| Chaslin |
Hi all,
I've been planning on making a caster druid with an animal companion for Strength of Thousands, but my GM and I are a bit confused over some of the wording for a few of the companions.
For most Companions, their Support benefit fires if you "successfully Strike" an enemy. Ok, easy, makes sense. For others, such as the ape and badger, their support benefit is conditional upon "if you hit and deal damage".
Ok, so what does a "hit" mean? Can I Chain Lightning around my own Large ape and debuff a whole collection of enemies? What if they save but I still deal damage - that's effectively a hit, right?
I couldn't find any definitions in the glossary for the CRB, or any answers online.
I noticed this is the wording as well on the ranger's precision strike ability, and this question has been raised before in regards to that, but I haven't seen any answers - just table rulings. This is important as a caster as I'd like to avoid Strikes as much as possible. There are a few options.
1. It's just another way of saying a successful Strike
2. It's just another way of saying a successful attack roll (and including spell attack rolls)
3. It's specifying being successful in any spell or Strike, including one that requires a save but the enemy must fail the save
4. It's specifying any spell or strike - including if the enemy would save but could not completely avoid the effect. It is written this way specifically to exclude snares and persistent damage.
I think that, as druids are so closely aligned with animal companions, it'd be strange not to have at least a few that synergised with a few caster builds - so I'm inclined to think any of these answers are possible.
Should add that I found this section in the CRB, which seems to imply 3 or 4 - but as it's being used for illustrative purposes I don't want to use it as definitive.
"In the midst of combat, you attempt checks to determine if you can damage your foe with weapons, spells, or alchemical concoctions. On a successful check, you hit and deal damage."
Thanks in advance - interested in both errata and if you've encountered this on your table as well.