| 2 people marked this as FAQ candidate. Staff response: no reply required. |
Just this evening, I finished the Quest for Perfection arc with my Ranger. Lovely arc, very cool reward. However, my Ranger is a Falconer...
I had no idea I was going to get access to this boon, and would really love to be able to use it!
|
In your case, I don't think the Archetype restriction rules the boon out. If you had an archetype that specifically did not match the type of creature, then I would say you still couldn't choose it. You got very lucky :D
In this case though Clint, I’m not sure it matters. This boon specifically adds to the available list. So even if the restrictions of the archetype would seem to restrict the type, this boon would still add to that list due to the way the boon is written.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
A Saurian Shaman would not be able to use this boon.
But birds are dinosaurs. Just ask any paleontologist.
Seriously though, There's not really a leg to stand on denying a ranger (or anyone) of any archetype this boon. The chronicle is pretty clear that it simply adds a creature to the allowed list of animal companions. I don't see why there is such a pervasive trend of searching for reasons to not let players do things. It might just be a function of the sort of discourse that comes to the forums, but it it troubling nonetheless. Part of the DM's job is to facilitate the players accomplishing what they want character-wise, not searching through raw to find ways to screw them over because "I don't like such and such". /end rant
RPG Superstar Season 9 Top 8
|
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
But birds are dinosaurs. Just ask any paleontologist.That doesn't look very scary! More like a... six-foot turkey!
Try to imagine yourself in the Cretaceous Period. You get your first look at this "six foot turkey" as you enter a clearing. He moves like a bird, lightly, bobbing his head. And you keep still because you think that maybe his visual acuity is based on movement like T-Rex - he'll lose you if you don't move. But no, not Velociraptor. You stare at him, and he just stares right back. And that's when the attack comes. Not from the front, but from the side -- from the other two 'raptors you didn't even know were there. Because Velociraptor is a pack hunter, you see, he uses coordinated attack patterns, and he's out in force today. And he slashes at you with this: a six-inch retractable claw, like a razor, on the the middle toe. He doesn't bother to bite your jugular like a lion, say. No, no, he slashes at you here... or here... or maybe across the belly, spilling your intestines. The point is... you are alive when they start to eat you. So you know... try to show a little respect.
|
A Saurian Shaman would not be able to use this boon.But birds are dinosaurs. Just ask any paleontologist.
Seriously though, There's not really a leg to stand on denying a ranger (or anyone) of any archetype this boon. The chronicle is pretty clear that it simply adds a creature to the allowed list of animal companions. I don't see why there is such a pervasive trend of searching for reasons to not let players do things. It might just be a function of the sort of discourse that comes to the forums, but it it troubling nonetheless. Part of the DM's job is to facilitate the players accomplishing what they want character-wise, not searching through raw to find ways to screw them over because "I don't like such and such". /end rant
Except that this is an archetype the person chose that restricts the types of animal companions a ranger can choose from. Sure, it may get added to the general list, but then the "Archetype Filter" comes in and removes a bunch of them. Archetypes also gain other powers to balance this out. In this case the point is moot.
In the case of the Bear Shaman, it is not.
RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
Sure, it may get added to the general list, but then the "Archetype Filter" comes in and removes a bunch of them.
Or does the Archetype filter down the list first, and THEN the boon comes along and adds to the SPECIFIC list?
And more importantly, how do you know?
|
|
A Saurian Shaman would not be able to use this boon.But birds are dinosaurs. Just ask any paleontologist.
Seriously though, There's not really a leg to stand on denying a ranger (or anyone) of any archetype this boon. The chronicle is pretty clear that it simply adds a creature to the allowed list of animal companions. I don't see why there is such a pervasive trend of searching for reasons to not let players do things. It might just be a function of the sort of discourse that comes to the forums, but it it troubling nonetheless. Part of the DM's job is to facilitate the players accomplishing what they want character-wise, not searching through raw to find ways to screw them over because "I don't like such and such". /end rant
Except that this is an archetype the person chose that restricts the types of animal companions a ranger can choose from. Sure, it may get added to the general list, but then the "Archetype Filter" comes in and removes a bunch of them. Archetypes also gain other powers to balance this out. In this case the point is moot.
In the case of the Bear Shaman, it is not.
Archetypes modify classes, and thus essentially becomes the class.
So you would be a Ranger (Falconer) or Druid (Bear Shaman). You would also be correct in calling yourself simply a Falconer or Bear Shaman.
That’s the class. Those classes (modified by archetype) have specific animal companion lists they can take.
The boon adds to the list, regardless how you got the list.
It may not make much sense that a Bear Shaman could take an
But to be honest, anyone who has specific class abilities tied to an animal type, taking the
So let them take it if they want to.
|
|
A Saurian Shaman would not be able to use this boon.But birds are dinosaurs. Just ask any paleontologist.
Seriously though, There's not really a leg to stand on denying a ranger (or anyone) of any archetype this boon. The chronicle is pretty clear that it simply adds a creature to the allowed list of animal companions. I don't see why there is such a pervasive trend of searching for reasons to not let players do things. It might just be a function of the sort of discourse that comes to the forums, but it it troubling nonetheless. Part of the DM's job is to facilitate the players accomplishing what they want character-wise, not searching through raw to find ways to screw them over because "I don't like such and such". /end rant
Except that this is an archetype the person chose that restricts the types of animal companions a ranger can choose from. Sure, it may get added to the general list, but then the "Archetype Filter" comes in and removes a bunch of them. Archetypes also gain other powers to balance this out. In this case the point is moot.
In the case of the Bear Shaman, it is not.
Archetypes modify classes, and thus essentially becomes the class.
So you would be a Ranger (Falconer) or Druid (Bear Shaman). You would also be correct in calling yourself simply a Falconer or Bear Shaman.
That’s the class. Those classes (modified by archetype) have specific animal companion lists they can take.
The boon adds to the list, regardless how you got the list.
It may not make much sense that a Bear Shaman could take an ** spoiler omitted **
But to be honest, anyone who has specific class abilities tied to an animal type, taking the ** spoiler omitted ** would be detrimental to both the character and...
As Jiggy pointed it, it depends on if you think the archetype filter occurs before the boon modifies the companion list or after. I am of the mindset that the archetype precludes this being added. You are of a differing opinion. Therefore, table variation will occur and anyone who wants to take this boon as a Bear Shaman or other type AC-limiting class will need to take that into account.
Thanks for the input, folks. After reading it over and talking with one of the local organizers/store owners, we've decided that it should be safe to use the reward with the archetype until there is a more official ruling on the situation. It was actually not an argument until I mentioned that "Bird" has a specific definition in the rules rather than being a general type or subtype.
That said, the archetype is clearly designed around the Bird entry for druid animal companions, and the exchange causes some interesting side effect with the features. Particularly Swooping Charge. Especially swooping charge.
...I wonder how expensive it is to have consistent access to flight items/spells by 6th level for an animal companion?
|
RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
Hey, it's consistent if you spend enough money on it! Stock up on 5 of them (3,750gp) and use one per fight. Then, depending on how many fights you have, you buy back up to 5 after the scenario.
See? That's totally consistent. ;)
I'm sure at 6th level and up he can afford to spend a couple thousand gold each scenario, and spend his first round in every combat getting his bird to fly.
...Right?
|
Just my two cents ...
Y'all are looking at it in the wrong light, I think. There's not a "which is applied first" scenario. The Archetype is permanent. Regardless of if the boon came first or second or 2,367th, the Archetype makes it birds only. Ever. For any reason.
You get it added to the list. ... cool. And then the Archetype makes it irrelevant. I don't really see it as in the archetype only modifies your list at one point in time. You can only have one type of AC.
You see, this is where I'm having issues with actually making the change. I'm seeing both potential readings (having been playing in too many different games and dealing with time-stamp rules and other nonsense) and do have at least one point to make with this.
First thing's first. Here's the feature in question. Emphasis is mine.
This ability functions like the druid animal companion ability (which is part of the nature bond class feature), but the falconer must take the bird animal companion, and that companion has only half the normal hit points.
And here's a parsed exact text from the Chronicle sheet, emphasis again mine:
My reading of this is as follows. The Falconer archetype has a class feature that gives them access to an animal companion that progresses as such. It also creates a restriction as to the choice of animal companion - the character's only legal choice for animal companion is the "Bird." The Chronicle sheet, in turn, states that it is an addition to "...your list of legal and available companions." As such, is it reasonable to believe that this specific note renders the axe beak both AVAILABLE and LEGAL.
Now, in a home game, this wouldn't be a worry. I would say that the Feathered Companion feature would even preclude me from taking the Giant Vulture companion (Bestiary 3), or other obviously bird-of-prey type companions, on the grounds that they are not a "Bird." But that is an argument for the general rules forums and not the Pathfinder Society General forums.
RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16
|
Folks,
A medium-sized cavalier has a mount that progresses like an animal companion, but is explicitly restricted to either a horse or a camel. An axe beak is neither a horse nor a camel. We're all good with the boon allowing a cavalier to take an axe beak, right?
I am curious about the various beast shaman druid archetypes. A boar shaman, for example, gets either a boar as an animal companion, in which case there are advantages, or any other druid animal companion, in which case the AC is substantially weaker. So does the boon add an axe beak to the list of more powerful companions, or less powerful companions?
|
RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
I am curious about the various beast shaman druid archetypes. A boar shaman, for example, gets either a boar as an animal companion, in which case there are advantages, or any other druid animal companion, in which case the AC is substantially weaker. So does the boon add an axe beak to the list of more powerful companions, or less powerful companions?
I was going to try to give input on this, but then I looked at the text, and I see nothing about getting to pick a non-boar. Did I miss something?
|
RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
The people who wrote the boon apparantly forgot about the existence of the Falconer archetype.
Someone who wants to wiggle this into their Falconer, I really have to ask why they took that archetype in the first place. Quite frankly I think Falconer rangers should be given one of the following two options so that we don't get something that's completely screwball.
1. Retain the archetype and use the axebeak as a standard mount the way any other class can.
2. Be allowed to drop the archetype, become a standard ranger, and take the axebeak as a new allowed companion.
But... why? What problem are you solving with those solutions? Why not let the Falconer have an Axebeak?
|
RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16
|
I was going to try to give input on this, but then I looked at the text, and I see nothing about getting to pick a non-boar. Did I miss something?
Nope. Don't know what I was thinkin':
A boar shaman who chooses an animal companion must select an boar.
So, a boar shaman with this boon must pick either a boar or an axebeak, yes?
|
RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
A boar shaman who chooses an animal companion must select an boar.So, a boar shaman with this boon must pick either a boar or an axebeak, yes?
Yep. He has a class feature which grants an animal companion, so "axebeak" gets added to his list of legal and available companions. (That list is now "boar and axebeak" instead of just "boar".)
Same with the Falconer. He has a class feature that grants him an animal companion, so the axebeak gets added to his list of available/legal companions.
And LazarX, I agree that it violates the flavor. But that doesn't have to be a bad thing, and it's certainly not grounds for making extra rules and workarounds.
|
RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
As it was also brought out the Falconer is not the only case here. The Shamanic Druids are a bunch of others. And they're even a worse violation of archetype.
Yeah, but who cares? So someone has an off-beat, nonstandard character. So what? Let someone have something different. I mean, you can build friggin' Captain America (or "Captain Andoren" if you prefer) with Core Rules only, and we're not adding campaign rules to get rid of that.
If it ain't broke, don't fix it. And failing to match standard flavor doesn't qualify as "broke[n]".
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The people who wrote the boon apparantly forgot about the existence of the Falconer archetype.
Or maybe they made the boon with the idea that it would get around the regular restrictions or archetypes such as the Falconer and the Shaman Druids.
Im completely backing Jiggy on this one. Really, WHY does it matter that it messes up the flavor? Why shouldnt it be allowed?
Sure would be nice to get an official word on it though... ;)
|
I'm with Jiggy on this. Regardless of flavor, if a "falconer" has the option to take an axebeak, he can choose the flavor for him is either to have it, and can explain it any way that fits his character, or he can decide it doesn't and not take it.
Having the option does not mean anything other than it is an option. There is nothing mechanically wrong with the option, other than you don't like it. If someone does like it, then more power to them and their enjoyment of the game.
|
RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
If that was the intention it should have and I belive would have made it totally clear on this.
It is totally clear. The boon says if you have any class feature that grants an animal companion (which the Falconer does), then the Axebeak becomes a legal option. There's nothing unclear about it.
It's a slippery slope when you start giving out items that dispense with major class restrictions for no particurlarly good reason.
And this is worse than, say, a boon that lets you play a freaking Tengu?
|
|
I'm with let it alone. We don't need a clarification on something that is abundantly clear.
You can get an animal companion, you get to use this boon. Period. End of Story. No restrictions necessary.
The only restrictions would be ones already built into the archetypes. Such as Swooping Charge. Unless you find a way to make your Axebeak fly, and your Axebeak takes ranks in the Fly skill, then this special skill becomes moot and you are gimping yourself by taking an Axebeak companion. To make your Axebeak fly, you are also somewhat gimping your character, because you are spending gold on potions or scrolls that you normally wouldn't have to spend.
This will be similar for many of the other "animal-specific" archetypes, where powers specifically mention that animal type by name or ability that the Axebeak doesn't have.
You want to gimp your character by taking an Axebeak? Fine.
Additionally, any communication or wildshape abilities you gain with an animal-specific archetype would not give you that communication with the Axebeak, nor let you use wildshape to take on Axebeak abilities like the animal shamans do.
Does it break the flavor of the archetype. Sure. But so what. Chances are a Bear Shaman isn't going to take the Axe Beak because the player created the Bear Shaman for a reason. They really, really love Bears. And an Axe Beak, no matter how cool, is not a Bear.