Quick Questions

Ok so your Companion's flaw will be shown only when someone wants to mess with you AND that person is a player?
Uhm.. I really don't like this feature, Cleric and Paladin have more bounds and the GM can put them in a spot with ease, while with this fix you cannot use the Ranger's Companion to do so.

Doesn't the GM have a move "show them the downside of their gear" or something like it.

Quote from: Rino link=topic=5116.msg22800#msg22800

Ok so your Companion's flaw will be shown only when someone wants to mess with you AND that person is a player?
Uhm.. I really don't like this feature, Cleric and Paladin have more bounds and the GM can put them in a spot with ease, while with this fix you cannot use the Ranger's Companion to do so.

Doesn't the GM have a move "show them the downside of their gear" or something like it.

Yep.  You could definitely cover stuff like this with "Turn their move back on them" or "show a downside to their class, race or equipment" or "Tell the requirements or consequences and ask".

The point is that there's a tension between the Ranger and their companion.  The beast is fighting its instincts, to flee, to be feral, to eat the flesh of men, whatever.  That can cause all kinds of complex problems.

That's a cool concept that I'd honestly never considered. I always thought of the companion as totally tamed.. but even the Ranger isn't totally tamed. I like it.

That's a cool concept that I'd honestly never considered. I always thought of the companion as totally tamed.. but even the Ranger isn't totally tamed. I like it.

Part of what I love about the Ranger is how they struggle - born of man or elf but their heart is all red red blood and fangs and the howl of the pack.  What's even better is seeing how the players interact.  Whether the Ranger and the Druid are friends "by default" or rivals.  Or how the Ranger and the Paladin get along.  It's really interesting to see the archetypes get exercised.

Still not clear how instinct works; could you provide a example?

For Companion, we (I and Rino) have actually agreed to follow this rule:
1) Wolf (a generic companion) can choose among: fight humanoids, hunt, search, f.monster, labor, Guard.

With fight humanoids or f.monster the ranger get (only) +ferocity in damage
With Hunt the ranger gets (only) + Cunning in hunt and track
With Search only + Cunning in discern reality
With Guard only + Armor when the ranger is attacked.

If you fight a monster and Wolf is trained in fight monster but untrained in Guard, you get only damage bonus.

It seemed to us that the rules as were stated were a little to helpful for the Ranger.
Any opinion about that?

From a fictional point of you, I see the relationship between Ranger and companion, similar to that between a Marat and its chala (for those who knows the Codex Alera books).

I don't think the rules as written are over generous.  Here, let's say we have a ranger fighting humanoids, attacking in tandem with his companion and otherwise making optimal use of the Command rules.

First that ^ won't always be the case.  The companion might not be acting within its training, the companion might be injured, the companion might just be on the other side of the room, etc.

Still, even assuming an optimal situation, what do we get?  +1 damage puts my d8 damage die on par with a paladin or fighter's d10 damage die.  +2 damage starts to put me on par with the paladin or fighter's superior weapons.  +3 damage means I finally have an edge, except actually the paladin and fighter still have more options to boost damage.

And +1 armor.  Because fighters and paladins can ignore the Clumsy tag on armor, they'll usually be wearing 2-armor.  As a ranger, I won't, so again I get to be as good as the big fighty classes, except for me it's only under certain circumstances.

Where I get to shine, then, is with skill-based activities like tracking and discerning realities, where my companion is giving me solid bonuses (though even then, if I want the sweet +2 bonus, I need to give something up in combat bonuses).  And tracking and being sharp-eyed are things rangers are supposed to be good at.

The worst possible thing that can happen, re: the Ranger and her companion is that the GM forgets the companion exists.  It should be a source of woe and danger and trouble, the same way an intelligent sword or ancient tome of magic can be.  Think about all the trouble that the Direwolves caused for the Starks.  It's a symbol of the wild that binds the Ranger and alienates her from the world at once.  It's part of who she is, but maybe that part of her doesn't "fit" right in the world anymore.

Anyway, if the GM forgets about using the companion in the game, the Ranger just gets all these crazy bonuses without any fictional drawbacks.  What you really need to do is "oh, you failed a roll, that's fine..." and save that hard move for later, so you can say "when you wake up, Icecloak is nearby, his muzzle stained with blood, chewing what you could SWEAR is a human arm..."

Yeah, the animal companion is a great resource for the GM to work with. Put it in danger, use it to complicate a fight. It's not just a passive bonus, it's a living creature that matters to the Ranger. It's a hireling, almost.

I say that because I forget ALL THE TIME and am a bad GM.  Please, be better than I am.