Question on ACFs

[tedcahill2]

Hypothetical question (in the sense that I don't know if this particular example is possible):

If I'm a ranger, and I use an ACF to obtain the turn undead ability of a paladin, can I then take another ACF in place of the turn undead ability I just obtained?

[Jormengand]

I believe that the answer is yes, if that's a ranger ACF or an ACF for "Any class with Turn Undead". At least that's the answer I'd use. You can't take a paladin archetype that modifies turn undead for the same reason a cleric can't take a paladin archetype that modifies turn undead - it's not that you don't have the feature, it's just not for clerics or rangers.

Certainly, this is the answer I'd have in play, which may be more important than RAW-theory.

[BowStreetRunner]

It depends upon the wording of the ACF that you want to take. Since both Paladins and Clerics have the turn undead ability and they don't generally share alternate class features, it is unlikely there is an ACF for paladins that isn't worded specifically for the class. But this is AD&D, so sloppy wordings are common enough that it is worth considering.

I don't actually know of an ACF that gives Turn Undead however.

[tedcahill2]

Well I'll tell you what I'm thinking.

I want to make a ranger, but she isn't very nature/hunter like. So I'm opting for using urban ranger ACFs. In addition to that I really don't care for favored enemy. There's an ACF for the paladin that trades lay on hands, remove disease, and turn undead for a rangers favored enemy. So I was thinking of doing that in reverse, and giving up favored enemy and gaining lay of hands, turn undead, and remove disease.

I then want to use the ACF to trade remove disease for remove curse, and turn undead for divine counterspell.

She's one of a pair of siblings I'm making. He's a hexblade (dark magic, curses, very arcane warrior like), she's sort of his opposite (divine magic, remove curse, anti-magic, etc.). I think I'll be able to convince my DM of most/all of this, but I want to know how far off RAW I'm getting.

[Zaq]

I don't know of anything in RAW that allows ACFs to work in reverse. Just because a certain class can give up Feature A in exchange for Feature B doesn't mean that the class that Feature B comes from can trade it out for Feature A. (There are a few pairs that explicitly have ACFs that mirror each other, like Sneak Attack Fighter and Feat Rogue, but that's a pair of specific rules and not a general rule.)

It may or may not be overpowered to allow such things, of course, so if you're already slinging houserules around, it's unlikely to cause major problems outside of edge cases. If the trade is truly balanced, then in theory, it should be balanced in both directions. Whether it's ACTUALLY balanced isn't a guarantee, and again, you're definitely making up your own rules at that point. (Which is fine as long as you know that that's what you're doing.)

For ACF "chaining," once again, I don't think it's valid by RAW unless it's one of those really broad ACFs that's written for "Any class that gets X feature." You're in houserule territory there. As with "reverse ACFing," it might or might not be overpowered to allow it (once again, if we start from the premise that the trade is actually balanced in the first place, it should theoretically remain so in slightly different contexts, but that's a pretty big assumption to start with, and context is actually pretty important overall), but I definitely don't think there's any RAW support for it.

In your specific example, I'm not sure why you want to be a Ranger if you want to trade away all the Ranger bits. (I will reiterate my position that Rangers are not very good and have a decent chassis but very few decent features, so I'm on board with treating Ranger features primarily as currency to be traded, but still, there comes a point when we have to ask why we need to start from a certain class if we don't want to use that class.) The Ranger bits that you aren't trading away are mostly feats that aren't unique to Rangers, so honestly, I think it's going to be less work to start with something that isn't the actual Ranger class and then use feats/ACFs of the other class you start with to get the Ranger-style abilities you want. It actually sounds like you'd be better off with a Paladin who took Track or Urban Tracking or whatever and who maybe takes Two-Weapon Fighting. Or maybe even something else entirely.

[tedcahill2]

In your specific example, I'm not sure why you want to be a Ranger if you want to trade away all the Ranger bits. (I will reiterate my position that Rangers are not very good and have a decent chassis but very few decent features, so I'm on board with treating Ranger features primarily as currency to be traded, but still, there comes a point when we have to ask why we need to start from a certain class if we don't want to use that class.) The Ranger bits that you aren't trading away are mostly feats that aren't unique to Rangers, so honestly, I think it's going to be less work to start with something that isn't the actual Ranger class and then use feats/ACFs of the other class you start with to get the Ranger-style abilities you want. It actually sounds like you'd be better off with a Paladin who took Track or Urban Tracking or whatever and who maybe takes Two-Weapon Fighting. Or maybe even something else entirely.

This is an easy answer given this particular character concept I'm working on. I need to have a class that gets animal companion at an early level, and I absolutely do not want to play a druid. Conceptually I would love to be able to do a paladin, but there's no ACF (that I've found) to give them animal companion. If I could trade the paladin's mount for a rangers animal companion that would be perfect (not sure it's worth the trade) but it's more inline with what I'm trying to achieve for the characters.

I'll also briefly add that I'm not looking to make anything tier 1 or even 2. I'd be happy to land at T3 or 4 even. This is all about pulling off a specific character concept.

[BowStreetRunner]

I'm curious as to the specific reason you want an animal companion. While the ability does have its advantage, I have also run into players who had a character concept that could easily be filled with just a trained animal and the Handle Animal skill. Sometimes also a paladin's mount, a spellcaster's familiar, or something similar might fill the need.

If it absolutely has to be a true animal companion, fair enough. But there are other options that bear considering.

[Chewie15]

I believe there is a feat for basically adding an animal companion to any character, Wild Cohort. From what I remember it was published in an article, may want to see if your DM allows it.

[Red Fel]

I believe there is a feat for basically adding an animal companion to any character, Wild Cohort. From what I remember it was published in an article, may want to see if your DM allows it.

The Wild Cohort (http://archive.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/re/20031118a) feat doesn't exactly give you an animal companion (in fact, it explicitly contrasts it with a Druid or Ranger's animal companion), but it does give you something functionally similar. Not quite as good as the animal companion class feature, but functional. If this is what you want for a character, OP, it is literally just a feat away, no prereqs and you can take it at first level. For a Human character, that's basically free.

[DEMON]

Hypothetical question (in the sense that I don't know if this particular example is possible):

If I'm a ranger, and I use an ACF to obtain the turn undead ability of a paladin, can I then take another ACF in place of the turn undead ability I just obtained?

ACF chaining (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showsinglepost.php?p=19853009&postcount=5) isn't exactly RAW, though some DMs allow it.

In my experience, if the ACF explicitly states you get an ability of another class (such as most ACFs in Unearthed Arcana), trading it for that class' ACF is more likely to be allowed.

[tedcahill2]

I'm curious as to the specific reason you want an animal companion. While the ability does have its advantage, I have also run into players who had a character concept that could easily be filled with just a trained animal and the Handle Animal skill. Sometimes also a paladin's mount, a spellcaster's familiar, or something similar might fill the need.

If it absolutely has to be a true animal companion, fair enough. But there are other options that bear considering.

I've mentioned this in a previous thread, but I'll restate it so you understand where I'm coming from. With DM approval (no mechanical justification needed) I'm making a pair of siblings as characters. Sib 1 is going to be a hex blade and sib 2 is a ranger. The reason for these classes is that I'm going for a sort of yin and yang type thing with the siblings.

During the day sib 1 is transformed into a wolf (an actual animal wolf with all the base stats from the MM, not a shapeshift effect in the sense that he keeps his mental stats and such). At night sib 2 is transformed into an owl. I want the relationship between the siblings in and out of animal form to be more than just trained pet. So familiar and animal companion seem to be the way to go. That way the animals are getting some benefit from the sibling in human form to stay relevant throughout play.

Wild cohort isn't providing enough of a boost in my eyes to keep the animal relevant.

[Red Fel]

I've mentioned this in a previous thread, but I'll restate it so you understand where I'm coming from. With DM approval (no mechanical justification needed) I'm making a pair of siblings as characters. Sib 1 is going to be a hex blade and sib 2 is a ranger. The reason for these classes is that I'm going for a sort of yin and yang type thing with the siblings.

During the day sib 1 is transformed into a wolf (an actual animal wolf with all the base stats from the MM, not a shapeshift effect in the sense that he keeps his mental stats and such). At night sib 2 is transformed into an owl. I want the relationship between the siblings in and out of animal form to be more than just trained pet. So familiar and animal companion seem to be the way to go. That way the animals are getting some benefit from the sibling in human form to stay relevant throughout play.

Wild cohort isn't providing enough of a boost in my eyes to keep the animal relevant.

Hmm. Depending on starting level, what about a Ranger/Paladin with Devoted Tracker?

Devoted Tracker is a feat from Complete Adventurer that requires Track and Wild Empathy (read: Ranger 1) and Smite Evil (read: Paladin 1). It allows Ranger and Paladin levels to stack for purposes of your Smite Evil damage and Wild Empathy ability. It allows you to freely multiclass between Paladin and Ranger. Most importantly, it allows your Ranger Animal Companion to count as your Paladin Special Mount.

The problem, of course, is that you need both the Animal Companion and Special Mount class features to get the benefit you want, which means Ranger 4/ Paladin 5. So this isn't really coming online until level 9.

If you're starting at that level, it works really well. You have a character with a Ranger Animal Companion who is more than an your average Ranger Animal Companion, in that it also has all the benefits of being a Paladin Special Mount. (Whether you actually ride it or not is irrelevant; it still gains those benefits.) However, if you're starting at a lower level... You don't even get an Animal Companion until Ranger 4.

So, y'know, that.

Have you considered playing a Druid with some nerfing ACFs, perhaps? Or maybe an Urban Druid (Dragon Compendium)?

[Zaq]

Wild cohort isn't providing enough of a boost in my eyes to keep the animal relevant.

You do realize that a Ranger's animal companion scales only half as fast as a Druid's and therefore really gets very little boost itself, right? You never get Link or Share Spells with Wild Cohort, but you're still going to come out ahead in almost every other respect.

Assume a straight-class Ranger versus any other class with Wild Cohort. At ECL 4 (when the Ranger gets the pet), the Ranger's animal companion (RAC) has 1 bonus trick, Link, Share Spells, and nothing else. The Wild Cohort (WC) has 1 bonus trick, +1 HD, +1 NAC, and Evasion. Numerically, the WC is ahead.

At ECL 8, the RAC has +2 HD, +2 NAC, +1 STR/DEX, and +2 tricks. The WC has +3 HD, +3 NAC, +1 STR/DEX, and +2 tricks. Both pets have Evasion. Advantage: WC. This is even more lopsided at ECL 9, but I'm trying not to cherry-pick levels that are unusually good for the WC. ECL 8 is actually at the high end of a bracket for the WC.

How about ECL 12, which is when the RAC moves into the next bracket? RAC has +4 HD, +4 NAC, +2 STR/DEX, +3 tricks, and Devotion. WC has +7 HD, +7 NAC, +3 STR/DEX, +4 tricks, and Devotion. Advantage: WC.

This isn't going to get much better for the RAC, honestly. Technically the RAC will gain Multiattack at ECL 18, but if you're sticking with a wolf for (entirely valid) fluff reasons and haven't upgraded to something with more attacks, Multiattack won't matter, since PHB pg. 36 says that the animal companion only gains Multiattack if it has 3 or more natural attacks, which a wolf does not.

So yeah. It's fine to have problems with Wild Cohort compared to a Druid's Animal Companion, but compared to a Ranger's? It's better in almost every way other than having Share Spells.

[Thurbane]

This isn't going to get much better for the RAC, honestly. Technically the RAC will gain Multiattack at ECL 18, but if you're sticking with a wolf for (entirely valid) fluff reasons and haven't upgraded to something with more attacks, Multiattack won't matter, since PHB pg. 36 says that the animal companion only gains Multiattack if it has 3 or more natural attacks, which a wolf does not.

It does benefit from a single iterative attack instead, however.

[Khedrac]

It does benefit from a single iterative attack instead, however.

It does? - How? - you cannot use iteratives with natural attacks so either you have slipped up or I am missing something...

[Thurbane]

Well, not a true iterative, but still an extra attack:


If it does not have the requisite three or more natural attacks, the animal companion instead gains a second attack with its primary natural weapon, albeit at a -5 penalty.

[Psyren]

This is an easy answer given this particular character concept I'm working on. I need to have a class that gets animal companion at an early level, and I absolutely do not want to play a druid. Conceptually I would love to be able to do a paladin, but there's no ACF (that I've found) to give them animal companion. If I could trade the paladin's mount for a rangers animal companion that would be perfect (not sure it's worth the trade) but it's more inline with what I'm trying to achieve for the characters.

I'll also briefly add that I'm not looking to make anything tier 1 or even 2. I'd be happy to land at T3 or 4 even. This is all about pulling off a specific character concept.

None of this is RAW, so it pretty much hinges on your IRL Diplomacy roll with your DM. You've explained what you want to do clearly enough, so offer to buy the pizza and hope for the best.

I will point out that it sounds like you want a martial class with an animal companion moreso than you actually want a modified ranger. Have you tried picking the class you actually want and adding Wild Cohort to it?

[Alabenson]

Well I'll tell you what I'm thinking.

I want to make a ranger, but she isn't very nature/hunter like. So I'm opting for using urban ranger ACFs. In addition to that I really don't care for favored enemy. There's an ACF for the paladin that trades lay on hands, remove disease, and turn undead for a rangers favored enemy. So I was thinking of doing that in reverse, and giving up favored enemy and gaining lay of hands, turn undead, and remove disease.

I then want to use the ACF to trade remove disease for remove curse, and turn undead for divine counterspell.

She's one of a pair of siblings I'm making. He's a hexblade (dark magic, curses, very arcane warrior like), she's sort of his opposite (divine magic, remove curse, anti-magic, etc.). I think I'll be able to convince my DM of most/all of this, but I want to know how far off RAW I'm getting.

By RAW this is something of a gray area at best, but on the other hand it doesn't seem to outlandish so I'd second talk with your DM. Personally, I'd allow it in this case (especially given that the Paladin version of favored enemy would be somewhat more restricted) but I can't say for sure if you're DM would agree.

[Zaq]

Well, not a true iterative, but still an extra attack:

Ah. You do appear to be correct.

Still. This happens at ECL 18. That's not exactly a big mark in the Ranger's favor.

[tedcahill2]

Have you considered playing a Druid with some nerfing ACFs, perhaps? Or maybe an Urban Druid (Dragon Compendium)?
Since shapeshifting each day against their will is such a huge part of these characters I simply can't rationalize once of them being a druid and thus having the wild shape ability.

Plus, if they were ranger and hexblade, I'd be pretty well off gear wise because there would be a good deal of cross over in gear.

[DEMON]

If you're going for a Ranger with a pet, urban companion is your best option. The second best thing, IMO, is Elven Hound, but anything else is just a blood splatter in waiting. Getting one of your siblings killed off during his/her "off time" will destroy your concept in a heartbeat.

The ACF chaining and reverse-chaining you're proposing, is very questionable, but I can see an open-minded DM allowing this.

For your concept, I'm sure you realize that neither Hexblade nor Ranger are much of a powerhouse, so I'm guessing you're in a lower-powered campaign where this concept should work okay.

With a familiar (Hexblade) and urban familiar (Ranger) concept, the Hexblade's high HD and Ranger's decent skills, you'd have 2 differently focused companions. And frankly, with Dark Companion (Hexblade), you'd do even better, ensuring your sibling will live to see another day.

[BowStreetRunner]

As much as I know you are trying to go the Ladyhawke route, if all else fails you could always fall back on the concept of Item Familiars (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/variant/magic/itemFamiliars.htm).