Rycaut |
5 people marked this as FAQ candidate. 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Specifically the Nagaji get a racial bonus on Handle Animal check "against reptiles" yet there actually isn't a definition anywhere I've found that defines which animals count as reptiles for the purposes of this check (and whether it also applies to magical beasts that are also reptiles)
So anyone have a source for what counts/doesn't count?
(I'm specifically asking for PFS play as I may play a Nagaji build with an animal companion and clearly I would want to take a reptile - while Snake, Constrictor is a decent choice I'm curious which other options also qualify as reptiles...)
Christopher Rowe Contributor |
Rycaut |
Well for PFS play I'm asking where in the rules it is defined what is/isn't a reptile.
For example - dragons are described as "reptile like" in their Pathfinder description - are they reptiles? (I don't think so but I'm checking)
There is the Reptilian subtype of humanoids (which Nagaji are) but my question is what types of creatures (specifically potential Animal Companions) count as reptiles. Are all dinosaurs (for example)
Rycaut |
Yes I know you can't handle animal on intelligent creatures (though the rules on animal companions if you boost the AC intelligence are a but unclear) but as I noted in asking for PFS play. The issue as I see it is there isn't a clear answer in many cases whether the creatures should be considered reptiles. Yes snakes and lizards but what about all the various dinosaurs? And as others have noted this is an issue for many Druid archetypes as well.
RuyanVe |
Well, the brachiosaurus, elasmosaurus, pteranodon and others have reptile mentioned in their fluff text.
Under Creature Types in the Bestiary you find:
Reptilian Subtype: These creatures are scaly and usually cold-blooded. The reptilian subtype is only used to describe a set of humanoid races, not all animals and monsters that are true reptiles.
.
Apart from that: common sense or GM fiat.
Ruyan.
Rycaut |
Yes - but GM fiat isn't great if you are planning a build for PFS play where GM fiat is intended to be minimized.
Hence the question(s) - trying to design a build that is not subject to a lot of table variation - especially since I'm already going to be playing a fairly rare race in PFS (Nagaji - you need a boon, typically mostly only awarded to GMs at conventions, in order to play a Nagaji in PFS). So if I also have some other unusual features I want to be able to keep variation at a minimum (I'm planning a likely Dragon Disciple build but am looking at ways to have a useful pet - perhaps even taking a few levels of Druid or another class to get an animal companion - constrictor snake works but I think there may be some other great reptile options to consider)
Christopher Rowe Contributor |
Rycaut |
Thanks - I was looking at Paladin 2/ Ranger 2/ Sorcerer 1 / Dragon Disciple (5?) - probably adding a 3rd level of Paladin somewhere in there if I go that far in PFS - if I go farther not sure. But that doesn't get me a pet. So my options are:
- Summoner instead of Sorcerer? (not sure I love that - Summoners are fun but I kinda wanted a real reptile not a faux one)
- take a Paladin archetype that gets a Cleric Domain and go 4 levels of Paladin
- go four levels of Ranger instead of Paladin, rejigger abilities slightly (to make up for the huge boost to saves from 2nd level Paladin) then find space for the Boon Companion feat to at least get a 5th level animal companion (which is sufficient to get a large sized constrictor snake - but not enough to get the 7th level boosts for other animal companion options. Over time this would have diminishing returns as my animal companion wouldn't be very viable after about level 7-8 since I wouldn't be gaining effective Druid levels once i go Dragon Disciple
- go cross-blooded sorcerer with the Serpentine bloodline - forces a lot of tough choices and would likely require I take more levels of sorcerer to get more bloodline abilities sooner (so likely Paladin 2 / Sorcerer 3. Viper familiar at sorcerer level -2 is also not fantastic as a melee ally but certainly flavorful
- take two levels of Oracle - some really fun options, Nature Mystery might be a good fit (has a revelation that grants CHA to AC - though it isn't quite as amazing at the Lore Mystery Sidestep revelation that also grants CHA to Reflex saves - but adding some Divine casting to a the Arcane casting might make for a really interesting character (probably Lame curse but there are others that might be flavorful as well) Not sure this is as "optimal" as the levels of ranger to get Aspect of the Beast & Rending Claws but it might be very fun (or I could do two levels of Ranger instead of 2 levels of Paladin - though I was thinking of this character as a LG type.
Anyway should be a really fun build.
Rycaut |
in the end for this character I (so far) haven't had a real Animal Companion - for many levels he had a purchased constrictor snake pet (who lasted far longer than I expected - until about level 7) but as of level 10 I don't have a full companion (I ended up going 4 levels Paladin, 1 level Bard and so far 5 levels of Dragon Disciple. Really really fun character - and now quite an amazing tank who is a surprisingly effective caster for a character who also wears heavy armor (his bardic spells have been carefully chosen to not have somatic components to minimize arcane spell failure - he accepts that chance with castings of Detect Magic). And he makes full use of his Paladin spells as well as his heavy focus on his lay on hands ability (greater mercy + bracers of the merciful knight, plus extra lay on hands and ultimate mercy).
But either for him at higher levels or for another Nagaji character I'm still interested in what counts as a reptile for the purposes of the Nagaji's racial abilities (and for the many druid archetypes that care about this decision as well.
Nefreet |
1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I'm still interested in what counts as a reptile for the purposes of the Nagaji's racial abilities (and for the many druid archetypes that care about this decision as well).
As was already established up thread, creatures such as Kobolds, Dragons, and Magical Beasts cannot be manipulated with Handle Animal. Only creatures of the Animal type qualify.
Is there a reason why you cannot go with the real life classification of "reptile"? I'm with you on avoiding table variation. PFS is all I do. But I just don't see this as being an issue.
If you want a concrete list, I'd go with this:
• Crocodile
• Crocodile, Dire
• Dinosaur (all)
• Lizard
• Lizard, Giant Chameleon
• Lizard, Giant Frilled
• Lizard, Giant Gecko
• Lizard, Monitor
• Megafauna, Archelon
• Megafauna, Megalania
• Pterosaur (all)
• Snake, Constrictor
• Snake, Emperor Cobra
• Snake, Giant Anaconda
• Snake, Venomous
• Snake Swarm
• Tortoise, Giant
• Tortoise, Immense
• Tuatara
• Turtle
• Turtle, Snapping
• Turtle, Giant Snapping
• Viper
Leaving out all varieties of:
• Birds (Axebeak, Eagle, Owl, etc.)
• Frogs (Giant, Poison, etc.)
• Toads (Giant, regular, etc.)
About the only one I could find that's legitimately up for contention would be:
• Archaeopteryx
(I did not pour through all splatbooks, so if anyone wants to add to this list, feel free)
DM_Blake |
We're probably overthinking this.
It only applies to animals. Not dragons, not magical beasts, not scaly aberrations - just animals. Specifically animals with INT < 3.
After that, the basic dictionary definition of reptiles should probably cover this for every GM on the planet. We all know what reptiles are. I doubt there will be any table variance on this ability at all. If there is, it will probably be minimal (say, far less than the table variance on using Stealth).
Kerney |
DM_Blake wrote:I think there's legitimately room for discussion about whether dinosaurs are reptiles. (I find the notion of warm-blooded "reptiles" unusual, but no more so than the idea of fire-breathing dragons.)We're probably overthinking this.
It only applies to animals.
If I were teaching an evolutionary biology class, I would not consider them reptiles. Playing the game and reading RAI, which does not reflect current scientific understanding, I would. I might in a home game throw some curve ball, but it would include a hint like feathers.
default |
Handle animal can apply to non-animals with int 1 or 2, so I would think basilisks and the amphisbaena would qualify. Hydras depend on the setting. Pathfinder apparently treats them as amphibian, but I treat them as reptilian...
While we're discussing taxonomy, anyone care to hazard a guess on Griffons? Are they mammals with avian features or avians with mammalian features? (I lean towards the second based on the mention of eggs, but they can be interbred with horses to get hippogryphs, right?)
justaworm |
Each of the flavor text of a 'dinosaur' entry should make it clear. Clearly by looking at the Dinosaur, Pteranodon entry, dinosaurs were not meant to be specifically equivalent to reptiles...
Dinosaur, Pteranodon:
The pteranodon is not itself a dinosaur but rather a large flying reptile that is often found in areas dinosaurs are common.
If you read the text of other entries in 'Dinosaurs', you will see some others that are specifically called out as 'reptiles' rather than 'dinosaurs' (e.g. Elasmosaurus,Dimetrodon).
If the text doesn't specifically say it is a 'reptile', then it should be considered a 'dinosaur'. That being the case, a nice GM may house-rule dinosaurs into the reptile family if you ask.
Now, the question remains did the devs leave out this distinction for some of the 'Dinosaurs'? If you look at Tylosaurus, for example, it is seemingly a reptile (like elasmosaurus), but the text doesn't make the distinction. This could just be a difference in the writing of MM1 vs. MM2, as the text does say it is a 'lizard' - which is ambiguous in this case.
Orfamay Quest |
Each of the flavor text of a 'dinosaur' entry should make it clear. Clearly by looking at the Dinosaur, Pteranodon entry, dinosaurs were not meant to be specifically equivalent to reptiles...
Quote:If you read the text of other entries in 'Dinosaurs', you will see some others that are specifically called out as 'reptiles' rather than 'dinosaurs' (e.g. Elasmosaurus,Dimetrodon).Dinosaur, Pteranodon:
The pteranodon is not itself a dinosaur but rather a large flying reptile that is often found in areas dinosaurs are common.
I think you're assuming opposition where all that is really meant is specificity.
Biologically, the bestiaries are right -- a pteranodon is a pterosaur, and Pterosauria is a sister group to Dinosauromorpha. But that doesn't mean they aren't both reptiles.
Similarly, the glass snake is not actually a snake, but a legless lizard. (It has eyelids, for example). But both snakes and lizards are reptiles.
So, you're right, dinosaurs are not equivalent to reptiles. But I think it's reasonable for them to be a subgroup (that does not include, for example, vipers).
Paladin of Baha-who? |
Paladin of Baha-who? wrote:Every time a person defines a group named 'reptilia' that includes dinosaurs but excludes birds, a cladistic systematicist drops down dead.Because it's so much better to draw the arbitrary non-cladistic line at Dinosauria instead of at Aves? :rolleyes:
I don't recognize a group named Reptiles as a scientific concept. It's a cultural relic from an obsolete system of classification. If you're including turtles and feathered, most likely warm-blooded velociraptors in the same class, but excluding feathered, warm-blooded ostritches from that class, you're doing it wrong.
Anyway. For the game, I would not allow dinosaurs to be included in reptiles, because the Saurian shaman druid archetype lists them separately.
Rycaut |
For the Nagaji - then yes, this is for what their Handle Animal bonus would apply to - but this question is also relevant to a lot of other cases where an arbitrary term "reptiles" is used for a game mechanical purpose - but isn't actually defined (at least anywhere i can see) in the rules.
Looking into flavor text of monsters perhaps helps with some cases - but it is both a laborious and subject to debate process - hence my question. I think the list someone posted above is a helpful one but my question/request as a player and as a DM (especially for PFS) is that in the future Paizo avoid using undefined terms in favor of using existing game mechanical terms and/or introduce clear rules (say adding something to all monsters that would answer this in the future much as they have added mechanical terms to spells to clarify many cases around which spells were of which types.