Rez Cost for Animals/Familiars

[dark_majico]

I don't particularly care to decide for other players how they need to play a particular class. If I don't agree with how they are playing I just treat them IC like I treat a corrupt politician in RL.

Well thankfully the dm's dont see it that way, otherwise we would have all sorts of douche baggery going on.

[Thoraion]

Holy sh...rinkwrap.

I tried it out - with a WEAK animal companion.

A hawk. One that i rarely see being used.
So, at the level the companion becomes available, it is insanely fragile. To a degree that makes it almost useless in combat. And by "almost", i mean "completely".
At this point i started to think and to experiment. Yes, besides combat, the companion is still usefull. But as soon as combat starts, wich usually comes surprising with a companion that you do not want to have in a fight, one looses precious seconds to dismiss it or to send it away - which is hard enough with the commands. In addition, an opponent that suprises you usually is a serious threat anyway and protecting the companion means that an average opponent suddenly becomes really dangerous. A few lost combat rounds in the beginning make all the difference.

I would consider it better that a defeated companion does not simply die, but instead flees to lick his wound. Just because the requirement to protect the companion consumes MUCH more time and attention. This almost only makes sense it the character switches to a supporting role and the animal is left to do the fighting.
Apparently, this only makes sense if the companion is strong in melee.
I expect the already rare, combat-weak companions to disappear almost completely now, since they are even more limited to a role playing element.
Was that intended or did again someone just consider the combat-oriented companions to be over-powered and nerfed the weak companions in the same procedure?

I have the comfortable situation of having reactivated a ranger after more than 3 years now - at the same level and now i see the effects of the changes in the meantime.
There are quite a lot of changes - to many spells, to the companions and so on. The result is that altogether i have the impression of a decrease of effectiveness of... well... it feels like 25-30%. Adapting tactics only helps you so much - i thought the tactics i used 3 years ago were not the worst, and still i am receiving lessons in humility in situations i could handle in the past all the time now. At the same time, elements that compensate for that loss seem to be rare - only parry comes to mind.

[Aahz]

I don't particularly care to decide for other players how they need to play a particular class. If I don't agree with how they are playing I just treat them IC like I treat a corrupt politician in RL.

Well thankfully the dm's dont see it that way, otherwise we would have all sorts of douche baggery going on.

As far as I know the DMs in fact to not police the players and enforce them to play "correctly". We do have server rules that are enforced but don't enforce playing a class only according to "Strictly Server Approved Behavior". Also, I can see a very good argument for an Evil Druid or Ranger treating animals as "minions" rather than "friends", Not that I would play it that way myself but I generally do not play evil characters.

*edited because I apparently completely forgot how to form a sentence for that second one*

[respawnaholic]

I don't particularly care to decide for other players how they need to play a particular class. If I don't agree with how they are playing I just treat them IC like I treat a corrupt politician in RL.

Well thankfully the dm's dont see it that way, otherwise we would have all sorts of douche baggery going on.

As far as I know the DMs in fact to not police the players and enforce them to play "correctly". We do have server rules that are enforced but playing a class according to "Strictly Server Approved Server Behavior". Also, I can see a very good argument for an Evil Druid or Ranger treating animals as "minions" rather than "friends", Not that I would play it that way myself but I generally do not play evil characters.

A pragmatic ranger would see a wild animal as a tool to be used. running around pretending each and every creature you meet is something you share a psudo-mystic bond with is Care Bear nonsence. Its a harsh and dangerous world out there and a certain style of ranger or druid would know that every rescource needs to be exploited.

[LackofCertainty]

I don't particularly care to decide for other players how they need to play a particular class. If I don't agree with how they are playing I just treat them IC like I treat a corrupt politician in RL.

Well thankfully the dm's dont see it that way, otherwise we would have all sorts of douche baggery going on.

As far as I know the DMs in fact to not police the players and enforce them to play "correctly". We do have server rules that are enforced but playing a class according to "Strictly Server Approved Server Behavior". Also, I can see a very good argument for an Evil Druid or Ranger treating animals as "minions" rather than "friends", Not that I would play it that way myself but I generally do not play evil characters.

A pragmatic ranger would see a wild animal as a tool to be used. running around pretending each and every creature you meet is something you share a psudo-mystic bond with is Care Bear nonsence. Its a harsh and dangerous world out there and a certain style of ranger or druid would know that every rescource needs to be exploited.

^ exactly this.  The classes are called Druid and Ranger, not Vegetarian and Vegan.  Animals die, and nature is very unforgiving to a predator that chooses not to kill.  If you want to rp a supreme pacifist who doesn't kill anything, that's fine. A ranger who teaches a bear to fight for him, and then butchers its corpse for food/hide when it gets itself killed is just as valid.

[Honoun]

I've always was confused when rangers or druid players act all lovey dovey about nature, you know do not harm the animals or plants, yadda, yada, yadda... Mother nature is quite a harsh mistress. I don't know, maybe I've watched too many doco's to realise that its an eat or flee world out there. Ever seen a predator stalk and chase down its prey? More often than not it's not a pleasant thing to watch and you do tend to feel sorry for the animal being stalked on. However on the same token that predator has to eat as well and they are doing so to survive not to be evil or bad. This is why I get so annoyed when societies start killing predators cause they killed a human in recent times. It's sad that we humans will kill thousands of an animal species for no other reason than that animal species happened to kill one of us.

[Thoraion]

oh my... i have tested it a bit more during the past days, and i feel the strong urge to shout "remove that stupid system with the next update! No, make an update tomorrow just to remove it!"

I can understand any player who refuses to summon his familiar/companion at all now.

Requiring a raise for animals and the like may be a contributing element if some conditions were given - though, those will not be possible i fear:
- similar degree of control as over the primary character (you simply CAN not effectively keep them out of harms way, and even trying leaves the character unattended)
- bleeding system to have at least a chance to save them once they are down
- unsummon as a quickslot option
- remove any nerf on familiar/companion boost spells
- level up for familiars like for henchmen in the basic game (at a higher level and the corresponding dungeons, some familiars die just by looking at them - think of traps and the damage output per hit of such opponents - that was not much better in the past, but the effect was at least not permanent)

I can only assume this system is also meant to remove familiars from being used at higher levels at all in combat situations. That makes me wonder if anyone has in fact thought that through... some familiars are significantly nerfed in effectiveness (those that had average or high combat abilities) and some that required a carefull handling to make them useable at all are just not worth using them at all now.

Maybe implement something that requires more attention in tending to a familiars wounds... but the requirement of a raise dead in the temple is ... well, let's call it a failed experiment. That is, as long as removing familiars from the game was not the intended goal from the beginning. THAT was achieved in an outstanding way. I see much less familiars now

[Rave]

It's what we've been saying all along. This system is really not adding to the fun-factors for mages. Balance? there is platny of ways to balance, spells are already nerfed and more to come I am sure. But allow spellcasters a bit less punishment on familiar/animal department.

[HellsPanda]

Having tested a familiar, and this system, I highly disagree. Its a good system, all it needs is someplace where the mages can raise their dead familiars of a less nice type. Also maybe add a note to the dead familiars corpse, of what type of creature it is. Also Burning/carving up familiars

[Rave]

I really think that maybe adding an option to have a familiar be able to re-summon once 24 RL hours without penalty or gold cost, is an even trade.

[hugolino]

An appropriately dark and macabre way to handle the situation with wizard familiars would be to allow resummoning after 24 hours of a familiar's death IF the wizard resorts to necromancy and is wiling to have an undead version of their previous familiar.

[Rave]

That would be neat, but....I detect that is a lot of script heavy included.

[respawnaholic]

Having tested a familiar, and this system, I highly disagree. Its a good system, all it needs is someplace where the mages can raise their dead familiars of a less nice type. Also maybe add a note to the dead familiars corpse, of what type of creature it is. Also Burning/carving up familiars

Have you tested it with an animal companion? Specifically something you cant put PFE, mage armor, stone skin, haste, GMW, Imp.Inv., STR,CON,DX buffs or any real buffs on except maybe MF, GMF?

[MadMage99]

If your a druid you can put str, stoneskin, barksin etc etc on your animal companion. Rangers are the only ones who have problems.

[HellsPanda]

Well my mage doesnt have all those nice spells yet, not the one I tested it with

[BalorVale]

Druids however have also been hit to, Mages may have needed the nerf, but our Rangers and Druids? Losing a companion is tough we get it. But paying 100gp per level is a harsh price for an animal that uses highly aggressive tendencies. A Person when wounded gets knocked down, bleeds, then dies, they know to run when they are hurt. Animal companions are darn near suicidal. I suggest letting druids raise thier companions at Druid Circles, (Rangers To) and that it costs a reagent, perhaps a Stave that has charges.

It would add spice to the RP to have to look for said reagent. And have it only usable by druids and rangers. It gives life to an uncommon class, and keeps the balance, plus it creats RP.

[Thoraion]

Well my mage doesnt have all those nice spells yet, not the one I tested it with

Try out what i tried.
A ranger with a hawk as animal companion.

And then tell again that it is no problem and the system does no harm.

[HellsPanda]

I played a druid with a normal panther at low level a few weeks ago, and I didn't see much trouble there either, this was a low level druid, without any of the nice benefits a druid gets later.


I would suggest you just need to get used to the new mechanics, and to see your pets as something besides disposable pixels

[BalorVale]

I played a druid with a normal panther at low level a few weeks ago, and I didn't see much trouble there either, this was a low level druid, without any of the nice benefits a druid gets later.


I would suggest you just need to get used to the new mechanics, and to see your pets as something besides disposable pixels

I'm only suggesting we make it more life-like, not removing the mechanic completely. I never said pets were disposable, please don't put words in my mouth. I said, that its odd to go into a church as a druid and ask a priest for a raise, when a druid should be capable of ressurecting, or getting a new companion, independantly.

[Ercvadasz]

Well my mage doesnt have all those nice spells yet, not the one I tested it with

Try out what i tried.
A ranger with a hawk as animal companion.

And then tell again that it is no problem and the system does no harm.

I did have first an animal companion, and i know at least one other ranger who has. The hawk has some AC, and tries to disarm enemies (sometimes even those that do not have weapons, luckily that is rare.) The companion should be your spotter/searcher, but since a ranger with a few items can have a higher spot than it, without spending any skill points, it is the most useless and ineffective animal companion.
That is why i have switched it over to the wolf, but actually even that i dont summon anymore. The only thing it can do is howl, and that is it (dc 14 i think, which is quite low..). Its ab/ac/hp is very low. Summoning it against even three bandits is a high risk, even if it buffed. Basicly i just stopped summoning the companion, i'll go with aemp and traps. Traps at least have the same price, though it is one hell of a goddamn boring journey to go all the time to port a lucine to buy the good traps.

What i noticed since this change is though, that it had a good influence on a few dungeons spawn rate. Many dungeons start to build up quite a spawn, because the soloers, do not dare to have a try at them, because if the mentioned creature dies...well you know.

[Honoun]

Speaking of dungeon spawns, I have noticed that they have been reaching max a lot more frequently. Maybe this change has stopped some prevelent solo'ers from doing them?

[Thoraion]

I did have first an animal companion, and i know at least one other ranger who has. The hawk has some AC, and tries to disarm enemies (sometimes even those that do not have weapons, luckily that is rare.) The companion should be your spotter/searcher, but since a ranger with a few items can have a higher spot than it, without spending any skill points, it is the most useless and ineffective animal companion.

Which is one of two reasons i took the hawk. No one using a hawk is the second reason.
HellsPandas Panther is quite the opposite - panther seem to me the most common companions, they are really effective and handling them becomes only a bit more difficult (well, at least until the mid levels).

But that system change is not supposed to affect only the strong companions - and it does no. So i tried it out with a weak companion and see that an already weak companion is now screwed

[HellsPanda]

The panther and hawk are both best used as flankers, while you have a fighter take the front.

This is both ranger and druid.

[Thoraion]

I strongly suggest you try it out now.
With the same character at the same level in the same dungeons i have actually tried
- hawk (before and after the change)
- panther (before the change)

Yes, at the same level.

Edit: In theory, both indeed fulfill a flanker role. But they are very different if actually used.

[respawnaholic]

I played a druid with a normal panther at low level a few weeks ago, and I didn't see much trouble there either, this was a low level druid, without any of the nice benefits a druid gets later.


I would suggest you just need to get used to the new mechanics, and to see your pets as something besides disposable pixels

I'm only suggesting we make it more life-like, not removing the mechanic completely. I never said pets were disposable, please don't put words in my mouth. I said, that its odd to go into a church as a druid and ask a priest for a raise, when a druid should be capable of ressurecting, or getting a new companion, independantly.

Hes prone to making blanket statements.