Chronicle Specific question disambiguation for Quest for Perfection.*spoilers*

[Silverhand]

The design team has made this FAQ ruling regarding stacking mount levels by class:

Mount level Stacking.

Here is the most pertinent line:

FAQ says wrote:

If the animal is on the cavalier mount list and on the list of animal companions for your other class, your cavalier and druid levels stack to determine the animal's abilities.

It essentially states that if the mount is on both classes legal mount list, then the levels of mount stack.

My question for PFS application:

spoiler:

The Chronicle for Quest For Perfection Part 3 gives the character access to an axebeak mount. If the character was a Samurai upon receiving this boon, then multiclassed into Paladin - would the levels of Axebeak mount stack? In other words, does the chronicle apply to the character as a whole, to the class she was when she earned the boon, or does the axebeak mount get added to both legal mount lists simultaneously and therefore stack automatically?

Please advise.

[Patrick Harris @ MU]

the chronicle wrote:

If you possess a class feature which permits you to take an animal companion or a mount that progresses as an animal companion, you may add the axe beak to your list of legal and available companions.

Since there's no limitation, it will apply to all of the classes on that character, and therefore stack.

[Silverhand]

Patrick Harris @ MU wrote:

the chronicle wrote:

If you possess a class feature which permits you to take an animal companion or a mount that progresses as an animal companion, you may add the axe beak to your list of legal and available companions.

Since there's no limitation, it will apply to all of the classes on that character, and therefore stack.

I agree with you. I'm hoping for an official ruling, as I foresee this coming up at a PFS session rather soon. :)

[Bbauzh ap Aghauzh]

They would stack, as the animal appears on both class lists.

[Patrick Harris @ MU]

You're unlikely to get an official ruling that says "Yes, the text says what it says."

[Silverhand]

Fair enough. :)
Thanks kindly.

[Nefreet]

I don't see the confusion. Can you elaborate?

EDIT: nevermind.

[The Morphling]

Patrick Harris @ MU wrote:

You're unlikely to get an official ruling that says "Yes, the text says what it says."

It is a sad, sad fact that such rulings would actually help many members of these forums.

[Silverhand]

The Morphling wrote:

Patrick Harris @ MU wrote:

You're unlikely to get an official ruling that says "Yes, the text says what it says."

It is a sad, sad fact that such rulings would actually help many members of these forums.

I doubt you intended your post to sound condescending but...it kind of does. :) As you'll see below, it's not really "sad" that I needed to seek clarification. :)

Just to give you some background as to why I'd ask such a question:

1) I perused the issue of stacking Druid levels with Cavalier levels in this forum here:

here.

The result of this discussion? An official FAQ for all PFS play! Not bad!

2) I then perused a related issue here:

here

This discussion garnered an official ruling from the design team. Again, not bad!

Note please that these questions were debated by very experienced players and even senior writers for Paizo. You can see one example here:

here

I'm aware that Mr. Jacobs is a lore expert (not a rules expert per se), but my point is - if someone so experienced can have a differing view, then the issue can't be a cut-and-dry one. :)

Regardless, with all this new, official knowledge in hand, I wanted to ensure both the PFS rulings and the Design team rulings line-up regarding this specific Chronicle sheet. Hence, I asked the question here on the PFS rules thread. A logical move, I think. :)

Anyway - now you know why clarification was sought.

[The Morphling]

Silverhand wrote:

The Morphling wrote:

Patrick Harris @ MU wrote:

You're unlikely to get an official ruling that says "Yes, the text says what it says."

It is a sad, sad fact that such rulings would actually help many members of these forums.

I doubt you intended your post to sound condescending but...it kind of does. :) As you'll see below, it's not really "sad" that I needed to seek clarification. :)

It wasn't directed at you. Your question was reasonable.

It is, however, unashamedly condescending to a lot of people on the forums who deserve condescension - usually on the Rules Questions forum, where people ask questions like "Hi, this feat says <X> but I think if I pretend it says <Y> my GM will let me do <Z>. Is this legal?"

[Silverhand]

The Morphling wrote:

It is, however, unashamedly condescending to a lot of people on the forums who deserve condescension - usually on the Rules Questions forum, where people ask questions like "Hi, this feat says <X> but I think if I pretend it says <Y> my GM will let me do <Z>. Is this legal?"

Fair point. Perhaps I'm overly sensitve. :) Thanks for the clarification.

[The Morphling]

Silverhand wrote:

The Morphling wrote:

It is, however, unashamedly condescending to a lot of people on the forums who deserve condescension - usually on the Rules Questions forum, where people ask questions like "Hi, this feat says <X> but I think if I pretend it says <Y> my GM will let me do <Z>. Is this legal?"

Fair point. Perhaps I'm overly sensitve. :) Thanks for the clarification.

I don't blame you. It's nearly impossible to tell context from just reading someone's post in text format.