Animal Companions and spells

[Camarath]

You've said what they are not. Now, I dare thee to say what they are!

Ok here goes. I am not a lawyer so please correct me where I am wrong and give me a bit of slack as I do not know most of the appropriate jargon or specifics.

(10 pts) Explain how a judge deciding an issue of Constitutional Law might use the Federalist Papers in his opinion. Be clear and explain fully.

I believe they and documents like them are primarily used to determine the intentions and guiding philosophies of the framers as well as the context in which the Constitution was written and the traditions of our country. They also seem to be a good source to cite when extrapolating beyond the bounds of the Constitution.

(5 pts) Explain how that usage would parallel the use of a a D&D author's comments on his work.

When issues go beyond what the rules can reasonably be construed to cover the opinions of the writers are an important factor when interpreting how a certain situation should be handled. Also when constructing ones stance on an issue using selected quotes and opinions can bulwark one’s position and lend an air of legitimacy to one’s argument. They are also useful when challenging traditional or accepted ways of interpreting the rules.

(1 pt) Prove that the chair you are sitting on exists. Use pandas and +3 chop sticks in your answer if possible.

I can not prove anything. Absolute proof is an impossibility with out the assumption of reality and rationality. Am I real? I assume I am. Are the things I perceive real? I assume they are. Can I definitively prove I or they truly exist? No I can not. Either I am or I am not. But I can’t prove anything with out first assuming that both I and the things I perceive are real.

 

[Saeviomagy]

(1 pt) Prove that the chair you are sitting on exists. Use pandas and +3 chop sticks in your answer if possible.

I exist.
I can see and touch the chair.
I can see and touch my computer, which is the medium for the discussion
I can see your post asking me this question, and my answer to the question.

If we debate my ability to see and touch and otherwise percieve the world around me, then we are debating the existence of the question itself. This direct relation between the question and it's subject matter effectively places the question outside the boundaries of the game we are playing.

In short, my chair is as real as your question. If you disprove the existence of the chair, you disprove the existence of the question and therefore the entire argument (which includes the disproof of the chair). Since such a question can only have one meaningful answer (ie - the chair and therefore the question exist), it is outside the boundaries of the game - it can't be discussed in any way that is productive.

 

[jgsugden]

Correct answer for 1 pt question: What chair? Oh yeah, can you pass the panda and the +3 chop-sticks.

 

[Nail]

Ignoring information is a much better example of 'poor thinking', IMHO. Quoting Andy is like refering to the Federalist Papers as support for a constituional argument....

I see.

Back on-topic for a moment:
What a designer of the game says is interesting. Is it definitive? Nope. And yet, some treat it as if it is so. In fact, some designers occasionally change their minds or memories of what a particular rule should do. Using the designer as the arguement of last result means your rules flucuate as they do.

 

[Saeviomagy]

I see.

Back on-topic for a moment:
What a designer of the game says is interesting. Is it definitive? Nope. And yet, some treat it as if it is so. In fact, some designers occasionally change their minds or memories of what a particular rule should do. Using the designer as the arguement of last result means your rules flucuate as they do.

The question is whether the designer carries more or less weight than... Hmmm.

Who?

What's the supporting evidence for the other side of the argument?

So far, for the "you get the qualities of the plant type", we have a logical reading of the rules, reinforced by the opinion of the person who wrote the rules.

For the "you don't get the qualities of the plant type", we've got a slightly less logical reading of the rules.

Saying the opinion of the guy who wrote the rules carries little weight is fine. Ignoring it all together is probably being silly.

On the topic of animal companions, I'd have to say that the rules as they stand are that they become magical beasts, regardless of how stupid that particular rule is.

 

[jgsugden]

On the topic of animal companions, I'd have to say that the rules as they stand are that they become magical beasts, regardless of how stupid that particular rule is.

I'd go the other way. We have two conflicting statements. The PHB says they are magical beasts. The DMG says they are animals.

When you have direct conflict between two official rulings, you must turn to outside sources to resolve the conflict. Andy has stated that the PHB entry is an oversight.

You're free to play it however you want. However, once the errata is released it *will* make animal companions into animals.

 

[Saeviomagy]

I'd go the other way. We have two conflicting statements. The PHB says they are magical beasts. The DMG says they are animals.

What's the exact reference from the DMG? I've not seen it yet. Is it referring directly to animal companions of druids?

When you have direct conflict between two official rulings, you must turn to outside sources to resolve the conflict. Andy has stated that the PHB entry is an oversight.

If there is indeed a conflicting reference in the DMG, I'd agree with you.

You're free to play it however you want. However, once the errata is released it *will* make animal companions into animals.

Quite possibly. That's all - only possibly. It wouldn't be the first time that an errata was royally fouled up.

 

[sierzadon]

So, those of you that play animal companions as magical beasts - do you also not allow share spells between druid and animal companion?


SRD:
Additionally, the druid may cast a spell with a target of “You” on her animal companion (as a touch range spell) instead of on herself. A druid and her animal companion can share spells even if the spells normally do not affect creatures of the companion’s type (ANIMAL).


*********
Do you rewrite this to say "...type (magical beast)" or?

 

[jgsugden]

What's the exact reference from the DMG? I've not seen it yet. Is it referring directly to animal companions of druids?

Under the Headline of 'Animal Companions' (paragraph 3) on page 205 of the DMG:

The animal is still an animal. It's not a magical beast, as a familiar or a paladin's mount is.

I'd say that this text might be construed as an indication that animal companions are, in fact, animals and not magical beasts.

People tend to read only the PHB and forget that the DMG even has words outside of the magic items and prestigle class sections. This is a direct conflict with the PHB. You must look beyond the books when there is a direct conflict.