Ranger Caster Level and Animal Companion

[eggellis]

This was mentioned in the THINK TANK and I wanted to make sure it got attention.

Why is a ranger reduced to half effectiveness for an animal companion as opposed to Level-3 like a paladin's turning? It's still enuff to keep him a category of companion (and/or HD increase) above the druid.

Also why are Rangers and Paladins only half-casters? Both of them mostly only use utility spells anyway. Would letting the Ranger use a cure spell at full power really hurt back compatibility or balance?

[0gre]

I agree, I like this idea. Not much else to say.

[Repairman Jack]

I very much like the -3 caster level idea. Half-level really nerfs rangers and paladins. This idea makes a 10th level caster level 7 instead of 5. And 20th level 17th instead of 10th.

What's really odd is that for paladins and rangers, when they first get spells at 4th level, they are caster level 2, not 1.

This makes much more sense.

-Jack

[LazarX]

eggellis wrote:

This was mentioned in the THINK TANK and I wanted to make sure it got attention.

Why is a ranger reduced to half effectiveness for an animal companion as opposed to Level-3 like a paladin's turning? It's still enuff to keep him a category of companion (and/or HD increase) above the druid.

Also why are Rangers and Paladins only half-casters? Both of them mostly only use utility spells anyway. Would letting the Ranger use a cure spell at full power really hurt back compatibility or balance?

Both of these are direct carryovers from 3.5 and not a Pathfinder change. Since these characters are limited spellcasters anyway I believe the caster level to be appropriate. The spells that are unique to each class are balanced for the caster levels as they exist now.

The ranger's animal companion is not meant to be the combat accessory that it is to the Druid. It is mainly a tracking alertness aid with some combat utility thrown in.