Pathfinder - Animal Companion

[Splendor]

On page 53 of the core rules it says "Instead of taking the listed benefit at 4th or 7th level, you can instead choose to increase the companion’s Dexterity and Constitution by 2."

I take this as you don't gain any of the other benefits at 4th or 7th level.

Ex- Dog: 4th-Level Advancement: Size Medium; Attack bite (1d6); Ability Scores Str +4, Dex –2, Con +2

If you don't take the 'listed advancement at 4th level' and take the '+2 Dex & Con' instead you don't get medium sized or the d6 bite either.

I think I am reading this correctly one of my PCs disagrees. Thoughts?

[Keneth]

That's what it says. There's almost never a reason to take the ability bonus, unless you want your companion to stay the same size and miss out on all the other bonuses.

[Psyren]

You're reading it correctly. The point behind it is if you want to keep your dog Small.

[Spore]

Optimizationwise there is a reason. Animal Companions are more flanking buddies and easy targets for the opponents. Also their attack bonus isn't that great. Not taking a hit to AC and giving up your attack bonus for a bit of damage could be beneficial.

You know, outside of the flavor reasons because sometimes a real druid needs a normal dog (http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/5/51/DSHwiki.jpg/300px-DSHwiki.jpg) instead of a medium sized murderbeast (http://www.hdwallpapersinn.com/tibetan-mastiff-wallpapers.html).

[Bhaakon]

Certainly, from a role-play perspective, it is a bit silly that you wake up one morning after a month or so of adventuring and your trusty animal friend has suddenly doubled in size.

[Psyren]

You know, outside of the flavor reasons because sometimes a real druid needs a normal dog (http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/5/51/DSHwiki.jpg/300px-DSHwiki.jpg) instead of a medium sized murderbeast (http://www.hdwallpapersinn.com/tibetan-mastiff-wallpapers.html).

D'aww I just wanna mash his widdle face!

[Eldonauran]

Certainly, from a role-play perspective, it is a bit silly that you wake up one morning after a month or so of adventuring and your trusty animal friend has suddenly doubled in size.

I've always roleplayed the animal companion as being a rather large 'small' creature that barely nudges itself into the small 'medium' category. At least in Pathfinder. It helps retain versimilitude instead of an animal doubling in size over night.

[Keneth]

Not taking a hit to AC and giving up your attack bonus for a bit of damage could be beneficial.

Animal companions almost always gain a pretty large Str bonus and a natural armor bonus when they "grow". So in most cases, neither your attack, nor your AC should be dropping. They'll be somewhat easier to hit with touch attacks though.

But the more important part is that many of the companions will gain extra benefits from the advancement, like pounce, grab, trample, or poison. I have never encountered a case where I wanted take the ability increase instead.

And I don't see why the animal companion growth should affect the verisimilitude. It's a class ability. It's no weirder than any other Ex class ability that spontaneously manifests when a character dings. Animal companions are not normal animals that accompany you, you can get those via Handle Animal if you want.

[Spore]

You are right in most cases, however even just the CRB has three examples where taking Dex/Con +2 (and no malus to dex) has its benefits.

1) Bird. Get Str/Con via LevelUp, but is built with good dex. Attacks won't matter for a spotter.

2) Dogs. Flanking buddies with more AC and attack bonus.

3) Poison Snake: Again, the poison doesn't improve with size. Weapon Finesse away!

[Psyren]

Animal companions almost always gain a pretty large Str bonus and a natural armor bonus when they "grow". So in most cases, neither your attack, nor your AC should be dropping.

And in the dog's case, it starts with an odd-numbered strength, so you get drop your 4th-level point there for another point of modifier on top of the 4th-level advancement.

[Bhaakon]

And I don't see why the animal companion growth should affect the verisimilitude. It's a class ability. It's no weirder than any other Ex class ability that spontaneously manifests when a character dings. Animal companions are not normal animals that accompany you, you can get those via Handle Animal if you want.

First off, mechanics and verisimilitude are often at odds. Just because it's a class feature or Ex ability doesn't mean it can't be ridiculous when you stop and think about them. Even mundane classes with no magical abilities at all tend to be capable of out-sprinting Usain Bolt while carrying more than the world weight lifting record and hiding invisibly in shadows. We just choose to ignore or hand waive that aspect.

Second, they retain their creature type as animals, and specifically don't become magical beasts like familiars do. They're still animals, just like a human with class levels is still a human.

Third, I don't think the companion advancement is a typed ability.

[Psyren]

Well, if you want to get technical, leveling up in PF happens instantly so it's not like you'd wake up one morning - it would basically be a pokemon moment.

"What? DOG is evolving!!"

[Bhaakon]

That's nothing. I'm pretty sure that familiars spend most of their time in a pokeball.

[Keneth]

We just choose to ignore or hand waive that aspect.

We don't handwave it. We accept that heroes and powerful creatures in D&D have the capacity to go beyond anything possible in the real world.


They're still animals, just like a human with class levels is still a human.

Just because they're animals doesn't mean they're normal animals. They're unique animals, with different stats than their normal counterparts and, more importantly, with class levels.


Third, I don't think the companion advancement is a typed ability.

No, it's not. I mentioned Ex because I didn't want to get into an argument on whether or not the growth process involves magic, although it probably does.

[Spore]

"What? DOG is evolving!!"

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rLUoshaD2zo

*presses B*

[Ravens_cry]

Well, if it's medium already and you are using it as a mount and it increases in size, you are probably better off keeping it as medium, no?

[Slipperychicken]

Well, if you want to get technical, leveling up in PF happens instantly so it's not like you'd wake up one morning - it would basically be a pokemon moment.

"What? DOG is evolving!!""DOG evolved into MEDIUM DOG!"


This is how I figured it works. Because magic, that's why.

Also, nobody knocks the druid being able to walk through snow and not leave footprints as an (Ex) ability, so I figure melee noncasters should get nice things like that too.

[SassyQuatch]

Naw, this isn't bad.

Pathfinder's absolute fear of having large animals is much worse.

Elephant? Medium.
Aurochs? Medium.
Brachiosaurus? Medium.
Orca? Medium.
Rhinoceros? Medium.

And so forth, and so on...

[Psyren]

Naw, this isn't bad.

Pathfinder's absolute fear of having large animals is much worse.

Elephant? Medium.
Aurochs? Medium.
Brachiosaurus? Medium.
Orca? Medium.
Rhinoceros? Medium.

And so forth, and so on...

What? Elephants start at Huge. Maybe check the rest of your examples too?

[SassyQuatch]

What? Elephants start at Huge. Maybe check the rest of your examples too?
Not for an Animal Companion. (http://www.d20pfsrd.com/classes/core-classes/druid/animal-companions#TOC-Elephant-Mastodon)

[Amphetryon]

First off, mechanics and verisimilitude are often at odds. Just because it's a class feature or Ex ability doesn't mean it can't be ridiculous when you stop and think about them. Even mundane classes with no magical abilities at all tend to be capable of out-sprinting Usain Bolt while carrying more than the world weight lifting record and hiding invisibly in shadows. We just choose to ignore or hand waive that aspect.

Do you also ignore or "hand waive" away the parts of the Druid's (or the Summoner's, the Sorcerer's, the Wizard's, etc) Spell list that exceed human capabilities? If yes, why? If no, why not?

[Psyren]

Not for an Animal Companion. (http://www.d20pfsrd.com/classes/core-classes/druid/animal-companions#TOC-Elephant-Mastodon)

The idea is that that one isn't full-grown. Lest you forget, 3.5 Druids couldn't get an elephant until level 13 - this has nothing to do with "fearing large companions" and everything to do with "let's find a way for them to have an elephant at 1st-level that isn't broken."

[SassyQuatch]

The idea is that that one isn't full-grown. Lest you forget, 3.5 Druids couldn't get an elephant until level 13 - this has nothing to do with "fearing large companions" and everything to do with "let's find a way for them to have an elephant at 1st-level that isn't broken."
White Knight for Paizo all you want, ridiculousness is what it is. We're looking at animals that are born Large or bigger being called Medium. What is the Druid getting, a massively premature birth that would have all sorts of health problems and is likely to die at any moment? And if it somehow survives can become all of Large size through advancement.

At least the previous methods of only being able to get a more powerful AC at higher levels made some sense.

[Psyren]

White Knight for Paizo all you want

It's sad that any rudimentary use of reasoning on the internet is so quickly dismissed as "white-knighting." (Nice ad hominem, by the way.)



, ridiculousness is what it is. We're looking at animals that are born Large or bigger being called Medium.

Case in point. There were no stats for young elephants in 3.5, so medium is a good approximation. Where is your "born Large" stat coming from?



At least the previous methods of only being able to get a more powerful AC at higher levels made some sense.

As well as being unfun unless you happened to get to those levels. Not playing in a 13+ campaign? Sad for you, no oliphaunt.

[SassyQuatch]

It's sad that any rudimentary use of reasoning on the internet is so quickly dismissed as "white-knighting." (Nice ad hominem, by the way.)
Not an ad hominem. Please learn your logical fallacies correctly. Also, my statement is not incorrect since you are arguing upon the Rule of Cool (as does Paizo) and blatantly dismissing the reality of such absurd sizing.

Case in point. There were no stats for young elephants in 3.5, so medium is a good approximation. Where is your "born Large" stat coming from?
There are things in the real world called biology and others in the game called size categories. Perhaps you should look at them.

As well as being unfun unless you happened to get to those levels. Not playing in a 13+ campaign? Sad for you, no oliphaunt.
Yes. Tough luck. And not slapping reality in the face continuously by taking things that are very large and pretending they are very small. Even a fantasy game should have some limits as to how far they stretch disbelief.

[Bhaakon]

Do you also ignore or "hand waive" away the parts of the Druid's (or the Summoner's, the Sorcerer's, the Wizard's, etc) Spell list that exceed human capabilities? If yes, why? If no, why not?

Why can those classes do miraculous, impossible things?

Because MAGIC, that's why.

Magic is a hand wave. It's the original hand wave.

[Coidzor]

The idea is that that one isn't full-grown. Lest you forget, 3.5 Druids couldn't get an elephant until level 13 - this has nothing to do with "fearing large companions" and everything to do with "let's find a way for them to have an elephant at 1st-level that isn't broken."

So the Druid is doing all that with a baby? That's not better, that's worse. :smalleek:

Also, really weird when you consider when elephants develop tusks. :smallconfused: And that a Druid's elephant never grows up, just becomes a juvenile at level 7. Completely ignoring the other 13 levels of the game...


This is how I figured it works. Because magic, that's why.

Also, nobody knocks the druid being able to walk through snow and not leave footprints as an (Ex) ability, so I figure melee noncasters should get nice things like that too.

Always wondered why the animal companion stuff tried so hard to pretend not to be magic when it obviously was involving multiple forms of magic.


Well, if it's medium already and you are using it as a mount and it increases in size, you are probably better off keeping it as medium, no?

Did PF change it so a character can't ride a creature more than one size category larger now? :smallconfused: Or are you referencing squeezing and the lack of an equivalent to Tunnel Riding?


Well, if you want to get technical, leveling up in PF happens instantly so it's not like you'd wake up one morning - it would basically be a pokemon moment.

"What? DOG is evolving!!"

At first I was kind of annoyed by it, but now I'm OK with it. xD

[SassyQuatch]

So the Druid is doing all that with a baby? That's not better, that's worse. :smalleek:
Druids must be evil. they take baby elephants away from their mothers before they even have full control of their trunk. Not to mention the fact that the baby should still be suckling (what is the Druid feeding the poor thing?).


Also, really weird when you consider when elephants develop tusks. :smallconfused: And that a Druid's elephant never grows up, just becomes a juvenile at level 7. Completely ignoring the other 13 levels of the game...
Yeah, the one time leveling is pretty weird.

[Squirrel_Dude]

I've always roleplayed the animal companion as being a rather large 'small' creature that barely nudges itself into the small 'medium' category. At least in Pathfinder. It helps retain versimilitude instead of an animal doubling in size over night.I've always just rolled with the early level creatures not being fully grown yet. Don't know if that really works by the rules, and even if it did, it would only work if characters were leveling very quickly, but it makes some amount of sense.

[Ravens_cry]

Did PF change it so a character can't ride a creature more than one size category larger now? :smallconfused: Or are you referencing squeezing and the lack of an equivalent to Tunnel Riding?

The latter. If you have a mount larger than medium, you might as well be a medium creature yourself and get the better damage.

[Amphetryon]

Why can those classes do miraculous, impossible things?

Because MAGIC, that's why.

Magic is a hand wave. It's the original hand wave.

That answer is part and parcel to the Mundane's Lament, that Fighters (or any other Class that doesn't cast Spells, or Class Feature that doesn't rely on Magic) "aren't allowed to have nice things" in a game with Cockatrices and fire-breathing Dragons that is otherwise STEEPED with magic.

On a related note, how do you mundanely explain the Animal Companion, with all of its abilities and sudden appearance at the Druid's figurative side, without magic? How do you mundanely explain a Monk's (optional) ability to ignite her hands ablaze; in short, how do you mundanely explain the numerous expressly non-magical ways in which the game already EXPECTS the Characters to break the mundane laws of physics?

[Ravens_cry]

Some people like having mundanes that are mundane. What I would like to see is a Beastmaster class that is just a mundane and their animal companion, with access to the full druid list and not just some mount type ones, perhaps even a few that are exclusive to them.

[Keneth]

Pathfinder's absolute fear of having large animals is much worse.

Elephant? Medium.
Aurochs? Medium.
Brachiosaurus? Medium.
Orca? Medium.
Rhinoceros? Medium.

Except all of these are actually medium-sized in the early stages of their lives. With the exception of maybe Brachiosaurus—those things are massive.


We're looking at animals that are born Large or bigger being called Medium.

Which animals are born large? Please provide me with relevant information because you're just talking out of your ass. Elephants are born medium, aurochs are born medium, rhino calves are born medium, orca calves are pretty long, but it's mostly tail, so they'd still fall flat into the medium category.


Not an ad hominem. Please learn your logical fallacies correctly.

Calling someone a white knight with intent of derision is an ad hominem attack. Plain and simple. They only purpose of that part was to label Psyren as a "white knight" in attempt to devalue his argument.


There are things in the real world called biology and others in the game called size categories. Perhaps you should look at them.

Maybe you should, clearly you don't know how the size categories in D&D work. Or maybe you're just grossly overestimating the size of animals.


And not slapping reality in the face continuously by taking things that are very large and pretending they are very small. Even a fantasy game should have some limits as to how far they stretch disbelief.

Why should they? As mentioned before, animal companions are unique versions of animals, with different stats. You have medium elephants, and large wolves. They have no racial modifiers or bonus feats. They progress by class, rather than racial hit dice. I don't see any reason why they should follow any of the same "rules".

If you want a gargantuan brachiosaurus, there's absolutely nothing stopping you from rearing one the normal way (assuming you can find a calf to rear). You just can't bond with it.

[SassyQuatch]

Except all of these are actually medium-sized in the early stages of their lives. With the exception of maybe Brachiosaurus—those things are massive.
So because a baby can possibly be so small it is fine to characterize them as that size.

Hey, since many human babies are born Tiny we should just pretend that all humans are Tiny and are fully capable beings at that size. At least that's what some people here want us to believe.


Which animals are born large? Please provide me with relevant information because you're just talking out of your ass. Elephants are born medium, aurochs are born medium, rhino calves are born medium, orca calves are pretty long, but it's mostly tail, so they'd still fall flat into the medium category.
Did I say that an Elephant was born Large? I did not. I said that we are talking about animals that are born Large of which there are quite a few if you bother to look at the list.


Calling someone a white knight with intent of derision is an ad hominem attack. Plain and simple. They only purpose of that part was to label Psyren as a "white knight" in attempt to devalue his argument.
Oh, look. Somebody else on the internet doesn't know what an ad hominem is yet continues to throw the term about as if they had a clue. I am not surprised.


Why should they? As mentioned before, animal companions are unique versions of animals, with different stats. You have medium elephants, and large wolves. They have no racial modifiers or bonus feats. They progress by class, rather than racial hit dice. I don't see any reason why they should follow any of the same "rules".
Because it should make some tiny bit of sense. A Medium size elephant (since this is the animal that nobody seems to be able to look past) is a newborn. It has poor eyesight, it cannot use it's trunk, it needs to suckle from it's mother for about five years. By the time it can reasonably, even as a very young creature, actually survive without it's mother it is most definitely Large.

Which is where I started from. Two animal companions start Large, the horse and camel (but I suppose by your argument we should make them smaller since they were once babies). Paizo does indeed seem to be afraid of using the larger sizes, even when they make sense and when having the animal as a larger size would make little to no difference to the effectiveness of the companion animal. Paizo apparently is trying to make sure that the horse and camel are now and always will be the only low-level options.


If you want a gargantuan brachiosaurus, there's absolutely nothing stopping you from rearing one the normal way (assuming you can find a calf to rear). You just can't bond with it.
Or we could not have a nonsensical system in place that arbitrarily places larger animals at smaller sizes just so the horse and camel can remain supreme.

[Coidzor]

Except all of these are actually medium-sized in the early stages of their lives. With the exception of maybe Brachiosaurus—those things are massive.

How on earth does a baby elephant have tusks and useful combat abilities though?

Either it's a baby or a special animal that's been twisted by druidic magic in order to be that way for some reason, possibly ease of control. But that's just more and more magic creep and leads to the question of why we're not just openly admitting that the animal companion isn't really an animal anymore, but is just a magical creature so it's OK if it can understand basic concepts like attack the guy in red rather than the guy in blue without people bawling about carebear DMs.


Some people like having mundanes that are mundane. What I would like to see is a Beastmaster class that is just a mundane and their animal companion, with access to the full druid list and not just some mount type ones, perhaps even a few that are exclusive to them.

How though? :smallconfused: It's always been a supernatural/magical bond.

The druid and cavalier summon theirs using a magical ritual. There's a bond which allows the animal companion to grow in power along with the character leveling up instead of in the normal way animals gain in power. The original character of Dar the Beastmaster, which is, IIRC, where we get the conception of a beastmaster, has a supernatural telepathic and/or empathic connection with the animals he's bonded with.

PF actually seems worse than 3.5 for allowing a mundane beastmaster, due to the gross departure from normal animals in the animals available as animal companions, unless you wanted to make up your own animal companion advancement and selections wholecloth. It makes less sense for a mundane to be sending immature animals into battle to die for him than for a Druid, since at least the druid has arguably bolstered the immature animal with the powers of being an animal companion. And it would invalidate the character's mundaneity if they're able to acquire the magic, not-really-real but still animals animal companions of the alternate conception of PF animal companions.

[SassyQuatch]

... and leads to the question of why we're not just openly admitting that the animal companion isn't really an animal anymore, but is just a magical creature...
I honestly would not have as much of a problem with the situation if "magical beast" was the answer. Because then it's a creature that looks like the giant dinosaur but it isn't, doesn't require all sorts of justifications as to it's existence, and avoids the prospect of just bonding with a helpless baby animal that should not go anywhere near combat situations. Or away from any sort of sanctuary location.

[Psyren]

Not an ad hominem.

Labeling someone a "white-knight" is very much an ad-hominem. You can't argue rationally so you're sidestepping to labels instead. Nice try.


There are things in the real world called biology and others in the game called size categories. Perhaps you should look at them.

http://i1135.photobucket.com/albums/m633/PsyrenY/baby-elephant-05.jpg

So Large!

[SassyQuatch]

Labeling someone a "white-knight" is very much an ad-hominem. You can't argue rationally so you're sidestepping to labels instead. Nice try.
Labeling is not an ad hominem (especially if it is correct, as is apparent from your responses). Sidestepping is also not an ad hominem (though I did not do so in any way), Again, please do some research instead of using terms that you do not properly understand.


http://i1135.photobucket.com/albums/m633/PsyrenY/baby-elephant-05.jpg

So Large!
So tiny! (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brachiosaurus)

Because I was so obviously talking about only a single type of animal. Oh, wait, I clearly wasn't from my initial post where I also included the giant dinosaur.

Obviously some people have no problem walking babies into bloodbath situations.

[Squirrel_Dude]

Labeling is not an ad hominem (especially if it is correct, as is apparent from your responses).Yes it is, even if it the label is correct. Unless the label or claim of the person is relevant to the validity of their argument, it's an ad hominem.

For example, even if I correctly called a rabid Yankees fan who was defending his team's offseason moves "a rabid Yankees fan," that wouldn't change the strength of his arguments for those offseason moves. The best labeling him a rabid Yanks fan, or labeling anyone, can accomplish is granting us a different perspective from which to view his argument. It's more likely to simply to serve as a way to discredit his argument.

Calling someone a white knight only accomplishes the later. It's simply the inverse of calling someone a troll.

[SassyQuatch]

Yes it is, even if it the label is correct.
You are also incorrect.

Does anybody on the internet actually know what an ad hominem is? At the moment I am thinking no.

[Amphetryon]

You are also incorrect.

Does anybody on the internet actually know what an ad hominem is? At the moment I am thinking no.


ad ho·mi·nem
ˈad ˈhämənəm/
adverb & adjective
1.
(of an argument or reaction) arising from or appealing to the emotions and not reason or logic.
attacking an opponent's motives or character rather than the policy or position they maintain.
adverb: ad hominem; adjective: ad hominem
"vicious ad hominem attacks"
2.
relating to or associated with a particular person.
"the office was created ad hominem for Fenton"

It's not that difficult to find out what ad hominem means, really.

[georgie_leech]

Just 'cause this is bothering me, Dwarf elephants are a thing. (http://withfriendship.com/images/j/45454/Dwarf-elephant-image.jpg) For whatever reason, elephants that live on islands tend to end up a lot smaller than their continental counterparts. Given that we already have dogs that grow too large, I see no reason why we can't have Large Dwarf Elephants. Or Miniature Giant Space Hamsters.

[SassyQuatch]

It's not that difficult to find out what ad hominem means, really.
And yet people still use it incorrectly constantly.

Here. (http://plover.net/~bonds/adhominem.html) Hopefully after dozens of examples people will finally get the point. Actually, I do doubt that, but since no one is actually giving a serious attempt to try and understand what is and is not an ad hominem I will give a helping hand.

EDIT: to use your examples, let me highlight where people are going wrong

(of an argument or reaction) arising from or appealing to the emotions and not reason or logic.
attacking an opponent's motives or character rather than the policy or position they maintain.

I fully addressed the argument in a rational manner (i.e. - sizes of animals in reality). People just cling to the "white knight' comment, even though it is simply and correctly pointing out that there is bias in favor of the publisher's rules even though the rules themselves are foolish.

Just 'cause this is bothering me, Dwarf elephants are a thing. (http://withfriendship.com/images/j/45454/Dwarf-elephant-image.jpg) For whatever reason, elephants that live on islands tend to end up a lot smaller than their continental counterparts. Given that we already have dogs that grow too large, I see no reason why we can't have Large Dwarf Elephants. Or Miniature Giant Space Hamsters.
Now we just need examples of dwarf "everything-else that doesn't make sense".

[Psyren]

Labeling is not an ad hominem

Of course it is. It's aimed not at my argument, but at the person behind it. That is the essence and definition of ad hominem, whatever your flailing to the contrary.


So tiny! (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brachiosaurus)

Those don't spring into existence full-sized either, sad to say. Try again.



Obviously some people have no problem walking babies into bloodbath situations.

More fallacies! (https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/appeal-to-emotion)

First off, I didn't say "baby" I said "young" - and even then, what is threatening to a young elephant or dinosaur, particularly one currently enjoying a mystic bond with a druid caretaker, is probably different than what is threatening to, say, a dog or a falcon.

And for two, having an animal companion does not necessitate "walking them into a bloodbath situation." You can leave it at home, you know. Don't like it, wait until level 13 like you used to have to and get one then.

[SassyQuatch]

Of course it is. It's aimed not at my argument, but at the person behind it. That is the essence and definition of ad hominem, whatever your flailing to the contrary.
Still wrong. How many times do I have to say "research"?

Link in my previous post. Read it carefully.

Those don't spring into existence full-sized either, sad to say. Try again.
And I am so certain that they would be Medium. :smallsigh:

More fallacies! (https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/appeal-to-emotion)

First off, I didn't say "baby" I said "young" - and even then, what is threatening to a young elephant or dinosaur, particularly one currently enjoying a mystic bond with a druid caretaker, is probably different than what is threatening to, say, a dog or a falcon.
How unfortunate that "young" is at a minimum of five years of age (more like 13, but I'll assume that being off weaning is sufficient for this debate). Which is it? The young animal that is now 1200lbs and clearly not Medium, or a baby which is the only point in the life cycle where the animal is a size of Medium. You can't have both.

And if the animal does not feel threatened your Druid has just performed many forms of animal abuse. That kind of fear is natural, and to get it to perform in such a manner still requires a Handle Animal check.


And for two, having an animal companion does not necessitate "walking them into a bloodbath situation." You can leave it at home, you know. Don't like it, wait until level 13 like you used to have to and get one then.
"I have a class feature, but I totally won't use it." Unfortunately it is something I have never seen and not part of the silly rules.

Also not addressed is that the entire argument is based upon the fallacy that things would be completely broken by allowing Large animals that are not a horse or camel.

[Psyren]

Still wrong.

Nope. And others have shown you (or at least, are trying to) why that is.


And I am so certain that they would be Medium. :smallsigh:

You mean you're a paleontologist?



How unfortunate that "young" is at a minimum of five years of age

I could use a laugh; go ahead and cite this.



"I have a class feature, but I totally won't use it." Unfortunately it is something I have never seen and not part of the silly rules.

Actually, Stay is a DC 15 trick. That's a rule.

[SassyQuatch]

Nope. And others have shown you (or at least, are trying to) why that is.
Actually, only one person has made the attempt. Everyone else just says "No, you are wrong." The one person who did attempt also clearly did not notice that his source contradicts all of your assumptions.

I have also provided a very valuable and exhaustive source on the topic. What have you done?


You mean you're a paleontologist?
Paizo is staffed by paleontologists? Are you a paleontologist?

Once again there is a thing called science by which we can estimate the size of one thing based upon the literally millions of other examples. But somehow Paizo is the source by which we determine that dinosaur young are an exception to the rule and are born infinitesimally smaller than all other similar animals?


I could use a laugh; go ahead and cite this.
Here. (http://elephant.elehost.com/About_Elephants/Life_Cycles/Baby/baby.html)
"Young calves commence weaning from the first year of life until the tenth year of life."

"As a minimum, the African elephant calf is entirely dependent (emotionally and physically) on his/her mother for three to five years."
And here. (http://www.elephantsforever.co.za/life-cycle.html#.Un64gOIiyMQ)
"The baby stage lasts from birth until the elephant has been weaned off its mother’s milk completely. This can be anywhere between 5 and 10 years of age. "

Now look at the "Elephant size chart" found here (http://www.africam.com/wildlife/elephant_catalog?page=2#comment-524610).

Laugh away. Laugh at all the scientists who routinely study these animals. Or laugh at how you try to say "young" when a baby is far older and larger than you try to say it is.

But, hey, I'm the one using evidence instead of evading.

Actually, Stay is a DC 15 trick. That's a rule.
I'm sure that it is used so often.

Sorry, I don't blue text. That was sarcasm.


Finally, we also see continued evasion. Why have only two Large animals? Why is Paizo afraid to add to the list? Why are people so adamant in defending a bizarre and non-rational decision?

[Psyren]

I have also provided a very valuable and exhaustive source on the topic. What have you done?

Defined it.



Paizo is staffed by paleontologists? Are you a paleontologist?

I'm not the one saying they can't be Medium. You're making the positive claim, thus the onus on you to support it. Here, have another fallacy. (https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/burden-of-proof)



Here. (http://elephant.elehost.com/About_Elephants/Life_Cycles/Baby/baby.html)
"Young calves commence weaning from the first year of life until the tenth year of life."

Sounds like the minimum is 1 to me, not 5, from your own quote.



"As a minimum, the African elephant calf is entirely dependent (emotionally and physically) on his/her mother for three to five years."
And here. (http://www.elephantsforever.co.za/life-cycle.html#.Un64gOIiyMQ)
"The baby stage lasts from birth until the elephant has been weaned off its mother’s milk completely. This can be anywhere between 5 and 10 years of age. "

What is this "Africa" you speak of? (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0209.html)

More seriously, how do you know the elephant in the Bestiary/CRB is African?



Finally, we also see continued evasion. Why have only two Large animals? Why is Paizo afraid to add to the list? Why are people so adamant in defending a bizarre and non-rational decision?

It's perfectly rational; Large party members are unbalanced for 1st-level play. 3.5 agreed, which is why you had to wait until 13 to get an elephant there.

EDIT: Tell you what Sassy, you've got a problem with it, e-mail Paizo, I'm done wasting time on you.

[SassyQuatch]

Defined it.
Incorrectly, as my sources have already proved. Try again. Burden-of-proof, as you say, is now upon you to disprove an accurate source.

I'm not the one saying they can't be Medium. You're making the positive claim, thus the onus on you to support it. Here, have another fallacy. (https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/burden-of-proof)




Sounds like the minimum is 1 to me, not 5, from your own quote.
So now you admit that you want a baby and not a "young" animal. Since the sources very clearly sate that the baby phase is from five to ten years minimum.


More seriously, how do you know the elephant in the Bestiary/CRB is African?
Read the Animal Companion listing again. Elephant/Mammoth/Mastodon.
See "Elephant Size Range (http://www.bbc.co.uk/nature/life/Elephantidae)". Note that mammoths are larger than African elephants.
See "Size Comparison (http://www.nysm.nysed.gov/exhibits/longterm/mastodon/)". Again note the size similarities.

Even the smallest (http://www.thaifocus.com/elephant/anatomy.htm)of elephants is born at 90kg (3/4 of African) and are babies for a minimum of two years while following the same overall growth in each age category which puts a non-baby back into Large category.

It's perfectly rational; Large party members are unbalanced for 1st-level play. 3.5 agreed, which is why you had to wait until 13 to get an elephant there.
Horses and camels are unbalanced. Got it.

EDIT:

EDIT: Tell you what Sassy, you've got a problem with it, e-mail Paizo, I'm done wasting time on you.
Hey, I just mentioned that it was unrealistic. You were the one who came in charging, tilting at windmills, evading, shifting goalposts, and not providing any sources in defense of baffling and unrealistic rules. If you want to run away that is fine since we are unlikely to ever agree on the matter. Just remember that I was the one who actually backed up my claims.

[georgie_leech]

EDIT:

Hey, I just mentioned that it was unrealistic. You were the one who came in charging, tilting at windmills, evading, shifting goalposts, and not providing any sources in defense of baffling and unrealistic rules. If you want to run away that is fine since we are unlikely to ever agree on the matter. Just remember that I was the one who actually backed up my claims.

Please stop saying small elephants are unrealistic. (http://withfriendship.com/images/j/45454/Dwarf-elephant-image.jpg)

[Ravens_cry]

Please stop saying small elephants are unrealistic. (http://withfriendship.com/images/j/45454/Dwarf-elephant-image.jpg)
Pretty sure that's photoshop (or perhaps a baby, though the tusks suggest otherwise) as, as far as I know, all cases of Elephant Island Dwarfism are extinct. That being said, they did exist once, so they could exist in another world, but they were closer to medium than small. The existing Borneo pygmy elephants (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2274091/Pygmy-elephant-lost-mother-poisoning-forms-loving-bond-native-reserve-keeper.html) are rather bigger and probably be put in the Large category for a quadruped.

[georgie_leech]

Pretty sure that's photoshop (or perhaps a baby, though the tusks suggest otherwise) as, as far as I know, all cases of Elephant Island Dwarfism are extinct. That being said, they did exist once, so they could exist in another world, but they were closer to medium than small. The existing Borneo pygmy elephants (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2274091/Pygmy-elephant-lost-mother-poisoning-forms-loving-bond-native-reserve-keeper.html) are rather bigger and probably be put in the Large category for a quadruped.

Fair enough. The point stands though that arguing against Medium Elephants from a realism perspective doesn't make as much sense when you realise that small elephants have in fact actually existed. Why shouldn't you be able to get a (slightly larger) version of extinct animal when you can happily walk out of town and find Tyrannosaurus romping around?

[Coidzor]

http://i1135.photobucket.com/albums/m633/PsyrenY/baby-elephant-05.jpg

So Large!

What impressive tusks, those have gore attack written all over them.


Just 'cause this is bothering me, Dwarf elephants are a thing. (http://withfriendship.com/images/j/45454/Dwarf-elephant-image.jpg) For whatever reason, elephants that live on islands tend to end up a lot smaller than their continental counterparts.

Or Miniature Giant Space Hamsters.

And if they called it a Dwarf Elephant (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dwarf_elephant), there'd have been a lot less discussion of that particular example. Without that appellation, we're still back where we started with druids either stunting the growth of infant and juvenile elephants or just twisting adult elephants until they're in line with what the devs deemed appropriate for level 1.

As far as I'm concerned, Boo is the only Miniature Giant Space Hamster.

[Ravens_cry]

Fair enough. The point stands though that arguing against Medium Elephants from a realism perspective doesn't make as much sense when you realise that small elephants have in fact actually existed. Why shouldn't you be able to get a (slightly larger) version of extinct animal when you can happily walk out of town and find Tyrannosaurus romping around?
Indeed. If you can have a dinosaur, why not a dwarf elephant? In fact, there is a lot of cool extinct animals I'd like to see as animal companions, or even familiars. Raven familiars are cool, but how about a dragonfly the size (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meganeura) of a raven?

[SassyQuatch]

Please stop saying small elephants are unrealistic. (http://withfriendship.com/images/j/45454/Dwarf-elephant-image.jpg)
Just a reminder: I was talking about much more than elephants.

That being said PF also equated the elephant with mastodons and mammoths which are far closer in size to modern elephant breeds than the island breeds.

[Psyren]

And if they called it a Dwarf Elephant (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dwarf_elephant), there'd have been a lot less discussion of that particular example. Without that appellation, we're still back where we started with druids either stunting the growth of infant and juvenile elephants or just twisting adult elephants until they're in line with what the devs deemed appropriate for level 1.

As far as I'm concerned, Boo is the only Miniature Giant Space Hamster.

You're right, we should all go back to throwing them out completely until level 13. And you are free to houserule that at your tables all you want. I'll be over here at the table that actually has fun. kthxbye.

[SassyQuatch]

You're right, we should all go back to throwing them out completely until level 13. And you are free to houserule that at your tables all you want. I'll be over here at the table that actually has fun. kthxbye.
Because having that powerful creatures can be powerful is so dull. Everything has to be level one compatible, so let's make all the strong animals weak and tiny instead. That's so much more fun.

[Psyren]

Because having that powerful creatures can be powerful is so dull. Everything has to be level one compatible, so let's make all the strong animals weak and tiny instead. That's so much more fun.

You know companions advance, right? Like, when you level and stuff?

[SassyQuatch]

You know companions advance, right? Like, when you level and stuff?
Whoo, +2 Natural Armor. A few more levels my freakin' dinosaur will hit his stride and become Large. Then he'll be just like... a runt version of the dinos that I'm fighting now. So much better than having the real thing. Hooray.

[Psyren]

Well, you can always use Animal Growth or Strongjaw at that point.

For the record I'm personally okay with them becoming huge at the relevant levels. In fact, there's a general rule in the bestiary than when a non-humanoid gains 50% more HD that it should go up in size. But making something like that automatic could be a problem when it comes to, say, going on a dungeon crawl - it should be in the purview of the DM.

[SassyQuatch]

Well, you can always use Animal Growth or Strongjaw at that point.

For the record I'm personally okay with them becoming huge at the relevant levels. In fact, there's a general rule in the bestiary than when a non-humanoid gains 50% more HD that it should go up in size. But making something like that automatic could be a problem when it comes to, say, going on a dungeon crawl - it should be in the purview of the DM.
I can see the benefits in that, though Animal Companions tend to follow the system of specific rule over generic. My argument has always been that we shouldn't have to overly strain credulity for gameplay and adding in that generic rule can fit more closely.

Don't get me wrong, I like PF. this is just one of the little things that gets annoying, getting a dumbed-down, not-very (if at all) realistic version to provide more options at early levels and getting the shaft with a lack of options for higher level play.

For an example, with familiars, say I want to have a dragon for a familiar. I can have that at higher level with a unique lesser type of dragon, but it would be painful and a bit insulting to instead have an option at level 1 of a supposedly true dragon that barely has any resemblance to dragons at all. People would be offended by being told "we have stats for every age category of dragons, but just take this and consider it close enough". I feel it is like that with getting some animal companions that can only be justified by saying "it's just really really young or something, roll with it". It takes away from the uniqueness of the animal, and without that uniqueness it just seems like another stat block.

[Coidzor]

You're right, we should all go back to throwing them out completely until level 13. And you are free to houserule that at your tables all you want. I'll be over here at the table that actually has fun. kthxbye.

And how, exactly, does having different levels at which animal companions become available kill your fun so completely and totally?

How does acknowledging that the rules have areas that they're kludgey kill your fun completely?