Still don't know this... Familiars/Animal Companions and Darkvision?

[FrankTrollman]

Victory? Too quick this time I think.

Actually, it's a reference to Japanese Cartoons. English has two liquid sounds: L (a "lateral") and R (a "retroflex"). Many languages only have one and their native speakers are thus incapable of using the difference to make different meaning - and in most cases - from even hearing the difference.

Similar to how in English we don't make a distinction between the "C" sound in "King" and the "K" sound in "Cot" - even though they are completely different sounds made with entirely different portions of the mouth.

In any case - Japanese doesn't distinguish between Ls and Rs - so "Victoly!" is a fairly common thing for an Anime character to shout after winning something. As such, it is actually used fairly commonly and ironically is working its way back into English:

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&q=victoly!&btnG=Google+Search

-Frank

 

[DevoutlyApathetic]

Walked into that one I did.

So....topic, eh? It's a real shame about how clunky the change between animal/magical beast is handled. I wish they had cleaned that up some in 3.5.

Hmm....I suppose Fox's Cunning could be used to give an animal darkvision for short periods of time or protect them from a hostile druids attempt at command.

 

[FrankTrollman]

Hmm....I suppose Fox's Cunning could be used to give an animal darkvision for short periods of time or protect them from a hostile druids attempt at command.

Not exactly. The rules say that:

Magical beasts are similar to animals but can have Intelligence scores higher than 2.

And it says:

No creature with an Intelligence score higher than 2 can be an animal

But it does not say that creatures who gain an intelligence score higher than 2 become a magical beast. Taken literally, an animal who gains an intelligence score higher than 2 loses its type altogether and gets nothing in return unless another rule comes in to bail it out.

However, the rules do give us an escape route:

unless otherwise noted in a creature's entry

An animal who benefits from Fox's Cunning remains an animal - the Fox's Cunning becomes the otherwise notation.

-Frank

 

[DevoutlyApathetic]

Not exactly. The rules say that:

But it does not say that creatures who gain an intelligence score higher than 2 become a magical beast. Taken literally, an animal who gains an intelligence score higher than 2 loses its type altogether and gets nothing in return unless another rule comes in to bail it out.

I'm not altogether certain that's possible. The no type part, that is. We also do have magical beast, which lists itself as the place for smart animals. In the 'description' part of it, which isn't exactly rules text.

However, the rules do give us an escape route:
[Stupid autosnipping of nested quotes] 'unless otherwise noted in a creature's entry'

An animal who benefits from Fox's Cunning remains an animal - the Fox's Cunning becomes the otherwise notation.

Err....that's not part of the creature's entry. If I follow you, you're saying the modification to the animals native intelligence via fox's cunning modifies it's description to allow it to have a higher int than otherwise allowable.

Now, the problem I have is that parenthetical notice limiting intelligence of animals isn't a trait, it's an explaination of the rules that lead to the trait. I don't know if that rule is written anywhere but it's been around for quite a while, WotC R&D clearly thinks that animals can not have intelligences higher than 2.

Hmmm....

 

[FrankTrollman]

WotC R&D clearly thinks that animals can not have intelligences higher than 2.

A Wildshaped Druid becomes an Animal in type. However, she will rarely have an Intelligence of less than 3.

-Frank

 

[DevoutlyApathetic]

A Wildshaped Druid becomes an Animal in type. However, she will rarely have an Intelligence of less than 3.

Oooo....that's a good bit there. I'd missed that. Now I have to wonder if R&D did as well. I miss the good old days.

Course, the polymorph rules are still contradictory but I think the PHB ones are the ones we're supposed to use. Hmm... so I could slap a headband on intellect on an animal companion so it learns more tricks.

....another victoly for you.

 

[Thanee]

In general I agree, that familiars should get Darkvision, altho I'm quite sure that this was not the case in 3.0 (so the intent might be the same and the rules just poorly worded ).

The rules do say, that the familiar is an animal, which becomes a magical beast.

They also say, that the familiar should be treated as a magical beast instead of an animal for the purpose of any effect that depends on its type.

This last bit, somewhat implies, that familiars do not really become magical beasts (altho it's pretty much said before that), but only "count as" magical beasts for type-dependant effects and otherwise are still animals basically.

And unfortunately it doesn't say anything about Darkvision, whether it is gained or the animal's senses are retained (while quite a few other items are listed in that context). I don't know if there is any rule at all, which governs this situation (type changing). All magical beasts got Darkvision, but that could only be meant for "natural" magical beasts, not animals turned into magical beasts.

So... still unsure, how this is meant to be...

Bye
Thanee

 

[Saeviomagy]

Err....that's not part of the creature's entry. If I follow you, you're saying the modification to the animals native intelligence via fox's cunning modifies it's description to allow it to have a higher int than otherwise allowable.

No, I think actually it's just that the creature is specifically an animal in the first place. The fact that it has an intelligence of 6 (from whatever source) is irrelevant, because it's entry says it's an animal regardless.