|
Saros Palanthios's page
239 posts. Organized Play character for dacoobob.
|
The Targets section of the Spells chapter says (pg 305): Quote: Some spells allow you to directly target a creature, an object, or something that fits a more specific category. The target must be within the spell’s range, and you must be able to see it (or otherwise perceive it with a precise sense) to target it normally. At the GM’s discretion, you can attempt to target a creature you can’t see, as described in Detecting Creatures on pages 465–467. Since the Target of Dispel Magic is "1 spell effect", it would seem that you can attempt to Dispel any effect you can see (or perceive with another precise sense, if you have one)-- regardless of whether or not you know what the spell actually is.
Likewise, it would also seem that you CAN'T attempt to Dispel any effect you can't see, even if you know exactly what the spell is.
However, imo a reasonable GM might rule that Recognizing the spell counts as perceiving it with a precise sense, and/or that you can attempt to target a non-visible effect with a flat check to fail (just like targeting Concealed or Hidden creatures).
Deadmanwalking wrote: Sorcerers don't require actual material components (their blood is a material component), but still uses the same action with the same limitations. I would assume innate spells work similarly. Not quite. Sorcerers can "replace material components with somatic components". So a V,S,M spell for a Wizard would instead be V,S,S for a Sorcerer-- with the limitations of Verbal and Somatic, but not the limitations of Material.
Aratorin wrote: Saros Palanthios wrote: the CRB entry for Signature Spells (pg 193) says the following:
Quote: You’ve learned to cast some of your spells more flexibly.
For each spell level you have access to, choose one spell of
that level to be a signature spell. You don’t need to learn
heightened versions of signature spells separately; instead,
you can heighten these spells freely. If you’ve learned a
signature spell at a higher level than its minimum, you
can also cast all its lower-level versions without learning
those separately. If you swap out a signature spell, you
can choose a replacement signature spell of the same spell
level at which you learned the previous spell. You can also
retrain specifically to change a signature spell to a different
spell of that level without swapping any spells; this takes as
much time as retraining a spell normally does.
My question is about the bolded sentence-- does "one spell of that level" mean a spell with that base level, or a spell you've learned at that level?
For example: Summon Animal and Summon Construct are both 1st-level spells (or at least, their minimum spell level is 1). Say i have an Arcane Sorcerer who has added Summon Animal to his repertoire as a level 1 spell, and later added Summon Construct as a level 2 spell. Can he select both Summon Animal and Summon Construct as Signature Spells (i.e. SA for spell level 1 and SC for spell level 2)? Or do both spells still count as level 1 spells, even though one of them was learned as a heightened version? I believe the answer is just a little lower in the same block of text. Changed the bolding. Your bolded sentence indicates that spells learned at heightened levels can indeed become Signature Spells, but doesn't really say anything about what level such a spell counts as for Signature Spell purposes.
the CRB entry for Signature Spells (pg 193) says the following:
Quote: You’ve learned to cast some of your spells more flexibly.
For each spell level you have access to, choose one spell of
that level to be a signature spell. You don’t need to learn
heightened versions of signature spells separately; instead,
you can heighten these spells freely. If you’ve learned a
signature spell at a higher level than its minimum, you
can also cast all its lower-level versions without learning
those separately. If you swap out a signature spell, you
can choose a replacement signature spell of the same spell
level at which you learned the previous spell. You can also
retrain specifically to change a signature spell to a different
spell of that level without swapping any spells; this takes as
much time as retraining a spell normally does.
My question is about the bolded sentence-- does "one spell of that level" mean a spell with that base level, or a spell you've learned at that level?
For example: Summon Animal and Summon Construct are both 1st-level spells (or at least, their minimum spell level is 1). Say i have an Arcane Sorcerer who has added Summon Animal to his repertoire as a level 1 spell, and later added Summon Construct as a level 2 spell. Can he select both Summon Animal and Summon Construct as Signature Spells (i.e. SA for spell level 1 and SC for spell level 2)? Or do both spells still count as level 1 spells, even though one of them was learned as a heightened version?
Zioalca already answered your questions above, but if you have more Q's you might try posting on the official HeroLab Online forum too: http://forums.wolflair.com/forumdisplay.php?f=95
9 people marked this as a favorite.
|
Captain Morgan wrote: Ask questions to see if your understanding is correct before you type up a huge manifesto on why the rules are bad. If people followed this advice it would cut the number of posts here in half at least, and eliminate a ton of pointless, circular arguments.
Do Rogues with the Thief racket get to apply their DEX to damage rolls with thrown daggers?
Back in October there was very good discussion about this exact question (link: https://paizo.com/threads/rzs42sk2?Thief-Racket-Dex-to-DMG-even-for-thrown- weapons), but that thread never came to a firm conclusion-- the consensus seemed to be that it was open to interpretation, but wouldn't be super unbalancing either way.
Has there been any further developments since last Oct? (e.g. dev comments, examples from dev-run games, persuasive arguments from forum members?) Or is this still an open question?
3 people marked this as a favorite.
|
3Doubloons wrote: coriolis wrote: Although it IS pronouced kou de gra in English It's really not supposed to. That C isn't silent. Coup de grace should sound a bit like Coo duh Grahss Linguists call this "hypercorrection". Most English speakers have a vague sense that final consonants in French words are often silent, so when they see an unfamiliar French word they just apply that rule of thumb and don't pronounce the final consonant. And in many cases, that's correct! But not in this case, since the "real" rule in French is that final consonants are generally silent, unless the word ends in 'e'*.
*or 'n'/'m', sort of
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
Mechagamera wrote: That being said, if military fantasy has taught us anything, it is that the primary use of magic users in large scale battles is to negate the other side's magic users. TBF this happens in real-life warfare too... when forces are reasonably symmetrical, tanks mostly end up fighting other tanks, planes fight other planes, artillery does counter-battery fire, etc. So if both sides in our hypothetical PF battle have a corps of war wizards, then they'll most likely spend a lot of their time trying to counter each other.
If only one side has wizards though (or if the wizards on one side manage to neutralize their counterparts and achieve "magical superiority"), I don't think war mages would have much trouble dealing with ranged units 600+ feet away: Invisibility heightened to 4th lets you stay invisible while attacking, so that plus Fly would let them quickly get within spell range and fling fireballs with impunity.
Page 498 of the CRB includes this tidbit:
Quote: INITIATIVE AFTER REACTIONS
In some cases, a trap or a foe has a reaction that tells
you to roll initiative. For instance, a complex trap that’s
triggered might make an attack with its reaction before
the initiative order begins. In these cases, resolve all the
results of the reaction before calling for initiative rolls.
So it's not true that attacks can *never* happen before an initiative roll-- in some (rare) circumstances, they can and should.
In the example given by the OP, i wouldn't call for initiative rolls until the Unnoticed character somehow became noticed-- either unintentionally (for example by failing a Stealth check) or intentionally (for example by attacking). If they chose to attack, I'd resolve the attack *before* initiative, per the rule quoted above.
Yes, this essentially gives the unnoticed attacker a surprise round in all but name. But so what? Sometimes that's just what the situation calls for-- as the "Initiative After Reactions" rule makes clear.
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
Chiming in the agree with the majority of responses that doing this would be a bad idea.
Deceiving your players or manipulating them into taking a certain path is indeed a necessary part of GMing sometimes, but it works best when the players never realize that you've done it, or only figure it out much later-- after they're already invested in the storyline that ensued from the deception. Doing it so openly right off the bat would set a poor tone for the rest of the campaign imo.
And besides, it's unnecessary-- if a situation has to play out in a certain way in order to kick off the plot of the campaign, then why not just make it part of the backstory or opening narration?
If I were running this, I might start the first session by telling the story of the carriage encounter exactly as OP wrote it in the original post, and then have the players roll for initiative just as the "guards" turn on them. That first roll is the signal to the players that they now have the power to influence the story going forward-- that from here on out, their choices and actions actually matter.
UPDATE: my order shipped today. coincidence? maybe, but i'll take it : )
FYI- although the site says "Available Now", currently these are actually on backorder from the supplier (Q-Workshop). I ordered a set back on Jan 9 and they still haven't shipped nearly 2 months later.
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
Unicore wrote: It would be nice to see an action listed in the APG that familiars can take called “hunker down” that only works when they are sharing a space with their master, that lets them be immune to any AoE ability as long as they take no additional future actions and are not separate from their master. That would eliminate the need for any unnecessary arbitration on the side of the GM or cheese on the side of the player about when the familiar is protected and when it isn’t. Any GM that wouldn't already let you do something like this-- simply because "there's not a specific action in the book for that"-- is a garbage GM and you shouldn't play with them anymore.
The PF2 rules are written based on the assumption that most GMs are reasonable human beings, rather than mindless robots or "gotcha"-loving jerks. If your GM is one of the latter, that's a problem that no amount of additional published rules will fix. Tell them to get stuffed.
2 people marked this as a favorite.
|
Mathmuse wrote: I find that asking my players, "What are you doing as you travel?" is more sensible than asking them to select an exploration activity. Sometimes, after their response, I suggest one of the more useful exploration activities that fits their notion, such as Follow the Expert. I have also taken to calling the non-activity of simply traveling at full speed without a side activity, "Maximum Speed." Since they are usually traveling to a known location and shifting exploration activity as they draw closer, the "how that translates into a benefit when initiative starts" is not the benefit my players are looking for during the beginning part of travel. The rules explicitly tell you to do just this. From page 479 of the CRB:
Quote: EXPLORATION ACTIVITIES
While you’re traveling and exploring, tell the GM what
you’d generally like to do along the way. If you to do
nothing more than make steady progress toward your
goal, you move at the full travel speeds given in Table 9–2.
When you want to do something other than simply
travel, you describe what you are attempting to do. It
isn’t necessary to go into extreme detail, such as “Using
my dagger, I nudge the door so I can check for devious
traps.” Instead, “I’m searching the area for hazards” is
sufficient. The GM finds the best exploration activity to
match your description and describes the effects of that
activity.
5 people marked this as a favorite.
|
Malk_Content wrote: Fly/burrow and manipulate at level one let's a caster do things otherwise impossible at early levels if you are imaginative. in case you haven't noticed these forums are an imagination-free zone. any attempt at fun or creativity gets countered with "that's less mechanically optimal than X, therefore it's completely worthless and you should just pick X every time". never fails
2 people marked this as a favorite.
|
Henro wrote: The rules and the in-world physics are connected, but they're not the same.
Using bulk rules to assign actual weights seem silly to me, the rules aren't trying to simulate the weight of people and objects.
you're right of course, but that's not really the issue here. i suspect even graystone knows better deep down, it's just that "bulk bad" is a super convenient strawman for them to beat on and thereby "prove" how the system is terrible and wrong and should be cancelled in favor of PF1 redux or whatever. it was never really about the bulk system per se, it's about deliberately misinterpreting the bulk rules in order to make the system look bad and/or have something to complain about ad nauseum.
Wow, that means Felling Smash is even more useful than I thought! Thanks.
The Felling Smash feat says that when I make a single attack (with Power Attack) and hit, I can also attempt a Trip combat maneuver as a Swift action.
My question is, what BAB should I use for the swift-action Trip? Should it be my full BAB like an AOO? Or should it be reduced by 5 like an iterative attack?
Ravingdork wrote: (I'm parroting what was taught to me months ago.)
If you follow the order of events outlined in the Core Rulebook for determining attacks and damage, it becomes obvious that you're supposed to know the damage before declaring shield block.
It's under the Damage header on page 450.
1. Roll the dice indicated by the weapon, unarmed attack, or spell, and apply the modifiers, bonuses, and penalties that apply to the result of the roll.
2. Determine the damage type.
3. Apply the target’s immunities, weaknesses, and resistances to the damage.
4. If any damage remains, reduce the target’s Hit Points by that amount.
Shield block has the trigger "While you have your shield raised, you would take damage from a physical attack." That means steps 1-3 have already occurred and the damage is known.
Developers have backed this up in a number of places.
What happens in the case of a character with both Shield Block AND Resistance to damage? Would you apply the resistance before the shield, or after?
The above explanation would seem to imply that Resistance is applied first. But that seems backwards-- an incoming blow being blocked by a shield should logically impact the shield first, then the wielder second. Applying Resistance first would effectively allow a character's innate Resistances to protect their shield as well as their actual body, which feels wrong to me.
I would argue that any potential Shield Block should happen immediately after step 2, not step 3. For example:
GM: "The Gnoll swings his scimitar at you. Does a 21 hit?"
Player: "Yep"
GM: [rolls damage] "He deals 10 slashing damage."
Player: "I block with my shield! It has a hardness of 6."
GM: "Ok, both you and the shield take the remaining 4 damage."
Player: "Ha, but I have Slashing resistance 5, so I take zero damage! My shield takes 4, but that't no enough to break it."
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
imo:
Vital + Mental = Kineticist
Material + Spiritual = Shaman
i'd be surprised if this isn't the way they go with those classes once they're introduced, since they don't really fit into any of the four CRB spell lists.
thenobledrake wrote: The creature(s) standing in the area you cast the grease on save or fall prone when you cast it. They don't re-save automatically once their turn starts. That's how the 1e version of Grease worked, sure. The 2e version lacks that language about only saving when the spell is first cast. I'm wondering if that's intentional or not.
The Grease spell description reads: Quote: All solid ground in the area is covered with
grease. Each creature standing on the greasy surface
must succeed at a Reflex save or an Acrobatics check
against your spell DC or fall prone. Creatures using
an action to move onto the greasy surface during the
spell’s duration must attempt either a Reflex save or an
Acrobatics check to Balance. A creature that Steps or
Crawls doesn’t have to attempt a check or save.
If I cast Grease on a square where a creature is standing, when does the creature have to make the Reflex save/Acrobatics check or fall prone? As soon as I cast the spell? On the creature's turn? Both?
Furthermore, say a creature starts its turn Prone in a Greased square. It uses an action to Stand. It's now "standing on the greasy surface"-- does it therefore have to make a Reflex save/Acrobatics check or fall prone again?
Draco18s wrote: Luke Styer wrote: Quote: My only gripe with exploration activities is the way it makes you choose either/or. Only at very high levels can you use both Stealth and Perception, for example. That’s not an unreasonable gripe, but I don’t think I share it. Generally picking one activity per PC streamlines and regularizes Exploration Mode, which I appreciate.
Note that you can't talk to people and observe your surroundings at the same time.
Or talk to people and raise your shield.
Detect Magic and observe your surroundings.
Wall and talk.
Walk and Detect Magic.
Ride a horse and not move slower than walking (and still be fatigued in 10 minutes) if you don't have a specific feat.
Cast any other cantrip at all (other than Detect Magic) without becoming fatigued.
It isn't just stealth-and-perception. Only if your GM is some kind of robot who has missed the whole point of the exploration rules and is determined to interpret them in the most literal and algorithmic way possible.
Gorbacz wrote: Why aren't Ranger, Barbarian and Champion just Fighter feats? I think they should be.
At first glance, both the Investigator and the Swashbuckler feel like they could have worked as Rogue rackets instead of separate classes. Looking forward to seeing how well they differentiate themselves in actual play.
i went through my pdf and added annotations with Bluebeam, crossing out the deleted bits and inserting the new verbiage as text markups. it was a bit time-consuming but the process helped me get really familiar with all the changes, and now i've got an updated pdf for future reference.
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
Aservan wrote: Semantics or a typo. It's being used like one. If the word was changed to attack would that satisfy?
By your logic spell splash has no rules and thus does nothing.
That's the whole point of this thread...
i mean, if we're allowing spells (Haste etc)... a Wizard casting Teleport at minimum level can travel 100 miles in ten minutes-- i.e. 600mph. Heighten that to 9th or 10th level and you're well over the speed of light ; )
3 people marked this as a favorite.
|
It's here!!
https://paizo.com/community/blog/v5748dyo6sgzq?Core-Rulebook-Errata-Round-1 #3
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
Henro wrote: tivadar27 wrote: Henro wrote: Individual sources of damage don’t need to scale to be good in this game. Monster hp scales linearly, so boosts to damage don’t become irrelevant ever. You've actually provided the evidence that invalidates your claim :-P. Monster HP scales linearly, so unless you have a bonus that scales as well (such as with weapon damage dice), it's going to become significantly worse over time. Damage scaling per level is also more or less linear, so this argument doesn't really make sense. I think the point was that the bonus damage from Emblazon Armament doesn't scale at all, it's a static +1. Since monster HP (and PC damage output) goes up with level, that +1 becomes a smaller and smaller portion of your total damage as you level up.
The main benefit of Emblazon Armament is the ability to cast divine spells with a Focus component while also wielding a shield or two-handed weapon, without spending actions to re-grip.
The bonus damage/hardness is great at low levels, but its relative importance fades over time-- whereas saving on action economy is valuable no matter what your level.
Captain Morgan wrote: This is probably an intentional design choice, but it can leave the class feeling a little lacking as a solo act. Aren't ALL the classes a bit lacking as solo acts? The game is designed such that party members have to support each other to succeed, on purpose.
Or are you saying that the Alchemist is even LESS effective when alone than the other casting classes are?
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
xgamemonsterx wrote: Someone asked about an ETA on errata and the APG playtest in Friday's Twitch stream and the response from OfficialPaizo was to stay tuned next Friday.
Take from that what you will...
/thread
2 people marked this as a favorite.
|
superhorse wrote: I read a few of his articles a while back, but was turned off by his writing style before I found anything good. The basis for the tension dice concept and your recommendation make me want to take a second look! The key is to skip/skim the first ~50% of each of his articles, which tends to be just rambling. the meat usually begins about halfway down, and there's often some very good ideas there.
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
Henro wrote: superhorse wrote: I'd love to hear more about your "tension dice pool!" It sounds like a good way to keep things moving in the absence of typical random encounter rolls. I'd be more than happy to share. I use a 2E-adapted version of this system.
Basically, whenever my players "spend 10 minutes" in a dungeon (resting, searching a room, loitering) I add a d10 to the tension pool. If they stay in the same place for another 10 minutes (because they want to more thoroughly search a room, or want to rest even more) the dice gets progressively smaller (d8, d6, d4). If an area is under "high alert", I will also roll smaller dice.
When there are six dice in the tension pool total, I roll them all which signifies the passing of an hour. If any dice rolls 1s, some "Bad Thing" happens. This "Bad Thing" is usually not combat, but some other kind of setback to the players. If you roll multiple 1s, even "Badder things" might happen.
Examples for "Bad Things" include: a guard patrol shows up, players have to hide; the villains get closer to their goals; innocents perish; the players encounter a trap; a cave-in occurs. And so on. The "Angry GM" is a great site! I find it interesting/amusing that a lot of his complaints about D&D 5e (from back in like 2017) seem to have been addressed in PF2-- often in ways that strongly resemble his suggested fixes.
graystone wrote: The only thing is that this doesn't apply for anything else: holding 10 loose shortswords in your arms and carrying 10 carefully packed shortswords in your backpack are the same bulk. Says who? Not the rules. The Bulk values given in the book *assume* that your gear is reasonably well-packed and secured on your character's person-- and expect the GM to make adjustments for unusual circumstances (like trying to carry your gear loose in your arms instead).
graystone wrote: This leads you to a situation where it's much easier to pack down a halfling with as much equipment [say 20 bulk in backpacks, pouches, sacks, ect] and then put said halfling in a backpack and carry them because the halfling is only 3 bulk and backpacks can hold 4... Small creatures have become better than bags of holding! Again, the PF2 rules assume that the players in general and the GM in particular are capable of applying common sense and making judgement calls on what's reasonable. Rather than try to construct a simulationist rule system that's watertight and powergamer-proof (which would be a fool's errand anyway), they instead set out guidelines and then empower the GM to shut down attempts to subvert the game with technicalities like what you described.
This design approach shows up everywhere, not just in the Bulk rules-- the whole PF2 system was deliberately designed this way, to quash the rule-lawyering and loophole-exploitation that was so common in PF1.
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
Mellored wrote: Barbarian can cast most spells while raging.
Such as dirge of doom, for a singing rage.
No they can't. Spells with a Verbal component (i.e. almost all spells) have the Concentrate trait, which means they can't be cast while raging. Using Silent Spell metamagic doesn't help since that also has the Concentrate trait.
Squiggit wrote: mrspaghetti wrote: I don't think it's overstating to say that Quickened would be OP if not limited to once per day. Yes, but Silent Spell isn't Quickened. If Silent removed an action, you'd be spending one action to remove one action, which would be net neutral action economy. All you'd gain is the actual benefits of Silent. Which, again, I'm having trouble believing would be as devastating to game balance as some of the posts in this thread are implying. I feel like if Silent Spell were intended to be action-neutral, it would simply be a free action.
Castilliano wrote: Everything written gets interpreted, even RAW. That's how writing works. (See: theology for vicious examples of conflicts re: RAW) Strongly agree. Well said!
Castilliano wrote:
Setting aside balance, when a melee weapon is used for a ranged strike, should it keep its melee properties, i.e. Wounding or Disrupting?
Apparently you believe so because rules don't say to subtract them.
I do not believe so because it's rather obvious it's not a melee attack.
Wait, you believe that a Disrupting dagger should become a mundane dagger if it's thrown? Now THAT'S weird, imo.
Castilliano wrote:
This is akin to a longsword having a Weapon Rune that only works with slashing weapons, i.e. Vorpal. The longsword is a slashing weapon, yet it's also Versatile-Piercing. When it does piercing damage, should it still apply its rune that only works w/ slashing weapons?
I do not believe so because it's rather obvious it's not a slashing attack.
Vorpal is a special case, since it explicitly says that it only works when you deal slashing damage. Other weapon property runes don't say that they only work when you make a melee attack. So i don't think that's a very good analogy.
I assume so too, it does seem odd though.
TBH I don't really understand the point of differentiating between Bursts and Emanations in the first place. I get that Emanations originate from a square and Bursts originate from a grid intersection, but why not just have caster-centered Bursts originate from a corner of the caster's square?
(Not being sarcastic, genuinely want to learn-- i didn't participate in the playtest so i missed a lot of discussions about whys and wherefores)
The Widen Spell feat reads Quote: You manipulate the energy of your spell, causing it to spread out and affect a wider area. If the next action you use is to Cast a Spell that has an area of a burst, cone, or line and does not have a duration, increase the area of that spell. Add 5 feet to the radius of a burst that normally has a radius of at least 10 feet (a burst with a smaller radius is not affected). Add 5 feet to the length of a cone or line that is normally 15 feet long or smaller, and add 10 feet to the length of a larger cone or line. So it affects bursts, cones, and lines-- but it doesn't say anything about emanations. Is that intentional, or a mistake?
2 people marked this as a favorite.
|
If you're looking for immersion and realism, PFS is not the place to go. An ordinary home-game GM can allow whatever they think makes sense in context, without all the artificial restrictions of PFS.
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
Your player is basically arguing that Silent Spell makes your spells silent AND ALSO grants the effects of Quickened Casting.
But notice that Quickened Casting is a Level 10 feat, and can only be used on spells 2 levels lower than the highest you can cast-- whereas Silent Spell is a Level 4 feat and works on spells of any level. That pretty clearly implies that Quickened Casting is meant to be more powerful than Silent Spell, not less.
What everybody else said, but also it's just fun. Some players are chaotic by nature and enjoy the unpredictability for its own sake.
The CRB has advice on this, from pg 489: "It’s best to use the XP increase from more characters to add more enemies or hazards, and the XP decrease from fewer characters to subtract enemies and hazards, rather than making one enemy tougher or weaker. Encounters are typically more satisfying if the number of enemy creatures is fairly close to the number of player characters."
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
Uchuujin wrote: Aiding an ally is DC 20 and only adds +1 on a success. Critically failing makes their check worse. TBF though the math of PF2 makes a +1 worth roughly as much as a +2 was in PF1. And critically succeeding gives them +2, +3, or +4 depending on your proficiency with the check you're aiding.
pad300 wrote: HammerJack wrote: From Command an Animal, on page 249:
"Most animals know the Leap, Seek, Stand, Stride, and Strike basic actions. If an animal knows an activity, such as a horse’s Gallop, you can Command the Animal to perform the activity, but you must spend as many actions on Command an Animal as the activity’s number of actions. You can also spend multiple actions to Command the Animal to perform that number of basic actions on its next turn; for instance, you could spend 3 actions to Command an Animal to Stride three times or to Stride twice and then Strike."
So I would say that answer is unambiguously yes, you can spend two actions to have the horse gallop. Actually that passage illustrates my biggest problem with the minion/animal companion rules. An animal companion has the minion trait - it can ONLY take 2 actions/turn. Thus a non-animal companion mount is actually much faster: It can take 3 actions. Compare, for example, 2 horses: the AC can take 2 action to gallop for a 100' move; the non-AC mount can be commanded to Gallop for 2 actions and then further commanded to stride for a total move of 140'... Yes, if all you're doing is moving, a non-minion mount can move 3 times per round. However you have to use all three of your actions to command the mount to move three times, so you can do nothing else during your turn.
A minion can only move twice per round, BUT you only need to spend one action to command it to do so-- meaning you have two actions left with which to cast a spell, attack, recall knowledge, raise a shield, etc. Plus animal companions can Support you, or attack, and they gain other abilities as you level up. Also they tend to have more HP than ordinary mounts.
So if all you're interested in is running away from a battle as fast as possible, then yes, a mundane mount can flee 50% faster than a companion mount (assuming it has the same base movement speed). However if you plan to actually participate in encounters, companion mounts are far superior.
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
Aservan wrote: If you are riding a horse there is a special movement advantage for doing so. This seems to be a reward for riding a boring mount. Developers should learn that many (most?) players aren't interested in doing things in a fantasy game that they can do in real life. I can ride a horse in real life. as a city boy the idea of riding a horse is already pretty fantastical to me, lol
|