Director of Brand Strategy
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Because of changes to existing rules between the Pathfinder Chronicles Campaign Setting and the Pathfinder Campaign Setting: Inner Sea World Guide, and anticipating possible changes in future playtest material or other edition conversions, we are implementing the following guidelines for making such conversions.
If a feat changes or is removed from the Additional Resources list:
You have two options. You may either switch the old feat for an updated feat of the same name in another legal source (if available), ignoring any prerequisites of the new feat you do not meet. Alternatively, you may replace the feat entirely with another feat that has no prerequisites.
If a class, prestige class changes, or a class-feature-dependent Ability score is altered:
You may rebuild your character to its current XP, maintaining the same equipment.
If a class or prestige class changes in such a way that you no longer have proficiency with a given weapon or armor type:
You may sell back the affected equipment and only the affected equipment at full market value.
When rebuilding your character in any way, you must describe all changes on your next Chronicle in the "Conditions Gained" section, and your GM must initial that section.
Mark,
In the replacing the no longer valid feat with a new feat, can it also be replaced with one you already happen to meet the prerequisites for or does it have to be one that has no prerequisites at all?
|
In the replacing the no longer valid feat with a new feat, can it also be replaced with one you already happen to meet the prerequisites for or does it have to be one that has no prerequisites at all?
The rule seems pretty clear, it's no prerequisites at all. I assume this is to stop people gaining an advantage by swapping out a feat they took at 1st level with one that has prerequisites that the character achieved as it levelled up.
|
The rule seems pretty clear, it's no prerequisites at all. I assume this is to stop people gaining an advantage by swapping out a feat they took at 1st level with one that has prerequisites that the character achieved as it levelled up.
While I agree with that analysis, it does suck for those folks that took feats with prereqs and now want to switch them, but can only choose those without prereqs.
I guess the big question is, did the updated feats have prereqs to begin with?
Venture-Captain, Missouri—Cape Girardeau
|
Are the feats that have NOT been updated from the original Pathfinder Chronicles Campaign Setting book no longer allowed? Or are they just no longer able to be added to a character from here on. The way it is listed on the Additional Resources page is sort of confusing.
I have a character with Berserker's Cry (and have had him since Season 0)... is it "grandfathered" in? Or do I have to replace it?
Sorry if this has been answered before.
|
Venture-Captain, Missouri—Cape Girardeau
|
A feat like that would be "grandfathered" to your character, but is not available to a new character, or as a new feat to a previous character.
Of course, you should have the feat available to show a GM.
Thanks... (adds on more book to his stack to take to Gen Con)
Given the choice of carrying an extra two pounds in book form, or having to purchase a pdf of an obsolete book (so as to have the watermark) just to print one page, I'll take the extra encumbrance!Photocopy the page from your book.
While I am sure a lot of GMs would accept that, Josh in the past, and Mark and Hyrum more recently, have said that a photocopied page is not legal proof. It has to be the physical book, a legit pdf on a device you can show to your GM, or a printed-out page from a pdf with legit watermark.
|
|
If a feat changes or is removed from the Additional Resources list:
You have two options. You may either switch the old feat for an updated feat of the same name in another legal source (if available), ignoring any prerequisites of the new feat you do not meet. Alternatively, you may replace the feat entirely with another feat that has no prerequisites.
If I may, could we amend this wording to include Traits?
|
|
Because of changes to existing rules between the Pathfinder Chronicles Campaign Setting and the Pathfinder Campaign Setting: Inner Sea World Guide, and anticipating possible changes in future playtest material or other edition conversions, we are implementing the following guidelines for making such conversions.
If a class, prestige class changes, or a class-feature-dependent Ability score is altered:
You may rebuild your character to its current XP, maintaining the same equipment.
When rebuilding your character in any way, you must describe all changes on your next Chronicle in the "Conditions Gained" section, and your GM must initial that section.
Mark - I've been searching for an answer to a particular question on the boards, but cannot find it. Yours is the closest answer I've seen.
My question is: Do the Pathfinder Society rules as written allow an existing PC to adopt an alternate class feature that was not in existence when the PC was created? I have an Alchemist whose creation concept is perfect for one of the new Alchemist alternate class features introduced in the new Ultimate Magic guide, but I can see no way under the rules that I can alter my PC to meet the new class feature. Perhaps it's covered by your explanation above, but I can see nothing in the latest Pathfinder Society Guide that says that.
Thanks for the help!
- Kevin
|
My question is: Do the Pathfinder Society rules as written allow an existing PC to adopt an alternate class feature that was not in existence when the PC was created?
While you are waiting for Mark...
Are you referring to switching to an archetype?
If so, you are allowed to take the archetype if you have not yet acquired the lowest level class feature that you would be switching out. So if you had a 1st-level Alchemist, you could still be a Chirurgeon, as you would not yet have Poison Use.
If you are referring to the new discoveries, you could add them when you gain a new discovery (within the limits of the Additional Resources page).
|
|
And if you are referring to a re-build in order to drop something existing and add from the new book, that is typically not approved.
Usually the only time you can "rebuild" is if the existing ability is re-written in a more recent publication, changing the way it works. In those case, you would probably granted the ability to drop the changed ability and replace it. But this is a relatively rare occurrence.
|
|
And if you are referring to a re-build in order to drop something existing and add from the new book, that is typically not approved.
Usually the only time you can "rebuild" is if the existing ability is re-written in a more recent publication, changing the way it works. In those case, you would probably granted the ability to drop the changed ability and replace it. But this is a relatively rare occurrence.
Sigh...that's a shame. I was referring to the "archetypes", yes...(I had forgotten the term for it.) If the Chirurgeon archetype had existed when I had created my PC in the first place, I would have chosen it. I don't use the poison capabilities of the Alchemist anyway.
It's a shame that there's not a way to make this work. I guess this doesn't fit into the category of "if the existing class is altered..." It seems to me from a game-mechanic perspective, there would be no unfair advantage gained or adverse impact to the game caused by this small change to meet the new archetype (especially since new alchemists are already allowed to use the archetype.) And from a role-playing perspective, if the Alchemist suddenly discovers that there is another way to conduct the business of alchemy, then he could immediately foreswear the creation of poisons and create only healing elixirs instead. Still, I realize that most organized play games sadly do not allow any rebuilding, even when the rules are updated or material is added.
It's an odd situation. Mark's post seems to lean toward giving the ability to re-build, if things are significantly changed. And Pathfinder Society has consistently stuck to an excellent philosophy of "play, play, play." The game and the fun are the focus. That's what I love about this particular organized play system. Oddly enough, if my Alchemist were to multiclass into another class, he could take one of that class' archetypes. If some other PC were to multiclass into Alchemist, they could take one of the archetypes. But my PC, who has studied alchemy all his life, cannot change his method of conducting alchemy.
I have a suggestion, though. Perhaps the rules could allow a PC to spend a feat or Alchemist Discovery on the ability to switch to an archetype? That way there would be a vector and cost for the change. I would do this if I could, because for role-playing purposes, it would be worth it.
- Kevin
|
|
I say put a PA cost associated with it for your faction to help re-train abilities (whether you want to get rid of a feat for a new feat or have a character get a different archetype, etc.). This is a common enough occurrence that it might be useful to add this to the list of things you can drop you PA on.
|
|
I say put a PA cost associated with it for your faction to help re-train abilities (whether you want to get rid of a feat for a new feat or have a character get a different archetype, etc.). This is a common enough occurrence that it might be useful to add this to the list of things you can drop you PA on.
That would be a fantastic idea! I would do that also.
|
|
Can rangers or Druids grandfather in animal companions if changes are made to the pfs guide ? In the first guide companions came fully trained, in later additions restrictions were put on how to train them.
I have a twelfth level ranger that would need a complete rebuild to put some ranks in handle animal. He's never going to gain a level, never going to be able to teach his pet a trick , not with a +2 handle animal, and he had been using a rhino as a pet. I gather that I have to get rid of the rhino and choose a new Ranger approved animal, and since I can't train, my new animal will only gain his bonus tricks ?
|
Can rangers or Druids grandfather in animal companions if changes are made to the pfs guide ? In the first guide companions came fully trained, in later additions restrictions were put on how to train them.
I have a twelfth level ranger that would need a complete rebuild to put some ranks in handle animal. He's never going to gain a level, never going to be able to teach his pet a trick , not with a +2 handle animal, and he had been using a rhino as a pet. I gather that I have to get rid of the rhino and choose a new Ranger approved animal, and since I can't train, my new animal will only gain his bonus tricks ?
Hello Seraphim,
Just curious, how do you have a rhino as an animal companion? Do you have a level in Druid or are you a beast master ranger? If you are then I agree fully with Mark, since you started under the old system and are already at max level.|
|
no, i levelled him before APG ever came out. and before Josh F. decreed rangers can only choose from the selected ranger animal companion list. So when the bestiary came out, i thought all the animal companion options were animal companion options for all. it wasn't clarified for pfs at the time.
if it had been an issue then, i'd have put a few ranks into handle animal. i've had beastmaster druid/rangers before, in LG. Thats where the druid with a rhino originally came from for me. So when I upgraded to PFS, and converted my character to a ranger. I didn't read into the animal companion ability, I just took a Rhino so I could have what i was used to
.. yay... free action, +2 check to get my animal companion to attack
moral victory
|
|
no, i levelled him before APG ever came out. and before Josh F. decreed rangers can only choose from the selected ranger animal companion list. So when the bestiary came out, i thought all the animal companion options were animal companion options for all. it wasn't clarified for pfs at the time.
Why did it need to be clarified for PFS in the first place? The Core Rulebook, p. 66 in the ranger class section clearly identifies the animals that can be selected: "badger, bird, camel, cat (small), dire rat, dog, horse (heavy or light), pony, snake (viper or constrictor), or wolf."
Rhino does not appear on the list and never has, so it was never an approved selection even before Josh ruled on it. I don't have an issue with grandfathering in the training the animal would have received prior to the v4.0 being released, but I do not see how the Rhino was/is legal for play.
Keep in mind, in a home game environment, I would be open to allowing alternate AC's for rangers, but in PFS, unless there is a clear rule to supersede the CRB, it stands without need of further comment.
|
|
i'll just prepare a wolf , and hand wave that that's what i've been using the whole time so that he's got his full allotment of tricks. need to get a headband of int w/ handle animal in it.
I was apparently remembering most of my animal companion choices from my LG beastmaster =P
@bob - mentioned it on the animal training thread. at the time beastiary was core assumption, and legal for play. the "animal companion" section of the core book listed in the first printing that ~these weren't the only coices, more options are in the beastiary~. Come august some 2 years ago most of us didn't see a reason why rhino wouldn't be allowed. and it seemed okay from the boards at the time. the system reference document online now doesn't contain the reference to the beastiary, so i don't know. its in my hardcopy 1st printing from 2009.
re: rules changes impacting your character.
is it addressed anywhere: how do you fix your mistakes, when you realize you made one? lol.
@bob - mentioned it on the animal training thread. at the time beastiary was core assumption, and legal for play.
As per the other thread. No. The Core Assumption was stated as the books that a GM was assumed to have in order to run a game. No document ever stated that the Bestiary was legal for play. In fact, PSOPG 2.0.1 even states that not all of Core Rules is legal for play.
|
|
re: rules changes impacting your character.
is it addressed anywhere: how do you fix your mistakes, when you realize you made one? lol.
This where re-building the character out of the error is the only way to move on. Otherwise, the entire character just gets forcibly retired and I do not think that is the intent.
People make mistakes, it happens. But when it is discovered, we have to correct it. Your solution to re-skin, as it were, the Rhino to a wolf, but maintain your level of training seems to be a fair way to do it.
Of course, if the wolf is slain in the first encounter of your retirement arc, it will be extremely difficult for you to replace it with a functional AC without Handle Animal. Your solution of buying a headband keyed to Handle Animal seems to be the way to go. At 12th level, I'm sure you have both the Fame and GP to get one.
i'll just prepare a wolf , and hand wave that that's what i've been using the whole time so that he's got his full allotment of tricks. need to get a headband of int w/ handle animal in it.
I was apparently remembering most of my animal companion choices from my LG beastmaster =P
@bob - mentioned it on the animal training thread. at the time beastiary was core assumption, and legal for play. the "animal companion" section of the core book listed in the first printing that ~these weren't the only coices, more options are in the beastiary~. Come august some 2 years ago most of us didn't see a reason why rhino wouldn't be allowed. and it seemed okay from the boards at the time. the system reference document online now doesn't contain the reference to the beastiary, so i don't know. its in my hardcopy 1st printing from 2009.
re: rules changes impacting your character.
is it addressed anywhere: how do you fix your mistakes, when you realize you made one? lol.
While you are fixing up your wolf. You might want to look at the list of what material is allowed. A common mistake that players make is to think that feats from the Bestiary are allowed. They are not. (No Improved Natural Attack).
Pathfinder RPG Bestiary
Animal Companions: ankylosaurus, aurochs, brachiosaurus, dire bat, dire rat, dolphin, elasmosaurus, electric eel, elephant/mastodon, frog, goblin dog, hyena, monitor lizard, moray eel, octopus, orca, pteranodon, rhinoceros, roc, squid, stegosaurus, triceratops, and tyrannosaurus; Familiars: all familiars listed on pages 131–133; Feats: none of the feats are legal for play for PCs, animal companions, or familiars unless specifically granted by another legal source.
|
|
(No Improved Natural Attack).Pathfinder RPG Bestiary
Animal Companions: ankylosaurus, aurochs, brachiosaurus, dire bat, dire rat, dolphin, elasmosaurus, electric eel, elephant/mastodon, frog, goblin dog, hyena, monitor lizard, moray eel, octopus, orca, pteranodon, rhinoceros, roc, squid, stegosaurus, triceratops, and tyrannosaurus; Familiars: all familiars listed on pages 131–133; Feats: none of the feats are legal for play for PCs, animal companions, or familiars unless specifically granted by another legal source.
*bold emphasis mine*
Unless there was a forum clarification I am unaware of, Imp Nat Atk is approved for AC because the CRB specifically calls it out as legal (Animal Feats p.53).
| 2 people marked this as FAQ candidate. Answered in the FAQ. |
(No Improved Natural Attack).Pathfinder RPG Bestiary
Animal Companions: ankylosaurus, aurochs, brachiosaurus, dire bat, dire rat, dolphin, elasmosaurus, electric eel, elephant/mastodon, frog, goblin dog, hyena, monitor lizard, moray eel, octopus, orca, pteranodon, rhinoceros, roc, squid, stegosaurus, triceratops, and tyrannosaurus; Familiars: all familiars listed on pages 131–133; Feats: none of the feats are legal for play for PCs, animal companions, or familiars unless specifically granted by another legal source.*bold emphasis mine*
Unless there was a forum clarification I am unaware of, Imp Nat Atk is approved for AC because the CRB specifically calls it out as legal (Animal Feats p.53).
It's been long held (since Josh) that Imp. Nat. Attack was not legal for animal companions. That what was required for legality were specific class abilities that specifically granted those feats.
As worded, CRB for Animal Feats does not "specifically grant" those feats, but lists availability. This is not the same as a feature listed as "gains x"
Animal Feats
Animal companions can select from the following feats: Acrobatic, Agile Maneuvers, Armor Proficiency (light, medium, and heavy), Athletic, Blind-Fight, Combat Reflexes, Diehard, Dodge, Endurance, Great Fortitude, Improved Bull Rush, Improved Initiative, Improved Natural Armor, Improved Natural Attack, Improved Overrun, Intimidating Prowess, Iron Will, Lightning Reflexes, Mobility, Power Attack, Run, Skill Focus, Spring Attack, Stealthy, Toughness, Weapon Finesse, and Weapon Focus. Animal companions with an Intelligence of 3 or higher can select any feat they are physically capable of using. GMs might expand this list to include feats from other sources.
versus:
Multiattack: An animal companion gains Multiattack as a bonus feat if it has three or more natural attacks and does not already have that feat. If it does not have the requisite three or more natural attacks, the animal companion instead gains a second attack with one of its natural weapons, albeit at a –5 penalty.
In the first instance, the Imp. Nat. Attack is listed by an option, contradicted by Society Rules.
In the second instance, Multiattack is "specifically granted" to the animal companion.
|
|
In the first instance, the Imp. Nat. Attack is listed by an option, contradicted by Society Rules
Not in its current version (v4.0)
It's been long held (since Josh) that Imp. Nat. Attack was not legal for animal companions. That what was required for legality were specific class abilities that specifically granted those feats.
Not specifically intended for you as I do not know your stance on other forum topics, but...if everyone agrees with that stance, you cannot use the "it's not in the Guide" as a defense for ignoring other forum rulings...or vice versa.
We cannot pick and choose which forum "rules" we will follow and which ones to ignore. Either forum rulings are not legal and therefore not binding, or they are and we need to treat them as such.
|
|
To me at least, "can select from" means that it is specifically granting ACs access to the feats listed.
After all, this language is almost identical to that for the Natural Weapon combat style:
Natural Weapon: If the ranger selects natural weapon
style, he can choose from the following list whenever he
gains a combat style feat: Aspect of the Beast*, Improved
Natural Weapon**, Rending Claws*, and Weapon Focus. At
6th level, he adds Eldritch Fangs* and Vital Strike to the
list. At 10th level, he adds Multiattack** and Improved Vital
Strike to the list.
You have: "can select from" and "can choose from". I suspect that you would find that the words select and choose are synonyms, especially how they are used in these two rules sections.
| 1 person marked this as FAQ candidate. |
In the first instance, the Imp. Nat. Attack is listed by an option, contradicted by Society RulesNot in its current version (v4.0)
It's been long held (since Josh) that Imp. Nat. Attack was not legal for animal companions. That what was required for legality were specific class abilities that specifically granted those feats.Not specifically intended for you as I do not know your stance on other forum topics, but...if everyone agrees with that stance, you cannot use the "it's not in the Guide" as a defense for ignoring other forum rulings...or vice versa.
We cannot pick and choose which forum "rules" we will follow and which ones to ignore. Either forum rulings are not legal and therefore not binding, or they are and we need to treat them as such.
Perhaps I misspoke. You asked if there was a clarification. I referred to one. I really don't think clarifications (especially years old ones) hold.
Current Version (4.0) still says "unless specifically granted by another legal source." Imp Nat Attack is not "specifically granted" by the "Animal Feats" section. That section lists the set of valid feats that can be given to an animal companion. The "Additional Resources" removes from that list those in the Bestiary, as they are not "Specifically Granted".
I wish Imp. Nat. Attack were legal. I've a companion that's been sharpening its claws in vain for quite a while hoping they would do more damage. But wishing does not make it so.
If you have any rules text which supports Imp. Nat. Attack being "specifically granted", I'd be most interested. Prove me wrong with the rules as printed, and I will gladly accept your argument as mine own.
EDIT: Join me in flagging this issue for a FAQ. I'd be interested if Mark has a different interpretation/ruling.
FURTHER EDIT: I see a post from Mark in February talking about a change to the rules. I would definitely support a FAQ implementing this change. The text as currently written (as has been the same since 2.2 of PFSOPG) does not.
|
|
Callarek is correct. I recall reading (or perhaps asking) if Imp Nat Atk was legal for Natural Ranger and the answer was yes. And that ruling would have been much more recent than the one regarding the AC.
So, it would seem that either
(1) it is legal for both or
(2) it is legal for one but not the other despite equivalent language in the text
#2 seems to be wrong at a fundamental level.
#1 seems to be more logical, but then again, neither ruling exists either in the Guide or the FAQ. *sigh*
Callarek is correct. I recall reading (or perhaps asking) if Imp Nat Atk was legal for Natural Ranger and the answer was yes. And that ruling would have been much more recent than the one regarding the AC.
So, it would seem that either
(1) it is legal for both or
(2) it is legal for one but not the other despite equivalent language in the text#2 seems to be wrong at a fundamental level.
#1 seems to be more logical, but then again, neither ruling exists either in the Guide or the FAQ. *sigh*
Yes. There's a February post from Mark. Search "specifically grant bestiary feats" and you will find it.
It's not implemented in any rules text yet. Hit the FAQ button?
EDIT: Yes it is implemented. There was a text change between 3.0.2 and 4.0 which added the words "unless specifically granted by another legal source" (or very similar words).
|
|
So are we now in agreement? The only thing that was restricting an AC from selecting Improved Natural Attack was a forum rule by Josh. But that was reversed by Mark back in February. Since there are no rules restricting AC's in the Guide v4.0 we can just follow the core rules and the animal can select this feat.
Personally, I do not think this needs to be in the FAQ. If we are going to insist that printed rules override forum rules, then the CRB is the source and no special PFS rule is required.
There is a rule. It's the Additional Resources document for PFS that outlines what is legal from the Bestiary. It uses the "specifically grants" wording.So are we now in agreement? The only thing that was restricting an AC from selecting Improved Natural Attack was a forum rule by Josh. But that was reversed by Mark back in February. Since there are no rules restricting AC's in the Guide v4.0 we can just follow the core rules and the animal can select this feat.
Personally, I do not think this needs to be in the FAQ. If we are going to insist that printed rules override forum rules, then the CRB is the source and no special PFS rule is required.
"Feats: none of the feats are legal for play for PCs, animal companions, or familiars unless specifically granted by another legal source."
How about: maybe?
The Additional Resources added "for PC's, animal companions, or familiars unless specifically granted by another legal source." This appears to create a loophole allowing PRD as the legal source. I'm still not happy about the difference between "can take" and "gains", but hey, I'm rarely very happy.
I think it could be FAQ'able. But of the things I'd like to see FAQ'd, this is lower down on my priority list, and I'll go with: as of 4.0, it's legal.
EDIT: I've edited my above post changing my stance that it wasn't implemented to yes, it was.
|
|
Fozzy,
This quote might help to explain why this is allowed (Prior versions of the guide did not have that sentence "unless specifically granted by another legal source."
Animal companions can select from the following feats: Acrobatic, Agile Maneuvers, Armor Proficiency (light, medium, and heavy), Athletic, Blind-Fight, Combat Reflexes, Diehard, Dodge, Endurance, Great Fortitude, Improved Bull Rush, Improved Initiative, Improved Natural Armor, Improved Natural Attack, Improved Overrun, Intimidating Prowess, Iron Will, Lightning Reflexes, Mobility, Power Attack, Run, Skill Focus, Spring Attack, Stealthy, Toughness, Weapon Finesse, and Weapon Focus. Animal companions with an Intelligence of 3 or higher can select any feat they are physically capable of using. GMs might expand this list to include feats from other sources.
Since it is specifically allowed in the Animal Companion section it is seen as being available for an animal companion now. However, I do see where people could get confused and created a FAQ for it wouldn't be a bad idea. I'll add my "FAQ" button push above.
|
|
This quote might help to explain why this is allowed (Prior versions of the guide did not have that sentence "unless specifically granted by another legal source."
Animal companions can select from the following feats: Acrobatic, Agile Maneuvers, Armor Proficiency (light, medium, and heavy), Athletic, Blind-Fight, Combat Reflexes, Diehard, Dodge, Endurance, Great Fortitude, Improved Bull Rush, Improved Initiative, Improved Natural Armor, Improved Natural Attack, Improved Overrun, Intimidating Prowess, Iron Will, Lightning Reflexes, Mobility, Power Attack, Run, Skill Focus, Spring Attack, Stealthy, Toughness, Weapon Finesse, and Weapon Focus. Animal companions with an Intelligence of 3 or higher can select any feat they are physically capable of using. GMs might expand this list to include feats from other sources.Since it is specifically allowed in the Animal Companion section it is seen as being available for an animal companion now. However, I do see where people could get confused and created a FAQ for it wouldn't be a bad idea. I'll add my "FAQ" button push above.
Using this example (which is correct) an Animal Companion cannot select Ability Focus feat, as it is not specifically granted by this list. I bold this list because I didn't cross reference it everywhere else, but I believe Ability Focus is an example of a feat in the Bestiary which is not legal under this rule.
This quote might help to explain why this is allowed (Prior versions of the guide did not have that sentence "unless specifically granted by another legal source."
Animal companions can select from the following feats: Acrobatic, Agile Maneuvers, Armor Proficiency (light, medium, and heavy), Athletic, Blind-Fight, Combat Reflexes, Diehard, Dodge, Endurance, Great Fortitude, Improved Bull Rush, Improved Initiative, Improved Natural Armor, Improved Natural Attack, Improved Overrun, Intimidating Prowess, Iron Will, Lightning Reflexes, Mobility, Power Attack, Run, Skill Focus, Spring Attack, Stealthy, Toughness, Weapon Finesse, and Weapon Focus. Animal companions with an Intelligence of 3 or higher can select any feat they are physically capable of using. GMs might expand this list to include feats from other sources.Since it is specifically allowed in the Animal Companion section it is seen as being available for an animal companion now. However, I do see where people could get confused and created a FAQ for it wouldn't be a bad idea. I'll add my "FAQ" button push above.Using this example (which is correct) an Animal Companion cannot select Ability Focus feat, as it is not specifically granted by this list. I bold this list because I didn't cross reference it everywhere else, but I believe Ability Focus is an example of a feat in the Bestiary which is not legal under this rule.
ooh. Nice catch!