Natural Bond Poll

[Ridley's Cohort]

Part of the level is the extra tricks, which is an oft overlooked aspect of the animal companion. It's a more powerful creature that is not as well trained.

True to a degree, but you are ducking the main issue at hand.

It is entirely plausible that a particular 9th level Druid might choose a Wolf over a Dire Wolf because of added tricks and added feats. For example, a 10 HD Wolf could have the Spring Attack chain.

That said, it is not plausible that the designers thought that a 10 HD Wolf would be a balance problem that requires a specific restriction in the feat while a 10 HD Dire Wolf would be okey-dokey.

The Yes votes boil down to ruleslawyering and wishful thinking IMHO.

Now, I do not have a problem in yanking the restriction out entirely and unambiguously allowing both a 10 HD Wolf and a 10 HD Dire Wolf. As a self-confessed Balance Nazi, I do not believe this would be a problem. But that is not what the poll asked.

 

[gabrion]

Can you get to the same answer without using some common sense also?

Bye
Thanee

Not any more than I can carry on this conversation with you. It's a pretty big jump from there to say your position is fortified by a common sense argument.

Gabrion's quote says character level.

Bye
Thanee

Indeed it does, but there's an important "E" missing.

It is crystal clear that the designers intended to absolutely disallow a straight 9th level Druid from having a 10HD Wolf. It is entirely ridiculous to suggest they thought it would be just fine for the same Druid to have a 10HD Dire Wolf while limiting the character to an 8HD Wolf.

No. By the intent of the designers.

Or it could just be the case the designers don't print every feat with coaching instructions on how to use it. So Natural Bond doesn't benefit normal druid companions that they get at first level. So what? A wizard 10/Fighter 4 with practiced spellcaster only does 10d6 damage with a fireball, but 14d6 with an Orb of Fire. OMG, an ability gained at a higher level is better than one from a lower level! The game designers couldn't have intended such a thing!

 

[Hypersmurf]

Gabrion's quote says character level.

'sright. And character level is racial hit dice plus class levels. Once you add level adjustment, you're no longer talking about character level, but effective character level.

-Hyp.

 

[Amazing Triangle]

I agree with Thanee on this one and yes it does apply lower level druids. Keep in mind that the feat Practiced Spellcaster gives roughly the same thing {+3 spell level up to HD}. And in this vein I vote that this can not be an overflow type feat.

For example a 1st level Druid were to go by having the feat as a gabrion suggests rules he would choose a badger as a first level druid then he would add his feat making him a 3rd level druid making him able in essence to have the same power level companion as a 3rd level druid with a badger animal companion. This would put this feat under the NEED TO HAVE TO PLAY A DRUID banner. When i as I have interpreted it you would never be able to have a better animal companion than a druid of the same effective level. {e.g. 4th level druid has all the animal companion as a Druid 1/Wizard 3 who has the feat.}

At lower levels you may disagree with is but you do not disagree with it at higher levels. Granted it does not allow you to get a "better animal companion" as per the level hit but it does as you are stateing it allow you to have a stronger faster better trained animal companion.

This feat is truely meant for the multiclass druid to keep her beefy sidekick not to improve a single class druid's already beefy sidekick.

 

[Ridley's Cohort]

Or it could just be the case the designers don't print every feat with coaching instructions on how to use it. So Natural Bond doesn't benefit normal druid companions that they get at first level. So what? A wizard 10/Fighter 4 with practiced spellcaster only does 10d6 damage with a fireball, but 14d6 with an Orb of Fire. OMG, an ability gained at a higher level is better than one from a lower level! The game designers couldn't have intended such a thing!

An 8 HD (or 10 HD) Animal Companion is an ability gained at 9th level. Do you actually have a point? Or do you think I will be swayed by random gibberish?

 

[gabrion]

Please feel free to ask me questions before spouting gibberish next time.

I don't think any questions were necessary. You were making an argument that because allowing this feat to give a benefit to straight druids would cause a discrepancy between druids with normal (available at first level) companions and alternative companions, it must not be the intent of the designers to allow the feat to offer such a benefit. Despite what you may think, there is nothing "crystal clear" about this logic. I was pointing out in my post that having a feat give a benefit to class abilities gained at higher levels but not to ones gained at lower levels really isn't that strange.

Since you seem to be making your argument based on intent though, I do have a few question for you. It seems like answering the answer to this poll depends on what order is used in applying the penalties/bonuses to the effecitve druid level, right? With the example of a druid 4 who has an ape companion and the natural bond feat, there are two options AFAIK.

Option one is that the natural bond is added in last, meaning the effective level is 4-3+3 (max 4)=4, which is kosher since the effective level never goes above 4. Option two is that the adjustment from page 36 is added in last, meaning the effective level is 4+3(max 4)-3=1. You seem to be taking the second position, while I'm taking the first, right? (Stop me at any point if I'm making incorrect assumptions)

So the real question here is how we decide what order to add the modifiers, which is something that isn't spelled out for us in the feat or the druid class ability. Can we agree that this is the heart of the argument?

Edit: And btw, if you take a moment to think about my previous post, you'll see that it isn't "random gibberish." It makes a pretty solid point, whether you want to be swayed by it or not. The ability gained by a higher level druid that I was referring to is the option to choose particular alternative companions, not just to have an animal companion with a certain number of HD. The fact that a feat benefits the druid when they make use of this higher level ability, but it doesn't if they stick with their lower level ability doesn't lead me to believe that there is a problem with the feat.

As for gaining high HD companions early, it really isn't that hard. A Druid 7/Beastmaster 3 with natural bond only has 10 HD, but they can have a dire shark companion, which has 18 HD. This is well provided for in the rules, so I don't know what kind of point you're making by claiming that they shouldn't gain higher HD companions early.

 

[Thanee]

'sright. And character level is racial hit dice plus class levels. Once you add level adjustment, you're no longer talking about character level, but effective character level.

Yep, yep.

Bye
Thanee

 

[Thanee]

As for gaining high HD companions early, it really isn't that hard. A Druid 7/Beastmaster 3 with natural bond only has 10 HD, but they can have a dire shark companion, which has 18 HD. This is well provided for in the rules...

Yep, and it quite specifically states, that this ability goes *beyond* the normal limit, while Natural Bond somewhat clearly states, that it does not. Only because of the vagueness of the terms involved (see the longer above post for this) there is a discussion about it at all. If they had used more precise terms, it would be more clear, that it doesn't work.

And I still say, that effective druid level =/= druid's effective level for calculating the ablities of the animal companion.

Bye
Thanee

 

[Lord Pendragon]

I voted "yes, but it shouldn't."

Though it is my belief that the designers didn't intend for it to offset the upgrade cost of getting a stronger animal companion, the wording seems to allow it.

In my game, I would disallow it, were it to come up, which it hasn't so far.

 

[Infiniti2000]

Indeed it does, but there's an important "E" missing.

*puts on glasses*

Oh. Okay, then.