Natural Bond

[mirivor]

It is not a matter of pushing the aspect. I myself love druids and I really enjoy the companion aspect. However, the animal is NOT the druid. If you (or your DM) is allowing that sort of scenario then it is no wonder that you find the companion over-wrought. There are no points that I can make that will change your mind. But here are some ideas:

A druid, friend of nature, should lose his companion if he treats him like a slave. A companion serves the druid willingly and may leave at any point if he is treated badly. If the player using the druid doesn't even acknowledge his companion outside of combat and/or training for it, the he does not deserve the animal. This may not be explicit in the rules, but it is explicit in the flavor of a druid.

The DM should be making the animal's decisions, not the player. The DM can more accurately represent the instincts of the animal. He knows that the animal may realize that there is an invisible enemy present that the druid is unaware of, the animal may trump the druid's command because it senses a more immediate physical danger to the druid, even though the druid understands that the enemy spellcaster is in truth the greater danger.


This debate comes down to DM control. Animal companions are one of those game aspects that require a firm hand. You cannot quantify an animal's instincts in a ruleset so the game leaves it to the DM. Any such person that allows the druid a complete and total control over his animal is asking for the very trouble you are siting.

 

[Thanee]

1) I think that in order for a companion to attack a certain creature then the druid must be right there to gesture at it without the potential for error. An animal is still an animal. This effectively treats that druid and his companion as one entity for tactical purposes, including area of effect and ability to surround and cut off. Not the end of the world, but a drawback non the less.

Also, while it's more of a formality, druids still have to handle their animal companions via the Handle Animal skill.

Bye
Thanee

 

[mirivor]

Also, while it's more of a formality, druids still have to handle their animal companions via the Handle Animal skill.

No doubt. Note that the Handle Animal skill doesn't allow communications beyond an animals normal means. Thus the druid cannot say "Spaz, rip that mage a new orifice!". He has to gesture, in an unmistakable manner, at the intended target. Waving vaguely in the direction of the enemy and telling your companion to attack the dwarven barbarian does not cut it. Were I running the game and I player tried to pull that off, his companion would sit there and stare at him with its head cocked to one side as if to say "What in the bloody hell do you want? Give me some food."

 

[Jack Simth]

Slave? Ignored outside of combat and training? Where do you get that impression? Sure, the combat stuff and the training stuff is used to optimize the AC for combat (duh), but that's hardly the only aspect. The Druid finds the AC appropriet food (Survival is a class skill, after all), keeps it clean, watches over it while it sleeps, and finds the best dens to rest in. The Druid asks the AC to go nowhere the Druid doesn't. The Druid asks the AC to face no pack that the Druid doesn't face as well. The Druid makes the AC stronger. By the time the Druid can have a Dire Wolf animal companion (7th), he can get 1d3 of them on a round's notice with Summon nature's Ally IV. If, by some bizzare circumstance it came to it, the Druid could win in a dominance battle (although not necessarily easily, mind....). They are packmates. The Druid just happens to be the alpha. Beta's obey alphas. It's just the way it goes. Why do you think dogs make such loyal companions in real life?

 

[mirivor]

I have no impression whatsoever. Your previous posts made no mention of how the companion was treated. I merely pointed out some of the possible reasons that a companion might be better than it should be. Nor has anyone else mentioned the non-mechanical aspects of the companion, therefore my addressing those things is perfectly valid.

Alpha's are obeyed. That much is true. But When you stop to consider that fact that an alpha would never place its pack into a deadly situation without necessity then my suggestions about the non-crunchy bits of the companion, those which keep the animal's relative power in check, are all valid and applicable. If your group has no interest in non-mechanics, then you probably need to nerf the companion.

 

[Drowbane]

It was about time for this topic to come up once again...

 

[mirivor]

The recursion of topics of contention is representative of new players entering the game. That is nothing but good

 

[Jack Simth]

I have no impression whatsoever. Your previous posts made no mention of how the companion was treated. I merely pointed out some of the possible reasons that a companion might be better than it should be. Nor has anyone else mentioned the non-mechanical aspects of the companion, therefore my addressing those things is perfectly valid.

Well, the timing and the way you typed it left me with the impression that you were using it as a specific counter, rather than a generic listing (if the distinction makes sense) and I responded to it as such. I misread? I apologize.

Alpha's are obeyed. That much is true. But When you stop to consider that fact that an alpha would never place its pack into a deadly situation without necessity then my suggestions about the non-crunchy bits of the companion, those which keep the animal's relative power in check, are all valid and applicable. If your group has no interest in non-mechanics, then you probably need to nerf the companion.

Every time a pack goes on a hunt for, say, wild horses, they're in a deadly situation (a light horse is CR 1. A Wolf is CR 1. The herd usually outnumbers the pack. Hunting can go very, very wrong very, very easily). Wild animals find themselves in life-or-death situations rather often; those that don't hunt are usually the hunted. The Druid stops a lot of such situations (e.g., purchases a mule every now and again for that Dire Wolf to eat when in a city or just having a couple on the trail for a flubbed Survival check - they're only 8 gp list price, and they're about the size of the Dire Wolf (Large) - should last a while; you'll go through more than that in wands of Cure Light Wounds for not having the Animal Companion to guard you... especially as the AC draws fire, and you get effectively double healing via Share Spells) and adds others (which sometimes help out the natural world in general - after all, need a tie-in for the Druid to be adventuring).

 

[mirivor]

As for the first, Jack, no apology is necessary. I meant no intent or reflection of you personally but rather as an overall example of one thing that could potentially be overpowering a companion.

The second. I concur and accept that point, so long as it is acknowledged that hunting game is not even remotely similar to what the average companion of an adventurer might go through. Even with all of their benefits from being a companion, they are still facing off against dangers that far exceed anything that a wolf pack might, for instance. The only reason that I even stress this point is to drive home the fact that there may come a time that the animal simply refuses. Sicking a wolf on a beholder that is levitating may very well garner the druid some confused whines and barks from his friend.

There really is no hard and fast rules for this, I think. Once more, this is not an purported relection on any poster here. In my experience, things with little mechanical purview that are supposed to be balancing factors (in this case, exactly what the companion is, I suppose) are often the most abused in the game. DMs, through youth, inexperience, or a lack of desire for the fluff aspects, often times find themselves harried by game concepts that are wanting for a little attention from the game master. If, for instance, we took the wolf that you slated and simple made it an extension of the druid instead of its own being, I am certain that we can all imagine how much more powerful that could be compared to the wolf that, while trained to attack and obey, is still a thinking creature with the ability to make judgement calls. I have seen this several times, where the DM fails to reel in the player's outright abuse of the animal, thus resulting in an extremely powerful, if nonsensical, weapon in the form of an animal.

 

[Jack Simth]

As for the first, Jack, no apology is necessary. I meant no intent or reflection of you personally but rather as an overall example of one thing that could potentially be overpowering a companion.

The second. I concur and accept that point, so long as it is acknowledged that hunting game is not even remotely similar to what the average companion of an adventurer might go through.

Not similar in type, no... but at the same time, most deadly encounters the party faces are such that the party has a pretty reasonable chance of survival. Usually a bit worse than what a pack of wolves going after a few horses will deal with, granted, and more often, granted.

Even with all of their benefits from being a companion, they are still facing off against dangers that far exceed anything that a wolf pack might, for instance. The only reason that I even stress this point is to drive home the fact that there may come a time that the animal simply refuses.

RAW, covered by training (using two tricks on Attack). Also RAW, setting up to fail by not training (animals don't, by default, attack things like abberations, undead, or constructs.... refuse to, in fact... and is occasionally amusing, when the DM finds out that the only valid clearly hostile target in the flat-footed room for the AC to go after is the BBEG.... who's squishy).

Sicking a wolf on a beholder that is levitating may very well garner the druid some confused whines and barks from his friend.

Pointless to target a wolf on something that's naturally flying and probably out of reach. A Dire Bat, sure - it's used to hunting in three dimensions. Probably more effective to have the critter permit you to carry the fight to the thing - e.g., setting someone with a reach weapon on a Dire Wolf to so he can reach to Full Attack the beholder that's 20 feet up against the cieling, or using the same strategy with Jumping rules for a single attack at a higher altitude. But then, I'm fond of ways to move in three dimensions before you'd normally be permitted to do so on a regular basis.

Of course, when I'm playing a Druid, the animal companion gets healed first. To the consternation of just about everyone else at the table.....

There really is no hard and fast rules for this, I think. Once more, this is not an purported relection on any poster here. In my experience, things with little mechanical purview that are supposed to be balancing factors (in this case, exactly what the companion is, I suppose) are often the most abused in the game. DMs, through youth, inexperience, or a lack of desire for the fluff aspects, often times find themselves harried by game concepts that are wanting for a little attention from the game master. If, for instance, we took the wolf that you slated and simple made it an extension of the druid instead of its own being, I am certain that we can all imagine how much more powerful that could be compared to the wolf that, while trained to attack and obey, is still a thinking creature with the ability to make judgement calls. I have seen this several times, where the DM fails to reel in the player's outright abuse of the animal, thus resulting in an extremely powerful, if nonsensical, weapon in the form of an animal.

Well, even pushing it and letting Natural Bond mitigate the alternate companion list, the AC stops being meaningfully more effective than the Fighter at hurting things after about 8th or so. You notice my comparison didn't go past the Dire Wolf? A Druid-16's Tyrannasaurus, even with Natural Bond, is only attacking at +22. He won't be able to touch a tank. Sure, you can beef him up with Animal Growth (+3 attack, +6 damage), Greater Magic Fang (+5 attack, +5 Damage if you go with a Bead of Karma in the morning) ... but in no way is he going to keep up with a decked-out Fighter at that level. At 1st, a Riding Dog is a respectable melee combatant. At 3rd, a Riding Dog with Druid bonuses is a useful melee combatant if armored. At 4th, a leapord is a acceptable meelee combatant, and can surpass the Fighter at breaking faces if you let Natural Bond work with them, or if you buff up the Companion in some way. At 7th, one or the other lets him match, to accel, you'll need both. At 10th, you can probably trick out a Dire Lion or Megaraptor to routinely match an NPC Fighter-10. After that? Not so much. At 20th, you're better off using a Dire Bat for a permanent, undispellable, AMF capable, flying and almost freely replaceable mount than you are selecting an AC as a melee combatant. Meat shield? You can probably find something that will soak up attacks, or delay an opponent due to the complexities involved with getting around / disposing of something Huge with 250 HP to attack you.

Using a Druid to skip a Fighter works for low levels reasonably well. At high levels, you want a Planar Binding Sorcerer or a Golem crafting Wizard or Cleric for the purpose.