Animal Companion morbidly annoying?

[billd91]

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.

That's close to the way I see them. I get tired of the old cliche about druids being tree huggers. This isn't Greenpeace or PETA. Druids wield the forces of nature to do the things they need to do or want to do that they think are in the best interesets of the natural world and its interface with civilization. If that means sending in your animal companion to attack a dangerous opponent, then so be it.

In the Greyhawk game I run, the druid sends in his animal companion (a mountain lion based on leopard stats) all the time and it, quite franky, kicks a lot of ass. The PCs range from 6th to 8th level and the mountain lion is still holding his own.

 

[NCSUCodeMonkey]

I'm going to have to disagree. Every animal companion that I have ever seen has been disgustingly effective. I've also seen druids combine Awaken and leadership to gain even more deadly companions. Bears with levels of barbarian or fighter are quite nasty.

Then, for a short while, I tried having a dire bat... didn't work out, really. Preparing for combat took almost twice as many spells (greater magic fang, barkskin, nature's favour, etc...). In the end, I figured I'm better off without a companion.

With the Druid that I'm playing currently, Greater Magic Fang is a prep spell done far in advance of any expected combat. Once in combat, my character sticks close to his companion and casts buff spells using the share spell ability. Sure, it doesn't always work out, but tactically/mechanically it's a huge boost. Two combat power houses for half the price (spell wise), and as a player I get to attack every round. In terms of spell usage, it's no worse than playing a combat oriented cleric.

[mini rant]Personally I wish that Druids would loose some of their "tree hugging" aspects. Historic Druids certainly weren't afraid to give up the lives of a few animals (or humans, for that matter) for the better of the clan. They, like many early cultures, had a healthy respect for nature's power, but they were more than willing to tap into it by any means necessary.[/mini rant]

NCSUCodeMonkey

 

[Farganger]

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--

Nicely stated - I was thinking of the "nature, red in tooth and claw" model as well. I think even non-evil druids could take a fairly broad view of their role in protecting nature. I'm not sure they need to focus on particular animals. After all, whatever task is worth their attention/rising their lives is probably well worth the sacrifice of allies as well.

Animals die . . . a lot. They kill each other, die of (natural) diseases, etc. I don't think a druid necessarily even needs to shed a tear when her timber wolf is slain by a vastly overpowering monster. Perhaps, its death bought her the time she needed to cast a crucial spell; in any case, the wolf died fighting for its "pack leader", and that's the way it wanted to go out, surely.

 

[Mercule]

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.

Quite. An evil druid is the lion that makes the lioness do the hunting. He is the tiger that kills you for entering his territory. He is every bad myth about wolves.

 

[DreadPirateMurphy]

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

SPOOOOONN!!!!

As for animals, you either like them or you don't. Some people get into the role-playing. Others are like Varsuvius from Order of the Stick: "I haven't bothered to name any of my other class features."

 

[Aaron L]

I miss the 3.0 animals companions too. I had an evil ranger who used a conspiracy of ravens as scouts. And as an intimidation tactic.

 

[lukelightning]

How exactly does one use an animal companion as a scout, without resorting to speak with animals all the time?

 

[sniffles]

I'm going to have to disagree. Every animal companion that I have ever seen has been disgustingly effective. I've also seen druids combine Awaken and leadership to gain even more deadly companions. Bears with levels of barbarian or fighter are quite nasty.
With the Druid that I'm playing currently, Greater Magic Fang is a prep spell done far in advance of any expected combat. Once in combat, my character sticks close to his companion and casts buff spells using the share spell ability. Sure, it doesn't always work out, but tactically/mechanically it's a huge boost. Two combat power houses for half the price (spell wise), and as a player I get to attack every round. In terms of spell usage, it's no worse than playing a combat oriented cleric.
NCSUCodeMonkey

I'm going to have to remember this. I have not been using my animal companion effectively at all, and if I do it will drive my GM nuts (which is pretty much the point of the game ).

 

[kenobi65]

I'm going to have to remember this. I have not been using my animal companion effectively at all, and if I do it will drive my GM nuts (which is pretty much the point of the game ).

I do buff my dog with Magic Fang, etc., but I keep forgetting about the Share Spells thing.

 

[eris404]

I do buff my dog with Magic Fang, etc., but I keep forgetting about the Share Spells thing.

Oh, I love that feature! I play a druid with a dire bat that she uses as a mount. With some mounted combat feats, they are quite the team.