| 1 person marked this as FAQ candidate. |
The choices for the Animal Ally feat are identical to the list for the Hunter's Bond ranger class feature; frankly I don't know why the feat doesn't just say "from that list".
The problem is, it *doesn't* say that, and now there's a whole slew of new animal companions for rangers in Ultimate Wilderness.
Those should be allowed with Animal Ally, right? That's entirely reasonable, right?
For a home game(not PFS) i would feel fine with it as a decision. (i'm the DM)
Contributor
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
It may have been intentional. I don't know if I've talked about option lists and inclusivity/exclusivity on here at all, but from a design perspective, it's fascinating stuff. In any case, Animal Ally grants what it grants, and no more.
Personally speaking, in my campaigns, I generally ignore the list for both Animal Ally and ranger... having a flavorful option takes precedence over a list for me. The only "power option" I know of that's not on the list already is cat (big).
Yeah, basically as long as a player isn't trying to pick a creature with pounce or flying it's probably not something I'm going to worry about as a GM. The ones with pounce or flying are a little too good if they're not normally on your list, but anything else is okay (from my perspective as a GM).
|
Contributor
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Fair point - I might also side-eye something like roc.
Fun sort-of on-topic story: I spent a few hours the other night trying to figure out how to get a (full-BAB, nonspellcaster) gnome character with a faerie mount in PFS. (Which I eventually did.)
Yeah...Roc is one of the best animal companions you can have, especially if you're not worried about damage output of the companion.
I played a archer ranger and my GM allowed me to take a Roc. It was devastating, and I probably shouldn't have kept the Roc. I was virtually unassailable from non-magical threats.