Animal Companion Questions

[Rineran Foxfire]

So I'm playing a Ranger and just hit level 4 and after looking at the animal companion page in the Core Book I'm a little confused by a few things.

1. Does the Ranger and his animal share a telepathic link in terms of communication? I'm leaning towards an Eagle pet and I wanted to know if my pet can tell me what he sees while he's flying around.

2. When looking at combat with a companion that flies can he make fly by attacks or does he have to fly down and hover around an enemy to attack it?

3. What is the benefit of choosing the Bird companion? They do very little dmg, have very little armor and hit points and get crappy lvl 4 adjustment bonuses. The only reason I really want an Eagle is because it fits the characters backstory perfectly.

 

[GlassEye]

1. There is no telepathic link between the companion and the ranger. However, a ranger with the Beastmaster archetype gains an empathic link much like a wizard & familiar at 6th level. This also allows the ranger to see through his companion's eyes.

2. A flying companion can't do a fly-by-attack nor hover. They do start with one feat and even though those feats aren't on the 'Animal Feats' list (probably because they are in the Bestiary and not in the Core Rulebook) you might be able to convince your DM to take them.

3. Story. I'm sure there's more but my boss is kicking me out of the office.

 

[SteelDraco]

1. The basic ranger's animal companion is mostly a well-trained animal, not supernaturally attuned. You get bonuses to Handle Animal and wild empathy checks with it, but that's all. If you want to go that route, look at the Beastmaster archetype. The Speak with Animals spell is handy for this, too - some scrolls of this are useful and pretty cheap.

2. A bird qualifies for Flyby Attack, and has a good speed. Hovering is fairly easy with the Fly skill. You can do either one, pretty much. Flyby Attack will keep the bird alive, which is nice.

3. The damage is low, but it's very mobile and can start with Flyby Attack. If you're a Beastmaster or have easy access to Speak with Animals it can scout for you. Just don't expect it to be a big combatant for you - that will honestly get most ranger animal companions killed quickly.

 

[Rineran Foxfire]

So Ranger animal companions are simply for non combat use then?

 

[StreamOfTheSky]

With the Boon Companion feat, they're as good as Druid companions. Still not great combatants, but at least it costs nothing to replace them...?

I do recommend upgrading your bird to a Roc once you hit effective druid level 7, though. Rocs start out bad, but the level boost is good for them. And the text specifically says a ranger can pick one as a companion.

Also, don't do Beastmaster archetype, it is a HUGE trap.

 

[DumbPaladin]

Also, don't do Beastmaster archetype, it is a HUGE trap.

I keep seeing this "trap" description applied to various character choices.

Is it code for "not a choice that works with min/maxing and munchkin builds"?
A way to describe options that are really only good for roleplaying purposes?
Or just something people call things they don't personally like?

Will the choice somehow "trap" the player in an inescapable pit of non-fun from which there is no hope of enjoying Pathfinder?

 

[StreamOfTheSky]

It's a trap because you lose stuff for basically nothing. And it fails at what it's supposed to be about...animals... if you actually use their unique ability to have a whole bunch of weak lil' cannon fodder instead of one strong companion. Unless your idea of a "ranger at one with the animals" is someone who takes half the game to catch up with the druid for animal companion (which actually becomes INCREDIBLY annoying if you have a strict, no-retraining DM considering Boon Companion could've been had much sooner) and spends every night burying his new friends and honoring their sacrifice against [insert area attack that's nothing to the PCs but death in a can for creatures with only average hp and much fewer HD].

So yes, it's a trap. I don't call nearly as much stuff "trap options" as others on the internet do. But Beastmaster Ranger is pretty much the textbook definition of "really bad idea for your character."

 

[Patryn of Elvenshae]

I keep seeing this "trap" description applied to various character choices.

Is it code for "not a choice that works with min/maxing and munchkin builds"?
A way to describe options that are really only good for roleplaying purposes?
Or just something people call things they don't personally like?

No, it's "code" for "Things which, at first blush, look like they work well, but really don't."

Consider someone who wants to be a light, mobile combatant. You might think that dual-wielding and Spring Attack would work well for this type of character. The problem is that dual-wielding and Spring Attacking are mutually exclusive, and trying to go for both will make your character much less effective than you might want him to be.

 

[StreamOfTheSky]

No, it's "code" for "Things which, at first blush, look like they work well, but really don't."

Consider someone who wants to be a light, mobile combatant. You might think that dual-wielding and Spring Attack would work well for this type of character. The problem is that dual-wielding and Spring Attacking are mutually exclusive, and trying to go for both will make your character much less effective than you might want him to be.

An even better explanation.

 

[Theo R Cwithin]

No, it's "code" for "Things which, at first blush, look like they work well, but really don't."

I'm going to fork this off into a new thread, if you all wouldn't mind talking about it more in depth? I'm really curious to hear a discussion on this.