Now, originally I thought this wasn't an issue. I was looking on the SRD, and it says this:
The second option is to form a close bond with an animal companion. A ranger who selects an animal companion can choose from the list on this page.
"This page" being the big Animal Companion page.
But another of my players pointed this out to me, from the PRD:
A ranger who selects an animal companion can choose from the following list: badger, bird, camel, cat (small), dire rat, dog, horse, pony, snake (viper or constrictor), or wolf. If the campaign takes place wholly or partly in an aquatic environment, the ranger may choose a shark instead.
Which shows the selection is very limited.
However, also from the PRD we have from the Animal Companion page in the Bestiary section:
Druids and rangers have a wide selection of animal companion choices, but this selection by no means covers the entirety of animals available as companions. Numerous additional animals are presented in this list, and in each case, rules for using them as companions are included.
Which has no mention of a limitation on which Animal Companions can be taken.
And also this, from the specific Roc page.
Rocs taken as animal companions by druids or rangers are typically newly hatched birds—a baby roc is the size of a person and ready for flight and hunting within minutes of hatching. Unfortunately for druids seeking animal companions of legendary size, an animal companion roc is limited to Large size—still large enough for a Medium druid or ranger to use the flying beast as a mount.
Implying, if not outright stating that at LEAST the Roc is able to be chosen by both. But I can't find anywhere that states the Ranger's list was expanded to include the whole list (unless I didn't search hard enough), so all of this leaves me GREATLY confused.
Looks like they took the old options from the 3.5 and put PF thats slightly changed for PF. As far as I know the ranger isn't actually limited on pets and I don't see that mentioned on the PFSRD.
Edit: Well, downside is I've been misreading it forever. Upside is the game doesn't break if you open up all the other options.
Endoralis...that could very well be it.
I feel slightly silly now.
Endoralis...that could very well be it.
I feel slightly silly now.
It was a reasonable question, but I think Endoralis is on the money here:
Unlike a normal Ranger, a beast master’s choice of animal companion is not limited to a subset of all possibile animal companion choices—he may choose freely among all animal companion choices, just as a druid can.
https://sites.google.com/site/pathfinderogc/classes/core-classes/ranger/arc hetypes/paizo---ranger-archetypes/beastmaster
The selection of a core ranger is limited to the list in the CRB plus any animal in the Bestiaries that can explicitly be selected by a ranger.
Roc is explicitly allowed for rangers in its Bestiary entry.
That.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The selection of a core ranger is limited to the list in the CRB plus any animal in the Bestiaries that can explicitly be selected by a ranger.
Roc is explicitly allowed for rangers in its Bestiary entry.
It is at most implicitly allowed, as it talks about roc companions taken by druids and rangers without ever explicitly saying it overrides the ranger companion list.
You can read into it, but it's not written that a core ranger is allowed to take roc without a special build.
So... If its a homegame does it really matter if you can have it or not as a ranger? I thought the restrictions were fluff/legacy rather than balance, so it doesn't sound that bad to let a ranger have a nifty bird.
It does matter. Whether or not I decide to houserule something, knowing the correct rule is always a good thing.
So... If its a homegame does it really matter if you can have it or not as a ranger? I thought the restrictions were fluff/legacy rather than balance, so it doesn't sound that bad to let a ranger have a nifty bird.
Other than the big cat and the allosaurus i agree with you.
So... If its a homegame does it really matter if you can have it or not as a ranger? I thought the restrictions were fluff/legacy rather than balance, so it doesn't sound that bad to let a ranger have a nifty bird.Other than the big cat and the allosaurus i agree with you.
Whats wrong with those two? Does the ranger not need nice things but the druid does?
Whats wrong with those two? Does the ranger not need nice things but the druid does?So... If its a homegame does it really matter if you can have it or not as a ranger? I thought the restrictions were fluff/legacy rather than balance, so it doesn't sound that bad to let a ranger have a nifty bird.Other than the big cat and the allosaurus i agree with you.
With those two there might be balance reasons.
If those two are out of balance for the ranger they most likely are for the druid too.
If those two are out of balance for the ranger they most likely are for the druid too.
except that a vanilla ranger is developed so that it is limited in choices, and a vanilla druid is not. developers had a reason for doing that. druids get better choices for companions.
If those two are out of balance for the ranger they most likely are for the druid too.except that a vanilla ranger is developed so that it is limited in choices, and a vanilla druid is not. developers had a reason for doing that. druids get better choices for companions.
Except druids are better than rangers at everything but straight up hitting things, and even then pounce is a powerful boon. They are still full casters.
I did look it up, someone thought rangers didn't deserve full companions, James Jacobs did though. Supposedly rangers don't deserve full pets becuase they're already good at fighting(also fluff). No harm in giving martials nice things.
MrSin we are threadjacking, if you want to talk about the ranger's limited animal companion selection it would be better to make another thread.
|
Rangers don't get Rocs for free. You have to take an archetype to qualify. The Falconer is a good example. In the CRB it specifies the list of animals rangers can choose from, then says to see the bestiary (but only for more information, not to select any animal within it). On the SRD if you follow the link under the ranger description, it says a ranger must select an animal companion from that page.
Many animals have a small number near them. At the bottom of the list, it describes that each number represents what class can take the pet. Rangers number is listed as 1. Druids have no number and have access to all of the animals.
The animals listed as 1, do indeed, match the animals listed under the rangers list of animal companion options. Roc has no number and is therefor a druid only animal companion.
If this were not the case, certain archetypes would be pointless (falconer) as the only difference would be that they receive an animal companion at level 1 (and weaker) rather than at level 4. The advantage of a falconer is that they get the animal companion at first level AND can select a non-standard one for the class. Rangers CAN select a roc as an animal companion, but they need to take an archetype or maybe a special feat to do so. Rocs are not an option for rangers, otherwise. Any statements made mentioning a ranger selecting one as an Animal Companion are merely giving acknowledgement that Rangers have methods of acquiring the animal in question, not that the animal is a default option.
Hope this helps. :)
I let my player any animal as AC. And it dose not cause any problems in my game. But by the RAW they can not do it as ranger. Or if player realy want Roc then take 1 level of druid before level 4 ranger. And take the Roc then advanced it with the ranger.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Inclusive language that leaves potential for future options or multi-classing is not the same as explicit permission or addition. The Roc hassome fluff that talks about if rangers have one as a companion. It doesn't add them to their list or talk about what circumstances they can gain one under. Roc isn't a base ranger option.
You can still buy a combat-trained roc for 10,800 gold whether or not you can have one as an animal companion. It's not PFS legal, though, if you care about that.
Source: Archives of Nethys. While third-party, the information is accurate and in a convenient format.
I think the specific mentioning of the Roc in the Bestiary of Rangers should be taken over the general of the Ranger ability itself.
Rocs taken as animal companions by druids or rangers are typically newly hatched birds—a baby roc is the size of a person and ready for flight and hunting within minutes of hatching.
Why mention Rangers if they couldn't take them? The Beastmaster archetype or Falconer didn't exist yet.
Imagine for a moment if we were to take it as others have said.
That would mean that no matter what later bestiaries say, the Ranger is still limited in Animal Companion choice to his initial list.
|
|
I think the specific mentioning of the Roc in the Bestiary of Rangers should be taken over the general of the Ranger ability itself.
Rocs taken as animal companions by druids or rangers are typically newly hatched birds—a baby roc is the size of a person and ready for flight and hunting within minutes of hatching.Why mention Rangers if they couldn't take them? The Beastmaster archetype or Falconer didn't exist yet.
Imagine for a moment if we were to take it as others have said.
That would mean that no matter what later bestiaries say, the Ranger is still limited in Animal Companion choice to his initial list.
A Ranger who multi-classed Druid could take one. It's also not uncommon for them to use forward looking terminology; just because there isn't a way for them to get one now, doesn't mean there won't be one later. There is nothing in the entry that actually enables a baseline Ranger to take a Roc as an animal companion; just a vague reference that indicates there might be a way for Rangers to do so. This one reference appears to just be flavor text; nothing in there overrides the specific limitations of the ranger class or states that the Roc is added to his available choices.
|
The game never capitalizes class titles in the middle of a sentence.
A ranger who has taken levels in druid is a druid, so id that was the case, they wouldn't have needed to include "ranger".
A Ranger who multi-classed Druid could take one. It's also not uncommon for them to use forward looking terminology; just because there isn't a way for them to get one now, doesn't mean there won't be one later. There is nothing in the entry that actually enables a baseline Ranger to take a Roc as an animal companion; just a vague reference that indicates there might be a way for Rangers to do so.
You'll also notice that "druids or rangers" isn't capitolized like it normally would be in any mechanical reference; this appears to just be flavor text.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
