Animal companion vs construct

[Verzen]

Anyone do the math on this? Which one is stronger in the end?

Taking into account ability to heal and the support abilities of companions vs immunities and lack of healing options for constructs.

[Kyrone]

Let's see...

Initial Stats

The animal companions STR/DEX/CON/WIS have a total of +8 in the stats and the max starting Hit points possible is 16.

Construct have a total of +9 in the stats and their starting Hit points is 18.

Proficiencies

Animal Companion have one more trained skill that depends of the specie.

Special Abilities

Animal Companions begin with a support ability, usually scent and low-light vision and are faster or have a secondary speed type.

Constructs have a TON of immunities, the most notables ones being bleed, poison, sickened and necromancy.

Mature / Advanced Construct

They are exactly the same wih the exception that constructs can choose their size.

Incredible Companion

Animal Companions increase their attacking stat by 2 (STR or DEX), and the rest by 1.

Construct increaes WIS and CON by 2, while STR and DEX by 1.

This put Animal ahead on attack, while Construct will be ahead on CON and WIW.

Armor class wise Dex one will be ahead by 1, but STR one will have less AC than Construct due to Savage not having proficiency increase on armor.

Compared to a player character the construct will have the same AC than a Ranger.

Ex: STR/DEX/CON/WIS
Wolf +4/+6/+4/+3
Bear +6/+4/+4/+3
Construct +5/+5/+5/+4

Specialized / Paragon Companion

Animal Companion will gain +1 DEX then +1 stat in STR or DEX or CON or WIS depending of specialization for a total of +2 then a bunch of skills.

Construct will gain +1 on STR/DEX/CON/WIS for a total of +4.

Ex: STR/DEX/CON/WIS
Wolf +4/+8/+4/+3
Bear +7/+5/+4/+3
Construct +6/+6/+6/+5

Closing Thoughts

They are very close to each other, but after lvl 8 the construct focus more on defense compared to the animal at the cost of offense power.

Some people may not like that however, a decent alternative would be giving something like Nimble/Savage, maybe offensive/defensive frame, to trade the +2 to the defensive stats at incredible companion to +2 to offensive that way could end like.

Wolf +4/+8/+4/+3
Bear +7/+5/+4/+3
Construct +7/+7/+5/+4

I don't know how that would end balancee wise though.

[Verzen]

How about the fact constructs can't be healed very easily?

[Kyrone]

Tactically speaking and the average player?

Will not matter most of the time, the bulk of the healing in the game is done by spells, and the average player will rather keep that resource (slots and actions) to use it on player characters than on companions, so the healing will be done outside of battle with medicine and in the case of the construct with crafting repair.

The healing in battle if done is usually if the creature is about to die by reaching dying 4 or by the owner of the companion with a class feat/feature like the heal animal focus spell.

[graystone]

One thing to remember is that while in most cases animal companions have better offense power, constructs win out in ranged combat since they HAVE a ranged option: this means in situations like flying foes, the animal companion has to either fly too and enter melee or sit around and look pretty. It'd be nice if you could focus more on the ranged aspect and get some cool/interesting things and/or boost it's damage more. If nothing else, it's be nice if it counted as simple for Advanced Weaponry [Complex Simplicity].

[MrTsFloatinghead]

Something else that's worth noting is that in this form, as written, it seems like construct companions don't have the limitation about only using land speed when being ridden that animal companions do. I may be wrong about this (and of course it could change in the final version), but here's what I've got:

There doesn't actually seem to be a generic rule that says that animals in general can't use fly/climb/swim speeds when used as mounts. The rule is under animal companions, and notes that an animal companion being used as a mount is limited to only land speed and cannot use its support ability and move in the same turn, unless the companion has the "mount" trait. As far as I can tell, this seems to mean that if a character can get a large enough flying (or climbing or swimming or whatever) creature to be willing to act as a mount, that works. It just can't be an animal companion. Please correct me if I'm missing something, but I've looked in a few places and I can't find a more generic version of the limitation that animal companions suffer.

If I'm right about that, then the fact that construct companions don't have the language about being limited only to land speed when ridden means that they might have a niche as being very effective mounts with non-standard movement types.

Of course, this may all be an oversight on my part, or maybe it's an inadvertent bug in the rules that will get patched out in the final version. That said, I do think there's a good argument to be had that the problem Paizo was probably solving with the animal companion movement restriction (early "at will" access to climb/fly speeds for characters with certain types of animal companions) is already solved by the fact that the modifications to get climb/fly speeds are level-gated already.

[Exocist]

The construct companion lacks specialisation and specialisation bonuses, so it will be behind on to-hit relative to any AC.

When compared to a dex based AC, I think it will lose out in the end. Having a tanky companion is pretty much pointless. You’re happy if the enemy is even attacking your companion in the first place, seeing as they do such little damage and generally aren’t very threatening. AC support benefits can help you annoy opponents in that regard, whereas the construct can’t do anything but strike.

The construct does have a ranged attack, but on both ACs and the construct, damage is a joke anyway so it really doesn’t matter even if they do hit.

A dex based AC will top out at 3d6+6 damage (2 str base, +1 mature and nimble, +2 damage from nimble) and a to-hit of 33 (20+4 Expert+9 dex) with an AC of 45 (10+20+9 dex +6 master).

A construct will top out at 3d8+10 damage (6 str, 4 Paragon) and a to-hit of +30 (20+4 Expert+6 str) with an AC of 42 (10+20+6 master+6 dex).

[graystone]

Exocist wrote:

A construct will top out at 3d8+10 damage (6 str, 4 Paragon) and a to-hit of +30 (20+4 Expert+6 str) with an AC of 42 (10+20+6 master+6 dex).

You're forgetting that they can have runes so they could add an additional +1d6. Or you can add Speed, which combined with free action they get from advanced construct companion, means that can make 2 Strikes per turn without command.

[Exocist]

graystone wrote:

Exocist wrote:

A construct will top out at 3d8+10 damage (6 str, 4 Paragon) and a to-hit of +30 (20+4 Expert+6 str) with an AC of 42 (10+20+6 master+6 dex).

You're forgetting that they can have runes so they could add an additional +1d6. Or you can add Speed, which combined with free action they get from advanced construct companion, means that can make 2 Strikes per turn without command.

The interaction between Quickened/Slowed and minions is still unclear but I’ll concede both those points. It can, with a rare property rune, stride+strike in a turn without command, or strike+strike (but the second strike is so unlikely to hit that I think most people will opt for something+strike)

Is the extra 7-10.5 (3d8+10 or 3d8+1d6+10 vs 3d6+6) damage worth the loss of 3 AC and 3 to-hit? I don’t think so.

Is an extra 7 damage and the ability to take something+strike uncommanded worth 3 AC and 3 to-hit? I also don’t think so, but then again I don’t even like pets as a playstyle so I’m probably pretty biased.

[Schreckstoff]

Another thing to consider is that replacing a construct only takes 1 day while replacing an animal companion takes a week.

But Animal Conpanions don't die as easily as constructs get destroyed.

[Evilgm]

Schreckstoff wrote:

But Animal Conpanions don't die as easily as constructs get destroyed.

Technically they die easier, since the rules make no mention of Animal Companions using the Dying/Wounded mechanics. Though I imagine most games do use them, because it feels mean otherwise.

[SuperBidi]

Evilgm wrote:

Schreckstoff wrote:

But Animal Conpanions don't die as easily as constructs get destroyed.

Technically they die easier, since the rules make no mention of Animal Companions using the Dying/Wounded mechanics. Though I imagine most games do use them, because it feels mean otherwise.

They do: "Player characters, their companions, and other significant characters and creatures don’t automatically die when they reach 0 Hit Points."

[roquepo]

I think what we should be considering is why a defining class feature requires you to sacrifice 1/4 of your class feats just to keep up with a chain of feats that any class can pick. Also tying Offensive Boost power to the construct low hit rate just feels wrong.

[Verzen]

I think, and hopefully mark listens to this, but if construct IS my innovation, my construct should get expert, then mastery in attack instead of the inventor.

[Alchemic_Genius]

Verzen wrote:

I think, and hopefully mark listens to this, but if construct IS my innovation, my construct should get expert, then mastery in attack instead of the inventor.

What an interesting proposal, but I dig it. I'd also like to see it alongside specialization.

I can imagine myself having a lot of fun commanding my mech to hurt people while sharing overdrive or what have you

[Dubious Scholar]

Verzen wrote:

I think, and hopefully mark listens to this, but if construct IS my innovation, my construct should get expert, then mastery in attack instead of the inventor.

I'd say in addition to, but.

[Alchemic_Genius]

Could probably also just solve it through construct specialization feats, like animal companions. Also has the nice boon of allowing more customization.

[WWHsmackdown]

roquepo wrote:

I think what we should be considering is why a defining class feature requires you to sacrifice 1/4 of your class feats just to keep up with a chain of feats that any class can pick. Also tying Offensive Boost power to the construct low hit rate just feels wrong.

Amen

[Alchemic_Genius]

Offensive boost should be on both the construct and the inventor, because the range can get precision damage on both their companion and themselves

[MaxAstro]

Ironically, I feel like the Construct Inventor should maybe be more mechanically similar to the Summoner, instead of the Ranger.

It definitely does feel bad to have to spend feats to keep up if that is your main thing, but it's also nice that the feats are there so that an Inventor who does weapons or armor can still have a construct...