| 8 people marked this as a favorite. |
Am I reading the Animal Companion rules correctly, and an Animal Companion can't use the attack bonus from Magic Fang because it's an item bonus? Was this intentional?
Yep, "the only item bonuses they can benefit from are to speed and AC".
The lesson here is, if you want to buff an attack on an animal, you darn well better cast it on a normal animal you buy: if you get the animal free from a class feature, that'd be just wrong. If you allowed that, some people might want to take animal companions... :P
| 13 people marked this as a favorite. |
Huh. Druids gets Magic Fang on their spell lists, but they can't cast it on themselves or their animal companions. Weird.
wouldn't your animal companion gain an extra die if it's a single die attack?
Doesn't it still bump the damage up from one to two dice though? The damage boosting effect isn't an item bonus. So it's not useless, just less useful than it should be. Until your companion matures I guess.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
This is pretty sad, not sure if really intended. Magic Fang shouldn't be giving an item bonus if everything you wanna target with it is arbitrarily immune to item bonuses. I think Magic Fang could be status, or that item bonus restriction which makes no sense could be lifted. Something's gotta budge x.x
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
This is pretty sad, not sure if really intended. Magic Fang shouldn't be giving an item bonus if everything you wanna target with it is arbitrarily immune to item bonuses. I think Magic Fang could be status, or that item bonus restriction which makes no sense could be lifted. Something's gotta budge x.x
I think the item bonus restriction is pretty clearly to prevent people from decking their animal companions out in magical gear which (the devs feel) should go on a player character. I don't imagine the intent was to prevent Magic Fang, as casting on your companion would definitely be the most obvious use case for such a spell existing. Think I'll be going against RAW if that one comes up.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
If you look at the pregen druid it seems clear that whoever made that seems to think that it works on their pets. Also the wild druid basic setup in the book also lists them as taking magic fang but given it targets 1 ally means in theory they can't possibly use it on themselves. The weird thing is it really is just shillelagh for unarmed combat. The effect is basically the same and since it only works on things that are 1 dice damage it is in no way overpowered.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
If you look at the pregen druid it seems clear that whoever made that seems to think that it works on their pets.
The person that made the pregen alchemist also thought that it wasn't encumbered but was hilariously incorrect using the current numbers we have... So I'm not sure how much weight to put into an argument that starts "but the pregen...".
As to the "wild druid basic setup", there are plenty of issues brought up in the 'possible error' thread that I'm again not sure how much weight to give it: it could either be a true error, or someone could have easily thought it should work without delving into the bonus types or ally rules. It wouldn't be hard for someone, with a PF1 background, making the basic setup wind druid to THINK magic fang should fit a shape changing druid like a glove and miss the fact that people aren't their own ally anymore.
IMO, I don't see a compelling reason a druid shouldn't be able to use the spell on themselves or an animal companion: the spell would just need to codify exceptions to do it: changes "1 willing ally to "self or 1 willing ally" and to the end of the description add "Animal companions can benefit from the item bonus this spell grants."
| 7 people marked this as a favorite. |
If you look at the pregen druid it seems clear that whoever made that seems to think that it works on their pets.The person that made the pregen alchemist also thought that it wasn't encumbered but was hilariously incorrect using the current numbers we have... So I'm not sure how much weight to put into an argument that starts "but the pregen...".
As to the "wild druid basic setup", there are plenty of issues brought up in the 'possible error' thread that I'm again not sure how much weight to give it: it could either be a true error, or someone could have easily thought it should work without delving into the bonus types or ally rules. It wouldn't be hard for someone, with a PF1 background, making the basic setup wind druid to THINK magic fang should fit a shape changing druid like a glove and miss the fact that people aren't their own ally anymore.
IMO, I don't see a compelling reason a druid shouldn't be able to use the spell on themselves or an animal companion: the spell would just need to codify exceptions to do it: changes "1 willing ally to "self or 1 willing ally" and to the end of the description add "Animal companions can benefit from the item bonus this spell grants."
This how I'm ruling it, RAW be damned. PF2 is full of bad-feel secret interactions once you read the fine print. I don't like invoking rule 0, but I find elegant and intuitive gameplay should trump arbitrary balance "hacks" like this.
The same goes for Animal companion action economy. Fun > Balance, or whatever designers think "balance" is.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
IMO, I don't see a compelling reason a druid shouldn't be able to use the spell on themselves or an animal companion: the spell would just need to codify exceptions to do it: changes "1 willing ally to "self or 1 willing ally" and to the end of the description add "Animal companions can benefit from the item bonus this spell grants."
It's a minor quibble, but I think it would be cleaner to change the item bonus to a status bonus instead of stipulating a special case. I don't think a spell has any business granting item bonuses in the first place. (I haven't checked whether any other spells currently do.)
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I'm okay with companions no longer getting decked out in items, it got pretty hairy in PF1. I'd rather have their numbers set up that they can't have them but also that they don't need them because they reach the right balanced numbers naturally. (I write this without crunching numbers on how good companions actually are; just saying what I'd want the design to do.)
But the first thing you think about when you read that druids get Magic Fang is that they use it while wildshaping or on their companion. If the spell can't do that, then what is it for?
But the first thing you think about when you read that druids get Magic Fang is that they use it while wildshaping or on their companion. If the spell can't do that, then what is it for?
Clearly for the summoner Druid. /s
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
IMO, I don't see a compelling reason a druid shouldn't be able to use the spell on themselves or an animal companion: the spell would just need to codify exceptions to do it: changes "1 willing ally to "self or 1 willing ally" and to the end of the description add "Animal companions can benefit from the item bonus this spell grants."It's a minor quibble, but I think it would be cleaner to change the item bonus to a status bonus instead of stipulating a special case. I don't think a spell has any business granting item bonuses in the first place. (I haven't checked whether any other spells currently do.)
They made a very clear niche with spells that mimic magic weapons/armor/items: mage armor, magic fang, magic weapon, artistic flourish, shillelagh all have item bonuses for fear of 'stacking' with real magic items IMO. I have a feeling it'd be a REALLY hard sell to get them to change that bonus to status.
Myself, I'd hate to see those spells go status as then they wouldn't stack with your bard abilities that buff you. These are the reason I posted the suggested exceptions.
They made a very clear niche with spells that mimic magic weapons/armor/items: mage armor, magic fang, magic weapon, artistic flourish, shillelagh all have item bonuses for fear of 'stacking' with real magic items IMO.IMO, I don't see a compelling reason a druid shouldn't be able to use the spell on themselves or an animal companion: the spell would just need to codify exceptions to do it: changes "1 willing ally to "self or 1 willing ally" and to the end of the description add "Animal companions can benefit from the item bonus this spell grants."It's a minor quibble, but I think it would be cleaner to change the item bonus to a status bonus instead of stipulating a special case. I don't think a spell has any business granting item bonuses in the first place. (I haven't checked whether any other spells currently do.)
Yeah, I realized that eventually :-)
I have a feeling it'd be a REALLY hard sell to get them to change that bonus to status. Myself, I'd hate to see those spells go status as then they wouldn't stack with your bard abilities that buff you. These are the reason I posted the suggested exceptions.
Excellent points. I retract my quibble.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
They made a very clear niche with spells that mimic magic weapons/armor/items: mage armor, magic fang, magic weapon, artistic flourish, shillelagh all have item bonuses for fear of 'stacking' with real magic items IMO. I have a feeling it'd be a REALLY hard sell to get them to change that bonus to status.Yes, I agree it is not worthwhile to go down that path.
The problem isn't that Magic Fang is an item bonus.
The problem is that animal companions can't benefit from it.
Just let them have item bonuses and have some way that they aren't equipping permanent magic items for the item bonus. ATM the only one would be Amulet of Mighty Fists? Only one with item bonuses to unarmed attacks. If it's that OP, make it so they can't equip that, but could get item bonuses through other means... Or just let them do whatever.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Is the extra damage die an item bonus as well?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Magic Fang should obviously work on Animal Companions.
A related question: Since by RAW Magic Fang does not work on animal companions, who or what is it supposed to work on?
Magic Fang is starting to look like a totally useless spell.
For monks, I suppose?
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Monks, animal totem barbarians, and bite-happy goblins are the obvious answers, to me.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Magic Fang should obviously work on Animal Companions.A related question: Since by RAW Magic Fang does not work on animal companions, who or what is it supposed to work on?
Magic Fang is starting to look like a totally useless spell.
Animals you buy [Guard Dog, Riding Dog, Pack Animal, Riding Horse, Warhorse, Riding Pony, Warpony], other druids, alchemists w/ bestial mutagen, monks, sorcerers with those fancy claw focus abilities, clerics of Irori, ect.
I find it funny that it works perfectly well on a druid as long as the druid isn't the one casting the spell... 'hey rogue, you have trick magic item right? can you cast this primal spell on me from this wand. For some reason it doesn't work if I try it...'
Magic Fang should obviously work on Animal Companions.A related question: Since by RAW Magic Fang does not work on animal companions, who or what is it supposed to work on?
Magic Fang is starting to look like a totally useless spell.
Animals you buy [Guard Dog, Riding Dog, Pack Animal, Riding Horse, Warhorse, Riding Pony, Warpony], other druids, alchemists w/ bestial mutagen, monks, sorcerers with those fancy claw focus abilities, clerics of Irori, ect.
I find it funny that it works perfectly well on a druid as long as the druid isn't the one casting the spell... 'hey rogue, you have trick magic item right? can you cast this primal spell on me from this wand. For some reason it doesn't work if I try it...'
Bestial mutagen also provides an item bonus, so no help for such alchemists
Bestial mutagen also provides an item bonus, so no help for such alchemistsMagic Fang should obviously work on Animal Companions.A related question: Since by RAW Magic Fang does not work on animal companions, who or what is it supposed to work on?
Magic Fang is starting to look like a totally useless spell.
Animals you buy [Guard Dog, Riding Dog, Pack Animal, Riding Horse, Warhorse, Riding Pony, Warpony], other druids, alchemists w/ bestial mutagen, monks, sorcerers with those fancy claw focus abilities, clerics of Irori, ect.
I find it funny that it works perfectly well on a druid as long as the druid isn't the one casting the spell... 'hey rogue, you have trick magic item right? can you cast this primal spell on me from this wand. For some reason it doesn't work if I try it...'
At low levels I think it would still get you the second damage dice so not useless but still kind of limited. As written it is something you would give to another shapeshifting/wild form druid/monk/bitey goblins and the like.
If you look at the spell it is almost identical to shillelagh or magic weapon but for unarmed. Due to it not being cast ON something though I think caused the confusion so the targeting wound up being 1 ally. I think there was either some uncertainty about how a spell like that interacted with animal companions and or the ability to count yourself as an ally to cast it on. Both of the book examples of druid from the book and the pregens both have this spell on somebody who as written would have a difficult time using it to the point it would be odd that they would bother having that spell prepared unless you had a very specific group comp.
It seems pretty obvious given the name of it that it was pretty much intended for wildform druids and animal companions to give them some extra punch at very early levels.
Is there invested animal gear out there?
Yes, though not much (to date). Then again, they can't use much of it at once.
You might want to acquire items that benefit an animal or beast that assists you. These items have the companion trait, meaning they function only for animal companions, familiars, and similar creatures. If it’s unclear whether a creature can benefit from such an item, the GM decides.
Investing Companion Items
Any worn companion item needs to be invested. However, your companion needs to invest it rather than you doing so. This requires you to use the Invest an Item activity alongside your companion. A companion has an investiture limit of two items (instead of the 10-item limit a player character has).
Then it presents barding of the zephyr, collar of empathy, collar of inconspicuousness, and horseshoes of speed. A note in an much earlier section says "Barding can't be etched with magic runes," so those are the only options so far.
I'm pretty sure this is a case of specific canceling out general. Not being able to benefit from Item bonuses is a general rule for animal companions canceled out by the specific text of the spell Magic Fang.
Thats not how that specificity rule works. Magic Fang is not more specific than the animal companion rule. The spell would be more specific if it had some clause about working for animal companions, but in this case it just says it gives an item bonus. Otherwise anything that says it gives an item bonus could apply using the same logic, and the general rule is meaningless.
I don't understand why people are saying it's useless for animal companions when they still get an extra damage die from the spell as that part is not an item bonus.
I don't understand why people are saying it's useless for animal companions when they still get an extra damage die from the spell as that part is not an item bonus.
That's been mentioned multiple times (other threads included)...
... but why? I mean... if an effect grants +1 to hit and adds a damage die... and stipulates the effect is an item bonus... why wouldn't the bonus damage dice be considered also an item bonus... and if granted as part of the +hit, part of the *same* item bonus?
They do seem to read as three distinct effects of the spell to me as well. "The unarmed attack becomes a +1 striking unarmed attack, gaining a +1 item bonus to attack rolls and increasing the number of damage dice to two" Only one of those three things is called an item bonus. At least that is how I'd rule it at the table if I were to run a game.
They do seem to read as three distinct effects of the spell to me as well. "The unarmed attack becomes a +1 striking unarmed attack, gaining a +1 item bonus to attack rolls and increasing the number of damage dice to two" Only one of those three things is called an item bonus. At least that is how I'd rule it at the table if I were to run a game.
They are not distinct, the second and third are only describing what a +1 striking weapon is. That said, the striking weapon rune does not describe the extra dice as an item bonus, so I think your conclusion of keeping the damage but not the attack bonus is sound.
A bit of thread necromancy here, but there's another problem with Magic Fang, as written. Or rather, its interaction with Animal Companions. It specifically targets an unarmed strike that does 1 die of damage, and makes it magical. Animal companions' attacks only become magical when they hit 3 dice (at Nimble/Savage). So for a full-grown companion, if you are fighting something that needs the attacks to come in as Magic, you are in a weird place where it would have been better for you to be Young, so your partner Druid could enchant those attacks.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
yeah, but that's the same problem with Magic Weapon. IMHO, I think both spells should be allowed to be Heightened
Not really. If your friend already has a +1 Striking longsword, you can't enchant it further, but it's magic. A full-grown companion's attacks cannot be enchanted, and they *aren't* magical. So against something that requires magic, you are hosed.
Unless they become nimble/savage companions.
Then their attacks will be magical.
However, since the cleric spell does the same, I guess it should be obvious that magic fang would work on a companion, even if the rules say on a ally.
For some stuff this 2e really needs an errata asap.
Agree on Nimble/Savage, I mentioned that two posts up.
Magic fang works on a Young companion just fine. (Minus the issue about Item bonuses that started this thread, though I'm ignoring that as an oversight in games I run).
You mean only magical, if it's an animal companion, right? This whole thread started with how they can't use that +1 to hit.
You mean only magical, if it's an animal companion, right? This whole thread started with how they can't use that +1 to hit.
I mean, *I* think that the +1 is balanced too, even though by RAW, Animal Companions don't get it. If Paizo clarifies that no really, the AC isn't intended to get that particular +1, then fine. But regardless, I think the spell should at least get another look by the team.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
My gripe is with the overt restriction on these spells.
Let's say we're 2nd or 3rd level, running around with straight +1 weapons, as projected in the game's permanent items. That's an item bonus an Animal Companion probably isn't constantly receiving right now. And if the Animal Companion isn't cared for, it'll fall off in combat relevance shortly. (Hell, Familiars are already worthless for combat straight out of the gate! They might as well just hide and do nothing until their master dies, in which case they're free, or the encounter ends, in which case they can pop out and get another look at the world once more.)
Now, let's say someone has Magic Weapon memorized for when the big fights come and we need the damage to cut down on our losses. Normal rules would state that the Item Bonus from the spell wouldn't stack with any Item Bonus we got anyway, and having an additional dice from this spell doesn't stack with additional dice from Striking runes. But what's this? The target lines for these are non-magical items! So having a +1 weapon out is actually worse for big fights because now you can't benefit from the extra dice of the spell! Gonna have to switch to my back-up weapon just so I can actually do more overall damage, though I still might miss out due to it simply being a back-up weapon with less dice damage.
Even though the rules normally disallow stacking in the first place, the added target restrictions make it dumb to have +1 weapons in fights if you are expecting Magic Weapon/Fang/Whatever cast on you, even though normally, you want those magic items because they make your character more powerful (or more accurately, keep you up to snuff on the treadmill instead of being majorly behind). And the worst part is that the spell wordings disallow any shenanigans to begin with? Why the added restriction which creates these stupid situations of "Well, gotta use my light mace because my +1 longsword can't benefit from Magic Weapon because [reasons], that makes total sense, said no one ever," when the normal stacking rules already disallow people having +2 Greater Striking weapons by 5th level?
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
The Animal Companions in my groups will continue to benefit from Magic Fang, this seems like an oversight.
This seems like an oversight. I think I will be adding a line to magic fang indicating it works on animal companions and PCs that shapeshift. Otherwise, it is a pointless spell.
