A Few More Answers

Of course, just my opinion, but this is what, like the forth or fifth attempt at explaining and fixing this topic?

Except the current fix is bringing it further back in line with the actual Pathfinder RPG rules set.

They are also removing the whole ambiguous, "Ok, I know that the PFS rules say that the animal archive item slots are the rule for the campaign now, but what do I do with my animal companion for items if I don't own animal archive?" They are adding all the animal archive rules to the FAQ/Campaign Clarifications. So they are available to everyone.

DM Beckett, there's something crucial that's lacking in your proposal.

The line that states that Animal Companions may take all feats they can physically qualify for once they get 3+ int.

I want to keep dragon style on my charging mount, which your proposal would make impossible, as neither improved unarmed attack and dragon style are on the list of animal feats in the animal companion paragraph.

That is correct, and intentional. The main idea is that Animal Companions, Mounts, etc. . . are actually treated as Animals in all ways. They can not normally raise their Int above 2, and in the few cases that it might be allowed, they automatically become Magical Beasts and no longer are able to serve as Animal Companions or Mounts.

In other words, there is no way for a Player to get access to these options, outside of maybe things like Leadership, (which is not allowed in PFS, but would then be appropriate otherwise).

By cutting out possibilities like this outright, it reduces the possibility for it to open the door to other issues later.

I think you are missing that these aren't just PFS rulings.

The allowing Int 3+ and Monkey-See, Monkey-Do blog post are Pathfinder RPG rulings.

Not really, but I would admit that PFS is my main incentive here for wanting good, consistent, fair, and easy rules that cut out potential room to open the door to other issues later. In my mind, PF and PFS are the same thing. Everyone knows that outside of PFS, you can change whatever you want, so even a ruling like this is not "binding" as a PF ruling except in PFS. I see no need to really make a distinction here.

But if you completely remove the ability to go to Int 3+, then you remove the ability of animals to take any feat they qualify for other than the specific feats listed under animal companion.

Exactly.

Honestly, all that aside, does this sound significantly easier to understand, find what rules apply to what, and make sense?

If not, why not?

Tallow wrote:

I think you are missing that these aren't just PFS rulings.

The allowing Int 3+ and Monkey-See, Monkey-Do blog post are Pathfinder RPG rulings.

Not really, but I would admit that PFS is my main incentive here for wanting good, consistent, fair, and easy rules that cut out potential room to open the door to other issues later.

Tallow wrote:

But if you completely remove the ability to go to Int 3+, then you remove the ability of animals to take any feat they qualify for other than the specific feats listed under animal companion.

Exactly.

Honestly, all that aside, does this sound significantly easier to understand, find what rules apply to what, and make sense?

If not, why not?

Honestly, as soon as I noticed, within your first two items, that you'd started completely re-writing the rules set, I stopped reading them.

Why? Because I don't want PFS to start re-writing entire rules sets, even if doing so would make them easier to understand.

Because that opens the door for PFS to essentially create an entire new game that is no longer Pathfinder. That isn't the point of PFS. We are playing an organized play campaign within Pathfinder. And the campaign should strive to use the rules sets Pathfinder creates as most impeccably as they can, only modifying things as necessary to for the strictures of organized play, or clarifying the things that home GMs would have to clarify anyways.

Fair enough, although I would argue that that is exactly what the Monkey See, Monkey Do, various FAQs, and this attempt have been doing the whole time.

:P

Fair enough, although I would argue that that is exactly what the Monkey See, Monkey Do, various FAQs, and this attempt have been doing the whole time.

:P

Sure, except that Monkey See, Monkey Do is not a PFS blog, but a Paizo Designer Blog.

The FAQ's are taking the results of the blog and applying them to PFS as a GM would their home campaign.

The FAQ's also are taking rules in Animal Archive and applying them to PFS as a GM would in their home campaign.

What's happening is not PFS creating new rules to patch old rules, but rather taking new rules and clarifications given forth by Pathfinder designers and developers and determining how and if they fit into the PFS campaign. Since precedence is that PFS tries to use these rules as close to written as possible, the only changes or clarifications they need to make are where ambiguities or holes sit within what the designers and developers have produced. Or changes/clarifications to restrictions that organized play demands based on other organized play home rules that exist.

Your write up essentially throws out what the Pathfinder designers and developers have created to create an entirely new rules set for PFS.

Are you doing this to theory craft? Or are you actually hoping to get enough support that the PFS leadership team must adopt it?

Cause I'm happy to theory craft with you, but I'm not going to waste my time in trying to do get something done in PFS that will likely never happen.

I see the existing rules and guidelines on the matter as very flawed, not really following the internal consistency of the game, and being either being full of or allowing for very strange interactions.

My goal is to make the entire system much more stream line, easy to use (for both Players and DMs), and remove a lot of the awkwardness from the entire system, rather than continuously trying to patch it or build even more onto it as more options become available, or various different sources. Like I said, we have to look at a lot of different places to get some basic answers, and more than a few of them don't seem to follow logic, (such as an Animal with an 18 Int being a very smart animal, but still having an animal's sentience and not comparable to anything else with an 18 Int). To me, that, and so many other things seem like a very convoluted work around that really doesn't help anyone or make the game more fun.

It does, however, make folks that want to play by the rules, or are bound by them such as in PFS jump through a lot of hoops and look in multiple different places they may not be aware of to find and understand something that doesn't really seem to actually fit with how the rest of the game works in similar situations.

I doubt it would happen, but yes, I think it would be better for everyone involved, the game, and also organized play if we just threw out the old patches entirely and went with something simpler, more understandable, and more consistent with the rest of the game.

I do understand, once again, that there is a difference between PF and PFS. I think the overall PF (FAQ, Blog, various internet rulings) are ultimately the culprit here, and if we can get that fixed, PFS would then also follow, and everyone that has their own house rules system is in no way bound to use them any more than they are right now. I honestly don't see why you keep bringing this up, it's not really relevant.

Win/Win/Win.

If you don't want to look at it, use it, or discuss the possibility here, no worries. Not trying to force you to. I also understand that it's very, very unlikely to happen, but still, I think it's well worth trying, as I find the existing system(s) very problematic, and is something that seems to keep coming up.

I see the existing rules and guidelines on the matter as very flawed, not really following the internal consistency of the game, and being either being full of or allowing for very strange interactions.

My goal is to make the entire system much more stream line, easy to use (for both Players and DMs), and remove a lot of the awkwardness from the entire system, rather than continuously trying to patch it or build even more onto it as more options become available, or various different sources. Like I said, we have to look at a lot of different places to get some basic answers, and more than a few of them don't seem to follow logic, (such as an Animal with an 18 Int being a very smart animal, but still having an animal's sentience and not comparable to anything else with an 18 Int). To me, that, and so many other things seem like a very convoluted work around that really doesn't help anyone or make the game more fun.

It does, however, make folks that want to play by the rules, or are bound by them such as in PFS jump through a lot of hoops and look in multiple different places they may not be aware of to find and understand something that doesn't really seem to actually fit with how the rest of the game works in similar situations.

I doubt it would happen, but yes, I think it would be better for everyone involved, the game, and also organized play if we just threw out the old patches entirely and went with something simpler, more understandable, and more consistent with the rest of the game.

I do understand, once again, that there is a difference between PF and PFS. I think the overall PF (FAQ, Blog, various internet rulings) are ultimately the culprit here, and if we can get that fixed, PFS would then also follow, and everyone that has their own house rules system is in no way bound to use them any more than they are right now. I honestly don't see why you keep bringing this up, it's not really relevant.

Win/Win/Win.

If you don't want to look at it, use it, or discuss...

What I see the issue as, is that the issues aren't resolved within days of them being brought to the campaign leadership's attention. If they were resolved quickly, then so many of the holes and issues wouldn't keep falling through the cracks when they try to create comprehensive clarifications.

Even this latest clarification is incomplete, ambiguous, and fairly useless in some situations. Because it really isn't comprehensive. It creates more problems than the old system had because of imprecise wording.

I'd rather take a stab at the current FAQ to clarify what it says, so that all the holes are filled, rather than rewriting game rules to satisfy someone's version of simplicity.

Another improved familiar question
Do prestige classes that increase your caster level count towards the "Arcane Spellcaster Level" requirement with the improved familiar feat? For example, mystic theurge or veiled illusionist. And if they count do only the levels that improve spellcasting count?

Another improved familiar question

Do prestige classes that increase your caster level count towards the "Arcane Spellcaster Level" requirement with the improved familiar feat? For example, mystic theurge or veiled illusionist. And if they count do only the levels that improve spellcasting count?

I'm fairly sure they don't count, just like you don't get bloodline spells as a sorcerer progressing in a prestige class.

But I couldn't immediately find the FAQ reference so I've logged the question.

Another improved familiar question

Do prestige classes that increase your caster level count towards the "Arcane Spellcaster Level" requirement with the improved familiar feat? For example, mystic theurge or veiled illusionist. And if they count do only the levels that improve spellcasting count?

For prestige classes that increase your arcane caster level: those levels that increase your arcane caster level count for the improved familiar feat. An arcane caster level is an arcane caster level, regardless of the source (although they usually do not stack)

However you do not progress on table "Familiar Ability Descriptions" unless your prestige class also grants a familiar or specifically states that you count your levels in the prestige class as wizard levels for familiar purposes.

Lau: Bloodline spells are not a function of arcane caster level, but of sorcerer level.

In my opinion a FAQ is not necessary, the rules are clear on this point.

I'm not so sure. I don't think it's all that clear.

The old language refers to "arcane caster level", but the [url=http://paizo.com/paizo/faq/v5748nruor1fm#v5748eaic9utx
FAQ[/url] refers to "arcane spellcaster level", which sounds more like class levels than caster levels.

The FAQ states that you can replace your "effective wizard level" for your "arcane spellcaster level", not the other way around.

After reading the FAQ twice it is my opinion that with "arcane spellcaster level" the level requirements in the improved familiar feat are meant. However I agree that the FAQ could have been a bit more clear.

Edit
The more I read about it the more unclear it gets. This indeed does not solve anything for prestige classes. Lau and Michael, you are right, this needs clarification.

Yeah there have been a few threads about it. What it somewhat boils down to is, does "arcane spellcaster level" mean arcane caster level or arcane class level?

The other corner case, one that seems to fit within the RAW of the rules but in a cheeky way is something along the lines of wizard 1 / sorcerer x. Where the character gets a familiar from the wizard level and then uses its sorcerer levels to meet the arcane spellcaster level requirement for an improved familiar. The familiar would only have the abilities of a first level wizard's familiar but could be an improved familiar. While this is a bit cheeky, I would be loathe to take something away that worked since the inception of the game.

Thanks for the questions, everyone! We've made some adjustments based on your feedback, including giving avians a saddle slot and adding in some missing companions.

The familiar FAQ has been updated, and a new entry has been added for animal companions.

We've also made updates to the following entries.

What do I need to bring to a game to use material that is not from the Core Rulebook for my character?
A receipt from a game store counts as proof of purchase, in the same way that a screenshot from your My Downloads page does.

How do poisons work in the Roleplaying Guild?
Characters who can purchase and use poisons may also use Craft (alchemy) to produce poisons that are legal for them to purchase.

How do alchemists and investigators craft in the Pathfinder Society Roleplaying Guild?”
Alchemists and investigators may use Craft (alchemy) to craft items that they gain access to on Chronicle sheets as long as the Chronicle sheet does not limit to the number of times they may purchase those items.

Can my prepared spellcaster learn spells from another PC? What about gaining spells via scrolls found during an adventure?
Added the clarifying line "Between adventures, PCs can always find an NPC to teach them any spells that are legal for their character to learn."

:D

Available slots followed by either (saddle) or (horseshoes) in the table below denote that creatures of that body type can only wear magic items in those slots if they are saddles or horseshoes, respectively. Creatures without these notes cannot wear saddles or horseshoes.

I'd like to point out, this still is wonky wording. As written, if Belt (saddle) or Feet (horseshoes) shows up, the animals can ONLY wear those items in those slots.

Is that on purpose, or should it read:

...denote that saddles and horseshoes can only be worn by creatures of those body types.

So this still doesn't answer 2 of the big questions I felt were asked about this FAQ.

Can animals without Saddle slots wear mundane saddles?
Like the frogs or especially snake cause of the First Mother's Fang Cavalier.

Can familiars without spending the feat on the armor slot wear mundane armor?

It still seems like no, but some are saying this is only for magic items and not limiting mundane stuff, but it would be nice for clarity on which is actually correct. Cause I still feel I'm bound to say that the FMFC can't have a saddle for their snake and familiars can't wear armor.

So this still doesn't answer 2 of the big questions I felt were asked about this FAQ.

Can animals without Saddle slots wear mundane saddles?
Like the frogs or especially snake cause of the First Mother's Fang Cavalier.

Can familiars without spending the feat on the armor slot wear mundane armor?

It still seems like no, but some are saying this is only for magic items and not limiting mundane stuff, but it would be nice for clarity on which is actually correct. Cause I still feel I'm bound to say that the FMFC can't have a saddle for their snake and familiars can't wear armor.

Replying to assure you that we have not forgotten about these questions. They are important questions, but also ones that will require a larger discussion and review of existing rules. We have them on the docket for after Gen Con.

Thomas Hutchins wrote:

So this still doesn't answer 2 of the big questions I felt were asked about this FAQ.

Can animals without Saddle slots wear mundane saddles?
Like the frogs or especially snake cause of the First Mother's Fang Cavalier.

Can familiars without spending the feat on the armor slot wear mundane armor?

It still seems like no, but some are saying this is only for magic items and not limiting mundane stuff, but it would be nice for clarity on which is actually correct. Cause I still feel I'm bound to say that the FMFC can't have a saddle for their snake and familiars can't wear armor.

Replying to assure you that we have not forgotten about these questions. They are important questions, but also ones that will require a larger discussion and review of existing rules. We have them on the docket for after Gen Con.

So you are going to leave the question about whether a creature can wear a mundane saddle or not on whether it has the magic item slot belt/chest [saddle] up to table gm variation at Gen Con?!

Animal Companion Magic Item FAQ wrote:

Available slots followed by either (saddle) or (horseshoes) in the table below denote that creatures of that body type can only wear magic items in those slots if they are saddles or horseshoes, respectively. Creatures without these notes cannot wear saddles or horseshoes.

I'd like to point out, this still is wonky wording. As written, if Belt (saddle) or Feet (horseshoes) shows up, the animals can ONLY wear those items in those slots.

Is that on purpose, or should it read:

Quote:

...denote that saddles and horseshoes can only be worn by creatures of those body types.

It's on purpose. The wording comes from Animal Archive. For example, a creature either has a regular feet slot that can wear boots and such, or it has a feet (horseshoes) slot that can wear horseshoes (but not both).

Thomas Hutchins wrote:

So this still doesn't answer 2 of the big questions I felt were asked about this FAQ.

Can animals without Saddle slots wear mundane saddles?
Like the frogs or especially snake cause of the First Mother's Fang Cavalier.

Can familiars without spending the feat on the armor slot wear mundane armor?

It still seems like no, but some are saying this is only for magic items and not limiting mundane stuff, but it would be nice for clarity on which is actually correct. Cause I still feel I'm bound to say that the FMFC can't have a saddle for their snake and familiars can't wear armor.

Replying to assure you that we have not forgotten about these questions. They are important questions, but also ones that will require a larger discussion and review of existing rules. We have them on the docket for after Gen Con.

Thanks, it's good to know that and that these apparently aren't just easy questions that one should clearly know the answer to from this post.

Just for clarity and a sanity check:

What Thomas Hutchins is asking, is can a horse wear a mundane saddle.

Currently, they can, and the FAQ only refers to magic item slots.

But Linda's answer seems to imply, that the PFS Leadership team is going to double check rules and make sure that a horse doesn't need to take extra item slot for belt to be able to wear a mundane saddle.

Tallow wrote:

Animal Companion Magic Item FAQ wrote:

Available slots followed by either (saddle) or (horseshoes) in the table below denote that creatures of that body type can only wear magic items in those slots if they are saddles or horseshoes, respectively. Creatures without these notes cannot wear saddles or horseshoes.

I'd like to point out, this still is wonky wording. As written, if Belt (saddle) or Feet (horseshoes) shows up, the animals can ONLY wear those items in those slots.

Is that on purpose, or should it read:

Quote:

...denote that saddles and horseshoes can only be worn by creatures of those body types.

It's on purpose. The wording comes from Animal Archive. For example, a creature either has a regular feet slot that can wear boots and such, or it has a feet (horseshoes) slot that can wear horseshoes (but not both).

The feet makes sense, but now you are restricting all animals that can wear saddles to not being able to wear belts at all.

Except avians, that can wear both saddles (because chest [saddle]) and belts.

Just for clarity and a sanity check:

What Thomas Hutchins is asking, is can a horse wear a mundane saddle.

Currently, they can, and the FAQ only refers to magic item slots.

But Linda's answer seems to imply, that the PFS Leadership team is going to double check rules and make sure that a horse doesn't need to take extra item slot for belt to be able to wear a mundane saddle.

That was not how I interpreted his question. What I interpreted was "can creatures who do not have saddle magic item slots or armor magic item slots still wear saddles/armor but not enchant it?" If you have a saddle or armor slot, you can definitely wear mundane saddles or armor without taking Extra Item Slot.

Just for clarity and a sanity check:

What Thomas Hutchins is asking, is can a horse wear a mundane saddle.

Currently, they can, and the FAQ only refers to magic item slots.

But Linda's answer seems to imply, that the PFS Leadership team is going to double check rules and make sure that a horse doesn't need to take extra item slot for belt to be able to wear a mundane saddle.

Well mainly if a snake, frog, t-rex can wear a mundane exotic saddle ever.

Tallow wrote:

Just for clarity and a sanity check:

What Thomas Hutchins is asking, is can a horse wear a mundane saddle.

Currently, they can, and the FAQ only refers to magic item slots.

But Linda's answer seems to imply, that the PFS Leadership team is going to double check rules and make sure that a horse doesn't need to take extra item slot for belt to be able to wear a mundane saddle.

That was not how I interpreted his question. What I interpreted was "can creatures who do not have saddle magic item slots or armor magic item slots still wear saddles/armor but not enchant it?" If you have a saddle or armor slot, you can definitely wear mundane saddles or armor without taking Extra Item Slot.

Thank you!

Tallow wrote:

Just for clarity and a sanity check:

What Thomas Hutchins is asking, is can a horse wear a mundane saddle.

Currently, they can, and the FAQ only refers to magic item slots.

But Linda's answer seems to imply, that the PFS Leadership team is going to double check rules and make sure that a horse doesn't need to take extra item slot for belt to be able to wear a mundane saddle.

That was not how I interpreted his question. What I interpreted was "can creatures who do not have saddle magic item slots or armor magic item slots still wear saddles/armor but not enchant it?" If you have a saddle or armor slot, you can definitely wear mundane saddles or armor without taking Extra Item Slot.

Is this saying what I think it's saying, that familiars with the armor slot possible can wear mundane armor without any feats. Or was your comment only for animals?

Tallow wrote:

Just for clarity and a sanity check:

What Thomas Hutchins is asking, is can a horse wear a mundane saddle.

Currently, they can, and the FAQ only refers to magic item slots.

But Linda's answer seems to imply, that the PFS Leadership team is going to double check rules and make sure that a horse doesn't need to take extra item slot for belt to be able to wear a mundane saddle.

Well mainly if a snake, frog, t-rex can wear a mundane exotic saddle ever.

It appears, currently, the answer is no, as they don't have a saddle slot.

Thomas Hutchins wrote:

Tallow wrote:

Just for clarity and a sanity check:

What Thomas Hutchins is asking, is can a horse wear a mundane saddle.

Currently, they can, and the FAQ only refers to magic item slots.

But Linda's answer seems to imply, that the PFS Leadership team is going to double check rules and make sure that a horse doesn't need to take extra item slot for belt to be able to wear a mundane saddle.

Well mainly if a snake, frog, t-rex can wear a mundane exotic saddle ever.

It appears, currently, the answer is no, as they don't have a saddle slot.

Right, but there are lots of people that then say stuff like, "Then what's the purpose of exotic saddle?" and "this thing is only dealing with magic items/slots, mundane stuff in those slots is fine".

Linda Zayas-Palmer wrote:

Tallow wrote:

Just for clarity and a sanity check:

What Thomas Hutchins is asking, is can a horse wear a mundane saddle.

Currently, they can, and the FAQ only refers to magic item slots.

But Linda's answer seems to imply, that the PFS Leadership team is going to double check rules and make sure that a horse doesn't need to take extra item slot for belt to be able to wear a mundane saddle.

That was not how I interpreted his question. What I interpreted was "can creatures who do not have saddle magic item slots or armor magic item slots still wear saddles/armor but not enchant it?" If you have a saddle or armor slot, you can definitely wear mundane saddles or armor without taking Extra Item Slot.

Is this saying what I think it's saying, that familiars with the armor slot possible can wear mundane armor without any feats. Or was your comment only for animals?

They still need the armor proficiency

Tallow wrote:

Thomas Hutchins wrote:

Tallow wrote:

Just for clarity and a sanity check:

What Thomas Hutchins is asking, is can a horse wear a mundane saddle.

Currently, they can, and the FAQ only refers to magic item slots.

But Linda's answer seems to imply, that the PFS Leadership team is going to double check rules and make sure that a horse doesn't need to take extra item slot for belt to be able to wear a mundane saddle.

Well mainly if a snake, frog, t-rex can wear a mundane exotic saddle ever.

It appears, currently, the answer is no, as they don't have a saddle slot.

Right, but there are lots of people that then say stuff like, "Then what's the purpose of exotic saddle?" and "this thing is only dealing with magic items/slots, mundane stuff in those slots is fine".

But there's been a flux of First mother's fangs in my area and it's sad to have to tell so many that they need to take ride penalties for riding bareback on their snake.

Exotic Saddle is for all the creatures that have the belt/chest [saddle] slot that is not a horse or a camel

Thomas Hutchins wrote:

Linda Zayas-Palmer wrote:

Tallow wrote:

Just for clarity and a sanity check:

What Thomas Hutchins is asking, is can a horse wear a mundane saddle.

Currently, they can, and the FAQ only refers to magic item slots.

But Linda's answer seems to imply, that the PFS Leadership team is going to double check rules and make sure that a horse doesn't need to take extra item slot for belt to be able to wear a mundane saddle.

That was not how I interpreted his question. What I interpreted was "can creatures who do not have saddle magic item slots or armor magic item slots still wear saddles/armor but not enchant it?" If you have a saddle or armor slot, you can definitely wear mundane saddles or armor without taking Extra Item Slot.

Is this saying what I think it's saying, that familiars with the armor slot possible can wear mundane armor without any feats. Or was your comment only for animals?

They still need the armor proficiency

Proficiency is just to determine if they take penalties to attacks and stuff or just skills. That is different from the ability to legally have any armor on them. Like snakes can't wear armor regardless of what feats they may have granting armor proficiency, no slot. But a monkey "could" gain the slot via feat, but is that just for magic or also apply to mundane. So is a monkey without extra slot armor is the same as a snake, unable to wear armor?

Tallow wrote:

Thomas Hutchins wrote:

Linda Zayas-Palmer wrote:

Tallow wrote:

Just for clarity and a sanity check:

What Thomas Hutchins is asking, is can a horse wear a mundane saddle.

Currently, they can, and the FAQ only refers to magic item slots.

But Linda's answer seems to imply, that the PFS Leadership team is going to double check rules and make sure that a horse doesn't need to take extra item slot for belt to be able to wear a mundane saddle.

That was not how I interpreted his question. What I interpreted was "can creatures who do not have saddle magic item slots or armor magic item slots still wear saddles/armor but not enchant it?" If you have a saddle or armor slot, you can definitely wear mundane saddles or armor without taking Extra Item Slot.

Is this saying what I think it's saying, that familiars with the armor slot possible can wear mundane armor without any feats. Or was your comment only for animals?

They still need the armor proficiency

Proficiency is just to determine if they take penalties to attacks and stuff or just skills. That is different from the ability to legally have any armor on them. Like snakes can't wear armor regardless of what feats they may have granting armor proficiency, no slot. But a monkey "could" gain the slot via feat, but is that just for magic or also apply to mundane. So is a monkey without extra slot armor is the same as a snake, unable to wear armor?

First line of the FAQ says, "An animal companion has access to the armor and neck magic item slots automatically, as long as its body shape is eligible for these slots."

Linda later says, "If you have a saddle or armor slot, you can definitely wear mundane saddles or armor without taking Extra Item Slot."

I interpret that to mean, if the animal has the armor slot, it automatically has the ability to wear magical armor, and thus can wear mundane armor. Currently, if it does not have the item slot at all, it cannot wear the mundane version of that item either.

Exotic Saddle is for all the creatures that have the belt/chest [saddle] slot that is not a horse or a camel

Do you have a source for this?

Cause what I see is
Saddles are used to support a rider or supplies on a mount.
and
Exotic saddles are custom-made for unusual mounts.

And the argument is, that any animal with the saddle slot is obviously a mount with normal saddle, and that exotic saddles are for mounts that don't have the slot, since they usually aren't mounts.

Thomas Hutchins wrote:

Tallow wrote:

Thomas Hutchins wrote:

Linda Zayas-Palmer wrote:

Tallow wrote:

Just for clarity and a sanity check:

What Thomas Hutchins is asking, is can a horse wear a mundane saddle.

Currently, they can, and the FAQ only refers to magic item slots.

But Linda's answer seems to imply, that the PFS Leadership team is going to double check rules and make sure that a horse doesn't need to take extra item slot for belt to be able to wear a mundane saddle.

That was not how I interpreted his question. What I interpreted was "can creatures who do not have saddle magic item slots or armor magic item slots still wear saddles/armor but not enchant it?" If you have a saddle or armor slot, you can definitely wear mundane saddles or armor without taking Extra Item Slot.

Is this saying what I think it's saying, that familiars with the armor slot possible can wear mundane armor without any feats. Or was your comment only for animals?

They still need the armor proficiency

Proficiency is just to determine if they take penalties to attacks and stuff or just skills. That is different from the ability to legally have any armor on them. Like snakes can't wear armor regardless of what feats they may have granting armor proficiency, no slot. But a monkey "could" gain the slot via feat, but is that just for magic or also apply to mundane. So is a monkey without extra slot armor is the same as a snake, unable to wear armor?

First line of the FAQ says, "An animal companion has access to the armor and neck magic item slots automatically, as long as its body shape is eligible for these slots."

Linda later says, "If you have a saddle or armor slot, you can definitely wear mundane saddles or armor without taking Extra Item Slot."

I interpret that to mean, if the animal has the armor slot, it automatically has the ability to wear magical armor, and thus can wear mundane armor. Currently, if it does not have the...

You're missing my point. Yes animals automatically have the armor slot, but the FAMILIAR's aren't automatically granted the armor slot. Thus does having the slot allow them to wear mundane armor or not? That I feel isn't clear (or it's clear in that it's saying yes they need the feat to wear mundane armor, but that seems like it could be wrong.)

Tallow wrote:

Exotic Saddle is for all the creatures that have the belt/chest [saddle] slot that is not a horse or a camel

Do you have a source for this?

Cause what I see is
Saddles are used to support a rider or supplies on a mount.
and
Exotic saddles are custom-made for unusual mounts.

And the argument is, that any animal with the saddle slot is obviously a mount with normal saddle, and that exotic saddles are for mounts that don't have the slot, since they usually aren't mounts.

while it isn't spelled out, I don't think you'll get the people on the, "But real life" side of the argument to agree with you.

Exotic, to me, means creatures that "could" wear a saddle, but need a special saddle above the standard ones for standard mounts to do so.

Standard mounts are basically horses, ponies, donkey/mule and dogs, as those are the animals listed in the equipment section under mounts.

Mounts and Related Gear

Item Cost Weight
Barding
Medium creature ×22 ×12
Large creature ×42 ×22
Bit and bridle 2 gp 1 lb.
Dog, guard 25 gp —
Dog, riding 150 gp —
Donkey or mule 8 gp —
Feed (per day) 5 cp 10 lbs.
Horse
Horse, heavy 200 gp —
Horse, heavy (combat trained) 300 gp —
Horse, light 75 gp —
Horse, light(combat trained) 110 gp —
Pony 30 gp —
Pony (combat trained) 45 gp —
Saddle
Military 20 gp 30 lbs.
Pack 5 gp 15 lbs.
Riding 10 gp 25 lbs.
Saddle, Exotic
Military 60 gp 40 lbs.
Pack 15 gp 20 lbs.
Riding 30 gp 30 lbs.
Saddlebags 4 gp 8 lbs.
Stabling (per day) 5 sp —

Tallow wrote:

Thomas Hutchins wrote:

Tallow wrote:

Thomas Hutchins wrote:

Linda Zayas-Palmer wrote:

Tallow wrote:

Just for clarity and a sanity check:

What Thomas Hutchins is asking, is can a horse wear a mundane saddle.

Currently, they can, and the FAQ only refers to magic item slots.

But Linda's answer seems to imply, that the PFS Leadership team is going to double check rules and make sure that a horse doesn't need to take extra item slot for belt to be able to wear a mundane saddle.

That was not how I interpreted his question. What I interpreted was "can creatures who do not have saddle magic item slots or armor magic item slots still wear saddles/armor but not enchant it?" If you have a saddle or armor slot, you can definitely wear mundane saddles or armor without taking Extra Item Slot.

Is this saying what I think it's saying, that familiars with the armor slot possible can wear mundane armor without any feats. Or was your comment only for animals?

They still need the armor proficiency

Proficiency is just to determine if they take penalties to attacks and stuff or just skills. That is different from the ability to legally have any armor on them. Like snakes can't wear armor regardless of what feats they may have granting armor proficiency, no slot. But a monkey "could" gain the slot via feat, but is that just for magic or also apply to mundane. So is a monkey without extra slot armor is the same as a snake, unable to wear armor?

First line of the FAQ says, "An animal companion has access to the armor and neck magic item slots automatically, as long as its body shape is eligible for these slots."

Linda later says, "If you have a saddle or armor slot, you can definitely wear mundane saddles or armor without taking Extra Item Slot."

I interpret that to mean, if the animal has the armor slot, it automatically has the ability to wear magical armor, and thus can wear mundane armor. Currently,

...

Aren't familiars listed as particular body types?

yup

Familiar & magic item FAQ

Can my familiar wield weapons or use magic items?

By default, familiars do not have any magic item slots, but they can unlock magic item slots associated with their respective body shape. See below for the list of which body slots each familiar is eligible to unlock. To unlock a magic item slot, a familiar must take the Extra Item Slot feat, which appears in Pathfinder Player Companion: Animal Archive and will be reprinted in the Pathfinder Society Roleplaying Guild Guide as of version 9.0. In the Pathfinder Society Roleplaying Guild, familiars of all body shapes may take this feat, including humanoid-shaped familiars. When you gain a familiar, you may exchange one of its non-bonus feats for Extra Item Slot for free (bonus feats are marked with a superscript B after the feat’s name). You may retrain your familiar’s other non-bonus feats into Extra Item Slot using the standard rules for feat retraining. Familiars may also carry slotless magic items.

Some Tiny familiars have the Weapon Finesse feat listed as one of their feats, even though they gain the benefits of Weapon Finesse for free from their size. Swapping out this feat does not deprive Tiny familiars of the ability to use its Dexterity to hit.

The following chart specifies the magic item slots that each familiar can unlock. Available slots followed by either (saddle) or (horseshoes) denote that creatures of that body type can only wear magic items in those slots if they are saddles or horseshoes, respectively. Creatures without these notes cannot wear saddles or horseshoes. Celestial, entropic, fiendish, and resolute familiars use the same slots as typical animals of their kind.

All familiars can activate the abilities of their use-activated magic items, so long as these abilities do not require a command word. The following familiars can use spell trigger and spell completion magic items, including wands and scrolls, as well as magic items with a command word: arbiter, brownie, cassisian (in small humanoid form), faerie dragon, imp, leshy (any), liminal sprite, lyrakien, mephit (any type), nosoi, nuglub, pooka, pyrausta, quasit, shikigami, soulbound doll, sprite, and zhyen. For more information on these magic item categories, see page 456 of the Pathfinder RPG Core Rulebook.

Familiars in categories marked with an asterisk (*) are able to grasp and carry one object at a time in their paws, claws, or hands, including weapons, rods, wands, and staves, as long as their carrying capacity is sufficient. Most familiars cannot wield weapons in combat. The following familiars can wield weapons: arbiter, brownie, cassisian (in small humanoid form), imp, leshy (any), liminal sprite, lyrakien, mephit (any), nuglub, pooka, quasit, shikigami, soulbound doll, sprite, and zhyen.

Some familiars have natural shapeshifting ability. One of the most striking cases is the cassisian familiar, which is listed below in both its humanoid form and its helmet form. Whenever a familiar changes from a form that has access to a magic item slot into a form that does not, the item melded into its body. A melded item provides no benefits. For familiars that can take the shapes of animals, use the standard item categories for that animal listed below.

Please review Additional Resources before selecting a familiar. Some of the listed familiars are only legal choices if your character has a Chronicle sheet boon or an archetype that grants access to them.
Arbiter* (eyes, hand, headband, wrist): Arbiter
Auger (eyes, headband): Auger
Avian* (armor, belt, chest [saddle], eyes, headband, neck, ring, wrist): Archaeopteryx, arctic tern, bat, chicken, clockwork familiar, dodo, dove, flying fox, hawk, kakapo, mockingfey, nosoi, osprey, owl, parrot, peacock, penguin, pseudowyvern, ptarmigan, puffin, raven, rhamphorhynchus, snail kite, snowy owl, thrush, toucan
Biped [claws/paws]* (armor, belt, chest, eyes, head, headband, neck, ring, shoulders): Compsognathus, wallaby
Biped [hands]* (all item slots): Brownie, cassisan (Small humanoid form), coral capuchin, faerie dragon, homunculus, imp, leshy (any), liminal sprite, lyrakien, mephit (any type), monkey, nuglub, pooka, pyrausta, quasit, shikigami, soulbound doll, sprite, xiao, zhyen
Cassisian (headband): Cassisian (helmet form)
Floating Head (eyes, head, headband): Doru, spirit oni
None (no item slots): Eyeball, harbinger, paracletus, wysp
Piscine (belt, chest [saddle], eyes): Popoto dolphin, pufferfish, seal
Quadruped [claws/paws] (armor, belt [saddle], chest, eyes, head, headband, neck, shoulders): Almiraj, arctic fox, arctic hare, armadillo, brain mole, calligraphy wyrm, cat, cat sith, caypup, chuspiki, dire rat, donkey rat, ermine, flying squirrel, fox, hedgehog, koala, lemming, mole, mongoose, otter, platypus, pseudodragon, pseudosphinx, rabbit, raccoon, rat, red panda, silvanshee, skunk, sloth, squirrel, weasel
Quadruped [hooves] (armor, belt [saddle], chest, eyes, feet [horseshoes], head, headband, neck, shoulders): Goat, pig
Quadruped [squat body] (armor, eyes, head, headband, neck, shoulders): Snapping turtle, toad, turtle
Saurian (armor, belt [saddle], chest, eyes, head, headband, neck): Dwarf caiman, lizard, marine iguana, tuatara
Serpentine (belt, eyes, headband): cacodaemon, leopard slug, mamiwa, nehushtan, nycar, pipefox, raktavarna, sea krait, viper, voidworm
Plant/Verminous (belt, eyes): Blue-ringed octopus, clockwork spy, elemental (any type), giant flea, giant isopod, greensting scorpion, house centipede, katroome, king crab, octopus (young template), petrifern, scarlet spider, stirge, trilobite, typhilipede

Based on this and Linda's previous statement, if they have the armor slot available, they can wear armor.

I disagree with Tallow's argument that the exotic saddle is intended only for animal companions with a saddle slot that aren't (insert incredibly subjective list of animals here) but the bat has a saddle slot and is called out as needing an exotic saddle, if I remember correctly. I am not sure what that means; I suppose it's just one of those things the PFS team needs to work through.

If the team does decide to go in a more Tallow-like direction, one possible approach could be to Campaign-Clarify that any animal companions gained through a Mount class feature (or similar ability) can wear an exotic saddle if they do not already have a saddle slot. Although it would be very helpful to have a list of what requires an exotic saddle, then, because I am pretty sure that horses and camels are not the entire list of what should be able to wear a regular saddle.

I haven't done a ton of research on that idea to see if there are any classes or feats that would seriously break it, but I think it would let you draw a line between something expected to be mounted (First Mother's Fang snake companion) and something not necessarily expected to be mounted (a druid's snake animal companion). If the team decides that's an important distinction. I sort of hope it's not!

Edit: I see you've posted an expanded list of what would take a normal saddle, Tallow--seems more reasonable to me than simply horses and camels.

Edit: I see you've posted an expanded list of what would take a normal saddle, Tallow--seems more reasonable to me than simply horses and camels.

Yeah, I decided to check and see if I could find anything that might indicate what a normal mount was.

You'll note that in the Paladin description, that non horse mounts

although more exotic mounts, such as a boar, camel, or dog are also suitable

Indicate that a boar, camel, or dog are exotic mounts. So even though a dog shows up on the equipment list, they might need an exotic saddle. It makes sense to me that a camel would need an exotic saddle regardless.

I'd agree with Tallow that there are ACs that could not support a saddle (including an exotic saddle).

I'm not sure how to handle snake mounts, but I lean toward bareback riding.

Dogs as exotic mounts? In fantasy settings, they have been traditionally bred to be mounts for small races. They are among the most common and ordinary mounts of all!

Hmm

"Woof!"

I don't know what I am agreeing to, but I'm wagging my tail! Maybe they'll give me a treat!

If the team does decide to go in a more Tallow-like direction, one possible approach could be to Campaign-Clarify that any animal companions gained through a Mount class feature (or similar ability) can wear an exotic saddle if they do not already have a saddle slot.

^ This. I currently have a character with an axebeak mount, and according to this FAQ she shouldn't be able to wear her saddle. I know of at least two other PCs and a BBEG that fall into this category as well. If an animal is called out as a mount option, they should be able to wear the proper gear.

My 2 cents.

Dogs as exotic mounts? In fantasy settings, they have been traditionally bred to be mounts for small races. They are among the most common and ordinary mounts of all!

Hmm

You'll note my initial list included Dogs. But if the Paladin considers them exotic, there is some evidence that Pathfinder considers them exotic.

Additionally, some societies in the real world use strictly camels, and to them, the exotic saddle would be the horse saddle. However, I don't think anyone would argue that much if I said that a Bachtrian camel would need an exotic saddle.

A line needs to be drawn somewhere. In my mind, the difference between standard and exotic is what is considered a non-standard mount in the real world.

Terminalmancer wrote:

If the team does decide to go in a more Tallow-like direction, one possible approach could be to Campaign-Clarify that any animal companions gained through a Mount class feature (or similar ability) can wear an exotic saddle if they do not already have a saddle slot.

^ This. I currently have a character with an axebeak mount, and according to this FAQ she shouldn't be able to wear her saddle. I know of at least two other PCs and a BBEG that fall into this category as well. If an animal is called out as a mount option, they should be able to wear the proper gear.

My 2 cents.

I don't disagree with you on this. However, your axe beak is safe.

Avian* (armor, belt, chest [saddle], eyes, headband, neck, ring, wrist): Axe beak, blackwisp egret, dimorphodon, dire bat, drake, eagle, giant raven, giant vulture, hawk, impaler shrike, moa, owl, pteranodon, quetzalcoatlus, roc, trumpeter swan, whisperfall vulture, yolubilis heron

Alanya wrote:

Terminalmancer wrote:

If the team does decide to go in a more Tallow-like direction, one possible approach could be to Campaign-Clarify that any animal companions gained through a Mount class feature (or similar ability) can wear an exotic saddle if they do not already have a saddle slot.

^ This. I currently have a character with an axebeak mount, and according to this FAQ she shouldn't be able to wear her saddle. I know of at least two other PCs and a BBEG that fall into this category as well. If an animal is called out as a mount option, they should be able to wear the proper gear.

My 2 cents.

I don't disagree with you on this. However, your axe beak is safe.

FAQ wrote:

Avian* (armor, belt, chest [saddle], eyes, headband, neck, ring, wrist): Axe beak, blackwisp egret, dimorphodon, dire bat, drake, eagle, giant raven, giant vulture, hawk, impaler shrike, moa, owl, pteranodon, quetzalcoatlus, roc, trumpeter swan, whisperfall vulture, yolubilis heron

Well that's what I get for looking at the above blog post instead of going into the FAQ itself... Don't mind me, nothing to see here!

Okay, so that FAQ changed some things from what used to be legal in the animal archives, and made a chest (saddle) slot on purpose?

Based on this and Linda's previous statement, if they have the armor slot available, they can wear armor.

Which is why I asked

Is this saying what I think it's saying, that familiars with the armor slot possible can wear mundane armor without any feats. Or was your comment only for animals?

Because it does seem like it, so that's what I'll be going with. But I asked so that if that wasn't what was meant they could correct it.