Paizo Top Nav Branding
  • Hello, Guest! |
  • Sign In |
  • My Account |
  • Shopping Cart |
  • Help/FAQ
About Paizo Messageboards News Paizo Blog Help/FAQ
Pathfinder Roleplaying Game

Pathfinder Adventure Card Game


Pathfinder Society


Starfinder


Starfinder Society

Ultimate Wilderness Boon Companion changes


Rules Questions

51 to 72 of 72 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>
The Exchange RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16

1 person marked this as a favorite.

A reminder: the text of this role-playing game is not intended to be parsed legalistically. If your reading of a rule depends on whether "animal companion" is italicized or not, you're probably reading the rules with a level of precision that the design team does not intend.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Chris Mortika wrote:
the text of this role-playing game is not intended to be parsed legalistically.

If only this was true. It's become increasingly false as some FAQ's are parsed incredibly legalistically [like multiple tiered sources and ammo not acting as a magic weapon despite the text saying it does]. If the stance is the rules are truly meant to be read conversationally, the rulings should reflect that or people can't trust it to be true.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber; Pathfinder Companion Subscriber

I believe this line "An animal companion or mount can select from the
feats listed below that include “animal companion” as a
prerequisite as if it appeared on the list of animal feats on
page 53 of the Pathfinder RPG Core Rulebook" was presented to expand the allowed feats of animal companions to include any feat labeled with animal companion.

This does two things:
Allows animal companions a broader range of feats they can pick with lower than 3 intelligence.
Allows writers to include a new feat descriptor to add feats to the list animal companions can take.

I think Alex said it best, Animal Companion and Animal Companion class feature are two very different things. If you look at the feat just below it you can clearly see the difference:

Boon Companion: Prerequisite: Animal companion class feature or familiar class feature

Devotion against the Unnatural: Prerequisites: Animal companion, devotion special ability.

Contributor

TriOmegaZero wrote:
Chess Pwn wrote:
So I'm understanding now that there are feats that are basically "race" feats for animal companions then? If that's how it is then yes, that would mean that boon companion doesn't fit that.
That is my understanding, yes.

As the contributor who wrote the animal companion feats, yes. This is correct, and that is why Boon Companion is not a legal choice for an animal companion. Because “animal companion” is saying you need to be an animal companion, and “animal companion class feature” is saying you need to have the class feature named ‘animal companion.’

Granted my word isn’t Paizo official, and you can absolutely give your animal companions Boon Companion if your GM will allow it. However, don’t count on it, especially in PFS.


I have proof that all of you saying "animal companion" and "animal companion class feature" aren't the same thing, are flat out wrong. Animal Ally does NOT give you a class feature. It gives you an animal companion, but not the class feature. Yet literally everyone agrees you can take Boon Companion to bring your effective Druid Level to Character Level.

If Animal Companions can't take Boon Companion, you're saying literally everyone who has taken Animal Ally then Boon Companion, that is to say everyone, is wrong.

Also show me a class that has "Animal Companion" as a class feature. No, Nature Bond nor Hunter's Bond do not count. It has to specifically say "Animal Companion" as the class feature for your argument to be right. Until you can do this, you are flat out wrong.

Grand Lodge

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber; Pathfinder Card Game Subscriber; Pathfinder Comics Subscriber
Reksew_Trebla wrote:
If Animal Companions can't take Boon Companion, you're saying literally everyone who has taken Animal Ally then Boon Companion, that is to say everyone, is wrong.

That is correct, by the rules.

Shadow Lodge

....I'm not sure what I just read.

Shadow Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.

A forum argument, duh.


TriOmegaZero wrote:
Reksew_Trebla wrote:
If Animal Companions can't take Boon Companion, you're saying literally everyone who has taken Animal Ally then Boon Companion, that is to say everyone, is wrong.
That is correct, by the rules.
Reskew_Trebla wrote:
Also show me a class that has "Animal Companion" as a class feature. No, Nature Bond nor Hunter's Bond do not count. It has to specifically say "Animal Companion" as the class feature for your argument to be right. Until you can do this, you are flat out wrong.

Uh, please read my post before responding to it.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber; Pathfinder Card Game Subscriber; Pathfinder Comics Subscriber

Please read my post and not what you think I said. I made no claim to that point.


TriOmegaZero wrote:
Please read my post and not what you think I said. I made no claim to that point.

I'll admit I may have misread your post. Did you, or did you not make a claim suggesting that "animal companion" and "animal companion class feature" were not the same thing? If you were making that claim, then no, I didn't misread your post. If you didn't make that claim, then could you elaborate what you meant then?

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber; Pathfinder Card Game Subscriber; Pathfinder Comics Subscriber

I meant that yes, you are correct that everyone who took Animal Ally and then Boon Companion was in error according to the rules.


TriOmegaZero wrote:
I meant that yes, you are correct that everyone who took Animal Ally and then Boon Companion was in error according to the rules.

Which is wrong because there is no difference between "animal companion" and "animal companion class feature" because there actually is no class AFAIK that has "Animal Companion" as a class feature. There are class features such as "Nature Bond" or "Hunter's Bond" which give access to an animal companion, but the class feature itself is not named "Animal Companion" which means the argument you are giving is wrong, because otherwise nobody could take Boon Companion, which is obviously not the case.

Grand Lodge

6 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber; Pathfinder Card Game Subscriber; Pathfinder Comics Subscriber

I see no flaws in your argument. The rules are obviously broken.


They are saying that being an animal companion and the animal companion class feature are different.

They aren't not making any statement that having an animal companion doesn't count as the animal companion class feature.

This is just a poor rules terminology as normally animal companion is shorthand speak for having an animal companion. But that can't happen anymore now that we have rules that making "animal companion" mean being an animal companion and "having an animal companion" or "animal companion class feature" are the same thing and what we've had around for a long time.


Taenia wrote:


Boon Companion: Prerequisite: Animal companion class feature or familiar class feature

Devotion against the Unnatural: Prerequisites: Animal companion, devotion special ability.

If we are rewording things to demonstrate desired parsing we can also come up with this equally valid interpretation:

Boon Companion: Prerequisite: Class feature [Animal Companion or Familiar]

Devotion Against the Unnatural: Prerequisite: Animal Companion

With this parsing, "Animal Companion" is the named class feature that is required, and the pet does qualify under the UW rules.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
TriOmegaZero wrote:
I see no flaws in your argument. The rules are obviously broken.

Well, uh, this was surprisingly civilized. You have my respect.


Successful Troll needs to pitch a little lower...


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Reksew_Trebla wrote:
TriOmegaZero wrote:
I meant that yes, you are correct that everyone who took Animal Ally and then Boon Companion was in error according to the rules.
Which is wrong because there is no difference between "animal companion" and "animal companion class feature" because there actually is no class AFAIK that has "Animal Companion" as a class feature. There are class features such as "Nature Bond" or "Hunter's Bond" which give access to an animal companion, but the class feature itself is not named "Animal Companion" which means the argument you are giving is wrong, because otherwise nobody could take Boon Companion, which is obviously not the case.

The hunter class as the class feature "Animal companion". All of these feats are just building up for this one class don't you know?

Shadow Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Volkard Abendroth wrote:
TriOmegaZero wrote:
So you agree with the conclusion, you just disagree with the line of argument.
Correct

You're right, it is a lot simpler to point out that Boon Companion applies to the companion of the one that takes it, so the animal companion gets no benefit from taking Boon Companion. At least until a clarification or errata comes out.

Grand Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber; Pathfinder Companion Subscriber

So if you have a class feature that gives you an Animal Companion, you can take a feat that requires Animal Companion class feature seems pretty clear to me.

In the case of Animal Ally, the fact that it references as a druid of level -3 links it to the class feature thereby allowing the two to work together.

The difference is clear, Animal Companion does not equal Animal Companion class feature. One is clearly intended for the animal themselves and the other is clearly intended for the members of the class that grant that feature (or feat that links to it).


TOZ wrote:
Volkard Abendroth wrote:
TriOmegaZero wrote:
So you agree with the conclusion, you just disagree with the line of argument.
Correct
You're right, it is a lot simpler to point out that Boon Companion applies to the companion of the one that takes it, so the animal companion gets no benefit from taking Boon Companion. At least until a clarification or errata comes out.

This line of argument is also must easier to defend than one that requires parsing the rules in a specific manner to reach the desired conclusion.

I did not pursue this line of argument because there may eventually be a way to give an animal companion an animal companion. (Intentional or otherwise.)

Lack of character level on animal companions would still block Boon from having an effect in this circumstance.

51 to 72 of 72 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>
Paizo / Messageboards / Paizo / Pathfinder® / Pathfinder RPG / Rules Questions / Ultimate Wilderness Boon Companion changes All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.

©2002-2017 Paizo Inc.® | Privacy Policy | Contact Us
Need help? Email customer.service@paizo.com or call 425-250-0800 during our business hours, Monday through Friday, 10:00 AM to 5:00 PM Pacific time.

Paizo Inc., Paizo, the Paizo golem logo, Pathfinder, the Pathfinder logo, Pathfinder Society, Starfinder, the Starfinder logo, GameMastery, and Planet Stories are registered trademarks of Paizo Inc. The Pathfinder Roleplaying Game, Pathfinder Campaign Setting, Pathfinder Adventure Path, Pathfinder Adventure Card Game, Pathfinder Player Companion, Pathfinder Modules, Pathfinder Tales, Pathfinder Battles, Pathfinder Legends, Pathfinder Online, Starfinder Adventure Path, PaizoCon, RPG Superstar, The Golem's Got It, Titanic Games, the Titanic logo, and the Planet Stories planet logo are trademarks of Paizo Inc. Dungeons & Dragons, Dragon, Dungeon, and Polyhedron are registered trademarks of Wizards of the Coast, Inc., a subsidiary of Hasbro, Inc., and have been used by Paizo Inc. under license. Most product names are trademarks owned or used under license by the companies that publish those products; use of such names without mention of trademark status should not be construed as a challenge to such status.