"Animal companions with more than one
natural attack and only primary natural attacks can’t take
a companion archetype that trades out Multiattack." for the Ultimate Wilderness pg. 186 Companion archtypes.
So if I understand this line correctly an cat (big or small) cannot take archtypes like Bully, Bodyguard, Daredevil, or Wrecker, Because they trade out multiattack & all their attacks are prinary. WHY??? These all fit my thinking of the cat companions anyway.
Muliattack is already a wasted ability for them (unless I have missed something). Anybody else see this or am I just crazy?
Haven't seen the book yet, but it sounds like it's because it's a wasted ability for them. Letting them trade it out is giving them a freebie, which for some reason is not only bad but unthinkable. The better fix would be to make multiattack do something useful for N-primary-attacks critters and let them trade it out.
|
This is also my doubt.
Most Animal Companions who only have primary attacks can not take benefit from Multiattack. Only for those who have two primary attacks, they can make an extra attack with -5 AB.
If my companion has three or more attacks, it take no benefit from Multiattack and it can not select those archetype that trades out Multiattack. I don't know why.
|
What are you going on about?
They lose the class feature multiattack.
Big cats have every attack as a primary, they don't benefit from the Multiattack class feature, and can make all their attacks without the feature.
You can absolutely take any archetype on them
Julien, I don't think you know how multiattack actually works
It either helps creatures that have both primary and secondary natural attacks by reducing the penalty on secondary attacks to -2, or it let's a creaure with a only single primary attack and no other attacks make a second primary attack with the same part (at -5).
It does nothing for creatures with 2+ primary attacks
But the animal companion still gains the ability RAW and can trade it out to take an archetype
Also, a 5 year necrobump for bad info. Wow. Not worth it. Someone call the palidans on this necromancer
I don't know what you're on about Name, but the text from multi-attack itself reads "Multiattack: An animal companion gains Multiattack as a bonus feat if it has three or more natural attacks and does not already have that feat. If it does not have the requisite three or more natural attacks, the animal companion instead gains a second attack with its primary natural weapon, albeit at a –5 penalty." meaning Julien was correct. (It may just be one of my house rules, but I believe a dev also clarified even that animals with 3+ and all primary natural attacks even get the -5 extra attack, meaning even a big cat would get say 2 bites, one with -5, and 2 claws.) Note this is different than just the normal multi-attack feat alone that a monster might take.
Also, as the OP posted back in 2017, there is a direct rules quote from UW, that animal companions that wouldn't benefit from the multiattack ability (barring my previous suspicions about no animals actually not gaining no benefit) cannot trade it out via an archetype.
|
Name Violation, I don’t think you read the thread properly. It is an explicit rule from Ultimate Wilderness that animal companions with
a) More than one primary natural attack -and-
B) No secondary natural attacks
cannot take an archetype that trades out Multiattack.
The question is “why?”
The answer can be stated a couple of different ways, but comes down to the fact that Multiattack is a balancing factor. It deliberately does nothing for companions that meet those conditions. That’s on purpose. Allowing an animal companion that gets no benefit from Multiattack to trade it out in archetype would be effectively giving them something for nothing.
We may not like it, but it’s deliberate balance by the designers.
It's awkward, because it's not a clarification, it's a rules change. And it's a rules change in an obscure part of an unpopular book. I wouldn't expect most tables to even know this is a thing.
As for why to do it? It's just balancing, but it feels like an unnecessary balance. In this late stage of Pathfinder development, many bad ideas were made in the name of balance, with being fun and interesting relegated to the bottom of concerns.
|
|
It's awkward, because it's not a clarification, it's a rules change. And it's a rules change in an obscure part of an unpopular book. I wouldn't expect most tables to even know this is a thing.
"Unpopular" is. . . well, actually it probably is a correct descriptor. Though I think you can probably point at the fact that everyone knew PF2 was coming as a reason UW didn't get widely bought or used.
As for why to do it? It's just balancing, but it feels like an unnecessary balance. In this late stage of Pathfinder development, many bad ideas were made in the name of balance, with being fun and interesting relegated to the bottom of concerns.
Yeah, as a player who had a 10th level Totem Guide (white) tiger (who I played as the spirit of a pavbagha sent by Irori to advise my Sacred Huntmaster), I was very annoyed when this change was made.
As a GM, however, I'm generally OK with balancing changes. Paizo's philosophy throughout 1E was that hardcover books got more and better design and development passes. So if a hardcover picked up material from an earlier softcover, the hardcover would be the "fully refined" version. Link.
|
|
Name Violation, I don’t think you read the thread properly. It is an explicit rule from Ultimate Wilderness that animal companions with
a) More than one primary natural attack -and-
B) No secondary natural attacks
cannot take an archetype that trades out Multiattack.The question is “why?”
The answer can be stated a couple of different ways, but comes down to the fact that Multiattack is a balancing factor. It deliberately does nothing for companions that meet those conditions. That’s on purpose. Allowing an animal companion that gets no benefit from Multiattack to trade it out in archetype would be effectively giving them something for nothing.
We may not like it, but it’s deliberate balance by the designers.
Not gonna lie. I've never seen point b before.
Guess I learned something new today.|
|
I don't know what you're on about Name, but the text from multi-attack itself reads "Multiattack: An animal companion gains Multiattack as a bonus feat if it has three or more natural attacks and does not already have that feat. If it does not have the requisite three or more natural attacks, the animal companion instead gains a second attack with its primary natural weapon, albeit at a –5 penalty." meaning Julien was correct. (It may just be one of my house rules, but I believe a dev also clarified even that animals with 3+ and all primary natural attacks even get the -5 extra attack, meaning even a big cat would get say 2 bites, one with -5, and 2 claws.) Note this is different than just the normal multi-attack feat alone that a monster might take.
Also, as the OP posted back in 2017, there is a direct rules quote from UW, that animal companions that wouldn't benefit from the multiattack ability (barring my previous suspicions about no animals actually not gaining no benefit) cannot trade it out via an archetype.
Yes, that's exactly my question.
May I have the Link of the OP's post?
I don't know what you're on about Name, but the text from multi-attack itself reads "Multiattack: An animal companion gains Multiattack as a bonus feat if it has three or more natural attacks and does not already have that feat. If it does not have the requisite three or more natural attacks, the animal companion instead gains a second attack with its primary natural weapon, albeit at a –5 penalty." meaning Julien was correct. (It may just be one of my house rules, but I believe a dev also clarified even that animals with 3+ and all primary natural attacks even get the -5 extra attack, meaning even a big cat would get say 2 bites, one with -5, and 2 claws.) Note this is different than just the normal multi-attack feat alone that a monster might take.
Also, as the OP posted back in 2017, there is a direct rules quote from UW, that animal companions that wouldn't benefit from the multiattack ability (barring my previous suspicions about no animals actually not gaining no benefit) cannot trade it out via an archetype.
Yes, that's exactly my question.
May I have the Link of the OP's post?
Try scrolling up...? Unless you mean some other OP, or what I was referring to about a dev comment, which I don't have off the top of my head.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I think the writers of this rule really phoned it in. Just because an AC has 3 or more primary attacks and no secondary attacks doesn’t mean they can’t make use of multiattack. Any AC with a head, arms, or legs can make an unarmed strike and any subsequent natural attacks would be secondary and therefore benefit from multiattack. Likewise a primate animal companion can make attacks with weapons be they manufactured or improvised and again any additional natural attacks would benefit from it. They don’t need feats, abilities, or even INT 3+ to make weapon attacks or unarmed strikes they just need to be pushed to do so with Handle Animal. The rule also completely ignores the fact that the number and type of natural attacks a companion has is not fixed. Any number of things can change this. Evolved companion feat, Fleshcrafting, and magical items can add/remove primary and secondary attacks. Even a limb amputation from combat can alter them. Just because an animal companion can’t benefit from multiattack at level one when archetypes are taken doesn’t mean it won’t benefit later in its career. It also doesn’t address what happens if an eligible AC later becomes ineligible later on. This rule in my opinion is shortsighted and stupid and I choose to ignore it in my games. That said if you’re playing PFS then you’re out of luck because it does seem to be RAW.
|
|
is there any place i can find this rule about not getting/trading multiattack on Archives of Nethys? i dont see it mentioned under animal companions or their archetypes.
just "Multiattack: An animal companion gains Multiattack as a bonus feat if it has three or more natural attacks and does not already have that feat. If it does not have the requisite three or more natural attacks, the animal companion instead gains a second attack with one of its natural weapons, albeit at a –5 penalty."
my search-fu is weak right now
Might be hard if you don’t have Ultimate Wilderness. Not a hundred percent sure it’s even on AoN. The rule was placed in the text before the list of archetypes in that book I believe. It may not have made it onto AoN.
|
|
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
By the way, it's interesting to note that even PFS (normally a more restrictive play environment) decided to ignore the rule at the heart of this thread
Ultimate Wilderness - Companion Archetypes: Animal companions can trade out the multiattack ability when qualifying for an archetype, even if multiattack does not benefit them; this is a campaign-specific decision that contradicts the details on page 186.
By the way, it's interesting to note that even PFS (normally a more restrictive play environment) decided to ignore the rule at the heart of this thread
Ultimate Wilderness - Companion Archetypes: Animal companions can trade out the multiattack ability when qualifying for an archetype, even if multiattack does not benefit them; this is a campaign-specific decision that contradicts the details on page 186.
Wow! You know a rule is too restrictive, when even PFS thinks it's a bad idea. I can't even think of another instance of this happening.
|
|
By the way, it's interesting to note that even PFS (normally a more restrictive play environment) decided to ignore the rule at the heart of this thread
Ultimate Wilderness - Companion Archetypes: Animal companions can trade out the multiattack ability when qualifying for an archetype, even if multiattack does not benefit them; this is a campaign-specific decision that contradicts the details on page 186.
Good to know.
You would think if they were going to make a rule like this they would have made one that states you can’t take an archetype that swaps out Share Spells on classes without spellcasting as that seems more exploitative.
|
|
You would think if they were going to make a rule like this they would have made one that states you can’t take an archetype that swaps out Share Spells on classes without spellcasting as that seems more exploitative.
Can you give an example of a class like this? The only class I can think of that gets a companion but no spells is the cavalier, and that companion already does not get the share spells feature. (And therefore can’t take an archetype that swaps it out.)
Any ranger archetype that trades spells, any paladin archetype that trades spells, fighters can take familiars apparently, and so on.
|
|
Might be hard if you don’t have Ultimate Wilderness. Not a hundred percent sure it’s even on AoN. The rule was placed in the text before the list of archetypes in that book I believe. It may not have made it onto AoN.
so the rule isnt in the online prd, AND PFS ignored it...
well now i dont feel so bad about not hearing it before
Mad Dog Barbarian, Mounted Fury Vigilante, and Wild Child Brawler are 3 examples of archetypes with animal companions that do not possess spellcasting. There are probably more but these are the ones that came to mind.
Also any archetype of Samurai that has a mount.
For that matter ANY class can take the Animal Ally feat and still take an archetype that swaps out Share Spells.
|
|
I agree with two main complaints being voiced here:
1) The animal companion archetype multiattack "problem" is a problem that didn't need fixing.
2) If you are going to ban "something for nothing" for one case, you should ban it for all cases.
I will write a slight defense of the designers on point 2, though. Some things are a lot easier to explicitly spell out than other things. If you just write "an animal companion can't take an archetype if they would be trading out an ability that doesn't benefit them" then that is really vague. You'd have all kinds of arguments about what is a "benefit," variants on "well, you could have taken this feat which would have made it a benefit" and edge case after edge case. Trokarr pointed out above an edge case where multiattack could, in fact, be considered to benefit my tiger.
-The unarmed strike would provoke
-The natural attacks would all be taking -5 to hit (-2 with Multiattack)
-The natural attacks would only get half the strength bonus to damage
But I could do it, so multiattack would technically have a positive use for me in that case. I don't think it's an overall benefit to me, but that wouldn't stop someone from arguing that it is.
So writing a general "no something for nothing" rule is just leaving it up to the GM (which it already is). Even in the case of specific abilities, it would be complicated. If you blocked companions whose masters don't have spellcasting from trading Share Spells, you also have to block the master from ever taking levels in a class that grants a companion and spells.
Again, I agree that the whole multiattack rule in UW was unnecessary, but I can see why they didn't try to expand it.
|
|
Also any archetype of Samurai that has a mount.
Samurai mounts, like cavaliers', do not get the share spells ability in the first place and therefore cannot take an archetype that trades it out.
Those archetypes you mentioned, and Animal Ally, do get Share Spells for their companions despite not having spellcasting. I figured there probably were some archetypes of spellcasting classes that get Share Spells.
I think it’s worth noting that you can’t take the Animal Ally feat unless you do not have levels in a class that grants an animal companion and the Share Spells feature ONLY works with spells cast from classes that grant animal companions. By default the Share Spells feature is a dead feature with Animal Ally. The ONLY way to make use of it is to take levels in a spellcasting class that grants an animal companion AFTER you have acquired the companion and chosen any archetype you wish. It’s doubly stupid to ban archetypes that swap out a class feature that is at least marginally useful yet allow archetypes that swap out a class feature that is dead by default.
Are we reading the same feat? Alternately, has there been a FAQ to the feat in question? I'm asking sincerely, because what you are positing here conflicts with the way my GM and I have handled an active character of mine.
Prerequisites: Nature Soul, character level 4th, must not have an animal companion or mount that advances as an animal companion. (emphasis mine)
Benefit: You gain an animal companion as if you were a druid of your character level –3 from the following list: badger, bird, camel, cat (small), dire rat, dog, horse, pony, snake (viper), or wolf. If you later gain an animal companion through another source (such as the Animal domain, divine bond, hunter’s bond, mount, or nature bond class features), the effective druid level granted by this feat stacks with that granted by other sources.
I don't see anything in that description that disqualifies a Paladin who chose to take a Divine Bond with his weapon, or a Ranger who (for whatever reason) chose a Hunter's Bond with his companions, from taking the Animal Ally feat.
|
|
. . .or a Ranger who (for whatever reason) chose a Hunter's Bond with his companions. . .
Hey, don’t go badmouthing bonding with companions! Even without one of the archetypes that add extra abilities to the bond, those bonuses can be pretty awesome. Especially since the book that caused this thread (Ultimate Wilderness) introduced Improved Hunter’s Bond and Greater Hunter’s Bond.
he said you can’t take Animal Ally if you have a class that grants an animal companion.
You are saying you can take Animal Ally if your classes don’t grant an Animal Companion.
I don’t see a real disagreement/contradiction here.
If the prereq actually was "no levels in a class that grants an animal companion", any Paladin levels would prevent one from taking Animal Ally. That would make the feat significantly different.
The animal companion archetype multiattack "problem" is a problem that didn't need fixing.
I disagree. The underlying problem is how horribly balanced animal companions are to begin with: There is no tradeoff for big cat, because animals max out at three attacks (apart from very rare exceptions), and thus you don't actually have to decide between different strengths and weaknesses.
With UW's nerf, you at least have a decision to make if you want one of the respective archetypes - pounce, or the archetype. It may not be well done, but at least the idea behind it is sound.
he said you can’t take Animal Ally if you have a class that grants an animal companion.
You are saying you can take Animal Ally if your classes don’t grant an Animal Companion.
I don’t see a real disagreement/contradiction here.
With respect, “you can’t take the Animal Ally feat unless you do not have levels in a class that grants an animal companion” and “must not have an animal companion” are two different things.
If you have an archetype that swaps out the animal companion or mount class feature then you do not possess levels in a class that grants an animal companion or mount. The same is true in reverse if you take an option or archetype that grants an animal companion or mount on a class that normally does not possess one. Levels in Oracle is not a class that grants an animal companion or mount unless you take a revelation that grants one (primal companion and bonded mount specifically). Levels in Feral Hunter is a class that does not grant an animal companion. If you your chosen class/archetype gives you an animal companion then you possess levels in a class that grants an animal companion. If your class/archetype does not grant an animal companion then you do not possess levels in a class that grants an animal companion. It is entirely irrelevant if possessing or not possessing an animal companion/mount is the NORM for that class. I stand by my previous statement. I do believe there is an FAQ that confirms this however I do not have the time to go hunting for it at the moment.
You keep talking about "levels in a class that grants an animal companion or mount", why? That's not the prereq. What does or doesn't count as "a class that grants an animal companion or mount" is utterly irrelevant for the topic.
I stand by my previous statement.
Then you lack the intellectual honesty to admit having been wrong.
That you just needed a eight line paragraph to explain what "levels in a class that grants an animal companion or mount" even is shows how inappropriate and unclear that phrase is, and also perfectly shows why it isn't used by the feat.
“Share Spells (Ex): The druid may cast a spell with a target of “You” on her animal companion (as a spell with a range of touch) instead of on herself. A druid may cast spells on her animal companion even if the spells normally do not affect creatures of the companion's type (animal). SPELLS CAST in this way must come from a CLASS that GRANTS an ANIMAL COMPANION. This ability does not allow the animal to share abilities that are not spells, even if they function like spells.”
Now here’s a quote of what I said “I think it’s worth noting that you can’t take the Animal Ally feat unless you do not have levels in a class that grants an animal companion and the Share Spells feature ONLY works with SPELLS CAST from CLASSES that GRANT ANIMAL COMPANIONS.” My point was about share spells not the prerequisites for Animal Ally.
That said unless I’m mistaken the only way I know of to gain an animal companion WITHOUT taking levels in a class that grants one is WITH Animal Ally so it would no be possible to gain an animal companion/mount WITHOUT taking levels in a class that grants an animal companion or mount.
Yes that was the point I was trying to make thank you. Sorry if I was unclear.
Phoebus wrote “I don't see anything in that description that disqualifies a Paladin who chose to take a Divine Bond with his weapon, or a Ranger who (for whatever reason) chose a Hunter's Bond with his companions, from taking the Animal Ally feat.” The point I was TRYING (unsuccessfully it seems) with my “8 line paragraph” was that even IF the prerequisites of Animal Ally contained the phrase “you must not have levels in a class that grants an animal companion” the 2 examples listed by Phoebus would not be considered as levels in a class that grants an animal companion anyways because they chose different options.
I would like to point out that I never said that “NOT possessing levels of a class was that grants an animal companion or mount” was a prerequisite of animal ally I said that “you can’t take the Animal Ally feat unless you do not have levels in a class that grants an animal companion” this was meant as a practical observation on reliable methods of gaining an animal companion because (other than the Eldritch Heritage route which some people find contentious) the only other reliable way of gaining an animal companion is through taking levels in a class that grants one. NOBODY was talking about the prerequisites for Animal Ally previous to this. I guess I could have chosen my wording a bit better but I didn’t think my a phrase I wrote making an entirely separate point would be so taken out of context.
Yes that was the point I was trying to make thank you. Sorry if I was unclear.
It's less that you were unclear, and more that you said something wrong even, even though the overall point you were making was correct. You're entirely right that an AC gained from Animal Ally can never benefit from Share Spells, and yet can trade out the ability for an archetype. But you also made the statement "I think it’s worth noting that you can’t take the Animal Ally feat unless you do not have levels in a class that grants an animal companion", and this statement is factually wrong (or requires eight lines of notes).
Phoebus Alexandros didn't make his post in an attempt top school you, but rather because he was genuinly confused as a result of your factually wrong statement. That is why I spoke out.
Your point was that if you got an Animal Companion through the Animal Ally feat, Share Spells is a dead feature. And that’s a valid comment no matter how obtuse people want to be.
No one is trying to be obtuse, Lelomenia. I asked a question in good faith purely on the basis of a character I'm playing and what was stated by Trokarr, above.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
When I said that “I think it’s worth noting that you can’t take the Animal Ally feat unless you do not have levels in a class that grants an animal companion and the Share Spells feature ONLY works with spells cast from classes that grant animal companions” I was paraphrasing the prerequisites NOT making an off-hand rules pronouncement on the prerequisites of the Animal Ally feat as the prerequisites of the feat were tangential to the point I was making. It is regrettable that Phoebus Alexandros took this paraphrasing as a direct quote of the prerequisites. However barring 3rd party content and the Eldritch Heritage/Sylvan Bloodline method of acquiring an animal companion (which I deliberately did not mention as that has been heavily debated due to the fact that the power that grants the companion also swaps out the Sylvan Bloodline Arcana and I didn’t want an argument about that to pop up in this thread.) what I said was FUNCTIONALLY accurate as TO MY KNOWLEDGE the only other way to gain an animal companion is by taking levels in a class that grants one.
Now I don’t think that Phoebus Alexandros was being obtuse and I recognize that he had a legitimate question about what I said. It seemed to me that he was operating from an incorrect assumption that my paraphrasing of the prerequisites would somehow exclude classes that possess animal companions as a NORM who then swap out their animal companions or mounts for other features. In my “8 line paragraph” I was trying to convey to him that classes that usually have animal companions that swap those features out no longer count as classes that grant animal companions/mounts and by either my paraphrasing or a strict legalistic reading of the prerequisites they then DO qualify to take the Animal Ally feat. My INTENTION was to clarify things not to cause more confusion.
It's almost as if we need to stop paying attention to only RAW and start looking at valid interpretations of publisher's intent, only question is, whose interpretation...
The well informed GM of the game in question.