Animal Companions as Mounts


Pathfinder First Edition General Discussion

Liberty's Edge

So, when exactly did Animal Companions become free exotic combat mounts? I've been listening to the gamers in the local game store talking about their campaigns, characters, etc. As soon as one mentions having a druid, there's an immediate comment to the effect of "Oh, yeah! How cool is it to have a giant poisonous frog mount!" The halfling druid has a badger: "Oh, that's a great mount for a halfing!"

When did this happen? I didn't see anything in the Core Rules... Is there some place where this is addressed?

Please tell me it's just some crazy local thing that's gone too far. I'm rather old school and it simply pains me to think that your friend, companion, is something that is meant to be broken and saddled or used as a polish mine detector.

Dark Archive

An exotic saddle costs more, but yeah, you can definitely do that. There's no real way to stop it either, although you're likely medium or heavy-loading most animal companions, so remember to reduce their movement speed.

Consider how weak a non-companion mount is for most characters and you'll see why animal companions are the go-to mounts.


My Ranger had a Large Thylacine companion, and I rather thought it would be good fun to ride him bareback.

/ yes, that can be taken out of context

/ side-note: by and large Animal Companions probably shouldn't be used as mounts, but is it really so wrong?


I don't follow the reason for the complaint.

If one's companion shouldn't be a mount, then should one never give his horse a name? Should one not teach the horse a few tricks or skills? How is a giant badger or dinosaur different than a horse?

I see the point that using one's companion as a mine detector is callous and rather against the concept (that's why there is a bag of many small furry disposable animals magic item), but a mount isn't inherently unethical or immoral.


There's also the precident of other classes gaining a special mount using the animal companion rules. See Paladin and Cavalier.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

I see no reason that an animal companion and their druid should not cooperate in combat. In fact that is one of their primary stated purposes.

Animal companions don't need to be "broken" or saddled for druids (or rangers) to ride them. My lvl 8 druid is frequently carried by her large tiger mount. There is no saddle, no reins, no spurs, etc. The tiger moves faster and allows her to have her bow at the ready for full attacks while moving if they encounter trouble. This enhances the tiger's survivability. When it is tactically superior for them to separate in combat, they will.

The idea that there is some sort of disrespect or exploitation involved if a druid utilizes their animal companion as a mount is simply a pejorative stereotype. Talk to a real cowboy about their horse to see how disrespectful they are of their mount. Take the relationship of a rodeo cowboy and his cutting horse and multiply that respect and love by about an order of magnitude to approximate the relationship between a typical druid and their "mount".

That's not to say that there aren't some players who play their druids as contemptuous and disrespectful of their ACs, but that is a completely separate issue than whether the AC allows, and even enjoys, partnering so closely with their druid that they actually move as one.


Adamantine Dragon wrote:

That's not to say that there aren't some players who play their druids as contemptuous and disrespectful of their ACs, but that is a completely separate issue than whether the AC allows, and even enjoys, partnering so closely with their druid that they actually move as one.

Indeed. Consider the Ranyhyn (sp?) or Shadowfax...if they consent to bear you, then bear you they will. It's illogical for a horse companion to NOT view his role as being a mount.

I'm not so sure about some of the others in this thread from a physiological point of view, and firing a bow from tiger-back might be one of them :), but that is separate from the druid/AC question.

Liberty's Edge

I simply hadn't realized that it's a *given* that your druid chooses their companion with it's use as a free mount as part of the package.

Honestly, I think it's something that should be written in... Do druids get to ride their companions at equal size, or does the companion need to be one size category larger? Because they are companions, and not technically mounts, do the same Ride skill checks apply? Are they assumed to be well suited or ill suited, is that dependent on the animal? Maybe that's something that should be noted with the animals.

It's not even clear for the animals that normally do serve as mounts. For example, under Horse in the Bestiary, it notes that the Horse's hooves are only a secondary attack if the Horse is *not* combat trained. The Horse entry under druid notes that the Horse's attacks *are* secondary. The implication is that the Horse companion is not combat trained. Which lead me to look again at the Paladin's Bonded Mount, and that doesn't say either whether the mount is combat trained, either.

For me, the issue of the druid's companion as a mount is not as clear as it seems to be for others. It would be nice to have a clarification.


KingsTears wrote:
I simply hadn't realized that it's a *given* that your druid chooses their companion with it's use as a free mount as part of the package.

The iconic Druid from the CRB is commonly depicted upon the back of her Snow Tiger y'know. I'd say that's a pretty good indicator that some Druids do in fact ride their companions.


Mergy wrote:

An exotic saddle costs more, but yeah, you can definitely do that. There's no real way to stop it either, although you're likely medium or heavy-loading most animal companions, so remember to reduce their movement speed.

Consider how weak a non-companion mount is for most characters and you'll see why animal companions are the go-to mounts.

I think you've hit the nail on the head as to why this seems to be the big use of this feat.

Normal mounts just can't survive at higher levels unless they have features like the animal companion. And if a mount is key to any part of your build, you can't have it falling over dead at the first sniff of bat guano.

There are creatures in the bestiary that can be used as mounts, but most PC's don't seem to ever bother with the handle animal skill. I've always wanted to come up with some way to use that skill, but it seems like it would be a total waste of time after level 5 or something.

Maybe other people do it differently, but in my experience handle animal is used about as much as craft:cobbler or something.

No one ever trains a mount they just buy it trained. Even using this feat I don't think many groups go through the training process or teaching it tricks.

Another big use is to get a flying mount. This is really important the higher level you go, and even the classes like Cavalier and Mounted Barbarian have no good way to do it.


Chobemaster wrote:
I'm not so sure about some of the others in this thread from a physiological point of view, and firing a bow from tiger-back might be one of them :), but that is separate from the druid/AC question.

First, firing a bow from a mount is specifically allowed in the rules, in fact that is the only reason my druid has a compound longbow, her strength is 10 so she can't benefit from a str adjustment, but longbows can't be used from a mount.

Second, there are hordes (pun intended) of examples in history of archers effectively firing bows from horseback. I see no reason it would be any different from tigerback.

Besides, it is pure awesome imagery...

Liberty's Edge

loaba wrote:
The iconic Druid from the CRB is commonly depicted upon the back of her Snow Tiger y'know. I'd say that's a pretty good indicator that some Druids do in fact ride their companions.

Art and rules don't actually go together. Many of the artists don't know the first thing about gaming, let alone the rules... and yes, some do. But just because you saw an interesting conception doesn't mean that you get the depicted item at first level or that it works the way it was imagined or ignores game rules altogether.


sunbeam wrote:


No one ever trains a mount they just buy it trained. Even using this feat I don't think many groups go through the training process or teaching it tricks.

Another big use is to get a flying mount. This is really important the higher level you go, and even the classes like Cavalier and Mounted Barbarian have no good way to do it.

My lvl 14 ranger is a 2e conversion. Back in those days he tracked down a hippogriff nest after the hippogriff had been killed by a dragon, adopted the eggs he found, hatched and raised them, set two free but one remained which he then trained and eventually became his animal companion.

Ya, I know it's not RAW, but it's a hell of a story...


KingsTears wrote:

I simply hadn't realized that it's a *given* that your druid chooses their companion with it's use as a free mount as part of the package.

Honestly, I think it's something that should be written in... Do druids get to ride their companions at equal size, or does the companion need to be one size category larger? Because they are companions, and not technically mounts, do the same Ride skill checks apply? Are they assumed to be well suited or ill suited, is that dependent on the animal? Maybe that's something that should be noted with the animals.

It's not even clear for the animals that normally do serve as mounts. For example, under Horse in the Bestiary, it notes that the Horse's hooves are only a secondary attack if the Horse is *not* combat trained. The Horse entry under druid notes that the Horse's attacks *are* secondary. The implication is that the Horse companion is not combat trained. Which lead me to look again at the Paladin's Bonded Mount, and that doesn't say either whether the mount is combat trained, either.

For me, the issue of the druid's companion as a mount is not as clear as it seems to be for others. It would be nice to have a clarification.

Pretty much all of these questions can be easily resolved by reading up on the ride and handle animal skills as well as the animal companion section.

Animal companions get bonus tricks in addition to the ones that they are taught by their respective pseudo owner. If you are riding your animal companion then by definition and raw it is a mount. The ride skill nor animal companion rules specify a special exemption for animal companions as mounts and as such should fall under the normal animal mount riding rules. It shouldn't be too hard to discern which animals should be considered ill suited.

If an animal has only one type of attack the attack is treated as a primary natural attack, horses hold a specific exemption unless they are combat trained. If a paladin wants a combat trained horse then he has to spend the trick point for it.

Edit: At least until fourth level. At which point horse animal companions automatically snag combat trained. Since paladins get their animal companions at level 5 the problem is already resolved.

Mounts have to be larger than their riders in every instance that I can find it referenced. You might be able to ride a smaller creature as an unsuitable mount, but that is probably a dm call and as far as I can tell not raw.


KingsTears wrote:
loaba wrote:
The iconic Druid from the CRB is commonly depicted upon the back of her Snow Tiger y'know. I'd say that's a pretty good indicator that some Druids do in fact ride their companions.
Art and rules don't actually go together. Many of the artists don't know the first thing about gaming, let alone the rules... and yes, some do. But just because you saw an interesting conception doesn't mean that you get the depicted item at first level or that it works the way it was imagined or ignores game rules altogether.

While what you say here is perfectly true, you still haven't shown how it's detrimental, or even a form of rules abuse, for a Ranger or Druid to utilize their companion as a mount. I can only imagine how you might feel about the Bow Ranger who uses his companion to keep enemies at bay in the midst of combat.


KingsTears wrote:
I'm rather old school and it simply pains me to think that your friend, companion, is something that is meant to be broken and saddled or used as a polish mine detector.

So you'd prefer they sent their friend and companion in a near suicidal flanking position (given the difficulty of getting most of them AC and their slowed HD progression) than stay with it where they can use the ride skill to keep him or her safe?


Adamantine Dragon wrote:
Chobemaster wrote:
I'm not so sure about some of the others in this thread from a physiological point of view, and firing a bow from tiger-back might be one of them :), but that is separate from the druid/AC question.

First, firing a bow from a mount is specifically allowed in the rules, in fact that is the only reason my druid has a compound longbow, her strength is 10 so she can't benefit from a str adjustment, but longbows can't be used from a mount.

Second, there are hordes (pun intended) of examples in history of archers effectively firing bows from horseback. I see no reason it would be any different from tigerback.

Besides, it is pure awesome imagery...

Watch video of a horse running, and watch video of a tiger running. a horse's back stays much more horizontal/stable. Also, tell me what you're doing w/ your legs. :)

It is good imagery, though.


KingsTears wrote:
loaba wrote:
The iconic Druid from the CRB is commonly depicted upon the back of her Snow Tiger y'know. I'd say that's a pretty good indicator that some Druids do in fact ride their companions.
Art and rules don't actually go together. Many of the artists don't know the first thing about gaming, let alone the rules... and yes, some do. But just because you saw an interesting conception doesn't mean that you get the depicted item at first level or that it works the way it was imagined or ignores game rules altogether.

Where is the basis for the position that a druid may NOT ride an AC capable of carrying him or her?


KingsTears wrote:
I'm rather old school and it simply pains me to think that your friend, companion, is something that is meant to be broken and saddled or used as a polish mine detector.

You wouldn't need to "break" an AC to bear a rider. The friend, the companion wants to help.

"He ain't heavy, he's my druid."


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Chobemaster wrote:

Watch video of a horse running, and watch video of a tiger running. a horse's back stays much more horizontal/stable. Also, tell me what you're doing w/ your legs. :)

It is good imagery, though.

Chobe, my druid isn't even human. In fact she's part dryad, which I think might mean she's 1/4 tree. And she's not actually riding a "tiger." She's riding a Patthfinder animal in an alternate universe that just happens to have a vague resemblence to an earth tiger.

In a world with brobdingnagian flying fire-breathing scaled monsters you think the "tigers" would run the same way as an earth tiger?

My druid can rain divine fire down from the heavens, can cause the vegetation around her to writhe and grow and grab creatures and can transform herself into a patch of sentient air, but you have a problem with her maintaining her balance on the back of a tiger?

OK. That's cool.


Adamantine Dragon wrote:
Chobemaster wrote:

Watch video of a horse running, and watch video of a tiger running. a horse's back stays much more horizontal/stable. Also, tell me what you're doing w/ your legs. :)

It is good imagery, though.

Chobe, my druid isn't even human. In fact she's part dryad, which I think might mean she's 1/4 tree. And she's not actually riding a "tiger." She's riding a Patthfinder animal in an alternate universe that just happens to have a vague resemblence to an earth tiger.

In a world with brobdingnagian flying fire-breathing scaled monsters you think the "tigers" would run the same way as an earth tiger?

My druid can rain divine fire down from the heavens, can cause the vegetation around her to writhe and grow and grab creatures and can transform herself into a patch of sentient air, but you have a problem with her maintaining her balance on the back of a tiger?

OK. That's cool.

A "problem" with it? No. She does those other things w/ rule-defined features, to overcome reality as mundanely understood. Does she have a rule-defined feature to do the thing in question? Seems not.


1) The rules don't disallow it
2) There are plenty of mechanics that do allow it: exotic mount saddles for instance.
3) There is no physical reason why it wouldn't work
4) There's nothing demeaning about carrying someone into battle and working together. Both my wizard and druids have wound up carrying people in animal form at some point.

5) Mechanically a druid with a lance works better than a fighter with a lance. They can get the critter into the dungeon AND the critter is tough enough to live when it gets there.


If you look over the Animal Companions vs the actual mounts there is a difference. Unless you are a small sized character you can not even ride a mount if you want to go by the Size rule, which actually does not exist in Pathfinder, until Level 4 or Level 7.

The other way to look at it is Str based stat... Anyone can technically ride a pony their Str is 13 but if you look over the description their load factors in, So based on that if you do it purely by the Str of the Companion would alter the Speed that the Mount can travel which would be the determining Factor early on but as it levels the Str increases allowing for more versatility.

Thirdly what companion you choose there are mount feats that you would end up taking and that your Pet would take to get abilities to improve on this. abilities. The Cavalier gets a druid animal companion starting at level 1 the only difference is that it starts with armor mastery light armor.

The last point is all the ride checks. You would still need a decent ride and you get bonuses in some situations.


My cavalier is level 12 with a Lion mount, Now you wanna talk about charging into battle BRING IT!


If you look over the Animal Companions vs the actual mounts there is a difference. Unless you are a small sized character you can not even ride a mount if you want to go by the Size rule, which actually does not exist in Pathfinder, until Level 4 or Level 7.

Horse

Starting Statistics: Size Large; Speed 50 ft.; AC +4 natural armor; Attack bite (1d4), 2 hooves* (1d6); Ability Scores Str 16, Dex 13, Con 15, Int 2, Wis 12, Cha 6; Special Qualities low-light vision, scent. *This is a secondary natural attack, see Combat for more information on how secondary attacks work.

Your mounted druid can start with a horse and move up to a large cat.


Chobemaster wrote:


A "problem" with it? No. She does those other things w/ rule-defined features, to overcome reality as mundanely understood. Does she have a rule-defined feature to do the thing in question? Seems not.

Actually, no. So far as I know ther is no rule that explicitly allows me to have as a player character the magical offspring of an enchanted elf and a wild dryad. So my druid's very existence must be some sort of rules affront.

On the other hand there are plenty of rules which explicitly allow my rule-breaking-race druid to ride her tiger. There are specific rules about animals which allow them to be trained. There are specific rules about riding animals which are not restricted to horses and ponies. You can ride a T-Rex if you can train it. There are even specific rules about riding animal mounts into combat and shooting bows from their backs. My racial-rule-breaking druid has followed every single one of those rules.

Because the rules generally allow any animal to be trained, and any character to ride, there is no need for a specific rule to allow a specific category of animal to be ridden by a specific class of character. If that were true, by your definition here, my druid could not eat or dink since there are only general rules around doing so and druids themselves have no specific eating and drinking rules.


The big thing in my opinion is the Str of the Animal. That is going to determine its Speed how much it hates you and what Armor to put on it!

Charge!


1 person marked this as FAQ candidate.
Reecy wrote:

The big thing in my opinion is the Str of the Animal. That is going to determine its Speed how much it hates you and what Armor to put on it!

Charge!

And the important thing to remember there is that quadraped carrying capacity increases dramatically with size. A large quadraped can carry a whole lot more at speed than most players realize.


Correct Example to back Dragon up

here is the table

http://paizo.com/pathfinderRPG/prd/additionalRules.html#table-7-9-mounts-an d-vehicles


Adamantine Dragon wrote:
Reecy wrote:

The big thing in my opinion is the Str of the Animal. That is going to determine its Speed how much it hates you and what Armor to put on it!

Charge!

And the important thing to remember there is that quadraped carrying capacity increases dramatically with size. A large quadraped can carry a whole lot more at speed than most players realize.

Which is why a Large-size Thylacine rocked so damn hard. Alas, his unnatural growth was too hard on his heart and it killed him in the end.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
KingsTears wrote:
loaba wrote:
The iconic Druid from the CRB is commonly depicted upon the back of her Snow Tiger y'know. I'd say that's a pretty good indicator that some Druids do in fact ride their companions.
Art and rules don't actually go together. Many of the artists don't know the first thing about gaming, let alone the rules... and yes, some do. But just because you saw an interesting conception doesn't mean that you get the depicted item at first level or that it works the way it was imagined or ignores game rules altogether.

I just wanted to pop in and comment on this last statement: Paizo commissions artists to do these pieces, as I understand it. They give the artist a description of what they need in the composition and the artist does their thing. If Lini is riding her snow leopard, it's probably because Paizo asked for her to be riding it.

There are also images of giant eagles being used as mounts in the Bestiary. Exotic mounts are a staple in fantasy. Saying that riding a tiger defies logic here is silly. By all means, play your game how you want, but this is a fantasy game; take it with everything it comes with.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Foghammer wrote:
Exotic mounts are a staple in fantasy.

Tarna


Adamantine Dragon wrote:
Chobemaster wrote:


A "problem" with it? No. She does those other things w/ rule-defined features, to overcome reality as mundanely understood. Does she have a rule-defined feature to do the thing in question? Seems not.

Actually, no. So far as I know ther is no rule that explicitly allows me to have as a player character the magical offspring of an enchanted elf and a wild dryad. So my druid's very existence must be some sort of rules affront.

On the other hand there are plenty of rules which explicitly allow my rule-breaking-race druid to ride her tiger. There are specific rules about animals which allow them to be trained. There are specific rules about riding animals which are not restricted to horses and ponies. You can ride a T-Rex if you can train it. There are even specific rules about riding animal mounts into combat and shooting bows from their backs. My racial-rule-breaking druid has followed every single one of those rules.

Because the rules generally allow any animal to be trained, and any character to ride, there is no need for a specific rule to allow a specific category of animal to be ridden by a specific class of character. If that were true, by your definition here, my druid could not eat or dink since there are only general rules around doing so and druids themselves have no specific eating and drinking rules.

Not at all, but you appear to be doing your thing signalling the end of enjoyable conversation, so I'll bow out.

Liberty's Edge

Well, thank you all. I see that the free exotic mount is, in effect, a feature of the class. It's part of the evolution of the game, and I simply should expect it from this point on. As far as the rules... Yep, Jak pointed them out cleanly.

Jak the Looney Alchemist wrote:

Pretty much all of these questions can be easily resolved by reading up on the ride and handle animal skills as well as the animal companion section.

Animal companions get bonus tricks in addition to the ones that they are taught by their respective pseudo owner. If you are riding your animal companion then by definition and raw it is a mount. The ride skill nor animal companion rules specify a special exemption for animal companions as mounts and as such should fall under the normal animal mount riding rules. It shouldn't be too hard to discern which animals should be considered ill suited.

If an animal has only one type of attack the attack is treated as a primary natural attack, horses hold a specific exemption unless they are combat trained. If a paladin wants a combat trained horse...

I'll simply ask about the tricks, and apply the appropriate modifiers. Messing with your Animal Companion as a mount will take a little effort or be time/action consuming in combat; I'm fine with that.


Chobemaster wrote:
Adamantine Dragon wrote:
Chobemaster wrote:


A "problem" with it? No. She does those other things w/ rule-defined features, to overcome reality as mundanely understood. Does she have a rule-defined feature to do the thing in question? Seems not.

Actually, no. So far as I know ther is no rule that explicitly allows me to have as a player character the magical offspring of an enchanted elf and a wild dryad. So my druid's very existence must be some sort of rules affront.

On the other hand there are plenty of rules which explicitly allow my rule-breaking-race druid to ride her tiger. There are specific rules about animals which allow them to be trained. There are specific rules about riding animals which are not restricted to horses and ponies. You can ride a T-Rex if you can train it. There are even specific rules about riding animal mounts into combat and shooting bows from their backs. My racial-rule-breaking druid has followed every single one of those rules.

Because the rules generally allow any animal to be trained, and any character to ride, there is no need for a specific rule to allow a specific category of animal to be ridden by a specific class of character. If that were true, by your definition here, my druid could not eat or dink since there are only general rules around doing so and druids themselves have no specific eating and drinking rules.

Not at all, but you appear to be doing your thing signalling the end of enjoyable conversation, so I'll bow out.

When all that needs to be said has been said Chobe, bowing out is the best choice.


KingsTears wrote:


I'll simply ask about the tricks, and apply the appropriate modifiers. Messing with your Animal Companion as a mount will take a little effort or be time/action consuming in combat; I'm fine with that.

Actually "messing with your mount" even in combat, is a DC20 ride check which can be performed as a free action, so in game terms it literally takes no effort at all. Assuming you make the ride check.

If you don't make the ride check, then the mount won't perform the requested activity. So if you want to move around the BBEG to flank for the rogue, and your ride skill is less than 19, then you make a ride check as a free action. If you succeed, you can full attack with a bow before or after the move and your mount can flank the BBEG.

This is true of any mount, and any rider.

Scarab Sages

For anyone who likes Mounted Combat, I'll just leave this here:

The Very Last Book About Mounted Combat

There should be a PDF version available by next week.


Chobemaster wrote:

Watch video of a horse running, and watch video of a tiger running. a horse's back stays much more horizontal/stable. Also, tell me what you're doing w/ your legs. :)

It is good imagery, though.

Show me a a horse sized tiger and I will show you a tiger that can be ridden like a horse. :)

Remember, a druid still has to abide by the mount rules. A legal mount must be a size category larger than the rider. So smalls can ride medium animals and mediums can ride large animals.

I have seen video's of children on the backs of tigers getting rides in the real world. It is not too far a stretch to assume that magical druids and rangers and whatnots can ride them too.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

two words ...

Battle Cat


gourry187 wrote:

two words ...

Battle Cat

Now w/ a DIRE Tiger, we're talking! Room for your legs to hang down whilst sitting vertically, broad and long enough back to find a somewhat stable point.

He-Man was following the the steps of the sorcerers of Pan Tang, though.


Adamantine Dragon wrote:
KingsTears wrote:


I'll simply ask about the tricks, and apply the appropriate modifiers. Messing with your Animal Companion as a mount will take a little effort or be time/action consuming in combat; I'm fine with that.

Actually "messing with your mount" even in combat, is a DC20 ride check which can be performed as a free action, so in game terms it literally takes no effort at all. Assuming you make the ride check.

If you don't make the ride check, then the mount won't perform the requested activity. So if you want to move around the BBEG to flank for the rogue, and your ride skill is less than 19, then you make a ride check as a free action. If you succeed, you can full attack with a bow before or after the move and your mount can flank the BBEG.

This is true of any mount, and any rider.

Control Mount in Battle: As a move action, you can attempt to control a light horse, pony, heavy horse, or other mount not trained for combat riding while in battle. If you fail the Ride check, you can do nothing else in that round. You do not need to roll for horses or ponies trained for combat.

Presumably if a druid is riding around on their mount it IS trained for combat and they only need to make the much easier dc 5 to guide with their knees.

Combat Training (DC 20) An animal trained to bear a rider into combat knows the tricks attack, come, defend, down, guard, and heel. Training an animal for combat riding takes 6 weeks. You may also “upgrade” an animal trained for riding to one trained for combat by spending 3 weeks and making a successful DC 20 Handle Animal check. The new general purpose and tricks completely replace the animal's previous purpose and any tricks it once knew. Many horses and riding dogs are trained in this way.


LOL, caught! I am guilty of not reading the ride rules as thoroughly as I should have... I saw the chart and assumed "control mount in battle" referred to a combat trained mount. The actual text clearly says it is for non-combat trained mounts. Wow, what a miss.

LOL, now I am wondering if my druid has invested too much in the ride skill...

Thanks for the rules correction.


It's nice to have a strong mount. The disadvantage of that is that mount can't always follow you. I used a very nice ranger. Human, with the variant race ability that gives mount +2 to one stat (APG), so the companion (an hawk) got +2 int. From first level it can take teamwork feats. When both ranger and bird companion got the feat that gives you +1d6 precision damage when flanking become very interesting :)

Grand Lodge

Atarlost wrote:
KingsTears wrote:
I'm rather old school and it simply pains me to think that your friend, companion, is something that is meant to be broken and saddled or used as a polish mine detector.

Who says a FRIEND/Comanion needs tone broken to allow itself to be ridden. Who is to say even that a "broken" horse can't be a friend? What is so bad about a saddle? A blanket goes down first, it can't be too much more uncomfortable than armor or barding. And friend worth it's salt has probably spoken to his/her animal companion either through a spell or through wild empathy and handle animal. It wouldn't be too hard to convince a good and dumb friend to allow you to put armor on it to keep it alive, or to allow you to rude it so you can defend it better and move faster. He'll, dogs let you do just about anything if you are nice enough to them. It doesn't make the act mean. My gnome rides a badger he has known since its birth. It became large enough after they grew in age and experience together. Cabe Tosscobbles the gnome druid/cavalier loves his badger "cobbles". He lances many foes from the top of his wonderful badger. Once per day through a magical collar, badger gets to be large size. Cabe talks to cobbles once a day for a minute, through innate gnome magic.

Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder First Edition / General Discussion / Animal Companions as Mounts All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.
Recent threads in General Discussion