4
\$\begingroup\$

The prerequisites for Monstrous Mount say that it requires "...divine bond (mount), hunter’s bond (animal companion), or mount class feature with an effective druid level of 4."

The Hunter class is a hybrid of druid and ranger. It gains an animal companion, but it does not call this ability Hunter's Bond. If a hunter character had an animal companion that they used as a mount, would it qualify for the prerequisites as written? I am asking for DM approval, but I was wondering if it was designed to be used this way. The idea is, I am a goblin hunter, and the concept is worg rider. I am already a level 4 hunter, and I planned to take the Monstrous Mount feat next level. I just noticed that the Hunter's Bond is the name of the Ranger class ability rather than a generic description, and that the Animal Companion ability might not actually qualify for this feat, as it is not actually called "Hunter's Bond". That said, it seems fitting for a hunter's animal companion to be a "Hunter's bond" even if the stat block just calls it "Animal companion".

\$\endgroup\$

1 Answer 1

3
\$\begingroup\$

That's actually the 4th level rangers ability, not a Hunter ability at all.

Hunter’s Bond (Ex)

At 4th level, a ranger forms a bond with his hunting companions. This bond can take one of two forms. Once the form is chosen, it cannot be changed. The first is a bond to his companions[...]

The second option is to form a close bond with an animal companion.

What the feat is telling you is that as a ranger, you must have chosen Animal Companion with your Hunter's Bond class feature in order to take this feat.

The Hunter, instead, has the Animal Companion feature, rather than the Hunter's Bond or Mount class features, which makes sense, as the animal companion is largely the focus of the class. By RAW, they are precluded from selecting this feat, as are druids themselves.

Do I think it's unreasonable for your character to take it? No, not really. I think it would be fine, really.

\$\endgroup\$
4
  • \$\begingroup\$ Unfortunate, but it was as I figured. The DM had no problem with letting me take the feat. Just weird that the Hunter would not have a Hunter's Bond, especially since it is a hybrid from the Druid and Ranger classes, and the Ranger class has the Hunter's Bond. \$\endgroup\$ Dec 10, 2020 at 21:59
  • \$\begingroup\$ @InterstellarProbe They don't have Hunter's Bond because they can't choose the party as their bond of choice, making it a different ability. And since the ranger came out WAY before the hunter did, they couldn't go back and change it. \$\endgroup\$ Dec 10, 2020 at 22:01
  • \$\begingroup\$ I understand how it happened. The feat was created in the same year as the Hunter class, so it is possible the feat creators were not even aware of that class at the time. \$\endgroup\$ Dec 10, 2020 at 22:09
  • 1
    \$\begingroup\$ @InterstellarProbe Considering that things like that happen when they're writing AP's (hello Kingmaker), when it's far more important to consider the things that happen in the other books, it's pretty reasonable to suspect that it also occurred in this case as well. \$\endgroup\$ Dec 11, 2020 at 13:20

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .