things but that's not really the way I think of things. Options in my games need to be attractive and viable not mathematically balanced down to the exact percentage. Sorry, thats a bridge too far for me.
No need for the air quotes, by the way.
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Sure, but other classes and builds are differentiated by things like Flurry of Blows or feat trees like the Snagging Strike line. While the pets have some varying abilities, its not really on the same level as a PC.
True, but likewise few groups have more than one Animal Companion in them, so I'm not sure they need as much mechanical differentiation.
Also, I disagree with your conception of balance. Mathematical balance is one way of looking at things but that's not really the way I think of things. Options in my games need to be attractive and viable not mathematically balanced down to the exact percentage. Sorry, thats a bridge too far for me.
Mathematical balance isn't all important, but it is important. I don't House Rule every little thing for precise mechanical balance or anything, my personal philosophy on House Rules is just to aim for that while I'm at it.
I wasn't actually trying to be dismissive of you doing otherwise or anything, though I can see how it might've come off that way, just attempting to explain my own logic and why I do that sort of thing the way I do.
No need for the air quotes, by the way.
Sorry, that wasn't intended to be dismissive or anything, it's just not a phrase I'd normally use in my own writing and I generally put quotes on those when I do use them in response to someone else doing so.
Sorry, that wasn't intended to be dismissive or anything, it's just not a phrase I'd normally use in my own writing and I generally put quotes on those when I do use them in response to someone else doing so.
That's fine. We're good.
I think the other bit to keep in mind is "how attractive is this?"
At times, you have to weigh whether a thing is too attractive or not attractive enough. And you may have to sweeten the pot a bit or pull somethings back irrespective if things are strictly mechanically balanced.
1 AC for such a large chunk of damage seems a little too attractive. This is doubly true for what is effectively a roaming damage satellite. The player values AC a heck of whole lot more on a PC but not quite as much on a quazi expendable pet. An argument could be made one way or the other if its mechanically balanced (I'm not convinced it would be but I can see how it might be) but thats not strictly the angle I am looking at.
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
That's fair. I don't think I've ever seen someone pick an animal companion type based on anything other than 'I think this creature type is cool', so I'm less concerned than I might be if I thought they were more inclined to grab the one that did the most damage or some similar mechanical concern.
Really, that's why my House Rules and play style in general tend to focus so hard on making things mathematically balanced: I want people who make choices purely for thematic reasons with no real concern for the rules to be at more or less the same power level as the optimizers. I think a game is best when it allows those two groups of people to play together at the same power level with no real issues.
And in terms of balance, the Str Companion with my rules still needs to wear Heavy Barding, which is -5 Speed even with high Str, and winds up about 4 points behind in Reflex Saves, as well as one behind in AC. So it's not just a straight AC/Damage trade. It's a trade of lowered mobility, worse Saves, and worse AC for more damage.
7 ac difference?
*Goes wolf and doesn't look back*
7 ac difference?
*Goes wolf and doesn't look back*
That's got a lot less to do with wolves than it does the nimble/savage plus specializations divide. Wolves might wind up being a point or two ahead if all other choices are the same, but they also get a pretty bad Support Benefit. The thing's AC doesn't matter if it can't do more than nip at the heals of an enemy to draw aggro.
That's got a lot less to do with wolves than it does the nimble/savage plus specializations divide. Wolves might wind up being a point or two ahead if all other choices are the same, but they also get a pretty bad Support Benefit. The thing's AC doesn't matter if it can't do more than nip at the heals of an enemy to draw aggro.7 ac difference?
*Goes wolf and doesn't look back*
It's support seems good to me. And I'd rather it have the attention than myself. Survive> a skill you can't use because it's dead.