I was under the impression that there were several ways to gain multiple high level animal companions. There are feats to access them through faiths and philosophies, so it may not even be required to multiclass this way.
|
My point is not to argue, and I apologize if I seem that way at all (I'm a bit tired and got a little lazy with rereading posts to make sure they are upbeat and positive). My reason for bringing this up:
1. To get across that this is an actual problem that by RAW allows a serious bending of the rules.
2. That it ought to get fixed.
If we had to get "a fix" for every rule that can be bent by a gamist player the Core Rulebook would be the size of the Encyclopedia Britannica.
The "fix" is for GM's to grow the spines they used to have, before the advent of the Internet.
You know, I'm going to have to echo what Lazarx said. The fix is fairly simple. The GM has to say no to this sort of build. Players are not entitled to everything they want just because they can twist the rules into a pretzel and have bought a new shiny book.
So if a player wanted two animal companions in my game, I wouldn't allow it.
My point is not to argue, and I apologize if I seem that way at all (I'm a bit tired and got a little lazy with rereading posts to make sure they are upbeat and positive). My reason for bringing this up:
1. To get across that this is an actual problem that by RAW allows a serious bending of the rules.
2. That it ought to get fixed.
If we had to get "a fix" for every rule that can be bent by a gamist player the Core Rulebook would be the size of the Encyclopedia Britannica.
The "fix" is for GM's to grow the spines they used to have, before the advent of the Internet.
You know, I'm going to have to echo what Lazarx said. The fix is fairly simple. The GM has to say no to this sort of build. Players are not entitled to everything they want just because they can twist the rules into a pretzel and have bought a new shiny book.
So if a player wanted two animal companions in my game, I wouldn't allow it.
Why? I know that there is some obvious benefit to having extra actions in combat, but if I was a player that was going to spend three feats to get a second animal companion with a druid level of my hit die I hardly think I'm breaking the game.
Think about it this way, I can spend thirty percent of my feats to get an animal that has great returns in the early levels of the game but fades later on due to attack progression and hit dice scaling poorly when compared against enemies, or I can take one feat and get another player class as a companion. Which of these options is more difficult to deal with?
|
Hey, sorry I wasn't able to post in a past two days, and the conversation has taken a different direction. But I still think horse master can stack for the same companion as other things that add EDL.
The language is thus:
Benefit: Use your character level to determine your effective druid level for determining the powers and abilities of your mount.
Normal: You use your cavalier level to determine your effective druid level for determining the powers and abilities of your mount.
Now, I speak math alot, so here's how I view the statements:
(assuming that there is only one animal companion is used, and it is a horse)
Normal: (cavalier level) + (other class bonus EDL) = EDL for mount
After feat: (Character level) + (other class bonus EDL) = EDL for mount
Whereas everyone seems to interpret as thus:
Normal: (cavalier level) + (other class bonus EDL) = EDL for mount
After feat: (Character level) = EDL for mount (Ignoring EDL from other classes)
And no one says something like this:
Normal: (cavalier level) = EDL for mount (Ignoring EDL from other classes)
After feat: (Character level)= EDL for mount (Ignoring EDL from other classes)
See the differences?
The language is clearly the same for the "benefit" statement as the "normal" statement, yet everyone treats it differently. They seem to ignore the "Normal" statement, which is placed there to help clarify the intent of the benefit. That doesn't make sense to me. They should stack.
EDIT: added a bit for clarification
|
SKR initially had a very open interpretation, that they stack and allow the broader selection. This seems to be some trickle down from PFS though, as the FAQ that was released matches Mike Brock's ruling that Mount and Animal Companion only stack in the least permissive sense.It is worth noting that PFS only allows 1 animal companion, for time of play / fairness / etc. And SKR's house rules really don't have anything to do with the actual rules of the game.
It wasn't a home rule by SKR, it was a forum clarification for PFS that applied from year 0 to year 4, that was overturned by the current PFS administration last year, on the forums, and then entered into Core Rulebook FAQ this year.
So i'm not wrong, i'm just in disagreement with the designers.Wow. You're not wrong, you just disagree with the designers and the rules... I've never seen that put forth as an argument before. Would you accept that as an argument say if someone disagreed with gravity?
You sir ( or ma'am, i don't know ) , can take no tongue-in-cheek.
Both have been valid at some point.But they are not valid now, and NOW is when and what we are discussing.
"Now" is relative. Its based on the arguments and opinions we put forth. If the devs come across this and change their mind because of a point gleaned from the forum, was it a wasted point or a pointless discussion? or did it formulate a new "now"? to ignore the past is throw out all the rules that came before as if they had no weight towards interpreting future rules.
I still think it solves more problems than it creates to have them stack,Ok, that's your house rule. Don't think it is a rule of the game and don't try and pass it off as such in the rules section.
I'd conceded your point already. I'm not confused on the RAW now, though I was when I first posted, I explained the way I thought the rules were working. Having caught up with the wording of Horse Master and Boon Companion, I see how the RAW is. Though I still think Boon Companion wasn't intended to work on multiple animal companions, and is worded poorly. That's still couched as an opinion and not RAW. So is the opinion that I think its too powerful to have multiple full character level animal companions, and that as a GM i'd veto it in a home game as well for taking up too much of the round. You can say "oh its just a mount", but when that mount is 16 hd animal with a bab and attacks that are better in melee than some fighter builds, acts as a bodyguard that foes have to get through to get to the rider, and when you get that, on top of a pouncing furry ball of death, oh and your ranger can still pepper creatures with clustered shots and improved precise shot, yeah I think its more than just a mount at that point.
Martial's have plenty of nice. 2 full AC's are more than Nice. Its encounter breaking and imbalanced.
|
|
at this point its not really a rules thread, but an advice thread. its been determined that its possible, and legal. there's not really more to discuss about it besides share house rule ideas or interpretations on feats =/
and most of my humor is intonation. i try, but its hard to type it. =P
but just because something is RAW doesn't mean we can't dispute it.
Look at monks. If enough people disagree with the rules or think they're wrong, it can make a difference. If no one dissents, nothing will change.
|
|
Shadowcatx, I can see where your coming from, but I still feel like there is a strong reason to see the ruling my way.
The feat says nothing about allowing you to add your EDL to the mount, ergo you don't. It doesn't matter where the EDL comes from. Feats and abilities do only what they say they do, nothing more and nothing less. This says your horse's EDL = character level, so your horse's EDL = character level, end of story. (It is a specific rule over riding a general rule.)
The feat says the normal situation is you use your cavalier level. If specific overrides general, then a level 4 cavalier, level 16 druid would have a level 4 mount, regardless of the 16 levels of druid. You cannot seperate the normal statement from the benefit statement, it is placed there for a sole purpose of clarification. The wording is so that the effect is the same, it just uses another number for the benefit. It does in fact, switch out cavalier level for character level.
I like the programming analogy, I'm a computer science major :)
One thing to note, though, is do you set the variable first, and then add to it? Or do you add to the variable, and then set it? It can be done in either way, but most often you add after you set, unless you plan to reset the variable after use, which is almost never done in a math context in the middle of a equation, such as this.
This feat is in fact, a replacement function. The normal value of EDL for your mount from cavalier levels is changed to a different value. Thats all it does. It does not change the equation for calculating total EDL. If it did, it would say something like:
Benefit: Use your character level to calculate your EDL of your mount, instead of using your cavalier level, and other sources of EDL.
Normal: You use your cavalier level, and any other sources of EDL to determine the powers and abilities of your mount.
If you say: Use your character level to calculate your EDL of your mount (PERIOD, no ifs ands or buts) then you must also say: Use your cavalier level to calculate your EDL of your mount (PERIOD, no ifs ands or buts).