Animal companions are pretty frail. You don't want to send them charging ahead of your group, as if they get isolated on the front line they will melt under the aggro they draw. But if you send them in the second wave, they can usually provide flanking, support, and minor damage without being dangerous enough to be worth attacking over a full blown PC.
My Animal Companion has been downed only once, when tanking an encounter nearly alone during 2 rounds. Besides this case, I've never felt it was close to going down.
But I have a Nimble Companion with maxed AC nearly from the beginning (the armor is expensive at level 1).
I've never understood how you can consider them frail, but I regularly see people saying it. Maybe because they don't buy them proper armor?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
My Animal Companion has been downed only once, when tanking an encounter nearly alone during 2 rounds. Besides this case, I've never felt it was close to going down.
But I have a Nimble Companion with maxed AC nearly from the beginning (the armor is expensive at level 1).I've never understood how you can consider them frail, but I regularly see people saying it. Maybe because they don't buy them proper armor?
I mean they have cloth caster hit points, no access to things like the shield spell, and if you go savage pretty bad AC. They do usually get decent dexterity and constitution at least
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Companion frailty mostly comes from their weird progression curve. A nimble wolf is rocking 6+2 hp per level for the first 7 levels, 6+3 from 8-13 and 6+4 from 14-20. They also don't get toughness. Compared to your typical thief starting with 8+3 and progressing to 8+5+1.
Now, nimble companions still have good AC. It's just that in pf2e, AC is to not get crit rather than not get hit. With this in mind, companions simply don't last long on the front line. Together with their shoddy offense progression, they are best used for flanking with their mature independent action. Generally speaking, spending multiple feats that can be disabled for a week on a glorified flanker isn't really appealing.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
I'm sort of adverse to using animal companions because of their frailty even before the nimble change, since "my special cat friend" is absolutely the last member of the party I want to see killed including my PC and those of the other players- at all costs the cat must survive.
I mean they have cloth caster hit points, no access to things like the shield spell, and if you go savage pretty bad AC. They do usually get decent dexterity and constitution at least
As savage companions are way less resistant than Nimble ones there should be 2 answers to the OP's question.
The thing with companions is that they don't attract much attention. They rarely have to survive more than a couple of attacks before some Barbarian or Fighter starts taking the spotlights out of them.Also, their AC is actually quite high, starting with Full Plate AC for Nimble ones and getting always around martial's AC (with the nerf, Nimble ones are a bit under martial's AC now).
Their hp pool is low, especially at low level (like everyone actually). But at some point, they start being able to survive a few hits, which is enough in my opinion.
Maybe the difference comes from the way we use our companions. I have a Bird Companion with my Alchemist. I use it either to pester range attackers, to provide flanking or to benefit from it's support ability. I rarely "tank" with it, as it's not really it's role, but I can do it when the situation is tough (and it's in such a situation that it went down).
I unfortunately don't have much 2E experience above 5th but before my group opted to go back to 1E(for one player) we had a several players try companions of different sorts and they always felt super frail. I personally think at low levels the frailty lies in their limited actions. They don't get the advantage that monks get of go in hit and go out.
I definitely feel classes that spend resources(feats) on pets should get a bit more ommph out of them. I still fell that animal companions should have had a way to get 3 actions earlier. Now with the summoner out a varient rule to give act together to other pet classes would be a great patch to fix early game frailty.
There should be many answers because of so many variables, likely too many to parse and get to a set answer. But maybe we can gain perspective.
Are we talking APs which tend to be challenging, some more than others?
Or PFS scenarios, where combat's easier?
And who knows what metric/sub-genre/mortality rate a homebrew campaign aims for or enjoys much less the balance of monster types, map spacing, or combats/day. Plus Free Archetype lightens the AC's cost dramatically.
Meanwhile, party composition matters too. Fighting alongside a Champion differs from alongside skirmishers. Is somebody trying to tank like they did w/ their 3.X/PF1 AC, flank, skirmish, or only hinder enemies that break through the front line? Does the master or his friends have a supply of Heal/Heal Animal/Heal Companion spells or just Medicine for lulls between combat? (I could see a set of Druids with Heal Animal really rockin' an AC frontline w/ maybe a Champion among them.)
My opinion is that ACs require too much expenditure for their benefits, and like PossibleCabbage often would prioritize its life when maybe it shouldn't need attention at all what with all the danger PCs face.
On the other hand, I hear too many success stories to dismiss them since obviously in some campaign styles they flourish so I don't think their issues/benefits weigh the same everywhere. Which is probably about the best one could hope for, since it's kinda true for some PC builds & feats too that their value fluctuates depending on context with "must nots" and "must haves" being rare.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Even post errata I think nimble companion is worth the feats. Savage companions are the only real issue. Too many feats spent for something that is going to be crit by on level enemies with alarming ease. If treasure vault can give access to better heavy barding that puts savage companions at or one below nimble ones I won't have any complaints with animal companions as a hole
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
So there was an recent errata that reduced mimble companion armor class by 2 from level 8 onwards.
So I was curious how tough do people find animal companions ? Do you feel they die to quickly or easily ?
Did nimble companions from level 8 onwards before this errata feel very tanky ?
For those who play companions how often do they go down and how often do they die ?
Well I crunched some numbers here.
I haven't really considered the super defensive classes like Champion or Monk here. Note when you are reading the numbers here that the caster should not be in the front line of combat, a striker like a Ranger can be, and only the Fighter would consider being point. Whereas an Animal Companion basically has to be in melee to attack (yes there is one with a terrible ranged attack but that is an exception). Note that the different classes progress their animals at slighty different rates. I'm looking at the best one. Rangers only get one specialisation for their animal and many animals are a point or two worse than the numbers here.
We all know +1 is important, at around 15% extra damage done or recieved. The difference can be quite big.
We also appreciate that Animal Companions shouldn't outshine PCs, but they still need to be useful given that a player is investing most of their feats here. If they aren't better that a Wizard in melee then they have no place in the game (I'm not talking about a wizard burning lots of spell to be OK for a round, just a default state).
My conclusion is up to level 10 Animal Companions are fine. Typically within +1 to -2 points of PCs in AC or attack values. But given that they do around 75% of the damage of a PC in terms of basic attack only. Its about right. Note that PCs have options to do a lot more damage than this via their class features, and they also have easier access to shields and spells for more defence too.
However from level 11 up its gets really out of whack. There are some wild gyrations. Savage Companions are just going to get dropped so quickly by critical hits with consistently bad AC. Indomitable is a little better with +2 AC but -1 to hit, Nimble is still OK. Its really stark, why were they balanced at close to PC armour class before but not now!?
From level 18+ they are all outclassed. Only Nimble is survivalable at all and they are unlikely to be effective offensively.
The decision from Paizo to lower the AC of Nimble Animal Companions was reasonable, though not especially necessary. I don't see that they were that tough given their lower hitpoints and other defences, they weren't outshining defenders.
However Strength based companions are basically pointless past level 10. They are just liabilities in combat and are too bad to be useful. Their only value is in the action economy of a mount. It they get targeted they will take a lot of resources to get back up, but then they will just go down again to another critical hit. They need an urgent fix. Just like they did from day 1. This always was the far more pressing problem for game play.
I mean they have cloth caster hit points, no access to things like the shield spell, and if you go savage pretty bad AC. They do usually get decent dexterity and constitution at leastAs savage companions are way less resistant than Nimble ones there should be 2 answers to the OP's question.
The thing with companions is that they don't attract much attention. They rarely have to survive more than a couple of attacks before some Barbarian or Fighter starts taking the spotlights out of them.
Also, their AC is actually quite high, starting with Full Plate AC for Nimble ones and getting always around martial's AC (with the nerf, Nimble ones are a bit under martial's AC now).
Their hp pool is low, especially at low level (like everyone actually). But at some point, they start being able to survive a few hits, which is enough in my opinion.Maybe the difference comes from the way we use our companions. I have a Bird Companion with my Alchemist. I use it either to pester range attackers, to provide flanking or to benefit from it's support ability. I rarely "tank" with it, as it's not really it's role, but I can do it when the situation is tough (and it's in such a situation that it went down).
That's how I mentioned I use them too. They are durable enough for their purpose, and will be fine if they don't draw aggro which they usually don't. But being able to survive because no one bothers attacking you... That doesn't mean you aren't frail.
So to answer the OP, they have good enough survivability despite their frailty.
So there was an recent errata that reduced mimble companion armor class by 2 from level 8 onwards.
So I was curious how tough do people find animal companions ? Do you feel they die to quickly or easily ?
Did nimble companions from level 8 onwards before this errata feel very tanky ?
For those who play companions how often do they go down and how often do they die ?
Well I crunched some numbers here.
I haven't really considered the super defensive classes like Champion or Monk here. Note when you are reading the numbers here that the caster should not be in the front line of combat, a striker like a Ranger can be, and only the Fighter would consider being point. Whereas an Animal Companion basically has to be in melee to attack (yes there is one with a terrible ranged attack but that is an exception). Note that the different classes progress their animals at slighty different rates. I'm looking at the best one.
We all know +1 is important, at around 15% extra damage done or recieved. The difference can be quite big.
We also appreciate that Animal companions shouldn't outshine PCs, but they still need to be useful given that a player is investing most of their feats here.
My conclusion is up to level 10 Animal Companions are fine. Typically within +1 to -2 points of PCs in AC or attack values. But given that they do around 75% of the damage of a PC in terms of basic attack only. Its about right. Note that PCs have options to do a lot more damage than this via their class features, and they also have easier access to shields and spells for more defence too.
However from level 11 up its gets really out of whack. There are some wild gyrations. Savage Companions are just going to get dropped so quickly by critical hits with consistently bad AC. Indomitable is a little better, Nimble is still OK. Its really...
Animals may be on the front line but that doesn't mean they will be attacked. Most non-mindless enemies attack whatever poses the biggest threat to them, which animal companions almost never will.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Animals may be on the front line but that doesn't mean they will be attacked. Most non-mindless enemies attack whatever poses the biggest threat to them, which animal companions almost never will.
Thats an empty argument. Of course if the GM doesn't bother to attack you then your defence isn't relevant. But if your animal is not playing a role in combat - so its not attacked - then why would you have it?
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Animals may be on the front line but that doesn't mean they will be attacked. Most non-mindless enemies attack whatever poses the biggest threat to them, which animal companions almost never will.Thats an empty argument. Of course if the GM doesn't bother to attack you then your defence isn't relevant. But if your animal is not playing a role in combat - so its not attacked - then why would you have it?
Also not sure why "most" non-mindless enemies would assume an animal companion isn't a threat in its own right, especially a Large one. That seems rather meta when there are actual independent creatures teamed w/ Druids (et al), yet who act like companions do (thematically, not mechanically).
And if the enemy is savvy enough to understand an animal companion's relative strength, it'd also be savvy enough to know ACs are that much more easily dispatched and maybe that attacking it will drain more of the party's healing resources than attacking a PC would.
Plus if an AC does do something relevant, like land a crit, trip an enemy, or maybe even just flank, the AC then becomes worth disposing of as it's become a force multiplier for PCs. And if it doesn't do something relevant...why is there as AoE fodder?
ETA: Let's not forget that several group spells have a limited number of targets, sometimes making it hard to fit the AC in, depending.
Animals may be on the front line but that doesn't mean they will be attacked. Most non-mindless enemies attack whatever poses the biggest threat to them, which animal companions almost never will.Thats an empty argument. Of course if the GM doesn't bother to attack you then your defence isn't relevant. But if your animal is not playing a role in combat - so its not attacked - then why would you have it?
I didn't say they didn't play a role in combat. I said they aren't the biggest threat. By default, a creature can only attack one target at a time. An animal companion will never hit harder than the Ranger master they are flanking with, so an enemy interested in surviving will almost always target the Ranger first. Even if you're a druid not jumping to the front lines next to your pet, you probably have a fighter, champion, or barbarian who will inevitably pose a bigger threat.
(There's also a more cynical point that any hits the animal companion does take are hits your allies are not taking. But treating a pet as a disposable meat shield often feels icky to people.)
That's why in practice your animal companion being on the frontline is only a problem against creatures like gugs and hydras that can strike every creature around them without sacrificing much. Otherwise your bear can continue to deal those d8s and provide flanking without actually getting hit.
Also not sure why "most" non-mindless enemies would assume an animal companion isn't a threat in its own right, especially a Large one. That seems rather meta when there are actual independent creatures teamed w/ Druids (et al), yet who act like companions do (thematically, not mechanically).
It is neither an assumption or meta. It is a fact that becomes evident as soon as the actual martial lands a hit. The martial will make more attacks, have higher accuracy, and often MUCH higher damage per hit. As long as you follow the advice Super and I posted about not letting your animal be the first in the fray, Fido needs to get some seriously hot dice to be worth attacking over the barbarian swinging 2d12+12 or whatever.
And if the enemy is savvy enough to understand an animal companion's relative strength, it'd also be savvy enough to know ACs are that much more easily dispatched
Not at all. An animal intelligence will whirl and attack whatever just hurt it most, which is an effective survival strategy because that is the biggest threat. Attacking the animal companion is both meta and actually a bad strategy.
and maybe that attacking it will drain more of the party's healing resources than attacking a PC would.
And this is the most meta thing of all. Most enemies don't give a darn about "draining resources." They care about winning or surviving the fight in front of them, not making sure the party has one fewer spell slot to fight the boss in a couple rooms. You need hardcore zealotry if you're going to waste time that could be spent keeping yourself alive on your boss having a marginally higher chance of victory later.
Plus if an AC does do something relevant, like land a crit, trip an enemy, or maybe even just flank, the AC then becomes worth disposing of as it's become a force multiplier for PCs. And if it doesn't do something relevant...why is there as AoE fodder?
Back to the cynical point... If the animal companion gets dropped the much more dangerous martial didn't. I really would not want to let a flurry ranger keep full attacking me while I go after their dog.
ETA: Let's not forget that several group spells have a limited number of targets, sometimes making it hard to fit the AC in, depending.
While true, most such spells default to 5 targets, which means in a normal sized party you're fine. Less so in a big party, but pets are already kind of a bad idea in large parties. More bodies means clogged up doorways and longer rounds.
Lot of things.
I'm with Captain on this one. I speak from experience: My Bird is actually quite tough in my opinion (on par AC, a small but not negligeable bunch of hit points, the ability to Dazzled enemies) so I very often try to attract attention. During the first round, it's quite easy, the enemies don't know who's weak and strong in our party. But as soon as the big hitters have landed a few blows, the enemies tend to forget about the bird.
Sometimes, I'm lucky and manage to land nice hits, and in that case I sometimes manage to keep an enemy on my bird. In general, it's because I've chosent to pester a small enemy while the party handle the big one.About Companion's role, I think they have a lot of them. They are no heroes for sure, but with the free action you very often have a free attack or free flanking. And I use the Support Ability on bosses. On top of that, they take a few attacks every here and now, which is always nice: The more hit points on the board the best it is for the party.
Their only issue is with AoE spells, but as Nimble Companions have high Reflex they should make it often. Savage ones, on the other hand... are where they are.
That's how I mentioned I use them too. They are durable enough for their purpose, and will be fine if they don't draw aggro which they usually don't. But being able to survive because no one bothers attacking you... That doesn't mean you aren't frail.
I just disagree on that. You have to compare frailty to your role. A Magus is frail, a Bard isn't, despite having the same defensive abilities. But the Bard positioning protects them so they just need an average survivability to fulfill their role while the Magus on the other hand have to survive on the frontline with a character attracting a lot of attention.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
One of the ways I like to think about HP in general is as a resource. If it's not being spent then you aren't leveraging your maximum potential.
With this as a foundation I've never had an issue with ac survivability. If someone offered you a class feat that gave you effectively 16 temporary hit points at level 1 (scaling by +8 each level) you'd say that's amazing. And that's exactly
What every (ignoring aoe) blow against an animal companion is, damage mitigated from a PC. And they occasionally let you spend actions for other benefits! Amazing.
Sure. But please remember that those hitpoints are not full value. Lowering them proportionately by their weakened defenses, and their increased vulnerability to spells and area effects. Technically if it chews up an enemies turn taking it out then it has been useful. But it also costs you an action a turn, and a good number of feats. Then you have to heal it at some point. In combat, you may have to waste actions healing or stabilising it. Its also very hard to build tactics around if its so vulnerable. Finally its more susceptable to focus fire.
Pre-errata AC (nimble: bird) had no problem surviving. Flanker mostly. Went wrong twice at lvl 13 (weakest level for AC) due to wrong positioning. Bird got sandwiched and was gone in a round. But otherwise, with healing available it never went wrong.
With the new errata, a nimble AC will still be OK, but you'd need to be more careful. Not sure I'd still want to play one. Maybe on a char that would optimally use it (flurry ranger not being the best char for an AC).
I would have preferred a solution where the nimble AC would have stayed as is and the other would have been made stronger. Adding expert/master armor for example. Having comparable or better AC AC to casters is not bad, given the limited options for ACs.
PF1 Animal Companions were basically consumables because they dropped so fast. If PF2 AC are more durable than this, then they're already better than their PF1 counterparts.
Well, not if they were optimized. A big cat with pounce could out damage a martial pretty easy.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
PF1 Animal Companions were basically consumables because they dropped so fast. If PF2 AC are more durable than this, then they're already better than their PF1 counterparts.Well, not if they were optimized. A big cat with pounce could out damage a martial pretty easy.
Most if not all PF1 ACs I witnessed dominated battlefields, and that's well over a dozen with many going out of their way to acquire one. And strong into very high level play with Huge companions w/ Combat Reflexes. It took investment, perhaps the majority of a PC's wealth plus some constant buffing, but they were powerful to the point some tables banned them.
As for cats, I had a tiny kitty cat that was an absolute savage w/ Dex to damage (via an item), enough so I downplayed its power (and played up its cuteness) so its dominance wouldn't frustrate the GM. But those buffs were on standby for any emergency, like if an ally went down.
Its expected AC was about 50 at highest levels (w/ Extended Barkskin, 30ish Dex, etc.) and it/we had an emergency ability to reduce damage several times a day. Most vulnerable aspect was the PC herself...which is why she tanked herself up too.
So yeah...I'm glad PF2 ACs are more reasonable, can't outshine their masters, have limited access to items, and require more investment for them to gain more power. And also glad Summoners balance mechanics pretty well for those do want the "animal" to take center stage.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Probably the biggest "problem" with animal companions in PF2 is that they kind of play into the trope of "utilize this feature well, and you will increase the whole party's efficiency, use this feature badly and it is an easy way to get the whole party killed."
Getting 2 actions for one and about 80% extra HP is a tantalizing offer for every character, and a party built around buffing and support can make very effective use out of companions and other minions in many encounters, although there will still be some encounters where you probably are just trying to keep your Animal companion out of the way.
But if utilizing the animal companion is ending up costing you an action a turn for basically nothing more than just a minion's worth of attack power, and that loss of action is eating into your attack penalty or casting 3 action spells or performing other essential 3rd action activities, then it can start to feel like the companion is making your whole build worse, and that can drag down the whole party: For example if your character is the party's only healer and they need you doing battle medicine on someone almost every round, that loss of an action for moving around can cause a lot of problems.
So animal companions don't really work as "the martial" or "additional martial" component of team, as much as they work well for exploiting movement types, terrain and other battlefield control features.
So if your personal expectation for your character is to be "Awesome Tiger with supporty friend" Summoner is really the closest class we have yet to get that, and trying to build a Ranger, or a Druid, or really any class + Animal Trainer type Archetypes is going to be a let down. Perhaps there is room for such a martial inclined character in the future, but it is a little tricky to do in PF2 because an Animal as the key party member is incredibly limiting in social encounters and many story arcs.
Nimble AC being equal to a martial probably only contributed to this illusion that it was possible to have your Animal Companion be an extra full martial.
Technically if it chews up an enemies turn taking it out then it has been useful. But it also costs you an action a turn, and a good number of feats.
That's not true. At bare minimum you don't need to pay both those costs at once. If you've spent multiple feats your companion gets an action each round without being commanded, and once the thing is in position you don't need further actions to benefit from flanking. If it gets the lone action, it can also Strike on subsequent turns. Also, if all you want is the occasional support benefit, the lone feat will do just fine. Flanking + support is better than many first level feats. Compare a bear's support to power attack, and you get extra damage without the MAP. The damage won't scale without more feats, but neither does things like Bespell Weapon.
Its also very hard to build tactics around if its so vulnerable.
Disagree there. While their vulnerability means you can't make them the lynch pin of your strategy, their basic uses are so straightforward that incorporating them in is extremely simple. A cat can provide flat-footed more reliably than Hide, Feint, or a variety of feats can.
Finally its more susceptable to focus fire.
While true, focus fire means the fire didn't burn your allies.
Then you have to heal it at some point. In combat, you may have to waste actions healing or stabilising it.
You may, but usually won't. I will also point out animal companions will break the minion rules in self preservation-- If you don't command them and they are taking mad damage, a reasonable GM will have them flee.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
There is no nuance in your argument and this is were its wrong. I'm not saying that these things are not true up to level 10. I am saying it falls apart after level 10.
If you think its all fair and balanced at low levels then it can't also be fair and balanced at high levels. PCs get a lot more powerful than their basic attacks, and Animals Companions get a lot less powerful and Strength ones a lot more vulnerable.
From around that point - its a bit wild as the numbers bounce a lot:
a) the AC of Strength based animals is too low. They don't survive well enough in combat
b) the attack value of animals companions strikes is too low. They go from being roughly equivalent to a PCs secondary attack - which is about fair as there are other feats that do the same, to less than half that.
Yes there is a slight trade off between damage and survivability between the different animal companions, but the higher base damage off comes with a lower hit rate and is therefore an illusion.
There is no nuance in your argument and this is were its wrong. I'm not saying that these things are not true up to level 10. I am saying it falls apart after level 10.
If you think its all fair and balanced at low levels then it can't also be fair and balanced at high levels. PCs get a lot more powerful than their basic attacks, and Animals Companions get a lot less powerful and Strength ones a lot more vulnerable.
From around that point - its a bit wild as the numbers bounce a lot:
a) the AC of Strength based animals is too low. They don't survive well enough in combat
b) the attack value of animals companions strikes is too low. They go from being roughly equivalent to a PCs secondary attack - which is about fair as there are other feats that do the same, to less than half that.Yes there is a slight trade off between damage and survivability between the different animal companions, but the higher base damage off comes with a lower hit rate and is therefore an illusion.
.
I'm not sure if you're responding to me with this, because I can't really see how any it relates to what I said. I never said anything about fairness or balance. The crappy AC or savage companions is indeed a problem. Actually, did you even mean to make this post in this thread?
Yes.
Yes.
Ok, then I'm still confused about how that relates to anything I said. I've never said animal companions are fair or balanced at any levels. I've said they are survivable in practice despite being frail, and can still make meaningful contributions despite low stats.
once the thing is in position you don't need further actions to benefit from flanking.
As another completely off-topic aside, I'm not sure about this.
If the Animal Companion has no actions, then it is not capable of making attacks. And if it is not capable of making attacks, then it cannot provide flanking.
Granted, I wouldn't run the game that way myself - I think this is a glitch caused by unintended rules interaction.
...So there was an recent errata that reduced mimble companion armor class by 2 from level 8 onwards.
So I was curious how tough do people find animal companions ? Do you feel they die to quickly or easily ?
Did nimble companions from level 8 onwards before this errata feel very tanky ?
For those who play companions how often do they go down and how often do they die ?
Well I crunched some numbers here.
I haven't really considered the super defensive classes like Champion or Monk here. Note when you are reading the numbers here that the caster should not be in the front line of combat, a striker like a Ranger can be, and only the Fighter would consider being point. Whereas an Animal Companion basically has to be in melee to attack (yes there is one with a terrible ranged attack but that is an exception). Note that the different classes progress their animals at slighty different rates. I'm looking at the best one.
We all know +1 is important, at around 15% extra damage done or recieved. The difference can be quite big.
We also appreciate that Animal companions shouldn't outshine PCs, but they still need to be useful given that a player is investing most of their feats here.
My conclusion is up to level 10 Animal Companions are fine. Typically within +1 to -2 points of PCs in AC or attack values. But given that they do around 75% of the damage of a PC in terms of basic attack only. Its about right. Note that PCs have options to do a lot more damage than this via their class features, and they also have easier access to shields and spells for more defence too.
However from level 11 up its gets really out of whack. There are some wild gyrations. Savage Companions are just going to get dropped so quickly by critical hits with consistently bad AC. Indomitable is a little better, Nimble
A lot of higher level enemies have attacks that hit everyone within reach or AoE attacks. I noticed that animal companions become less effective and more of a wasted feat at higher levels due to the ability of monsters to do AoE damage. The ranger in our party started holding his bird back due to the number of AoE attacking creatures that wreck animal companions at higher level.
It's why the only worthwhile animal companion at higher level is an agile companion that focuses on dexterity and AC.
Let's hope the treasure vault brings some special items for animal companions.
Different types of better barding would be great.
A little bit better barding would help. Just some different item options would be nice.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
If the Animal Companion has no actions, then it is not capable of making attacks. And if it is not capable of making attacks, then it cannot provide flanking.
This ruling would mean noone can provide flanking as noone can attack outside their turn.
The Animal Companion is in a situation where nothing prevents it from attacking therefore it provides flanking.| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Yes I agree with SuperBidi there's a difference per definition of not capable of making attacks and don't use your actions to attack. While the companion is able to do unarmed attack and isn't prevented to attack due some effect it still able to flanking. Not use actions by option isn't the same of being affected by an effect.