|Paizo Pathfinder® Paizo Games|
|About Paizo Messageboards News Paizo Blog Help/FAQ|
You know... it strikes me that I should have been posting about this long before now. The insight of the board goers here at Paizo would have been priceless in determining which events to sign up for.
Signed up for Hickman's 2nd killer breakfast and Dan the Bard. Those any good? I can't imagine anything with Tracy could be terrible.
Dangit. It got moved anyway. Ah well, it still shows up in advice.
Jeff: Scotties is a local hang? Noted. It hasn't started yet so they still are able to post. Unless they are at Scotties I guess. ;)
Maybe I'll check it out tonight. Omigosh, so excited!
organized: Yeah, you'd think hearing that would enhance my calm. No such luck!
I dunno about doing it all, but I don't want to miss some of the better things.
A moderate may see this and have a knee-jerk reaction of wanting to move this to the general forum. I ask that this not be done for two reasons. First, I am actually asking for advice. And second, I believe the Advice forum gets more traffic at least from the people from the boards that I know best and would have any desire to meet.
The purpose of this thread is twofold.
1. I have definitely been around the block a time or two with RPGs but I have not been to a big convention like this in 15 years (I was at Origins 25th). I want to make sure that I do not miss bringing something or doing something that may seem obvious to veterans but is easily overlooked by con newbs like me.
I can't tell you how excited I am to be attending. I have posted about this elsewhere but I am bringing my son as well as a sort of gamer rite of passage. I am downright giddy beyond logic thought right about now. I have no doubt that in my anxiousness that I will forget something, miss something or worse. I would rather like to try to avoid that, hence this first purpose.
2. I assume some of you are going. I wouldn't mind meeting some of you. I bet I know what room you are going to be in. Let this thread serve as a common ground for those who are going to the con and do not wish to be anti-social with those on the boards. For my part I will say that if anyone wants to say hello to me feel free to send me a private message and I can give you my phone number. I'm sure it wont be hard to find me as we will likely be spending a lot of time in the same room as one another. Maybe we will even be at the same table!
If you would rather not be so personal as to exchange phone numbers, etc. That is understandable. I could just give a description of myself. I'll probably fairly difficult to miss. I can give my name so if you happen to see my name tag (assuming they have those there?) you will recognize me as well. Heck, if you dislike me based solely on posts on these boards and just want to say it to my face, I don't mind that either. ;) (...although you may have second thoughts after meeting me in person.)
Maybe not assume that I didn't read what you wrote? Everyone in this thread believes that they are using logic. Some are even siting the same rules that you are and coming up with differing opinions. Hence the bit about my logic being more delicious.
...so, you believe they DO have reach if their typical entry in the Bestiary does?
...actually, I'm not FAQing this. It doesn't have a clear question in it like claudekennilol suggested, "Most animal companions don't have a natural reach listed for their attacks. For determining whether or not a natural attack should have reach for these animal companions, should we compare it to a bestiary entry for a corresponding creature?"
I'd say that's a pretty safe assumption since we already have evidence of this in the 4th/7th level advancement where not all bestiary entries have corresponding sizes.
I do not think it is a safe assumption due to the fact that the animals that you are referencing clearly ARE of different size and/or shape. The Roc is a perfect example. The Bestiary rock is of a much larger size than the one that is an animal companion. So is the Trex, and in fact most of the Dinosaurs. That doesn't help with the issue at hand.
We know what reach the Bestiary animals of these types have, that isn't in question. For that matter we know what size these animals would have if they were decreased in size due to the information in the Combat chapter. Since that is essentially what is happening when you get an Animal Companion version of these creatures (they are smaller versions of the Bestiary critters) that seems like the right place to look to determine their reach.
claudekennilol: You and I typically agree. I feel like if I could understand where your point of view I might be able to get behind it. The issue here is that I do understand where you are coming from but I disagree. And you are only looking at the issue from a single perspective. You seem to be purposefully ignoring other sections of rules that talk about how to determine reach for a creature.
...I'm afraid I cannot get behind purposefully ignoring rules to be in favor of any opinion. I don't think I'm with you on this one, bro. : /
Here is my take on the issue:
That is one proof that is rather ambiguous and two that are strongly in favor of reach.
The only way I can reconcile this information with the idea of animal companions not having reach is to say that the animals gained via animal companion are somehow different in basic body shape than those that are in the Bestiary. That seems more far fetched than simply to go by the rules presented in both the Combat and Bestiary which are straight forward, do not need further interpretation to make sense of them.
So animal companion Axe Beaks are some different breed or something and are built physically different than those in the Bestiary?
If I had a character schooled in all things nature and he happened across a pasture occupied by both Axe Beaks and Axe Beaks (of the animal companion variety) would he be able to tell the difference between the two?
I'm sorry... I'm just having trouble wrapping my head around this theory.
claudekennilol: While I think it is obvious that Axebeak Sanctuary Society is asking a leading question I also believe it would be beneficial to understand how you came to your conclusion. I mean, I think I know. I think he knows. But it is possible you have some insight from some other source that we are unaware of?
Crap. Your right.
edit: Wait, ninja'd by a designer. Grim.
Well, I guess that is good news for those who want to use Feral Combat Training but bad news for those who just want to use their two claws from say a natural attacking Ranger.
Wow, talk about being late to my own party. I didn't even notice this got FAQ'd until someone brought it up in another thread. Sweet! Man, it is nice to get that thorn out of my side.
Personally, I'm happy. I figured the ruling would come down something like this. I am just happy to have a ruling on this. I can actually start a build now that can be usable in PFS. ...and, as usually I think BBT hit on every single mechanic I plan on using.
Thank you, PFS rules team!
Thats... not right. I'm at work right now though so cannot access several sites. Those FAQs are only providing answers for medium sized creatures with reach. Large and larger creatures cannot attack their second diagonals. That is why I asked the questions in the way that I did.
I can't find the link for it right now but I will try to do so when I get home.
Gauss: You failed to answer the simplest question that I had. Let me restate it.
1. Can a Large sized creature attack at the 10' diagonal square?
BNW: Ah. I see. Yeah, I think I agree with you now then on the "adjacent is a property associated with a creature" bit. I can get behind that. Still not certain that answers all of the questions about reach when mounted though. Like the ones I posted above to Gauss.
Thanx for bringing it back on track, Gauss. ;) Honestly, I appreciate the discussion about the Axe Beak too as I have never heard that expressed and wanted to hear both sides. I think I am firmly in the "has reach cause the only thing that suggests either way suggests that they do" category on that one.
Don't take this the wrong way as I am not truly arguing with you. More just playing devil's advocate as I am as of yet undecided on this rule. And while I definitely understand where you are coming from with that my counter is that while I get that the Halfling is taking up all the squares that the mount is in that does not answer where the attack comes from. IMO it can be argued that even though the Halfling is taking up all of those squares he is still making the attack from one of them.
In other words I can see where there could be a distinction between "taking up the same space as/occupying" and actually being large.
Let me put it this way: If we go with the same example and the Halfling casts Animal Growth on his Axe Beak does his reach increase to 15'? No? Why not? If he is taking up the same space as a Huge size creature (the size of his mount at this point) then shouldn't he gain the reach of that creature? Of course not. Because his reach isn't determined by the size of his mount. It is determined by his size and where he is attacking from.
Now I know your knee jerk reaction is going to be to disagree with that but keep with me for a second on this. Draw out a diagram of a huge creature and then imagine which squares the Halfling rider could attack to. What about those corner squares? Can he get them? He can if he is dealing with his reach if he is unmounted. But the rules for reach on large and larger creatures tell us that you can't. Which do you go with here? If you go with that he can attack those squares then you are going with the "Determined by his size and where he is attacking from." So if he can attack from the corner square of his huge sized mount then why can he not attack from one of the middle squares of his mount?
Again, this is not actually my opinion per se, but I can easily see it being a solid counter argument and I am just trying to iron out where I stand on this one.
Ok, I dig that you occupy all of the squares of your mount. That still doesn't answer where your attack originates from. Can it originate from any of the squares of the mount being that you are a small/medium creature and are only actually 5x5 regardless of how many squares you are considered to be occupying currently shouldn't you need to specify where the attack is coming from?
There are problems with this on either side as I see it. If you don't have to declare what square you are in then how do cover/concealment rules work? If you do have to declare what square you are attacking from how do AoOs that you may provoke work?
This seems like more of a mess the more I am thinking about it. You know what?... can you just hit FAQ?
As for the question about reach with animal companions when they hit large size (I don't think we are talking about just the Axe Beak anymore) has there been on thread on this yet? Any Dev posts I'm not aware of? Should we start a thread on that too and get it FAQ'd?
In regards to the whole "you occupy all the squares that your mount does" bit the attack still has to originate from somewhere. I mean a lance is only so long. It doesn't seem feasible that the attack could originate from the SW square but hit something 10' away from the NE square. Know what I mean?
So who chooses where the attack originates from? This matters! Things can provide cover or concealment from some squares but not others. Do you go with the most advantageous? Least advantageous? Are you truly considered to occupy all the squares at once so if you have cover from one of the squares then you have cover from all?
claudekennilol: Well, that is true. The character in question has a spiked gauntlet, a lance and a shield so he is set. I was more asking which squares he would threaten with the reach weapon though. DO you have an opinion on that?
Serisan: Mmm... I dunno, that seems like a wobbly stance. If what you were saying would be correct then you would be effectively large and when using a reach weapon a large creature threatens at an even further distance than a small or medium sized creature. I'm fairly certain that is not what is intended.
Chess Pwn: So then you believe that the character would only threaten at 10' with the lance?
Lets say you have a Halfling Hunter who is using a reach weapon like a lance and is mounted on a Large sized Axebeak.
...which squares do you threaten?
I originally had thought that it would be all squares 10' away and none that are adjacent. However... as you are considered to occupy all squares of your mount it seems like you would be able to attack from any one of those squares which would basically allow you to threaten all adjacent squares as well.
Or is it that you occupy ALL squares your mount does rather than ANY square your mount does?
I'm just not certain because one option it seems like it is giving you extra threatened squares for melee range weapons and the other way seems like it is giving you extra threatened squares for reach weapons.
...maybe both are intentional?
Joesi: Thank you for defending me. It is good to know I was not the only annoyed at being blatantly ignored. ...even if the defense did come nearly a year later. ;) Thread necromancy, you know.
shroudb: Hm... thank you for some ideas. Sadly I'm no longer playing the character or I would be able to put them to use personally. Your post may be the most useful so far in this thread.
RD: Yes. That is the logical way of looking at it. I don't mind the thread necro either. But I can summarize this for you:
There isn't a lot of useful things you can do with Touch Injection. The most useful things are Polypurpose Panacea and Skinsend and as Claxon pointed out they are dubious at best. These were definitely never intended to be allowed together. Any sane DM would probably disallow it altogether or at least require a save at best.