Pathfinder Druid Animal Companions

[Segev]

Looking at the d20pfsrd.com site, it lists a ton of animal companions. I'm a bit puzzled by the sizes of many of them - starting SMALL for things like antelope? - but can roll with it a bit. It seems there's no concept of "you have to wait for higher level to get the animal," so instead they made miniature versions, or somesuch, for low level.

However, I find myself mildly disturbed:

Sheep use goat statistics. A goat has a +2 to hit and does 1d4+1 damage with a gore attack. A ram, which is a male sheep, has lower strength and does 1d3 damage with a gore; it has statistics provided in the animal companion list.

Said ram is in every way inferior to other animal companions, as well, such as the ever-famous wolf.


Am I missing something? Or did PF just make druid animal companion mechanics even less sensible than 3.5?

[Psyren]

Overall companions were nerfed as part of the initiative to make the Druid have to work for it if he wanted to take over the party's melee role. So that part is intentional.

The ram vs. sheep thing I don't know what to tell you, and those seem like fluffy pets anyway. (NPI)

[Segev]

Goats, themselves, are 6 gp a pop, and CAN be trained by Handle Animal. Sheep are 20 gp despite having identical stats; I guess this represents the value of their wool.

Mechanically, this leads to the irritating fact that the closest to a sheep animal companion is actually weaker than the sheep bought and trained for combat. >_<

At least, for the first level or few. The animal companion boosts will eventually compensate.

Also, why didn't they make the wolf less potent? It's STILL the best animal companion by far!

I applaud their desire to make druids less win-buttonny. But it feels like they went about it in a clumsy way that achieved neither the fun nor "verisimilitude" (if you can even use that word to describe a magical nature-priest) of 3.5 nor the balance they sought, since...well, a wolf is still going to be the best 2nd-level fighter in your first level party.

*sigh*


Also, what does "NPI" stand for?

[Psyren]

Also, why didn't they make the wolf less potent? It's STILL the best animal companion by far!

Oh it's good, but at least a Fighter/Barbarian/Samurai won't auto-lose to it anymore.



I applaud their desire to make druids less win-buttonny. But it feels like they went about it in a clumsy way that achieved neither the fun nor "verisimilitude" (if you can even use that word to describe a magical nature-priest) of 3.5 nor the balance they sought, since...well, a wolf is still going to be the best 2nd-level fighter in your first level party.

Why can't you use that word? It should be applied liberally to the entire system if you ask me.



Also, what does "NPI" stand for?

No pun intended. Because sheep are "fluffy" in that they have wool, but also "fluffy" in that they are probably chosen for flavor rather than effectiveness never mind forget I said anything.

[Segev]

No, I understand the need for the TLA disclaimer, now. I thought the pun WAS intended. ^^; (I like puns, though, so was amused. Still am, either way.)

Thanks for the responses, by the way. Something about all these creatures being medium and small bugs me, but...well. So be it!

I have had the idea of a goat-herd (or shepherd) as a PC with actually combat-trained goats for a while. It looks relatively viable for a low-level build (could even be somewhat scary as a commoner). Was looking at whether a druid would work with it. Obviously, it can, as all that's required is the gp to pay for the animals and Handle Animal as a class skill. But looking to see if it added to it. And, naturally, that led to contemplating what to do for an animal companion.

Kennel-boy is looking a more useful direction to go. Buy some trained dogs and take the wolf animal companion. "No, he's just a big dog. I'd know a wolf if I saw one, and wolves are lots meaner. ...oh, sorry, he gets snappy with strangers. Here, let me... there's a good boy..."

[Feint's End]

Also, why didn't they make the wolf less potent? It's STILL the best animal companion by far!

for 3.5? Two words: Riding Dog

[Segev]

Oh, certainly. But this is about PF druid animal companions. I am trying to see how PF plays out differently, and I wanted to make sure I wasn't mis-reading how they work now.

[Psyren]

Note that PF changed "riding dog" to just be "dog" in later printings.

[Keneth]

Also, why didn't they make the wolf less potent? It's STILL the best animal companion by far!

In what way exactly? It's got a single attack that deals 1d6+1 damage and has a small chance to trip, plus moderate survivability. The way I see it, it starts out average and gets left in the dust after a few levels. :smallconfused:

[Segev]

Well, compare it to the dog, for instance. A size category larger, does a larger die type, has the trip function, and, when it gets Large (and the dog gets Medium), the wolf gets better stat upgrades. So just one straight-forward example, it is strictly superior to another supposedly equivalent choice. That kind of disparity bugs me.

I suppose they're valuing "medium" as superior to "large" in the end? Because "small" certainly isn't superior to "medium" unless all you want it for is hiding. In which case there are much better options, still.

[Keneth]

No one said the companions were equivalent. Just like familiars aren't equivalent. Or any other class features with choices. It'd be nice if they were, but that would be an impossible undertaking.

Having said that, the wolf is still at the bottom of the choices. It's not even a decent choice unless you plan to run a campaign from level 1 to 3.

Edit: I'm exaggerating of course, there are certain cases where a wolf can be an ok choice, like if there's lots of trippable opponents and you can make good use of its scent ability. Plus, you can ride it once it grows large (or from lvl1 if you're small).