It's not a tax because a majority of people playing the class are already fine with it.
Ah yes, a "fact" derived from numbers from a single source of which the sample isn't explained, and that doesn't even mention the subclass.
It's not a tax because a majority of people playing the class are already fine with it.
None of which involve actually fighting. "Oh cool, can I have my panther leap at him and try to bite his face?" "You cooould, but it'd be better if he just played distraction." "Wow. So cool. End sarcasm."
The point where every animal companion except... two? Except two are melee creatures, and thus can't do the whole "I can be safe from damage by being too far away to easily be hit?" Sure, your wizard buddy can't really take many hits, but they also don't have to be right next to the opponent to contribute.
It’s not a tax, it’s an expansion of abilities. Not everyone would take them, only those who want their companion to have greater combat abilities than currently provided. Why wouldn’t that come at a price?
And if the price isn’t worth it, than what you are saying is that you don’t really want a better companion for some character concept you have in your head, you just want more power.
As to why not subclass features? Sure, as part of a new subclass it could work, but, as this thread has discussed for weeks now, the Revised Ranger will not be happening.
Seems spells and feats seem a more likely way to get this addressed given that announcement.
Requires them to not attack. Back to "Not fighting". And if you say it can contribute better by blocking exits... so can a brick wall. Hell, a brick wall would take longer to get around. Can I have a brick wall as my animal companion please?
Because it'd be as exciting, and at least I'd get some RP out of the curiousness of it.
Right, but what you don't think when you hear "animal companion" is "hireling with slightly more health". Because that's exactly what's being proposed: they're fine because you can play them the same way you would hired help that got caught in the battle.Again, I suggest you are being far too literal in what you consider "fighting". There's a lot more involved in a fight than dealing direct physical damage.
There are? Just looking through the PHB we've:Many of which have some sort of support or maneuverability options, typically don't present as the most immediate threat when they remain in combat, and can hold their own against individual low-level opponents.
No, you explained how the Help action can count as fighting by supporting another.I already explained the fighting aspect.
Right, but what you don't think when you hear "animal companion" is "hireling with slightly more health". Because that's exactly what's being proposed: they're fine because you can play them the same way you would hired help that got caught in the battle.
There are? Just looking through the PHB we've:
The bat. Keen Hearing, but no combat support options. 1 hp and no manoeuvrability options beyond flight.
The boar. Strictly melee smash-in-the-face, with added bonus if they charge right at the enemy. Dead in seconds.
The cat. Keen Smell, that's it.
The constrictor snake. It can constrain if it hits, would be good if it didn't die so easy.
The frog...
The hawk. It has Keen Sight and flying. Not bad utility. 1 HP (so 4x level at all times) and tiny though, so expect it to get eaten by a bigger predator.
The mastiff. Keen Hearing and Smell. No hit dice to speak of, so another "keep out of combat at all times."
The owl. Flyby, our first manoeuvrability option!
The panther. It can knock prone... if it charges straight at the things that can one/two-shot it.
The poisonous snake. Oh hey, I guess you could milk it for venom to apply to your weapons with a generous DM.
The rat. Keen Smell and vilified by civilisation.
The raven. It can mimic stuff, which can be useful.
The wolf. Pack Tactics! Great if it's adjacent to an enemy. With no way to safely retreat.
And that's it.
1 manoeuvrability option, and a couple of support options that mostly require charging straight to the animal companion's death.
Right, but what you don't think when you hear "animal companion" is "hireling with slightly more health". Because that's exactly what's being proposed: they're fine because you can play them the same way you would hired help that got caught in the battle.
And that's it.
1 manoeuvrability option, and a couple of support options that mostly require charging straight to the animal companion's death.
No?
If it's in the MM it's up to the DM whether it's available.
Furthermore, if you need a guide just to be able to pick a usable companion, that should be the biggest red flag you can get short of the class literally causing players to explode.