|
Our group tries to stick to the rules as written as much as possible.
In looking at the Druid animal companions, there are changes between monster stat block and the animal companion that end up being very significant.
One example, Warcat animal companion.
Size Medium; Speed 40 ft.; AC +4 natural armor; Attack bite (1d6), 2 claws (1d4); Ability Scores Str 15, Dex 15, Con 14, Int 2, Wis 11, Cha 5; Special Attacks rake (1d4); SQ low-light vision, scent.
Size Large; AC +2 natural armor; Attack bite (1d8), 2 claws (1d6); Ability Scores Str +8, Dex –2, Con +4; Special Attacks grab, pounce, rake (1d6).
vs the monster entry
Melee bite +22 (2d6+12 plus grab), 2 claw +22 (1d8+12/19–20 plus rend)
Space 15 ft.; Reach 15 ft.
Special Attacks pounce, rend (2 claws, 1d8+18), trample (2d8, DC 30)
The change of Rend to Rake allows the 5 attacks when pouncing. (bite, 2 claws, 2 Rakes)
The change of Grab from the bite entry to the special attacks entry allows the initiation of Grab on all attacks instead of just bite.
Looking at other animal companion entries these changes look to be deliberate.
Relevant rules:
Pounce: When a creature with this special attack makes a charge, it can make a full attack (including rake attacks if the creature also has the rake ability).
Grab: If the grab was not intended to apply to all attacks, then why not create the stat block like other animal companions
Grizzly Bear: Attack bite (1d8), 2 claws (1d6 plus grab) )
Giganotosaurus: ( Special Qualities grab (bite). )
Chimpanzee: Attack bite (1d6), slam (1d4 plus grab);
edit:
Yes, variations of questions on grab have been discussed many many time.
https://www.google.com/search?q=site%3Apaizo.com+grab+rules
For the animal companion they switched exactly to the special attacks of a large cat (see CRB, druid subchapter). It makes some sense to exchange trample for something else, because the animal companion is one size category smaller. The change from rend to rake is more puzzling, maybe they wanted to encourage a charge based playstyle instead of normal full attacks.
Consider also this:
The Core Rulebook spells are the most playtested, optimal versions of spells in the game—new spells shouldn’t be significantly better than them
IMO it's not much of a stretch to imply that Paizo sees the CRB as gold standard for any player option, not just spells. So, according to this logic, a new animal companion can become more balanced by using established CRB rules, like from the large cat. A designer still have to pay attention to interaction with other rules: For example you don't want to give grab + pounce + rake to a new animal companion which also has poison, even more attacks or a great defense. But in general such design creates options more in line with the CRB, so balanced in a way.
The CRB IMO has its own problems, many coming from its D&D legacy, but that's another topic...
|
yes its intentional. for various balance related reasons. i speculate on the warcat its mainly to make traditional big cat still a viable choice, since it was arguably the strongest pet in the core book and things shouldn't 100% outshine that already top choice. it had to lose something to compensate for being better.
a lot of the weaker ones are vastly stronger than the Bestiary versions after a certain level, while some of the already strong options are reduced to a "more managable" size i.e. large instead of huge. Also a lot of the bet classes get things like Animal growth to make them bigger anyway. or theres always the mammoth rider option, or maybe saurian rider cavalier depending on desired pet.
Yes, many (perhaps most) animal companions have changes to more or less standardise them as companions in PF1. There's far too many examples for it to be a series of coincidental mistakes.