Heirloom Weapon and Animal Companions


Rules Questions

Shadow Lodge

1 person marked this as FAQ candidate.

Came across a build this weekend at a Con and wanted to know if it was legal per rules or not.

It was a druid with an animal companion (ape) who had an INT of 3, and had taken Additional Traits as one of the animal's feats. With that, he took Heirloom Weapon (Lucerne Hammer) as one of the traits.

Is this really legal??


EvolvingMonkey wrote:

Came across a build this weekend at a Con and wanted to know if it was legal per rules or not.

It was a druid with an animal companion (ape) who had an INT of 3, and had taken Additional Traits as one of the animal's feats. With that, he took Heirloom Weapon (Lucerne Hammer) as one of the traits.

Is this really legal??

If it's the animal's feat, then it's the animal's traits. Which means the lucerne hammer is the ape's heirloom, not the druid's. Which means the ape gets the bonus, not the druid.


Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber

Technically Additional Traits is not listed as one of the normal animal feat choices. However, due to the 3 Intelligence, the player is invoking this line:

"Animal companions with an Intelligence of 3 or higher can select any feat they are physically capable of using."

I checked the Additional Traits feat and the Heirloom Weapon Trait, and there doesn't appear to be anything that prevents this.

Cheesy? Yes.
Illegal? I don't think so.
Would I allow it? No.

Edit: @Michael Gentry- Agreed. The attack bonus and weapon would belong to the ape. While the druid could certainly borrow the weapon, the druid would not gain any special attack bonus with that weapon.

Liberty's Edge

jreyst wrote:


Cheesy? Yes.
Illegal? I don't think so.
Would I allow it? No.

Right -- I understand the RAW...it's the point that an heirloom lucerne hammer has been passed down from generation to generation of non-intelligent apes????

Honestly, I would love to see at least that trait, if not all traits, should be disallowed for animal companions, but that's just my two copper.


Refluff "Heirloom", and I'd allow it just for the hilarity of a hammer-wielding monkey.


Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber
Kamelguru wrote:
Refluff "Heirloom", and I'd allow it just for the hilarity of a hammer-wielding monkey.

Right. If you just ignore the concept of it actually having been handed down from generation to generation, ie, "refluff it" then it might be more agreeable. Just think up some other story. Perhaps the ape troop/band discovered the weapon on some fallen warrior and has held it in hiding somewhere for many years because its oh so shiny. This one particular ape happens to be slightly smarter than the rest of the band and after hanging around with that crazy druid fella it starts swinging it around like it sees some humans doing. Eventually it gets half-way decent at it.

There's story ways to make it work I guess.


EvolvingMonkey wrote:

Came across a build this weekend at a Con and wanted to know if it was legal per rules or not.

It was a druid with an animal companion (ape) who had an INT of 3, and had taken Additional Traits as one of the animal's feats. With that, he took Heirloom Weapon (Lucerne Hammer) as one of the traits.

Is this really legal??

I would say, "No." Additional traits to me is a feat that should only be taken at 1st level. Also, there is no way an ape has passed down a Lucern hammer through the generations.


He's gonna run into problems when he gets to size large at level 4 as the bonus's are not transferable and i don't know a way to make his hammer bigger.

Dark Archive

Bertious wrote:
He's gonna run into problems when he gets to size large at level 4 as the bonus's are not transferable and i don't know a way to make his hammer bigger.

It was my Ape. Large Ape. Large Hammer.

Not a Druid. Cleric (Zarongel).

Ape has the feats: Combat Reflexes, Power Attack, Additional Traits (Heirloom Weapon (Large Lucerne Hammer), Armor Expert).

PRD: "Animal companions with an Intelligence of 3 or higher can select any feat they are physically capable of using."

Pathfinder Society Guide to Organized Play: "Can I improve my companion’s Intelligence to 3 or higher and give it weapon feats?

Yes. Following the guidelines for animal companions as established on page 53 of the Pathfinder RPG Core Rulebook, this is legal. Your companion must be physically capable of wielding the weapon (no tigers with longswords, for example). Bear in mind, however, that an animal’s natural attacks nearly always yield better results than spending feat slots and gold pieces to equip your companion."


Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber
Brother Elias wrote:

Pathfinder Society Guide to Organized Play: "Can I improve my companion’s Intelligence to 3 or higher and give it weapon feats?

Yes. Following the guidelines for animal companions as established on page 53 of the Pathfinder RPG Core Rulebook, this is legal. Your companion must be physically capable of wielding the weapon (no tigers with longswords, for example). Bear in mind, however, that an animal’s natural attacks nearly always yield better results than spending feat slots and gold pieces to equip your companion."

Certainly legal. Would I approve it as a GM? Probably not, for reasons previously stated. The main bit of cheese is using the Additional Traits feat. I agree with the other poster that that feat should be taken at 1st level, though you are certainly within your mechanical rights to have done so since nothing explicitly forbids it.


Ricky Bobby wrote:
jreyst wrote:


Cheesy? Yes.
Illegal? I don't think so.
Would I allow it? No.

Right -- I understand the RAW...it's the point that an heirloom lucerne hammer has been passed down from generation to generation of non-intelligent apes????

Honestly, I would love to see at least that trait, if not all traits, should be disallowed for animal companions, but that's just my two copper.

Didn't the Gorillas in Congo all have Heirloom Skullcrushers?

Liberty's Edge

Brother Elias wrote:
Bertious wrote:
He's gonna run into problems when he gets to size large at level 4 as the bonus's are not transferable and i don't know a way to make his hammer bigger.

It was my Ape. Large Ape. Large Hammer.

Not a Druid. Cleric (Zarongel).

Ape has the feats: Combat Reflexes, Power Attack, Additional Traits (Heirloom Weapon (Large Lucerne Hammer), Armor Expert).

PRD: "Animal companions with an Intelligence of 3 or higher can select any feat they are physically capable of using."

Pathfinder Society Guide to Organized Play: "Can I improve my companion’s Intelligence to 3 or higher and give it weapon feats?

Yes. Following the guidelines for animal companions as established on page 53 of the Pathfinder RPG Core Rulebook, this is legal. Your companion must be physically capable of wielding the weapon (no tigers with longswords, for example). Bear in mind, however, that an animal’s natural attacks nearly always yield better results than spending feat slots and gold pieces to equip your companion."

I don't think there is a question that an int 3 ape can have the feat. I don't think there is a problem with the ape using a weapon.

Where there are possible problems are in whether a creature can take traits at other than 1HD; that's a general rules question.

How many traits, and who gets traits, is a campaign question, not a general rules question. Pathfinder Society Guide to Organized Play identifies that PCs get traits. It says nothing about any other creature getting traits. So, while the ape may be able to take the feat, he has to also be able to take traits.


I'm a fairly conservative GM, and I'd allow it, so long as there's a good story to go with it. For example, what Jreyst wrote above.

That ape is like the ape community's King Arthur! He pulled the sword (or, um, lucern hammer) from the stone!

Liberty's Edge

and the mini is real cool

http://www.facebook.com/photo.php?pid=409534&id=100000914980359&fbi d=182224898484675

The Exchange

Ricky Bobby wrote:
jreyst wrote:


Cheesy? Yes.
Illegal? I don't think so.
Would I allow it? No.

Right -- I understand the RAW...it's the point that an heirloom lucerne hammer has been passed down from generation to generation of non-intelligent apes????

Honestly, I would love to see at least that trait, if not all traits, should be disallowed for animal companions, but that's just my two copper.

The heirloom weapon has been handed down from generation to generation, but it doesn't necessarily have to be handed down by someone related to you by blood.

For instance, my wife and I just made new characters. Hers is an elven alchemist and mine is a halfling barbarian (PFS Chelaxian). I took the heirloom weapon trait to get an elven curved blade.

Our story is that I was originally a slave of her great uncle. When he died he gave both me and his masterfully made scimitar (since an elven curved blade for an actual elf couldn't be used by a halfling, being two-handed for a medium creature and all) to her. She wasn't interested in two handed weapons.

She released me from slavery and I chose to become her bodyguard and cook because I was eternally grateful. In return she had me trained in the use of the weapon and continued to pass the heirloom down one more step (thus losing her bonuses because she no longer owned it). Something similar could easily be done for a druid's animal companion.

Dark Archive

jjaamm wrote:

and the mini is real cool

http://www.facebook.com/photo.php?pid=409534&id=100000914980359&fbi d=182224898484675

Here's a more publicly accessible copy of the photo.

http://dl.dropbox.com/u/6645605/MisterChuckles.jpg

The somewhat matching figure to the left of Mister Chuckles (ape) is Brother Elias.

Mister Chuckles is a DDM Large Dire Ape mini that I modded with (Underwater epoxy putty) to add leather armor. The lucerne hammer is made from a 3/16" brass rod, and a 1/8 inch thick piece of PVC.

Brother Elias is an DDM Executioner that I modified by changing the axe to a skull-head club (again with epoxy putty, along with some static grass that I painted black for shrunken-head hair). You can't see it in this photo, but Brother Elias is wearing 4ss-less chaps, with a symbol of Cheliax on the right butt cheek.

Liberty's Edge

Though not in love with the heirloom weapon idea....I will have to agree with the minis -- very cool armor/weapon mod and the 4ssless chaps did make me laugh. :)

Sovereign Court

I'd allow it. Precisely because it is ridiculous!

It's vitally important that earnestness never goes too far in gaming.


Mok wrote:

I'd allow it. Precisely because it is ridiculous!

It's vitally important that earnestness never goes too far in gaming.

I fully endorse this statement.

Scarab Sages

Of course I would allow it. Claw/Claw/Bite for the fourth level ape is doing 3d6+24 with power attack. With the hammer, he is doing 3d6+12 with power attack. (I think) And he needs room to swing that 15' hammer, which he didn't have in that picture. So, being awesome in this context is awesome style, not better DPR.

And he has invested time in the mini...

What was his other trait? (Come on Cosmopolitan...) Edit: Awe, I back read and saw the Armor Expert. The Share Language spell and Cosmopolitan could have been fun.

And he could have always simply taken Martial Weapon Proficiency instead straight from the book. This way has flair.

Dark Archive

Elyza wrote:

Of course I would allow it. Claw/Claw/Bite for the fourth level ape is doing 3d6+24 with power attack. With the hammer, he is doing 3d6+12 with power attack. (I think) And he needs room to swing that 15' hammer, which he didn't have in that picture. So, being awesome in this context is awesome style, not better DPR.

And he has invested time in the mini...

What was his other trait? (Come on Cosmopolitan...) Edit: Awe, I back read and saw the Armor Expert. The Share Language spell and Cosmopolitan could have been fun.

And he could have always simply taken Martial Weapon Proficiency instead straight from the book. This way has flair.

Does it help with the style points that the ape has 2 ranks in Linguistics (Chelaxian [yes, yes, I know - some upstarts refer to it as Taldan], and Pathfinder Sign), has a rank in Knowledge(Local) and carries a chalkboard with chalk?

Scarab Sages

It could help with DPR actually, since it'll be easier to get magical enhancements. Hit bonuses make a HUGE difference in DPR calculations.

Heirloom could work. It's a mystic *artifact* that the ape clan has been worshipping for centuries. Being the *smartest* family of the tribe, his family got to sit around it and grunt a lot.

But... traits taken with the additional traits feat seem to bypass the starting requirement.

So, seems legal from a raw standpoint.


Brother Elias wrote:
http://dl.dropbox.com/u/6645605/MisterChuckles.jpg

That's really unfortunate that your GM didn't print that map out to scale. :-( (1-sq = 10-ft on that map)

Dark Archive

Kyle Baird wrote:
Brother Elias wrote:
http://dl.dropbox.com/u/6645605/MisterChuckles.jpg
That's really unfortunate that your GM didn't print that map out to scale. :-( (1-sq = 10-ft on that map)

Hmm.

Were all the corridors 10' wide as well? If so, that would address my (and most of our group's) only real complaint about the scenario.


Brother Elias wrote:
Kyle Baird wrote:
Brother Elias wrote:
http://dl.dropbox.com/u/6645605/MisterChuckles.jpg
That's really unfortunate that your GM didn't print that map out to scale. :-( (1-sq = 10-ft on that map)

Hmm.

Were all the corridors 10' wide as well? If so, that would address my (and most of our group's) only real complaint about the scenario.

Yes

Dark Archive

Magicdealer wrote:

It could help with DPR actually, since it'll be easier to get magical enhancements. Hit bonuses make a HUGE difference in DPR calculations.

Heirloom could work. It's a mystic *artifact* that the ape clan has been worshipping for centuries. Being the *smartest* family of the tribe, his family got to sit around it and grunt a lot.

But... traits taken with the additional traits feat seem to bypass the starting requirement.

So, seems legal from a raw standpoint.

I like your imagining. I was simply considering each of the cleric's new companions to be a new generation, with the previous companion leaving the weapon in the cleric's care until a new companion arrived. (Why am I suddenly thinking that there must be a large closet in the Tardis that serves a similar purpose. Heirloom clothing, waiting for the next companion... and don't get me too far along that tangent in a PG rated thread. <g>)

With your explanation, I'm more thinking about a sliding door found in a very large monolith that happened to contain a very large hammer. Eventually one of the apes stops using a bone to beat its fellows senseless, and figures out how to use the hammer.

Liberty's Edge

Kyle Baird wrote:
Brother Elias wrote:
http://dl.dropbox.com/u/6645605/MisterChuckles.jpg
That's really unfortunate that your GM didn't print that map out to scale. :-( (1-sq = 10-ft on that map)

Darn, just checked and your right, dont know how missed that. APOLIGIES to all those who played.

Dark Archive

jjaamm wrote:
Kyle Baird wrote:
Brother Elias wrote:
http://dl.dropbox.com/u/6645605/MisterChuckles.jpg
That's really unfortunate that your GM didn't print that map out to scale. :-( (1-sq = 10-ft on that map)
Darn, just checked and your right, dont know how missed that. APOLIGIES to all those who played.

Unnecessary. Thank you for running the game!

Dark Archive

I'm wondering if you can make that build, based on page 52 under feats where it states that

"animal companions can select other feats, although they are unable to utilize some feats (such as Martial Weapon Proficiency)."

I'm not sure how to interpret this, but i would assume that as there are no rules specifying that apes can use martial weapon proficiency, therefore we must refer to the vague rule stating that animal companions are unable to utilize some feats, this being one of them.

You can take the feat but you cannot get its benefits. This must either mean that animal companions with weapon proficiency are unable to act as if proficient while using a weapon they have the proficiency to, or that they are unable to use the weapon itself.

What do you think?

This is naturally RAW not fluff I'm referring to


you have to make the ape int 3. if his int ever drops lower he cannot use the martial weapon.

Liberty's Edge

Benji wrote:

I'm wondering if you can make that build, based on page 52 under feats where it states that

"animal companions can select other feats, although they are unable to utilize some feats (such as Martial Weapon Proficiency)."

I'm not sure how to interpret this, but i would assume that as there are no rules specifying that apes can use martial weapon proficiency, therefore we must refer to the vague rule stating that animal companions are unable to utilize some feats, this being one of them.

Edit: I previously objected to the build in question, thinking that traits had to be taken at first level. The next post rebutts that; I no longer have that objection.

As to the quote "animal companions can select other feats, although they are unable to utilize some feats (such as Martial Weapon Proficiency)," I think that this is a recognition of the general condition that most animal companions don't have hands and thus cannot use a martial weapon. I don't understand it to be a general and outright prohibition regarding all animal companions. Apes have hands and thus can hold and use weapons.

If you're making the argument that the general rule is that no animal companion can ever make use of the feat Martial Weapon Proficiency based upon the passage above, I disagree. I understand why you would come to that conclusion; on the strict logic of the language provided, you're correct. But I think it takes it out of the general context regarding the feats available to and usable by animal companions. It is an example being provided. To argue from absurdity, would you think that, given the text, that the ape could use either Simple Weapon Proficiency or Exotic Weapon Proficiency?


Howie23 wrote:

Those other creatures still are limited to getting traits at 1st level; the feat doesn't supercede that requirement. A companion who is elevated to Int 3, by definition, does so later and thus cannot take the feat and thus gain traits.

There is a line in the traits pdf that states, "Remember also that traits are intended to model events

that were formative in your character’s development,
either before he became an adventurer, or (in the case
of additional traits gained via the Additional Traits feat)
events that happened while adventuring"

Slightly reworded, the same statement is in the APG on page 327. I think that shows the RAI is to allow the feat at levels later than 1, so I'd say this build is legit.

Liberty's Edge

Varthanna wrote:
Howie23 wrote:

Those other creatures still are limited to getting traits at 1st level; the feat doesn't supercede that requirement. A companion who is elevated to Int 3, by definition, does so later and thus cannot take the feat and thus gain traits.

There is a line in the traits pdf that states, "Remember also that traits are intended to model events

that were formative in your character’s development,
either before he became an adventurer, or (in the case
of additional traits gained via the Additional Traits feat)
events that happened while adventuring"

Slightly reworded, the same statement is in the APG on page 327. I think that shows the RAI is to allow the feat at levels later than 1, so I'd say this build is legit.

Given that, my objection is removed.


Benji wrote:

I'm wondering if you can make that build, based on page 52 under feats where it states that

"animal companions can select other feats, although they are unable to utilize some feats (such as Martial Weapon Proficiency)."

I'm not sure how to interpret this, but i would assume that as there are no rules specifying that apes can use martial weapon proficiency, therefore we must refer to the vague rule stating that animal companions are unable to utilize some feats, this being one of them.

You can take the feat but you cannot get its benefits. This must either mean that animal companions with weapon proficiency are unable to act as if proficient while using a weapon they have the proficiency to, or that they are unable to use the weapon itself.

What do you think?

This is naturally RAW not fluff I'm referring to

its in the guide to OP. Josh put it there based on a thread disgussion inwhich owner of said ape posted. least thats what I think.


Brother Elias and his ape companion seems like a fun character. Just based on the miniature efforts alone I'd have no problems with this in my game.

The Exchange Owner - D20 Hobbies

EvolvingMonkey wrote:

Came across a build this weekend at a Con and wanted to know if it was legal per rules or not.

It was a druid with an animal companion (ape) who had an INT of 3, and had taken Additional Traits as one of the animal's feats. With that, he took Heirloom Weapon (Lucerne Hammer) as one of the traits.

Is this really legal??

Perfectly legal if the following were observed:

  • The Ape had 5 hit dice, since at 4th level he took INT +1 so his 5th level Character Feat was Additional Traits.
  • The Heirloom Weapon was the Ape's weapon so the PC wouldn't gain proficiency from the trait.
  • The ape didn't try to attack with the weapon despite being proficient with it.

The attack deal really comes down to DM call, but I just don't see a brilliant ape being able to properly wield a weapon like that. If you do, then awesome, let the ape attack with it.

The ape also might not want to give it up, but being an A.C. I'm sure the Druid could coax it out of the ape. So if the PC was using the weapon, that might not be horribly wrong.

Liberty's Edge

If there were a problem with having to take it at level one you could always go human and take the variant that lets you drop your extra human feat for a +2 to any one of your animal companion's stats. throw that on int for your first companion and you have 4 int, letting you take the feat. Later on, if this companion dies he could heirloom it to your next ape that puts his +2 on str and uses his 4th level ability bump on int. Just wanted to point out that there was a way around it anyways. As far as ranks in linguistics I think you should have to have a higher int than 3 to learn languages, and at the very least, you shouldnt know how to write on the chalkboard from this. There are ways around this too of course...

Dark Archive

James Risner wrote:
The attack deal really comes down to DM call, but I just don't see a brilliant ape being able to properly wield a weapon like that. If you do, then awesome, let the ape attack with it.

Ehm...there's many instances of gorrilas and other great apes using tools and weapons, such as clubs made of branches or bones from other animals, so I don't see a real problem with allowing an animal that's actually above animal intellect (Int 3 is human intelligence - though very low).


If you make an animal companion int 3 they arent animal companions any more. I thought. There was a Bulmahn ruling on the issue ages and ages ago to do with sheild using ape.

The Exchange Owner - D20 Hobbies

vagrant-poet wrote:
If you make an animal companion int 3 they arent animal companions any more. I thought. There was a Bulmahn ruling on the issue ages and ages ago to do with sheild using ape.

A link would be useful.


James Risner wrote:
vagrant-poet wrote:
If you make an animal companion int 3 they arent animal companions any more. I thought. There was a Bulmahn ruling on the issue ages and ages ago to do with sheild using ape.
A link would be useful.

Especially since the AC rules explicitly talk about ACs with INTs higher than 3.

If, however, I'm remembering the thread he's talking about. Jason did comment on the fact that normal animals that have their int raised to higher than 3 (say through Awaken) are no longer animals for purposes of spells that target animals.

The Exchange Owner - D20 Hobbies

mdt wrote:
int raised to higher than 3 (say through Awaken) are no longer animals for purposes of spells that target animals.

Animals (as a type) require Int 1 or 2, so even an AC raised to 3 is technically a Magical Beast now. I don't think that is explicitly said, but it is explicitly said they (at Int 3) are no longer animals and by extension no longer targetable by animal effects.


James Risner wrote:
mdt wrote:
int raised to higher than 3 (say through Awaken) are no longer animals for purposes of spells that target animals.
Animals (as a type) require Int 1 or 2, so even an AC raised to 3 is technically a Magical Beast now. I don't think that is explicitly said, but it is explicitly said they (at Int 3) are no longer animals and by extension no longer targetable by animal effects.

I believe they don't become magical beasts unless they leave the service as an AC. Mainly because you can't have magical beasts as ACs.


James Risner wrote:
mdt wrote:
int raised to higher than 3 (say through Awaken) are no longer animals for purposes of spells that target animals.
Animals (as a type) require Int 1 or 2, so even an AC raised to 3 is technically a Magical Beast now. I don't think that is explicitly said, but it is explicitly said they (at Int 3) are no longer animals and by extension no longer targetable by animal effects.

Nope. The druid description contains a lot of info on raising animal intelligence beyond two.

They remain creatures of the animal type for purposes of determining which spells can affect them.

Animal companions with an Intelligence of 3 or higher can put ranks into any skill.

If an animal companion increases its Intelligence to 10 or higher, it gains bonus skill ranks as normal.

edit: how'd he get the int to 3? I know you can take the human alternate ability:" eye for talent: and move int to 4, but i don't know how to get it to 3 at first level.


BigNorseWolf wrote:
James Risner wrote:
mdt wrote:
int raised to higher than 3 (say through Awaken) are no longer animals for purposes of spells that target animals.
Animals (as a type) require Int 1 or 2, so even an AC raised to 3 is technically a Magical Beast now. I don't think that is explicitly said, but it is explicitly said they (at Int 3) are no longer animals and by extension no longer targetable by animal effects.

Nope. The druid description contains a lot of info on raising animal intelligence beyond two.

They remain creatures of the animal type for purposes of determining which spells can affect them.

Animal companions with an Intelligence of 3 or higher can put ranks into any skill.

If an animal companion increases its Intelligence to 10 or higher, it gains bonus skill ranks as normal.

edit: how'd he get the int to 3? I know you can take the human alternate ability:" eye for talent: and move int to 4, but i don't know how to get it to 3 at first level.

Doesnt need to be at first level, you can take the additional traits feat at any level.

Liberty's Edge

vagrant-poet wrote:
If you make an animal companion int 3 they arent animal companions any more. I thought. There was a Bulmahn ruling on the issue ages and ages ago to do with sheild using ape.

Please, dont give him any more ideas.

Grand Lodge

vagrant-poet wrote:
If you make an animal companion int 3 they arent animal companions any more. I thought. There was a Bulmahn ruling on the issue ages and ages ago to do with sheild using ape.

Can't see how that would make sense. Under skills in the Animal Companion listing, page 52 of the CRB...

"Animal Companions with an Intelligence of 3 or higher can purchase ranks in any skill."
That would seem to indicate that adding one to Int, does not cause a change in the companion's status. It could be argued that since it no longer possesses animal intelligence, it becomes a magical beast or monstrous humanoid (depending on the base companion), but it should not lose it's companion status.

The Exchange Owner - D20 Hobbies

TwilightKnight wrote:
That would seem to indicate that adding one to Int, does not cause a change in the companion's status

For the purposes of this thread, ignore my theory craft. They are Animals for spells. If you are curious of my RAW interpretation, see below.

Facts:

  • Intelligence score of 1 or 2 (no creature with an Intelligence score of 3 or higher can be an animal). B p307
  • Animal companions with an Intelligence of 3 or higher Core p52
  • Familiars ... of the normal animal it once was, but is now a magical beast Core p82
  • They remain creatures of the animal type for purposes of determining which spells can affect them Core p51
  • Magical beasts are similar to animals but can have Intelligence scores higher than 2 B p308

While it doesn't explicitly say it, I believe RAW, Animal Companions are Magical Beast if they obtain Int 3 or greater but "remain" animal type for spells. The use of the word implies they are no longer Animal type.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I like this. But I think I would go with cestus. Same number of attacks. And swap out as needed for Damage Resistance bypassing. Cold iron, silver, ... I would probably only do Simple Weapons Proficiency feat instead of Additional Traits/Heirloom Weapon so I wouldn't be locked into that specific weapon.


Ricky Bobby wrote:
jreyst wrote:


Cheesy? Yes.
Illegal? I don't think so.
Would I allow it? No.

Right -- I understand the RAW...it's the point that an heirloom lucerne hammer has been passed down from generation to generation of non-intelligent apes????

Honestly, I would love to see at least that trait, if not all traits, should be disallowed for animal companions, but that's just my two copper.

But he is an animal companion... He is roughly a member of the family, so you passed down your grandfathers lucerne hammer because you are a druid and will not use metal weapons ;)

Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder First Edition / Rules Questions / Heirloom Weapon and Animal Companions All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.