Animal Companions, Average members of their species [Archive] - Wizards Community

Animal Companions, Average members of their species [Archive] - Wizards Community

Post/Author/DateTime Post
Wolf_Boy
03-04-07, 03:59 PM Now I understand their are mechanical reasons for this, and that they become stronger due to the druidic connection over time but...

In stories and just common sense, when a druid/ranger buys a horse for example he knows exactly what he's looking for, he's not just an expert, he's THE expert.

These are not the kind of people that get an average run of the mill horse. Nor do they get a run of the mill Dog, Cat ect.

I just... I dunno I feel stupid being an animal expert and buying a subpar animal...
Perseus_Stoned
03-04-07, 04:05 PM I don't really understand what you're asking/saying; are you inferring that you don't think its fair that you, as a druid character, can only purchase typical horses for the species?
Wolf_Boy
03-04-07, 04:37 PM I'm complaining that with knowledge nature, handle animal, and animal empathy. Druids and rangers should not be regulated to standard animal statistics. When a person purchases and animal they aren't going to buy the average animal if they know what they're buying and how to tell the difference.

Also, when getting a companion to help you in adventures in battle and the like you certainly don't choose the average member of the species, it's counter intuitive. Not only that, but it puts the animal in more risk.

I'm complaining that it makes no logical sense.

I'd actually be happier with having wait longer for a typical animal companion if it meant the animal companion would have above average statistics from the get go as it would make more sense and hurt my brain less.
Perseus_Stoned
03-04-07, 04:51 PM When a person purchases and animal they aren't going to buy the average animal if they know what they're buying and how to tell the difference.

I'd argue that this is actually a matter of roleplaying up to your DM's discretion and based on what animals are present. If there are a wide selection of horses to pick from and your DM does not allow you to make a Knowledge or Empathy check to determine if any are of superior quality than that is more a problem with your DM than the mechanics.

However, it sort of seems to me you're indicating that by mere merit of being a druid/ranger your mount should be above average, which doesn't seem right to me if the only mounts available are of standard breed. Unless you use magic, you aren't able to inherently "awaken" sort ability that makes the animals superior.

I'd actually be happier with having wait longer for a typical animal companion if it meant the animal companion would have above average statistics from the get go as it would make more sense and hurt my brain less.

This sounds entirely reasonable and is something you should talk to your DM about, I for one have been playing that way for some time. If you go through the roleplaying aspect of searching out for a better-than-average companion in some aspect, it should certainly be rewarded to you. Keep in mind a better quality horse could simple have one better constitution or the like than a normal horse and its price would almost certainly be affected as well.
runestar
03-05-07, 12:44 AM As a lover of nature, I don't see why you should not be taking the first animal companion which comes your way....:P
Perseus_Stoned
03-05-07, 12:46 AM As a lover of nature, I don't see why you should not be taking the first animal companion which comes your way....:P

Hey, its not like he's shunning the animals :)

"Now you bunny rabbits stand over there, you're not good enough. Ohh.. Mr. Wolf, how you doing? How'd like some extra saves? Wait.. you are aged. That also means you're useless. Whoa.. wait, don't bite me!"

And thats not even accounting for all the bunny psions that have seemed to sprung up lately :)
paladin2019
03-05-07, 12:50 AM As a lover of nature, I don't see why you should not be taking the first animal companion which comes your way....:P

This actually reinforces the idea that the companion's stats should be rolled rather than the average...

I see where this comes from. In AD&D2E, animals the ranger purchases actually either gain a bonus or have minimum roll/hit die. This represents the ranger choosing the best examples available for his adventures. However, these creatures don't have the benefits an animal companion gains so this is not a direct correlation.
Perseus_Stoned
03-05-07, 12:55 AM This actually reinforces the idea that the companion's stats should be rolled rather than the average...

I see where this comes from. In AD&D2E, animals the ranger purchases actually either gain a bonus or have minimum roll/hit die. This represents the ranger choosing the best examples available for his adventures. However, these creatures don't have the benefits an animal companion gains so this is not a direct correlation.

The trouble is you, as the PC, are typically given roles as appropriate to your campaign setting (or difficulty, I suppose). Aren't the bonuses provided representative of choosing a superior animal? If you were meant to be a completely average human, or just an above average one, (assuming your character is a human) you'd really just be given a set of stats that would go along the lines of: 10/10/10/10/10/10. (Extremely) above average, while not yet heroic, would maybe throw in a 12 once or twice.

Your animal companions are not meant to be an extremely exceptional bunch, simply above average, which I think is already reflected well. I would not say a houserule would be out of order, but I don't see anything that needs correcting.
OliverR
03-05-07, 01:20 AM In our last campaign I played a druid.

My animal companion got max hitpoints the first level, just as the players.
paladin2019
03-05-07, 06:59 AM The trouble is you, as the PC, are typically given roles as appropriate to your campaign setting (or difficulty, I suppose). Aren't the bonuses provided representative of choosing a superior animal? If you were meant to be a completely average human, or just an above average one, (assuming your character is a human) you'd really just be given a set of stats that would go along the lines of: 10/10/10/10/10/10. (Extremely) above average, while not yet heroic, would maybe throw in a 12 once or twice.

Your animal companions are not meant to be an extremely exceptional bunch, simply above average, which I think is already reflected well. I would not say a houserule would be out of order, but I don't see anything that needs correcting.

I would argue that no, the bonuses the animal companion gets as the character gains levels are not representative of a superior version of the animal, they are representative of the benefits it gains from the character's influence. I don't mind using the average stats from the Monster Manual or wherever. I was simply commenting that taking "the first animal companion that comes your way" is supportive of rolling stats far more than just taking the average.
runestar
03-05-07, 07:31 AM Aren't the bonuses provided representative of choosing a superior animal?
Clearly not, since the animals no not increase in size when they obtain the appropriate amount of HD. I think it represents the strength of the bond between the druid and his animal companion. In game terms, it is simply a way of allowing you to keep using weaker animal companions while ensuring that they remain useful.:P
The_Shaman
03-05-07, 08:42 AM I think SS mentioned that a creature using the elite array for its abilities would have a EL slightly higher (+1 afaik) over one using the standard array. Hence, I guess you could modify the scores of the animal if you decrease your druid level by 1.
Silverthumb128
03-05-07, 09:28 AM I just... I dunno I feel stupid being an animal expert and buying a subpar animal...

Average = subpar? Average is the par.
FrostWolf
03-05-07, 09:33 AM Mage Breed template in.... Eberron? Add that and see how it goes.

gives +2, +2, +4 as you choose among the physical states. Int becomes 2. More armor, a free feat, and your choice of a realy good abiliy and 8 tricks. Makes having a pet more than baby sitting.
Wolf_Boy
03-05-07, 04:41 PM Average = subpar? Average is the par.

No actually it's not. At least not when it comes to actually doing something significant.

For example, police dogs. Few dogs that undergo the training actually succeed at becoming full police dogs. This is true for most specialized training. The animal needs to be a exceptional member of it's species.

This is an adventuring animal, just like the pc is an adventuring PC. The pc is far above average, it's why he can adventure in the first place and isn't the average person plowing a field.

The same logically should apply to an animal companion. You don't race an average horse, you'll lose every time, you get the exceptional horse. No amount of training is going to turn the average horse into a champion racer. The average animal is the equivalent of your average human.

Would you choose Joe the Drunkard Nose picker, who's a commoner and works on the Farm as your cohort with leadership? Heck no, it'd be wrong as Joe couldn't survive as an adventure and lacks the skills necessary for adventuring. He's got just enough skill to succeed as a farmer, that's it.

So why would you grab your average wolf, ect? You wouldn't, it wouldn't be up to par with the rigors of adventuring life.
Silverthumb128
03-05-07, 06:07 PM No actually it's not. At least not when it comes to actually doing something significant.

Semantics. Average is always going to be the par, whether its an average animal, average adventurer, or average ancient red dragon.

For example, police dogs. Few dogs that undergo the training actually succeed at becoming full police dogs.

The same is true with adventurers: Some are good enough, some are great, and some fail.

The same logically should apply to an animal companion. You don't race an average horse, you'll lose every time, you get the exceptional horse. No amount of training is going to turn the average horse into a champion racer.

In D&D it would. We are still playing D&D, right?

Try racing a Celestial Light Warhorse against a Heavy Warhorse. Light Warhorse wins every time by default. Now if that Heavy Warhorse's jockey were an 8th level Paladin, they become equal in speed thanks in no part to naural selection.

Would you choose Joe the Drunkard Nose picker, who's a commoner and works on the Farm as your cohort with leadership?

After my Leadership score goes up, Joe the Drunkard Nosepicker becomes a bit more powerful than the average drunkard nosepicker, so what's the problem?
mightyix
03-06-07, 05:40 PM I'm complaining that with knowledge nature, handle animal, and animal empathy. Druids and rangers should not be regulated to standard animal statistics. When a person purchases and animal they aren't going to buy the average animal if they know what they're buying and how to tell the difference.

Also, when getting a companion to help you in adventures in battle and the like you certainly don't choose the average member of the species, it's counter intuitive. Not only that, but it puts the animal in more risk.

I'm complaining that it makes no logical sense.

I'd actually be happier with having wait longer for a typical animal companion if it meant the animal companion would have above average statistics from the get go as it would make more sense and hurt my brain less.

Game mechanics. Get used to it.

Believe me, I searched long and hard to try and justify templating an animal companion, getting an advanced animal companion, changing the stat array around on an animal companion and... No dice. The designers did it they way they did for a reason.
Perseus_Stoned
03-07-07, 04:52 PM For example, police dogs. Few dogs that undergo the training actually succeed at becoming full police dogs. This is true for most specialized training. The animal needs to be a exceptional member of it's species.

This is an adventuring animal, just like the pc is an adventuring PC.

Emphasis mine, but for good reason. There's a reason this RPG incorporates leveling mechanisms and your quote above touches on that.
Darth Sephiroth
03-07-07, 05:51 PM I've allowed characters to roll out stats for special animals (Wild Cohort, Animal Companion, Special Mount, Familiar) and use the modifiers from the base animal on them when characters are rolled out. I figure they qualify as special for the purposes of that sort of thing and allow the same with other generation methods that are used.

I also allow a DC 20 Handle Animal or Ride check when purchasing an animal to gain a +2 to a stat with an extra +2 for each 5 points the DC is beaten by.
paladin2019
03-07-07, 08:59 PM I also allow a DC 20 Handle Animal or Ride check when purchasing an animal to gain a +2 to a stat with an extra +2 for each 5 points the DC is beaten by.

Are these multiple +2s applied to the same stat, to multiples in a set order, or to multiples as the DM or player choose?

In any event, it's an interesting system for a random animal the character chooses. Just remember, if the Int gets over 2, it's no longer an animal.
runestar
03-07-07, 10:37 PM In any event, it's an interesting system for a random animal the character chooses. Just remember, if the Int gets over 2, it's no longer an animal.
Well, at least if you roll a 3 with your 3d6, you automatically know which stat that will be going to...:D
paladin2019
03-08-07, 01:47 AM So you want your companion to have an Int of 1 :D
FrostWolf
03-08-07, 02:27 AM Are these multiple +2s applied to the same stat, to multiples in a set order, or to multiples as the DM or player choose?

In any event, it's an interesting system for a random animal the character chooses. Just remember, if the Int gets over 2, it's no longer an animal.

wHERES IT SAY THAT?

oops! Left the caps lock on.

Wheres it say that?
paladin2019
03-08-07, 03:07 AM Creatures of the animal type have an Int no greater than 2. After that, they become something else, beasts (3E) or magical beasts (3.5) presumably. Check the description of creature types in the Monster Manual.
Darth Sephiroth
03-08-07, 03:33 AM Are these multiple +2s applied to the same stat, to multiples in a set order, or to multiples as the DM or player choose?

In any event, it's an interesting system for a random animal the character chooses. Just remember, if the Int gets over 2, it's no longer an animal.

Type maximums apply. They can be added to any stat of the players choice. A natural 1 on the check causes a -2 to two stats of the DM's choice. When rolled out or built, Int stays as the base creature and the rest are generated.

Post/Author/DateTime	Post
Wolf_Boy 03-04-07, 03:59 PM	Now I understand their are mechanical reasons for this, and that they become stronger due to the druidic connection over time but... In stories and just common sense, when a druid/ranger buys a horse for example he knows exactly what he's looking for, he's not just an expert, he's THE expert. These are not the kind of people that get an average run of the mill horse. Nor do they get a run of the mill Dog, Cat ect. I just... I dunno I feel stupid being an animal expert and buying a subpar animal...
Perseus_Stoned 03-04-07, 04:05 PM	I don't really understand what you're asking/saying; are you inferring that you don't think its fair that you, as a druid character, can only purchase typical horses for the species?
Wolf_Boy 03-04-07, 04:37 PM	I'm complaining that with knowledge nature, handle animal, and animal empathy. Druids and rangers should not be regulated to standard animal statistics. When a person purchases and animal they aren't going to buy the average animal if they know what they're buying and how to tell the difference. Also, when getting a companion to help you in adventures in battle and the like you certainly don't choose the average member of the species, it's counter intuitive. Not only that, but it puts the animal in more risk. I'm complaining that it makes no logical sense. I'd actually be happier with having wait longer for a typical animal companion if it meant the animal companion would have above average statistics from the get go as it would make more sense and hurt my brain less.
Perseus_Stoned 03-04-07, 04:51 PM	When a person purchases and animal they aren't going to buy the average animal if they know what they're buying and how to tell the difference. I'd argue that this is actually a matter of roleplaying up to your DM's discretion and based on what animals are present. If there are a wide selection of horses to pick from and your DM does not allow you to make a Knowledge or Empathy check to determine if any are of superior quality than that is more a problem with your DM than the mechanics. However, it sort of seems to me you're indicating that by mere merit of being a druid/ranger your mount should be above average, which doesn't seem right to me if the only mounts available are of standard breed. Unless you use magic, you aren't able to inherently "awaken" sort ability that makes the animals superior. I'd actually be happier with having wait longer for a typical animal companion if it meant the animal companion would have above average statistics from the get go as it would make more sense and hurt my brain less. This sounds entirely reasonable and is something you should talk to your DM about, I for one have been playing that way for some time. If you go through the roleplaying aspect of searching out for a better-than-average companion in some aspect, it should certainly be rewarded to you. Keep in mind a better quality horse could simple have one better constitution or the like than a normal horse and its price would almost certainly be affected as well.
runestar 03-05-07, 12:44 AM	As a lover of nature, I don't see why you should not be taking the first animal companion which comes your way....:P
Perseus_Stoned 03-05-07, 12:46 AM	As a lover of nature, I don't see why you should not be taking the first animal companion which comes your way....:P Hey, its not like he's shunning the animals :) "Now you bunny rabbits stand over there, you're not good enough. Ohh.. Mr. Wolf, how you doing? How'd like some extra saves? Wait.. you are aged. That also means you're useless. Whoa.. wait, don't bite me!" And thats not even accounting for all the bunny psions that have seemed to sprung up lately :)
paladin2019 03-05-07, 12:50 AM	As a lover of nature, I don't see why you should not be taking the first animal companion which comes your way....:P This actually reinforces the idea that the companion's stats should be rolled rather than the average... I see where this comes from. In AD&D2E, animals the ranger purchases actually either gain a bonus or have minimum roll/hit die. This represents the ranger choosing the best examples available for his adventures. However, these creatures don't have the benefits an animal companion gains so this is not a direct correlation.
Perseus_Stoned 03-05-07, 12:55 AM	This actually reinforces the idea that the companion's stats should be rolled rather than the average... I see where this comes from. In AD&D2E, animals the ranger purchases actually either gain a bonus or have minimum roll/hit die. This represents the ranger choosing the best examples available for his adventures. However, these creatures don't have the benefits an animal companion gains so this is not a direct correlation. The trouble is you, as the PC, are typically given roles as appropriate to your campaign setting (or difficulty, I suppose). Aren't the bonuses provided representative of choosing a superior animal? If you were meant to be a completely average human, or just an above average one, (assuming your character is a human) you'd really just be given a set of stats that would go along the lines of: 10/10/10/10/10/10. (Extremely) above average, while not yet heroic, would maybe throw in a 12 once or twice. Your animal companions are not meant to be an extremely exceptional bunch, simply above average, which I think is already reflected well. I would not say a houserule would be out of order, but I don't see anything that needs correcting.
OliverR 03-05-07, 01:20 AM	In our last campaign I played a druid. My animal companion got max hitpoints the first level, just as the players.
paladin2019 03-05-07, 06:59 AM	The trouble is you, as the PC, are typically given roles as appropriate to your campaign setting (or difficulty, I suppose). Aren't the bonuses provided representative of choosing a superior animal? If you were meant to be a completely average human, or just an above average one, (assuming your character is a human) you'd really just be given a set of stats that would go along the lines of: 10/10/10/10/10/10. (Extremely) above average, while not yet heroic, would maybe throw in a 12 once or twice. Your animal companions are not meant to be an extremely exceptional bunch, simply above average, which I think is already reflected well. I would not say a houserule would be out of order, but I don't see anything that needs correcting. I would argue that no, the bonuses the animal companion gets as the character gains levels are not representative of a superior version of the animal, they are representative of the benefits it gains from the character's influence. I don't mind using the average stats from the Monster Manual or wherever. I was simply commenting that taking "the first animal companion that comes your way" is supportive of rolling stats far more than just taking the average.
runestar 03-05-07, 07:31 AM	Aren't the bonuses provided representative of choosing a superior animal? Clearly not, since the animals no not increase in size when they obtain the appropriate amount of HD. I think it represents the strength of the bond between the druid and his animal companion. In game terms, it is simply a way of allowing you to keep using weaker animal companions while ensuring that they remain useful.:P
The_Shaman 03-05-07, 08:42 AM	I think SS mentioned that a creature using the elite array for its abilities would have a EL slightly higher (+1 afaik) over one using the standard array. Hence, I guess you could modify the scores of the animal if you decrease your druid level by 1.
Silverthumb128 03-05-07, 09:28 AM	I just... I dunno I feel stupid being an animal expert and buying a subpar animal... Average = subpar? Average is the par.
FrostWolf 03-05-07, 09:33 AM	Mage Breed template in.... Eberron? Add that and see how it goes. gives +2, +2, +4 as you choose among the physical states. Int becomes 2. More armor, a free feat, and your choice of a realy good abiliy and 8 tricks. Makes having a pet more than baby sitting.
Wolf_Boy 03-05-07, 04:41 PM	Average = subpar? Average is the par. No actually it's not. At least not when it comes to actually doing something significant. For example, police dogs. Few dogs that undergo the training actually succeed at becoming full police dogs. This is true for most specialized training. The animal needs to be a exceptional member of it's species. This is an adventuring animal, just like the pc is an adventuring PC. The pc is far above average, it's why he can adventure in the first place and isn't the average person plowing a field. The same logically should apply to an animal companion. You don't race an average horse, you'll lose every time, you get the exceptional horse. No amount of training is going to turn the average horse into a champion racer. The average animal is the equivalent of your average human. Would you choose Joe the Drunkard Nose picker, who's a commoner and works on the Farm as your cohort with leadership? Heck no, it'd be wrong as Joe couldn't survive as an adventure and lacks the skills necessary for adventuring. He's got just enough skill to succeed as a farmer, that's it. So why would you grab your average wolf, ect? You wouldn't, it wouldn't be up to par with the rigors of adventuring life.
Silverthumb128 03-05-07, 06:07 PM	No actually it's not. At least not when it comes to actually doing something significant. Semantics. Average is always going to be the par, whether its an average animal, average adventurer, or average ancient red dragon. For example, police dogs. Few dogs that undergo the training actually succeed at becoming full police dogs. The same is true with adventurers: Some are good enough, some are great, and some fail. The same logically should apply to an animal companion. You don't race an average horse, you'll lose every time, you get the exceptional horse. No amount of training is going to turn the average horse into a champion racer. In D&D it would. We are still playing D&D, right? Try racing a Celestial Light Warhorse against a Heavy Warhorse. Light Warhorse wins every time by default. Now if that Heavy Warhorse's jockey were an 8th level Paladin, they become equal in speed thanks in no part to naural selection. Would you choose Joe the Drunkard Nose picker, who's a commoner and works on the Farm as your cohort with leadership? After my Leadership score goes up, Joe the Drunkard Nosepicker becomes a bit more powerful than the average drunkard nosepicker, so what's the problem?
mightyix 03-06-07, 05:40 PM	I'm complaining that with knowledge nature, handle animal, and animal empathy. Druids and rangers should not be regulated to standard animal statistics. When a person purchases and animal they aren't going to buy the average animal if they know what they're buying and how to tell the difference. Also, when getting a companion to help you in adventures in battle and the like you certainly don't choose the average member of the species, it's counter intuitive. Not only that, but it puts the animal in more risk. I'm complaining that it makes no logical sense. I'd actually be happier with having wait longer for a typical animal companion if it meant the animal companion would have above average statistics from the get go as it would make more sense and hurt my brain less. Game mechanics. Get used to it. Believe me, I searched long and hard to try and justify templating an animal companion, getting an advanced animal companion, changing the stat array around on an animal companion and... No dice. The designers did it they way they did for a reason.
Perseus_Stoned 03-07-07, 04:52 PM	For example, police dogs. Few dogs that undergo the training actually succeed at becoming full police dogs. This is true for most specialized training. The animal needs to be a exceptional member of it's species. This is an adventuring animal, just like the pc is an adventuring PC. Emphasis mine, but for good reason. There's a reason this RPG incorporates leveling mechanisms and your quote above touches on that.
Darth Sephiroth 03-07-07, 05:51 PM	I've allowed characters to roll out stats for special animals (Wild Cohort, Animal Companion, Special Mount, Familiar) and use the modifiers from the base animal on them when characters are rolled out. I figure they qualify as special for the purposes of that sort of thing and allow the same with other generation methods that are used. I also allow a DC 20 Handle Animal or Ride check when purchasing an animal to gain a +2 to a stat with an extra +2 for each 5 points the DC is beaten by.
paladin2019 03-07-07, 08:59 PM	I also allow a DC 20 Handle Animal or Ride check when purchasing an animal to gain a +2 to a stat with an extra +2 for each 5 points the DC is beaten by. Are these multiple +2s applied to the same stat, to multiples in a set order, or to multiples as the DM or player choose? In any event, it's an interesting system for a random animal the character chooses. Just remember, if the Int gets over 2, it's no longer an animal.
runestar 03-07-07, 10:37 PM	In any event, it's an interesting system for a random animal the character chooses. Just remember, if the Int gets over 2, it's no longer an animal. Well, at least if you roll a 3 with your 3d6, you automatically know which stat that will be going to...:D
paladin2019 03-08-07, 01:47 AM	So you want your companion to have an Int of 1 :D
FrostWolf 03-08-07, 02:27 AM	Are these multiple +2s applied to the same stat, to multiples in a set order, or to multiples as the DM or player choose? In any event, it's an interesting system for a random animal the character chooses. Just remember, if the Int gets over 2, it's no longer an animal. wHERES IT SAY THAT? oops! Left the caps lock on. Wheres it say that?
paladin2019 03-08-07, 03:07 AM	Creatures of the animal type have an Int no greater than 2. After that, they become something else, beasts (3E) or magical beasts (3.5) presumably. Check the description of creature types in the Monster Manual.
Darth Sephiroth 03-08-07, 03:33 AM	Are these multiple +2s applied to the same stat, to multiples in a set order, or to multiples as the DM or player choose? In any event, it's an interesting system for a random animal the character chooses. Just remember, if the Int gets over 2, it's no longer an animal. Type maximums apply. They can be added to any stat of the players choice. A natural 1 on the check causes a -2 to two stats of the DM's choice. When rolled out or built, Int stays as the base creature and the rest are generated.