|
| 1 person marked this as FAQ candidate. |
I'm confused by how cavaliers and Effective Druid Levels are being handled in PFS. There was another thread on this, but it became a rules discussion and was locked. While the PFS ruling on things was vague because Mike basically backed up someone else's summary of how things stand.
a character with levels in multiple classes that allow an animal companion has to now take that animal companion from the least permissive list, rather than the most permissive list?
so a ranger 4/druid 2 would have to select from the ranger's list of animal companions in order to have an EDL 3 companion?
a cavalier 4/druid 4 would have to select from the cavalier's list of animal companions in order to have an EDL (effective druid level) 8 companion?
I understand that a single class cavalier or druid must select from the list provided for their class in PFS. But a multiclass character that has a more permissive list shouldn't be handicapped into choosing an animal that is on both lists, when the rules for animal companions and effective druid levels stacking say otherwise.
The part that confuses me, is whether or not there needs to be an explicit rules source that gives access to another animal as a cavalier, to be able to use it as a mount. Beast Rider doesn't explicitly mention any animal by name, it just says Any creature. So i'm confused whether they can actually take any creature. If so, then there can be a Beast Rider Cavalier riding a tiger in PFS, legitimately. despite it being denied by Mike on the boards.
|
Mike doesn’t need to clarify how stacking works. That is a rules discussion, not a PFS discussion.
You’ve had a response from James Jacobs (granted, not necessarily a rules guy, and his opinions should be taken as such for how he’d rule in his home campaign) that essentially says that the Cavalier and Druid levels never stack. I don’t agree with this, but that’s all we’ve heard from anyone from Paizo on the matter.
You’ve had a PFS specific response, in the FAQ that says that there are no expanded lists for non-druids unless another legal source expands their list.
You’ve had a PFS specific response where Mike said no tiger riding samurai.
Basically, unless you are doing it for another reason, there is no reason to stack druid levels with any other animal granting class specifically to open up a bigger list.
Stacking of class levels for a bigger animal companion only works if the animal companion is on both lists.
Nothing in the stacking rule, does it say it makes another class’s animal list bigger.
|
|
Mike doesn’t need to clarify how stacking works. That is a rules discussion, not a PFS discussion.
You’ve had a response from James Jacobs (granted, not necessarily a rules guy, and his opinions should be taken as such for how he’d rule in his home campaign) that essentially says that the Cavalier and Druid levels never stack. I don’t agree with this, but that’s all we’ve heard from anyone from Paizo on the matter.
JJ said the Animal Companion levels are treated differently. then I pointed out to him that the rules say otherwise, and he responded later on his Ask Everything thread that he didn't realize that was in the rules.
So it sorta DOES need to be addressed. The rules say the Effective Druid levels stack from any AC granting class. If there's only ever one animal companion, then how that gets treated when you're either:
1. a druid 1 with a tiger that later takes levels in Cavalier or Samurai
2. a druid 1 that later takes levels in ranger. and you want to have an animal NOT on your ranger list as your animal companion.
3. a ranger that wants a larger selection of animal companions.
If the animal companion list isn't expanded, and the ruling in PFS is that they must only ever come from your class list (and taking a new legal class is somehow NOT a legal source to expand your list), then how are the above cases handled? you're crippling one class feature by taking levels in another class?? you really expect it to work that way? I'd just like people to sit back, consider the rules for a second, the FACT (yes fact, of the rules, not interpretation) that the effective druid level is intended to stack, and think about how requiring the character to take an animal off the smaller list may be an unnecessary hindrance.
keep in mind there will be players that start as a druid, that would then be handicapped by taking levels of ranger in the current ruling ( be being forced to take an animal off the smaller , ranger list ),
as well as samurai druids that will want to dip into druid and expect to be able to take an animal off the druid list, looking for a way to basically take "beast rider" archetype for samurai even though samurai don't have Expert Trainer ( at a cost of a base attack for the dip, etc , not an unfair price i think ).
PFS asks for another legal source to expand the list. That should include taking levels in a class that naturally has a larger list.
|
|
link. because i know you'll want it
JJ basically going back and saying you don't treat them as islands, they stack
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
For now, in PFS, stacking doesn't open up the list of animal companions.
Mike's clarification on no Tiger-riding Samurai is quite clear.
Stop asking the same question, and providing the same information, over and over again.
You'll keep getting the same answers, over and over again, no matter how many different ways you ask the same question.
|
Animal Companion levels stack. Mount availability is based on a class list. Taking a level that gives an animal companion does not grant more mount choices. That was Mike Brock's ruling in the previous thread. Lets just roll with it. And I agree with Andrew Christian on this, please accept campaign decisions or take it to PMs with Mike Brock on why you disagree.
|
|
I'll start positing different questions, when the problems change and when you stop referring to JJ as a rules reference in an instance where he's admitted he's wrong. when the precedent on animal companion choices just did an about face from 4 years of PFS.
I don't wanna bug Mike on PM. But if i'm the only one who sees glaring inconsistency with how this will work out, fine, i'll take it to PMs.
|
|
I'll start positing different questions, when the problems change and when you stop referring to JJ as a rules reference in an instance where he's admitted he's wrong. when the precedent on animal companion choices just did an about face from 4 years of PFS.
I don't wanna bug Mike on PM. But if i'm the only one who sees glaring inconsistency with how this will work out, fine, i'll take it to PMs.
I'm not referring to JJ as a rules reference. I've been one who consistently says he's not a rules reference. I just threw in my comment about his ruling, so that we could see the vast differences in how things are interpreted by us non-rules guys.
And frankly, I don't understand why you feel there is an inconsistency.
We've constantly told you how we interpret what was said, and how there isn't an inconsistency.
A+B does not necessarily automatically equal C in this case.
Animal Companion Level Stacking (A) and Animal Companion Availability List (B) does not equal Stacking expanding animal companion availability (C).
|
1. a druid 1 with a tiger that later takes levels in Cavalier or Samurai
Druid levels stack with Samurai/Cavalier/Paladin/Ranger levels for an Animal Companion as long as the animal is on both lists.
If the animal is on one list, but not the other, the levels from the class without that animal on its list cannot stack, as that animal does not exist.
2. a druid 1 that later takes levels in ranger. and you want to have an animal NOT on your ranger list as your animal companion.
It gets your druid level only from the classes on whose list it appears.
3. a ranger that wants a larger selection of animal companions.
Take the Beastmaster archetype. Otherwise, hope for access on a Chronicle, or live with the limited list.
Just to turn your question around on your head, if your hypothetical Druid took a wolverine as his Animal Companion, then later took levels in Cavalier, would you allow those Cavalier levels to stack with the Druid levels for the effective Druid level for the wolverine?
|
|
A + B != C? whatever.
Animal Companions aren't written only to stack when the lists overlap. There's nothing in the rules to support that. As written Animal Companion class levels are supposed to stack. Its fine, you agree with the PFS rules FAQ on the matter. Don't pretend its RAW though, its just a campaign fiat.
Just to turn your question around on your head, if your hypothetical Druid took a wolverine as his Animal Companion, then later took levels in Cavalier, would you allow those Cavalier levels to stack with the Druid levels for the effective Druid level for the wolverine?
yes. since thats the way Animal Companions are written. they both are classes that grant animal companions, so the levels stack.
pre-FAQ a druid 4/cavalier 4 would have an EDL 8 wolverine. a ranger 5/druid 7 would have an EDL 9 AC.
|
|
The rules don't have to support an exclusion.
The way the rules have worked for RPG's since the beginning of RPG's, is the assumption should always be that you cannot do something unless the rules specifically say that you can.
In this case, the onus is not on the rules to exclude something.
The onus is on you to find the inclusion.
In this case, stacking rules is not the inclusion.
|
|
Its fine, you agree with the PFS rules FAQ on the matter. Don't pretend its RAW though, its just a campaign fiat.
And just to address this specifically.
You seem to be the only one currently on this thread who believes this way.
You've had countless people telling you how RAW is exactly opposite of what you claim.
I honestly believe that RAW supports my stance.
We can agree to disagree if you like. But claiming that your argument is the only right argument is silly.
|
|
The way the rules have worked for RPGs since the beginning of RPGs, is the assumption should always be that you cannot do something unless the rules specifically say that you can.
I understand the point you are trying to make (that class abilities need to be limited to what is specifically spelled out in the sanctioned material), but I would hate to play in any game where this was the mindset. There are many things for which there are no clear rules and yet we try to have our characters do them.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The way the rules have worked for RPGs since the beginning of RPGs, is the assumption should always be that you cannot do something unless the rules specifically say that you can.I understand the point you are trying to make (that class abilities need to be limited to what is specifically spelled out in the sanctioned material), but I would hate to play in any game where this was the mindset. There are many things for which there are no clear rules and yet we try to have our characters do them.
You know, it is incredibly hard to have a discussion regarding something, when everything one says gets dissected, over-analyzed and taken out of context.
You must take every circumstance as it happens, and make as appropriate a ruling as you can given the moment. What are all the dynamics and parameters involved? Can I allow something fun and creative within the rules? Or better yet, how do I make the rules work to allow something fun and creative?
But that's during game play with situations that are more often than not, not explicitly covered by the rules.
When you are talking about character builds. You gotta go by the rules man. Especially in organized play.
|
|
We can agree to disagree if you like. But claiming that your argument is the only right argument is silly.
we might just have to.
to me, the logical interpretation of the rules for animal companions is that they're permissive.you have class a, with access to animal set A. you have class b, with access to animal set B. The animal companion section makes no inclusive or exclusive reference to sets A or B, but tells us that if you have class A, and class B, whichever animal you have as an animal companion counts both classes for effective druid level, whether that animal is from set A or set B.
also, I think few players care about this discussion in PFS because an FAQ has already been issued, or it doesn't impact them ( i guess i'm one of the few players to frequently play multiclass druid / rangers )
|
RPG Superstar 2014 Top 16
|
I want to put in my opinion that I believe Seraphimpunk is correct. My interpretation is that the specific rule for animal companions written in the Animal Companions section ("The druid's class levels stack with levels of any other classes that are entitled to an animal companion for the purpose of determining the companion's statistics.") trumps the more general rule that classes like Rangers and Paladins can only form a bond with some animal types.
The real question is, does this allow a Paladin or Cavalier to take a single-level dip in Druid to get a more interesting mount? No. Instead, if the Paladin wants to get the additional benefits given to him through his Bonded Mount ability, his bond needs to be with an animal that is allowed for a Paladin of his level. If he chooses a more exotic animal as his bonded companion, it doesn't gain the Paladin-specific abilities (such as the ability to call his mount to his side, and the addition of the celestial template at 11th level). The same rules apply to a Paladin who gets a more powerful creature as a mount through the Leadership feat.
|
|
to me, the logical interpretation of the rules for animal companions is that they're permissive.
you have class a, with access to animal set A. you have class b, with access to animal set B. The animal companion section makes no inclusive or exclusive reference to sets A or B, but tells us that if you have class A, and class B, whichever animal you have as an animal companion counts both classes for effective druid level, whether that animal is from set A or set B.
1) Logic says that Set A and Set B only stack where they overlap.
2) If Set A entirely includes Set B, then any item from Set B gets the full benefits of being in both Set A and Set B.
3) Where Set A contains something not in Set B, only Set A items apply, since Set B does not have any relevance.
So, for your Druid Ranger to get his full Druid & Ranger levels on his Animal Companion, it would have to be an Animal Companion which exists as available in both Set Druid and Set Ranger.
Nowhere, NOWHERE, does it say that Druid levels apply the full Druid Animal Companion list of animals to any other class.
Or are you going to say that a Druid 1/Ranger (Falconer) 4 would have a badger companion with effective Druid level of 2?
Or, to put it another way, even in my home games, unless you found some citation that says that the stacking includes the list of available Animal Companions, you won't get to take any Animal Companion not normally on your more restrictive class's list and apply both class's levels to that AC.
|
|
you have class a, with access to animal set A. you have class b, with access to animal set B. The animal companion section makes no inclusive or exclusive reference to sets A or B, but tells us that if you have class A, and class B, whichever animal you have as an animal companion counts both classes for effective druid level, whether that animal is from set A or set B.
Nature Bond (Ex): At 1st level, a druid forms a bond with nature. This bond can take one of two forms. The first is a close tie to the natural world, granting the druid one of the following cleric domains: Air, Animal, Earth, Fire, Plant, Water, or Weather. When determining the powers and bonus spells granted by this domain, the druid's effective cleric level is equal to her druid level. A druid that selects this option also receives additional domain spell slots, just like a cleric. She must prepare the spell from her domain in this slot and this spell cannot be used to cast a spell spontaneously.
The second option is to form a close bond with an animal companion. A druid may begin play with any of the animals listed in Animal Choices. This animal is a loyal companion that accompanies the druid on her adventures.
Unlike normal animals of its kind, an animal companion's Hit Dice, abilities, skills, and feats advance as the druid advances in level. If a character receives an animal companion from more than one source, her effective druid levels stack for the purposes of determining the statistics and abilities of the companion. Most animal companions increase in size when their druid reaches 4th or 7th level, depending on the companion. If a druid releases her companion from service, she may gain a new one by performing a ceremony requiring 24 uninterrupted hours of prayer in the environment where the new companion typically lives. This ceremony can also replace an animal companion that has perished.
Emphasis mine.
The PRD only mentions levels stacking for the purposes of the abilities of the companion and/or mount. It mentions nothing about the animal list.
You've been arguing about this for a week. It doesnt matter what RAW is. It doesnt matter what you think it should be. It doesnt matter what James Jacobs says. It matters what Mike says, and since Mike has already ruled on this topic, the best thing you can do in this cas (SeraphimPunk, cartmanbeck, and anyone else who agrees with them) is to PM Mike about it. Either that or just accept that there are going to be rules decisions that you dont agree with.
Also, PFS is not really 'permissive'. It's much closer to 'You cant play X unless specifically allowed to' than it is 'you can play anything that isnt specifically banned'. Yes, there is a ton of stuff open to be played, but you have to actually own the materials to use the vast majority of it (but that is another arguement altogether).
|
|
Set A and set B are just that, sets. they don't have to overlap at all. They're just where the animal is chosen from.
to paraphrase. Nowhere, NOWHERE, does it say that an animal has to be on BOTH LISTS for the animal companion levels to stack.
The stacking of levels for animal companions only concerns their statistics. it does not concern what set they are chosen from.
a single class falconer definitely can't have a badger. just like a single class monk can't typically use a greatsword. but a druid / falconer? yeah, they could theoretically have a badger EDL 2. why they'd want that when most of their class revolves around the Falcon, who can say. But they'd definitely have a Falcon EDL 2.
In your home games is not a concern. In PFS games. and as a Rules Question in general ( link ). it is a concern.
it strikes me as bonkers that for 5 levels a druid can have a tiger companion. but because he takes four levels of ranger, or a level of cavalier, he has to give up the tiger in order to do what the druid and animal companion sections both say to do: stack.
the druid section says
it does not sayThe second option is to form a close bond with an animal companion. A druid may begin play with any of the animals listed in Animal Choices. This animal is a loyal companion that accompanies the druid on her adventures.
Unlike normal animals of its kind, an animal companion's Hit Dice, abilities, skills, and feats advance as the druid advances in level. If a character receives an animal companion from more than one source, her effective druid levels stack for the purposes of determining the statistics and abilities of the companion. Most animal companions increase in size when their druid reaches 4th or 7th level, depending on the companion. If a druid releases her companion from service, she may gain a new one by performing a ceremony requiring 24 uninterrupted hours of prayer in the environment where the new companion typically lives. This ceremony can also replace an animal companion that has perished.
If a character receives an animal companion from more than one source, and the animal is on both lists, her effective druid levels stack for the purpose of determining the statistics and abilities of the companion.[/b].
and all of the classes that , while in 3.5 may have said grants a mount in some form, when they were switched over to pathfinder, to conserve space, they all refer back to the animal companion section on page 51 of the core book.
Class Level: This is the character’s druid level. The
druid’s class levels stack with levels of any other classes
that are entitled to an animal companion for the purpose
of determining the companion’s statistics.
again. NoT saying "the druid's level stacks with levels of any other classes that are entitled to an animal companion for the purpose of determining the companion's statistics BUT ONLY WHEN ITS ON BOTH LISTS. "
So, while the rules say pretty explicitly that the EDL stacks. Nowhere in the rules does it require the animal to be in both Set A and set B for the stacking to occur. Nowhere does it prohibit said stacking either. Its not a case where you need specific wording added like "the animal companion must be on both lists for stacking to occur". its already explicitly stating that AC levels stack. You're obtusely reading it as requiring both animals to be from one list.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Here's my analogy for Animal Companions (and it's perfect so don't try to refute it):
You and your spouse, A & B, have twin children, C & D. C is very allergic to nuts but D is not.
Every year on their birthday, crazy old Aunt Levelup gives them a big bowl of trail mix for them to share.
You as parents have two choices. You can divide the mix in half and pick out all the nuts so that C has a small bowl of raisins/M&Ms whereas D has a much larger bowl with everything mixed together. You could also just pick out all the nuts from the big bowl and let them both share the raisins and chocolate together.
|
Damn dude, calmate.
I championed JJs response from the start. I only said that to leave things open for further discussion since so many people disagreed with me and the power of JJ to make such judgements.
There really isn't much point in further discussion. PFS generally goes with the most restrictive interpretation so Tiger Riding Cavalier is pretty much out of the question. Unless you take the Beast Riding Archetype, assuming that is permitted in the campaign. Home games are whatever you can get your GM to sign off on.
Given that the Ultimate GM of the campaign has made his position known, there is no further point of appeal. You want to be a tiger riding cavalier, take the archetype created for that purpose.
That's the quote you respond to? I was out of this thread long ago when I got a second post deleted for deigning to tell someone with a fancy title that they should be civil. Leave me out of this.
