PF: Why are Druid animal companions better than Rangers'?

[Sylthia]

I don't remember how 3.5 did it, since it's been several years since I've done 3.5, but in Pathfinder, why are Ranger animal companions set at 3 levels behind those of Druids?

Is it to balance how much more powerful Rangers are as a class compared to Druids?

[Deathkeeper]

I don't remember how 3.5 did it, since it's been several years since I've done 3.5, but in Pathfinder, why are Ranger animal companions set at 3 levels behind those of Druids?

Is it to balance how much more powerful Rangers are as a class compared to Druids?

I think it's because Druids are more in-tune with nature so their animal grows with them more or something.

Honestly I never understood it. But then, SKR wanted to nerf monks.

[Karnith]

I don't remember how 3.5 did it, since it's been several years since I've done 3.5, but in Pathfinder, why are Ranger animal companions set at 3 levels behind those of Druids?
The PF devs probably changed it to (ranger level - 3) because it seemed like an improvement to the 3.5 ranger's animal companion, since that gave a ranger an effective druid level equal to one-half his ranger level.

[Bogardan_Mage]

In 3.5 a Ranger's animal companion is half as powerful as a Druid's (effective Druid level = Ranger level/2) so for the most part even weaker.

I'd hazard a guess that it's simply because the Ranger gets his animal companion at level 4, while the Druid gets it at level 1. It's a questionable justification, but it does explain the number 3.

[Sylthia]

The PF devs probably changed it to (ranger level - 3) because it seemed like an improvement to the 3.5 ranger's animal companion, since that gave a ranger an effective druid level equal to one-half his ranger level.

I can see that, but I'm not sure why they don't just make them equal.

[Vknight]

Well the Ranger gets full BAB, a feat chain for free, 2 good saves, spells, several other abilities, the boss favored enemy, and finally a animal companion!

They had to nerf them in some way.
Or at least that is how I think the logic went

[Slipperychicken]

Because WotC placed incredible value on full BAB and bonus feats, as though it was such a huge advantage that it warranted reducing damn near every other progression (spells, powers, sneak attack, animal companion) to half or less.

[Starbuck_II]

Because WotC placed incredible value on full BAB and bonus feats, as though it was such a huge advantage that it warranted reducing damn near every other progression (spells, powers, sneak attack, animal companion) to half or less.

And Pathfinder agreed with this mindset (otherwise why keep the Ranger down).
But a Ranger with Boon Companion feat has Animal Companion equal to an a by the book Druid.

[Drachasor]

Like many changes in PF, it is arbitrary crap that doesn't really make sense. It also serves to limit player concepts unless you take ONE level in Druid.

It's just stupid. Ignore it, I say.

Addition: Another oddity. With infinite cantrips Sorcerers have a ton more cantrips at their fingertips than wizards (more than twice as many), because they never adjusted how many cantrips wizards can prepare. Kinda weird.

Eh, now I'm reminded of how they love to put limited uses on minor crap that would be better off with infinite uses.

[avr]

Legacy issues. It used to be that there was a 1st level spell named Animal Friendship which druids could cast to make an animal into something like an animal companion. In 3e the spell was dropped, rangers got spells at 4th level, and they were given an animal companion at the same time.

It's just something which the developers of Pathfinder didn't think to change.

[Slipperychicken]

Like many changes in PF, it is arbitrary crap that doesn't really make sense.

Pathfinder didn't change the Ranger AC progression. It was a holdover from 3.5.

[Coidzor]

Pathfinder didn't change the Ranger AC progression. It was a holdover from 3.5.

It buffed it, but not enough. And also nerfed Animal Companions in general, IIRC.

[Drachasor]

Pathfinder didn't change the Ranger AC progression. It was a holdover from 3.5.

They did change the progression, just not the choices (I don't think). Never played a ranger before, so I thought they had druid picks in 3.5. So I guess that is a hold-over. PF changes so many little things for such questionable reasons that it is hard to keep it all straight.

Edit: I can't believe my group decided to buy the PF books and play it instead of 3.5.

[Infernalbargain]

Because full casting is obviously worthless.

[Starbuck_II]

It buffed it, but not enough. And also nerfed Animal Companions in general, IIRC.

Shrunk not nerfed (well sometimes nerfed).
There are no large bears, etc if they become companions of Druid/Rangers.

[Coidzor]

They did change the progression, just not the choices (I don't think). Never played a ranger before, so I thought they had druid picks in 3.5. So I guess that is a hold-over. PF changes so many little things for such questionable reasons that it is hard to keep it all straight.

Do they get less choices? Actually, yeah, I think rangers get less choices, but they've got an archetype that lets them get a hippogriff that druids don't get. In 3.5 they had full choice, but... couldn't select higher level ones due to having too low of an effective druid level without dipping beastmaster, taking the natural bond feat, or going into epic.


Shrunk not nerfed (well sometimes nerfed).
There are no large bears, etc if they become companions of Druid/Rangers.

I knew that, which is a nerf for grappler ACs.

I just can't remember if the way they made ACs have levels instead of bonus HD and other parts of the normalization of the progression was a nerf or just spread the number of HD out or what.

[137beth]

It is extremely easy to change--just give the ranger the same animal companion progression as the druid.
In my games, the druid's animal companion progresses at level-3, while the ranger gets the full progression:smallbiggrin:

[Spiryt]

Because Druids are pretty much seamlessly attached to nature.

And taking some poor animal, and turning it into fearsome mutant to destroy Orcs, Undead, Tax Collectors and other Evil creatures is obviously part of natural cycle.

[Drachasor]

It is extremely easy to change--just give the ranger the same animal companion progression as the druid.
In my games, the druid's animal companion progresses at level-3, while the ranger gets the full progression:smallbiggrin:

A druid's effective level for this ability is equal to her actual druid levels - 3.

A Ranger's effective druidic levels for this ability is equal to her Ranger Levels + 3.

There we go!



Because Druids are pretty much seamlessly attached to nature.

And taking some poor animal, and turning it into fearsome mutant to destroy Orcs, Undead, Tax Collectors and other Evil creatures is obviously part of natural cycle.

When Animals Attack.

It's most true to life. Nature's coming to get ya.

Druids need to have a Swarm option for an animal companion though.

[137beth]

A druid's effective level for this ability is equal to her actual druid levels - 3.

A Ranger's effective druidic levels for this ability is equal to her Ranger Levels + 3.

There we go!

Yea, I've had to re-write the description to replace "druid" with "ranger," then say "the druid's effective ranger level for this ability is its druid level-3":smalltongue:

[Drachasor]

Yea, I've had to re-write the description to replace "druid" with "ranger," then say "the druid's effective ranger level for this ability is its druid level-3":smalltongue:

Well you're no fun. :smallfrown: