Paizo Top Nav Branding
  • Hello, Guest! |
  • Sign In |
  • My Account |
  • Shopping Cart |
  • Help/FAQ
About Paizo Messageboards News Paizo Blog Help/FAQ
Pathfinder Roleplaying Game

Pathfinder Adventure Card Game


Pathfinder Society


Starfinder


Starfinder Society

Can a medium size samurai or cavalier select a wolf as a mount if he is at least 7th level?


Pathfinder Society Roleplaying Guild

51 to 100 of 120 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | next > last >>
Sczarni *****

Starfinder Charter Superscriber
Thomas Hutchins wrote:

EDIT:

I've said it and I'll explain again.
Pathfinder lets you ride stuff do we agree on this?
Pathfinder says you take a penalty for riding an unsuitable mount, again do we agree on this?
Pathfinder does not say you can't ride something smaller than you aka a more specific rule than the general rule of "you can ride stuff" do you agree?
If so, then what is stopping a human from riding a strong pony without the feat?

You're trying to prove a negative here. You're not going to succeed.

Grand Lodge **

Nefreet, you've yet to quote a rule that proves your point of view.

Where is this rule that says we can only ride things one size category larger than us? Where is the rule that says goblins and dwarves get an exemption?

Undersized Mount is a classic case of bad wording of a feat. The normal line in it even makes it clear that a mount smaller than you is just unsuitable. If it's the sole source of your claims then this is an extremely weak case as it's own text is problematic to the claim you're making.

*** Venture-Agent, Utah—Provo aka Chess Pwn

Nefreet wrote:
Thomas Hutchins wrote:
Nefreet wrote:
Can a Human ride a tiny-sized cat under these rules you're referencing?
Can a Human ride ANYTHING under the rules you're apparently using?

Yes. A human can ride a creature one size category larger than them (or greater).

Until you can quote to me something that says you can ride a cat, or a pony, that is how I will rule as a GM.

When a GM asks a player "Show me where it says you can do this", the burden of proof is on the player.

If the player has the Undersized Mount feat, then they have the ability to demonstrate to their GM that they have that ability.

This is pretty elementary stuff. If you tried to play word games with me at the table I'd just say "We'll talk about this after game" and move on.

That's what I refer to, again, as "Munchkinry".

Where is the rules that they are allowed to ride a creature one size category larger than them or greater? If you can't provide that then you can't ride ANYTHING as the burden of proof is on you. If you feel that players need proof to ride and you can't provide any rule supporting the riding of one size large or larger than as per PFS rules you'd need to stop all your players from riding anything if they can't provide the rule saying they can since to you that's what the rules are saying.

The rules say what you CAN do not what you CAN'T, and the rules that allow you ride stuff don't limit the stuff you can ride, thus if I can ride anything I can ride everything.

*** Venture-Agent, Utah—Provo aka Chess Pwn

Nefreet wrote:
Thomas Hutchins wrote:

EDIT:

I've said it and I'll explain again.
Pathfinder lets you ride stuff do we agree on this?
Pathfinder says you take a penalty for riding an unsuitable mount, again do we agree on this?
Pathfinder does not say you can't ride something smaller than you aka a more specific rule than the general rule of "you can ride stuff" do you agree?
If so, then what is stopping a human from riding a strong pony without the feat?
You're trying to prove a negative here. You're not going to succeed.

I'm not trying to prove a negative, and since it seems you have this knowledge of the rules I'm lacking please share. ANY rule that supports the view of a human is incapable of riding a strong pony with no feats.

But maybe this will help, let's start from the beginning. Can you provide the rules that lets you ride a creature one size larger than you or larger? You've quoted that that's the rules, please share why you feel that way.

I personally would LOVE to tell the wizard riding the barbarian that he can't do that (with or without the feat) but since I can't provide any rules that would support that view I can't stop them from doing it in PFS, I can't make up rules in PFS, I can only rule according to my understanding and view of the rules. And since I don't have any support to stop it I cannot. Now if you can provide ANY such support that would be great. Just cause I'm arguing a rule doesn't mean I like the rule.

*

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Thomas Hutchins wrote:
I personally would LOVE to tell the wizard riding the barbarian that he can't do that (with or without the feat) but since I can't provide any rules that would support that view I can't stop them from doing it in PFS, I can't make up rules in PFS, I can only rule according to my understanding and view of the rules. And since I don't have any support to stop it I cannot. Now if you can provide ANY such support that would be great. Just cause I'm arguing a rule doesn't mean I like the rule.

A local 3-star PFS GM has a great solution for the PC riding each other problem (and get your mind out of the gutter!). Unless they can show they've planned, trained, and gotten specialist equipment for this (very, very unlikely in a PFS game), then both PCs, the rider and mount, have the grappled condition. So, one PC can climb up on another, but at that point neither can move.

*** Venture-Agent, Utah—Provo aka Chess Pwn

pjrogers wrote:
Thomas Hutchins wrote:
I personally would LOVE to tell the wizard riding the barbarian that he can't do that (with or without the feat) but since I can't provide any rules that would support that view I can't stop them from doing it in PFS, I can't make up rules in PFS, I can only rule according to my understanding and view of the rules. And since I don't have any support to stop it I cannot. Now if you can provide ANY such support that would be great. Just cause I'm arguing a rule doesn't mean I like the rule.
A local 3-star PFS GM has a great solution for the PC riding each other problem (and get your mind out of the gutter!). Unless they can show they've planned, trained, and gotten specialist equipment for this (very, very unlikely in a PFS game), then both PCs, the rider and mount, have the grappled condition. So, one PC can climb up on another, but at that point neither can move.

Do you have any rules that support this? I won't just make something up for PFS to stop something I don't like if I can't provide a rule to support that view.

Like this also applies to a familiar riding his dumber fighter "master" to negate attacks with the mounted combat feat that the familiar has via the Eldritch Guardian.

Grand Lodge **

I've always ruled that PCs can't be ridden. Never had anyone question that. Though now I feel like a campaign clarification regarding riding PCs would be well deserved tbh.

*** Venture-Agent, Utah—Provo aka Chess Pwn

Jurassic Pratt wrote:
I've always ruled that PCs can't be ridden. Never had anyone question that. I feel like a campaign clarification regarding riding PCs would be well deserved tbh.

The "counter" to that is if a druid wildshaped into a horse why could you not ride it? If that's allowed, what differences is it for other reasons?

And again, lack of rule support so I wouldn't rule that way.

Dark Archive

Pathfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

Training Harness is a Human piece of equipment.

Sczarni *****

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Starfinder Charter Superscriber
Thomas Hutchins wrote:
And again, lack of rule support so I wouldn't rule that way.

You know two people aren't going to budge in their debate when they're both telling the other to do the same thing.

While we're at it, nothing in the Ride skill lists a weight limitation. A Tarrasque can ride a Cat just fine, apparently.

Let's agree to disagree on this. Neither of us are going to satisfy the other because we're asking each other to quote something that doesn't exist, and we're both saying that the burden of proof is on the other.

*

Thomas Hutchins wrote:
Do you have any rules that support this? I won't just make something up for PFS to stop something I don't like if I can't provide a rule to support that view.

It was based upon the premise that since there are no rules outlining how one humanoid creature would ride another that there was thus space for a GM to make use of what rules do exist to fill the gap.

However, if the language of the various rules with their consistent use of the word "suitable" is to be taken literally, then any creature can ride any other creature provided the encumbrance rules are not violated. The only penalty is the riding player must take a -5 on Ride checks (many of which aren't relevant if the mount is another PC) if the GM judges the mount to be "unsuitable."

I don't really like this. In fact, I see all sorts of reasons for disliking this a lot. However, I don't see any other way to read the rules which I've seen on this topic.

Grand Lodge **

Nefreet wrote:
Thomas Hutchins wrote:
And again, lack of rule support so I wouldn't rule that way.

You know two people aren't going to budge in their debate when they're both telling the other to do the same thing.

While we're at it, nothing in the Ride skill lists a weight limitation. A Tarrasque can ride a Cat just fine, apparently.

Let's agree to disagree on this. Neither of us are going to satisfy the other because we're asking each other to quote something that doesn't exist, and we're both saying that the burden of proof is on the other.

Actually the weight limitation comes in from the encumbrance rules on the creature you're riding so we do actually have solid rules on that. Goodluck to the Tarrasque trying to move anywhere on cat since its over it's heavy load.

Sczarni *****

Starfinder Charter Superscriber
Jurassic Pratt wrote:
Nefreet wrote:
Thomas Hutchins wrote:
And again, lack of rule support so I wouldn't rule that way.

You know two people aren't going to budge in their debate when they're both telling the other to do the same thing.

While we're at it, nothing in the Ride skill lists a weight limitation. A Tarrasque can ride a Cat just fine, apparently.

Let's agree to disagree on this. Neither of us are going to satisfy the other because we're asking each other to quote something that doesn't exist, and we're both saying that the burden of proof is on the other.

Actually the weight limitation comes in from the encumbrance rules on the creature you're riding so we do actually have solid rules on that. Goodluck to the Tarrasque trying to move anywhere on cat since its over it's heavy load.

I was waiting for that, but clearly the rules for carrying capacity don't apply to mounts with riders, since the mount isn't literally "carrying" its rider.

Grand Lodge **

Nefreet wrote:
Jurassic Pratt wrote:
Nefreet wrote:
Thomas Hutchins wrote:
And again, lack of rule support so I wouldn't rule that way.

You know two people aren't going to budge in their debate when they're both telling the other to do the same thing.

While we're at it, nothing in the Ride skill lists a weight limitation. A Tarrasque can ride a Cat just fine, apparently.

Let's agree to disagree on this. Neither of us are going to satisfy the other because we're asking each other to quote something that doesn't exist, and we're both saying that the burden of proof is on the other.

Actually the weight limitation comes in from the encumbrance rules on the creature you're riding so we do actually have solid rules on that. Goodluck to the Tarrasque trying to move anywhere on cat since its over it's heavy load.
I was waiting for that, but clearly the rules for carrying capacity don't apply to mounts with riders, since the mount isn't literally "carrying" its rider.

I mean, carrying capacity is everything you're carrying on your person. If someone is riding on you then you are indeed carrying them. Undersized Mount even references this.

Undersized Mount wrote:

Benefit: You can ride creatures of your size category, although encumbrance or other factors might limit how you can use this ability.

Normal: Typically a mount suited for you is at least one size category larger than you.


In PFS, can a dwarf cavalier or paladin take a pony as a mount?

(I'm pretty sure they can't, but I'd love to be wrong.)

Shadow Lodge *****

Nefreet wrote:
Thomas Hutchins wrote:
Nothing in the rules say you can't ride something that isn't the correct size
And nothing says you can't flap your arms to gain a Fly speed.

Again. realism doesn't work if you're trying to say you can't ride a donkey, because people DO ride donkeyes.

Also

Note that this skill does not give you the ability to fly.

Quote:
You know Pathfinder is permissive. You need rules that tell us we *can* do something, not rules telling us what we can't do.

pathfinder is not by default permissive. It bounces back and forth between the two.

The rules for mounts also list things that are ONE size catagory than the person riding them. You could infer a rule about that too (and be lost when people do ride elephants...)

Shadow Lodge *****

pjrogers wrote:

I don't really like this. In fact, I see all sorts of reasons for disliking this a lot. However, I don't see any other way to read the rules which I've seen on this topic.

Can X ride Y and how does it work= huge gray area= the DM can sort it out how they want but should be reasonable about it.

Shadow Lodge *****

Earl Gendron wrote:


There are still situations where it is valid - Multiclassed to a class with a larger list of available choices

I thought about it but it doesn't work. Creatures that are not available to you from different pet classes don't stack: A Cavalier 1 druid 1 with a pet tiger has a druid 1 tiger and a cavalier 1 horse. For PFS your critter list is further limited based on your size. A pony is effectively not on the dwarf palladins list , so they can't stack for pony any more than they can for tiger.

Quote:
having a boon that adds a small mount to your mount list

Makes undersized mount completely unneccesary. Its on your list you can already ride it.

Quote:
buying a small mount instead of using the free one from the class ability

This is such a bad idea that the difference between this and prone shooter needs calipers to measure.

Quote:
and summoner eidolons all come to mind. Much more useful than prone shooter.

which you can ride anyway.

Most of your examples are unneccesary or don't work. It really is prone shooter.

Shadow Lodge *****

Slim Jim wrote:

In PFS, can a dwarf cavalier or paladin take a pony as a mount?

(I'm pretty sure they can't, but I'd love to be wrong.)

No.

As a paladin or cavalier, which mounts can I select?

Your mount must be at least one size category larger than you. If you're a Medium PC, your mount must be Large. If you're a Small PC, your mount must be at least Medium. You may only select a mount from the listed mounts on page 63 of the Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Core Rulebook unless another source grants access to additional creature choices. As a cavalier, you may select a mount from those listed on page 33 of the Advanced Player's Guide. No additional mounts are available in the Pathfinder Society Roleplaying Guild except when granted from another legal source.
posted Mar 13, 2017 | back to top

*

BigNorseWolf wrote:

As a paladin or cavalier, which mounts can I select?

Your mount must be at least one size category larger than you. If you're a Medium PC, your mount must be Large. If you're a Small PC, your mount must be at least Medium. You may only select a mount from the listed mounts on page 63 of the Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Core Rulebook unless another source grants access to additional creature choices. As a cavalier, you may select a mount from those listed on page 33 of the Advanced Player's Guide. No additional mounts are available in the Pathfinder Society Roleplaying Guild except when granted from another legal source.
posted Mar 13, 2017 | back to top

Interesting that the size restriction was added to that Organized Play FAQ. Since I've never played a paladin or cavalier, I'd never looked at it before.

After some thought and a little research last night, I strongly suspect that the original PF design team intended that mounts should be one size category larger than the rider. However, this rule was not in the 3.5 Player's Handbook but was rather in the 3.5 Dungeon Master's Guide, so it was not included in what's basically a cut and paste of the 3.5 riding and mounted combat rules that can be found in the PF Core Rulebook. It would seem that RAI is that the mount should be one size larger than the rider but RAW there is no such restriction.

As an aside, I find Paizo's apparent unwillingness or inability to come out with a comprehensive revision of the mounted combat rules to be incomprehensible. There seem to have been questions, concerns, and confusion about mounted combat apparent for years, and except for one FAQ on charging, they don't appear to have ever been addressed.

Liberty's Edge ***** Venture-Agent, Ohio—Centerville aka Dave Setty

PRD: "A horse is suitable as a mount for a human, dwarf, elf, half-elf, or half-orc. A pony is smaller than a horse and is a suitable mount for a gnome or halfling."

Dwarves riding ponies was only a thing in 3.0, not even 3.5.


Just because a feat does not work with every possible perceived use of it, does NOT mean the feat has to be 'measured with calipers'. Even outside of pfs, I have never seen a cavalier or paladin take Undersized Mount - but I have seen it taken a number of times by druids and rangers, so they can ride their animal companions at lower levels.

Sovereign Court *** Venture-Lieutenant, Netherlands—Leiden aka Ascalaphus

1 person marked this as a favorite.

1) Where is this rule that ponies are well-sized for dwarves?

CRB, Equipment, page 162. wrote:
Horse: A horse is suitable as a mount for a human, dwarf, elf, half-elf, or half-orc. A pony is smaller than a horse and is a suitable mount for a gnome or half ling.

2) So we know also from the quote above that horses are suitable for humans, and by implication ponies are not. Doesn't mean humans can't ride ponies at all, because the Ride rules say:

CRB > Skills > Ride p. 103 wrote:
If you attempt to ride a creature that is ill suited as a mount, you take a –5 penalty on your Ride checks.

Is there a difference between "ill suited" and "not suitable for you"? I don't think so, I think that's splitting hairs too fine.

3) Pathfinder is really not that utterly permissive or restrictive. There are no rules for going to the toilet but you can still do it. But you can't flap your wings and fly.

In the real world adults can ride ponies and mules, but it's a bit small. There's no reason beyond an unreasonable belief in "permissive only" to say that humans can't ride ponies in Pathfinder. However, the "ill suited for you" penalty seems appropriate since ponies are listed as suitable for halflings but not listed for humans.

4) There is no explicit "one size larger" rule but there are a lot of references to it in Mount class features.

Undersized Mount is a nasty piece of rules writing because it formally invents a problem and then sells you a solution. However, in this case we sorta had that problem already.

The solution isn't very good though because it should really have gone on to say "now that medium creatures are suitable for medium riders, expand their Mount-like class feature menus with the medium mounts normally reserved for small riders".

5) What creatures can be ridden at all is not defined. Can the Tarrasque ride a cat? Reasonably, no. Can a gnome ride a dwarf? Maaaaybe. It wouldn't be the weirdest thing in the cantina. Can a familiar learn Mounted Combat and ride the wizard? I don't like where this is going but I'm not sure I can forbid it in PFS.

6) Yes, mounted rules are a mess.

Shadow Lodge *****

David Setty wrote:

PRD: "A horse is suitable as a mount for a human, dwarf, elf, half-elf, or half-orc. A pony is smaller than a horse and is a suitable mount for a gnome or halfling."

Dwarves riding ponies was only a thing in 3.0, not even 3.5.

Ponies are smaller breeds of horses better suited to halflings, gnomes, and dwarves, but they also make fond pets for humans as well. They stand 3 to 4 feet tall and weigh about 600 pounds. Linky

Shadow Lodge *****

CraziFuzzy wrote:
Just because a feat does not work with every possible perceived use of it...

This is not a productive response at this point. Letting a paladin or cavalier (the ones with the word MOUNT in the class description?) Use the feat to ride an undersized mount is clearly the intended use, but because of a PFS rule it doesn't work for that. This is not "every conceivable use" its what the feat is for.

It at best works for a far more niche application that is itself only made necessary by the feat. (and thats arguable)

The use of having a class granted animal companion and then buying a regular animal companion destined to be monster chow faster than you can say "Drendle Drang wake up call" is in fact caliper level.

Liberty's Edge ***** Venture-Agent, Ohio—Centerville aka Dave Setty

1 person marked this as a favorite.
BigNorseWolf wrote:
David Setty wrote:

PRD: "A horse is suitable as a mount for a human, dwarf, elf, half-elf, or half-orc. A pony is smaller than a horse and is a suitable mount for a gnome or halfling."

Dwarves riding ponies was only a thing in 3.0, not even 3.5.

Ponies are smaller breeds of horses better suited to halflings, gnomes, and dwarves, but they also make fond pets for humans as well. They stand 3 to 4 feet tall and weigh about 600 pounds. Linky

Ah, so we're at Paizo's rules writing being inconsistent. In other news, scientists succeed in synthesizing hydrogen hydroxide; new substance described as "wet".

Shadow Lodge *****

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Jurassic Pratt wrote:
I've always ruled that PCs can't be ridden. Never had anyone question that. Though now I feel like a campaign clarification regarding riding PCs would be well deserved tbh.

I can see calling out master blaster, but I think the justification would be a bit less for the druid turned roc or giant riding bat.

"Why do you have a saddle fitted for yourself?

"Why didn't YOU buy a flying potion? Now the bards going to have material for a month...

*

2 people marked this as a favorite.
BigNorseWolf wrote:

Letting a paladin or cavalier (the ones with the word MOUNT in the class description?) Use the feat to ride an undersized mount is clearly the intended use, but because of a PFS rule it doesn't work for that. This is not "every conceivable use" its what the feat is for.

It at best works for a far more niche application that is itself only made necessary by the feat. (and thats arguable)

I actually think this supports the argument that the original PF design team intended for the 3.5 rule from the DMG on mounts being one size larger than the ride to be part of PF.

If paladins and cavaliers, specialists in mounted combat, are limited to mounts one size larger than themselves, then it stands to reason such a restriction should apply to all other classes which are generally not specialists in mounted combat.

Shadow Lodge *****

David Setty wrote:


Ah, so we're at Paizo's rules writing being inconsistent. In other news, scientists succeed in synthesizing hydrogen hydroxide; new substance described as "wet".

It's a tolkien thing. Dwarves ride ponies.

Unwritten rules don't work very well to start with, less so when they have written exceptions. (Kitsune also have an affinity for riding dogs IIRC. Might be some more). There's certainly a trend in what can ride what usually meaning at least one size difference and the one on top needs to be a biped and the one on the bottom needs to be a quadplusaped.

I don't think there's a hard and fast rule, i think there's a bit of implied common sense that gets pretty close to said rule, but not quite there.

There's a feat that could theoretically settle the question around table variance, but like i said, it doesn't work in PFS for PFS specific reasons.

Shadow Lodge *****

pjrogers wrote:

If paladins and cavaliers, specialists in mounted combat, are limited to mounts one size larger than themselves,

Thats a PFS specific rule. I don't think you can infer anything about the other rules from it's existence.

*

BigNorseWolf wrote:
pjrogers wrote:

If paladins and cavaliers, specialists in mounted combat, are limited to mounts one size larger than themselves,

Thats a PFS specific rule. I don't think you can infer anything about the other rules from it's existence.

True, but it does go the Paizo's collective state of mind.

Actually, I think I figured out the root of the problem (everyone else who came to the party earlier than I probably already knew this). PF is based on the 3.5 OGL, but as near as I can tell, the rule on mount from the 3.5 DMG didn't go into the 3.5 OGL. So, technically, adding the mount size rule from the 3.5 DMG would be a violation of the OGL.

Sovereign Court *** Venture-Lieutenant, Netherlands—Leiden aka Ascalaphus

4 people marked this as a favorite.

I don't think Paizo really has that much of a collective state of mind.

*** Venture-Agent, Utah—Provo aka Chess Pwn

pjrogers wrote:
BigNorseWolf wrote:

Letting a paladin or cavalier (the ones with the word MOUNT in the class description?) Use the feat to ride an undersized mount is clearly the intended use, but because of a PFS rule it doesn't work for that. This is not "every conceivable use" its what the feat is for.

It at best works for a far more niche application that is itself only made necessary by the feat. (and thats arguable)

I actually think this supports the argument that the original PF design team intended for the 3.5 rule from the DMG on mounts being one size larger than the ride to be part of PF.

Does this rule you're throwing around from 3.5 say you cannot at all ride something the same size aka a human riding a pony?

Sczarni *****

Starfinder Charter Superscriber
BigNorseWolf wrote:
pjrogers wrote:

I don't really like this. In fact, I see all sorts of reasons for disliking this a lot. However, I don't see any other way to read the rules which I've seen on this topic.

Can X ride Y and how does it work= huge gray area= the DM can sort it out how they want but should be reasonable about it.

Of course, clearly the definition of "reasonable" is subject to table variation.

I believe it is reasonable to say that your Mount must be one size category larger than the rider, unless the rider has the Undersized Mount feat.

It seems that some people believe "reasonable" is "allowing every creature to ride any creature".


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Nefreet wrote:
It seems that some people believe "reasonable" is "allowing every creature to ride any creature".

Every creature strong enough, perhaps. Which would reduce the silliness factor significantly.

Allowing a super-strong magic housecat to bear a human is a bit unreasonable, but so is not letting a lightly built human ride a donkey.

*** Venture-Agent, Utah—Provo aka Chess Pwn

To me, if a fine sized creature can crane wing a gargantuan creatures attacks (which is clearly completely legal per the rules) Then having a fine sized creature strong enough to carry a gargantuan creature have the gargantuan ride them is just as ridiculous/acceptable.

Like there are tons of rules that don't make sense like crane wing, yet we accept that this is a game and that's the rules and sure it's odd. Why should a housecat strong enough to carry a human not be ridden? It's a game and yes it's odd, but there's not really a rule issue there is there?

Especially because to get a cat strong enough to carry even the lightest of humans it would need to be some insanely strong freak of a cat, so a cat with 40+ str or something, we don't have cat's that strong, so we can't use realism to know if they are ridable since we're clearly in the realm of fantasy with this.

Because of encumbrance you're not going to run into many strange situations of large things riding small things because of it, you'll rarely get a strong bear or pony maybe having a dwarf or human rider because most things are too weak to carry much.

Then the feat does what it says, it turns the pony from an unsuitable mount to a suitable mount which removes the -5 ride penalty.

*

Thomas Hutchins wrote:
Does this rule you're throwing around from 3.5 say you cannot at all ride something the same size aka a human riding a pony?

No, it does not say "cannot" or "must not" or any other such absolute language.

The language on p. 204 of the 3.5 DMG begins with the heading "Suitable Mounts," and says "a mount SHOULD (emphasis mine) have the following characteristics:" and one of those characteristics is that a mount should be "at least one size category larger than the character."

So, we are left with the situation where a character without the feat Undersized Mount could ride any sized creature by taking a -5 ride penalty for a not suitable mount.

*** Venture-Agent, Utah—Provo aka Chess Pwn

pjrogers wrote:
Thomas Hutchins wrote:
Does this rule you're throwing around from 3.5 say you cannot at all ride something the same size aka a human riding a pony?

No, it does not say "cannot" or "must not" or any other such absolute language.

The language on p. 204 of the 3.5 DMG begins with the heading "Suitable Mounts," and says "a mount SHOULD (emphasis mine) have the following characteristics:" and one of those characteristics is that a mount should be "at least one size category larger than the character."

So, we are left with the situation where a character without the feat Undersized Mount could ride any sized creature by taking a -5 ride penalty for a not suitable mount.

So exactly the rules as Pathfinder. A suitable mount is one size larger, a non-suitable mount would be the same size.

*

Thomas Hutchins wrote:


So exactly the rules as Pathfinder. A suitable mount is one size larger, a non-suitable mount would be the same size.

I don't think that PF ever says explicitly that a suitable mount is one size larger than it's rider(s) outside of the wording of Undersized Mount.

Shadow Lodge *****

pjrogers wrote:


So, we are left with the situation where a character without the feat Undersized Mount could ride any sized creature by taking a -5 ride penalty for a not suitable mount.

No, we're not.

We're left with a rule few rules that suggest (or in the case of undersized mount, pretty much state) that you usually need to be one size catagory smaller than your mount to be suitable.

That does not mean that anything one size bigger than you is automatically suitable (ride the boa!), that anything your size is automatically unsuitable, that anything smaller than you is ridable but unsuitable. None of those follow logically from the data points that we have.

We're left with a blank area of the rules that the DM has to fill in, and even in PFS the DM is within their rights to pu ta kybosh on a halfling riding two ant haul empowered roller skate kitties.

Sczarni *****

Starfinder Charter Superscriber
BigNorseWolf wrote:
We're left with a blank area of the rules that the DM has to fill in, and even in PFS the DM is within their rights to pu ta kybosh on a halfling riding two ant haul empowered roller skate kitties.

^ basically this.

Sovereign Court *** Venture-Lieutenant, Netherlands—Leiden aka Ascalaphus

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Interesting find about dwarves and ponies by the way. So we have two separate statements:

1) CRB: horses are suitable for humans and dwarves, ponies are suitable for halflings and gnomes.

2) Bestiary: ponies are suitable for halflings, gones and dwarves.

Statement #1 doesn't say ponies are unsuitable for dwarves, it just make them suitable; but the Bestiary does. However, there's no option for dwarven cavalier or paladins to get them as class mounts because those use an enumerated list.

It does make sense though. Dwarves are basically "fake medium" - they're about as small as you can be and still sort of count as medium. They have a movement speed that's typical for small creatures, but are supposed to be really strong for their small size so they use medium creature mechanics for most things.

Dwarven pony cavalry would be a cool thing. Could be gracefully inserted by adding a Dwarven War Pony companion next time Paizo makes a dwarf book.

Paizo Employee Customer Service Manager

2 people marked this as a favorite.

Reminder to be thoughtful in your words and do not engage in bickering with other community members on our forums.


Lau Bannenberg wrote:
Statement #1 doesn't say ponies are unsuitable for dwarves, it just make them suitable; but the Bestiary does
Bestiary wrote:
Ponies are smaller breeds of horses better suited to halflings, gnomes, and dwarves, but they also make fond pets for humans as well.

Note that it doesn't say they suit dwarves as mounts.

Maybe they're suitable as pets.
Or food.

Shadow Lodge *****

Matthew Downie wrote:


Note that it doesn't say they suit dwarves as mounts.
Maybe they're suitable as pets.
Or food.

When pathfinder only uses the word suitable to mean one thing in any context and it's with mounts, AND they're specifically mentioned as being suitable for short people and pets for humans? No.

*

So, there seems to be a somewhat general consensus that ...

1) The only really truly absolute limit is encumbrance.

2) "Suitable" is the key word, and some elements of determining what is suitable and what is not are left up to the reasonable discretion of the GM.

3) When it comes to mount size, unless a mount is one size larger than its rider, it is always, at best, going to be unsuitable for that rider, unless the rider has the Undersized Mount Feat.

4) However, even if the mount is at least one size larger than the rider, the GM can still determine that is either unsuitable or even impossible to ride because of the mount's body shape and/or available equipment such as the appropriate exotic saddle.

5) Similarly, if the mount is the same size or smaller than the rider, it may be impossible to ride even with the unsuitability penalty or the Undersized Mount feat for the reasons given in #4 above.

In PFS ...

1) There is an additional absolute limit. Mounts for cavaliers and paladins MUST be at least one size larger than the rider.

So, when I'm GMing at a PFS table, would it be reasonable for me to say this absolute limit on mount size relative to rider size applies to all PCs for the reason I noted above? That reason being that since cavaliers and paladins are mounted combat specialists, any limits on their mount choice should apply to all other classes that are not similarly specialized.

I'm asking all this so that when I GM at a PFS table, I have a stronger sense of how these rules should operate.

Shadow Lodge *****

Pj Rogers wrote:
So, when I'm GMing at a PFS table, would it be reasonable for me to say this absolute limit on mount size relative to rider size applies to all PCs for the reason I noted above?

The logic you're using is a bit of a stretch and you can reach a very similar if not better solution with DM fiat, which you're allowed to do.

For starters, by the logic you're using A druid couldn't mount a (hopefully ant hauled) Pony even if he had the undersized mount feat: because a cavalier/pally is supposed to be the best at that and they can't do it.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
pjrogers wrote:
since cavaliers and paladins are mounted combat specialists, any limits on their mount choice should apply to all other classes that are not similarly specialized

Aren't Cavaliers and Paladins supposed to be far more limited in mount choice than other companion classes, most of which are free to take Tigers, etc?

*

BigNorseWolf wrote:
For starters, by the logic you're using A druid couldn't mount a (hopefully ant hauled) Pony even if he had the undersized mount feat: because a cavalier/pally is supposed to be the best at that and they can't do it.

My bad, I didn't make it clear that the Undersized Mount feat would still work as written so the scenario you describe above would be fine. However, no character without the Undersized Mount feat would be able to ride a mount that is it's size or smaller.

Matthew Downie wrote:
Aren't Cavaliers and Paladins supposed to be far more limited in mount choice than other companion classes, most of which are free to take Tigers, etc?

Yes, other classes with animal companions can select from a wider range of mounts. However, none of these other classes are specialists in mounted combat (at least as far as I'm aware), so I don't see why they should have more freedom in terms of relative mount size than the two mounted combat specialized classes.

Shadow Lodge *****

Hmm no. Kitsune can get wolves, and have to be 7th level. And by PFS rules cavaliers/pallies. would have to get the large woof not the medium woof with improvements.

51 to 100 of 120 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | next > last >>
Paizo / Messageboards / Paizo / Organized Play / Pathfinder Society Roleplaying Guild / Can a medium size samurai or cavalier select a wolf as a mount if he is at least 7th level? All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.

©2002-2017 Paizo Inc.® | Privacy Policy | Contact Us
Need help? Email customer.service@paizo.com or call 425-250-0800 during our business hours, Monday through Friday, 10:00 AM to 5:00 PM Pacific time.

Paizo Inc., Paizo, the Paizo golem logo, Pathfinder, the Pathfinder logo, Pathfinder Society, Starfinder, the Starfinder logo, GameMastery, and Planet Stories are registered trademarks of Paizo Inc. The Pathfinder Roleplaying Game, Pathfinder Campaign Setting, Pathfinder Adventure Path, Pathfinder Adventure Card Game, Pathfinder Player Companion, Pathfinder Modules, Pathfinder Tales, Pathfinder Battles, Pathfinder Legends, Pathfinder Online, Starfinder Adventure Path, PaizoCon, RPG Superstar, The Golem's Got It, Titanic Games, the Titanic logo, and the Planet Stories planet logo are trademarks of Paizo Inc. Dungeons & Dragons, Dragon, Dungeon, and Polyhedron are registered trademarks of Wizards of the Coast, Inc., a subsidiary of Hasbro, Inc., and have been used by Paizo Inc. under license. Most product names are trademarks owned or used under license by the companies that publish those products; use of such names without mention of trademark status should not be construed as a challenge to such status.