Chyrone |
Hello,
The concept would be a halfling hunter, focused on bow combat ride his roc.
To what limits is this workable rules wise?
A roc has a mere 12 str at its start, i recall reading older threads saying a mount that flies can only carry a light load. (43 lbs in the case with 12 str)
Thanks in advance.
Chyrone |
I don't think that's actually a rule unless you're talking about barding.
How do you mean?
It was my understanding an animal could like a PC, only move freely with a light load.
On the side, would i need something like Mounted combat? Since this roc is, despite getting the tricks for riding, not a cavalier's mount or a purchased ridable animal.
Ravingdork |
I mean, the only rule that I've ever remember seeing on the issue* stated that creatures cannot fly while wearing medium or heavy barding. To my knowledge, they could totally fly with a heavy load if they wanted, with the normal decrease in speed.
The Mounted Combat feat might help increase the roc's chances of long-term survival, and is a prerequisite to some other cool mounted feats, but it is not strictly necessary.
kadance |
The rules usually quoted are:
Encumbrance by Weight: If you want to determine whether your character's gear is heavy enough to slow him down more than his armor already does, total the weight of all the character's items, including armor, weapons, and gear. Compare this total to the character's Strength on Table: Carrying Capacity. Depending on the character's carrying capacity, he or she may be carrying a light, medium, or heavy load. Like armor, a character's load affects his maximum Dexterity bonus to AC, carries a check penalty (which works like an armor check penalty), reduces the character's speed, and affects how fast the character can run, as shown on Table: Encumbrance Effects. A medium or heavy load counts as medium or heavy armor for the purpose of abilities or skills that are restricted by armor. Carrying a light load does not encumber a character.
Not saying it's conclusive, just putting it out there.
Gauss |
2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Ok, once again (because this keeps coming up), the rules for load does not have ANYTHING to do with the rules for what kind of barding fliers can wear.
People keep assuming that the rules for Barding (a subset of Armor) apply to Armor and thus to light loads. They dont because they are a subset of the Armor rules.
If Barding the barding rules regarding flight applied to Armor then a Solar would not be able to fly (which a Solar is clearly doing in it's statblock).
Thus, Barding is a subset of the Armor rules.
In short, you can be medium or heavy loaded and wear Medium or Heavy Armor and still fly. You cannot wear Medium or Heavy barding (a subset of armor) and still fly.
Bonus history comparison:
3.5 stated that anything over a light load prevented a flying mount from flying (DMG p204-205). This statement was removed from Pathfinder.
3.5 also stated that while fliers are limited to light loads medium armor does not in itself constitute a medium load (Monster Manual 1 p312). No such statement exists in Pathfinder because the light load rule was removed.
Rikkan |
People keep assuming that the rules for Barding (a subset of Armor) apply to Armor and thus to light loads. They dont because they are a subset of the Armor rules.
If Barding the barding rules regarding flight applied to Armor then a Solar would not be able to fly (which a Solar is clearly doing in it's statblock).
Thus, Barding is a subset of the Armor rules.
In short, you can be medium or heavy loaded and wear Medium or Heavy Armor and still fly. You cannot wear Medium or Heavy barding (a subset of armor) and still fly.
So why would anyone ever wear barding then?
If barding is a subset of armour that has more restrictions, just buy regular armour for your flying mount instead?Armor and shields for unusually big creatures, unusually little creatures, and nonhumanoid creatures (such as horses) have different costs and weights from those given on Table: Armor and Shields. Refer to the appropriate line on Table: Armor for Unusual Creatures and apply the multipliers to cost and weight for the armor type in question.
So just use that table to figure out the costs for regular armour. And you can white-out the barding rules, since there is no point in using them.
Gauss |
Rikkan, because barding is for mounts, non-barding is for non-mounts. Basically, is your beast a mount? Then you need barding.
Is this clearly defined? No. But that is the clear intent.
The rules are clear though, Medium and Heavy loads and Medium and Heavy armor does not remove the ability to fly. Only Medium and Heavy barding does.
Note: I feel they should have removed the barding rule when they moved from 3.5 to PF since they removed all of the other rules that went with it. It is clearly a relic.
Rikkan |
Rikkan, because barding is for mounts, non-barding is for non-mounts. Basically, is your beast a mount? Then you need barding.
Is this clearly defined? No. But that is the clear intent.
The rules are clear though, Medium and Heavy loads and Medium and Heavy armor does not remove the ability to fly. Only Medium and Heavy barding does.
Note: I feel they should have removed the barding rule when they moved from 3.5 to PF since they removed all of the other rules that went with it. It is clearly a relic.
So when is a creature a mount? If I have a horse, do I need to remove its armour and put on barding when I want to ride it, and remove the barding & equip armour when I get off of it?
A_psychic_rat |
barding is simply specially made armor designed for none humanoid creatures. barding still follows all the normal rules for armor, large portions of the CRB are copy past and they missed things here and there. the listing for barding youll notice follows the same cost entry for none humanoid armors cuz thats all it is. youll need a light load to fly far as i parse the rules.
Gauss |
A_psychic_rat, you can fly while medium or heavily encumbered because Pathfinder has NO rules to the contrary. They dropped the rule that you are thinking of.
Even in 3.5 medium and heavy armor did not restrict flight but medium and heavy barding did.
Rikkan, I really don't know what answer to give you. This is the rules forum and the rules state that mounts wearing medium or heavy barding cannot fly.
The rules do not state what qualifies as a mount but neither do the rules state that dead creatures cannot act.
Does this make barding pointless? Possibly, it is up to your GM to figure out what qualifies as a mount.
Rikkan |
Rikkan, I really don't know what answer to give you. This is the rules forum and the rules state that mounts wearing medium or heavy barding cannot fly.
The rules do not state what qualifies as a mount but neither do the rules state that dead creatures cannot act.
Does this make barding pointless? Possibly, it is up to your GM to figure out what qualifies as a mount.
There is no need to bother with that, since you can just put armour (not barding) on your mount (unless your DM makes up a rule that says you can't).
And the rules do in fact state dead creatures cannot act, though that is completely irrelevant.
A_psychic_rat |
ok gauss now your just being silly, does one speciffically need a place saying your dead, you get nothing, some things should be intuited. i am still looking at the rules about flight but i just super hate the dumb pedantic reading of the rules about being dead.
as a very snarky man once said "we write the rules assuming your not an idiot, your not an idiot, stop reading the rules like your an idiot"
edit: ok so upon further reading the rules id agree that you cant ride a mount wearing medium or heavy armor, but barding and armor are the same thing, so a creature can fly withought a master with medium or heavy armor on just cant have a rider with medium or heavy armor on.
the rest of the drawbacks come from armor check penalty and speed penalties which seem like suitable drawbacks to me
A_psychic_rat |
actually after google searching the matter further i think this argument i found solves the issue
You can make the argument that it is not allowable as follows:
Barding, Medium Creature and Large Creature
Barding is a type of armor that covers the head, neck, chest, body, and possibly legs of a horse or other mount. Barding made of medium or heavy armor provides better protection than light barding, but at the expense of speed. Barding can be made of any of the armor types found on Table: Armor and Shields.
Armor for a horse (a Large non-humanoid creature) costs four times as much as human armor (a Medium humanoid creature) and also weighs twice as much (see Table: Armor for Unusual Creatures). If the barding is for a pony or other Medium mount, the cost is only double, and the weight is the same as for Medium armor worn by a humanoid. Medium or heavy barding slows a mount that wears it, as shown on the table below.
Flying mounts can't fly in medium or heavy barding.
Then with encumbrance by weight:
Encumbrance by Weight: If you want to determine whether your character's gear is heavy enough to slow him down more than his armor already does, total the weight of all the character's items, including armor, weapons, and gear. Compare this total to the character's Strength on Table: Carrying Capacity. Depending on the character's carrying capacity, he or she may be carrying a light, medium, or heavy load. Like armor, a character's load affects his maximum Dexterity bonus to AC, carries a check penalty (which works like an armor check penalty), reduces the character's speed, and affects how fast the character can run, as shown on Table: Encumbrance Effects. A medium or heavy load counts as medium or heavy armor for the purpose of abilities or skills that are restricted by armor. Carrying a light load does not encumber a character.
So you can interpret it as a medium or heavy load on a flying creature counts as armor encumbrance, which means a medium or heavy load counts as armor and prohibits flight. However, 3.5 had pretty explicit rules about flying while encumbered, and Pathfinder purposefully left those out, which suggests they didn't want them applied.
TL; DR: No, there are no explicit rules outlining encumbrance, but you could make the case it affects it.
Gauss |
A_psychic_rat, I wasn't being silly. You misunderstood the point I was making.
I was making a point that not all obvious things are in the rules. It is not stated anywhere in the rules that a dead person cannot act and yet, obviously, they cannot act.
This is related to the current discussion in that some people like to say that a rule does not make sense because it does not spell out what should be obvious to everyone (ie. what is a mount).
In any case, the rules state that you cannot wear medium or heavy barding and still fly. Whether this makes sense or not is irrelevant, it is what the rules state.
There is no similar rule for medium or heavy armor preventing flying nor is there a similar rule for a medium or heavy load preventing you from flying. Clearly, it is barding that is different and unique.
The line that a medium or heavy load counts as medium or heavy armor for restrictions does not extend to barding. You can fly in medium or heavy armor, you cannot fly in medium or heavy barding.
Magda Luckbender |
1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Gauss is not being silly. He's using a classic Reductio Ad Absurdum argument. This is a 100% valid classical debate technique dating back before Socrates. The most famous Physics paper of the 20th century used this technique. The 1935 EPR paradox (for Einstein Podolsky Rosen) argues that Quantum Mechanics implies that the universe is non-local, an obviously absurd concept, therefore Quantum Mechanics must be wrong. It wasn't until after 1976 that the non-locality of Quantum Mechanics was experimentally demonstrated, thus proving that the universe is, indeed, utterly absurd. Nowadays any good University Optics Lab can perform experimental Quantum teleportation.
Someone said (paraphrasing), "The rules don't actually specify what needs barding so, unless my GM forces my hand, I'll just use the armor rules for my mount instead". Gauss replied by pointing out another absurdity one could get by ignoring the intent of the rules based on another 'missing' (but obvious) rule, namely that there is no rule saying that dead things can not act. This is a classic reductio ad absurdum argument, and a seemingly pretty valid one.
Rikkan |
Someone said (paraphrasing), "The rules don't actually specify what needs barding so, unless my GM forces my hand, I'll just use the armor rules for my mount instead". Gauss replied by pointing out another absurdity one could get by ignoring the intent of the rules based on another 'missing' (but obvious) rule, namely that there is no rule saying that dead things can not act. This is a classic reductio ad absurdum argument, and a seemingly pretty valid one.
That Gauss's interpretation leads to mounts getting armour instead of barding and thus making the restriction that barding has completely irrelevant was my attempt at a Reductio Ad Absurdum.
And once again, the rules do say dead things can't act.
In case it matters, a dead character, no matter how he died, has hit points equal to or less than his negative Constitution score.
If your hit point total is negative, but not equal to or greater than your Constitution score, you're dying.
A dying character immediately falls unconscious and can take no actions.
Because positive numbers are greater than negative numbers, if you're dead you're considered dying and can take no actions.
Gauss |
Rikkan,
It states that if your negative hitpoints are equal to or greater than your constitution score you are not dying. Ie, the dying condition does not apply.
Of course, it is silly that you are able to act while dead, but the rules really do not provide a clear statement that you cannot. This is just one example of an obvious concept not being clearly defined.
As for my 'interpretation' the rules are pretty clearly written.
Medium or Heavy armor does not prevent flying creatures from flying. The Solar, a creature wearing heavy armor and having a listed reduced flying speed due to that armor, is an example of this.
Medium or Heavy loads do not prevent flying creatures from flying. The rule that prevented them from flying was left back in 3.5 and did not make the move to Pathfinder.
Drawing a line from Medium/Heavy barding (which has a rule restricting flying) THROUGH Medium/Heavy armor (which has no rule restricting flying) to Medium/Heavy loads (which has no rule restricting flying) in order to say that if you have a medium or heavy load then you must be unable to fly is completely and utterly incorrect.
Summary: Medium/Heavy barding restricts flying. Medium/Heavy loads and Medium/Heavy armor does not. If you have rules to the contrary please show them.
Nefreet |
FWIW, in PFS, John Compton just ruled how this should be handled.
For non-PFS players, feel free to continue the debate.
Dave Justus |
It is my understanding that the original intent, going all the way back to previous editions, was that winged creatures with non-magical flight couldn't do so when they were encumbered, which makes a fair amount of sense.
Magical Flight, such as the fly spell, follows different rules, for reasons that also make sense (namely: because magic!)
The current printed version of the rules leave a whole lot to be desired in terms of organization and clarity, but I believe a strict reading is that they are still in effect. However, it is unclear whether that was still intended, or merely failure to remove some things when other things were removed.
Personally, I think light encumbrance for natural winged flight is a good rule.
Gauss |
Dave Justus,
The encumbrance limitation of the fly rules were removed from pathfinder.
There is not (and wasn't in 3.5) a limitation on Medium or Heavy armor in the fly rules.
The only limitation holdover from the 3.5 fly rules is Barding which is a subset of armor. It does not apply to the Armor or Load rules in any way. The section in the load rules that state it applies to Armor does not apply to Barding (at least, not without a FAQ stating it does) because Barding is a sub-rule not the general rule that the Load rules point to.
Frankly, they should do away with the line in Barding. I believe it is a remnant that escaped them in the move to PF.
Rikkan |
Summary: Medium/Heavy barding restricts flying. Medium/Heavy loads and Medium/Heavy armor does not. If you have rules to the contrary please show them.
The common interpretation I have always seen used is as follows: Barding is not a subset of armour, it is the specific name for the armour a mount wears.
Thus a medium/heavy load counts as medium/heavy armour and as medium/heavy barding for a mount.See for example the barding section:
Armor for a horse (a Large nonhumanoid creature) costs four times as much as human armor (a Medium humanoid creature) and also weighs twice as much (see Table: Armor for Unusual Creatures). If the barding is for a pony or other Medium mount, the cost is only double, and the weight is the same as for Medium armor worn by a humanoid.
Note how they use armour and barding interchangeably.
While your interpretation runs into problem there, because if barding is different from armour and mounts can wear armour, there is no point in the barding rules at all.
Gauss |
Rikkan, the problem with that interpretation is that it isn't RAW.
Armor has no restrictions on flight.
Barding has restrictions on flight.
Ergo, Barding is a specific rule while Armor is a general rule.
Which rule does the load rule reference? Armor, not Barding.
People are trying to draw a line from a general through another general to a specific rule. You cannot do that.
The statement that there is no point in the barding rules is only because there is no rule stating that mounts need to wear barding and not armor. It is one of those 'common sense' rules.
BTW, Barding is absolutely different than armor. It requires 5 times the amount of time to put on.
So why not wear armor instead of barding and avoid the time penalty and the flight restriction?
Paizo failed to define a rule stating that mounts have to wear Barding, however the intent is pretty obvious. Mounts wear Barding, non-mounts wear regular Armor.
Even 3.5 didnt have flight restrictions on Medium or Heavy Armor, if Pathfinder does I would like to see you demonstrate it. It is clear that Pathfinder removed the rule where medium and heavy loads limited flight. You are trying to add a rule back into the game that has been removed.
Diekssus |
Frankly from what I've read it seems the intent that you shouldn't be able to just fly with any animal companion, however the rules as they are totally allow for it.
The current suggestion that they seemingly want to go for is to allow it, if you just fly slower. an example would be the griffon companion:
Prerequisite(s): Diplomacy, Intimidate, or Handle Animal 5 ranks; Ride 5 ranks.
Starting Statistics
Size Large; Speed 30 ft., fly 40 ft. (average; unable to carry a rider while flying); AC +4 natural armor; Attack bite (1d6); Ability Scores Str 16, Dex 15, Con 16, Int 5, Wis 13, Cha 8; Languages Common (cannot speak); Special Qualities darkvision 60 ft., low-light vision, scent.
7th-Level Advancement
Speed 40 ft., fly 80 ft. (average; unable to carry a rider while flying); AC +2 natural armor; Attack bite (1d6), 2 talons (1d6); Ability Scores Str +2, Con +2; Special Attacks pounce, rake (1d6).
Mastery (7th Level)
The griffon can carry a rider while flying, but reduces its fly speed by half while doing so.
So it comes down to: are we going to take the rules as ironclad even if it requires complete suspension of disbelief? Are we going to demand realism in a game that has rules for exactly the purpose of not dealing with the contrivances of realism? Probably neither. Compromise.
Rikkan |
Rikkan, the problem with that interpretation is that it isn't RAW.
You're wrong. My interpretation is RAW.
And while your interpretation requires houserules, mine does not. If the choice is between my RAW interpretation which does not require houserules and yours, which does. I know which one I'm more comfortable with.
Also, do you believe huge creatures can wear barding? And if so, what does it cost and where can you find the cost?
This Steam Hog is huge and has huge barding. In my interpretation you can look at the unusual armour rules. But since you believe those don't apply to barding, do you believe that creature could not wear barding and it was just a mistake?
graystone |
Also, do you believe huge creatures can wear barding? And if so, what does it cost and where can you find the cost?
This Steam Hog is huge and has huge barding. In my interpretation you can look at the unusual armour rules. But since you believe those don't apply to barding, do you believe that creature could not wear barding and it was just a mistake?
How much is it? It weighs 1 ton and Adamantine (1lb) costs 300gp. (Table 2-11 Ultimate Equipment pg 93). So 2000 lbs(a ton) times 300 gp(per lb cost) equals 600,000 gp, the cost of the barding. I'm more than willing to ignore the base cost of the barding as it'd be a drop in the bucket and the likelihood of finding a creature that can wear it and/or sell it to is nil to none.
Hmmm... I know what CR 7 my characters are hunting for...
Gauss |
It doesn't matter what I believe. Belief is not the issue here. The rules are.
RAW: if there are no barding pricing rules set out for Huge creatures then there aren't (there may be in some corner of the rules, I don't exclude the possibility).
RAI: The barding rules use the same weight and pricing structure as normal armor. You could extrapolate (but that is a house rule).
Again, Armor has no restrictions on flight.
The Load rules reference Armor. They do not reference Barding (a specific rule).
You cannot state that a general rule points to a specific rule unless it states that it does.
This is further supported by the fact that Paizo removed the Medium/Heavy load restrictions on flight.
Rikkan |
It does matter what you believe. Since we're reading the same RAW and believing in different interpretations.
Again, barding is indeed a specific rule. It is what you call the armour a mount wears which also has some additional restrictions.
And since when it comes to mounts, you call armour barding a medium or heavy load restricts a mount from flying.
Gauss |
You specifically asked what I believed regarding the pricing rules for Barding and huge creatures.
That is a completely different question than 'what I believe regarding the RAW of flight and barding'.
Please, do try to follow your own line of questions. You cannot ask a question and then treat the answer as an answer to a question you did not ask.
Here is a question for you, why do you keep ignoring the fact that Paizo removed the load restriction from flying?
Rikkan |
You're mistaken. I did not refer to your answer to that specific question.You specifically asked what I believed regarding the pricing rules for Barding and huge creatures.
That is a completely different question than 'what I believe regarding the RAW of flight and barding'.
Please, do try to follow your own line of questions. You cannot ask a question and then treat the answer as an answer to a question you did not ask.
Here is a question for you, why do you keep ignoring the fact that Paizo removed the load restriction from flying?
Because they did not do that.
But your interpretation now requires multiple house-rules to function. While mine still does not require any.Didn't SKR say at one point if you have to choose between two interpretations, one which allows the rules to function and one which does not, it is obvious which one you should choose?
Gauss |
Rikkan, they did not remove the load restriction from flying? Really?
Here is the 3.5 rule that is no longer present in the Pathfinder:
Fly: A creature with a fly speed can move through the air at the indicated speed if carrying no more than a light load; see Carrying Capacity, page 161 of the Player’s Handbook. (Note that medium armor does not necessarily constitute a medium load.)
Now, if you can find anything in Pathfinder that even comes close to that, please cite it. Otherwise, Paizo removed the rule.
Heck man, a Paizo Developer SAID that Paizo removed the rule. How can you say they didn't? The link to that was provided earlier in this thread!
Regarding SKR's statement, yes SKR stated that, and it does not apply here since neither interpretation prevents the rules from functioning.
You keep saying my interpretation requires house rules, I do not see any being required.
Perhaps you should state what house rules are required because as I see it, yours is the one that requires houseruling back in 3.5 rules to make work.
Rikkan |
Rikkan, they did not remove the load restriction from flying? Really?
Here is the 3.5 rule that is no longer present in the Pathfinder:
3.5 Monster Manual p312 wrote:Fly: A creature with a fly speed can move through the air at the indicated speed if carrying no more than a light load; see Carrying Capacity, page 161 of the Player’s Handbook. (Note that medium armor does not necessarily constitute a medium load.)Now, if you can find anything in Pathfinder that even comes close to that, please cite it. Otherwise, Paizo removed the rule.
Heck man, a Paizo Developer SAID that Paizo removed the rule. How can you say they didn't? The link to that was provided earlier in this thread!
My apologies. I thought you were talking about something else.
Regarding SKR's statement, yes SKR stated that, and it does not apply here since neither interpretation prevents the rules from functioning.
You keep saying my interpretation requires house rules, I do not see any being required.
Perhaps you should state what house rules are required because as I see it, yours is the one that requires houseruling back in 3.5 rules to make work.
No, my interpretation is purely based on the pathfinder rules.
Here are some of the house-rules you said your interpretation requires:RAI: The barding rules use the same weight and pricing structure as normal armor. You could extrapolate (but that is a house rule).
--
So why not wear armor instead of barding and avoid the time penalty and the flight restriction?
Paizo failed to define a rule stating that mounts have to wear Barding, however the intent is pretty obvious. Mounts wear Barding, non-mounts wear regular Armor.
Gauss |
Thank you for the apology.
Regarding the "house rules", both of them are independent of the flying problem.
Huge Barding price and weight:
Assume for a moment that Medium/Heavy loads affect flying the way you said.
You still have to extrapolate the price and weight for Huge Barding. Why? Because since there are no rules for Huge Barding, you have to extrapolate from Huge Armor.
Or you could make a FAQ request for the Devs to answer it but the RAI seems pretty clear.
In any case, Huge Barding is not relevant to whether or not Medium/Heavy loads affect flying.
Next one, "just wear armor instead of barding". This is not proposed by me, that is proposed by you.
That is your house rule in response to the fact that there is no defined rules for what creatures are required to wear barding.
Lets again pretend to ignore the flying issue. If you wear barding it takes 5 times the time to put on the barding when compared to armor.
So again, this issue exists regardless of the outcome of the flying discussion and thus is not caused by it. What is more, it is also pretty clear by RAI. I don't think anyone else has brought this up as a possible issue except for you.
Summary: Your claim that my position requires house rules when interacting with medium and heavy loads on flyers wearing barding is incorrect.
Both rules issues that you state would require house rules would exist without flying being an issue. They would exist even if you were correct regarding the medium/heavy load and flying issue.
So, do you have any other 'house rules' you think apply?
Nefreet |
Heck man, a Paizo Developer SAID that Paizo removed the rule. How can you say they didn't? The link to that was provided earlier in this thread!
Actually, you may wish to read the rest of that thread now. That Developer made a 180° turn, and suggested using Ant Haul to mitigate the encumbrance issue.
I have had it pointed out that a mount cannot fly if in medium or heavy armor, and encumberance functions as though it were the equivalent armor. That makes it sound as though the meat of your complaint is still valid, at least for the bat. It could grab you in its mouth and carry you for short distances, but operating as a battle mount might have to wait until it gets another point or two of Strength. This makes the bat no less effective as a melee combatant for your first few levels, though, and as you noted, ant haul can easily overcome the limitation.
Mark Seifter even confirms this in his next post, stating that those rules aren't posted where you'd think to look for them (in the Fly skill).
Gauss |
Nefreet, that is not a 180° turn regarding the point I made.
I did not state that a Paizo Developer said that mounts can fly while armored and medium/heavy encumbered.
What I said is the statement that Paizo has clearly done away with the Medium/Heavy Load prevents fliers (not barded fliers) from flying.
The Paizo Developer has not reversed his statement regarding that.
Mark has not corrected that statement either.
3.5: Fliers could not fly while medium or heavily encumbered. (specific rule)
PF: Fliers can fly while medium or heavily encumbered. (no specific rule, the rule was removed, the Devs have confirmed the rule was removed, they did not 180° turn this stance)
3.5: Fliers could fly while in Medium or Heavy armor. (specific rule)
PF: Fliers can fly while in Medium or Heavy armor. (no specific rule but clear example in the Bestiary)
3.5: Flying Mounts cannot fly while in Medium or Heavy barding. (specific rule that had nothing to do with encumbrance)
PF: Flying Mounts cannot fly while in Medium or Heavy barding. (exact same specific rule)
Now, these above points are facts. Below is the debate question.
PF: Can a mount fly while medium or heavy encumbered?
Some say that Barding is "Armor" and since barding has a restriction against flight that medium/heavy encumbered counts as preventing flight.
Problem with this answer is that it ignores both the original 3.5 rule (where Barding was it's own separate restriction from encumbrance) and the fact that Barding is a subset of armor.
The Dev did reverse his opinion on THIS question, not the fact that Paizo removed the encumbrance restriction from fliers.
So, please, lets be accurate. :)
Nefreet |
Problem with this answer is that it ignores both the original 3.5 rule (where Barding was it's own separate restriction from encumbrance) and the fact that Barding is a subset of armor.
I actually don't see why either of those points are relevant.
3.5 rules can give a nice history of events leading up to the present, but PF has deviated from those on many occasions.
And I don't see why barding "being a subset of armor" matters at all. We both know that PF has many specific rules that override the general.
But I also don't personally have a Pegasus in this race (see what I did there?), and would be fine whichever direction they decided to go.
With both Mark and John being aware of this debate, I'm hoping an answer will pop up in a Blog or FAQ sometime in the near future.