The Ranger and the Animal Companion...

[Klaus]

I'd like some opinions before changing something IMC:

The Ranger gets an Animal Companion at 4th level, equivalent to a Druid with half as many levels as the Ranger.

By the time the Ranger is 10th level, if he sticks with a wolf (the most combat-oriented of the initial animals) for all the extra HD, he is fighting alongside a 4HD animal with +1 Str/Dex and +2 natural armor. All in all, the wolf is equivalent to a CR 2 creature (a 2HD wolf being a CR 1). That'd be equivalent to pairing a 10th-level character with a 3rd level warrior. A Druid would be riding Dire Lions by now.

So the Ranger begins 2 levels behind the Druid in Companion goodness and ends up 10 levels behind by 20th levels. The animal companion becomes a nonability (specially for a class that's more combat-focused than the druid).

In another thread, an EN Worlder mentioned a rule that I liked a lot: the Ranger has an animal companion as a druid 3 levels lower than his ranger level (akin to a paladin's turn undead levels). That way, the ranger remains one category behind the druid. At 10th level, the Ranger could have a wolf with 6HD, or a regular Dire Wolf.

So, what are your opinions on this?

 

[diaglo]

the ranger's animal companion is just that a companion. more like a pet really. not meant to be his melee protector like the druid's one.

it is meant to be his mount, his friend, his signature so to speak.

he has his own abilities to take care of the rest of business. esp with the changes brought about by 3.11ed for Workgroups.

 

[DonAdam]

This feels like more of a house-rules thread, but...

In my extensive revisions I gave it to them at full strength and took away spells, among other changes.

 

[aurance]

I like the three levels behind, a lot. We use it in our campaigns.

 

[Plane Sailing]

In another thread, an EN Worlder mentioned a rule that I liked a lot: the Ranger has an animal companion as a druid 3 levels lower than his ranger level (akin to a paladin's turn undead levels). That way, the ranger remains one category behind the druid. At 10th level, the Ranger could have a wolf with 6HD, or a regular Dire Wolf.

So, what are your opinions on this?

I've certainly said this on ENworld, so it might have been me or it might have been someone else equally savvy

I think it is a completely reasonable thing to do. It is what I've done in my campaign, and I hope to persuade my DM in the campaign in which I play.

Even if it were at the same level as the druids companion it would not be likely to be as good a fighter, but at least being just a step behind gives it some degree of survivability.

It's an all-good decision as far as I'm concerned.

(p.s. I give paladins and rangers a caster level of (level-3) rather than (level/2) too)

Cheers

 

[Steverooo]

(p.s. I give paladins and rangers a caster level of (level-3) rather than (level/2) too)

I suggested doing this in my 1e-to-3e Ranger conversion, pre-3.5e...

 

[Gez]

I'll yoink the 3-level delay for animal companion.

Now that it's a class feature, it has no reason to be keyed on caster level.

(But I'll keep the half-caster level. I need it with my spellcasting house rule. I don't want to give rangers access to level 9 spells, which they would if they did reach caster level 17.)

 

[Klaus]

Plane Sailing -> Yes! You were the original poster of this idea! Thanks so much!

My concern is that, at it's current power, the _only_ tactic for an animal companion is Aid Another (attack AC 10 to give +2 to hit or to AC). That is a telltale sign that something is wrong. The animal companion doesn't have enough BAB to hit the usual opponents a 10th-level party faces, or enough hp and AC to endure the threats of being a scout, becoming a nonability.