Forums Judgment: Full Animal = to no spells?

[CyberThread]

Would you say a low level ranger, to have a full druids animal progression, outweighs having no spells?

We are talking level 4 right now.


p.s. what makes a good scooby doo, when it comes to tracking and hunting criminals for an animal?

[Srasy]

At level 4 the animal companion is better but as levels go on the spell casting comes ahead... but why not just give the ranger full animal companion progression and maybe homebrew it that druids get half or something because druids already get wildshape animal companion and spell casting and which pales in comparison to the ranger who doesn't even get full animal companion progression...

Also a good scooby doo would probably just be a wolf/riding dog maybe an eagle or a bat but thats more a urban companion type thing imo

P.S. Natural Bond gives your 3 extra levels of animal companion

[Waker]

Personally, I think a Druid's Animal Companion blows Ranger spellcasting out of the water. Don't get me wrong, there are a few gems in their list, but for the most part it is underwhelming. A companion however can really provide more options, acting as a back-up sentry, mount (especially with alternate movement methods), a flanking buddy who won't get pasted immediately.

A Riding Dog with the Non-combatant and Weak-willed Flaws?

[CyberThread]

Its an either or thing, I don't get both sort of choice, as am not the DM.

[Maginomicon]

The Champion of the Wild ACF (Complete Champion page 50) takes away your spellcasting ability in exchange for certain things... and those certain things are not "full animal companion progression". They're specific feat options.


Champion of the Wild
By surrendering your spellcasting ability, you focus your energies on becoming a weapon master. You gain access to bonus feats much as a fighter does, but focused on your mastery of your chosen combat style.
Level: 1st.
Replaces: To select this class feature, you must sacrifice your spellcasting ability.
Benefit: You no longer gain spells as a ranger, but you can now select a bonus feat at 4th, 8th, 11th, and 14th levels. You can choose any feat from the following list for which you meet the prerequisites: Blind-Fight, Combat Expertise, Eyes in the Back of Your Head, Improved Disarm, Improved Favored Enemy, Improved Feint, and Improved Trip, as well as from one of the following lists, depending on your combat style.
Archery: Far Shot, Improved Precise Shot, Improved Rapid Shot, Manyshot, Point Blank Shot, Precise Shot, Ranged Disarm, Ranged Pin, Ranged Sunder, Sharp Shooting, and Shot on the Run.
Two-Weapon Combat: Greater Two-Weapon Defense, Greater Two-Weapon Fighting, Improved Two-Weapon Defense, Improved Two-Weapon Fighting, Two-Weapon Defense, Weapon Finesse.
Special: A ranger who selects this path can no longer use scrolls, wands, or other magic items that require access to a spell list, unless he has another spellcasting class that grants access to the appropriate spells.
By the way, the special section doesn't prevent you from using the UMD skill for that, it's just there to cover all the bases of removing the magical aspects of the class.

There is however a wild shape variant for rangers (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/variant/classes/variantCharacterClasses.htm#ranger).

[Slipperychicken]

Ranger spellcasting is a joke. You can use CLW wands, but so can pretty much any other divine caster. Your Wisom score is held down by the fact you want to hurt people with your physical stats.

If we're talking about the PF Archetype, that one also takes out your 6th level Style feat, which is a deal-breaker IMO. Scoring Improved Precise Shot at 6th level with no prereqs is much better than a full AC progression. You could just take Boon Companion anyway.

[CyberThread]

Thats cool Magino, but what does that have to do with the question?


An no, this not a PF group, pure 3.5.

[Maginomicon]

Thats cool Magino, but what does that have to do with the question? The relevancy is that if you're going to try to determine if "Full Animal = to no spells", it's important to look at what is "= to no spells" for a ranger.

Thus, if bonus feat options that you have to meet the prereqs for aren't the fairness equivalent of a full-progression animal companion, the ranger's spellcasting ability certainly isn't either.

[Jeff the Green]

The relevancy is that if you're going to try to determine if "Full Animal = to no spells", it's important to look at what is "= to no spells" for a ranger.

Thus, if bonus feat options that you have to meet the prereqs for aren't the fairness equivalent of a full-progression animal companion, the ranger's spellcasting ability certainly isn't either.

The thing is that that ACF is almost certainly not equal to spells. It's kind of lousy, actually.

[Maginomicon]

The thing is that that ACF is almost certainly not equal to spells. It's kind of lousy, actually.Personal opinions of fairness aside, by RAW, it is equal to spells AND having a spell list.

[Scow2]

Druids are Tier 1. Rangers are Tier 5. Druids getting the better Animal Companion progression is an atrocity to class balance that should never have happened.

[Coidzor]

Would you say a low level ranger, to have a full druids animal progression, outweighs having no spells?

We are talking level 4 right now.


p.s. what makes a good scooby doo, when it comes to tracking and hunting criminals for an animal?

No. Granted, I'm of the position that the ranger should just have a full progression animal companion.

If you want a Scooby Doo, I'd say go with a dog alternative familiar (Dragon 277 page 65) acquired through the urban companion ACF (http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/we/20070228a). Uses the master's skill ranks, which is the main thing.


The Champion of the Wild ACF (Complete Champion page 50) takes away your spellcasting ability in exchange for certain things... and those certain things are not "full animal companion progression". They're specific feat options.

And they're not worth it unless one has too low of a wisdom score to ever use spellcasting or just hates it and doesn't want to use it. It is a trap option.

[Jeff the Green]

Personal opinions of fairness aside, by RAW, it is equal to spells AND having a spell list.

No, RAW spells/spell list can be exchanged for feats. The OP was asking about equality of utility.

[eggynack]

Druids are Tier 1. Rangers are Tier 5. Druids getting the better Animal Companion progression is an atrocity to class balance that should never have happened.
Actually, as per the tier system, they're at tier 4 rather than 5. Presumably, it's a combination of standard meleeness, reasonable skill monkeying, their poor animal companion, good ACF's, bad casting and the class combo feats. It's still ridiculous that druids get the better animal companion. They basically already get everything else, and the animal companion+wild shape means that they're likely better at melee too. I'd say just that if the game is high op enough, that you should just ask for full progression. As to the trade thing, I think it depends on book access. I've heard that other books have some reasonably useful spells, but if you're limited to core then the trade is likely worth it.

[limejuicepowder]

Actually, as per the tier system, they're at tier 4 rather than 5. Presumably, it's a combination of standard meleeness, reasonable skill monkeying, their poor animal companion, good ACF's, bad casting and the class combo feats. It's still ridiculous that druids get the better animal companion. They basically already get everything else, and the animal companion+wild shape means that they're likely better at melee too. I'd say just that if the game is high op enough, that you should just ask for full progression. As to the trade thing, I think it depends on book access. I've heard that other books have some reasonably useful spells, but if you're limited to core then the trade is likely worth it.

Splat support for ranger spells is quite good. The spell casting itself is OK, but very limited in times/day, especially at low levels. However, having automatic wand access to spells like arrow mind, lay of the land, omen of peril, and the pile of spells that give +10 to various skills is pretty handy. IMO, this puts rangers solidly in tier 4 - and a flexible t4 at that. Much more so than the barb (of course, the barb would still roflstomp the ranger in a straight-up fight).

[FleshrakerAbuse]

Splat support for ranger spells is quite good. The spell casting itself is OK, but very limited in times/day, especially at low levels. However, having automatic wand access to spells like arrow mind, lay of the land, omen of peril, and the pile of spells that give +10 to various skills is pretty handy. IMO, this puts rangers solidly in tier 4 - and a flexible t4 at that. Much more so than the barb (of course, the barb would still roflstomp the ranger in a straight-up fight).

Very true, very true. A good ranger (aka, one using a bow) should be able to do much with his spells if Spell Compendium and others are allowed. He gains spells that allows him to auto-crit with his attacks as a 2nd level or so, for heaven's sake!

[Phelix-Mu]

Well, a reasonable DM might look at the Complete Champion ACF that trades the spellcasting for feats and add more feats. A sensible feat to add might be Wild Cohort.

In other words, if spellcasting is equal to four mediocre feats over 16 levels, it's probably worth one good feat (Wild Cohort). If you can get proto-druid AC with a feat, then I'd definitely think that full AC is a good trade off for spells, if it fits your build.

To generalize about value of class features, though, is usually to reduce the accuracy of one's appraisals. The utility of wand access can easily keep up with melee capabilities of a full AC if it's part of the character design. In particular, a stealth-based ranger might not have as much use for a big bruiser AC, but many of the wands can provide great boons to such a build, while the normal animal companion of a ranger can easily provide a spotter or distraction-type role for a stealthy ranger.

I agree with the general sentiment that ranger's animal companions are needlessly gimped in the rules. The delay of acquisition is questionable enough, but the math used to retard the ranger's AC is totally overkill, ending up with something that is pretty much out-of-combat utility or likely cannon fodder (an unpleasant proposition if you it's an "animal friend" type of ranger).