Very few animal companions for casters?

[bmardiney]

Just wondering why nearly all animal companions have a support ability made only for melee/bow users (those who "strike"). Especially when one of the main ways someone would get an animal without using Beastmaster is by being an animal order druid. You'd think at least half would have something that complimented a druid's spellcasting or at least didn't actively exclude it.

[thenobledrake]

Predictability, and through that, balance.

It'd be very difficult to write a support ability that benefited spells of any sort but not in a way that was unfairly good for one sort of spell or unfairly bad for another, and if it were a thing that ended up being done it'd likely take so many words to do it that we'd be looking at 1 less companion entry or equivalent space/word count in a book element for every companion that had such a support entry.

Whereas what a strike is about is far more predictable so a variety of add-ons can be thought of and aren't something that's going to, just to make up an example, do something like make a 5-target fear spell also include making all the affected targets off-guard like a beetle support would for a strike.

[Perpdepog]

It's also likely because familiars are considered the caster companions. I know the witch's familiar can help with Strikes and such, but I don't believe there is any real support outside that case.

[Themetricsystem]

Because they are Animal Companions and the Animal Creature type is generally one that can be summarized as either real-world animals that actually exist or in-universe unintelligent Creatures with an entirely biological existence that isn't at all related to magic or supernatural powers, or to put it another way, the entire Animal Creature type is basically defined by their lack of magical abilities and features.

It doesn't make any sense to create Animals that function with or exist to support spellcasting because, well, they have absolutely no predisposition toward any form of magical talent on their own.

[bmardiney]

I was thinking it made sense for any single-target spell attack (as in, vs AC, not a save) to be allowed as a "strike" for these purposes. Since a single-target spell attack functions essentially the same as a strike from bow and arrow.

[bmardiney]

Themetricsystem wrote:

Because they are Animal Companions and the Animal Creature type is generally one that can be summarized as either real-world animals that actually exist or in-universe unintelligent Creatures with an entirely biological existence that isn't at all related to magic or supernatural powers, or to put it another way, the entire Animal Creature type is basically defined by their lack of magical abilities and features.

It doesn't make any sense to create Animals that function with or exist to support spellcasting because, well, they have absolutely no predisposition toward any form of magical talent on their own.

That doesn't really follow. The whole point of, say, the bird's attack on an enemy's eyes is that they are simply working with the archer to attack as a team. Whether I fire an arrow or a ray of frost wouldn't really change much in this regard, at least from an immersion/lore perspective.

[Themetricsystem]

You asked a question, and I answered it, the reason in my view is that the entire theme of the Animal Creature type is decidedly non-magical and thus they were not built to support spellcasters. Beyond that, using an Action every turn to command an AC is EXTREMELY taxing for a Spellcaster and that type of friction is why most Familiar abilities that do cool stuff are simply enabler rider effect options that don't require specific Action investment and are essentially Free Actions. Generally, Animals don't ever use magic in this game and it follows that it makes no sense for them to have special support options that trigger off of magic, shoot, to be frank about it anything in the Animal Creature type probably has no IDEA what the concept of magic even is or how to recognize it, they're simply too dumb.

Lastly, I don't think "it's not realistic" is ever going to hold up as an argument for the game, magic isn't real, and the game and world aren't defined by ANY sort of logic beyond what has already been established by a given GM and the setting materials and even then most of the time there is a metric ton of instances where that stuff is contradictory to itself and what has happened before and will happen after.

[Baarogue]

Snake has a support ability that might be utilized by a caster

And how does everyone weigh on on the difference in wording for many of the support abilities? Roughly half of them roughly say "when you hit and deal damage to a creature your companion threatens" and the other roughly half roughly say "when you deal damage with a Strike to a creature your companion threatens"

My point is some specify "damage with a Strike," while others just say "hit and deal damage." Is "hit" used only wrt Strike?

[Perpdepog]

Themetricsystem wrote:

Because they are Animal Companions and the Animal Creature type is generally one that can be summarized as either real-world animals that actually exist or in-universe unintelligent Creatures with an entirely biological existence that isn't at all related to magic or supernatural powers, or to put it another way, the entire Animal Creature type is basically defined by their lack of magical abilities and features.

It doesn't make any sense to create Animals that function with or exist to support spellcasting because, well, they have absolutely no predisposition toward any form of magical talent on their own.

We have magical animals though. The cave worm family are magical, and so are some alien critters, like those from Castrovel, or animals from the Elemental Planes. The Animal trait is more linked to intelligence than any magical aptitude; everything of -4 Int or lower is an animal, and anything beast-shaped but of -3 or higher is a Beast.

Animal Trait wrote:

An animal is a creature with a relatively low intelligence. It typically doesn’t have an Intelligence ability modifier over –4, can’t speak languages, and can’t be trained in Intelligence-based skills.

[Themetricsystem]

Do we though? I don't think any valid examples can't simply be pointed to as being published with errors and came from an AP/Module.

The Cave Worm family is very much not magical at all. It has certain members of it that are BEASTS that have magical powers but the members that are animals all have purely biological and not supernatural powers.

Similarly, I've not found any alien creatures that have actual magic powers, those with them are always Beasts. There are some strange corner cases here and there in the Animal family that have something like a breath weapon or the like but those, like half of the Cave Worm Family, come from Adventure Paths or Modules which have FAR less editorial oversight and refinement time to ensure the content in said AP/Module align with the system norms.

[Perpdepog]

Themetricsystem wrote:

Do we though? I don't think any valid examples can't simply be pointed to as being published with errors and came from an AP/Module.

The Cave Worm family is very much not magical at all. It has certain members of it that are BEASTS that have magical powers but the members that are animals all have purely biological and not supernatural powers.

Similarly, I've not found any alien creatures that have actual magic powers, those with them are always Beasts. There are some strange corner cases here and there in the Animal family that have something like a breath weapon or the like but those, like half of the Cave Worm Family, come from Adventure Paths or Modules which have FAR less editorial oversight and refinement time to ensure the content in said AP/Module align with the system norms.

Isn't that a "No True Scotsman" argument? If you can dismiss an example as not being "valid," or aligning "with system norms," then any example I could give just gets dismissed as fatuous. Like the desa-desa, which has got arcane ... whatever going on, or the Xotanispawn which breathe fire and explode--though the explosion isn't considered Arcane for some reason.

But alright, if we are accepting the premise that the animal needs to be from a core RPG book in order to get the correct amount of editorial oversight, I will give you the bunyip and the sea serpant from the Bestiary, the frost worm and shocker lizard from Bestiary 2, and the animal companion shadow hound from Secrets of Magic (it hasn't got any magical trait tags, but shrouding something in shadow to create concealment sounds pretty magical to me). I'll also not include examples such as griffons, which were previously "magical beasts" rather than having the Animal trait since, you know, new edition, different assumptions.

Good catch on the cave worm family; I always forget that crimson worms are beasts for some reason.

[pauljathome]

I'll just point out that an Animal Companion is already a quite useful option for a spell caster, even a non weapon using one.

If you ride it for 1 action you get lots of movement and (once Mature) depending on GM ruling you MAY get movement for no action.

Or you have something useful to do with your 3rd action while staying safely out of combat range and without having to spend attribute points on it.

[Squiggit]

Thinking about this, it's kind of funny that ACs have so many caster-incompatible options considering that one of the only two classes that gets innate companion access (and the only class in the game that can pick up an animal companion as a class feature), and the only class with an iconic that has an animal companion, is a full caster.

... and in very Paizo fashion, they gave said iconic's companion a really unhelpful support benefit for her.

[MEATSHED]

Look at least it's not Harsk's heavy crossbow ace+ flurry edge combo.

[bmardiney]

Perpdepog wrote:

Themetricsystem wrote:

Because they are Animal Companions and the Animal Creature type is generally one that can be summarized as either real-world animals that actually exist or in-universe unintelligent Creatures with an entirely biological existence that isn't at all related to magic or supernatural powers, or to put it another way, the entire Animal Creature type is basically defined by their lack of magical abilities and features.

It doesn't make any sense to create Animals that function with or exist to support spellcasting because, well, they have absolutely no predisposition toward any form of magical talent on their own.

We have magical animals though. The cave worm family are magical, and so are some alien critters, like those from Castrovel, or animals from the Elemental Planes. The Animal trait is more linked to intelligence than any magical aptitude; everything of -4 Int or lower is an animal, and anything beast-shaped but of -3 or higher is a Beast.

Animal Trait wrote:

An animal is a creature with a relatively low intelligence. It typically doesn’t have an Intelligence ability modifier over –4, can’t speak languages, and can’t be trained in Intelligence-based skills.

"Hit and deal damage" seems like it would be a little too overpowered (especially when you consider multi-target/AOE spells).

[bmardiney]

pauljathome wrote:

I'll just point out that an Animal Companion is already a quite useful option for a spell caster, even a non weapon using one.

If you ride it for 1 action you get lots of movement and (once Mature) depending on GM ruling you MAY get movement for no action.

Or you have something useful to do with your 3rd action while staying safely out of combat range and without having to spend attribute points on it.

This is all kind of beside the point. I have no idea why he even brought up the idea of "magical vs non-magical creatures". What's actually happening in-universe is your AC is working with you to combo-attack a target. Just because you are flinging a magic missile instead of an arrow doesn't mean your animal companion would act any differently if they had the "magic" tag. A wolf would harass your target just as well as a shadow hound. There just isn't any lore/verisimilitude reason for any of this to matter to the topic at hand. The ONLY consideration would be gameplay balance.

[Gortle]

bmardiney wrote:

Just wondering why nearly all animal companions have a support ability made only for melee/bow users (those who "strike"). Especially when one of the main ways someone would get an animal without using Beastmaster is by being an animal order druid. You'd think at least half would have something that complimented a druid's spellcasting or at least didn't actively exclude it.

There are about 6 that trigger on hits so a spell attack works. There are a quite a few with defensive or movement abilities as well. Don't forget the chairs from treasure vault.

But animal companions have Advanced Maneuvers as well. There there is the fact that ĵust having something to stand between you and the enemy is a good idea for casters. The free move on the mature mount is useful too.

[Gortle]

If your character is not going to use weapons at all you will probably want to consider:

Animals companions that have a support benefit that triggers on a hit (so a spell attack works): Ape (frightened 1), Arboreal Sapling (difficult terrain), Badger(can’t step), Elephant( almost deafens), Rhinoceros(clumsy), Tyrannosaurus (frightened 1), Vulture (sickened 1), Water Wraith (dazzled )

Or

Animals companions that have other non strike related support benefits: Augdunar (draw an item), Camel (spits to dazzle), Cave Gecko (no critical failures on trip), Cave Pterosaur (you gain better cover), Dromaeosaur (better flanker), Goat (better climb), Legchair (you gain better cover), Oozeform Chair (ranged object grab), Rootball Chair (ignores difficult terrain), Snake (stops reactions).

I'd also like to point out a thrown Alchemical Bomb is a Martial Weapon and can deal damage even on a missed Strike due to splash. As long as your GM doesn’t object, that technically might trigger some other companions abilities. No doubt this is why some of the wordings are different.

[Errenor]

Baarogue wrote:

My point is some specify "damage with a Strike," while others just say "hit and deal damage." Is "hit" used only wrt Strike?

This question actually has appeared several times recently. The word 'hit' is used in the book (almost?) only with Strikes, weapons and attacks in general when the form is not important (and Hit points, yes).

Gortle wrote:

I'd also like to point out a thrown Alchemical Bomb is a Martial Weapon and can deal damage even on a missed Strike due to splash.

Not according to the PC1. But yes according to GMC (reprinted old version). Choose your option :)

[SuperBidi]

bmardiney wrote:

Just wondering why nearly all animal companions have a support ability made only for melee/bow users (those who "strike"). Especially when one of the main ways someone would get an animal without using Beastmaster is by being an animal order druid. You'd think at least half would have something that complimented a druid's spellcasting or at least didn't actively exclude it.

In my opinion, it's because Animal Companions have an obvious role and utility for casters: Protecting them and having a use for their 3rd action.

For martials, on the other hand, they are not really a protection (especially melee martials) and they eat actions that you could use for your attacks. So, in my opinion, the support ability is mostly there for martials to have a reason to get an AC.

[Old_Man_Robot]

The "Chair" companions (Legchair, Oozeform chair & Rootball chair) are all pretty good for casters.

Their support benefits don't help casters with their magic directly, but they help mitigate other concerns. Such as movement, cover, Oozeform might be able to grant off-guard, etc.

Beastmaster is a somewhat slept on caster supporting archetype, as, after 4th level, you essentially gain a bonus action to Stride, meaning you can use Spellshape feeats more freely. This is indeed addition to granting additional early-level focus points, which is a real boon post-remaster.

[Captain Morgan]

Themetricsystem wrote:

Because they are Animal Companions and the Animal Creature type is generally one that can be summarized as either real-world animals that actually exist or in-universe unintelligent Creatures with an entirely biological existence that isn't at all related to magic or supernatural powers, or to put it another way, the entire Animal Creature type is basically defined by their lack of magical abilities and features.

It doesn't make any sense to create Animals that function with or exist to support spellcasting because, well, they have absolutely no predisposition toward any form of magical talent on their own.

I know this was always a non-sequitter and the thread already moved on from it, but... Weird take when the animal companion section of Player Core contains riding drakes and arboreal sappling, and the basic animal companion rules have been applied to everything from planar infused genie animals to undead to animated chairs.

I think the answer is probably far simpler: it was easier to make it just work with strikes than every possible magic interaction. Support abilities were made with rangers in mind, not druids.

[bmardiney]

Old_Man_Robot wrote:

The "Chair" companions (Legchair, Oozeform chair & Rootball chair) are all pretty good for casters.

Their support benefits don't help casters with their magic directly, but they help mitigate other concerns. Such as movement, cover, Oozeform might be able to grant off-guard, etc.

Beastmaster is a somewhat slept on caster supporting archetype, as, after 4th level, you essentially gain a bonus action to Stride, meaning you can use Spellshape feeats more freely. This is indeed addition to granting additional early-level focus points, which is a real boon post-remaster.

If only animate chairs weren't so silly. One of my players is playing a native-american-inspired elf druid and the bald eagle works so well, thematically. It's just too bad you can't ride it and the support ability is not useable.