Do Animal Companions and Familiars Gain Feats and Skill Points as They Level?

[Tathum]

The title says it all. I always thought that they did as the PCs gained in levels. But, I've seen a couple of threads here that seem to point to the contrary. So what is the 3.5 decision on this?

[Norin]

Animal companions gain feats and skills according to the hd advancement table on the druid entry.

[Fouredged Sword]

If it gains HD and has an Int score it gains feats and skills.

Familiars don't actually gain HD though. They just have their HP set by their owner, and are treated as having a high HD by spells and effects. They already have a fixed skill set (same as their owner) and such.

[Barsoom]

Hit Dice

For the purpose of effects related to number of Hit Dice, use the master’s character level or the familiar’s normal HD total, whichever is higher.
I wonder if an argument could be made that granting feats is an "effect related to number of hit dice".

[Fouredged Sword]

An effects is a discrete thing that happens, not a characteristic. If it said characteristic, it would be arguable to say familiars gained feats, but it says effects.

It is referring to things like holy word, not feats.

[Deophaun]

Familiar abilities are, however, included under "effects." A familiar with the fiendish template, for instance, will get the benefits of the fiendish template based on its virtual HD.

But yeah, no additional feats or skill points.

[Arael666]

I wonder if an argument could be made that granting feats is an "effect related to number of hit dice".

You mean like the SRD states?


A monster’s total Hit Dice, not its ECL, govern its acquisition of feats and ability score increases.


As its Hit Dice increase, a creature’s attack bonuses and saving throw modifiers might improve. It gains more feats and skills, depending on its type, as shown on Table: Creature Improvement by Type.

[Snowbluff]

I wonder if an argument could be made that granting feats is an "effect related to number of hit dice".


You mean like the SRD states?

I've heard it both ways. Too bad I've never had to rule on it. None of my players even bother.

[Rubik]

Animal companions do, explicitly, as mentioned. Familiars don't gain HD, so they don't.

Unlike familiars, however, psicrystals do gain actual HD, so they, too, gain feats and ability score increases. Also, medium BAB, as per constructs.

[The Viscount]

It's bizarre that the rules are so vague, as even in core alone we have familiars like the viper, with a poison DC that scales with HD. I feel like RAI was supposed to be just stuff like sleep and the like, but it gets really nebulous with stuff like fiendish template.

[Urpriest]

Animal Companions, though, are as uncontroversial as it can get. They explicitly gain Hit Dice, and the only way to notice that and not realize they get feats is to not know how Hit Dice work and how basic they are to the game at large. If you aren't familiar with that, I suggest reading my Monster Handbook, link in sig.

[Deophaun]

It's bizarre that the rules are so vague, as even in core alone we have familiars like the viper, with a poison DC that scales with HD. I feel like RAI was supposed to be just stuff like sleep and the like, but it gets really nebulous with stuff like fiendish template.
Viper's poison DC is based on size, not HD, so vipers receive no bonus from virtual HD.

[Snowbluff]

Viper's poison DC is based on size, not HD, so vipers receive no bonus from virtual HD.
Wrong.

The save DCs are Constitution-based.

It does correlate size, but is not affected by size. The DCs are actually decided by the HD and the Constitution modifier of the creature. The reason why Size appears to be the causation is because the HD of the serpent increases with size.

[Deophaun]

Wrong.
It helps if you quote the whole thing before you call someone wrong.

A viper snake has a poisonous bite that deals initial and secondary damage of 1d6 Con. The save DC varies by the snake’s size, as shown on the table below. The save DCs are Constitution-based.
So yes. It is based on size and Constitution. It is not based on the standard 10 + 1/2 HD + Con, because the entry says its based on size and Con.

[Snowbluff]

It does not contradict the rule then stats that it follows it. You can break up the DCs of the viper's poison to come back the formula that they have no reason to suddenly not use.

[Deophaun]

It does not contradict the rule then stats that it follows it. You can break up the DCs of the viper's poison to come back the formula that they have no reason to suddenly not use.
And this is a big "so?" RAW says the viper's DCs vary by size. RAW says "most saving throws against special abilities have DCs calculated as follows," not "all saving throws." RAW says if you cast enlarge animal on a small viper, it's going to get a better poison DC. RAW says that viper familiars aren't going to get a bonus to their poison DC due to HD (sorry for those who wanted one to farm poison off of). Hmm... maybe they did have a reason for it after all.

[Snowbluff]

And this is a big "so?" RAW says the viper's DCs vary by size. RAW says "most saving throws against special abilities have DCs calculated as follows," not "all saving throws." RAW says if you cast enlarge animal on a small viper, it's going to get a better poison DC. RAW says that viper familiars aren't going to get a bonus to their poison DC due to HD (sorry for those who wanted one to farm poison off of). Hmm... maybe they did have a reason for it after all.

Except the table does not stat that DC is based on size, but that it varies with it. It does nothing to state the causation of the DC.

[Crake]

And this is a big "so?" RAW says the viper's DCs vary by size. RAW says "most saving throws against special abilities have DCs calculated as follows," not "all saving throws." RAW says if you cast enlarge animal on a small viper, it's going to get a better poison DC. RAW says that viper familiars aren't going to get a bonus to their poison DC due to HD (sorry for those who wanted one to farm poison off of). Hmm... maybe they did have a reason for it after all.

by this reasoning an advanced 18 HD huge snake would still only have a DC of 14 on it's poison, when that's quite clearly not going to be the case.

The table is simply a way of listing the individual sizes' DC, but they otherwise follow the formula of 10+1/2 HD+con modifier.

[Barsoom]

English language and logic to the rescue. "Varies by size" is not the same as "depends directly on size". It's true that a larger snake has a higher save DC than a smaller one, but not because of the size. Just because it has more HD (and possibly higher Con).

[Deophaun]

by this reasoning an advanced 18 HD huge snake would still only have a DC of 14 on it's poison, when that's quite clearly not going to be the case.
Why? Do you have an example of an advanced 18 HD huge snake in the MM somewhere?

English language and logic to the rescue. "Varies by size" is not the same as "depends directly on size". It's true that a larger snake has a higher save DC than a smaller one, but not because of the size. Just because it has more HD (and possibly higher Con).
Price varies by weight.
Mileage varies by speed.

English language says "by" is a perfectly fine synonym for "depends." You might have other factors, but "varies by size" means that the creature is not following the 10 + 1/2 HD + Con rule for poison.

[SiuiS]

Familiar abilities are, however, included under "effects." A familiar with the fiendish template, for instance, will get the benefits of the fiendish template based on its virtual HD.

But yeah, no additional feats or skill points.

Neat!


Animal Companions, though, are as uncontroversial as it can get. They explicitly gain Hit Dice, and the only way to notice that and not realize they get feats is to not know how Hit Dice work and how basic they are to the game at large.

Yup.


And this is a big "so?" RAW says the viper's DCs vary by size.

No, it really says that the presentation of the monster will have Different dCsfor each size, but it doesn't say why not does it invalidate the standing formula. It's explaining the fallout from a size increase in direct heuristic because when used as a monster that's all that matters.


by this reasoning an advanced 18 HD huge snake would still only have a DC of 14 on it's poison, when that's quite clearly not going to be the case.

Of course not. Making it huge would increase is constitution, thus boosting the DC.


Why? Do you have an example of an advanced 18 HD huge snake in the MM somewhere?[/auote]

Do we have an example of a snake who is larger but without increased hit dice and constitution? Cuts both ways.

[quote]
English language says "by" is a perfectly fine synonym for "depends." You might have other factors, but "varies by size" means that the creature is not following the 10 + 1/2 HD + Con rule for poison.

Then why does it reverse engineer to match the formula?

Price also varies by location, rarity, availability in that outlet, and season. Price varies by value of unit. We have a unit of measure for poison potency which maps 100% (constitution), and we have a supposed unit with no quantifiable value which may apply in some nebulous heuristic manner or may be a second degree explanation for a measurable increase by being directly related to the verifiable unit which can be understood to apply to the formula. Which makes a lot more sense, honestly.

[Deophaun]

Do we have an example of a snake who is larger but without increased hit dice and constitution? Cuts both ways.
There are four examples that are relevant to this question and to the topic at hand. There are two example characters that have familiars with templates (one with the psudeonatural, the other with the fiendish), and in both those examples, they are gaining abilities based on virtual HD. There are also two example characters with viper familiars, and neither of those have their poison DCs scale with virtual HD. Make of that as you will (example characters are not known for being rules compliant, but I do take notice of consistency).

Then why does it reverse engineer to match the formula?
It doesn't matter if it reverse engineers to match the formula in the generic case, because it's already stated beforehand that it's using a different formula.

Which makes a lot more sense, honestly.
May make a lot more sense, but RAW isn't dependent on "what makes the most sense." RAW says size and Con determine the save DC. It might suck to be a Colossal viper, but that's the rule.

[Threadnaught]

The whole discussion about a Viper's Poison DC makes very little sense to me. It's like saying a Dragon's Breath Weapon DC relies on it's Age Category and Con, because it states in the Dragon entries that Dragons of different Age Catagories have different DCs for their Breath Weapons.

In both cases, the higher DCs are given to the creatures with the most HD and highest Con. Let me just quote that bit there...


Breath Weapon (Su)

Using a breath weapon is a standard action. Once a dragon breathes, it can’t breathe again until 1d4 rounds later. If a dragon has more than one type of breath weapon, it still can breathe only once every 1d4 rounds. A blast from a breath weapon always starts at any intersection adjacent to the dragon and extends in a direction of the dragon’s choice, with an area as noted on the table below. If the breath weapon deals damage, creatures caught in the area can attempt Reflex saves to take half damage; the DC depends on the dragon’s age and variety, and is given in each individual entry. Saves against nondamaging breath weapons use the same DC; the kind of saving throw is noted in the variety descriptions. The save DC against a breath weapon is 10 + ½ dragon’s HD + dragon’s Con modifier.

So it pretty much states the same thing as the Viper's Poison when it comes to the Save DC.

[Barsoom]

"varies by size" means that the creature is not following the 10 + 1/2 HD + Con rule for poison.Logic flaws aside, all the vipers actually are following the 10 + 1/2 HD + Con rule for poison, as a quick readthrough of the MM shows. So I'm not really sure what your argument is, if any.

[TuggyNE]

It doesn't matter if it reverse engineers to match the formula in the generic case, because it's already stated beforehand that it's using a different formula.

May make a lot more sense, but RAW isn't dependent on "what makes the most sense." RAW says size and Con determine the save DC. It might suck to be a Colossal viper, but that's the rule.

OK, can you demonstrate that "size" here means only "physical size category of the specimen" and not "listed pre-statted examples at various sizes named solely with size and general name"? Because I strongly suspect it's the latter; "varies by size" means "the statted-up entries, which follow the usual rules, have different DCs as expected".

In other words, it's a quick-reference, nothing more.

[SiuiS]

There are four examples that are relevant to this question and to the topic at hand. There are two example characters that have familiars with templates (one with the psudeonatural, the other with the fiendish), and in both those examples, they are gaining abilities based on virtual HD. There are also two example characters with viper familiars, and neither of those have their poison DCs scale with virtual HD. Make of that as you will (example characters are not known for being rules compliant, but I do take notice of consistency).

Okay.


It doesn't matter if it reverse engineers to match the formula in the generic case, because it's already stated beforehand that it's using a different formula.

May make a lot more sense, but RAW isn't dependent on "what makes the most sense." RAW says size and Con determine the save DC. It might suck to be a Colossal viper, but that's the rule.

See, I think it does matter if this specific example follows the general rule, because if we have two conflicting things, the one which comes up once and never again is the wrong one. In this case, size, which is said to increase DC but cannot be demonstrated to do, has no quantity associated with it and is not given actual rules written anywhere (which is what RAW is...) is likely the wrong one where the supportable formula is not.

More clearly, RAW says "it varies by size" and that doesn't say the Con formula isn't used, because using the con formula makes it vary by size. "It varies by size" is "your hair is red", but it doesn't say why your hair is red. The interpretation "snake venom uses a different formula entirely" is not RAW, because it contradicts the rules as written, has no back up and requires interpretation of a statement which needn't contradict the standing accepted parameters.

RAW is a false idol, especially in cases such as this where the rules as written REQUIRE interpretation. RAW means nothing.


OK, can you demonstrate that "size" here means only "physical size category of the specimen" and not "listed pre-statted examples at various sizes named solely with size and general name"? Because I strongly suspect it's the latter; "varies by size" means "the statted-up entries, which follow the usual rules, have different DCs as expected".

In other words, it's a quick-reference, nothing more.

Exactly. The bit on dragons is more conclusive, if one were inclined to relieve in a holistic system. But it could be used either way, so until someone makes an argument I have to consider this rather settled.