Animal Companion morbidly annoying?

[Dannyalcatraz]

Personally, I think familiars and animal companions (and even the Paladin's mount) should have been optional.

While I know they can be useful, they seldom fit my PC concepts or my DM's campaigns. And when they don't fit the DM's campaign, it doesn't matter how well you play them, they end up dead.

Example: My current PC, a spelunking Indiana Jones based character, had a Bat as his familiar. The party is going through RttToEE. He sent his bat to investigate a large, open chamber in a ruined keep. Before the critter could take a single action, the bat was snatched out of the air by the dragon that was inside. The PC is out the XP & will not get another familiar for many more months.

 

[Lord Pendragon]

And when they don't fit the DM's campaign, it doesn't matter how well you play them, they end up dead.

Example: My current PC, a spelunking Indiana Jones based character, had a Bat as his familiar. The party is going through RttToEE. He sent his bat to investigate a large, open chamber in a ruined keep. Before the critter could take a single action, the bat was snatched out of the air by the dragon that was inside. The PC is out the XP & will not get another familiar for many more months.

When they don't fit into a DM's campaign, they should be removed from the game and replaced with something else, not killed by a dragon that apparently likes to kill every bat that flies into his lair.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

Amen, Brother!

However, I really think they're being arbitrary- I'm doing something that would ruin their surprise, so....WHOOO WHOOOO Plot train a-comin up the rails! Kill the Familiar First!

 

[Impeesa]

Really? I always pictured Evil Druids as caring about the animals and nature as much as Good Druids, except that instead of merely protecting them [Like being on the defensive], they are on the offensive and ruthlessly kill those who would mean to harm animals or nature.

Example: Loggers come into an area. Good Druids may attempt to deal with them, saying they can only take a few trees a day or in return for donating a little gold to help protect the animals and forest in a different way [Maybe not exactly that, but they'd be peaceful first; violence wouldn't be their first course of actions] while Evil Druids would see the loggers as invaders and would attempt to annihilate them all to protect the animals and nature.

I can see something like that. I can also see evil druids as embodying the idea that, in reality, nature is rarely kind. Think dominance, survival of the fittest, culling the herd, etc. I can imagine such a druid getting away with not shedding a tear if their companion dies in a reasonably even fight.

--Impeesa--

 

[Pinotage]

If the animal companion is so weak to always die, then how it is a weaker class if you just don't have one? Seems like the ability might be more of a liability in this case.

A ranger's animal companions is really easy to kill. At only half the progression of the druid, what 20th level ranger is going to be walking around with a 8 HD wolf that's going to die to the next fireball? The druid's animal companion is at least respectable, but still easy to kill.

Pinotage

 

[wedgeski]

Not only do I think Animal Companions and Familiars should have been optional, what annoys me most about them is that they're ineffectual enough so that they *might as well be*. I've had players valiantly try to integrate one or other into their character concepts, with some success on the flavour side, but as a complete waste of paper on the mechanic side. Personally I would like to see the benefits and power of both of them increased, right along with the penalties when they get injured or killed, but I've never experimented with the idea and don't know how it would work over the medium to long term.

 

[Drowbane]

I don't mind Animal Companions (Familiars, Cohorts) one bit. However I'd be thrilled to see some replacement (non racial preferably) that allow a Druid or Ranger to gain something else for that level. I'm *all* about more options.... not everybody digs having a killer wolf following in thier wake.

I'm with sniffles. One of the 3.5 changes I really dislike is making the animal companion even more of a meatsheild.

Even more of a meatshield? Are you kidding me? Back in 3e an Animal Companion could be up to *twice* the Druid's HD... (or did I dream that up?) you just had to find the right critter. Lvl 6 Druid with an Advanced Tiger, anyone?

Not only do I think Animal Companions and Familiars should have been optional, what annoys me most about them is that they're ineffectual enough so that they *might as well be*. I've had players valiantly try to integrate one or other into their character concepts, with some success on the flavour side, but as a complete waste of paper on the mechanic side. Personally I would like to see the benefits and power of both of them increased, right along with the penalties when they get injured or killed, but I've never experimented with the idea and don't know how it would work over the medium to long term.

While I have seen ineffectual Animal Companions... namely any Ranger's. (it is my belief that a Ranger's companion should be as per Druid level -3... not Druid lvl 1/2) I've also seen some kickin Companions that could outshadow the party fighters... at least for the first 12 levels.

 

[cmanos]

just to muddle things a bit...how do y'all feel about familiars, and paladin's warhorses?

 

[Li Shenron]

IMXP we haven't overused animal companions, familiars or mounts. All Druids and Rangers I have seen in actual game, were caring for their animals (not using them as meatshield) and when they got killed they usually didn't rush taking another "expendable" critter as soon as possible. However I very much see how this can happen because, you know, the rules allow to waste a critter every other day, so it must be the right thing to do... I'm grateful that at least familiars and divine mount still take a year and a day before getting the next one.

However our situation may not be the standard one, as it's not uncommon that we play characters without exploiting every class feature, and companions have been perhaps the most generally underused feature (IIRC, only 1-2 of our druids started with the companion immediately, all others waited a few levels).

 

[Belen]

Personally, I think familiars and animal companions (and even the Paladin's mount) should have been optional.

While I know they can be useful, they seldom fit my PC concepts or my DM's campaigns. And when they don't fit the DM's campaign, it doesn't matter how well you play them, they end up dead.

Example: My current PC, a spelunking Indiana Jones based character, had a Bat as his familiar. The party is going through RttToEE. He sent his bat to investigate a large, open chamber in a ruined keep. Before the critter could take a single action, the bat was snatched out of the air by the dragon that was inside. The PC is out the XP & will not get another familiar for many more months.

I agree. They should have been optional. Now they are used as a power up or class ability. The Paladin's mount is especially bad. I liked it when they had to quest for the darn thing!