Druid & Ranger Animal Companions [Archive] - Wizards Community

Druid & Ranger Animal Companions [Archive] - Wizards Community

Post/Author/DateTime Post
mikeh1701
02-02-06, 10:43 AM There are no penalties associated with losing these animals during an adventure. They are disposable creatures which show back up at the next adventure fully trained and ready to go, as opposed to a wizard's or sorcerer's familiar.

A druid or ranger should have to spend some time finding a replacement companion and training them.

Mike
GreatEscape_13
02-02-06, 10:47 AM I agree. Even a single TU would keep people from doing the "Oh, this sounds aquatic... I'll bring a shark," then on the next mod saying "Oh, we're in bright sands? Camel it is then" rubbish...

Cheers,

Andrew Lotz
kjenks
02-02-06, 10:48 AM Well, my druid lost a bit of gear when his mount/animal companion was sent to another plane by a Prismatic Spray trap. That smelled like a penalty to me.

Seriously, the druid/ranger/arcane hierophant animal companion is intended to go into combat. I've never yet met a character who WANTS his pet to die or who treats it in a cavalier manner. I don't think we need any new rules here.
chrispedersen
02-02-06, 10:51 AM Its an animal companion. Aka Friend.... not disposable meat shield.
vvincent
02-02-06, 12:13 PM I've actually seen just the opposite - where druids will put fireseeds (for example) on their animal companion and sent it into combat like a suicide bomber.

I would love to see a TU penalty for druids to summon new animal companions. Better yet - make it like familiars - you cannot summon another one until 52 TU have passed.

Vernon L. Vincent

Well, my druid lost a bit of gear when his mount/animal companion was sent to another plane by a Prismatic Spray trap. That smelled like a penalty to me.

Seriously, the druid/ranger/arcane hierophant animal companion is intended to go into combat. I've never yet met a character who WANTS his pet to die or who treats it in a cavalier manner. I don't think we need any new rules here.
Arvagor
02-02-06, 12:26 PM I've actually seen just the opposite - where druids will put fireseeds (for example) on their animal companion and sent it into combat like a suicide bomber.Any comment I could make on this subject would likely be construed as a morality debate, and I'd like to keep commenting on the new LGCS as a whole ;)

I would love to see a TU penalty for druids to summon new animal companions. Better yet - make it like familiars - you cannot summon another one until 52 TU have passed.
To do so would completely alter a core class rule:
If a druid releases her companion from service, she may gain a new one by performing a ceremony requiring 24 uninterrupted hours of prayer. This ceremony can also replace an animal companion that has perished.An animal companion is not intelligent in the same way a familiar is; it is simply an extremely beefy and well-trained animal (unlike a familiar, there is nothing magical about an animal companion, as evidenced by the fact that all the features an animal companion gains as its "master" advances, are Extraordinary abilities).
Simpi
02-02-06, 12:39 PM To do so would completely alter a core class rule:
An animal companion is not intelligent in the same way a familiar is; it is simply an extremely beefy and well-trained animal (unlike a familiar, there is nothing magical about an animal companion, as evidenced by the fact that all the features an animal companion gains as its "master" advances, are Extraordinary abilities).

However, I would like to have a mention in LGCS that if an animal companion dies in a module, one cannot replace it during the course of the module (but a new one is acquired for next module). Doing this would prevent PCs from checking out a location, sending in an animal companion to die to trap/monster and then druid/ranger just sitting down and getting more cannon fodder and repeating the process until all monsters/traps are gone.

I've seen this attempted on a table and while I could not stop it by rules, I told said player that if he goes along with that maneuver, he is walking away from the table with 0 roleplaying exp.

S.H, the guy from Naerie
redgamer
02-02-06, 12:42 PM You can stop it by the rules. Don't give them the 24 hours needed to find another one.
theliel
02-02-06, 01:12 PM You can stop it by the rules. Don't give them the 24 hours needed to find another one.
or, y'know, grab a tirad member if they're treating it like crap and abusing nature....'cause a driud's in trouble if they do that.
Marshall
02-02-06, 01:41 PM I've actually seen just the opposite - where druids will put fireseeds (for example) on their animal companion and sent it into combat like a suicide bomber.

I would love to see a TU penalty for druids to summon new animal companions. Better yet - make it like familiars - you cannot summon another one until 52 TU have passed.

Vernon L. Vincent

So you want to make AC's the same as familiars?

Just curious...What would be the point of having an AC then? If using my class ability as its supposed to be used causes me to LOSE my class ability for ANY period of time.....

Not to mention what that does to Rangers whose AC's are already ridiculously weak....

The problem isnt DRD and RNG getting their AC's back...its PAL and WIZ NOT
solbergb
02-02-06, 01:53 PM There are no penalties associated with losing these animals during an adventure. They are disposable creatures which show back up at the next adventure fully trained and ready to go, as opposed to a wizard's or sorcerer's familiar.

A druid or ranger should have to spend some time finding a replacement companion and training them.

Mike

This is not something appropriate for LG. The core rules are what make the animal companions disposable.

Any druid spending 24 hours can have any animal, and the act of bonding it provides all the training. That's just the way the 3.5 rules are written. Heck, even ingame a druid could replace his animal, if there isn't any time pressure.
MaxDog
02-02-06, 02:51 PM I've actually seen just the opposite - where druids will put fireseeds (for example) on their animal companion and sent it into combat like a suicide bomber.

Sounds like a potentially evil act to me. Note it, alert the Triad and move on.

LEHaskell
Namarus
02-02-06, 06:08 PM I've actually seen just the opposite - where druids will put fireseeds (for example) on their animal companion and sent it into combat like a suicide bomber.

I would love to see a TU penalty for druids to summon new animal companions. Better yet - make it like familiars - you cannot summon another one until 52 TU have passed.

Vernon L. Vincent

Unbelievable!!

I've had the same companion since level 1, and now I'm at level 7.

I don't believe that a TU penalty should be applied, however, I do beleive that if the GM believes that you sacrificed your animal companion you need to get an atonement or something like that. Before you can acquire another companion. Something like that should be in the rules.

However, I beleive that it is unfairly penalising people who have low levels of an animal companion granting class. Especially since the feat Natural Bond is not a core feat.

If LGCS is going to add something like this, then they should make Natural Bond core, just like Obtain Familiar and Practised Spellcaster are core.
Iswald
02-02-06, 10:54 PM Sounds like a potentially evil act to me. Note it, alert the Triad and move on.

LEHaskell

This would be my take as well. Druids are allowed to be nuetral evil, just not in LG.

I have played at a table where the DM said he always tries to kill animal companions. I'd rather not be penalized TUs for playing at tables with poor judges like that.
paigeoliver
02-03-06, 12:08 AM I would never personally suicide animal companions, but I can't really see why it would be a real problem for CN, or neutral druids. NG druids would avoid it for obvious reasons and LN druids would probably avoid it because it seems random and can give them a bad reputation.
ezreal2001
02-03-06, 03:51 AM This would be my take as well. Druids are allowed to be nuetral evil, just not in LG.

I have played at a table where the DM said he always tries to kill animal companions. I'd rather not be penalized TUs for playing at tables with poor judges like that.

Must say I perfer killing ACs as opposed to PCs,

Turning an AC into self guided bomb sounds evil to me and I'd be telling the player that.

Anyhow I don't see a need to change existing rules because of it.
qstor
02-03-06, 09:25 AM As a disclaimer, I have a druid and a ranger PC's in LG. I'd have to say no for the reason, since LG trys to stay as close as possible to the Core rules and there's nothing in the Core rules about a penalty.

That's the same reason why I think there should be No racial substitution levels. Its no in the Core rules.

thanks

Mike M.
Swiftbrook
02-03-06, 03:13 PM As a disclaimer, I have a druid and a ranger PC's in LG. I'd have to say no for the reason, since LG trys to stay as close as possible to the Core rules and there's nothing in the Core rules about a penalty.Yes and No. You must spend time calling another animal companion. Time in LG is in terms of TUs. I don't see a problem with requiring a Druid or Ranger to spend 1 TU to replace a lost companion. It takes time to go out to the woods, spend your 24 hours calling the companion, travelling home AND training the companion.

Off Topic
That's the same reason why I think there should be No racial substitution levels. Its not in the Core rules.Centaurs, Scouts, most prestige classes, most feats, etc. are also not in the Core rules but there allowed. Check out the tread on substitution levels. Post you opinion and reasoning there.

-Swiftbrook
ezreal2001
02-03-06, 06:57 PM Yes and No. You must spend time calling another animal companion. Time in LG is in terms of TUs. I don't see a problem with requiring a Druid or Ranger to spend 1 TU to replace a lost companion. It takes time to go out to the woods, spend your 24 hours calling the companion, travelling home AND training the companion.
-Swiftbrook

Actually TU's are fairly elastic, I've played 4 TU cores that have expended 24 hours of the PC's time, and a 1 TU meta that involved a 2 month trek...

Now just check the old SRD

Animal Companion (Ex): A druid may begin play with an animal companion selected from the following list: badger, camel, dire rat, dog, riding dog, eagle, hawk, horse (light or heavy), owl, pony, snake (Small or Medium viper), or wolf. If the campaign takes place wholly or partly in an aquatic environment, the following creatures are also available: crocodile, porpoise, Medium shark, and squid. This animal is a loyal companion that accompanies the druid on her adventures as appropriate for its kind.

A 1st-level druid’s companion is completely typical for its kind except as noted below. As a druid advances in level, the animal’s power increases as shown on the table. If a druid releases her companion from service, she may gain a new one by performing a ceremony requiring 24 uninterrupted hours of prayer. This ceremony can also replace an animal companion that has perished.

Don't see any mention of additional training time required or penalties for replacing an AC. Time permiting, its the sort of activity PC's could do in session.

Nup. Don't see a need for a change.

Off Topic
Centaurs, Scouts, most prestige classes, most feats, etc. are also not in the Core rules but there allowed. Check out the tread on substitution levels. Post you opinion and reasoning there.
-Swiftbrook

Yeah, heard thats one of many being ignored by the circle
Bloodhawke
02-09-06, 04:38 PM I run a druid that buffs his animal companion and uses his him for combat. I have played about 20 mods with the same Animal companion in this role and he has only Died once, and that was when he failed saving throws vs a death effect.

My Companion, when buffed, more then holds his own in combat and usually has one of the highest AC's in the group.

BUT, I do not use him as a trap detector or living bomb. Except in the most extreme situations, I would not even consider it a possibility. I have no problems with a DM penalizing a player that misuses his Animal Companion in this way. A loss of druidic abilities til an atonement was made would make sense to me as the person has definately gone beyond the bounds of the basis for his class.

Dirk
Iswald
02-09-06, 10:10 PM BUT, I do not use him as a trap detector or living bomb. Except in the most extreme situations, I would not even consider it a possibility. I have no problems with a DM penalizing a player that misuses his Animal Companion in this way. A loss of druidic abilities til an atonement was made would make sense to me as the person has definately gone beyond the bounds of the basis for his class.

Dirk

This would make sense for a good aligned character. But, druids can also be chaotic neutral or neutral evil. As such, they might view themselves as masters of animals and care little for their lives. Personally, I wouldn't play this way. Yet, it's not an invalid viewpoint to RP.
haferka
02-10-06, 03:39 AM This would make sense for a good aligned character. But, druids can also be chaotic neutral or neutral evil. As such, they might view themselves as masters of animals and care little for their lives. Personally, I wouldn't play this way. Yet, it's not an invalid viewpoint to RP.

I don't view the situation as "chaotic" when the druid plants bombs on the animal... with EVERY intention of killing it. Its an evil act. Denote it on the AR, report it to the triad. and they SHOULD require the player to recieve "Atonment" in order to regain his Druid abilities. A NE druid... could get away with something like that.. but Evil alignments are NOT allowed in LG. Its a game of HEROs.. not a game of VILLIANS game.
paigeoliver
02-10-06, 05:12 AM I have no druid characters but I would have to say that I would not support any changes to the druid animal companion system.

Far too many gamemasters go after animal companions, mounts, and wardogs with wild abandon. My last riding dog didn't even last one round, an ogre who somehow beat my 24 initiative came up and killed it before I even got to act. Then I spent the rest of the module dragging around the special dog barding and magic lance I had been saved up 4 or 5 modules for.

I opted not to buy another dog right away, because I also owned a pony (and was rather low on cash). The very next module I played with the character I got a hunch to not bring the pony. That ended up being a good thing, since that module had an AUTO-KILL of all animals in it (NPCs, whisk the animals off to the stable, which proceeds to collapse on them, and then catch on fire).

I can't see how exactly it would be fair to penalize druids for dead animal companions when animal autokills are getting written into modules. As for the other thing, of GMs that target animals specifically, I would split that evenly between GMs that want to be cruel, and GMs who are just trying to keep the players alive by targetting the animals instead.
Iswald
02-10-06, 09:21 AM I don't view the situation as "chaotic" when the druid plants bombs on the animal... with EVERY intention of killing it. Its an evil act. Denote it on the AR, report it to the triad. and they SHOULD require the player to recieve "Atonment" in order to regain his Druid abilities. A NE druid... could get away with something like that.. but Evil alignments are NOT allowed in LG. Its a game of HEROs.. not a game of VILLIANS game.

See, this would be your opinion. It's based on your personally outlook of the realworld. D&D being a fantasy game, people don't strictly follow the same social mores as we expect living in the real world. Going around and blowing things up is certainly chaotic. If a particular player had a patern of blowing up his animal companions, it would make sense to start noting that he was acting chaotic and evil. Eventually, their character's alignment would become evil. But, this would be before the character needed an atonement.
afbeer
02-10-06, 10:36 AM Hello,

when an animal companion died, the new one comes without any tricks you taught the deceased one using your TUs. Same when you come with a different animal companion
after you hand one with taught bonus tricks in the previous adventure.

Therefore if you teach tricks to your animal companion, you are out of some TU or i am mistaken.
redgamer
02-10-06, 11:32 AM Animal companion start off with a full complement of tricks. That ogre that killed you animal companion would you rather it have killed you instead. Below APL 10 I have found that if the judge is targeting the animal companion he is using sub-optimal tactics in order to keep PCs from dieing as PCs often have lower AC and HP than animal companions. Even a gaurd dog. Is it eats a full attack and dies then that at least a cure moderate that don't have to cast. If you are in a situation that you have to heal that from consumables the dog is cheaper.
Namarus
02-10-06, 12:48 PM Animal companion start off with a full complement of tricks. That ogre that killed you animal companion would you rather it have killed you instead. Below APL 10 I have found that if the judge is targeting the animal companion he is using sub-optimal tactics in order to keep PCs from dieing as PCs often have lower AC and HP than animal companions. Even a gaurd dog. Is it eats a full attack and dies then that at least a cure moderate that don't have to cast. If you are in a situation that you have to heal that from consumables the dog is cheaper.

That's very cheesy, and quite honestly if there is a TU penalty going to be applied to animal companion replacement, stuff like that will have to stop. I personally would be very annoyed with a DM who decided that my animal companion should be the one who eats hits from NPCs and dies because it's full attack would kill a party member.

I use my companion sensibly and guard it as a friend. Heck my animal companion has more gold invested in it's armor and cloak than I have invested in my own.

Post/Author/DateTime	Post
mikeh1701 02-02-06, 10:43 AM	There are no penalties associated with losing these animals during an adventure. They are disposable creatures which show back up at the next adventure fully trained and ready to go, as opposed to a wizard's or sorcerer's familiar. A druid or ranger should have to spend some time finding a replacement companion and training them. Mike
GreatEscape_13 02-02-06, 10:47 AM	I agree. Even a single TU would keep people from doing the "Oh, this sounds aquatic... I'll bring a shark," then on the next mod saying "Oh, we're in bright sands? Camel it is then" rubbish... Cheers, Andrew Lotz
kjenks 02-02-06, 10:48 AM	Well, my druid lost a bit of gear when his mount/animal companion was sent to another plane by a Prismatic Spray trap. That smelled like a penalty to me. Seriously, the druid/ranger/arcane hierophant animal companion is intended to go into combat. I've never yet met a character who WANTS his pet to die or who treats it in a cavalier manner. I don't think we need any new rules here.
chrispedersen 02-02-06, 10:51 AM	Its an animal companion. Aka Friend.... not disposable meat shield.
vvincent 02-02-06, 12:13 PM	I've actually seen just the opposite - where druids will put fireseeds (for example) on their animal companion and sent it into combat like a suicide bomber. I would love to see a TU penalty for druids to summon new animal companions. Better yet - make it like familiars - you cannot summon another one until 52 TU have passed. Vernon L. Vincent Well, my druid lost a bit of gear when his mount/animal companion was sent to another plane by a Prismatic Spray trap. That smelled like a penalty to me. Seriously, the druid/ranger/arcane hierophant animal companion is intended to go into combat. I've never yet met a character who WANTS his pet to die or who treats it in a cavalier manner. I don't think we need any new rules here.
Arvagor 02-02-06, 12:26 PM	I've actually seen just the opposite - where druids will put fireseeds (for example) on their animal companion and sent it into combat like a suicide bomber.Any comment I could make on this subject would likely be construed as a morality debate, and I'd like to keep commenting on the new LGCS as a whole ;) I would love to see a TU penalty for druids to summon new animal companions. Better yet - make it like familiars - you cannot summon another one until 52 TU have passed. To do so would completely alter a core class rule: If a druid releases her companion from service, she may gain a new one by performing a ceremony requiring 24 uninterrupted hours of prayer. This ceremony can also replace an animal companion that has perished.An animal companion is not intelligent in the same way a familiar is; it is simply an extremely beefy and well-trained animal (unlike a familiar, there is nothing magical about an animal companion, as evidenced by the fact that all the features an animal companion gains as its "master" advances, are Extraordinary abilities).
Simpi 02-02-06, 12:39 PM	To do so would completely alter a core class rule: An animal companion is not intelligent in the same way a familiar is; it is simply an extremely beefy and well-trained animal (unlike a familiar, there is nothing magical about an animal companion, as evidenced by the fact that all the features an animal companion gains as its "master" advances, are Extraordinary abilities). However, I would like to have a mention in LGCS that if an animal companion dies in a module, one cannot replace it during the course of the module (but a new one is acquired for next module). Doing this would prevent PCs from checking out a location, sending in an animal companion to die to trap/monster and then druid/ranger just sitting down and getting more cannon fodder and repeating the process until all monsters/traps are gone. I've seen this attempted on a table and while I could not stop it by rules, I told said player that if he goes along with that maneuver, he is walking away from the table with 0 roleplaying exp. S.H, the guy from Naerie
redgamer 02-02-06, 12:42 PM	You can stop it by the rules. Don't give them the 24 hours needed to find another one.
theliel 02-02-06, 01:12 PM	You can stop it by the rules. Don't give them the 24 hours needed to find another one. or, y'know, grab a tirad member if they're treating it like crap and abusing nature....'cause a driud's in trouble if they do that.
Marshall 02-02-06, 01:41 PM	I've actually seen just the opposite - where druids will put fireseeds (for example) on their animal companion and sent it into combat like a suicide bomber. I would love to see a TU penalty for druids to summon new animal companions. Better yet - make it like familiars - you cannot summon another one until 52 TU have passed. Vernon L. Vincent So you want to make AC's the same as familiars? Just curious...What would be the point of having an AC then? If using my class ability as its supposed to be used causes me to LOSE my class ability for ANY period of time..... Not to mention what that does to Rangers whose AC's are already ridiculously weak.... The problem isnt DRD and RNG getting their AC's back...its PAL and WIZ NOT
solbergb 02-02-06, 01:53 PM	There are no penalties associated with losing these animals during an adventure. They are disposable creatures which show back up at the next adventure fully trained and ready to go, as opposed to a wizard's or sorcerer's familiar. A druid or ranger should have to spend some time finding a replacement companion and training them. Mike This is not something appropriate for LG. The core rules are what make the animal companions disposable. Any druid spending 24 hours can have any animal, and the act of bonding it provides all the training. That's just the way the 3.5 rules are written. Heck, even ingame a druid could replace his animal, if there isn't any time pressure.
MaxDog 02-02-06, 02:51 PM	I've actually seen just the opposite - where druids will put fireseeds (for example) on their animal companion and sent it into combat like a suicide bomber. Sounds like a potentially evil act to me. Note it, alert the Triad and move on. LEHaskell
Namarus 02-02-06, 06:08 PM	I've actually seen just the opposite - where druids will put fireseeds (for example) on their animal companion and sent it into combat like a suicide bomber. I would love to see a TU penalty for druids to summon new animal companions. Better yet - make it like familiars - you cannot summon another one until 52 TU have passed. Vernon L. Vincent Unbelievable!! I've had the same companion since level 1, and now I'm at level 7. I don't believe that a TU penalty should be applied, however, I do beleive that if the GM believes that you sacrificed your animal companion you need to get an atonement or something like that. Before you can acquire another companion. Something like that should be in the rules. However, I beleive that it is unfairly penalising people who have low levels of an animal companion granting class. Especially since the feat Natural Bond is not a core feat. If LGCS is going to add something like this, then they should make Natural Bond core, just like Obtain Familiar and Practised Spellcaster are core.
Iswald 02-02-06, 10:54 PM	Sounds like a potentially evil act to me. Note it, alert the Triad and move on. LEHaskell This would be my take as well. Druids are allowed to be nuetral evil, just not in LG. I have played at a table where the DM said he always tries to kill animal companions. I'd rather not be penalized TUs for playing at tables with poor judges like that.
paigeoliver 02-03-06, 12:08 AM	I would never personally suicide animal companions, but I can't really see why it would be a real problem for CN, or neutral druids. NG druids would avoid it for obvious reasons and LN druids would probably avoid it because it seems random and can give them a bad reputation.
ezreal2001 02-03-06, 03:51 AM	This would be my take as well. Druids are allowed to be nuetral evil, just not in LG. I have played at a table where the DM said he always tries to kill animal companions. I'd rather not be penalized TUs for playing at tables with poor judges like that. Must say I perfer killing ACs as opposed to PCs, Turning an AC into self guided bomb sounds evil to me and I'd be telling the player that. Anyhow I don't see a need to change existing rules because of it.
qstor 02-03-06, 09:25 AM	As a disclaimer, I have a druid and a ranger PC's in LG. I'd have to say no for the reason, since LG trys to stay as close as possible to the Core rules and there's nothing in the Core rules about a penalty. That's the same reason why I think there should be No racial substitution levels. Its no in the Core rules. thanks Mike M.
Swiftbrook 02-03-06, 03:13 PM	As a disclaimer, I have a druid and a ranger PC's in LG. I'd have to say no for the reason, since LG trys to stay as close as possible to the Core rules and there's nothing in the Core rules about a penalty.Yes and No. You must spend time calling another animal companion. Time in LG is in terms of TUs. I don't see a problem with requiring a Druid or Ranger to spend 1 TU to replace a lost companion. It takes time to go out to the woods, spend your 24 hours calling the companion, travelling home AND training the companion. Off Topic That's the same reason why I think there should be No racial substitution levels. Its not in the Core rules.Centaurs, Scouts, most prestige classes, most feats, etc. are also not in the Core rules but there allowed. Check out the tread on substitution levels. Post you opinion and reasoning there. -Swiftbrook
ezreal2001 02-03-06, 06:57 PM	Yes and No. You must spend time calling another animal companion. Time in LG is in terms of TUs. I don't see a problem with requiring a Druid or Ranger to spend 1 TU to replace a lost companion. It takes time to go out to the woods, spend your 24 hours calling the companion, travelling home AND training the companion. -Swiftbrook Actually TU's are fairly elastic, I've played 4 TU cores that have expended 24 hours of the PC's time, and a 1 TU meta that involved a 2 month trek... Now just check the old SRD Animal Companion (Ex): A druid may begin play with an animal companion selected from the following list: badger, camel, dire rat, dog, riding dog, eagle, hawk, horse (light or heavy), owl, pony, snake (Small or Medium viper), or wolf. If the campaign takes place wholly or partly in an aquatic environment, the following creatures are also available: crocodile, porpoise, Medium shark, and squid. This animal is a loyal companion that accompanies the druid on her adventures as appropriate for its kind. A 1st-level druid’s companion is completely typical for its kind except as noted below. As a druid advances in level, the animal’s power increases as shown on the table. If a druid releases her companion from service, she may gain a new one by performing a ceremony requiring 24 uninterrupted hours of prayer. This ceremony can also replace an animal companion that has perished. Don't see any mention of additional training time required or penalties for replacing an AC. Time permiting, its the sort of activity PC's could do in session. Nup. Don't see a need for a change. Off Topic Centaurs, Scouts, most prestige classes, most feats, etc. are also not in the Core rules but there allowed. Check out the tread on substitution levels. Post you opinion and reasoning there. -Swiftbrook Yeah, heard thats one of many being ignored by the circle
Bloodhawke 02-09-06, 04:38 PM	I run a druid that buffs his animal companion and uses his him for combat. I have played about 20 mods with the same Animal companion in this role and he has only Died once, and that was when he failed saving throws vs a death effect. My Companion, when buffed, more then holds his own in combat and usually has one of the highest AC's in the group. BUT, I do not use him as a trap detector or living bomb. Except in the most extreme situations, I would not even consider it a possibility. I have no problems with a DM penalizing a player that misuses his Animal Companion in this way. A loss of druidic abilities til an atonement was made would make sense to me as the person has definately gone beyond the bounds of the basis for his class. Dirk
Iswald 02-09-06, 10:10 PM	BUT, I do not use him as a trap detector or living bomb. Except in the most extreme situations, I would not even consider it a possibility. I have no problems with a DM penalizing a player that misuses his Animal Companion in this way. A loss of druidic abilities til an atonement was made would make sense to me as the person has definately gone beyond the bounds of the basis for his class. Dirk This would make sense for a good aligned character. But, druids can also be chaotic neutral or neutral evil. As such, they might view themselves as masters of animals and care little for their lives. Personally, I wouldn't play this way. Yet, it's not an invalid viewpoint to RP.
haferka 02-10-06, 03:39 AM	This would make sense for a good aligned character. But, druids can also be chaotic neutral or neutral evil. As such, they might view themselves as masters of animals and care little for their lives. Personally, I wouldn't play this way. Yet, it's not an invalid viewpoint to RP. I don't view the situation as "chaotic" when the druid plants bombs on the animal... with EVERY intention of killing it. Its an evil act. Denote it on the AR, report it to the triad. and they SHOULD require the player to recieve "Atonment" in order to regain his Druid abilities. A NE druid... could get away with something like that.. but Evil alignments are NOT allowed in LG. Its a game of HEROs.. not a game of VILLIANS game.
paigeoliver 02-10-06, 05:12 AM	I have no druid characters but I would have to say that I would not support any changes to the druid animal companion system. Far too many gamemasters go after animal companions, mounts, and wardogs with wild abandon. My last riding dog didn't even last one round, an ogre who somehow beat my 24 initiative came up and killed it before I even got to act. Then I spent the rest of the module dragging around the special dog barding and magic lance I had been saved up 4 or 5 modules for. I opted not to buy another dog right away, because I also owned a pony (and was rather low on cash). The very next module I played with the character I got a hunch to not bring the pony. That ended up being a good thing, since that module had an AUTO-KILL of all animals in it (NPCs, whisk the animals off to the stable, which proceeds to collapse on them, and then catch on fire). I can't see how exactly it would be fair to penalize druids for dead animal companions when animal autokills are getting written into modules. As for the other thing, of GMs that target animals specifically, I would split that evenly between GMs that want to be cruel, and GMs who are just trying to keep the players alive by targetting the animals instead.
Iswald 02-10-06, 09:21 AM	I don't view the situation as "chaotic" when the druid plants bombs on the animal... with EVERY intention of killing it. Its an evil act. Denote it on the AR, report it to the triad. and they SHOULD require the player to recieve "Atonment" in order to regain his Druid abilities. A NE druid... could get away with something like that.. but Evil alignments are NOT allowed in LG. Its a game of HEROs.. not a game of VILLIANS game. See, this would be your opinion. It's based on your personally outlook of the realworld. D&D being a fantasy game, people don't strictly follow the same social mores as we expect living in the real world. Going around and blowing things up is certainly chaotic. If a particular player had a patern of blowing up his animal companions, it would make sense to start noting that he was acting chaotic and evil. Eventually, their character's alignment would become evil. But, this would be before the character needed an atonement.
afbeer 02-10-06, 10:36 AM	Hello, when an animal companion died, the new one comes without any tricks you taught the deceased one using your TUs. Same when you come with a different animal companion after you hand one with taught bonus tricks in the previous adventure. Therefore if you teach tricks to your animal companion, you are out of some TU or i am mistaken.
redgamer 02-10-06, 11:32 AM	Animal companion start off with a full complement of tricks. That ogre that killed you animal companion would you rather it have killed you instead. Below APL 10 I have found that if the judge is targeting the animal companion he is using sub-optimal tactics in order to keep PCs from dieing as PCs often have lower AC and HP than animal companions. Even a gaurd dog. Is it eats a full attack and dies then that at least a cure moderate that don't have to cast. If you are in a situation that you have to heal that from consumables the dog is cheaper.
Namarus 02-10-06, 12:48 PM	Animal companion start off with a full complement of tricks. That ogre that killed you animal companion would you rather it have killed you instead. Below APL 10 I have found that if the judge is targeting the animal companion he is using sub-optimal tactics in order to keep PCs from dieing as PCs often have lower AC and HP than animal companions. Even a gaurd dog. Is it eats a full attack and dies then that at least a cure moderate that don't have to cast. If you are in a situation that you have to heal that from consumables the dog is cheaper. That's very cheesy, and quite honestly if there is a TU penalty going to be applied to animal companion replacement, stuff like that will have to stop. I personally would be very annoyed with a DM who decided that my animal companion should be the one who eats hits from NPCs and dies because it's full attack would kill a party member. I use my companion sensibly and guard it as a friend. Heck my animal companion has more gold invested in it's armor and cloak than I have invested in my own.