Tell me if ya'll think this is fair [3.5]

[cdawg]

I'm creating an NPC ranger for my party to encounter, and I want him to basically be focused on his animal companion. Towards that end, would you think it's an even trade-off for him to lose the ability to cast spells, but advance as though he were a druid in terms of his animal companion? If you think not, what if he also sacrificed his combat style? Thank you for your thoughts, I know it's random but I need some extra input

[Berserk Monk]

Sacrifice both spellcasting and combat style (maybe tracking too as a bonus feat).

[sofawall]

You can get something very similar to an animal companion using Wild Cohort.

[Sliver]

Spellcasting or combat style.. Maybe only a single feat..

[Worira]

Y'all.

Anyway, it depends what you're trying to balance him with, ranger or druid.

[PinkysBrain]

I personally advocate simply using class level -4 as effective druid level ... so with natural bond you are almost up to a normal strength animal companion.

I wouldn't have him sacrifice anything for it ... but I'm off the "if you aren't going to nerf casters then just boost everything else" school of thought.

[HamsterOfTheGod]

It's an NPC. And you are trying to make it interesting. Don't be constrained by the rules. Within the rules, you can the feat Natural Bond or Wild Cohort to improve your animal companion. Heck you can just take Leadership and now you have a druid with an animal companion only two levels lower than you. Or you can just train an animal of the appropriate animal companion level using the Handle Animal skill.

Trading off spellcasting for a full progression animal companion is way more than enough. Without spellcasting, the ranger can't buff his animal companion which is what the animal companion focused ranger would be doing anyway.

So, in the end, I say remove spell casting, give the full progression animal companion and have a fun encounter.

[PinkysBrain]

Leadership doesn't work for NPCs ... the extra characters are far too strong to be counted as a class feature. In that case simply give him a loyal animal with it's own CR and add it to the EL.

[sofawall]

Leadership doesn't work for NPCs ... the extra characters are far too strong to be counted as a class feature. In that case simply give him a loyal animal with it's own CR and add it to the EL.

Fixed it for you.

[PinkysBrain]

Bull, it doesn't work for NPCs either ... the increase in the challenge of the encounter is in no relation to having one less feat on the NPC. Using CRs and the EL table might be a poor rule of thumb in the first place, but this makes a mockery of it. You would be screwing your players on experience.

Now, of course the ranger is underpowered in general (the broken PHB2/CoR spells help, but it's too easy to just hijack those spells on other characters to allow them). To only offset that with a freebie cohort for the NPC while leaving players with a broken class would be hypocritical.

[sofawall]

The point was that it doesn't work. Period. At all. The feat is broken. It is more powerful than Epic spellcasting, if only because Epic spellcasting itself depends on it.

[Omegonthesane]

Alternate interpretation: Leadership is the only, and I mean only, feat that's powerful enough for a category of abilities that most L6 characters have only three of. Everything else is too weak to be called a feat by RAW.

Could you give me a story of when having a cohort 2 whole levels lower than you, in a world where power scales exponentially - not linearly - to your level, has broken the game?

[sofawall]

It's the followers, really. If you include followers, I can name a couple: Epic Spellcasting. Economy Destabilization.

Also, action economy.

[Omegonthesane]

Wait, your problem is the really weak guys who follow Leadershippers around?

You could just houserule that Leadership doesn't give you Followers. Do they actually help in the kind of areas where you _want_ players to be powerful?

Alternately, you ban Epic Spellcasting and rethink the economy. But a reasonably optimised 20th level dude (i.e. 3rd or 2nd tier class, I'm assuming 1st tier is forever forbidden) can probably crush the whole Prime Material beneath his heel by sheer brute force if he really wants to, so I'd be shocked if he couldn't destabilise the economy too.

[sofawall]

Actually, my main problem is with followers. They serve no purpose but to break the game, really.

[arguskos]

Actually, my main problem is with followers. They serve no purpose but to break the game, really.

So... houserule that Leadership doesn't provide followers, just a cohort. BAM! Fixed. Now it's just a feat, maybe a pretty good feat, but not a game-breakingly terrifying one.

[Saph]

No, it's still game-breakingly powerful.

Having a full caster cohort two levels below your own full caster is crazy broken. The followers are just a freebie.

[arguskos]

No, it's still game-breakingly powerful.

Having a full caster cohort two levels below your own full caster is crazy broken. The followers are just a freebie.

While quite true, this assumes your player is TRYING to be a bastard, in which case nothing you can do, short of hit them with a book, with stop them!

Why must everyone assume that players are all out to get their DMs and that it's a Cold War between DM and Player?

(Note: Not ranting at you, Saph, just the prevailing thought, please don't take it that I'm mad at you or anything)

EDIT: Yes, yes, this is probably some sort of fallacy, but really? Can we all realize that with a bit of sanity, these issues aren't that big of a deal? *sigh* I'm just frustrated with people being bastards to well-meaning DMs.

[Omegonthesane]

No, it's still game-breakingly powerful.

Having a full caster cohort two levels below your own full caster is crazy broken. The followers are just a freebie.

Really? "Oh, wow, he can break the game in all the ways I already broke the game two levels ago".

A cohort is no more game-breaking than a PC.

Maybe you just don't want to acknowledge the awfulness of MTs and other classes that make you give up three or more caster levels. If Fighter McWarrior can spend a feat to contribute more spellcasting to the party than the caster does, you _know_ the caster sucks.

[Saph]

While quite true, this assumes your player is TRYING to be a bastard, in which case nothing you can do, short of hit them with a book, with stop them!

Why must everyone assume that players are all out to get their DMs and that it's a Cold War between DM and Player?

Well, sure. No ability is automatically broken; if the player is trying to be balanced, he can always succeed at it. I've played in games with huge power differentials that still worked great, because the players co-operated and were considerate.

But if you were making a list of things that can be broken with minimal effort, Leadership is right up there in the first tier. Even CharOp boards frequently have an unspoken agreement to ignore Leadership in their builds; that should tell you something.

Maybe you just don't want to acknowledge the awfulness of MTs and other classes that make you give up three or more caster levels.

What on earth are you talking about? I haven't mentioned Mystic Theurges, you have.

A cohort is no more game-breaking than a PC.

It's called action economy. If I have two characters under my control, I get twice as many actions as a single PC. If I have three characters under my control, I get three times as many actions as a single PC. In general, if you're getting two or more actions to an enemy's one action, you win. (The only exception is when there's a very high gap between the faster party's attack and the slower party's defence.)

[Omegonthesane]

What on earth are you talking about? I haven't mentioned Mystic Theurges, you have.

I got a little too into it and started conjecturing.

It's called action economy. If I have two characters under my control, I get twice as many actions as a single PC. If I have three characters under my control, I get three times as many actions as a single PC. In general, if you're getting two or more actions to an enemy's one action, you win.

Guess I just have too deeply ingrained an impression of high-level fights, with death rays and full sneak attacks flying around. Primarily death rays because Rogue doesn't get flat out broken spells as well as awesome class features.
"You win initiative. The Big Bad dies. GG, here's the loot."
"You lose initiative. Roll a new character."
Hard to care about economy of actions if you're playing rocket launcher tag.

(The only exception is when there's a very high gap between the faster party's attack and the slower party's defence.)

The theory is that if you are two levels behind, you are deeply gimped compared to your comrades and therefore are subject to this exception. Maybe cohorts need to be weaker than that. Or, maybe cohorts aren't allowed to be full casters and casters aren't allowed to have cohorts, because you probably _need_ economy of actions to stand a chance against a stereotypical wizard.

[PinkysBrain]

Rolling initiative 2 times means improved odds even for rocket tag.

[pingcode20]

Also, two vs one means that the two 'win' rocket tag pretty much automatically. Simply because even if the one blows up the first guy, the other one can still shoot a rocket at him.

[Malacode]

That depends on the rocket. Timestop, followed Forcecage and Minor Creation, Black Lotus Extract or Cloudkill? That's one hell of a rocket, and it isn't limited to one opponent. Economy of Action is pretty much screwed over once you get access to some of the higher level, time affecting spells, even if you're playing Rocket Tag.

[Eldariel]

@OP: In normal games, I'd just give the Ranger full AC progression without giving up anything. That makes things a bit more fair and gives you more of an incentive to take Ranger-levels. As it stands, Ranger's animal companion is just there as a flanking buddy and maybe scout - it's a rather trivial class feature to be honest. This change would make it somewhat relevant.


@Leadership discussion: There are counters to basically everything. Time Stop? My Battlemagic Perception/Ring of Spell-Battle trigger giving me a free counterspell attempt. Maw of Chaos? I can redirect it to affect you or bring up defensive Wards to stop it or move myself as an immediate action (Abrupt Jaunt/Lesser Celerity/similars). Or I can activate a Scarab of Invulnerability and let you do your worst, to which I'm probably immune.

Sure, being 2 levels behind hurts somewhat, but still, it's not like level 17 Wizards only fight with their level 9 spells. Sure, if it's a Wizard duel, there's a very high probability that Time Stop, Gate and Disjunction will be involved, but plenty of lower level spells are relevant too and having another guy with Greater Dispel, Feeblemind, Enervation, etc. available is always handy (yes, they're stoppable: see Greater Dispel Magic to get them through). And before then, the spell power difference between the levels is slightly lower.


And that's without going into the Artificer/Bard-line of cohorts (seriously, Bard-cohort with Words of Creation using Inspire Greatness on you makes Polymorph/Shapechange all the more fun).

That said, my personal issue with Leadership is that it's not something you should get with a feat, nor is it something you should have to invest a feat in. Leadership is an ability that should be derived from the character and his personality in-game without any mechanical ties - if some character is a leader-like person and attracts cohorts and followers, he shouldn't need a feat to get them.

In AD&D 2nd edition, level 10 characters automatically attracted cohorts. Leadership is basically just a poor conversion of that, because for some reason they didn't want for it to be automatic (the whole "they wanted to give DM the option not to deal with it" is bull****, 'cause DM has the option of saying "No" to anything).

[playswithfire]

I'm creating an NPC ranger for my party to encounter, and I want him to basically be focused on his animal companion. Towards that end, would you think it's an even trade-off for him to lose the ability to cast spells, but advance as though he were a druid in terms of his animal companion? If you think not, what if he also sacrificed his combat style? Thank you for your thoughts, I know it's random but I need some extra input

Drop spellcasting and Track (generally useless) and give his animal companion the Wild Cohort progression, maybe?

[Flickerdart]

Thrallherd is even worse than Leadership, if harder to get to, because you're a manifester in addition to your caster Thrall.

[HamsterOfTheGod]

Leadership doesn't work for NPCs ... the extra characters are far too strong to be counted as a class feature. In that case simply give him a loyal animal with it's own CR and add it to the EL.

So? I was pointing out the ways a ranger PC or NPC can improve his animal companion within the RAW. My larger point was that the OP's encounter seemed like an interesting one and his class variant seemed fair. He wanted to make a ranger NPC with a full progression animal companion and wanted to make it "fair". My response was that it was fair meant that I actually think
1) it's CR is the CR of the ranger
2) it's not overpowered or underpowered for the CR
3) you could give the same class option to the PCs and not change the power level of the ranger much

As for leadership being exceedingly powerful as a feat...does that really need to be debated...yet again...

[FMArthur]

Just don't tell your players that it is a ranger. There's no point in misleading them about what rangers can or cannot do and showing off the special privelidges NPCs get when pursuing PC paths. Call it something else, make it a druid that follows the ranger around; anything but saying "this is a ranger who doesn't have to follow ranger rules".

[cdawg]

hey guys, thanks for all the great suggestions (and sorry about misspelling "y'all"). To clarify, the PCs won't be fighting this ranger; he's going to be an on-again-off-again ally (and a potential love interest for one of the female characters). House-ruling the ranger class as a whole is not really something I want to do at this point, I just want to make it so that his extra-powerful animal is not going to make him outshine the rest of the group in combat. However, it is pretty critical to the ranger's character and role in the story that he be a ranger. I want him to have a very loyal and special dog as a friend, but I want the dog to be capable and sturdy in combat because the basic ranger companion is pretty much, like people said and like it says in the rulebook, a scout and possibly a flanker. Thank you for the Wild Cohort suggestion; I've never heard of that before (noob, I know) but it'll definitely make the group's fighter happy (she always wanted an animal companion). I think I'm going to just go ahead and drop the spellcasting and give him full animal progression, and let him keep his combat style, but I'm going to limit the special powers the animal gets - no evasion or improved evasion, no shared spells (obviously, since he can't cast spells), and no alternative animal selection. Thanks for the suggestions, guys