dextercorvia
2011-03-30, 09:10 AM
I posed this question on the Q&A, but we had a disagreement over which rule takes precedence.
The rules in question are the Druid's statement about stacking druid levels with levels of classes that grant Animal Companions, and the Ranger's clause that it's effective Druid level is half its class level.
Q 447 aWhat would be the effective druid level for each of a Ranger5/Beastmaster1 's animal companions?
Q 447 bWhat about Ranger4/Druid1?
A447: Not sure what the Beastmasters description says, but for a Ranger 4/Druid 1 it would be 3rd.
Ranger: 4/2 = 2
Druid: 1
2+1 = 3
A 447b Followup:
Would it be different for a Druid1/Ranger4?
"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 abilities and the alternative lists available to the character. "
It seems to me that at least one of these combinations should come out to effective druid level of 5, since the druid ability isn't stacking effective druid levels, but class levels to determine.
A447 cont. No, it's the same:
2 + 1 = 3 is the same as 1 + 2 = 3. For a druid, class levels are effectve druid levels. 4 levels of ranger are always an effective druid level of 2.
I don't see the reason for confusion?
With all due respect, that is why I asked again. Druid class levels stack with levels of classes that grant Animal Companion, not with effective druid levels from classes that grant Animal Companion. Hence if you take Druid first, then your Animal Companion is tied to your Druid level. If you take Ranger then, those class levels should stack with your Druid class levels to determine your effective Druid level. So Druid1/Ranger4 should have an effective Druid level of 5.
What I'm confused about is what happens if you take Ranger first. Since that ties your Animal Companion to 1/2 your Ranger level. When you take levels of Druid, then they either:
a) stack with levels of Ranger, then get cut in half mutually,
b)supercede the Ranger Animal Companion (better ability) and behave as though you took Druid first, or
c)something else.
You can't take Ranger first or something like that. As the system works you can start with 3 levels of druid, then 1 level of ranger, 2 more levels of druid, 5 levels of beastmaster, 2 more levels ranger, and 1 more level druid.
The order doesn't make any difference, it's always a Druid 6/Ranger 3/Beastmaster 5.
Your argument seems to be based on the wording that druid levels stack with levels in any other class that has the Animal Companion class feature. But a ranger always only has an effective druid level of half his actual ranger level. The rules are very clear on how this works.
Seconded. A ranger is always, with regards to spells and animal companion, half-a-druid. (From level 4 onwards at least, levels 1 to 3 the ranger has Druidic Quotient: 0%)
I am not looking to hear your opinion again. I am looking for a RAW answer, which depends very much on the wording you seem to want to ignore. If you can provide me with a rules quotation that says when stacking class levels to determine Animal Companion, you only use 1/2 the Ranger's class levels, I will listen.
Also, order can be extremely important. ElfParagon3/Wizard1 is vastly different from Wizard1/ElfParagon3.
Emphasis mine.
I'n not quite sure how you read that bolded sentence. In any and all cases regarding animal companions, a (base) ranger acts as a druid of half its level.
The spells description is very similar.
EDIT: quote found under Open Game Content here. (http://dungeons.wikia.com/wiki/SRD:Ranger)
Which handles perfectly the case of a single classed Ranger, but it doesn't discuss multiclassing at all. Therefore, it can't override the multiclassing clause in the Druid's ability.
Edit: This is going on longer than I anticipated, I suppose I should make a thread.
The rules in question are the Druid's statement about stacking druid levels with levels of classes that grant Animal Companions, and the Ranger's clause that it's effective Druid level is half its class level.
Q 447 aWhat would be the effective druid level for each of a Ranger5/Beastmaster1 's animal companions?
Q 447 bWhat about Ranger4/Druid1?
A447: Not sure what the Beastmasters description says, but for a Ranger 4/Druid 1 it would be 3rd.
Ranger: 4/2 = 2
Druid: 1
2+1 = 3
A 447b Followup:
Would it be different for a Druid1/Ranger4?
"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 abilities and the alternative lists available to the character. "
It seems to me that at least one of these combinations should come out to effective druid level of 5, since the druid ability isn't stacking effective druid levels, but class levels to determine.
A447 cont. No, it's the same:
2 + 1 = 3 is the same as 1 + 2 = 3. For a druid, class levels are effectve druid levels. 4 levels of ranger are always an effective druid level of 2.
I don't see the reason for confusion?
With all due respect, that is why I asked again. Druid class levels stack with levels of classes that grant Animal Companion, not with effective druid levels from classes that grant Animal Companion. Hence if you take Druid first, then your Animal Companion is tied to your Druid level. If you take Ranger then, those class levels should stack with your Druid class levels to determine your effective Druid level. So Druid1/Ranger4 should have an effective Druid level of 5.
What I'm confused about is what happens if you take Ranger first. Since that ties your Animal Companion to 1/2 your Ranger level. When you take levels of Druid, then they either:
a) stack with levels of Ranger, then get cut in half mutually,
b)supercede the Ranger Animal Companion (better ability) and behave as though you took Druid first, or
c)something else.
You can't take Ranger first or something like that. As the system works you can start with 3 levels of druid, then 1 level of ranger, 2 more levels of druid, 5 levels of beastmaster, 2 more levels ranger, and 1 more level druid.
The order doesn't make any difference, it's always a Druid 6/Ranger 3/Beastmaster 5.
Your argument seems to be based on the wording that druid levels stack with levels in any other class that has the Animal Companion class feature. But a ranger always only has an effective druid level of half his actual ranger level. The rules are very clear on how this works.
Seconded. A ranger is always, with regards to spells and animal companion, half-a-druid. (From level 4 onwards at least, levels 1 to 3 the ranger has Druidic Quotient: 0%)
I am not looking to hear your opinion again. I am looking for a RAW answer, which depends very much on the wording you seem to want to ignore. If you can provide me with a rules quotation that says when stacking class levels to determine Animal Companion, you only use 1/2 the Ranger's class levels, I will listen.
Also, order can be extremely important. ElfParagon3/Wizard1 is vastly different from Wizard1/ElfParagon3.
Emphasis mine.
I'n not quite sure how you read that bolded sentence. In any and all cases regarding animal companions, a (base) ranger acts as a druid of half its level.
The spells description is very similar.
EDIT: quote found under Open Game Content here. (http://dungeons.wikia.com/wiki/SRD:Ranger)
Which handles perfectly the case of a single classed Ranger, but it doesn't discuss multiclassing at all. Therefore, it can't override the multiclassing clause in the Druid's ability.
Edit: This is going on longer than I anticipated, I suppose I should make a thread.