Animal Companion Progression

[Righteous Doggy]

So, I was curious why some classes had a slow progressing animal companion(ranger) and some had one that progresses almost as fast as the group party members(Druid). Is one overpowered and/or the other underpowered? and why did pathfinder carry this legacy(ranger getting a druids animal companion at -3 effective level)?

Personally, I've always seen the slower progressing one as a vestigal class feature. its not that I would give it up for nothing, but that I don't see it nearly as useful as a familiar and feel its easy to forget. In the meantime, I've seen the druid's animal companion do another players job entirely.

[Namfuak]

So, I was curious why some classes had a slow progressing animal companion(ranger) and some had one that progresses almost as fast as the group party members(Druid). Is one overpowered and/or the other underpowered? and why did pathfinder carry this legacy(ranger getting a druids animal companion at -3 effective level)?

Personally, I've always seen the slower progressing one as a vestigal class feature. its not that I would give it up for nothing, but that I don't see it nearly as useful as a familiar and feel its easy to forget. In the meantime, I've seen the druid's animal companion do another players job entirely.

Because only tier 2/1 casters get nice things.

No, seriously, it should be that druids get a half-progression (or -3, which at least is a more sensible option) animal companion and rangers get a full one if you want to talk about balance. Or, druids get to choose 2 of wildshape, casting, and animal companion, and rangers still get full progression on their animal companion. Sorry if that's ranty, but it's true.

In terms of flavor, it makes a lot of sense to me that a ranger, who is sort of like a hunter or maybe a medieval Vault Dweller, ought to get an animal companion, and as he gets up to really high levels it goes from being a cute bloodhound to really spectacular animals like T-Rex's. It makes sense for Druids too, but the problem is that the developers saw it as "rangers aren't as magically in tune with nature as druids, so their companions shouldn't be as good" without thinking about how that would affect the balance between the two classes.

[Righteous Doggy]

Not ranting at all, I actually agree. If they aren't equal they should at least be switched due to balance reasons. Thats why I made the post, to see if anyone could give me a good reasoning behind it all. Also to see if anyone could tell me why pathfinder would make that decision too. Btw, a ranger can never have a T-Rex companion without feats, and even then it has to be an epic game becuase of their half progression. In pathfinder you can get one, but he's large at most, and its still 3 levels later than the druid.

[ngilop]

the reason why teh druid gets full progression and teh ranger half progression for animal companion is really a simple thing to ask.

It is a carry over from 1st/2nd ed.

You have to realize though that in the earlier edition having an animal companion was not such an amazinv thing they were actually much weaker.

same thing with teh druids wildshape ability, it was a heck of a lot weaker in the earlier editions


You see, when those 3rd ed designers created 3rd ed, they made those weak class features much much stronger.

and sicne they though that full base attack was incrediably powerful they needed to 'weaken' the ranger.

bascialyl most of what you feel is =powerful' in 3rd ed was either A) weaker in earleir editions or B) had a major hindrance for its use.

so basically those 3rd ed designers got rid of all that held the big 3 back ( wizards, cleric and druids) in terms of just going 100% all day every day

and instead took everything that made the other classes (especilly the fighter) strong and got rid of it

[White_Drake]

I think that part of the problem is that in AD&D 10th level was closer to epic level for 3.5. At lower levels of play spellcasters are about on par, and below about 5th, they're useless. Unfortunately high level play is much more common in d20, and I don't think that they accounted for that.

[Righteous Doggy]

Huh, well... "past editions did it" isn't the most amazing arguement. I can't say much about it though though, I'm not experienced enough in them, not that I feel as though I could becuase its just a fact. As is I feel like I need to homebrew fix things atm, just need to talk with DMs about things. Anyone have anything they've tried personally?

No ones talked about how overpowered or underpowered animal companions are btw, I was curious what people thought in case before I did made any attempt to balance things. And little talk about pathfinder too.

[Namfuak]

Huh, well... "past editions did it" isn't the most amazing arguement. I can't say much about it though though, I'm not experienced enough in them, not that I feel as though I could becuase its just a fact. As is I feel like I need to homebrew fix things atm, just need to talk with DMs about things. Anyone have anything they've tried personally?

No ones talked about how overpowered or underpowered animal companions are btw, I was curious what people thought in case before I did made any attempt to balance things. And little talk about pathfinder too.

In theory, part of the balance of animal companions is that either they will be stuck with low AC, or the owner will have to spend a portion of their WBL on improving their companion, reducing the amount they can spend on themselves. There are two problems with this assumption, as follows:

1. Wizards apparently assumed that, like how all wizards would be blasters, druids would usually keep the first animal companion they get. Higher level animal companions are statted to be competent against a party of adventurers maybe a couple of levels below the druid, and thus either have higher AC or more health to reflect this (combined with 2).

2. Druids can often overcome this even on weaker animals by using one or two spells per day, rather than having to spend money on barding.

[gallagher]

if you want your ranger animal companion to be competative, i suggest you either dip a level of prestige ranger, or take the feat to stack it with a special mount and go that way

[Vladislav]

if you want your ranger animal companion to be competative, i suggest you either dip a level of prestige ranger, or take the feat to stack it with a special mount and go that wayMany problems with that. First, Prestige Ranger is specifically not allowed to be played in the same game where a standard Ranger is available. Yes, yes, I know, you can houserule it away, but if you're houseruling already, might as well just give the standard ranger full animal companion progression and be done with it.

Second, the feat to stack it with special mount is useless unless you actually have a special mount, which requires you to take 5 levels in Paladin. Unless you're going into Halfling Outrider (and shamelessly abusing the wording), that's just horrible.

The best solution for a good Animal Companion, without houseruling or jumping through too many hoops is dip a single level of Beastmaster (requires a dead feat, unfortunately, but hey, it can't all be gravy). For those dedicated to their animal companion, dip a single level of Beastmaster and take Nature Bond.

[gallagher]

Many problems with that. First, Prestige Ranger is specifically not allowed to be played in the same game where a standard Ranger is available. Yes, yes, I know, you can houserule it away, but if you're houseruling already, might as well just give the standard ranger full animal companion progression and be done with it.

Second, the feat to stack it with special mount is useless unless you actually have a special mount, which requires you to take 5 levels in Paladin. Unless you're going into Halfling Outrider (and shamelessly abusing the wording), that's just horrible.

The best solution for a good Animal Companion, without houseruling or jumping through too many hoops is dip a single level of Beastmaster (requires a dead feat, unfortunately, but hey, it can't all be gravy). For those dedicated to their animal companion, dip a single level of Beastmaster and take Nature Bond.

you know, i never bothered to read about the class restrictions, we never played with them. i never used ranger levels to get into prestige ranger, though, so i can see where that would be overlooked.

well how about a cloistered cleric2/fighter2/anything full BAB1/prestige ranger1/prestige paladin2 for both animal companion and mount?

excessive and silly i know, and would probably get a book thrown at you for going into prestige ranger AND paladin... but hey, im grasping at straws here to try and find a way to not take the traditional route to stacking your animal.