Animal Companion morbidly annoying?

[Grimstaff]

Is anyone else annoyed by Animal Companion? I realize some people like the Beastmaster movies and Drizzt the amazing drow with their leetle friends, but did this really need to be built into the game mechanic for Druids and Rangers? Giving players the option to simply replace this ability with a feat doesn't really add up, either, as an animal companion can eventually prove more powerful than any single feat. Argh, I'm sending my weasel to bite the onions off some unlucky shambling mound right now...

 

[Crothian]

No, what bothers me is rangers and druids who send their animal companions into places that get them killed. I've seen these animals used to good effect but they can't go toe to toe with a lot of powerful monsters.

But if they do die so easily, then how are the more useful then a feat?

 

[sniffles]

I've always found it a little odd to think that a druid, especially, would send an animal companion any place that would endanger it. I mean, druids are supposed to be protectors of nature, right? Dragging a wolf into the dungeon and having it attack the kobolds doesn't seem very protective.

OTOH, I do play a druid currently, and I do have her animal companion attack opponents. I figure the animal is more than just set dressing; he's her buddy, and she might as well use his skills and talents to her benefit, just as she will use her skills and spells to help him. But she won't do it heedlessly. If things are too dangerous she'll tell him to stay behind or run away. A druid who ruthlessly uses an animal companion for advantage but doesn't return the favor should probably be subject to some kind of punishment from their druidic circle or deity.

 

[Kahuna Burger]

I'm with sniffles. One of the 3.5 changes I really dislike is making the animal companion even more of a meatsheild. I like animal companions for scouting, tracking, flavor and maybe flanking. I don't like them as primary combatants.

 

[Mercule]

A druid who ruthlessly uses an animal companion for advantage but doesn't return the favor should probably be subject to some kind of punishment from their druidic circle or deity.

Or just Neutral Evil.

 

[jdrakeh]

I think the biggest problem with animal companions is how players utilize them (i.e, as living weapons and/or shields). Sadly, this isn't entirely a player fault - the rules do actually encourage animal companions to be used in this capacity to some degree (as a previous poster pointed out).

 

[Crothian]

Or just Neutral Evil.

A druids circle or diety can still punish a NE druid

 

[Luthien Greyspear]

While in my current campaign I don't have any tree-huggers dragging their furry friends behind them, I have had it done in the past. The last two (2e) campaigns I ran had rangers or druids, and they were no problem. The one character was a meistersinger (bard kit that attracted animals like Snow White attracted short men), and he had an owl, a mountain lion, and a bear. Of the three, the only one that went with him into the Underdark was the lion, and it was no better or worse off than any other party member. The meistersinger got a little more chewed up than normal, because he deferred all the healing he was offered to his animal first.

I do see the problem with the concept of sending these beloved companions into combat, since one would think that the druid or ranger would want to keep them out of harm's way. Let's turn this argument around, however: how many loyal wolf companions would want their best friend to get hurt when they could prevent it by biting someone? The animals most likely WANT to fight the character's enemies, because that means they are protecting their friend. Animals (especially social animals like wolves or bears) actively defend those in their families, and it is probable that extends to the character.

Think of how many people have dogs to defend their homes. Just because they rarely have to actually attack someone, we think of them as just big pets. Still, if a fight started, and the dog was in a position to bite the man with the gun pointed at his best friend, you bet your @$$ he's going to chomp down on that arm and protect his family. Same social rules apply to adventurers; it's just that it happens more often. (Mostly because the characters are the ones breaking in. Maybe we should be more concerned about all these druids and rangers seducing these poor animals into lives of crime... )

 

[Gold Roger]

Is anyone else annoyed by Animal Companion? I realize some people like the Beastmaster movies and Drizzt the amazing drow with their leetle friends, but did this really need to be built into the game mechanic for Druids and Rangers?.

That's exactly how I feel about this as well. Yes, I understand that some Rangers and Druids have a animal companion that's elemental to their charakter concept. But having animal companions as basic part of the classes means that every member of these classes has one of those around (sure you could just play your druid without companion, but who likes to play a weaker charakter only because his concept doesn't fit the rules).

Giving players the option to simply replace this ability with a feat doesn't really add up, either, as an animal companion can eventually prove more powerful than any single feat

The solution to this could be found a) in substitution levels that give bonus feats and minor features at the apropiate levels (bonus feat at the level the companion would be gained, then minor ability whenever the animal companion would outstrip the benefits) or b) simply creating some feats that are more powerfull than normal feats and get better with levels, but demand you to give up the animal companion class feature.
I may give the second option a shot, but I can't promise anything.

 

[arwink]

I prefer the 3.5 animal companion to the 3.0 one on many levels, primarily because every druid player in my games has wanted to keep one animal for their entire career rather than upgrading every couple of levels.

Of course, I got lucky in this respect. The person playing a druid in my current group is so protective of her wolf companion that it only goes into combat with particualrly weak looking foes and anyone who fires a stray arrow at it is likely to get toasted by any number of spells (regardless of the tactical sense in doing so). It's primarily there to smell things, to keep her safe at night, and to stand guard over her if she falls in combat.