Lowballing Animal Companions


log in or register to remove this ad

Since the subject of reading comprehension has been raised, let me try this again.

I AM NOT THE DM. I CAN'T CHANGE HIS RULING WITHOUT A WRITTEN RULE, IN A RULEBOOK, TO SHOW TO HIM.

IF SOMEONE KNOWS OF SUCH A RULE, PLEASE POINT ME TO IT, OR QUOTE IT HERE.

PILING ON WON'T CHANGE THAT.

The FAQ is not a rule book. Neither is the Sage Advice column. Both, written by the same author, are know to be flawed. I've already pointed out one of the more blatant flaws. It's not the only one.
 

Out of curiosity when did FoM only affect mental impediments?

It doesn't. Greenfield says that the Sage was saying Freedom of Movement was limited to physical impediments, specifically not mental ones like Hold Person.
 

Since the subject of reading comprehension has been raised, let me try this again.

I AM NOT THE DM. I CAN'T CHANGE HIS RULING WITHOUT A WRITTEN RULE, IN A RULEBOOK, TO SHOW TO HIM.
<snip>

If you're trying to convince him, point out that the rule about a druid's class level stacking with the levels of another class is a general rule - it may be specific for druid characters but it's general with respect to other classes. After all, there may be other classes that get animal companions, some of which weren't even thought of when the druid section was written for the Player's Handbook.

Then point him to the bit in the ranger description saying that for the purposes of animal companions, a ranger counts half his levels. That's the specific rule for the ranger.

Then remind him that specific overrules general.
 

If your DM still doesn't accept the Specific > General rule, then perhaps this will change things. This entry is from the Book of Exalted Deeds for Animal Companion rules notably of a different class, but notes Druid and Ranger.

Book of Exalted Deeds said:
Lion of Talisid
Animal Companion (Ex): A lion of Talisid can add his lion of Talisid levels to his effective druid level (his actual druid level or one-half his ranger level) to determine the capabilities of his animal companion.

Since the EDL is for either Ranger or Druid, and the rules still apply to such. (They are using the same Animal Companion rules and sets.)
 
Last edited:

Greenfield, I know you're a very tenacious discussant (is that a word?), but in this instance, I believe you're arguing an interpretation of rules text that is not the only interpretation one could come up with.

"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."


"Levels of any other classes that are entitled to an animal companion" - doesn't say "class levels in any other class with the animal companion class feature". The relative pronoun "that" could easily refer to "levels", not "classes". Ranger levels are entitled to an animal companion, at half their actual number. "A Ranger's levels for the purpose of attracting an animal companion" equals half his class levels. I think your insistence that the sentence above talks about class levels, instead of "animal companion-entitled levels" has led you astray.


Also, your insistence that the FAQ doesn't provide a base for argument is groundless. It has been put out as an effort to help players interpret the actual rules text. It's like a precedent case, where the rules text is the law. Both taken together is what a judge (the DM) must reference in order to come up with a just ruling. That, in certain cases, precedent might have been contradictory to the law in a few instances doesn't change the fact that it provides one resource among others to draw on when one is trying to come up with a satisfactory, just verdict.


The FAQ may have been wrong before, but you won't deny that in this case it seems to be on the right track where RAI is concerned. Now all you need to do is apply it as a guideline to help you interpret what the rules text actually says. It's not as plain as day, obviously, or we wouldn't be having this argument.
 

Empirate, I'd first like to direct you here : http://www.enworld.org/forum/d-d-le...wballing-animal-companions-3.html#post5660296

I'd like to add that interpreting "levels of classes" as "class levels" is almost a no brainer, and to try to argue that "levels" refers to something else neither referenced nor mentioned is a real stretch.

Question: If you didn't know about Ranger levels working the way they do for Animal Companions, would you read "levels of any other classes" as "class levels"? That is, if you didn't want some other interpretation, would you go digging for one?

Reading the words as written, no spin, no "I wish it said something else", "class levels" is really the only thing that phrase could mean.
 

@Greenfield

Unfortunately about the 'if you didn't know about rangers animal companion' the actual issue wouldn't change because any other class that does get an animal companion still states what it counts as. (Like the beastmaster or Lion of Tsil classes i noted before.)

Ignoring those specific notations (even if the case does agree with the entry) can break the mechanics if they prove to be different. Which can affect game balance.

To answer, typically 'if you don't know' there's usually not a reason to search, but its usually quite unlikely that one wouldn't see the Ranger entry without not looking at the class ability descriptions. Some cases the notes are small enough to be bypassed but when noted of the correction shouldn't be ignored.

(Happened to me for when I thought Paladin's had full caster level and believed such up to that point until that point of being referenced otherwise. Despite me disliking the note, I still took it into account.)
 

Pets & Sidekicks

Remove ads

Top