Lowballing Animal Companions

[Greenfield]

We have a Ranger5/Druid4 in our game, and he decided to get a new Animal Companion (he was separated from his last one by an insurmountable distance.)

By the rules, he adds the levels of his two classes together to determine maximum capacity, even though Ranger levels by themselves don't count the same as Druid levels.

Animal Companion Basics: Use the base statistics for a creature of the companion’s kind, but make the following changes.
Class Level: The character’s druid level. 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. ...

That being said, he wants a specific animal that's beyond the reach of his level, per the table in the book.

One suggestion was that he accept a leveled-down version, an adolescent or cub. It would then grow to it's full capacity as the character levels up.

Other than the fiddly-bits of down-scaling the critter in question, this seemed like an acceptable compromise to all.

What are your feelings?

 

[Talonblaze]

The book does say that creating appropriate equivalents is fine as long as the DM accepts it (and the player accepts the downgrade until ready).

I would have no issue with this at all and allows a player to still keep the creature they want.

 

[Patryn of Elvenshae]

Note that when you're adding his Ranger levels, you add their "effective Druid Level" rather than the total Ranger levels. So, in this case, your player's character counts as a Druid 6 for purposes of calulating his animal companion.

 

[Greenfield]

I hear what you're saying, and it makes sense. I also read what the RAW says, and they don't agree.

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 doesn't say "stack with effective druid levels of any other classes...". It just says that the levels stack.

Yeah yeah, I know, a Ranger of any level can take one level of Druid and effectively double his level for purposes of having an animal companion. It just screams "abuse". But it's an abuse spelled out so clearly in the RAW that it's hard to argue with.

 

[Talonblaze]

I hear what you're saying, and it makes sense. I also read what the RAW says, and they don't agree.

It doesn't say "stack with effective druid levels of any other classes...". It just says that the levels stack.

Yeah yeah, I know, a Ranger of any level can take one level of Druid and effectively double his level for purposes of having an animal companion. It just screams "abuse". But it's an abuse spelled out so clearly in the RAW that it's hard to argue with.

Don't really see how it screams abuse to be perfectly honest. When most entries refer to the animal companion and its level, it almost always cites druid levels. Such as Natural Bond:
Benefit: Add three to your effective druid level for the purpose of determining the bonus Hit Dice, extra tricks, special abilities, and other bonuses that your animal companion receives (see page 36 of the Player’s Handbook).

The entry in the PHB obviously usually doesn't reference itself so it just says 'other classes'.

 

[Greenfield]

One oddity: As the Druid/Ranger advances in level, we'll be allowing his Animal Companion to advance as well, up to the adult form.

When that happens, the Druid Level adjustment will change and the companion will abruptly lose abilities.

Live by the RAW, fall by the RAW.

 

[Talonblaze]

One oddity: As the Druid/Ranger advances in level, we'll be allowing his Animal Companion to advance as well, up to the adult form.

When that happens, the Druid Level adjustment will change and the companion will abruptly lose abilities.

Live by the RAW, fall by the RAW.

Unless the Druid just chooses to keep it in its lesser form or just allow the monster to advance normally (normal as in no druid effects). Essentially, they wouldn't be losing any Druid effects, the effects would essentially be replaced with its improved form. (If they actually go lower than the lesser form was set to, the adjustment of the creature wasn't enough to start with.)

 

[Sekhmet]

The SRD states that the Druid class levels stack with other class levels that grant Animal Companion, yes.
So you add 4 Druid levels to his Ranger level of 5 for (effectively) a 7th level Druid in terms of Animal Companion effectiveness.

 

[Greenfield]

Consider something like a Tiger. If we adjusted it so a "juvenile" dropped it from 7th to 5th, what happens? Well, first it becomes accessible to a level 5 druid.

Second, the Druid adjustment on the table goes from -6 to -3. That means it has +2 hit dice, +2 Natural Armor, a +1 Str/Dex adjustment, and Evasion.

Now, when the Druid gains a level, the Tiger can grow up a bit and gain an actual hit dice, since that would now be within the character's new level range.

All okay so far. The Tiger gains two more "bonus hit dice" on top of the actual hit die it was just awarded, it's Natural Armor bonus bumps by 2, it gets another Str/Dex point, and now enjoys Devotion.

When the Druid levels up to 7 though, and the Tiger gets to advance to level of "grown up Tiger", he slips tables, and now the Druid Level adjustment goes from -3 to -6. Now his bonus Hit die goes from +2 to 0, his Natural Armor goes from +4 to +0, Str/Dex goes from +2 to +0, and he loses Evasion and Devotion. He also forgets some of the bonus tricks he was allowed to learn.

Hey, don't blame me, I didn't write the rules, I just get to laugh at them.

 

[Greenfield]

The SRD states that the Druid class levels stack with other class levels that grant Animal Companion, yes.
So you add 4 Druid levels to his Ranger level of 5 for (effectively) a 7th level Druid in terms of Animal Companion effectiveness.

4+5=7?

Do I get to laugh at something other than the rules?

(Don't feel bad. I had a technical meeting with Bank of the West (Animal companion is Brown bear) today, and noted that according to their technical write up for ACH check digits, 7 x 7 = 46. It explains so much about my dealing with banks. )