Non-Animal companions


Pathfinder Second Edition General Discussion

1 to 50 of 61 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>
Sczarni

Pathfinder Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber

Is there a chance, at all, that we might get non-animal companions? I know we have undead companions from the most recent book, but that's what got me thinking. How cool would it be to have an archetype that provides humanoid companions that's similar to Undead Master or Beast Master? Any chance we might see this?


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber

If we ever see a Warlord/Tactician/Commander (or whatever one would like to call it), I think it would be kind of cool to have some means of gaining a humanoid cohort that you can command about in a sort of pseudo-eidolon manner; the PCs abilities buffing the cohort or allowing them to do neat things. This defiently shouldn't be the core of the class. But maybe a class path, feat string, or even archetype would be neat. As an archetype, any class could access it. Could flavor it as having a squire, student, or even a super fan, willing to follow you to the ends of the earth.


9 people marked this as a favorite.

I have a bad feeling about humanoid companions. The whole concept of minions is valid because minions are either magically bound to the master or quite stupid. With a humanoid, the concept of "Command a companion" triggers a few red flags. On top of that, it's quite illogical, a humanoid can act without guidance.


5 people marked this as a favorite.

Yeah, if you could have human companions the first thing I would do is roll a Skeleton with a human companion who would be compelled to act on my command and I would tell them to suck my bone.

And now you're feeling very uncomfortable and you know why it would be a horribly bad idea, you're welcome.


I see non harm in reshaping a companion, making them human shape, taking a specific companion as base archetype.

After all, you just have to reskin them and following the normal rules.

- Just strike/stride with your free action.
- no social interactions ( though the human might demoralize, for example, if the chosen companion has that skill)
- special manuever ( this might be tricky at a first glance, but you could justify it in several ways depends the companion you took).
- shaped unarmed attacks ( same damage die, but flavored as swords, axes, etc... ).

Ps: obviously, stuff like riding might be a little more problematic, though I see no real harm in a human carrying a goblin on their shoulder, or a half giant carrying a human.

I neither expect nor I want specific human companions though, because it would obviously lead to not required power creep

Liberty's Edge

3 people marked this as a favorite.

I am sure many will enjoy having their human, elf, halfling ... companion that they can command as they wish. So wholesome and needed in PF2.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Yeah this can go south pretty quick. The idea of a squire or an assistant or a follower has to be flavoured carefully.

It should be in the game though. Gated behind a GM approval barrier.


I kind of feel this is something that should be handled with a gm controlled NPC most of the time.

Pathfinder cohort rules were a bit of a mess and I can't see 2e going down that route.

Silver Crusade

Its REALLY hard to get the cost of an intelligent sidekick right. And in this game where action economy is SO important it would just be harder.

About the only approach that I think would work would be a variation on the summoner chassis.


A PF2 version of the ancestor eidolon would be interesting to see.


I don't see any issue at a basic level given that we already have master form familiars, dominate, blah, blah, blah.

We also already have arbitrary limits on what supposedly intelligent minions can do in the form of recent familiar nerfs so there's no game issue with an otherwise intelligent creature being randomly incapable of basic tasks.

Or scale them like animal companions. Put the leadership dedication at 2 with some minor effect and start the actual cohort at 4 to match beastmaster mature companion having an independent action. I can see lower stats compared to animal companions but with ranged offense, skill and a magic niche instead of the usual. Maybe even a little sidebar saying don't change treasure values and just assume there's a little extra going to the cohort's pay.

Liberty's Edge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Verzen wrote:
Is there a chance, at all, that we might get non-animal companions? I know we have undead companions from the most recent book, but that's what got me thinking. How cool would it be to have an archetype that provides humanoid companions that's similar to Undead Master or Beast Master? Any chance we might see this?

Heresy, we leave Leadership and anything that resembles it to rest in the well-earned grave in which it lies.


Only thing I want is a Twin Eidolon or archetype for Summoner so you and your supernatural doppelganger can fight (mostly) side by side with might and magic while occasionally being able to pass each self off as the other for shenanigans.


Personally I would love to have an intelligent weapon companion floating at my side.

Sczarni

4 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber
SuperBidi wrote:
I have a bad feeling about humanoid companions. The whole concept of minions is valid because minions are either magically bound to the master or quite stupid. With a humanoid, the concept of "Command a companion" triggers a few red flags. On top of that, it's quite illogical, a humanoid can act without guidance.

"On top of that, it's quite illogical, a humanoid can act without guidance."

But.. animals.. can't? My sister will be so relieved to know her dog that attacked another dog didn't do so because it can't act without guidance.

Sczarni

4 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber
Totally Not Gorbacz wrote:

Yeah, if you could have human companions the first thing I would do is roll a Skeleton with a human companion who would be compelled to act on my command and I would tell them to suck my bone.

And now you're feeling very uncomfortable and you know why it would be a horribly bad idea, you're welcome.

Why do you guys have like.. the absolute worst interpretation?

The Raven Black wrote:
I am sure many will enjoy having their human, elf, halfling ... companion that they can command as they wish. So wholesome and needed in PF2.

*eyeroll*

Having a henchman is essentially what this would be and I would sacrifice one action to give my henchman 2. Yet you want to interpret it as if someone was forcefully commanding a.. imaginary, fictional character.. to attack the same enemy?

You guys are being ridiculous. Utterly ridiculous.

If I am a captain of a ship and I tell my crew to skewer the scallywags, you have a problem with this? But if I do it myself, you don't have a problem with this? You guys are just trying to find problems where there are none.

Sczarni

Pathfinder Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber

Posted twice

Sczarni

Pathfinder Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber
Kage_no_Oukami wrote:
Personally I would love to have an intelligent weapon companion floating at my side.

Same


From just the title I was thinking of the Construct Companion from Inventor.

This thread went in a totally different direction than I had initially imagined.

Sczarni

Pathfinder Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber
breithauptclan wrote:

From just the title I was thinking of the Construct Companion from Inventor.

This thread went in a totally different direction than I had initially imagined.

I'd honestly like a construct version as well.

having a construct, a henchman, or other things they can think of would be awesome. But using the animal companion rules.

Liberty's Edge

4 people marked this as a favorite.
Verzen wrote:
Totally Not Gorbacz wrote:

Yeah, if you could have human companions the first thing I would do is roll a Skeleton with a human companion who would be compelled to act on my command and I would tell them to suck my bone.

And now you're feeling very uncomfortable and you know why it would be a horribly bad idea, you're welcome.

Why do you guys have like.. the absolute worst interpretation?

Experience ?

Quote:
The Raven Black wrote:
I am sure many will enjoy having their human, elf, halfling ... companion that they can command as they wish. So wholesome and needed in PF2.

*eyeroll*

Having a henchman is essentially what this would be and I would sacrifice one action to give my henchman 2. Yet you want to interpret it as if someone was forcefully commanding a.. imaginary, fictional character.. to attack the same enemy?

You guys are being ridiculous. Utterly ridiculous.

If I am a captain of a ship and I tell my crew to skewer the scallywags, you have a problem with this? But if I do it myself, you don't have a problem with this? You guys are just trying to find problems where there are none.

I am sure you would use this option responsibly.

I am also sure there will be people who use this in awful ways.

Better for Paizo to avoid it utterly and let GMs homebrew what they want for their table.


4 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber
Quote:
Quote:
The Raven Black wrote:
I am sure many will enjoy having their human, elf, halfling ... companion that they can command as they wish. So wholesome and needed in PF2.

*eyeroll*

Having a henchman is essentially what this would be and I would sacrifice one action to give my henchman 2. Yet you want to interpret it as if someone was forcefully commanding a.. imaginary, fictional character.. to attack the same enemy?

You guys are being ridiculous. Utterly ridiculous.

If I am a captain of a ship and I tell my crew to skewer the scallywags, you have a problem with this? But if I do it myself, you don't have a problem with this? You guys are just trying to find problems where there are none.

I am sure you would use this option responsibly.

I am also sure there will be people who use this in awful ways.

Better for Paizo to avoid it utterly and let GMs homebrew what they want for their table.

Also sounds like a decent opportunity for a Pathfinder Infinite product, if the ones writing it are clear and concise with their concept.

Sczarni

Pathfinder Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber
The Raven Black wrote:
Verzen wrote:
Totally Not Gorbacz wrote:

Yeah, if you could have human companions the first thing I would do is roll a Skeleton with a human companion who would be compelled to act on my command and I would tell them to suck my bone.

And now you're feeling very uncomfortable and you know why it would be a horribly bad idea, you're welcome.

Why do you guys have like.. the absolute worst interpretation?

Experience ?

Quote:
The Raven Black wrote:
I am sure many will enjoy having their human, elf, halfling ... companion that they can command as they wish. So wholesome and needed in PF2.

*eyeroll*

Having a henchman is essentially what this would be and I would sacrifice one action to give my henchman 2. Yet you want to interpret it as if someone was forcefully commanding a.. imaginary, fictional character.. to attack the same enemy?

You guys are being ridiculous. Utterly ridiculous.

If I am a captain of a ship and I tell my crew to skewer the scallywags, you have a problem with this? But if I do it myself, you don't have a problem with this? You guys are just trying to find problems where there are none.

I am sure you would use this option responsibly.

I am also sure there will be people who use this in awful ways.

Better for Paizo to avoid it utterly and let GMs homebrew what they want for their table.

I played a PFS game once where people came in and made a lot of rude, disgusting sexual rapey comments and activities. It was an online game. They were banned from play.

Just because bad people do bad things doesn't mean we have to appeal to bad people doing bad things.

All the command option would be for is to sacrifice one of your actions for a henchman.

If I have a rogue companion. I can sacrifice one action for the rogue companion to do his companion support ability of causing the creature to be flat footed, I would then attack with my main character.

You have a problem with this because.... bad people do bad things?


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Verzen wrote:
If I am a captain of a ship and I tell my crew to skewer the scallywags, you have a problem with this?

And one crewman uses 2 actions. I hope you're not in a hurry.

The minion rules are bad to represent a henchman, but they are right on spot to represent a slave. Someone who's unwilling to help you (and as such don't act unless commanded), who's not trained in combat (and as such needs constant guidance), who will obey even to suicidal orders and who doesn't have a voice in the party. If I ever want to represent a slaver using slaves as canon fodder I'll definitely use the minion rules, they are perfect. Now, if I want to represent a henchman... well, I've already done so and I've just used an NPC.

That's my red flag (and not some creepy things). For me, the minion rules are perfect to represent slaves and as such I don't want them to be used for humanoids.

Sczarni

Pathfinder Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber
SuperBidi wrote:
Verzen wrote:
If I am a captain of a ship and I tell my crew to skewer the scallywags, you have a problem with this?

And one crewman uses 2 actions. I hope you're not in a hurry.

The minion rules are bad to represent a henchman, but they are right on spot to represent a slave. Someone who's unwilling to help you (and as such don't act unless commanded), who's not trained in combat (and as such needs constant guidance), who will obey even to suicidal orders and who doesn't have a voice in the party. If I ever want to represent a slaver using slaves as canon fodder I'll definitely use the minion rules, they are perfect. Now, if I want to represent a henchman... well, I've already done so and I've just used an NPC.

That's my red flag (and not some creepy things). For me, the minion rules are perfect to represent slaves and as such I don't want them to be used for humanoids.

Sorry bub but the problem rests solely with you.

You realize there's a difference between GAME MECHANICS and morality, right????... right?????

Game mechanics allow a companion to use up one turn for two.. for balance!

And we are talking about fictional characters here. For all you know, I could be paying my henchman 1 gold per day to obey and fight for me. He's a mercenary now. Not a slave.

You literally just jumped to slave because you WANT to find the most toxic, abhorrent interpretation possible.


SuperBidi wrote:
Verzen wrote:
If I am a captain of a ship and I tell my crew to skewer the scallywags, you have a problem with this?

And one crewman uses 2 actions. I hope you're not in a hurry.

The minion rules are bad to represent a henchman, but they are right on spot to represent a slave. Someone who's unwilling to help you (and as such don't act unless commanded), who's not trained in combat (and as such needs constant guidance), who will obey even to suicidal orders and who doesn't have a voice in the party. If I ever want to represent a slaver using slaves as canon fodder I'll definitely use the minion rules, they are perfect. Now, if I want to represent a henchman... well, I've already done so and I've just used an NPC.

That's my red flag (and not some creepy things). For me, the minion rules are perfect to represent slaves and as such I don't want them to be used for humanoids.

This perspective is interesting to me. I see where you're coming from, I've just never thought of Minions or Command in that light in my games, nor has anyone else I've played. Our ranger's animal companion definitely has a voice in the party, for example. So does my eidolon, but in game terms an eidolon is more robust than a typical minion.

I've always seen the Minion rules as a gameist method of putting breaks on a character who wants to show up with their own personal army, forcing them to break up their actions to do so. From that perspective I haven't got any issues with a companion being humanoid since I see it as effectively the same vehicle as any other kind of minion, and the Minion trait serving as a marker to let a player know they can't expect to be a party unto themselves. (I played with PCs who did that in PF1E and 3.5, and t'was not fun.)

That being said, if humanoid companions--aides-de-camp, cohorts, squires, whatever you want to call them--do become a class feature, the discussion going on right now does suggest the language of their player-facing interactions should be handled more delicately than with other companions, placing greater stress on their unwillingness to do unreasonable things, like throwing themselves into traps for the players' benefit. There should also be discussion of how these cohorts are compensated, whether that's in actual gold or if it's handwaved so as not to impact party treasure budget.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Perpdepog wrote:
That being said, if humanoid companions--aides-de-camp, cohorts, squires, whatever you want to call them--do become a class feature, the discussion going on right now does suggest the language of their player-facing interactions should...

In my opinion, it would have to be a new rule. Inspired by companions, but I think the companion rules are not a good way to represent a humanoid companion. So the wording can be completely reviewed.

I'm personally very reluctant to see humanoid companions. I've never seen a satisfying way to represent them mechanically. Either they are taking too much space, or they are illogical and not feeling like sentient beings at all but just a bunch of abilities on the side.

Verzen wrote:
You realize there's a difference between GAME NECHANICS and morality, right????... right?????

Spells have been renamed, the in-game world has been altered. So, no, not so many differences.

On top of that, game mechanics represent the in-game world. If Fireballs were asking for Will Saves everyone would be screaming. So there's a reason why I say it can raise red flags.

Liberty's Edge

4 people marked this as a favorite.
Verzen wrote:
SuperBidi wrote:
Verzen wrote:
If I am a captain of a ship and I tell my crew to skewer the scallywags, you have a problem with this?

And one crewman uses 2 actions. I hope you're not in a hurry.

The minion rules are bad to represent a henchman, but they are right on spot to represent a slave. Someone who's unwilling to help you (and as such don't act unless commanded), who's not trained in combat (and as such needs constant guidance), who will obey even to suicidal orders and who doesn't have a voice in the party. If I ever want to represent a slaver using slaves as canon fodder I'll definitely use the minion rules, they are perfect. Now, if I want to represent a henchman... well, I've already done so and I've just used an NPC.

That's my red flag (and not some creepy things). For me, the minion rules are perfect to represent slaves and as such I don't want them to be used for humanoids.

Sorry bub but the problem rests solely with you.

You realize there's a difference between GAME MECHANICS and morality, right????... right?????

Game mechanics allow a companion to use up one turn for two.. for balance!

And we are talking about fictional characters here. For all you know, I could be paying my henchman 1 gold per day to obey and fight for me. He's a mercenary now. Not a slave.

You literally just jumped to slave because you WANT to find the most toxic, abhorrent interpretation possible.

Again, Experience.

Remember the ruckus not so long ago about slavery in the setting ?

And people raising once again the topic of the morality of spells like Charm and Dominate ?

Better not to open this kind of can of worms IMO.

Especially for a character who is basically a NPC controlled by the GM. Which is something we already have rules for.


What Raven Black says.


4 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber
Verzen wrote:


You realize there's a difference between GAME MECHANICS and morality, right????... right?????

Do they? The game mechanics are representation of the story. And how you use those mechanics definitely has a moral impact on the story. Using a fireball on a group of level 0 zombies has different moral implications than using it on an identical CR crowd of commoners. And if you reflavored that fireball to be powered by sacrificing innocent souls, that has moral implications too.

Setting aside the moral implications, the animal companion and minion rules are a not an immersive approach to simulate actual people. They are barely an immersive way to simulate animals. (Like, they work, but you have to do some mental gymnastics and occasionally make GM calls about what they do without commands.)

Minions don't just get fewer actions per turn. They get fewer options for those actions, and a much more limited selection of items. A human minion not only should be capable of more complex activities on their own (actions without commands) and should be capable of pouring a potion down the throat of a PC. With the appropriate training they could even cast spells and could be armed with wands of manifold missiles.

So suddenly they aren't actually balanced with animal companions unless you place arbitrary limits on them... So why use the animal companion rules to begin with? To make those limits not seem arbitrary, Super Bidi's suggestion makes a lot of sense. Their post outlines a bunch of ways the minion rules would be a bad fit for mercenaries but a good fit for slaves.

Worth noting the lengths Paizo went to for us to have intelligent companions: they designed a whole class around it with completely unique action economy. Almost like the minion rules weren't a good fit for it... Sorry, but your idea is a bad one, and pointing that out isn't virtue signaling.

(Also, you say it would be cool if these rules applied to constructs and other things, almost like you're unaware of the Inventor class or new undead companions, which is weird. The animal companion rules work there because both are mindless.)


Pathfinder Pawns, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber

I think the easiest way to handle the humanoid companion bit would be to talk about it with your group. One simple arrangement might be to have three players, each with two characters. That way, the knight can have his squire, the bard can have his Lady, and the rogue his accomplice, etc.

I'm not going to say "don't make these rules for moral reasons" as I find the very notion quite silly indeed. However, I will say that I don't think rules for humanoid companions are terribly necessary.

Sczarni

Pathfinder Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber
Captain Morgan wrote:
Verzen wrote:


You realize there's a difference between GAME MECHANICS and morality, right????... right?????

Do they? The game mechanics are representation of the story. And how you use those mechanics definitely has a moral impact on the story. Using a fireball on a group of level 0 zombies has different moral implications than using it on an identical CR crowd of commoners. And if you reflavored that fireball to be powered by sacrificing innocent souls, that has moral implications too.

Setting aside the moral implications, the animal companion and minion rules are a not an immersive approach to simulate actual people. They are barely an immersive way to simulate animals. (Like, they work, but you have to do some mental gymnastics and occasionally make GM calls about what they do without commands.)

Minions don't just get fewer actions per turn. They get fewer options for those actions, and a much more limited selection of items. A human minion not only should be capable of more complex activities on their own (actions without commands) and should be capable of pouring a potion down the throat of a PC. With the appropriate training they could even cast spells and could be armed with wands of manifold missiles.

So suddenly they aren't actually balanced with animal companions unless you place arbitrary limits on them... So why use the animal companion rules to begin with? To make those limits not seem arbitrary, Super Bidi's suggestion makes a lot of sense. Their post outlines a bunch of ways the minion rules would be a bad fit for mercenaries but a good fit for slaves.

Worth noting the lengths Paizo went to for us to have intelligent companions: they designed a whole class around it with completely unique action economy. Almost like the minion rules weren't a good fit for it... Sorry, but your idea is a bad one, and pointing that out isn't virtue signaling.

(Also, you say it would be cool if these rules applied to constructs and other things, almost like you're unaware...

1) I cannot be an inventor archetype and be a monk, fighter, caster as a main class and keep up with my pet. This is the same argument against beastmaster. "Why do we need a beastmaster? Just multiclass ranger or druid!"

In order to do this, I'd need to have my level 4, 8 inventor construct feats be at 4 and 8. Not 8 and 16.

2) slaves cant put potions down anyones throats either apparently. They aren't humans according to yalls argument.

You guys are literally saying slaves aren't humans.

Sczarni

Pathfinder Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber
Ravingdork wrote:

I think the easiest way to handle the humanoid companion bit would be to talk about it with your group. One simple arrangement might be to have three players, each with two characters. That way, the knight can have his squire, the bard can have his Lady, and the rogue his accomplice, etc.

I'm not going to say "don't make these rules for moral reasons" as I find the very notion quite silly indeed. However, I will say that I don't think rules for humanoid companions are terribly necessary.

It's necessary for game mechanics standpoint. You need to sacrifice actions to any companions for balance.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Verzen wrote:
Ravingdork wrote:

I think the easiest way to handle the humanoid companion bit would be to talk about it with your group. One simple arrangement might be to have three players, each with two characters. That way, the knight can have his squire, the bard can have his Lady, and the rogue his accomplice, etc.

I'm not going to say "don't make these rules for moral reasons" as I find the very notion quite silly indeed. However, I will say that I don't think rules for humanoid companions are terribly necessary.

It's necessary for game mechanics standpoint. You need to sacrifice actions to any companions for balance.

Not necessarily you could adjust the opposition for the increased party size using the guidelines provided.


4 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber
Verzen wrote:
Captain Morgan wrote:
Verzen wrote:


You realize there's a difference between GAME MECHANICS and morality, right????... right?????

Do they? The game mechanics are representation of the story. And how you use those mechanics definitely has a moral impact on the story. Using a fireball on a group of level 0 zombies has different moral implications than using it on an identical CR crowd of commoners. And if you reflavored that fireball to be powered by sacrificing innocent souls, that has moral implications too.

Setting aside the moral implications, the animal companion and minion rules are a not an immersive approach to simulate actual people. They are barely an immersive way to simulate animals. (Like, they work, but you have to do some mental gymnastics and occasionally make GM calls about what they do without commands.)

Minions don't just get fewer actions per turn. They get fewer options for those actions, and a much more limited selection of items. A human minion not only should be capable of more complex activities on their own (actions without commands) and should be capable of pouring a potion down the throat of a PC. With the appropriate training they could even cast spells and could be armed with wands of manifold missiles.

So suddenly they aren't actually balanced with animal companions unless you place arbitrary limits on them... So why use the animal companion rules to begin with? To make those limits not seem arbitrary, Super Bidi's suggestion makes a lot of sense. Their post outlines a bunch of ways the minion rules would be a bad fit for mercenaries but a good fit for slaves.

Worth noting the lengths Paizo went to for us to have intelligent companions: they designed a whole class around it with completely unique action economy. Almost like the minion rules weren't a good fit for it... Sorry, but your idea is a bad one, and pointing that out isn't virtue signaling.

(Also, you say it would be cool if these rules applied to constructs and other

...

It is because slaves are humans that the minion rules are a bad fit and make people feel uncomfortable. The minion rules are largely used for mindless puppets, with animal companions being the apex of their intelligence. Applying those rules to an intelligent person who is supposed to have their own agency feels bad.

There's a dozen better ways to simulate a human NPC companion. Make them a GMPC, or let players pilot multiple PCs. (I don't know why this isn't a more commonly used option, honestly.) Or abstract the help of the NPC to be an automatic Aid bonus. Or even use the support benefits of animal companions instead of Strikes.

The minion rules can be inmersive, morally acceptable, or balanced, but those qualities are mutually exclusive when it comes to human minions.

Sczarni

Pathfinder Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber
Captain Morgan wrote:
Verzen wrote:
Captain Morgan wrote:
Verzen wrote:


You realize there's a difference between GAME MECHANICS and morality, right????... right?????

Do they? The game mechanics are representation of the story. And how you use those mechanics definitely has a moral impact on the story. Using a fireball on a group of level 0 zombies has different moral implications than using it on an identical CR crowd of commoners. And if you reflavored that fireball to be powered by sacrificing innocent souls, that has moral implications too.

Setting aside the moral implications, the animal companion and minion rules are a not an immersive approach to simulate actual people. They are barely an immersive way to simulate animals. (Like, they work, but you have to do some mental gymnastics and occasionally make GM calls about what they do without commands.)

Minions don't just get fewer actions per turn. They get fewer options for those actions, and a much more limited selection of items. A human minion not only should be capable of more complex activities on their own (actions without commands) and should be capable of pouring a potion down the throat of a PC. With the appropriate training they could even cast spells and could be armed with wands of manifold missiles.

So suddenly they aren't actually balanced with animal companions unless you place arbitrary limits on them... So why use the animal companion rules to begin with? To make those limits not seem arbitrary, Super Bidi's suggestion makes a lot of sense. Their post outlines a bunch of ways the minion rules would be a bad fit for mercenaries but a good fit for slaves.

Worth noting the lengths Paizo went to for us to have intelligent companions: they designed a whole class around it with completely unique action economy. Almost like the minion rules weren't a good fit for it... Sorry, but your idea is a bad one, and pointing that out isn't virtue signaling.

(Also, you say it would be cool if these rules applied

...

100% incorrect. On literally every point.

1) you need to have balance where 1 player is equal to another in power. Someone who pilots multiple chars won't be equal.

2) continue using minion rules but change the wording if that makes your feels so uncomfortable, with the end result being something like this..

"You gain a humanoid associate. It can be a goblin, elf, human or anyone with the humanoid trait. Due to your tutelage and watchful gaze, you permanently lose 1 of your actions. Your associate gains 2 actions to do with what it wants."

4th level feat: "Your associate gains a class and can be any class of your choice. Your associate gains all class features of that class at 1st level.

6th level feat: "Your associate gains a 1st or 2nd level class feat."

8th level feat: "Your associate gains a class feat at half your level in their chosen class."

12th level feat: Your associate gains any class specific abilities of 6th level or lower.

16th level feat: your associate gains any class specific abilities of 8th level or lower.

20th level feat: your associate gains any class specific abilities of 10th level or lower.

Somewhere in there you also include spellcasting like a normal archetype if they have a spellcastong class.


Captain Morgan wrote:

It is because slaves are humans that the minion rules are a bad fit and make people feel uncomfortable. The minion rules are largely used for mindless puppets, with animal companions being the apex of their intelligence. Applying those rules to an intelligent person who is supposed to have their own agency feels bad.

There's a dozen better ways to simulate a human NPC companion. Make them a GMPC, or let players pilot multiple PCs. (I don't know why this isn't a more commonly used option, honestly.) Or abstract the help of the NPC to be an automatic Aid bonus. Or even use the support benefits of animal companions instead of Strikes.

The minion rules can be inmersive, morally acceptable, or balanced, but those qualities are mutually exclusive when it comes to human minions.

I just don't see it. Verisimilitude/simulation basically doesn't exist in 2e in favor of a mostly balanced game system. This has been reinforced in a number of areas and is most recently obvious in the mechanical implementation of the undead archetypes in that they share extremely little with their original npc versions. Not to mention the minion rules already cover sentient minions.


Hey Verzen, if the year was 1845 and you had slaves, how would you treat them?


Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber

Creatures with the minion trait aren't slaves, they're NPCs that another character has some influence over the actions of. The trait even calls out sapient minions in particular, so there's no limitation requiring mindless/limited intelligence.

Heroes having side-kicks or knights having squires that follow them around and try to help out is pretty classic in fiction. Having them only take 2 actions a turn and fighting defensively outside of direct commands makes sense balance-wise.

Silver Crusade

Verzen wrote:

"You gain a humanoid associate. It can be a goblin, elf, human or anyone with the humanoid trait. Due to your tutelage and watchful gaze, you permanently lose 1 of your actions. Your associate gains 2 actions to do with what it wants."

4th level feat: "Your associate gains a class and can be any class of your choice. Your associate gains all class features of that class at 1st level.

6th level feat: "Your associate gains a 1st or 2nd level class feat."

8th level feat: "Your associate gains a class feat at half your level in their chosen class."

I hope that you realize that this is SIGNIFICANTLY more powerful than a current animal companion is, at least assuming that they get scaling proficiencies and hit points (and overpowered at low levels and underpowered at higher levels if they don't).

AND significantly more powerful than a summoner.

I stand by my earlier statement. Balancing this will be very hard and starting from the Summoner is a LOT better starting point than starting from an animal companion. You have to give up as much as the summoner gives up for this to be balanced. If it is an archetype there are going to have to be at least 2 versions, 1 for martial and 1 for spell caster.


Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber
pauljathome wrote:
Verzen wrote:

"You gain a humanoid associate. It can be a goblin, elf, human or anyone with the humanoid trait. Due to your tutelage and watchful gaze, you permanently lose 1 of your actions. Your associate gains 2 actions to do with what it wants."

4th level feat: "Your associate gains a class and can be any class of your choice. Your associate gains all class features of that class at 1st level.

6th level feat: "Your associate gains a 1st or 2nd level class feat."

8th level feat: "Your associate gains a class feat at half your level in their chosen class."

I hope that you realize that this is SIGNIFICANTLY more powerful than a current animal companion is, at least assuming that they get scaling proficiencies and hit points (and overpowered at low levels and underpowered at higher levels if they don't).

AND significantly more powerful than a summoner.

I stand by my earlier statement. Balancing this will be very hard and starting from the Summoner is a LOT better starting point than starting from an animal companion. You have to give up as much as the summoner gives up for this to be balanced. If it is an archetype there are going to have to be at least 2 versions, 1 for martial and 1 for spell caster.

Yup. If they just had the same stats, it would have already been stronger than animal companions (or any other minion) because of their hands and ability to perform complex commands. But now class features are entered into it? Woof. I sincerely doubt there's a way to balance those with each other, much less animal companions. Bard probably winds up as the best option with Inspire Courage, which you need to be 8th level to obtain through multiclass. But then you've basically just jumped through hoops to net the +1 bonus I suggested just abstracting out as their contribution. (That solution is used in several APs, by the way.)

There is a reason leadership became a subsystem in the GMG rather than a feat. It works much better as something the GM ties to story awards and can account for just having additional party members.

Also, to lend credence to your summoner suggestion, it is already the closest a class gets to the concept. Several of the occult eidolons are basically just people who died.

Part of the problem is that within our current design paradigm humans would need to have weaker stats to make up for their greater flexibility, and animal companions are barely strong enough to hang as is.

Also, humans would be hella complicated to run comparitively. Who does it? The player? The GM? And then they get all the class features of a player character? If you were going this route you'd need simplified, NPC style stat blocks and abilities.

Sczarni

Pathfinder Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber

I find it incredibly interesting ya'll are complaining about the morality of having a squire/sidekick to help in combat when every group anyway devolves into monty python inspired murder hobos.

Liberty's Edge

Try not to take the bag seriously, they're neither worth your time nor frustration to deal with. I'm similarly convinced that anyone here trying to talk about real-world ethics is just trying to bait people into discussions where they can attempt to high-ground in an attempt to feed their own personal demons.

I personally dislike the idea of having a feature that essentially gives you a whole other second PC on the grounds that it was just flat out broken in 3.X when allowed to be used by anyone with a mind to min/max and I don't believe it is possible to balance it at ANY level.


7 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber
Verzen wrote:
I find it incredibly interesting ya'll are complaining about the morality of having a squire/sidekick to help in combat when every group anyway devolves into monty python inspired murder hobos.

Not once has anyone complained about the morality of having a squire or sidekick. What they have said is that the minion subsystem is poor and lacking when it comes to representing something like a squire or sidekick. They also pointed out that due to the terminology involved it could easily be abused by those acting in bad faith which is a concern given the existence of PFS. Not only that but they offered alternatives that really aren't that different than the one you're so deadset on using.

Sczarni

Pathfinder Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber
nephandys wrote:
Verzen wrote:
I find it incredibly interesting ya'll are complaining about the morality of having a squire/sidekick to help in combat when every group anyway devolves into monty python inspired murder hobos.
Not once has anyone complained about the morality of having a squire or sidekick. What they have said is that the minion subsystem is poor and lacking when it comes to representing something like a squire or sidekick. They also pointed out that due to the terminology involved it could easily be abused by those acting in bad faith which is a concern given the existence of PFS. Not only that but they offered alternatives that really aren't that different than the one you're so deadset on using.

Maybe.. here's a novel idea... that if someone is acting in bad faith, we should remove the player acting in bad faith rather than blaming the system?


5 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber
Verzen wrote:
nephandys wrote:
Verzen wrote:
I find it incredibly interesting ya'll are complaining about the morality of having a squire/sidekick to help in combat when every group anyway devolves into monty python inspired murder hobos.
Not once has anyone complained about the morality of having a squire or sidekick. What they have said is that the minion subsystem is poor and lacking when it comes to representing something like a squire or sidekick. They also pointed out that due to the terminology involved it could easily be abused by those acting in bad faith which is a concern given the existence of PFS. Not only that but they offered alternatives that really aren't that different than the one you're so deadset on using.
Maybe.. here's a novel idea... that if someone is acting in bad faith, we should remove the player acting in bad faith rather than blaming the system?

And maybe if the system is bad we should not use the system. This is a bad system.

Sczarni

Pathfinder Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber
Captain Morgan wrote:
Verzen wrote:
nephandys wrote:
Verzen wrote:
I find it incredibly interesting ya'll are complaining about the morality of having a squire/sidekick to help in combat when every group anyway devolves into monty python inspired murder hobos.
Not once has anyone complained about the morality of having a squire or sidekick. What they have said is that the minion subsystem is poor and lacking when it comes to representing something like a squire or sidekick. They also pointed out that due to the terminology involved it could easily be abused by those acting in bad faith which is a concern given the existence of PFS. Not only that but they offered alternatives that really aren't that different than the one you're so deadset on using.
Maybe.. here's a novel idea... that if someone is acting in bad faith, we should remove the player acting in bad faith rather than blaming the system?
And maybe if the system is bad we should not use the system. This is a bad system.

So you dislike pathfinder 2E then? I guess PF2E is a bad system because it allows us to simulate murdering people and that's pretty unethical. OH hey look. We're back at the satanic panic of the 80s.


6 people marked this as a favorite.
Verzen wrote:
So you dislike pathfinder 2E then? I guess PF2E is a bad system because it allows us to simulate murdering people and that's pretty unethical. OH hey look. We're back at the satanic panic of the 80s.

I don't think you'll get anywhere with such a strawman.

Sczarni

Pathfinder Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber

Not a strawman at all. He said the system was bad because bad players can do bad things with the system.

This can apply to literally anything when it comes to RP. Bad players do bad things.

Doesn't mean the system is bad or should be changed because bad, abusive players are bad and abusive.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

This is obviously baiting. Just Flag and move on.

1 to 50 of 61 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder Second Edition / General Discussion / Non-Animal companions All Messageboards