Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="ElectricDragon" data-source="post: 3036391" data-attributes="member: 10778">Hyp said:So this isn't a calculation? Beastmasters have effective druid levels (-1) equal to their class level (-1) +3. Rangers have effective druid levels (-1) equal to half their class level (-1) Negative levels suck. So 3(-1)+3(-1) + 8(-1)/2(-1)=6, Dire Badger [-3 levels (-1)]=2. Is that silly enough for you? [Note, I do not work it this way; I am just trying to get to Hyp's point, debate has always been a fun exercise no matter which side you are on, IMHO -1 is just -1].The creature's level in that class? Is this a concept? The creature's total level, the creature's level as a ranger, the creature's level as a beastmaster, the creature's level as an effective druid, the creature's level for determining caster level? I really do not see how "Creature's Level" is supposed to be only Character level (a game term) and not include Prestige class levels, class levels, effective class levels, racial class levels, substitution class levels or monster class levels. If they had meant Character Level, why not write it that way? Why use an ambigious term like "Creature Level" when a specific game term was meant?In your example of the Dire Badger, does its HD decrease because its master gained some negative levels? For a Wizard or Sorcerer, does their Familiar get dumber because their master gained a few negative levels? What is the concept in that?CiaoDave</blockquote>