Turning, Rebuking, and Commanding Animals and Plants

[candidus_cogitens]

Has anybody tried making use of these feats in Masters of the Wild?:

Animal Defiance
Animal Control
Plant Defiance
Plant Control

Were they useful . . . fun? I like the idea of having plants under my command! For one thing, if you're a druid you can already cast Animal Friendship, so why not “branch out”?

But I still kinda think Animal Control might be more advantageous, especially because you encounter animals more often than moving plants (in most campaigns). Plus, commanding animals gives you certain advantages over just having companions. They obey your mental instructions, as opposed to only doing the few "tricks" that they are trained to do. Furthermore, you would not have to worry about acquiring and training a new companion as frequently.

Even though commanded animals count against your limit for companions, it would seldom be an issue, because you can only travel with companions whose total HD equal your level anyway, even though your limit is twice that amount. Considering you can only command creatures whose individual HD are half your level anyway . . .

Here's an example: If I'm an eighth level druid, I could in theory have 16 HD of companions. But I can only maintain 8 HD of them when I go adventuring. Now, the strongest animal that I can
command is 4 HD. And my limit would still allow me to command TWO such creatures . . . which is awesome. It's like getting to have twice as many animal companions . . . or better!

Which one do you think would be better?

 

[Shayuri]

I haven't actually tried these feats, so take what I say with a grain of salt.

IMO the utility of these feats really depends on the type of game you're in. For example, the D&D game I'm playing right now has a lot of overland trekking in it. While we don't generally have "encounters" with animals, we could, if we wanted, seek animals out for the purposes of controlling them. In many cases we could even do this immediately before a fight we're preparing for. In this situation, or in an adventure that involves a lot of encounters with animals (or, to a lesser extent, plants) these feats can be great. Just as clerical turning is a (tee hee) godsend when encountering undead of any stripe.

However, be wary! In my experience, campaigns like that are rare. You know your game, of course, but before you take any of these feats ask yourself honestly...

How often are we pitted against animals?

How often are we in places where animals that are powerful enough to be of use to us live?

In most games I know of, the answers to both of those questions is "very rarely."

Unlike undead, which are very popular with GM's due to the role they play in traditional fantasy, as well as the many many horrible things they can do to PC's, I've found that most GM's tend to dismiss animal encounters. They lack skills, feats, special powers...and are typically pretty weak. Oh, you may get the occasional dire creatures coming at you, but that's the exception, not the rule.

You may kick yourself for passing Animal Defiance/Control when you have to bring down the evil druid marshalling a huge force of dire bears to lay siege to a city...but once that one scenario is gone you may well be kicking yourself even MORE for having taken such a specialized feat.

Not to say you shouldn't take it, mind. Just to be sure that it will be worth it in your game before you do.

 

[candidus_cogitens]

I guess if I have to rely on my DM to cooperate with me and provide me with more animal encounters, then I might be better off just going for the plants, rather than animals, since I would get more HD of servants.

Me and my troop of vines and shrubs . . .

 

[candidus_cogitens]

So, nobody uses these feats?

My opinion is that the Plant ones are useless, but the animal ones are really cool. Why doesnt anyone use them?

 

[nharwell]

So, nobody uses these feats?

My opinion is that the Plant ones are useless, but the animal ones are really cool. Why doesnt anyone use them?

Because they are lame Note the requirement for Animal Defiance is the ability to cast Detect Plants or Animals. That limits the ability to Rangers and Druids -- who (1) have Animal Empathy, (2) can also cast Speak with Animals and Hold Animal, and (3) will generally have very little reason to "turn" animals. So this feat is almost useless except as the prereq for Animal Control.

Animal Control also requires the ability to cast Speak with Animals and Animal Friendship. Once again, if you have these spells you probably don't need this feat. Moreover, any animal you control with it counts against the hit dice limit for Animal Friendship! Any rangers and druids who have their max animal companions (most, in my experience) will never be able to use this feat.

These feats need some serious revising to make them useful or weaker prereqs so that non-Druids/Rangers can take them -- as it stands, the feats are useless for the only characters who can qualify for them.

 

[candidus_cogitens]

Because they are lame Note the requirement for Animal Defiance is the ability to cast Detect Plants or Animals. That limits the ability to Rangers and Druids -- who (1) have Animal Empathy, (2) can also cast Speak with Animals and Hold Animal, and (3) will generally have very little reason to "turn" animals. So this feat is almost useless except as the prereq for Animal Control.

Animal Control also requires the ability to cast Speak with Animals and Animal Friendship. Once again, if you have these spells you probably don't need this feat. Moreover, any animal you control with it counts against the hit dice limit for Animal Friendship! Any rangers and druids who have their max animal companions (most, in my experience) will never be able to use this feat.

Well, first of all, thank you SO MUCH for replying. I was looking forward to a good conversation. It's a bummer when you don't get replies.

I don't think it is a bad thing for a feat to be useful only for one or two classes. There are tons of feats like that. Most of the feats in any of the supplements are like that.

And I don't think that they are as useless for druids and rangers as it might seem, if only for the fact that you probably don't want to prepare Calm Animals, Speak with Animals or Animal Friendship every day. If you could automatically convert prepared spells into healing spells, then it would be different. But when I play a druid, I'm pretty much going to prepare spells that I am very likely actually to use that day, which would hardly ever include those spells. Having Animal Defiance would provide for having that base covered, so to speak, without devoting spell slots to it.

Plus, if you'e getting attacked by a pack of wild wolves, the only one of those spells that would be helpful would be Calm Animals. You can't cast animal friendship on all of them, but you could turn most of them, with the four or five attempts that you would be allowed with Animal Defiance.

But you might still be right that the main reason to take Defiance is to be able to take Animal Control. And the main reason you would want to do that is to double the animal power at your command. Not to mention the fact that commanded animals are even more directly subject to your wishes than animal friends are.

(I hope I do not sound too argumentative. I appreciate your points, and I'm glad to have a friendly discussion.)

 

[candidus_cogitens]

That limits the ability to Rangers and Druids -- who (1) have Animal Empathy. . . .

I overlooked this point in my first read. You are right that in some circumstances Animal Empathy would serve to get aggressive animals off your back. But not in all cases . . . that skill usually only works if you and the animal can observe each other for a full minute. If the animals are hungry, and just ambush you in the wild, it would be useless. It would also be pretty ineffective if the animals are in the service of some NPC, I would think--of course it would be up to the particular DM, I guess, since it is kind of a vague skill.

 

[Dingleberry]

Forgive the hijack, but this thread made me wonder: do such "turn _____ as clerics turn undead" abilities (Animal/Plant Defiance, domain powers) also apply the "if a combatant has twice as many levels (or more) as the undead have Hit Dice, the combatant destroys any that the combatant would normally turn" mechanic?

 

[AuraSeer]

IIRC, the text usually says "turn (but not destroy)", so no. I'm not sure if all the alternate abilities say that, but they probably should.

 

[candidus_cogitens]

The Animal (or Plant) Control feat is parallel to the ability of a good cleric to destroy or of an evil cleric to command undead. So, basically, the broke turning into two parts and made two feats out of it.

The funny thing is that in the Control feat description, it says "you rebuke or command . . . " Why didn't they put the ability of rebuke in the Defiance feat, since rebuking is more or less equivalent to turning. (Recall that if a good cleric turns a creature and it cannot escape, it cowers, just as creatures do when they are "rebuked" by an evil cleric. It does make a subtle differnence I guess. When you get the Control feat, you now have the choice of either sending them running or making them cower--whichever you find preferable--whereas if you just have the Defiance feat, you cannot choose to make them cower rather than fleeing.