|
A cleric of Ydersius can select Scalykind and Animal as it's two domains. Both domains give the cleric an animal companion. Would this cleric gain the use of both animal companions and, if human - with their bonus feat, be able to take boon companion twice to gain both animal companions at first level?
This doesn't seem right, but I see no reason why I can't do this. Can anyone point to any reason why i can't do this or confirm that it is allowed?
Thanks.
Only 1 combat pet/Animal Companion is allowed. You could have a second, but it would be non combat only.
As far as taking Boon Companion to get the AC at 1st level... you do not get the power for the AC until you reach 4th level as a cleric. Boon Companion increases your Effective Druid Level (EDL), not your Cleric level. So regardless you would not be able to obtain the AC at first. When you hit 4th level, you could take Boon Companion and get your companion as a 4th level companion.
|
Only 1 combat pet/Animal Companion is allowed. You could have a second, but it would be non combat only.As far as taking Boon Companion to get the AC at 1st level... you do not get the power for the AC until you reach 4th level as a cleric. Boon Companion increases your Effective Druid Level (EDL), not your Cleric level. So regardless you would not be able to obtain the AC at first. When you hit 4th level, you could take Boon Companion and get your companion as a 4th level companion.
Pretty sure that is the PFS ruling on the matter, but where does it say that in the Core rules? Personally I'd let it fly, but I'd also pull out the timer for that character's turns, just like I do for those that frequently summon extra critters; they can have the extra turns, but they lose them if they don't go quickly enough.
|
|
Pretty sure that is the PFS ruling on the matter, but where does it say that in the Core rules? Personally I'd let it fly, but I'd also pull out the timer for that character's turns, just like I do for those that frequently summon extra critters; they can have the extra turns, but they lose them if they don't go quickly enough.
Good point, Alan. I play way too much PFS if that's the rule I came up with right away *grin*
In light of that, I would ask your GM to decide, and then plan from there.
Creative Director
|
You could indeed gain two animal companions if you have both the Animal domain AND the Scalykind domain, just as you could if you were a multiclassed ranger/druid. (Unlessl, as in the case of the Pathfinder Society, there's house rules that say otherwise.)
THAT SAID...
The domains Ydersius grants are being revised as of the Inner Sea World Guide—these revisions are "stealth" revisions in the stat blocks of serpentfolk clerics in the Serpent's Skull Adventure Path.
Basically, the problem is that the Animal domain isn't really appropriate for a snake god... ESPECIALLY once you give him the Scalykind domain, which is in a lot of ways a variant of the Animal domain. There's far too much crossover between those two domains, in other words.
So, in the Inner Sea World Guide, Ydersius now grants the following domains: Chaos, Evil, Nobility, Scalykind, and War.
So, in the Inner Sea World Guide, Ydersius now grants the following domains: Chaos, Evil, Nobility, Scalykind, and War.
Hah!
::rubs hands together in rampant glee::
Excellent... :->
|
|
You could indeed gain two animal companions if you have both the Animal domain AND the Scalykind domain, just as you could if you were a multiclassed ranger/druid. (Unlessl, as in the case of the Pathfinder Society, there's house rules that say otherwise.)
THAT SAID...
The domains Ydersius grants are being revised as of the Inner Sea World Guide—these revisions are "stealth" revisions in the stat blocks of serpentfolk clerics in the Serpent's Skull Adventure Path.
Basically, the problem is that the Animal domain isn't really appropriate for a snake god... ESPECIALLY once you give him the Scalykind domain, which is in a lot of ways a variant of the Animal domain. There's far too much crossover between those two domains, in other words.
So, in the Inner Sea World Guide, Ydersius now grants the following domains: Chaos, Evil, Nobility, Scalykind, and War.
So I have to ask.
What does this mean for my PFS character who is a cleric of Ydersius with Animal and Chaos domain. Animal companion is Large Ape.
1) Is my Ape now illegal? This would disappoint me greatly. Really.
2) Should I select a different non-good deity with Animal domain, and stealthily convert my cleric to this deity? (This feels like cheating to me. My cleric previously converted from Zon-Kuthon and I went out of my way to pay for the full-scale atonement to do so.)
This is a side note, and I hope you won't take it as anything more than concern. One of the primary reasons that I gave up on 4e was the number of rules changes that made the characters that I tried to play either illegal, or unworkable once they had already been committed to that path. I've had my PFS character since early Season 0. He is only now approaching 7th level. Like most player's characters, this represents and investment in time (and money spent in game store, Pathfinder Companions, Pathfinder Chronicles, APG). I'd hate to gain the feeling that some or all of this time has gone to waste.
|
Creative Director
|
So I have to ask.
What does this mean for my PFS character who is a cleric of Ydersius with Animal and Chaos domain. Animal companion is Large Ape.
1) Is my Ape now illegal? This would disappoint me greatly. Really.
2) Should I select a different non-good deity with Animal domain, and stealthily convert my cleric to this deity? (This feels like cheating to me. My cleric previously converted from Zon-Kuthon and I went out of my way to pay for the full-scale atonement to do so.)
This is a side note, and I hope you won't take it as anything more than concern. One of the primary reasons that I gave up on 4e was the number of rules changes that made the characters that I tried to play either illegal, or unworkable once they had already been committed to that path. I've had my PFS character since early Season 0. He is only now approaching 7th level. Like most player's characters, this represents and investment in time (and money spent in game store, Pathfinder Companions, Pathfinder Chronicles, APG). I'd hate to gain the feeling that some or all of this time has gone to waste.
1) Once the Inner Sea World Guide is out, yes. You'll need to change your Animal domain to Scalykind and take up a snake for your animal companion. Sorry... but part of the intended flavor for Ydersius is that he's a snake god, NOT an animal god.
2) That's something you'll have to decide for yourself. There are certainly enough choices for non-good deities who offer the Animal domain. in fact, there's the demon lord Angazhan, who is the demon lord of (among other things) apes, which would be a FAR more appropriate deity to worship if you want an ape animal companion.
As for the side note... you'll also note that Ydersius is an evil god. And more than that, he's a god who, in our products, is regularly portrayed as a bad guy, unlike, say, Asmodeus who's evil is "blunted" somewhat by having established NPCs in canon who are not evil yet still worship him. A non-evil worshiper of Ydersius in Golarion (and by extension, in the Pathfinder Society) is something that should be INCREDIBLY rare. It's certainly not something we expected any players to choose. Changing his granted domains out, therefore, is hardly as enormous a change as would be changing one of Asmodeus's, for example.
It sucks to have to re-envision a character, sure... but it happens.
In closing... think of this as a challenge. If you switched to worship of Ydersius because you wanted to number crunch the best animal companion you could get, then it doesn't matter if you worship Ydersius or Gozreh or Angazhan or any non-good deity who offers the Animal domain as a choice. If you switched to worship Ydersius because you liked the roleplay flavor of switching to worship of a snake god, then having a snake companion feels a lot more "in character" than having an ape companion... at least, to me it feels that way. If your reason for switching to worship of Ydersius falls into some other category and the animal companion isn't as important a factor, then switching to a snake shouldn't be an important factor either.
|
|
So I have to ask.
What does this mean for my PFS character who is a cleric of Ydersius with Animal and Chaos domain. Animal companion is Large Ape.
1) Is my Ape now illegal? This would disappoint me greatly. Really.
2) Should I select a different non-good deity with Animal domain, and stealthily convert my cleric to this deity? (This feels like cheating to me. My cleric previously converted from Zon-Kuthon and I went out of my way to pay for the full-scale atonement to do so.)
This is a side note, and I hope you won't take it as anything more than concern. One of the primary reasons that I gave up on 4e was the number of rules changes that made the characters that I tried to play either illegal, or unworkable once they had already been committed to that path. I've had my PFS character since early Season 0. He is only now approaching 7th level. Like most player's characters, this represents and investment in time (and money spent in game store, Pathfinder Companions, Pathfinder Chronicles, APG). I'd hate to gain the feeling that some or all of this time has gone to waste.
1) Once the Inner Sea World Guide is out, yes. You'll need to change your Animal domain to Scalykind and take up a snake for your animal companion. Sorry... but part of the intended flavor for Ydersius is that he's a snake god, NOT an animal god.
2) That's something you'll have to decide for yourself. There are certainly enough choices for non-good deities who offer the Animal domain. in fact, there's the demon lord Angazhan, who is the demon lord of (among other things) apes, which would be a FAR more appropriate deity to worship if you want an ape animal companion.
As for the side note... you'll also note that Ydersius is an evil god. And more than that, he's a god who, in our products, is regularly portrayed as a bad guy, unlike, say, Asmodeus who's evil is "blunted" somewhat by having established NPCs in canon who are not evil yet still worship him. A non-evil worshiper of...
Thanks James.
Actually I switched to Ydersius for two reasons.
The cleric is a necromancer and was looking for a non-good deity with the animal domain. As the Headless God (very nearly a zombie in his own right), Ydersius appealed to the necromancer part of the character.
The Demon Lord Angazhan sounds like a good fit for the character.
(Part of the reason for animal domain was that the cleric started life in Season 0 as a Druid, but got redesigned for season 1 as a Necromancer Cleric.)
I'll do some thinking.
Thanks again.
Paizo dosnt try to be just rules friendly, they try to be friendly too :)
You could indeed gain two animal companions if you have both the Animal domain AND the Scalykind domain, just as you could if you were a multiclassed ranger/druid.
From the druid rules:
"If a character receives an animal companion from more than one source, her effective druid levels stack for the purposes of determining the statistics and abilities of the companion."
"Class Level: This is 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 statistics."
To me, that suggests a ranger/druid only gets one animal companion. But ask your GM. :-)
|
Creative Director
|
You could indeed gain two animal companions if you have both the Animal domain AND the Scalykind domain, just as you could if you were a multiclassed ranger/druid.From the druid rules:
"If a character receives an animal companion from more than one source, her effective druid levels stack for the purposes of determining the statistics and abilities of the companion."
"Class Level: This is 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 statistics."
To me, that suggests a ranger/druid only gets one animal companion. But ask your GM. :-)
And there you go. Only ever get one animal companion.
In the case of something like the Scalykind domain, which only grants a specific type of animal companion, levels gained there would only stack if your existing animal companion were the correct flavor, I guess.
|
|
You could indeed gain two animal companions if you have both the Animal domain AND the Scalykind domain, just as you could if you were a multiclassed ranger/druid.From the druid rules:
"If a character receives an animal companion from more than one source, her effective druid levels stack for the purposes of determining the statistics and abilities of the companion."
"Class Level: This is 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 statistics."
To me, that suggests a ranger/druid only gets one animal companion. But ask your GM. :-)
And there you go. Only ever get one animal companion.
In the case of something like the Scalykind domain, which only grants a specific type of animal companion, levels gained there would only stack if your existing animal companion were the correct flavor, I guess.
Hmm. This appears to strongly conflict with:
Pathfinder Society Guide to Organized Play: "How many animals can I have at any given time? During the course of a scenario, you may have one combat animal and as many noncombat animals as you like. You make
this choice at the beginning of the scenario. This means if you’re a Ranger 5/Druid 5, you need to pick which animal companion is your combat animal."
Can we get a resolution of this conflict?
|
Creative Director
|
Hmm. This appears to strongly conflict with:
Pathfinder Society Guide to Organized Play: "How many animals can I have at any given time? During the course of a scenario, you may have one combat animal and as many noncombat animals as you like. You make
this choice at the beginning of the scenario. This means if you’re a Ranger 5/Druid 5, you need to pick which animal companion is your combat animal."Can we get a resolution of this conflict?
Not by posting this concern in a non-PFS folder. Actual requests to have PFS house rules changed or adjusted should be posted to the "General Discussion" folder in the Pathfinder Society forum.
Assuming it's actually a conflict, even... there's plenty of other ways that the rules for PFS differ from the rules as laid out in the Core Rulebook, after all.
|
|
Hmm. This appears to strongly conflict with:
Pathfinder Society Guide to Organized Play: "How many animals can I have at any given time? During the course of a scenario, you may have one combat animal and as many noncombat animals as you like. You make
this choice at the beginning of the scenario. This means if you’re a Ranger 5/Druid 5, you need to pick which animal companion is your combat animal."Can we get a resolution of this conflict?
Not by posting this concern in a non-PFS folder. Actual requests to have PFS house rules changed or adjusted should be posted to the "General Discussion" folder in the Pathfinder Society forum.
Assuming it's actually a conflict, even... there's plenty of other ways that the rules for PFS differ from the rules as laid out in the Core Rulebook, after all.
Is this a houserule? Generally speaking Hyrum has been directing Pathfinder rules questions away from the PFS section of the forum - generally to the Rules section.
Given that the question just came up as to whether one would get one animal companion or two, and you just posted what appeared to be a ruling on that topic, I thought that the quote from the PFS Guide which implied an understanding of the Pathfinder rules in general was germane to the discussion.
I'm sincerely trying not to be obtuse, but I'm having sort of a bad week here.
Were you just now making a ruling on one versus two animal companions in response to Hogarth's question regarding Ranger/Druids? And if so, is that ruling in any way changed by the implication in the Guide that Ranger/Druids generally have two animal companions?
If you weren't making a ruling, then I'd be more than happy to shift this question over to the Rules forum, but if you were, then I'm wondering if it was just an off-the-cuff response to Hogarth's post, or a considered opinion based on your professional opinion.
Warmest Regards.
Thanks.
|
You could indeed gain two animal companions if you have both the Animal domain AND the Scalykind domain, just as you could if you were a multiclassed ranger/druid.From the druid rules:
"If a character receives an animal companion from more than one source, her effective druid levels stack for the purposes of determining the statistics and abilities of the companion."
"Class Level: This is 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 statistics."
To me, that suggests a ranger/druid only gets one animal companion. But ask your GM. :-)
And there you go. Only ever get one animal companion.
In the case of something like the Scalykind domain, which only grants a specific type of animal companion, levels gained there would only stack if your existing animal companion were the correct flavor, I guess.
-1
confused now. you say that you can have 2, than go back and say only 1. This has been posted about alot, whether 1 or 2. what classes combine and how to do so. I dont think it is fair to make a statment one way and than change your opinion in responce to another post right away. You are one of the main rules makers for this game and i know you have alot on your plate. you also cant be expected to remember all the rules off the top of your head. i get this. i would ask than that you concider your words carry alot of weight on these boards, so please concider them before giving answers.
|
Director of Brand Strategy
|
The quoted phrasing in the Guide to Pathfinder Society Organized Play has been flagged and will be clarified in a future version. If a PC were to gain a familiar and an animal companion, they would then need to pick which to use in PFS play, but two classes that both grant one or the other would stack.
|
Creative Director
|
confused now. you say that you can have 2, than go back and say only 1. This has been posted about alot, whether 1 or 2. what classes combine and how to do so. I dont think it is fair to make a statment one way and than change your opinion in responce to another post right away. You are one of the main rules makers for this game and i know you have alot on your plate. you also cant be expected to remember all the rules off the top of your head. i get this. i would ask than that you concider your words carry alot of weight on these boards, so please concider them before giving answers.
Neither am I the GM for your game, or anyone else's game. When I post to these boards and talk about the rules, my primary goal is NOT to say "this is how it works all the time." The game's too complex for that kind of hyperbole. My goal is to help GMs who are posting to these threads make the right decisions for their own games. If you're a player confused by rules, your GM is the PRIMARY place you should go for clarification. And if you're a GM confused by rules, coming to these boards to look for advice on how to arrive at an answer that works for you is a great option.
The Pathfinder Society is a different beast. That, effectively, is NOT a home game. It's got standardized rules. And I'm not the one who's in charge of those rules or the most familiar with the repercussions of rulings there. If you're looking for clarification as a player for these rules... I actually can't really help you. Which is why I suggested posting to the PFS threads. Now, fortunately, Mark's noticed this thread and posted to it—sounds like for the context of this problem in PFS, it's being worked on and that we should have a solution for everyone to work with sometime soon.
I do understand that my words on these forums carry a lot of weight, which is why I'm actually pretty hesitant to get into rules discussions online. And when I do, I try to present things in a "Your GM is the one with the answers, but maybe this can help your GM come to an answer that's right for his/her game," format.
So I'll certainly continue to consider that my words carry a lot of weight. But I turn it back to you, the reader, and ask that you consider that the "correct" answer is the one that's best for your game. I don't care if it's blatantly against the rules—if it's right for your game, it's the right answer. Unwavering, too-rigid adherence to every rule in the game robs fun from the experience, as evidenced by your "–1" notation.
For what it's worth, my suggestion would be that if you're playing a worshiper of Ydersius and you get an animal companion IN ANY WAY, that animal companion should be a snake. Because you worship the snake god, after all!
|
|
The quoted phrasing in the Guide to Pathfinder Society Organized Play has been flagged and will be clarified in a future version. If a PC were to gain a familiar and an animal companion, they would then need to pick which to use in PFS play, but two classes that both grant one or the other would stack.
What if I am playing a ranger with the Beastmaster archetype? I then can have multiple animal companions, splitting up my total levels of animal companion amongst the companions. As this is the primary ability of this archetype, should not all of the character's companions be allowed?
At the risk of going OT: thank you James for reinforcing the culture of GM-authority and the acceptability of changing-up homegames. The legalistic "but we have to go by what the book says!" mentality is really chafing.
Keep shooting from the hip!
|
While I appreciate and support empowering GMs with the "what your GM says is the correct answer" approach, I do read these boards for clarifications on ambiguous rulings for purposes of Pathfinder Society Organised Play and HeroLab testing, both of which require consistent rulings to questions such as these.
Thanks Mark for looking into this question from an Organised Play perpective.
Cheers,
DarkWhite
THAT SAID...
The domains Ydersius grants are being revised as of the Inner Sea World Guide—these revisions are "stealth" revisions in the stat blocks of serpentfolk clerics in the Serpent's Skull Adventure Path.
Basically, the problem is that the Animal domain isn't really appropriate for a snake god... ESPECIALLY once you give him the Scalykind domain, which is in a lot of ways a variant of the Animal domain. There's far too much crossover between those two domains, in other words.
So, in the Inner Sea World Guide, Ydersius now grants the following domains: Chaos, Evil, Nobility, Scalykind, and War.
On a tangent, does this mean that other Golarion deities are getting their domains revised? For example, I always thought it was odd that Zyphus, with his focus on tricks, traps and surprise death, got War as a domain instead of Trickery.
|
Creative Director
|
On a tangent, does this mean that other Golarion deities are getting their domains revised? For example, I always thought it was odd that Zyphus, with his focus on tricks, traps and surprise death, got War as a domain instead of Trickery.
Nope. None of them are getting their domains revised, really, although the Void domain is going to be in the book now, so Groetus will have his full five choices rather than just the four that he was accidentally listed having in the first hardcover.
In fact, I took pains to avoid changing as much as possible, for the precise reason that it causes ripple effects not only in published stats but in existing characters. In some cases, as with Ydersius, the benefits to the change outweigh the disadvantages. But there's dozens and dozens of deities in the setting when you count all the demigods and other gods, and having one change to one deity's domains is actually pretty minor.
As for Zyphus having War rather than Trickery... because that gave his clerics proficiency with the scythe for free. In the Pathfinder RPG, this isn't as much of an issue since clerics get their favored weapon proficiency for free automatically, but War still remains a pretty good choice for Zyphus over trickery since it helps speak to his aspect as a god of tragedy.
|
Creative Director
|
One more note:
Originally, our intent was to include the Scalykind domain in the hardcover book. In that version, Ydersius DID have the Scalykind domain instead of the Animal domain, but when we found out that page 159 of the hardcover was running long, we had to cut one of the reprinted domains. We chose Scalykind to cut since it was only a domian that one or two or three deities had, and thus would impact the game the least. Forced to cut the domain from Ydersius, we replaced it with a kludge—the Animal domain. Wasn't a perfect fit, since it could in theory lead to strange serpent-worshiping clerics with non-snake animal companions, but it was better than nothing.
So with the revised setting, and the fact that the majority of the domains on pages 158–159 of the previous hardcover are now part of the core game and thus don't need to be reprinted at all, that page now gets space to host a few new to the game domains—Scalykind and Void, domains that we'd always intended to put into the Hardcover but for space reasons never could. So really... it's not a revision that is making Ydersius's domains change, but a correction.
Zyphus doesn't need such a correction.
(ALSO: The TRULY frustrating thing? We could have kept Scalykind on the list on page 159 of the hardcover, had whoever was making that choice of the best domain to cut realized that NONE of the deities in the book used the Creation domain at all—cutting Creation from page 159 would have allowed Ydersius and a few others to keep their Scalykind domains and we wouldn't be talking about this in the first place. Sigh.)
(ALSO: The TRULY frustrating thing? We could have kept Scalykind on the list on page 159 of the hardcover, had whoever was making that choice of the best domain to cut realized that NONE of the deities in the book used the Creation domain at all—cutting Creation from page 159 would have allowed Ydersius and a few others to keep their Scalykind domains and we wouldn't be talking about this in the first place. Sigh.)
I was wondering what the Creation domain was doing in there. Although it would fit Shelyn pretty well.