Weird Exalted Question

[AvatarVecna]

A creature with Int 3, Wis 14, and Cha 10 can legally choose their own feats by virtue of having at least 3 Int (I think). Exalted animals/magical beasts/humanoids/outsiders/whatever can take Exalted feats, provided they make sense. Animals and similar creatures can benefit from magic items, although they rarely do. How...unreasonable is it to give an Exalted Animal Companion the Vow Of Poverty feat? On the one hand, the creature is giving up the opportunity to ever benefit from magic items, and because they're animals they also can't benefit from most mundane gear allowed by the vow, just by default. On the other hand, the companion isn't really giving up a cut of the loot because it's an animal, and doesn't really have goods/resources to give away to charity. On the third hand, if the companion is helping the party out in combat more than a dedicated combat class (a problem sometimes faced by fighters competing with animal companions), maybe the companion should get a cut of the loot? On the fourth hand, it's a class feature of another character, "it's share" is part of that character's share. On the fifth hand, maybe the companion could give services away to charity in some weird fashion, as part of following the vow? On the sixth hand...


...so, yeah, I'd like to hear opinions on this, namely for 3 questions:
1) Irrespective of fluff or balance, is it rules-legal?
2) Irrespective of legality or fluff, is it balanced?
3) Irrespective of legality and balance, does it fit the fluff well enough?

[eggynack]

1) Irrespective of fluff or balance, is it rules-legal?
Probably. The best argument I've seen against its functioning is that animal companions might not get access to the VoP advancement stuff because they don't get character levels. I've seen it claimed that HD actually does qualify, but I dunno what the citation for that is.


2) Irrespective of legality or fluff, is it balanced?
Relative to what? If the animal companion could just take VoP without any effort, then the answer would likely be no. A druid can do better things with their cash than beefing up their animal companion, so sticking VoP on one is a pretty big upgrade, and a relatively free one at that. It wouldn't be precisely game rending, but it's a meaningful advantage. But this maneuver costs a feat (as well as an animal companion level), so we have to ask how this compares to other druid feats. And, of course, that question in turn depends on what druid feats you're willing to use/have access to.

I'm inclined to think it's not super imbalanced, because the list of superior feats is pretty long. The three major wild shape feats, aberration, dragon, and exalted, are better (and frozen has a decent claim to superiority in its pertinent level range). Both major summoning feats, greenbound and rashemi, are better. Some initiate feats are better (gatekeeper and olidimarra, I think, are especially good). Natural bond and companion spellbond, I dunno. Those'd be the main points of comparison, but they obviously synergize with this plan, natural bond especially. Natural bond might be better though, especially relatively early. Either way though, the list of better or comparable feats is pretty long.


3) Irrespective of legality and balance, does it fit the fluff well enough?
Maybe? I'm not fluff dude, but there's not all that much forswearing going down here. There obviously is a sense in which the animal companion is giving up cash though. Consider that we'd never ask this question as regards some peasant that never really intends to accumulate cash. It's certainly iffy though.

[Darrin]

1) Irrespective of fluff or balance, is it rules-legal?


Yes.

Int score of 3 is recognized by the rules as having full sentience and self-determination. However, some DMs may require that feat choices made for an animal companion must be approved by the DM, or may insist that the DM chooses the feats rather than the player.



2) Irrespective of legality or fluff, is it balanced?


Error: Invalid Type Argument.

Optimization levels are going to vary wildly not only from group to group but from player to player. Even when the type of group or players and their system mastery are all well-established, it's impossible to predict if one player picking this option on a particular PC is going to create balance problems.

That being said... in *most* groups this may get you a raised eyebrow or some light grumbling, but most animal companions tend to be underpowered and could use the boost. It may feel unbalanced if the animal companion is overshadowing the frontline meatbags, but chances are if you've got a Druidzilla going full GODMODE in a group of casual players, then there are probably much larger balance issues to deal with than the animal companion.



3) Irrespective of legality and balance, does it fit the fluff well enough?

Undetermined.

Fluff is going to boil down to personal taste. The feats and vows introduced in BoED were intended for players who want to play morally righteous or devoutly pious characters. Animal companions aren't entirely player-controlled, and aren't always considered a "character" in their own right. But any creature with an Int of 3 is considered sentient enough to make their own moral choices, so it stands to reason that any creature that is devout and good-natured may have advancement options available that support their belief system.

I think what you may be asking is, "Does this break credibility that my animal companion, which doesn't really own anything anyway, should get advantages and benefits essentially for free without suffering any costs or consequences?" For me personally, I'd say "No, go for it," but other DMs/groups may disagree.

[liquidformat]

This is known cheese that is mentioned inside of some druid handbooks and is RAW legal but will often get books, dice, and other such stuff thrown at you if your group is going stupid cheese op.

Since the player is often using at least some of their wealth on their animal companion I think there is some argument for the animal companion taking it if the player gives some percent of their wealth to charity. Specifically in the case where the player has VoP it seems more reasonable for the animal companion to take it too. Really I think the whole thing comes down to fluff and how well the player uses fluff to make the whole thing reasonable.

There is a similar issue with your exalted animal companion taking leadership, it is RAW legal for it to do so and your minion having lots of minions is probably the most powerful feat it could choose. But it is rather ridiculous and you are taking a deep dive into cheese/ charop.

[Quertus]

Since the player is often using at least some of their wealth on their animal companion I think there is some argument for the animal companion taking it if the player gives some percent of their wealth to charity. Specifically in the case where the player has VoP it seems more reasonable for the animal companion to take it too.

This makes me wonder if it's RAW legal for a Druid to take VoP, but pimp out their animal companion with "their" / its share.

[BowStreetRunner]

BoED p 39. "A character must have the DM’s permission to take an exalted feat."

So, if the DM gives permission for an animal companion to take VoP, then i'ts certainly legal for them to do so. If the DM doesn't want the animal companion to have VoP, then the DM can refuse permission.

Note that this isn't the same as the DM stating that a character can't take a normal feat even though the character meets all of the prerequisites. With most feats, it is assumed that if a character meets the prerequisites they can take them. With exalted feats it is assumed that most characters are not able to take them even if they qualify for them. With these feats special permission must be granted.

So this should never be an issue, as the DM is expected to explicitly agree to granting the feat in every single instance.

[King of Nowhere]

i'd say it doesn't fit with fluff, because, c'mon, an animal companion is not supposed to have loot anyway. "I'm giving up all my possession to the poor" ddoesn't really fit with an animal companion. Now, if the animal companion asked for a share of the loot to donate to charity, that would be different.

[Lapak]

Bowstreetrunner hit the most pertinent part of RAW (DM permission only) and I'd combine that with the comment above regarding when it makes sense to say "I'd allow it if the Druid is also taking VoP and disallow it otherwise."

[lylsyly]

I take the view that the animal companion IS donating! The "loot" was gained through it's efforts as well was it not?

And now that the subject has come up, I would allow it when I DM. BUT ... The Animal Companion would have to also take Sacred Vow 1st.

I am going to need a new character soon myself ... hmmmm.

[Psyren]

Legal, probably.

Doable at my table? Hell Heavens, no.

[BowStreetRunner]

I take the view that the animal companion IS donating! The "loot" was gained through it's efforts as well was it not?...Donating to the party doesn't line up with the "other ramifications of poverty" outlined on page 30-31. I'd agree with King of Nowere that an animal companion with VoP should be donating a share of the loot to charity, not just giving up claim on any share of the loot in favor of the rest of the party.

[King of Nowhere]

Bowstreetrunner hit the most pertinent part of RAW (DM permission only) and I'd combine that with the comment above regarding when it makes sense to say "I'd allow it if the Druid is also taking VoP and disallow it otherwise."

that makes a lot of sense. if the druid has the vop, an exalted companion shares the benefit. fitting.

[liquidformat]

Donating to the party doesn't line up with the "other ramifications of poverty" outlined on page 30-31. I'd agree with King of Nowere that an animal companion with VoP should be donating a share of the loot to charity, not just giving up claim on any share of the loot in favor of the rest of the party.

As I said earlier, in conjunction with the player taking VoP it seems reasonable to let the exalted animal companion also get some natural buffs via two feat tax. It is somewhat standard for someone who actually values their companion to spend some of their wealth on it to make it more survivable so it seems reasonable to allow the exalted animal companion to also benefit from VoP.

[Kelb_Panthera]

It's undeniably rules legal.

It's likely more powerful a use of the feat than was anticipated by the game devs at the time of its creation but whether it's too powerful or not is a function of the average power of the group. I'd allow it with certain exalted companions.

Fluff wise, it's pretty questionable. Simple celestial animals don't really have a grasp on the concepts of property or monetary value. The VoP calls on the acetic to sacrifice his worldly possessions and any future opportunities to replace them for spiritual benefit, a sacrifice that a creature with no grasp on the trappings of humanoid society would not be able to meaningfully make. That said, there are companions available to druids and rangers through the exalted companion feat that are perfectly capable of understanding what the vow entails even if it is a lesser sacrifice to them than to most humanoids.