Can you give an animal companion vow of poverty?

[maniacalmojo]

I am unsure the exact restrictions on what an animal companion can have and for a non player helper a VOP could.. work?


Thoughts?

[sleepyphoenixx]

Animals are neutral, so no. You can get Exalted Companion to get a good animal companion and it can then take VoP.

[maniacalmojo]

So if you make it exaulted and get say a blink dog, it can take VOP?

If i have a blink dog what feats should i get for it?

[Red Fel]

If you can get its Con higher, consider letting it take Shape Soulmeld. Give it a Totemist soulmeld, for a bonus extra natural weapon. Open Chakra if you want to give it binds.

[Ellowryn]

You can, but i would recomend against it. the point of the feat is to give the celestial template to any normal animal you can get which gives it 3 int allowing it to get VoP. VoP, unless you take one of the many homebrew fixes, scales off of HD so you will lose out on HD in the end due to the loss of effective druid level unless you can spare a feat for Natural Bond.

[Zombulian]

Cmon guys. The OP can spare a feat on Natural Bond. Who wouldn't when the bonus is that you get a VoP polar bear, or fleshraker, or whatever.

[Chronos]

Strictly speaking, you can't give an animal companion any feat: It's an NPC, and chooses them itself (or rather, the DM chooses them). The player is free to request particular feats, but the DM is likewise free to refuse. Personally, I'd allow feats like Improved Natural Attack, Multiattack, or Power Attack, that mesh smoothly with how an animal usually behaves, but I don't think I'd allow VoP... but then, that's just me, and your DM might decide differently.

[Hand_of_Vecna]

As far as I can tell Animals are in fact locked into Neutral Alignment. This disqualifies Animal Companions, but not Familiars or Paladin's Mounts. Due to a lack of body slots and the fact that they aren't normally entitled to a share of treasure and have to leech gold from their associated PC, it's a very strong option for them.

While you're there you might also consider Touch of Golden Ice if they have a 3+ natural attack routine.

[sleepyphoenixx]

Strictly speaking, you can't give an animal companion any feat: It's an NPC, and chooses them itself (or rather, the DM chooses them). The player is free to request particular feats, but the DM is likewise free to refuse. Personally, I'd allow feats like Improved Natural Attack, Multiattack, or Power Attack, that mesh smoothly with how an animal usually behaves, but I don't think I'd allow VoP... but then, that's just me, and your DM might decide differently.

You have Speak with Animals and your companion is loyal to you. You're also assumed to be training it (see tricks) so that reasoning doesn't really hold up.
There's a very simple reason for dissallowing it: Animal Companions do not get a share of treasure. They don't have anything to give up.
The only way i'd allow VoP on an animal companion is the druid taking it too. It is RAW-legal though with Exalted Companion so YMMV.

[MeeposFire]

If you can get its Con higher, consider letting it take Shape Soulmeld. Give it a Totemist soulmeld, for a bonus extra natural weapon. Open Chakra if you want to give it binds.

Sadly there are very few (I can think of only one) soulmelds that give extra natural attacks without getting access to totem chakras (which you cannot get from a feat) and that is a dragon related one (which requires you to make your animal companion dragon blooded).

However there are many other things of worth that you can get with soulmelds with your animal companions but natural weapons probably isn't one of them.

[sleepyphoenixx]

What feats to take depends on the animal. The big cats generally do well with Leap Attack and other charging feats. Combat Reflexes is also an option especially if you increase their attack range.
Mage Slayer, Pierce Magical Protection and Pierce Magical Concealment are also useful.

In general they do well with most feats you'd also put on a fighter, as long as you don't need Int to qualify.

[Zombulian]

As far as I can tell Animals are in fact locked into Neutral Alignment. This disqualifies Animal Companions, but not Familiars or Paladin's Mounts. Due to a lack of body slots and the fact that they aren't normally entitled to a share of treasure and have to leech gold from their associated PC, it's a very strong option for them.

While you're there you might also consider Touch of Golden Ice if they have a 3+ natural attack routine.

Which is why you take the Exalted Companion feat. Pay attention now!

[KillianHawkeye]

We had a guy in our party who tried this. He was a VoP Ranger, and he had some kind of awakened animal companion who also took VoP.

The DM for that game let him get away with that, but in my opinion it shouldn't have been allowed because all of the AC's equipment should have been coming out of the PC's loot share to begin with, therefore not being able to equip your animal companion is one of the costs of taking VoP and you shouldn't be able to get around it by letting your AC also take VoP.



That guy doesn't play with us anymore because he turned out to be a huge jerk. :smallannoyed:

[Zombulian]

We had a guy in our party who tried this. He was a VoP Ranger, and he had some kind of awakened animal companion who also took VoP.

The DM for that game let him get away with that, but in my opinion it shouldn't have been allowed because all of the AC's equipment should have been coming out of the PC's loot share to begin with, therefore not being able to equip your animal companion is one of the costs of taking VoP and you shouldn't be able to get around it by letting your AC also take VoP.



That guy doesn't play with us anymore because he turned out to be a huge jerk. :smallannoyed:

The big issue here is that the Ranger shouldn't have been able to have an Awakened companion. It automatically disqualifies them in the spell description. Unless you meant he took the Exalted Companion feat that gave his AC the Celestial template and therefore more int.
Why did a Ranger have VoP anyway? I think if he's taken the feat tax of Exalted Companion and the power loss of VoP, his AC should be allowed to get VoP.
Though none of my argument applies to being a big jerk.

[ArqArturo]

I think animals need to be smart to pull this off. They also need to have HD to get feats.

My take on this would be the next:

Druid level 3.- Exalted companion (the table explicitly states that the druid's AC level is -1 for all AC abilities). Animals with the fastest route for VoP-dom are wolves (2hd at lvl 1), riding dogs (2hd), Camels and Horses (both have 3HD, could take VoP on the spot), and the Swindlespitter dinosaur (2hd). Now, these are the critters I have the info right here with me, so there might be more.
Druid level 4.- 2HD-1HD animals can take VoP because of the extra 2HD they get.

[KillianHawkeye]

The big issue here is that the Ranger shouldn't have been able to have an Awakened companion. It automatically disqualifies them in the spell description. Unless you meant he took the Exalted Companion feat that gave his AC the Celestial template and therefore more int.
Why did a Ranger have VoP anyway? I think if he's taken the feat tax of Exalted Companion and the power loss of VoP, his AC should be allowed to get VoP.
Though none of my argument applies to being a big jerk.

Uh... I'm a little fuzzy on the details. It was a Cave Ankylosaurus animal companion, which was later awakened by the party Druid. I don't think it was Celestial, but I'm not 100% sure about that. Anyway, the guy tried to con some decent barding onto his AC with the excuse that it belonged to the ankylosaurus and not to the PC, but when that didn't fly with his VoP he instead gave the AC it's own VoP and somehow got away with that until we finally made him leave (on account of other things that happened).

Anyway, my opinion is that a PC's animal companion should have to suffer the effects of Vow of Poverty since they are, awakened or not, basically an extension of the character. Like I said, I wouldn't have allowed it, but I wasn't the DM for that game....

[Ellowryn]

Forcing the animal companion, or cohort or familiar, to abide by the rules of VoP would be fine if they gained the benefit of it too.

[KillianHawkeye]

Forcing the animal companion, or cohort or familiar, to abide by the rules of VoP would be fine if they gained the benefit of it too.

That's exactly where I disagree. But that's me. YMMV.

[Brookshw]

You have Speak with Animals and your companion is loyal to you. You're also assumed to be training it (see tricks) so that reasoning doesn't really hold up.
There's a very simple reason for dissallowing it: Animal Companions do not get a share of treasure. They don't have anything to give up.
The only way i'd allow VoP on an animal companion is the druid taking it too. It is RAW-legal though with Exalted Companion so YMMV.

Frankly I agree with chronos and since you seem to be using handle animal as an argument, I don't see anything in it allowing it to impact feats, its strange to consider handle animal and speak with animal in tandem and were using a certain abstract/existential element, well, by raw its questionable, and by rai I wouldnt blink if the dm threw a book at you. Last time this came up on the forum it ended up being inconclusive though a large part of that had to do with retraining.

[eggynack]

You can, but i would recomend against it. the point of the feat is to give the celestial template to any normal animal you can get which gives it 3 int allowing it to get VoP. VoP, unless you take one of the many homebrew fixes, scales off of HD so you will lose out on HD in the end due to the loss of effective druid level unless you can spare a feat for Natural Bond.
I think you're overestimating the degree to which the companion is behind. Exalted only puts a given animal a single level behind progression, and animal companions don't tend to be that far behind the druid in HD. As some examples, a level 8 druid can have a 6 HD brown bear or fleshraker, and a level 11 druid can have an 8 HD polar bear or even an 11 HD giant constrictor if they want. Other levels can leave the companion further behind, but not that much, and the companion is still getting a significant chunk of abilities.

Frankly I agree with chronos and since you seem to be using handle animal as an argument, I don't see anything in it allowing it to impact feats, its strange to consider handle animal and speak with animal in tandem and were using a certain abstract/existential element, well, by raw its questionable, and by rai I wouldnt blink if the dm threw a book at you. Last time this came up on the forum it ended up being inconclusive though a large part of that had to do with retraining.
I don't think the retraining half came up all that inconclusive last time, and on the animal companion's choice point, it seems more relevant than handle animal that we're dealing with an intelligent creature that's driven by the desire to be as good as possible, which apparently has some sort of connection to poverty, and more importantly, by the desire to help you do stuff. The animal companion is presumably exalted, after all.

[Brookshw]

I don't think the retraining half came up all that inconclusive last time, and on the animal companion's choice point, it seems more relevant than handle animal that we're dealing with an intelligent creature that's driven by the desire to be as good as possible, which apparently has some sort of connection to poverty, and more importantly, by the desire to help you do stuff. The animal companion is presumably exalted, after all.

Retraining came up distinguishing monster levels and character levels and wasn't definitively resolved. Exhalted does not equal a fiscal policy, its a potential element and nothing more, not an intrinsic one. There's no raw supporting animal companions having wealth in the first place. Handle animal teaches tricks, not feats. The alternative is nothing more than projected assumptions. I don't care if your game allows them but I don't blame a dm for saying, "yeah, no, not happening".

[Coidzor]

If you can get its Con higher, consider letting it take Shape Soulmeld. Give it a Totemist soulmeld, for a bonus extra natural weapon. Open Chakra if you want to give it binds.

There's only one totemist meld/bind that gives a natural weapon without requiring either the dragon blood subtype or being bound to the Totem Chakra which isn't acquirable via the Open X Chakra feat line. It's a Dragon Magazine meld relating to Chaos Rocs (IIRC, it's Chaos Roc Mantle), which gives two nonlethal wing (buffet?) attacks with Reach and then binding to Shoulders makes them do lethal damage.

Shape Soulmeld is still good, though. Urskan Greaves and Thunderstep Boots are both good to add a few extra damage dice on a charge, especially for a pouncer. There's a couple of bindsmelds that will make grapplers even better at grappling.


The big issue here is that the Ranger shouldn't have been able to have an Awakened companion. It automatically disqualifies them in the spell description. Unless you meant he took the Exalted Companion feat that gave his AC the Celestial template and therefore more int.

Well, that houserule even made it into OotS, IIRC, so there's that, I suppose, for what little it's worth.

I can't recall if the Giant said anything as to whether that was due to misremembering that part of the rules or if he called it an explicit houserule from the get-go, though. Probably somewhere in the repository of things he's said about the comics though.

[sleepyphoenixx]

Frankly I agree with chronos and since you seem to be using handle animal as an argument, I don't see anything in it allowing it to impact feats, its strange to consider handle animal and speak with animal in tandem and were using a certain abstract/existential element, well, by raw its questionable, and by rai I wouldnt blink if the dm threw a book at you. Last time this came up on the forum it ended up being inconclusive though a large part of that had to do with retraining.

Speak with Animals only applies to normal animal companions anyway. Celestial animals are magical beasts. They also get Int 3 and thus speak a language, making the spell unnecessary.

The point i was making is that you can clearly communicate with your animal companion either way.
The druid is also expected to train the animal - he's teaching it tricks. That's a fact unless you're arguing that the DM selects the tricks the animal knows.
I see no compelling argument why that training doesn't include the animals skill points and feats, since that is what skills and feats represent - training.
In the case of an exalted (intelligent) companion, all you have to do is ask it. It's still your animal companion and thus completely loyal to you. It's not a cohort.

I can understand a DM saying that he doesn't want certain feats on an animal companion. In that case i expect him to come out and say it though and not hide behind questionable justifications.

On Exalted Companion: The animal companion doesn't lose a HD. It just gets the bonus HD 1 level later. Since the last pre-epic bonus HD come at level 18 you lose nothing in a full 20 level build. The bigger cost is the feat since Celestial Creature doesn't really add all that much on its own and the other companion options aren't really superior to the normal choices either.

[eggynack]

Retraining came up distinguishing monster levels and character levels and wasn't definitively resolved.
I recall the argument, but I thought I came out reasonably ahead on it in the end. In any case, there's definitely no issue with just picking VoP up normal-style.


Exhalted does not equal a fiscal policy, its a potential element and nothing more, not an intrinsic one.
I'm not even sure what that means. This is a celestial animal companion, which means both goodness and sufficient intelligence to make decisions not motivated by pure instinct.


There's no raw supporting animal companions having wealth in the first place.
And there is equally no RAW supporting that impacting the animal companion taking VoP.

Handle animal teaches tricks, not feats.
Handle animal isn't really a component of my argument, especially as it probably doesn't even work on this magical beast.

The alternative is nothing more than projected assumptions. I don't care if your game allows them but I don't blame a dm for saying, "yeah, no, not happening".
I'm not really making any assertions about what should be allowed, but rather that it would generally be allowed in a game following RAW. If we're talking personal opinions though, I don't think the combo is necessarily powerful enough to justify banning. I think it's a solid setup, but druid feats are great, and it's not even going to be worth taking a good amount of the time.

[sleepyphoenixx]

Shape Soulmeld is still good, though. Urskan Greaves and Thunderstep Boots are both good to add a few extra damage dice on a charge, especially for a pouncer. There's a couple of binds that will make grapplers even better at grappling.


If your going for the Shape/bind feat combo i'd take Thunderstep Boots. Urskan Greaves and the boots without binding seem strictly inferior to Leap Attack to me (without doing the math). Leap Attack also can't be dispelled and shares a prerequisite with many good melee feats.

Girallon Arms is also an option if the animal has 2 claw attacks.

[Brookshw]

Speak with Animals only applies to normal animal companions anyway. Celestial animals are magical beasts. They also get Int 3 and thus speak a language, making the spell unnecessary. Sure, not so sure why you brought it up then.


The point i was making is that you can clearly communicate with your animal companion either way. So what, I can communicate with fanatics gained through diplomacy but it doesn't give me any grounds to choose their feats.


The druid is also expected to train the animal - he's teaching it tricks. That's a fact unless you're arguing that the DM selects the tricks the animal knows. Feats aren't tricks.


I see no compelling argument why that training doesn't include the animals skill points and feats, since that is what skills and feats represent - training. I see no RAW that supports it either. And?


In the case of an exalted (intelligent) companion, all you have to do is ask it. It's still your animal companion and thus completely loyal to you. It's not a cohort. There's no RAW for it is why.


I can understand a DM saying that he doesn't want certain feats on an animal companion. In that case i expect him to come out and say it though and not hide behind questionable justifications. There's no RAW supporting you being able to in the first place, why do they need to justify why you can't do something questionable in the first place?



I recall the argument, but I thought I came out reasonably ahead on it in the end. In any case, there's definitely no issue with just picking VoP up normal-style. Other than the whole there's no RAW for making the choices. Not so sure you actually came out ahead either.



I'm not even sure what that means. This is a celestial animal companion, which means both goodness and sufficient intelligence to make decisions not motivated by pure instinct. So what? You can be exhalted without VoP so VoP has no bearing just because it's an exhalted companion, it's just one potential outcome.


And there is equally no RAW supporting that impacting the animal companion taking VoP. Not really relevant, if there's no RAW on both sides there's no RAW, that's no license to say "well it doesn't say I can't". Silence on a matter is not RAW. You know this.


I'm not really making any assertions about what should be allowed, but rather that it would generally be allowed in a game following RAW. If we're talking personal opinions though, I don't think the combo is necessarily powerful enough to justify banning. I think it's a solid setup, but druid feats are great, and it's not even going to be worth taking a good amount of the time. You just acknowledged there's no RAW and now you're talking about following RAW. Loaded language such as "justify banning" only works if it's RAW legit to begin with. Curmudgeon has had a lot of great RAW points on the matter of companions and cohorts.

If we're talking personal opinions I'd suggest the DM consider the party balance before making the call.

[sleepyphoenixx]

There's also no RAW stating that the DM chooses feats/skills for animal companions.

[eggynack]

So what? You can be exhalted without VoP so VoP has no bearing just because it's an exhalted companion, it's just one potential outcome.
Yes, you can, but this is your animal companion, with whom you have a presumably friendly relationship, and you also presumably have aligned goals. I don't really see why the animal companion would say no after being told that this feat would simultaneously further their good nature, and be awesome for them.


Not really relevant, if there's no RAW on both sides there's no RAW, that's no license to say "well it doesn't say I can't". Silence on a matter is not RAW. You know this.

That doesn't follow. The default is that creatures can take whatever feats they want. After that, limitations are put in place, generally in the form of prerequisites, though there are additional limits on exalted feats. None of the limits within the feat VoP stop a celestial companion from taking it.


You just acknowledged there's no RAW and now you're talking about following RAW. Loaded language such as "justify banning" only works if it's RAW legit to begin with. Curmudgeon has had a lot of great RAW points on the matter of companions and cohorts.
I acknowledged that there's no RAW as concerns animal companions having wealth, but acknowledged no other not-RAW. Realistically, the only thing stopping you is the companion saying no, and I don't see a reason they would. It looks like an all upside situation for them.


If we're talking personal opinions I'd suggest the DM consider the party balance before making the call.

I suppose, though we're in odd territory given that we're talking about a druid here. It could be argued that there is no situation where druids should be allowed and where VoP companions should be banned.

[AugustNights]

There's also no RAW stating that the DM chooses feats/skills for animal companions.

The animal companion is an NPC, and there is RAW stating that the DM chooses feats/skills for the NPCS.

[Brookshw]

Yes, you can, but this is your animal companion, with whom you have a presumably friendly relationship, and you also presumably have aligned goals. I don't really see why the animal companion would say no after being told that this feat would simultaneously further their good nature, and be awesome for them. That's not an argument for RAW, its an argument for "I think it should work this way".



That doesn't follow. The default is that creatures can take whatever feats they want. After that, limitations are put in place, generally in the form of prerequisites, though there are additional limits on exalted feats. None of the limits within the feat VoP stop a celestial companion from taking it. Saying something doesn't follow isn't evidence that it doesn't. A feat is chosen, sure, but its not the players call, they can suggest or request but its not in their purview.



I acknowledged that there's no RAW as concerns animal companions having wealth, but acknowledged no other not-RAW. Realistically, the only thing stopping you is the companion saying no, and I don't see a reason they would. It looks like an all upside situation for them. Not RAW (and even RAW technically) is up to the DM. I can easily say a companion might want a displacement item, or an ioun stone, or one of many other alternatives. This is an irrelevant point.

]

[eggynack]

That's not an argument for RAW, its an argument for "I think it should work this way".
I suppose that's accurate enough, though I think it's less that it should work that way, than that's just how things make logical sense.


Saying something doesn't follow isn't evidence that it doesn't. A feat is chosen, sure, but its not the players call, they can suggest or request but its not in their purview.
Your argument that it's not RAW doesn't follow, at least as it applies to animal companions being capable of taking the feat, which you seemed to be arguing against.

[StreamOfTheSky]

I did the Exalted Companion + it takes VoP on its own thing. Seemed fine to me, not overpowered at all... The AC gets very few feats as it is, spending two of them on VoP *is* a cost. And almost all of the VoP benefits are defensive. I also don't think it's fair to say this sentient creature (it's now a magical beast w/ Int 3) is forced to abide by your choice of vow (can't give it magic items) but in turn is not allowed to make the vow itself.

Took me a while to convince my DM to allow it, once he did and I gave my AC VoP....nothing broke.

[Fax Celestis]

Can it take the feat?

Sure can. It can meet all of the requirements (not mindless, so you don't even need to boost its int), and it becomes the appropriate alignment with Exalted Companion.

If we're going to argue that an animal companion is an NPC, then I should also point out that there are separate WBL rules for NPCs in the DMG, which the companion should follow. And if that is the case, then it should be able to take Vow of Poverty to forgo those WBL guidelines.

The alternative is that an Animal Companion isn't an NPC and is instead a class feature, in which case it doesn't receive WBL but is under the complete discretion of the player.

Unless you'd like to tell me that the DM should control all particular class features? Does he choose which spells the Druid prepares daily? Select which feats the fighter takes? Choose the rogue's skill point allocation?

[MeeposFire]

This argument is really off topic in this case. The question that the OP gave us was not whether the player or the DM makes the choice about what feat the animal picks. That is irrelevant. Since the question came up in this campaign either the player gets to choose the feat in this case or the DM may allow it assuming it is a valid choice and may take the suggestion under consideration (and if the DM says no it does not matter anyway).

The question was whether an animal companion could have VoP and the answer is yes though you typically need to spend a feat on exalted companion or otherwise find a way to get your animal companion a good alignment.

Now if the OP then asks who gets to choose the feat then this discussion is on topic but for now that really isn't important. However the OP also asked what feats you would take so...

I would take touch of golden ice and the feat that makes your natural attacks good aligned as two of your exalted feats. I also have a soft spot for nymph's kiss since it gives extra skill points but that isn't as needed on an animal companion.

[Brookshw]

Your argument that it's not RAW doesn't follow, at least as it applies to animal companions being capable of taking the feat, which you seemed to be arguing against.

My position is that I agree with Chronos and that every argument offered is erroneous and/or personal preference/opinion.

[Chronos]

Note that, even if it is the DM's choice, the DM is perfectly within the rules (without even invoking Rule 0) to allow it. It can't hurt to ask. And it probably is more reasonable if the PC also has Vow of Poverty.

In practice, I'd expect the process to be more like the player choosing feats with the advice and consent of the DM, and then the DM officially approving them, since the DM has enough other things to worry about than looking up a bunch of feats to choose from for an animal. But the DM could still just say "Your animal gets Toughness, Toughness, and more Toughness".

Oh, and I think that if this is approved, Touch of Golden Ice is kind of a no-brainer for one of the resulting exalted feats, even if the companion only has one natural attack. Even PCs run out of worthwhile exalted feats pretty quickly, and a lot of those won't be of much value on an animal. ToGI, though, has nonzero usefulness for anything which makes natural attacks. Vows of chastity, purity, and obedience might also be worthwhile, albeit somewhat boring.