|
I am not going to allow it (I think) but wanted to share this latest attempt to rend the spirit of the rules for the benefit of PC power:
The proposed PC is a Druid 1/Ranger 6. He proposes to attract an animal companion as a Druid, then 'stack' his levels of Ranger to allow him that animal companion to be that of an druid 7. (I know, error #1, he only gets to stack Ranger-3 to his druid companion, or effective druid level 4 after adding his druid 1.)
Then he proposes to attract a second companion as a Ranger (levels 4-6) and interprets the rules to allow him to treat that companion as equal in power to his druid companion (or level 7, according to him).
I am of the opinion that such an interpretation does violence to the rules since the stacking ability exists to keep from gimping the animal companion of a multiclassed ranger/druid. I don't think it means that the PC gets to attract 2 animal companions. I find support by implication here in the 'beastmaster' archetype, which would be rendered completely pointless if this player's argument were valid. I further find support in my opinion in the fact that there is no 'Beastmaster' archetype in the druid class, implying that the nature priest's companion is a singular being and not just a upgraded pet.
Finally, and this is a pet peeve of mine, I am frustrated that my player proposed all of this BEFORE he presented anything close to a character concept. I have always run a role-playing intensive game in the Old School model, where players can have their characters do just about anything so long as it makes sense for the PC to try it and I can come up with some sort of a roll to adjudicate the outcome. In this case, my new player is thinking mechanics first and story second, and the mechanics he is thinking of is entirely designed to give his PC a gang of bodyguards and himself the fighting ability of a Ranger 6 to boot!
I would love to have the feedback of Paizonia on this situation.
If you're going to let players get away with loosing blatant loopholes and shoddy reasoning in rules interpretation of course you're going to a too powerful character. This isn't even an interesting loophole, its just "the text says A we're going to read it as samophlange ok goodbye"
Druids get NATURE BOND
Ranger's get HUNTER'S BOND
They aren't even the same thing.
To put it in simpler terms.
They cannot stack.
Take a look:
Hunter's Bond. This ability functions like the druid animal companion ability (which is part of the Nature Bond class feature), except that the ranger's effective druid level is equal to his ranger level – 3.
His Ranger levels for Nature Bond and his Druid levels for Hunter's Bond don't mean CRAP.
They don't apply to each other any more than my Paladin levels stack for my Fighter class feats.
However, he DOES get 2 companions.
Its just his Druid companion is going to stagnate at level 1 until he takes more Druid levels.
|
Druids get NATURE BOND
Ranger's get HUNTER'S BONDThey aren't even the same thing.
To put it in simpler terms.
They cannot stack.Take a look:
Hunter's Bond. This ability functions like the druid animal companion ability (which is part of the Nature Bond class feature), except that the ranger's effective druid level is equal to his ranger level – 3.His Ranger levels for Nature Bond and his Druid levels for Hunter's Bond don't mean CRAP.
They don't apply to each other any more than my Paladin levels stack for my Fighter class feats.However, he DOES get 2 companions.
Its just his Druid companion is going to stagnate at level 1 until he takes more Druid levels.
Under the animal companion section of the druid class it says
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.
They really are the same feature. Instead of adding it twice, he just adds one to the other. He only gets 1 companion, but he gets access to all of the Druid companions, and not just Ranger ones.
gonna go with waffle on this. I had this discussion before and the outcome was that a ranger's effective druid level stacks with their druid class level (should they be multiclassed) in regard to their 1 animal companion. (a multiclassed druid getting the larger list of ACs)
However should the character be the beastmaster archetype, the total effective druid level can be split between multiple animal companions.
The rules are pretty clear. He gets only 1 animal companion, with druid levels plus (ranger levels -3). Beast master archetype let you split this, not multiply :). If he want 2 animal companions, he can have the 1st based on druid level and the other on ranger level -3, and this is an exception to the rules, but is not overpowering, so why not? I would not do this as a player, but will not ruin your game.
As a general advice, don't let player take advantage of your willingness. This one has just one purpose, powerplaying, and his also doing it wrong ;)
I am frustrated that my player proposed all of this BEFORE he presented anything close to a character concept. I have always run a role-playing intensive game in the Old School model, where players can have their characters do just about anything so long as it makes sense for the PC to try it and I can come up with some sort of a roll to adjudicate the outcome. In this case, my new player is thinking mechanics first and story second, and the mechanics he is thinking of is entirely designed to give his PC a gang of bodyguards and himself the fighting ability of a Ranger 6 to boot!
Let's not crucify people for enjoying the mechanics. Not everyone is a liberal arts major, some folks feel success is the highest form of enjoyment. I'm not sure I'd feel good punishing people for being success driven.
I think the two animal companion deal is obviously reaching and I would probably make a whole lot of fun of the player and then laugh off the attempt. However, even with two animal companions it's completely laughable that the guy will break the game. My collective animal companions have totalled up an amount of damage and combat manuevers in all my campaigns to maybe make up one round of average combat from a party fighter. Heck, in my campaigns I'd give rangers Boon Companion as a reward for taking good care of an animal companion.
If the player insisted on using his companion as a human shield all the time I'd be reluctant to grant him any replacements, in fact I'd probably pull the old school DM card and deny his divine spell selection for a few days to show him mother nature doesn't take kindly to his kind 'round here.
Animal companions are (IMO) pretty weak and ineffective combatants, about the only things they do well are serve as mobile archery platforms and take up spaces to keep some distance between you and the badguys. You can buff them up, but rangers are such DPR machines you never make up for what you lose while you're buffing. I'm sure you can optimize them somehow, but the amount of money that would take is probably better invested elsewhere.
I know someone said druids are better at everything, I couldn't disagree more. My ranger has been one of the most effective and arguably overpowered characters I ever played.
I agree, this would allow him to have a ranger with a druid style AC, which in itself already is an advantage, as well as some druid only spells which he can use wands for. Also gets a bonus to will and fort save, which isn't a bad thing either.
But he wouldn't get 2 level 7 ACs.
|
As a few others have correctly pointed out, ranger and druid levels DO stack for an animal companion.
In the case of the character detailed in the original post, druid 1/ranger 6, the character would get a single animal companion with stats and abilities based on a 4th level druid.
Regarding having two animal companions, I might suggest the article Beastleaders: Why Should Human(oids)Have All the Fun?" in the current issue of Kobold Quarterly. It contains an option which allows for a second animal companion.
Check it out >>>Kobold Quarterly 18
I agree, this would allow him to have a ranger with a druid style AC, which in itself already is an advantage, as well as some druid only spells which he can use wands for. Also gets a bonus to will and fort save, which isn't a bad thing either.
But he wouldn't get 2 level 7 ACs.
Yeah, I'm not sure how he's claiming that it stacks (in terms of effective level) and doesn't stack (in terms of being two different abilities) simultaneously!
We have a character similar to this in one of my games, though he started as ranger and then took druid at level 3 to get his companion early.
Our GM ruled (correctly, I believe) that he gets 1 companion at level (druid level + ranger level - 3). I think it's actually fairly clear cut.
We have a character similar to this in one of my games, though he started as ranger and then took druid at level 3 to get his companion early.
Our GM ruled (correctly, I believe) that he gets 1 companion at level (druid level + ranger level - 3). I think it's actually fairly clear cut.
Sorry to post here but could not find a thread, recent one, on extra wild shape. I have read he Core and ADP with no luck in seeing a Feat that grants one extra WS for Druids. I understand that WS is for 1hr/lvl and that is very nice but wondered if there is an obscure rule somewhere that might allow it. My Druid will be melee oriented once he can WS(deciding if taking Ape/Lion/Dino as companion. Just in case not interested in Shaman.
Again, sorry for posting here.
To use the language i wanted but escaped me at 2 am...
you're not maximizing you're munchkining.
I don't wish to derail this thread, but I have a question about the Boon Companion Feat.
Your bond with your animal companion or familiar is unusually close.
Prerequisites: Animal companion or familiar class ability.
Benefit: The abilities of your animal companion or familiar are calculated as though your class were four levels higher, to a maximum bonus equal to your character level. If you have more than one animal companion or familiar, choose one to receive this benefit. If you lose or dismiss an animal companion or familiar, you may apply this feat to the replacement creature.
Special: You may select this feat more than once. The effects do not stack. Each time you take the feat, it applies to a different animal companion or familiar.
So, a Druid 1/Ranger 6 gains an animal companion at Druid Level + (Ranger Level - 3), or "Effective Druid Level 4", correct?
Add Boon Companion to the mix:
Applied to Druid Level = Druid 1(+4)/Ranger 6, so his animal companion is "Effective Druid Level 8"? Or does that breach the rule that says "to a maximum bonus equal to your character level" making it Druid 1(+3)/Ranger 6, so his animal companion is "Effective Druid Level 7"?
And (this is confusing even to write) if you apply it to Ranger Levels, do you count Ranger Levels 6 against Character Levels 7? Or "Effective Druid Levels 3" (Ranger - 3) against Character Levels 7? Or total Druid/Ranger "Effective Druid Levels 4" against Character Levels 7?
The easier way to ask this may just be:
If you are a Ranger 7, and you take the Boon Companion Feat, does it have any effect?
It's still effective druid level 7 then. Boon Companion won't allow you to go over the CL limit.
It can go over the class level limit though.
A druid 4/fighter 3 would be effective druid level 7 for the AC.
There's a FAQ on it, I think