Pages 16-17 of the Seakers of Secrets lists three feats: Boon Companion, Dilettante, and Friendly Switch.
My first question is, does a character need to be a member of the Pathfinder Society to take one of these feats?
My second question is about the "Boon Companion" feat. It says that
"The abilities of your animal companion or familiar are calculated as though your class were four levels higher to a maximum bonus equal to your character level.
Pages 16-17 of the Seakers of Secrets lists three feats: Boon Companion, Dilettante, and Friendly Switch.
My first question is, does a character need to be a member of the Pathfinder Society to take one of these feats?
My second question is about the "Boon Companion" feat. It says that
"The abilities of your animal companion or familiar are calculated as though your class were four levels higher to a maximum bonus equal to your character level.
Does that mean that a Lvl 4 druid with that feat would use Lvl 8 for his/her companion's abilities (PathfinderRPG p. 52)?
Or is this feat mostly beneficial for Multiclass characters; i.e., A Lvl 4 Fighter/Lvl 4 Druid would still use Lvl 8 for his/her companion's abilities? (And, where would Ranger's fit in this mix?)
Option 2. Character level is the summation of all your class levels.
A single classed Ranger would use his character level as his effective druid level for companion abilities.
Pages 16-17 of the Seakers of Secrets lists three feats: Boon Companion, Dilettante, and Friendly Switch.
My first question is, does a character need to be a member of the Pathfinder Society to take one of these feats?
What was the feeling on this question?
My second question is about the "Boon Companion" feat. It says that
"The abilities of your animal companion or familiar are calculated as though your class were four levels higher to a maximum bonus equal to your character level.
Does that mean that a Lvl 4 druid with that feat would use Lvl 8 for his/her companion's abilities (PathfinderRPG p. 52)?
Or is this feat mostly beneficial for Multiclass characters; i.e., A Lvl 4 Fighter/Lvl 4 Druid would still use Lvl 8 for his/her companion's abilities? (And, where would Ranger's fit in this mix?)
Option 2. Character level is the summation of all your class levels.
So a Single Classed Druid or Wizard would gain no benefit from this feat?
A single classed Ranger would use his character level as his effective druid level for companion abilities.
So this would give the Ranger three effective levels? (Since Rangers get "Hunters Bond" at Lvl 4, and are normally considered as a Druid three levels lower.)
Pages 16-17 of the Seakers of Secrets lists three feats: Boon Companion, Dilettante, and Friendly Switch.
My first question is, does a character need to be a member of the Pathfinder Society to take one of these feats?
If it's not in the prerequisite line, then they don't have to be a member of the Pathfinder Society, strictly speaking. Of course for PFS games you're already a member!
So a Single Classed Druid or Wizard would gain no benefit from this feat?
Correct.
So this would give the Ranger three effective levels? (Since Rangers get "Hunters Bond" at Lvl 4, and are normally considered as a Druid three levels lower.)
Correct, if they're single classed. A Ranger 4/Rogue 1, for example, would gain the full 4 effective levels.
Just wanted to confirm the reading of Boon Companion. It was designed with rangers and muticlassed characters in mind.
Okay. Maybe the writing wasn't clear enough for me? :)
It also helps Druids or Clerics who picked the Animal domain and I assume oracles as well....True. That wrinkle didn't exist at the time of writing :)
Does it actually do that though? Because as it is written, the abilities of your animal companion is treated as if your class were four levels higher to a maximum bonus equal to your character level.
So, as an example a level 6 ranger who has a class level of 6, would have an animal companion that is equal to "effective druid level 3." The feat as its written would boost the ranger level, not the "effective level" which will always be ranger level-3. As a result since the ranger in question is already at maximum class level she would not really benefit from the feat, unles of course she multi-class to another class later.
The same would be applied to druids with the animal domain I presume?
Contributor, RPG Superstar 2008 Top 6
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
It also helps Druids or Clerics who picked the Animal domain and I assume oracles as well....True. That wrinkle didn't exist at the time of writing :)Does it actually do that though? Because as it is written, the abilities of your animal companion is treated as if your class were four levels higher to a maximum bonus equal to your character level.
So, as an example a level 6 ranger who has a class level of 6, would have an animal companion that is equal to "effective druid level 3." The feat as its written would boost the ranger level, not the "effective level" which will always be ranger level-3. As a result since the ranger in question is already at maximum class level she would not really benefit from the feat, unles of course she multi-class to another class later.
The same would be applied to druids with the animal domain I presume?
Maximum "bonus" is probably unfortunate wording (not sure if it was in the original draft), but basically, you calculate the abilities of an animal companion or familiar as though your level was four level higher, to a maximum of your actual character level. So a ranger could get the abilities of an animal companion of up to their character level, as opposed to their ranger level - 3. If they've multiclassed, it might still be less than their charater level.
Don't overthink the feat :)
It also helps Druids or Clerics who picked the Animal domain and I assume oracles as well....True. That wrinkle didn't exist at the time of writing :)Does it actually do that though? Because as it is written, the abilities of your animal companion is treated as if your class were four levels higher to a maximum bonus equal to your character level.
So, as an example a level 6 ranger who has a class level of 6, would have an animal companion that is equal to "effective druid level 3." The feat as its written would boost the ranger level, not the "effective level" which will always be ranger level-3. As a result since the ranger in question is already at maximum class level she would not really benefit from the feat, unles of course she multi-class to another class later.
The same would be applied to druids with the animal domain I presume?
Maximum "bonus" is probably unfortunate wording (not sure if it was in the original draft), but basically, you calculate the abilities of an animal companion or familiar as though your level was four level higher, to a maximum of your actual character level. So a ranger could get the abilities of an animal companion of up to their character level, as opposed to their ranger level - 3. If they've multiclassed, it might still be less than their charater level.
Don't overthink the feat :)
Well, the problem with the feat isn't so much with rangers but its effect on druids who take the animal domain. Correct me if I'm wrong on this, but doesn't it negate most of the reasons for picking an animal companion as a druid? Wouldn't it be much better to just pick the animal domain and pick up this feat? For the druid in question, its effectively picking up a feat for 1 extra spell per spell level. Now, granted if your build is feat intensive that may not be feasible, but generally I think that's something that can be fitted in rather easily, especially since in pathfinder feats are a bit more plentiful. I don't think any of my players who play druids would ever pick an animal companion again, they would all just take the animal domain and pick up this feat, simply because its just that much more economical.
Well, the problem with the feat isn't so much with rangers but its effect on druids who take the animal domain. Correct me if I'm wrong on this, but doesn't it negate most of the reasons for picking an animal companion as a druid? Wouldn't it be much better to just pick the animal domain and pick up this feat? For the druid in question, its effectively picking up a feat for 1 extra spell per spell level. Now, granted if your build is feat intensive that may not be feasible, but generally I think that's something that can be fitted in rather easily, especially since in pathfinder feats are a bit more plentiful. I don't think any of my players who play druids would ever pick an animal companion again, they would all just take the animal domain and pick up this feat, simply because its just that much more economical.It also helps Druids or Clerics who picked the Animal domain and I assume oracles as well....True. That wrinkle didn't exist at the time of writing :)Does it actually do that though? Because as it is written, the abilities of your animal companion is treated as if your class were four levels higher to a maximum bonus equal to your character level.
So, as an example a level 6 ranger who has a class level of 6, would have an animal companion that is equal to "effective druid level 3." The feat as its written would boost the ranger level, not the "effective level" which will always be ranger level-3. As a result since the ranger in question is already at maximum class level she would not really benefit from the feat, unles of course she multi-class to another class later.
The same would be applied to druids with the animal domain I presume?
Maximum "bonus" is probably unfortunate wording (not sure if it was in the original draft), but basically, you calculate the abilities of an animal companion or familiar as though your level was four level higher, to a maximum of your actual character level. So a ranger could get the abilities of an animal companion of up to their character level, as opposed to their ranger level - 3. If they've multiclassed, it might still be less than their charater level.
Don't overthink the feat :)
I like it. It is not often one can get something for "effectively" nothing.
|
It also helps Druids or Clerics who picked the Animal domain and I assume oracles as well....Just wanted to confirm the reading of Boon Companion. It was designed with rangers and muticlassed characters in mind.Okay. Maybe the writing wasn't clear enough for me? :)
Oh!!!! sweeeeeeet! my druid is so taking the Animal Domain now... :) This feat was badly needed for any druid or ranger who like to base their build on an effective Animal Companion...
|
|
Hey, anyone notice this about the paladin:
"This mount functions as a druid’s animal companion, using
the paladin’s level as her effective druid level."
Wow, the pally now really rocks with an effective full druid Animal Companion...
Also,
"Bonded mounts have an Intelligence of at least 6."
Wow, now pallies take the cake! realize that this INT 6 allows the mount to take ANY feats, not just Animal Feats! O_O
Somehow part of me is happy the pallies are getting a good treatment, but part of me wish druids could be the masters of Animal Companions, not pallies... Currently pallies are the Animal Companion kings!
|
I have to say, that when I first saw this feat I thought it was fine, and it made sense. You build your animal companion as if your level in your class was 4 levels higher, to a max of your character level. It's like the old feat from 3.5 that allowed you to increase your caster level by 4 to a max of your character level, it helps with multi-classing. Makes sense, this one helps with multi-classing for an animal companion.
But to have it effectively make a Ranger's animal companion equal to a Druid's? I hate to say it, but that just sounds... well, annoying.
First of all, the wording. Without checking this thread I never would have questioned it, it literally says "The abilities of your animal companion or familiar are calculated as though your class were four levels higher, to a maximum bonus equal to your character level." So if you're a 5th level Ranger, you build your animal companion as if you were a 5th level Ranger (as it happens, this means your animal companion is effectively level 2). If you take this feat... well, you still build your animal companion as a 5th-level Ranger. The key thing being, when you build an animal companion as a Ranger, the effective druid level is always 3 lower.
Now if the feat said "The abilities of your animal companion are calculated as though your effective druid level was four levels higher" then that'd make a bit more sense. Still not really a great feat for the second reason.
That being... what Ranger wouldn't take this feat? There was an old feat in 3.5 that increased your animal companion's stats by 3 levels, to a max of your level, or something like that. For a Ranger, this was awesome since your effective druid level was half. Everyone I ever saw play a Ranger took the feat if they knew about it. And so far, I've had 2 rangers in my games and both have wanted a similar feat. To be a full class Ranger and have a Druid animal companion is just awesome.
In short, whenever I see a feat that almost everyone of a single class would take, I think it is too powerful. The feat seems perfectly balanced as help to offset a multi-classed character, as it should be. For these other cases? I think it shouldn't apply.
Just my two cents.
In short, whenever I see a feat that almost everyone of a single class would take, I think it is too powerful.
Using that logic Weapon Finesse is an overpowered feat for Rogues, or Extend Spell for casters, or Improved Initiative and Toughness for everyone.
|
|
In short, whenever I see a feat that almost everyone of a single class would take, I think it is too powerful.Using that logic Weapon Finesse is an overpowered feat for Rogues, or Extend Spell for casters, or Improved Initiative and Toughness for everyone.
It would be... if I saw those being taken often. I see maybe 1 or 2 players in each group grab Improved Init or Toughness of various classes, I haven't seen anyone grab Extend Spell since the Age of Worms days, and the last Rogue I saw was a Str build brute. So... yeah.
In the case of Rangers, every Ranger I've had in my games wanted the old "treat your animal companion as if it were 3 levels higher" feat, even back in the 3.5 days. When PRPG came out I edited it to just be 2 levels higher so the Ranger's AC could never be as good as the Druid's, and still everyone's been taking it. I imagine they'd just want the Boon one if they knew about it.
I'd be happy if: A. the feat was written better, I'd never have even thought it could be used for a single class Ranger without seeing Russ's comment and B. it only allowed the Ranger to get their animal companion up to a level below them. One of the druid's main class features is their superior companion, I think they should keep it. They've been nerfed back from being the Super Class in 3.5 already, no reason to give their abilities out at the price of a feat. :)
You are correct that Druids have been nerfed, but even with the heavy hit of the nerf bat that wild shape got they are still one of the more powerful classes just due to the fact they are a full spellcaster, and wild shape is still useful. An equivilent level Ranger and Druid squaring off, the Druid is going to win that battle more times than not. Another point being, back in the proverbial day animal comapanions were originally a class feature of the Ranger, Druids didnt get them and I always found it curious as to why in 3.X Druids received the more powerful version of that feature when they are a more powerful class overall.
Creative Director
|
Another point being, animal comapanions were originally a class feature of the Ranger, Druids didnt get them and I always found it curious as to why in 3.X Druids received the more powerful version of that feature when they are a more powerful class overall.
In earlier versions of D&D, druids got access to a spell called animal friendship. This 1st level spell basically let a druid gain any animal he encountered as an animal companion. Since it was permanent, and since all druids could cast it, the WotC design team made the wise choice of simply taking the spell away and giving it to druids as a class feature. Allowing the animal companion to level up with the druid was, I think, another stroke of brilliance because it allowed you to keep your same animal pet from 1st level up to 20th if you wanted without the animal getting progressively less powerful compared to you.
Interesting point there Mr Jacobs, I think for all the 2E campaigns we played we had maybe 1 druid character, and that campaign didnt last very long so I wasnt aware of this. I am curious, what your opinion is on this feat, would you allow it to let a Rangers companion be equivilent to his HD?
|
Creative Director
|
Interesting point there Mr Jacobs, I think for all the 2E campaigns we played we had maybe 1 druid character, and that campaign didnt last very long so I wasnt aware of this. I am curious, what your opinion is on this feat, would you allow it to let a Rangers companion be equivilent to his HD?
I'd be hesitant, since the whole point of the ranger's animal companion is that it's more of a scout than a combat buddy. Just as I'd be hesitant about a feat that gives a non-rogue sneak attack power. Rangers already have a lot going for them that they don't need to poach too much on the druid's abilities.
|
Interesting point there Mr Jacobs, I think for all the 2E campaigns we played we had maybe 1 druid character, and that campaign didnt last very long so I wasnt aware of this. I am curious, what your opinion is on this feat, would you allow it to let a Rangers companion be equivilent to his HD?I'd be hesitant, since the whole point of the ranger's animal companion is that it's more of a scout than a combat buddy. Just as I'd be hesitant about a feat that gives a non-rogue sneak attack power. Rangers already have a lot going for them that they don't need to poach too much on the druid's abilities.
I have to say I am very much in the camp that feels the ranger's animal companion should progress just like the Druid. The level handicap just makes no sense to me.
Of course, I love pretty much everything else in the Pathfinder RPG so that's not too bad!
|
|
Interesting point there Mr Jacobs, I think for all the 2E campaigns we played we had maybe 1 druid character, and that campaign didnt last very long so I wasnt aware of this. I am curious, what your opinion is on this feat, would you allow it to let a Rangers companion be equivilent to his HD?I'd be hesitant, since the whole point of the ranger's animal companion is that it's more of a scout than a combat buddy. Just as I'd be hesitant about a feat that gives a non-rogue sneak attack power. Rangers already have a lot going for them that they don't need to poach too much on the druid's abilities.
Hooray, James is hesitantly with me! In truth, I think the feat should only apply to multi-classing as it is right now, at least until any errata comes out. The way it's written, it just shouldn't apply to a single class.
I agree though, I always thought of the animal companion for the Ranger as a kind of 'cohort', a secondary buddy to help, never a full fledged companion like the Druid.
We will have to agree to disagree my friend. Cause I honestly beleive that the companion of the Ranger and the Druid should be reversed or at least of equal ability.
However in the matter of this specific feat, unless you are going to houserule it, it should apply as the author has clarified and said he intended it, thats all the errata one would need I should think.
|
Contributor, RPG Superstar 2008 Top 6
|
A few thoughts. First, feats aren't free, they're a resource like any other, and are intended to make your characters better at things. Second. Second, a three-shift in animal companion strength isn't terribly huge for the single-classed ranger, since it doesn't let them pass beyond what is already considered an acceptable power for that level. Certainly this isn't on the order of granting sneak attack to a fighter, since a tough animal companion is already a ranger class feature. In 3.5E terms, it'd be similar to giving full turn ability to a paladin, though in most 3.5E games a companion is of more frequent use than turning.
In terms of game balance, this feat is not as big a deal for your game as the Leadership feat, which grants any character an ally on the level of or more powerful than an animal companion - and one that Paizo staff have recommended be essentially run as autonomously as an animal companion (my position too, by the way).
If it bugs you in your own game, by all means, don't use it that way. But consider the option. It isn't such a bad idea to open up new styles of play to rangers.
Also, if Paizo really wants the ranger's companion should be relegated to the role of scout, they should consider returning to the 1/2 level progression of the original D20 rules - a level of power that kept animal companions from having much use in a fight.
Just my 2 cents :) Or maybe a nickel.
|
|
A few thoughts. First, feats aren't free, they're a resource like any other, and are intended to make your characters better at things. Second. Second, a three-shift in animal companion strength isn't terribly huge for the single-classed ranger, since it doesn't let them pass beyond what is already considered an acceptable power for that level. Certainly this isn't on the order of granting sneak attack to a fighter, since a tough animal companion is already a ranger class feature. In 3.5E terms, it'd be similar to giving full turn ability to a paladin, though in most 3.5E games a companion is of more frequent use than turning.
In terms of game balance, this feat is not as big a deal for your game as the Leadership feat, which grants any character an ally on the level of or more powerful than an animal companion - and one that Paizo staff have recommended be essentially run as autonomously as an animal companion (my position too, by the way).
If it bugs you in your own game, by all means, don't use it that way. But consider the option. It isn't such a bad idea to open up new styles of play to rangers.
Also, if Paizo really wants the ranger's companion should be relegated to the role of scout, they should consider returning to the 1/2 level progression of the original D20 rules - a level of power that kept animal companions from having much use in a fight.
Just my 2 cents :) Or maybe a nickel.
Thanks for responding Russ. Strangely enough, I think I wouldn't have had nearly as big a gripe with this were it not for the wording. I really hope that, if Paizo goes with your original intention for the feat, that it's reworded in errata. I know arguing the wording of mechanics gets old and tiring, but it just didn't seem like there was any question with this one until I saw this thread.
"The abilities of your animal companion or familiar are calculated as though your class were four levels higher, to a maximum bonus equal to your character level."
In application to, let's say, a 5th-level Ranger, I read that as "The abilities of your animal companion are calculated as though your class (Ranger) were four levels higher, to a maximum bonus equal to your character level (5th)."
As it stands, you can't gain any bonus then since even just a +1 would make your effective "Ranger" level (5) go higher than your character level (5).
That's how I read it originally, and I thought it was a fine feat for multi-classing Rangers/Druids/Paladins/what have you. If it is in fact intended to work for raising a Ranger's companion to Druid levels, do you think you'll be able to get it tossed into the next Errata that comes out? :) It'd definitely make things easier for some games, especially Society ones. I can't be the only person that read this feat as I did. Maybe make it read more like the Andoren Falconer feat from the Campaign Setting? That one specifically gave a +4 handle animal bonus to any bird of prey, and increased your effective druid level by 1 for the purposes of determining your animal companions abilities if it was a bird of prey. Of course, if Boon Companion ends up working the way you wanted, I imagine Andoren Falconer would need an update too... (since it'd be kind of useless otherwise, aside from the +4 handle animal bonus to birds of prey, in which case you may as well just take a Skill Focus to have it apply to all animals).
Edit: As for the Leadership feat, I can't really argue that. But I think most can agree that the Leadership feat is one of the most, if not the number one, powerful feats in the Core book, and requires a great deal of DM management. So comparing any new feat to that one is a bit strange. :) It'd be like justifying the power of a class in 3.5 just because it equaled the power of good ole CoDzilla or something, heh.
|
Contributor, RPG Superstar 2008 Top 6
|
I think of it this way, in terms of what I had previously admitted was unfortunate wording: a 10th level range with this feat calculates their animal companion level as though they were a 14th level ranger, to a maximum bonus of their character level. So they would get the animal companion of an 11th level druid, but since that is higher than their level of 10, we reduce it to 10. Basically, the "maximum bonus" that is being capped to (level) is (druid level - 3) rather than (ranger level).
Writing limits into game language is a surprising pain. See the cat critical discussion for another example :)
|
|
I think of it this way, in terms of what I had previously admitted was unfortunate wording: a 10th level range with this feat calculates their animal companion level as though they were a 14th level ranger, to a maximum bonus of their character level. So they would get the animal companion of an 11th level druid, but since that is higher than their level of 10, we reduce it to 10. Basically, the "maximum bonus" that is being capped to (level) is (druid level - 3) rather than (ranger level).
Writing limits into game language is a surprising pain. See the cat critical discussion for another example :)
Ah, yeah, I think the main misunderstanding is the whole 'treat your levels in that class' bit. I think if you had mentioned 'effective druid level' at all then it would have been a lot more clear.
|
Perhaps...but thier kingdom is a horse. Not exactly as terrifying as a raging sabertooth tiger.
Somehow part of me is happy the pallies are getting a good treatment, but part of me wish druids could be the masters of Animal Companions, not pallies... Currently pallies are the Animal Companion kings!
only until kingmaker then their kingdom might be a bit bigger
|
I think of it this way, in terms of what I had previously admitted was unfortunate wording: a 10th level ranger with this feat calculates their animal companion level as though they were a 14th level ranger, to a maximum bonus of their character level. So they would get the animal companion of an 11th level druid, but since that is higher than their level of 10, we reduce it to 10. Basically, the "maximum bonus" that is being capped to (level) is (druid level - 3) rather than (ranger level).
Writing limits into game language is a surprising pain. See the cat critical discussion for another example :)
Can someone from Paizo second that explanation?
|
|
Im sorry if this has alrdy been answered by Jason but the Huntmaster Cavalier lets you Split your effective Druid Lvl between Muliti Pets.
Does Boon Companion work with this class?
So as a 8Th lvl Huntmaster can u have 2 dogs that are also 8/8? and if so can you take the feat before it would be effective for the dogs? As in lvl 5 turning the dogs into lvl 5 dog / and a lvl 2 dog..? and do the dogs still gain all 4 lvls from the feat?
Boon Companion
Your bond with your animal companion or familiar is unusually close.
Prerequisites: Animal companion or familiar class feature.
Benefit: The abilities of your animal companion or familiar are calculated as though your class were 4 levels higher, to a maximum effective druid level equal to your character level. If you have more than one animal companion or familiar, choose one to receive this benefit. If you lose or dismiss an animal companion or familiar that has received this benefit, you may apply this feat to the replacement creature.
Special: You may select this feat more than once. The effects do not stack. Each time you take the feat, it applies to a different animal companion or familiar.