Animal Companion morbidly annoying?

[Belen]

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).

You never played with a hardcore LG player then. The guy playing a druid in our game would routinely dismiss his companion to get a new one with better abilities and when it died, he would not move forward in the game until he had summoned a new one.

 

[Kahuna Burger]

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?

you could also get two hawks, two owls andtwo weasles and use them exclusively for scouting. in 3.5 you have one largish animal which progresses as a combatant. Maybe it isn't as effective as a meatsheilld, I haven't played the numbers because I don't like that role. But the role has been more narrowed, which is what I was refering to. Sorry for the confusion.

 

[Janx]

My gnome conjurer has a raven familiar. I got a hand puppet for him (ala Hodgy from KoDT). It was fun.

The raven was learning to be a thief from the party rogue. He could talk (that's the raven power), and since he was smarter than normal as a familiar, he could carry on a conversation. I actually made my gnome character as being rather quiet, and had the raven do most of the talking.

I think the raven attacked someone once (and killed them), but that was when the party was in serious trouble, and a PC was going down, while the rest of the party was getting wasted by a dragon. The NPC killed was already seriously hurt, so no, it wasn't an uber raven.

I'd also played in a 3.0 game where the Druid had a snow leopard that kicked butt. Not sure of the details, but it helped the party a lot and it never died.

Janx

 

[lukelightning]

I see absolutely no problem with animal companions. Saying "oh, a druid wouldn't have a wolf because the wolf will get killed" is silly. Sure, druids are the caretakers of nature, but they don't see themselves as something separate from nature. The animal companion is a gift from nature to the druid to help her.

 

[Shallown]

In our group we tend to treat the animal companion like we do the leadership gained cohort as a party member. Which means we protect them, heal them and buff them as much as we do most of the PC's. If they need to retreat then the do so while everyone else covers them. I think ot is not only the way the Druid treats the companion but how the group does as a whole. Our Groups companion and cohort are the groups meat shields. As the party caster I protect my meat shields. Its not only my characters personality but also kind of selfish making sure the big mean monsters can't get to me.

Later

 

[Funeris]

I've played a paladin...never took the mount. The two druids I've played (I spend most of my time DMing anymore...it seems) I dropped the animal companions as well. I don't see them as necessary. For the druids, we negotiated and decided a +2 bump to an ability was enough to handle the lack of companion. I thought it worked.

If I only could've gotten around the instantaneous summoning (I really, really dislike summoning...from too many experiences of having to wait for players to flip, flip, flip through every book), it would've been a perfect class

~Fune

 

[lukelightning]

Many people have encountered this problem; I think the consensus is that the player must have the stats handy...it's not that hard to prepare the stats for the monsters you're likely to summon on cards or just a plain old piece of paper. There are plenty of "stat packs" on the internet, or just cut-and-paste from an online SRD. And at least druids can use creature stats right out of the book; wizards and clerics have all sorts of fiendish this and celestial that, which require templates.

And if this is still a problem, tell the summoning player that "oh, I guess you're still casting the spell" and go to the next person....

If I only could've gotten around the instantaneous summoning (I really, really dislike summoning...from too many experiences of having to wait for players to flip, flip, flip through every book), it would've been a perfect class

 

[Funeris]

Many people have encountered this problem; I think the consensus is that the player must have the stats handy...it's not that hard to prepare the stats for the monsters you're likely to summon on cards or just a plain old piece of paper. There are plenty of "stat packs" on the internet, or just cut-and-paste from an online SRD. And at least druids can use creature stats right out of the book; wizards and clerics have all sorts of fiendish this and celestial that, which require templates.

And if this is still a problem, tell the summoning player that "oh, I guess you're still casting the spell" and go to the next person....

And while we did try to enforce that rule....it never seemed to stick...play was bogged down and I (along with others) became frustrated. I do have cards and the like for summoning...and if I ever draw up an NPC that needs to summon, I'll use 'em. For my druids in particular, we designed a handful of creatures that I could summon...to fit with the unique backstory of it all. So...if I had to summon, I could.

Thankfully in my homebrew, there are no clerics that want to summon anything; druids are rare to non-existant; the one wizard may end up summoning...but has not yet. And when/if she does resort to summoning, we'll be prepared.

I also just feel the hassles of animal companions/mounts/familiars exceeds their worth. So, I'm against them in all situations (unless it fits groovily with a magnificent backstory...in which case I will allow it).

~Fune

 

[kenobi65]

I'll have to respectfully disagree with those of you who feel animal companions are ineffectual.

Arangil, my druid in Legends of the Shining Jewel has a "riding dog" companion. When the party was low-level, Duncan (the dog) was often the most effective fighter in the party. Now that we're around 6th level, he still holds his own in most fights. (For one thing, the dog, especially when he's wearing his leather barding, has a much better AC than the druid...)

Then again, I don't play stupid with him. Arangil will almost never send Duncan in on his own; he'll usually use the dog as a "flank buddy", and won't even allow Duncan to go into a fight that looks particularly nasty.

Duncan's also proven to be very useful for:
- Guarding innocents or defenseless individuals that the party needed to protect
- Helping Arangil track
- Chasing down fleeing individuals that we needed to capture (with a 40' move and a trip attack, he's pretty good at that)

From a purely RP perspective, it's also been fun. Duncan quickly developed into an incorrigible mooch, begging for food from other party members whenever the party was at a tavern.

 

[Grimstaff]

I see absolutely no problem with animal companions. Saying "oh, a druid wouldn't have a wolf because the wolf will get killed" is silly. Sure, druids are the caretakers of nature, but they don't see themselves as something separate from nature. The animal companion is a gift from nature to the druid to help her.

I think a Giant Tick (ToH) would make an excellent animal companion.