Lowballing Animal Companions

As has been pointed out before, the FAQ and the Sage Advice were written by the same person, and neither is actually the rules. We've also seen that the Sage (and the FAQ) get things wrong. I mentioned the problems with Freedom of Movement earlier, I believe.

(If you need a refresher, or didn't read the thread, the Sage said that FoM would help against physical impediments, but not paralyzing effects since they're purely mental. The text of FoM, however, specifically mentions Hold Person, which is a paralyzing effect. So the Sage's interpretation simply ignored what the rules actually said.)

So, while the Sage Advice column was once listed as "instantly official", it was in fact simply advice, not rules.
 

log in or register to remove this ad

You won't find more of an official source than a WotC employee. Perhaps Hold person or the Paralysis or FoM was revised somewhere to change its effects. Who knows.

Regardless at that point it is you ignoring such, no longer an obstruction of the rules. Several sources have noted it, referenced it and provided other sources to also add to the supported evidence.

One rule not possibly correct, does not discredit the entire source.

I guess at this point its up to the DM with what he rolls with.

EDIT: Also note, the FAQ rules have no mention of the FoM rules so I don't see how that discredits the source. So the Sage Advice regarding that wasn't even made 'official'.
 

I can think of a number of sources more official that a WOTC employee.

Their initials are: PHB, DMG, MM, PHB2, RC, MiC, CAR, CD, CW, MoF...

You see, unlike the Sage or the FAQ, these have been proofread, checked by editors, and playtested.

There have been a number of books published since PHB. There's an official Errata as well. And if any of these provide any rules for combining classes to calculate the total level for a Druid's Animal Companion, feel free to point to them and or quote from them.

But as far as I know, the section I quoted from the SRD (which matches the PHB) is the only portion of the rules that addresses the question. Until another source shows up, I'm stuck with what's there.

Like I said, I agree that it probably shouldn't be that way. But I'm not the DM making the ruling, and unless I can show him, ink on paper, where it says something different, he's going to go with the ink on the paper he has.
 

As has been pointed out before, the FAQ and the Sage Advice were written by the same person, and neither is actually the rules. We've also seen that the Sage (and the FAQ) get things wrong. I mentioned the problems with Freedom of Movement earlier, I believe.

(If you need a refresher, or didn't read the thread, the Sage said that FoM would help against physical impediments, but not paralyzing effects since they're purely mental. The text of FoM, however, specifically mentions Hold Person, which is a paralyzing effect. So the Sage's interpretation simply ignored what the rules actually said.)

So, while the Sage Advice column was once listed as "instantly official", it was in fact simply advice, not rules.

Hold person may be specifically mentioned in the 3.0 version of Freedom of Movement, but it was removed from the 3.5 version of the spell. When was the problem you cite with the Sage/FAQ? Was it in the 3.0 or 3.5 time frame?
 


My mistake. It was the Sage that mentioned Hold Person. The book mentions the specific condition that HP causes: Paralysis.
SRD said:
Freedom of Movement
Abjuration
Level: Brd 4, Clr 4, Drd 4, Luck 4, Rgr 4
Components: V, S, M, DF
Casting Time: 1 standard action
Range: Personal or touch
Target: You or creature touched
Duration: 10 min./level
Saving Throw: Will negates (harmless)
Spell Resistance: Yes (harmless)
This spell enables you or a creature you touch to move and attack normally for the duration of the spell, even under the influence of magic that usually impedes movement, such as paralysis, solid fog, slow, and web. The subject automatically succeeds on any grapple check made to resist a grapple attempt, as well as on grapple checks or Escape Artist checks made to escape a grapple or a pin.
The spell also allows the subject to move and attack normally while underwater, even with slashing weapons such as axes and swords or with bludgeoning weapons such as flails, hammers, and maces, provided that the weapon is wielded in the hand rather than hurled. The freedom of movement spell does not, however, allow water breathing.
Material Component: A leather thong, bound around the arm or a similar appendage.
Interesting. The Sage/FAQ's interpretation wouldn't help with Slow either, but the spell is mentioned by name.
 


Because if it was, the obvious contradictions would have been addressed.

But according to you, there was a contradiction in the PHB to begin with. The FAQ DID address such in this case.

I'm sure there are numerous other contradictions in the game that haven't been or might never be addressed, but the ones out already have been.

The PHB Errata came out in 2006, versus the FAQ came out in 2007, meaning its more updated than the PHB.
 

Because if it was, the obvious contradictions would have been addressed.

You have way too much faith in editing.
Every error that gets errata had to get by at least one editor, usually more, yet there that error sits.
 

Interesting. The Sage/FAQ's interpretation wouldn't help with Slow either, but the spell is mentioned by name.

Except that slow isn't a mental effect. It's a transmutation. That would make it NOT a mental impediment.
 

Pets & Sidekicks

Remove ads

Top