Multiple Animal Companions

[Lord Pendragon]

My feelings are that an Animal Companion with less HD is, to an extent, vulnerable, and as such is as much a liability as an asset. On average each additional Animal Companion will have 2 HD less than the previous.

It's just not enough. By mid-levels the lesser animal companion will still be a force to be reckoned with.

Leadership I found to be a poor comparison. You would end up with a lot of 1 & 2 HD creatures running around, getting killed off left, right & centre. No Druid would ever want that on her conscience…

?? Leadership allows for a cohort of Character Level -2 at it's greatest (depending on charisma). That makes for far more than a 1 or 2 HD creature!

How much more unbalancing would this be than, say, a number of Summon Nature’s Ally spells? Are they not effectively doing the same thing? Sure, there is the time factor, for both casting and duration, but they are only ever really used in a fight.

You've pointed out some of the downsides yourself. A full-round action per summoned creature is huge. And a summoned monster is far less flexible in and out of combat than an animal companion.

So having said that, I don’t think that combat is the whole issue…

I’ll be honest; I am not too sure what to think… This is new territory for me! I think we will just play it out and see what happens… personally, I wish that when they died, that the Druid would sustain an XP lose. At least then they would show some restraint…

I agree. Which is another reason why I wouldn't allow a feat to grant another animal companion. There's no mechanic to prevent the druid from going through companions like Kleenex. If one dies in the dungeon, pick up another on the way home. Leadership, on the other hand, imposes a stiff penalty for a cohort's death, since each death detracts from your ability to attract a replacement, until you eventually reach a point where it's useless to try.

 

[Psimancer]

?? Leadership allows for a cohort of Character Level -2 at it's greatest (depending on charisma). That makes for far more than a 1 or 2 HD creature!

I was equating the cohort to the initial Animal Companion... the rest would be just... dross...

There's no mechanic to prevent the druid from going through companions like Kleenex.

Apart from alignment and potenial loss of druidic ability... no, not really...

I really don't think Leadership works either... but you do reinforce some of my earlier fears... bowing to someone who has more experience in this matter, I think I will just remove it from the table (at least without a lot more thought)...

Thanks for the help guys...


.

 

[Driddle]

There's no mechanic to prevent the druid from going through companions like Kleenex. If one dies in the dungeon, pick up another on the way home. ...

That "mechanic" is DM common sense and good roleplaying by everyone involved.

Your responses throughout this thread imply that you consider animal companions to be mainly combat tools.

But any decent DM trying to provide a character-driven campaign is going to make sure the player doesn't abuse the system. Even if it's something as simple as catching an animal companion in a previously unplanned fireball trap, or conveniently putting another arrow in the critter's flank and depleting his HPs dangerously close to zero, the DM should ensure the player realizes that an extra animal isn't just a cheap computer game hotkey cheat. Because replacing that cannon fodder is going to require some serious effort and a bit of luck on the PC's part.

"Here, wolfie, wolfie, wolfie .... Here, boy! I've got some tasty kibble for you to eat while I prep you for mortal combat ..."

"How's it going, Ranger Guy?"

"Oh, I'm getting really frustrated. So far I've only been able to attract a three sparrows, one dire squirrel, two rabbits, and a lemming. Can't find a stupid wolf anywhere."

 

[Lord Pendragon]

That "mechanic" is DM common sense and good roleplaying by everyone involved.

It's never a good idea to balance a mechanical benefit with a roleplaying penalty.

Your responses throughout this thread imply that you consider animal companions to be mainly combat tools.

They imply nothing of the sort. My point is that you cannot ignore the combat capability of an animal companion, for roleplaying purposes. Roleplaying is not a valid justification for a huge mechanical combat advantage.

But any decent DM trying to provide a character-driven campaign is going to make sure the player doesn't abuse the system.

Absolutely. I do this by not approving a non-core feat to allow an extra animal companion.

Because replacing that cannon fodder is going to require some serious effort and a bit of luck on the PC's part.

"Oh, I'm getting really frustrated. So far I've only been able to attract a three sparrows, one dire squirrel, two rabbits, and a lemming. Can't find a stupid wolf anywhere."

I would never pull this kind of stunt as a DM, because the next line out of the player's mouth would be:

"Wait a second, I have a +14 in Knowledge (Nature), Search (with the Tracking feat), Handle Animal, and Survival. I just rolled a 20, and you're telling me I can't find a wolf in the forest?"

Ugh. Be aware of an option's consequences and either allow it into your game, or disallow it. But don't use heavy-handed DM chicanery to rein in an ability that never should have made it into the game in the first place.

But back to the topic at hand, Psimancer I think you're making the right decision. If in six months or so, after you've gotten some experience with an animal companion under your belt, you still want to allow an extra companion, go for it. At least at that point you'll know what you're giving the player, and have a good idea of what you'll have to give to all your other players to balance it.

 

[Saeviomagy]

If the guy's aiming for non combat benefits, then I'd let him use handle animal and animal empathy to train and communicate with normal critters. I can't think of a utility for an animal that requires much beyond that, and the fact that such animals will rarely die (due to being non-combat) will mean that the problem of handle animal taking a long time to prepare an animal is... no problem at all.

 

[rhammer2]

Not bad, but I would limit to a cumulative 5 levels less and the feat can only be chosen after every 5 levels (6, 11, 16).

This is what I have so far... can anyone see a potential problem with this...?

Additional Animal Companion

You gain an additional animal companion.
Prerequisites: Druid level 5th.
Benefit: You gain an additional animal companion. You treat you effective druid level as three less when calculating your animal companions special powers.
Special: You may select this feat multiple times. Each time, you treat your effective level as three less than the previous animal companion.



.

 

[Driddle]

So on one hand you've got rules, numbers, rules, modifiers, rules, combat and rules. On the other hand you've got roleplaying and an understanding of abusive gaming based on good player-DM communications.

(shrug) I'd give him the extra animal companion and trust our collective gaming experience to take care of the rest.

 

[Lord Pendragon]

So on one hand you've got rules, numbers, rules, modifiers, rules, combat and rules. On the other hand you've got roleplaying and an understanding of abusive gaming based on good player-DM communications.

Oh, give me a break. I'm not against an extra animal companion because it's against the rules. The rules can be stupid (take a look at the cost for a sword of subtlety). I'm against inbalance. As a player, I don't like my character being severely weaker than another's, and giving a druid character another animal companion does exactly that. Might as well give him extra levels while you're at it.

Conveniently, the rules don't include a method of gaining an extra animal companion. So in this case, rather than breaking the rules to create balance, all you have to do is follow them.

(shrug) I'd give him the extra animal companion and trust our collective gaming experience to take care of the rest.

(shrug) For an experienced DM and group, I wouldn't have a problem with it either. A DM familiar with the animal companion can always, as I mentioned in my previous post, compensate the other players for the power-boost he's granting to the druid. A better sword. An unusual special ability. Whatever. But for a DM who's unfamiliar with animal companions and thier impact on the game "trust your collective gaming experience" is hardly good advice. He doesn't have the experience. That's the point of the thread.

 

[Driddle]

Oh, give me a break. You're using the rules as a crutch for common sense -- you just don't realize it.

There is no "imbalance" unless the GM allows a situation to become imbalanced. Even without writing down the pros and cons on paper, it's apparent that the multiple-companion PC is going to have a *potential* combat advantage over his partners ... but ONLY IF he actually brings all his animals into combat at the same time and ONLY IF the gamemaster allows it.

The simplest solution is to say, "Sure, you can have another animal companion (by expending a feat). But it would be a little unfair to game balance if you used both of them in combat all the time. So if you're going to have a second companion, you've got to hold him back out of the scene somehow. ... I'll let him come in at the last minute if the first animal is killed in action, but that's about as far as we can stretch it."

Alternately, you could explain, "I hope you realize that if you're going to bring multiple animal companions into combat, I'm going to have to take those challenge levels up a notch, too."

(re-shrug) Which is pretty much what you're suggesting, I think, but without all official rules jargon.

The GM can tweak anything he bloody well wants to tweak behind his screen without justifying it to the players. So if the scenario needs another zombie to keep the druid's wolf busy ... well, make it happen.

 

[Lord Pendragon]

Oh, give me a break. You're using the rules as a crutch for common sense -- you just don't realize it.

And you're using role-play as an excuse for an inbalanced game -- you just don't realize it.

There is no "imbalance" unless the GM allows a situation to become imbalanced.

Which is what happens if you throw in another animal companion.

Even without writing down the pros and cons on paper, it's apparent that the multiple-companion PC is going to have a *potential* combat advantage over his partners ... but ONLY IF he actually brings all his animals into combat at the same time and ONLY IF the gamemaster allows it.

So what you're saying is, "a second animal companion is only an advantage if the PC is actually allowed to use it!" This is senseless. Why allow it, only to disallow the use of it?

The simplest solution is to say, "Sure, you can have another animal companion (by expending a feat). But it would be a little unfair to game balance if you used both of them in combat all the time. So if you're going to have a second companion, you've got to hold him back out of the scene somehow. ... I'll let him come in at the last minute if the first animal is killed in action, but that's about as far as we can stretch it."

Again, you're not allowing anything, other than allowing your druid to expend a feat for nothing. And how long can you keep up the RP excuses for why the second animal companion doesn't join in, before you break verisimilitude completely? Three sessions? Four?

What you're proposing isn't the simplest solution at all. It's the exact opposite of the simplest solution. It's the most complicated solution, a solution involving introducing a mechanical advantage, then house-ruling that advantage into nothing, at the cost of a feat, for no mechanical benefit, and no RP benefit that couldn't have been gained through Handle Animal and three weeks of downtime.

The simplest solution: no, a second animal companion would be unbalancing. But feel free to use Handle Animal to train as many extra animal buddies as you like to scout, guard, steal keys, etc.

Alternately, you could explain, "I hope you realize that if you're going to bring multiple animal companions into combat, I'm going to have to take those challenge levels up a notch, too."

All this does is get the rest of the party killed.

(re-shrug) Which is pretty much what you're suggesting, I think, but without all official rules jargon.

Not quite. Of course when the party's power rises, the challenges have to rise. But what I was suggesting was giving the other players power equal to an extra animal companion. Not just making the encounters more dangerous and leaving the druid as the only PC equipped to handle them.

The GM can tweak anything he bloody well wants to tweak behind his screen without justifying it to the players.

Bull. A good DM doesn't just throw everything out the window and do whatever he wants. Why even roll dice then? Just have the DM describe what's happening after you describe what you want to try to do. A good DM is one the players can trust to provide a balanced game, and a set of consistant rules (even of most of those rules are House Rules). Otherwise, you might as well not use dice at all.