A Few More Answers

Do we think the familiar might be delivering the touch by rubbing its nose or belly on something?

I think Chia's questions do bring up a concern of mine as well. The restrictions on it don't really make sense considering it can speak, has hands, and a high intelligence.

Considering it's from the Occult book, I had rather assumed the homonculus was meant to emulate the spiritualist's phantom as generally when an archtype is released in a book like that it's taking cues from the main classes. And a phantom can wear any slot it wants (Just not at the same time as its master). It's a bit of a weird switch at this point that makes it significantly weaker than the other standard pet options.

So does it gain all the benefits of an AC, then? Can I multiclass with it into other classes with Animal Companions to continue gaining levels on the homonculus?

Considering it's from the Occult book, I had rather assumed the homonculus was meant to emulate the spiritualist's phantom as generally when an archtype is released in a book like that it's taking cues from the main classes. And a phantom can wear any slot it wants (Just not at the same time as its master). It's a bit of a weird switch at this point that makes it significantly weaker than the other standard pet options.

Eh, what? I wouldn't say it's supposed to emulate anything from the main classes, while there are archetypes that do so that come out in the same book and after I wouldn't say it's mandatory for any of the archetypes in the original book to have to do so when looking at all of them, just that they follow a general theme of the book. Seeing as how Homunculi and Phantoms have nothing in common aside from being a Companion class feature I wouldn't really base how one is supposed to act after the other.

Phantoms are more like eidolons with less punching power but more slipperiness. They don't have anything in common with homonculi.

The problem is Homonculus don't really have anything in common with anything. And yeah, in my experience archtypes for classes found in the more recent books tend to just borrow mechanics from the base classes of that book. So I ran with the assumption the homonculus could use items as normal, except it has no proficiency with armor as called out in its stats.

The change I'm okay with, I need to sell back a ring is all on mine. But it does remove its ability to stay competitive with other pets that are cheaper to maintain and keep alive, and often provide more in combat. So I'm just wondering if they classify as ACs in general now, and not just for items. Because that would open up some extra options for it with feats or multi-classing/prestige classing.

I have to say I'm seriously unimpressed by the idea that anything a class feature designates as a mount has to spend a feat to wear a saddle or horse shoes. I can appreciate why that would make sense for a standard companion, but cavaliers suck so much already that this borders on cruelty.

I have to say I'm seriously unimpressed by the idea that anything a class feature designates as a mount has to spend a feat to wear a saddle or horse shoes. I can appreciate why that would make sense for a standard companion, but cavaliers suck so much already that this borders on cruelty.

Did we ever get clarification about whether this refers to all saddles and horseshoes, or only magical ones?

Tinywytch wrote:

I have to say I'm seriously unimpressed by the idea that anything a class feature designates as a mount has to spend a feat to wear a saddle or horse shoes. I can appreciate why that would make sense for a standard companion, but cavaliers suck so much already that this borders on cruelty.

Did we ever get clarification about whether this refers to all saddles and horseshoes, or only magical ones?

Yes we did. I believe its upthread. But Linda came in and clarified that as long as the animal has the armor or belt/chest [saddle] slot available, that the animal can use mundane versions without needing to take the extra item slot feat.

EDIT:

LINK

I also have some questions about Promethean's Homunculus companion.

According to this newest FAQ, it is included in animal (plant or vermin) companion and it can't use or even wear most magic equipment.

According to the FAQ, the Promethean Alchemist's homunculus companion falls under Biped [hands], not Plant/Verminous. Additionally, unlike animal/plant/vermin companions, they can activate magic items, which may well include wands.

According to the FAQ, the Promethean Alchemist's homunculus companion falls under Biped [hands], not Plant/Verminous. Additionally, unlike animal/plant/vermin companions, they can activate magic items, which may well include wands.

Yes it's falls under Biped [hands], but the list is for animal/plant/vermin, which count as "animal companion".

What I really want to say is there is no reason to conclude homunculus in this kind of "animal companion". Because this class feature provides a new table for growing just like phantom or eidolon and doesn't mention about anything of druid.

Let's see how this happened.

1. The FAQ about if familiars can active a magic item like a wand was going to be fixed.

>>>2. The FAQ was updated as this blog article informed. And there comes out a new FAQ tells that animal/plant/vermin companion can't active a magic item or use a weapon. In the new FAQ, the imp companion (also uses the rule of animal companion as Druid's class feature) from diabolist prestige class is considered as a expection that can active a magic item but can not use a weapon.

>>>3. Some one asked in this threads if homunculus can be seen as a animal companion for benefit from feats designed for animal companion.

>>>4. Staffs read this reply and added "and the promethean alchemist’s homunculus, which gains weapon proficiency as described in the archetype" to the FAQ. Then homunculus seems become a animal/plant/vermin companion under Biped [hands] kind, though it is nothing in common with "animal companion".

The 4th step makes no sense and causes more question (see what Suede has written), that's what we doubt for.

Pseudodragons are a bit fuzzy on whether they can actually talk, or only chirp and use telepathy; and they don't have SLAs.

They specifically have Draconic in their statblock in the language section. So pretty sure they can speak, read, and understand spoken draconic. It's not modified like other statblocks that call out if they can understand but not speak.

Absence of SLAs doesn't show they can't talk. If they had SLA's they would definitively talk. A implies B vs Not A Ambiguous B.

Lau Bannenberg wrote:

Pseudodragons are a bit fuzzy on whether they can actually talk, or only chirp and use telepathy; and they don't have SLAs.

They specifically have Draconic in their statblock in the language section. So pretty sure they can speak, read, and understand spoken draconic. It's not modified like other statblocks that call out if they can understand but not speak.

Absence of SLAs doesn't show they can't talk. If they had SLA's they would definitively talk. A implies B vs Not A Ambiguous B.

Why would they talk if they had spell-like abilities? Those lack verbal or somatic components...is there a ruling I'm missing?

Knowing a language does not mean they are capable of speaking.

Lau Bannenberg wrote:

Pseudodragons are a bit fuzzy on whether they can actually talk, or only chirp and use telepathy; and they don't have SLAs.

They specifically have Draconic in their statblock in the language section. So pretty sure they can speak, read, and understand spoken draconic. It's not modified like other statblocks that call out if they can understand but not speak.

That's true, but the description of the creature is what creates the doubt:

Pseudodragons are tiny cousins of true dragons, and are playful but shy. They often only vocalize in chirps, hisses, growls, and purrs, but can communicate telepathically with any intelligent creature. If approached peacefully and offered food, they are usually willing to share information about what they've seen in their territory, but threats or violence make them flee.

That paragraph makes me uncertain if they can really talk.

Absence of SLAs doesn't show they can't talk. If they had SLA's they would definitively talk. A implies B vs Not A Ambiguous B.

SLAs and talking are entirely separate things. But all the old set of wand-capable familiars also had SLAs. When outlining different possible rules for PFS leadership we mentioned the possibility of making "has SLA" a requirement for using wands, and it seems they did so.

Knowing a language does not mean they are capable of speaking.

In general, yes, it does. A creature can speak any language listed in its stat block unless the section has the "(cannot speak)" clause after it, eg Shambling Mound, Vegepygmy. This holds even for a creature that has telepathy along with its languages, eg. Hellcat compared to Pseudodragon.

After the last few posts it sounds like they can speak Draconic, but only telepathically.

I can understand why that would preclude them from using UMD.

After the last few posts it sounds like they can speak Draconic, but only telepathically.

I can understand why that would preclude them from using UMD.

Telepathy, by default, is not language-dependent - see the universal monster ability.

Also see stuff like the Animate Dream, whose only language is telepathy. If the Pseudodragon's entry was meant to imply speaking Draconic telepathically, what language would the Animate Dream telepathically speak in?

If the Pseudodragon's entry was meant to imply speaking Draconic telepathically, what language would the Animate Dream telepathically speak in?

Freudian

shaventalz wrote:

If the Pseudodragon's entry was meant to imply speaking Draconic telepathically, what language would the Animate Dream telepathically speak in?

Freudian

Jungian!

After the last few posts it sounds like they can speak Draconic, but only telepathically.

I can understand why that would preclude them from using UMD.

Perhaps you might explain the differences in how a hellcat communicates compared to a pseudodragon?

Absolutely.

It seems my statement earlier is being skewed.

I never claimed telepathy was language-dependent, or that they could only communicate with telepathy using only Draconic.

To the contrary, it seems that if a Pseudodragon wishes to communicate using Draconic, the only way it is capable of delivering such a message is via telepathy.

This has zero impact on how any other creature uses telepathy.

Although I believe I recall a certain Pseudodragon in...

So maybe authors aren't being consistent?

The monster entry for the pseudodragon says "They often only vocalize in chirps, hisses, growls, and purrs, but can communicate telepathically with any intelligent creature."

That sentence seems to express a preference not to speak rather than an inability to speak. That sentence also suggests that their racial telepathy overcomes language barriers (since they can otherwise speak only Draconic).

Like I said, there was doubt about their ability to speak. We weren't certain it could or couldn't.

But I think what did it in was that it didn't have SLAs. All the wand-capable familiars have SLAs.

If I polymorph my familiar from a form that has no hands to a form that has hands (e.g. use alter self to turn my pseudodragon into a halfling), does he join the list of familiars that 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" for the duration of the spell?

If I polymorph my familiar from a form that has no hands to a form that has hands (e.g. use alter self to turn my pseudodragon into a halfling), does he join the list of familiars that 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" for the duration of the spell?

I doubt this would work.

Grasp and carry, with a familiar's intelligence - I think that's OK. I don't think it contributes at all to wielding, activating, loading or otherwise using the item.

If I polymorph my familiar from a form that has no hands to a form that has hands (e.g. use alter self to turn my pseudodragon into a halfling), does he join the list of familiars that 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" for the duration of the spell?

No. Regardless of what behind-the-scenes logic was used to come up with those lists, the current system boils down to "if you were written on the list you can, otherwise you can't".

So I'm catching up on the compilation of open questions.

It seems the questions about saddles have been more or less sorted by increasing the number of creature categories with a saddle slot. Observe the FAQ which is farther ahead than the list at the top of this blog.

There are still some issues where which I'm documenting.

My current question is:

Are there still creatures that should be mountable (described as such) that currently can't use saddles?

Are there still creatures that should be mountable (described as such) that currently can't use saddles?

The First Mosthers fang cavalier rides a snake.

I think that grippli's ride giant frogs and they can't have saddles.

Just because a creature can be chosen as a mount, does not automatically mean it should be able to use a saddle.

FWIW there is at least one example of a snake saddle in literature.

[the L'borean riding snake] was at least forty feet long, though its immense bulk made it appear shorter. Four saddles were mounted on its back. They were secured not by straps around the belly as with a horse but by a peculiar suction arrangement that held the seats tight to the slick scales.

Though not particularly Pathfinder relevant, that sounds like an exotic saddle to me. :)

The real question is, "When are exotic saddles used?"
Are they used for creatures that don't have a saddle slot?
Are they used for creatures with a saddle slot and if so, which ones need an exotic saddle and which don't?

The Giant Centipede is listed as having Belt, but not Belt [saddle].

I realize it can't wear magical saddles, but regular exotic saddles are still kosher, right?

Granted, I've never seen anyone with a Giant Centipede as their Companion, but there is a mid-level Module wear Derro ride Giant Centipedes, so they can certainly be used as mounts.

The Giant Centipede is listed as having Belt, but not Belt [saddle].

I realize it can't wear magical saddles, but regular exotic saddles are still kosher, right?

That's what is unclear. Currently it seems no cause it says that people without the magical belt [saddle] slot can't wear saddles at all. And exotic saddles are saddles.

So I'm catching up on the compilation of open questions.

It seems the questions about saddles have been more or less sorted by increasing the number of creature categories with a saddle slot. Observe the FAQ which is farther ahead than the list at the top of this blog.

There are still some issues where which I'm documenting.

My current question is:

Are there still creatures that should be mountable (described as such) that currently can't use saddles?

There are a couple of Cavalier Archetypes (old and new) that consider certain animal companions mounts, but those animal companions do not have saddle slots.

Beast Rider: Glyptodon (Quadruped[Squat]), Giant Snapping Turtle (Quadruped [Squat]), Deinonychus (Biped [Claws/Paws]), Velociraptor (Biped [Claws/Paws]), and the Cart Blanche starting lvl 7.
First Mother's Fang: Constrictor Snake (Serpentine)
Vermin Tamer: Giant Beetle (Plant/Verminous), Giant Centipede (Plant/Verminous), Giant Slug (Serpentine), Giant Spider (Plant/Verminous).

That last Archetype also comes with another problem. It grants Light Armor Proficiency if the mount is of proper size. But all of its options (except the Gecko) do not even have an armor slot. So apparently, a Halfing can ride an Armored Slug, I guess?

Nefreet wrote:

The Giant Centipede is listed as having Belt, but not Belt [saddle].

I realize it can't wear magical saddles, but regular exotic saddles are still kosher, right?

That's what is unclear. Currently it seems no cause it says that people without the magical belt [saddle] slot can't wear saddles at all. And exotic saddles are saddles.

There is plenty of cause to say that an item who's entire purpose is to go onto a creature that can't wear an ordinary saddle can go onto a creature that can't wear an ordinary saddle.

Thomas Hutchins wrote:

Nefreet wrote:

The Giant Centipede is listed as having Belt, but not Belt [saddle].

I realize it can't wear magical saddles, but regular exotic saddles are still kosher, right?

That's what is unclear. Currently it seems no cause it says that people without the magical belt [saddle] slot can't wear saddles at all. And exotic saddles are saddles.

There is plenty of cause to say that an item who's entire purpose is to go onto a creature that can't wear an ordinary saddle can go onto a creature that can't wear an ordinary saddle.

But it's also easy to say that saddles are just for horses and ponies and that exotic saddles are for your other stranger shapes, like your dinosaurs or bears. And there are some shapes that can't wear a saddle of any kind at all ever.

These creatures can't wear an ordinary horse saddle, so they need an exotic saddle. And some have bodies that can't get any kind of saddle.

a perfectly valid view that works with all the rules.

Hence the plea for clarification.

Beast Rider mounts must have four legs, so the Velociraptor and Deinonychus aren't available anyways.

Beast Rider mounts must have four legs, so the Velociraptor and Deinonychus aren't available anyways.

Missed that line while I was checking the Beast Rider's list. Why are they even mentioned if it is not allowed to take them anyway?

An eloquent addition to the FAQ might be something to the effect of:

"The preceding list of Animal Companion Item Slots represents a "general rule". If you have a class feature that expands on these options (insert examples here), such as granting a Companion free Armor Proficiency, then those class features take precedence".

Or reworded however others think sounds concrete. I just made that up on the fly.

BigNorseWolf wrote:

Thomas Hutchins wrote:

Nefreet wrote:

The Giant Centipede is listed as having Belt, but not Belt [saddle].

I realize it can't wear magical saddles, but regular exotic saddles are still kosher, right?

That's what is unclear. Currently it seems no cause it says that people without the magical belt [saddle] slot can't wear saddles at all. And exotic saddles are saddles.

There is plenty of cause to say that an item who's entire purpose is to go onto a creature that can't wear an ordinary saddle can go onto a creature that can't wear an ordinary saddle.

But it's also easy to say that saddles are just for horses and ponies and that exotic saddles are for your other stranger shapes, like your dinosaurs or bears. And there are some shapes that can't wear a saddle of any kind at all ever.

These creatures can't wear an ordinary horse saddle, so they need an exotic saddle. And some have bodies that can't get any kind of saddle.

a perfectly valid view that works with all the rules.

Hence the plea for clarification.

Currently, per Linda's clarification to the FAQ, you only can use a mundane saddle without extra item slot feat if you have the chest/belt [saddle] slot. Per the FAQ, you can't take extra item slot feat if the creature doesn't have that slot.

So currently, you cannot have a creature mount that doesn't have a saddle slot wear a mundane saddle. And this is true until Linda clarifies further after Gen Con.

It is my understanding that anything with a belt slot could wear a saddle or a belt in that slot and that the belt [saddle] slot restricted the animal to a saddle only. Is that incorrect?

An eloquent addition to the FAQ might be something to the effect of:

"The preceding list of Animal Companion Item Slots represents a "general rule". If you have a class feature that expands on these options (insert examples here), such as granting a Companion free Armor Proficiency, then those class features take precedence".

Or reworded however others think sounds concrete. I just made that up on the fly.

Or you just take "specific" overruling "general" and they get it because the specific (archetype) says they do. But I would not be opposed to having a clause spelling it out in the FAQ to keep arguments from happening.

That being said, nothing is stopping someone from using a mount without a saddle.

It is my understanding that anything with a belt slot could wear a saddle or a belt in that slot and that the belt [saddle] slot restricted the animal to a saddle only. Is that incorrect?

That is incorrect. The chest/belt [saddle] slot restricts a creature in two ways.

1) Those are the only creatures that can wear saddles
2) Those creatures can only wear saddles.

It is my understanding that anything with a belt slot could wear a saddle or a belt in that slot and that the belt [saddle] slot restricted the animal to a saddle only. Is that incorrect?

Yes and no.

Animal Archive is the original source for these rules and says:

Available slots followed by either “(saddle)” or “(horseshoes)” denote that creatures of that body type can only wear magic items in the appropriate slots as long as they are either saddles or horseshoes, respectively (for instance, a hoofed quadruped can wear a saddle of the sky-river, but not a belt of dwarvenkind).

So a belt(saddle) slot is more limiting than just a belt slot. In a belt slot you could also wear a saddle.

However, the PFS FAQ has done this differently: in PFS you can only wear a saddle if you have a (saddle) slot.

I'm not sure this is intentional, because in general PFS tries to use printed materials unchanged unless change is actually needed, and I don't think denying the FMF a saddle was an actual goal.

Or you just take "specific" overruling "general" and they get it because the specific (archetype) says they do. But I would not be opposed to having a clause spelling it out in the FAQ to keep arguments from happening.

At this point in Pathfinder's (and PFS's) development I feel that more verbose and thorough FAQs, with specific exceptions and examples, are the best answer to limiting confusion and resulting arguments.

This FAQ is a really good step in the right direction, though. Kudos to everyone involved.

It might not have been obvious through the haze of panic that followed initial publication. But now that I'm compiling remaining questions, I notice quite a few have already been quietly fixed.

There's still work to be done but it's going in the right direction. I've only got 8 more pages of questions to research.

Are there still creatures that should be mountable (described as such) that currently can't use saddles?

Besides the kangaroo, I fail to see why any of these cannot wear a saddle. They may be bipeds, but they don't stand upright like a man does. And the death of the dinosaur rider trope is killing me. And the Rexy is listed as a choice for Beast Rider Cavaliers, so would be ridicules if they can't ride it without a saddle. I have failed to find anything that makes it not a legal choice in either Additional Resources or Campaign Clarifications.

Biped [claws/paws]* (armor, belt, chest, eyes, headband, neck, ring, shoulders, wrist): Ceratosaurus, chalicotherium, deinonychus, gigantosaurus, kangaroo, pachycephalosaurus, theriznosaurus, troodon, tyrannosaurus, velociraptor