Augmented Subtype and Spells

[Verequus]

While designing an awakened wolf, I noticed that the type changes to "Magical Beast (Augmented Animal)". My DM told me he interprets this that animal-based spells still affect this character as he remembers it from some FAQ entry having read in the past. I was under the impression that creatures have only one main type, that changing the main type renders one immune to spells targeting only the old main type and susceptible to spells targeting the new main type.

My reasoning was that magical beasts may not be used as animal companions, familiars or special mounts. Unfortunately, Awaken does state it in its text, without stating why this is true. So one can also interpret this situation that Awaken makes an exception for augmented animals there.

The crux of Awaken seems that it uses mechanics of applying templates, without stating that it effectively does apply a special template. If Awaken would apply a template, the type pyramid detailed in Savage Species seems to infer that an awakened animal receives a complete type change. But I haven't found in a FAQ a clear-cut statement which interpretation is the correct one (or at least the official one). Can anyone cite a source which dispels this confusion?

 

[Runestar]

For awaken animal, the animal's type changes to magical beast, granting it darkvision (as per the magical beast subtype). You do not change the benefits of its HD (meaning that its bab/saves etc still improve as per its original animal HD.

Spells now affect it as appropriate for its new type (magical beast), meaning that spells which target only animals no longer affect it. The augmented subtype tag has no effect whatsoever except to serve as a reminder that the creature used to be something else before being changed into its current form (think it is in the MM entry). Ignore it.

 

[Verequus]

I can't simply ignore it, even if your interpretation is the same as mine. My DM requires a citable source before he considers a reversal of his stance. Effectively, the only spells worse than the humanoid equivalent in terms of spell levels are Hold Animal and Dominate Animal. Other spells bad for animals or magical beasts require an Int score of 1 or 2.

So, once high enough of level, enemy druids don't pose much of extra danger compared to other enemy classes, meaning that this ruling won't affect me much. Still I'd like to know the source of the correct interpretation.

 

[Jack Simth]

I can't simply ignore it, even if your interpretation is the same as mine. My DM requires a citable source before he considers a reversal of his stance. Effectively, the only spells worse than the humanoid equivalent in terms of spell levels are Hold Animal and Dominate Animal. Other spells bad for animals or magical beasts require an Int score of 1 or 2.

So, once high enough of level, enemy druids don't pose much of extra danger compared to other enemy classes, meaning that this ruling won't affect me much. Still I'd like to know the source of the correct interpretation.

Well, the rules are fairly vague on it, but here they are:

Augmented Subtype: A creature receives this subtype whenever something happens to change its original type. Some creatures (those with an inherited template) are born with this subtype; others acquire it when they take on an acquired template. The augmented subtype is always paired with the creature’s original type. A creature with the augmented subtype usually has the traits of its current type, but the features of its original type.

Other than that pesky "usually", you've got "traits" of current, and "features" of original.

So if we've got a Magical Beast (Agumented Animal), we've got:
Traits of the current (Magical Beast):

Traits: A magical beast possesses the following traits (unless otherwise noted in a creature’s entry).

* Darkvision out to 60 feet and low-light vision.
* Proficient with its natural weapons only.
* Proficient with no armor.
* Magical beasts eat, sleep, and breathe.

Features of the original (Animal):

Features: An animal has the following features (unless otherwise noted in a creature’s entry).

* d8 Hit Dice.
* Base attack bonus equal to 3/4 total Hit Dice (as cleric).
* Good Fortitude and Reflex saves (certain animals have different good saves).
* Skill points equal to (2 + Int modifier, minimum 1) per Hit Die, with quadruple skill points for the first Hit Die.

... however, that's only "usually", so the DM is within the bounds of the rules as written to say it doesn't work that way in this case.

In other words, you're right, but so's he.

Edit:
Nevermind - the specific question was whether or not spells that affect type affect it now - the answer is "no" by RAW, because the Augmented Subtype doesn't say it does, and the actual type (which is what spells refer to) is the new one. That said, it's the DM who's saying otherwise, so he's right.

 

[Verequus]

I will tell it him. Thanks for your time!

 

[blargney the second]

I think it's reasonable to have a magical beast (augmented animal) be affected by animal-only effects in much the same way that creatures with the dragonblood subtype are affected by dragon-only effects.

It seems like attacks are generally interpreted in the most liberal way possible, which makes a certain amount sense.

 

[Runestar]

Well, as far as I am aware of, dragonblood creatures explicitly count as dragons for effects because the rules clearly say that they do. Conversely, a half-dragon human with the augmented subtype is now a dragon, and would no longer be a valid target for spells like enlarge person, which affect only humanoids. That was the example I had in mind when I have the answer I did.