|
I can't see any proper justification for saying that saddlebags are a saddle requiring a [saddle] magic item slot to use. Just because the word has "saddle" as a component does not mean that it is, in any sense, a saddle. Even if that fails, you could buy a backpack instead, which doesn't require any particular body type. Best that the issue gets cleared up though.
Now that paizo is adding [saddle] slots to more animal companion categories, I consider the question of whether lacking a [saddle] slot prevents the use of mundane saddles to be answered in the affirmative. The literal interpretation was always pretty clear, and the new action is at least an indication of intent.
I don't like this ruling, and would have preferred that the lack of a [saddle] slot be used as an indication that a critter needed an exotic rather than normal saddle. But I can't justify ruling that way at this point.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
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.
Since I have an 8th level Beast Rider, and I know that the Archetype restricts mounts that have fewer than four legs, I went over to the PRD just now to see why people kept suggesting that Rexes and Raptors were valid choices. I now see that this Archetype directly conflicts itself:
• "a Small beast rider can also choose an allosaurus, ankylosaurus," etc, etc
• "a Medium beast rider can also choose an allosaurus, ankylosaurus," etc, etc
• "A beast rider cannot choose a mount that is not capable of bearing his weight, that has fewer than four legs, or that has a fly speed"
Seems like a ripe candidate for Campaign Clarifications.
|
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.Since I have an 8th level Beast Rider, and I know that the Archetype restricts mounts that have fewer than four legs, I went over to the PRD just now to see why people kept suggesting that Rexes and Raptors were valid choices. I now see that this Archetype directly conflicts itself:
• "a Small beast rider can also choose an allosaurus, ankylosaurus," etc, etc
• "a Medium beast rider can also choose an allosaurus, ankylosaurus," etc, etc
• "A beast rider cannot choose a mount that is not capable of bearing his weight, that has fewer than four legs, or that has a fly speed"Seems like a ripe candidate for Campaign Clarifications.
The restriction on fewer than four legs is in the following paragraph:
In addition, a 7th-level or higher Medium beast rider can select any creature whose natural size is Large or Huge, provided that creature is normally available as a Medium-sized animal companion at 7th level (like a bear). To generate statistics for such a mount, apply the following modifications: Size Large; Ability Scores Str +2, Dex –2, Con +2. Increase the damage of each of the mount’s natural attacks by one die size. A beast rider cannot choose a mount that is not capable of bearing his weight, that has fewer than four legs, or that has a fly speed (although the GM may allow mounts with a swim speed in certain environments).
My read on that is that the listed restrictions only apply to these "pick any mount in the book" mounts, and not to the specific creatures listed in the previous paragraphs.
|
Venture-Agent, Netherlands—Utrecht
|
Monstrous Mount is pretty much only available to Rangers, Paladins, and Cavaliers. Regular animal companions won't do. Would that be the one you're looking for?
Venture-Lieutenant, Netherlands—Leiden
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
If you are gathering together questions about animal companions would it be possible to address the issue of animal companion reach when they grow to large sized (or larger with mammoth rider and/or various spells).
None of the animal companion entries actually deal with this explicitly. My understanding is that you look to the base creature, determine if it is large (long) or large (tall) and work from there. However, not all companions have an obvious large sized base creature to compare with.
This is how I have generally run things and how I have seen plenty of others do so.
I have however encountered some degree of variation with some people insisting that because the companion advancement block makes no mention of it no companion gets reach of any kind, regardless of actual size.
I've already sent in my compilation, but I had included this issue in it.
For the record, I'm of the same mind as you - there's nothing saying you ignore the normal reach-rules so you have to infer whether it's Tall or Long.
|
I'm still a little confused on where this leaves Spiritualist's Phantoms for Wand use? I assume all other item slots (except Weapon and Armor) are kosher and activate-able, even though the item slots are shared.
Considering that Wand use is usually fine as long as you have the spell on your class list or have UMD? You should be fine. Familiars and Animal Companions are the only creatures that I've seen to be the exception to this rule.
|
Sorry for necroing this thread.
But does anyone know what tem slots does the animal companions from the Monstrous Companions feat has?
Monstrous Companions
Description Source: Inner Sea Combat
Fantastical mounts are not uncommon in the Inner Sea region, rife as it is with magic and the extraordinary. The Monstrous Mount Choices section below details monsters that are ridden primarily by cavaliers, rangers, and paladins. Taking on a monstrous mount requires a feat, but otherwise uses the rules for the animal companion class feature. Unlocking the most useful abilities and powerful attacks of a monstrous mount requires a second feat.Griffon
Hippocampus
Hippogriff
Worg
Source Inner Sea Combat pg. 14
These animal companions have unsual body types, so what slots are open for them to pick up via the Extra Item Slot feat?
|
|
Has there been discussion on this since GenCon? Have I missed an update somewhere?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 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.
Nope, nothing clarified since. Apparently due to cons and holidays and whatnot it's very hard for Paizo to get the people together to do big stuff like this. So if we're lucky it might be soon, but my guess is not till a little ways into the new year.
|
|
after gencon means it goes onto the list of "Stuff to talk about with everyone" but then since there are holiday's and cons and whatnot having "everyone" there to talk together is harder to pull off. And holidays end around the new year and my understanding is that cons die off a little around then too, allowing for "everyone" to be there to discuss stuff like this.
Yes it's quite annoying when they release something and have no means to address errors or large problems created by it, and since they are quite tight lipped about it they can't hear these questions until it goes live.
|
... Yes it's quite annoying when they release something and have no means to address errors or large problems created by it, and since they are quite tight lipped about it they can't hear these questions until it goes live.
All the more reason to democratise the campaign by widening the pool of discussants for potential changes before going ahead and making a ruling, imho.
For example, instead of a blog post that says "Hey, critter item slots now work like this instead of like that", leading to "whut now? I don't understand what items my <critter variant> is allowed anymore", we might have a blog post that says "Hey, we're considering changes to critter item slots. We think change A would make sense because reason B. Discuss below."
|
|
... Yes it's quite annoying when they release something and have no means to address errors or large problems created by it, and since they are quite tight lipped about it they can't hear these questions until it goes live.All the more reason to democratise the campaign by widening the pool of discussants for potential changes before going ahead and making a ruling, imho.
For example, instead of a blog post that says "Hey, critter item slots now work like this instead of like that", leading to "whut now? I don't understand what items my <critter variant> is allowed anymore", we might have a blog post that says "Hey, we're considering changes to critter item slots. We think change A would make sense because reason B. Discuss below."
I agree that I'd love for them to have discussion threads on rules topics for them to gain info before deciding stuff. Sure they do that with their pool of people, but if something as basic as "what does the exotic saddle do now" was never thought up then the pool isn't good enough to handle as is. Not a dis on the group, there's lots of rules, it's just that it takes the .01% that is using the rule to bring up the issues and that amount probably isn't represented at all in the group.
|
|
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Crowd-sourcing rules clarifications does not work.
It has *never* worked.
It promotes division and disunity, and the community will develop cracks and fractures as folks remember how 'their' sacred bovine got sacrificed, and it happens to everyone, and it is corrosive.
Even with an organization based around 'Cooperate' as a tenet, it wouldn't work well.
While having insight is handy, attempting to 'farm off' the work portions and trouble-shooting is a recipe for disaster, and would not be recommended.
|
|
I recognise the problems with widening democratic participation in the campaign. For clarity, I am not suggesting the forum community is given votes on any rulings. Nor am I suggesting that trouble-shooting should be outsourced in any way.
We have already seen enough instances of severe disagreement amongst community members over campaign rulings that come out of the blue; disagreements between members who either support or oppose a particular ruling. This happens when the rulings are made with no prior warning (excepting the communication that goes on inside the VO structure). So, yes, it may very well also happen if a potential change is mooted prior to a ruling being made.
But the disagreements that occur on this forum are, at least sometimes, the result of the very limited communication medium. We exchange views with necessarily short, typed messages. There is no way to readily convey tone. No way to ascertain the myriad non-verbal cues that we rely upon in face to face communication. A typed-text-only forum will alway present these difficulties.
I do feel that more communication, earlier, is better. It may be that we need to find alternative means to communicate that do not suffer the limitations of this forum. Advancing information technology might make that possible. I certainly hope so.
|
|
For saddles
If a creature has the saddle slot it takes a mundane saddle
you can put an exotic saddle on anything
magical saddles are in mundane saddle shape.
ez peasy.
If the idea of a snake with a saddle is weird, i used to run around the garbage transfer station taking 6 pack rings off of black rat snakes. You can in fact put something around a snake and have it stay there: they're thicker in the middle.
|
|
For saddles
If a creature has the saddle slot it takes a mundane saddle
you can put an exotic saddle on anything
magical saddles are in mundane saddle shape.
ez peasy.
If the idea of a snake with a saddle is weird, i used to run around the garbage transfer station taking 6 pack rings off of black rat snakes. You can in fact put something around a snake and have it stay there: they're thicker in the middle.
Do you have anything that supports this view?
The blog says that only the ones with saddle slot can wear a saddle and those that don't, "cannot wear saddles." And exotic saddles are still saddles.Now if this is something you're proposing then I agree that it's what basically should be done and thus it does seem odd that it wasn't something they could easily say.
|
Developer
|
| 9 people marked this as a favorite. |
Hi everyone,
I wanted to let you all know that we haven't forgotten about this issue. As Thomas speculated, convention season is just about over, so we will soon be much more capable of having lengthy discussions as a complete Organized Play team. Lau, thanks again for compiling the list. It's a huge help to us in terms of preparing to discuss the dozens of issues and questions that people have raised, and it's going to make for a much more thorough final product.
We will also be working on several other FAQ entries, including expanding retraining from Ultimate Campaign to cover classes published in later books.
|
Venture-Lieutenant, Netherlands—Leiden
|
Hi everyone,
I wanted to let you all know that we haven't forgotten about this issue. As Thomas speculated, convention season is just about over, so we will soon be much more capable of having lengthy discussions as a complete Organized Play team. Lau, thanks again for compiling the list. It's a huge help to us in terms of preparing to discuss the dozens of issues and questions that people have raised, and it's going to make for a much more thorough final product.
We will also be working on several other FAQ entries, including expanding retraining from Ultimate Campaign to cover classes published in later books.
Good to hear this is being picked up again. And of course if you have any other questions or need some research done, don't hesitate to ask.
|
|
Hi Linda,
Thanks for answering questions on this thread!
Q1: In which category would an archelon (sea turtle) fall?
Q2: If a creature does not have the belt [saddle] or chest [saddle] slots, does this mean this creature would typically require an exotic saddle to accommodate a rider?
Thank you!
Phranklin the Giant Sea Turtle
|
|
Hi Linda,
Thanks for answering questions on this thread!
Q1: In which category would an archelon (sea turtle) fall?
Q2: If a creature does not have the belt [saddle] or chest [saddle] slots, does this mean this creature would typically require an exotic saddle to accommodate a rider?Thank you!
Phranklin the Giant Sea Turtle
Q2 has yet to be addressed and apparently isn't a simple answer.
|
|
Archelon pic shows front/back flippers.
It is somewhat reminiscent of the plesiosaurus shape.
|
|
A question to the final editor of these rules.
What's the reason for not allowing elementals to use their hands for weapons and items?
I checked with someone who did the preliminary work, and they said elementals were included in their advice. So, elementals have been edited out.
Did elementals, who often have a humanoid form, suddenly develop an insurmountable aversion to manufactured weapons? Why won't they pick up that weapon their master gives them?
|
Venture-Lieutenant, Netherlands—Leiden
|
Did elementals, who often have a humanoid form,
That's overstating it a bit.
(...)
Earth elementals are plodding, stubborn creatures made of living stone or earth. When utterly still, they resemble a heap of stone or a small hill.
When an earth elemental lumbers into action, its actual appearance can vary, although its statistics remain identical to other elementals of its size. Most earth elementals look like terrestrial animals made out of rock, earth, or even crystal, with glowing gemstones for eyes. Larger earth elementals often have a stony humanoid appearance. Bits of vegetation frequently grow in the soil that makes up parts of an earth elemental's body.
(...)
Fire elementals vary in appearance—they usually manifest as coiling serpentine forms made of smoke and flame, but some fire elementals take on shapes more akin to humans, demons, or other monsters in order to increase the terror of their sudden appearance. Features on a fire elemental's body are made by darker bits of flame or patches of semi-stable smoke, ash, and cinders.
(...)
As with other elementals, all water elementals have their own unique shapes and appearances. Most appear as wave-like creatures with vaguely humanoid faces and smaller wave "arms" to either side. Another common form is that of any aquatic creature, such as a shark or octopus, but made entirely out of water.
The common theme is that while the elemental's form may resemble some other creature, its statistics are always the same.
|
|
Looking at it from a power-balance viewpoint, I can live with the decision no problem.
The thing is the roleplaying part.
Some (see my concession, here?) elementals have humanoid shapes, hand-like appendages, and (as outsiders) martial weapon proficiency.
Both when I'm GM, and when I'm player, I'd like the rules to make sense beyond 'because these are the rules'. Like, for example, a druid doesn't wear metal armor, because (like Celtic folklore dictates), metal blocks magic. So the druid doesn't wear metal because magic blocks the magic of their tradition. A wizard doesn't wear armor, metal or otherwise, because it inhibits their gestures.
Now... With gameworld logic in mind... How do I wrap my mind about an earth elemental with humanoid form and hands being unable (or unwilling?) to wield a hammer?
|
|
Still no FAQ regarding int 3+ familiars and feats (especially feats like improved unarmed strike) this has been an ngoing query since 3.5 you would think someone would have addressed it by now?
What's the query? Familiars are not animals, so they don't have a limited list (well, just as much as PCs do, plus a few more). They seldom get new feats.
|
|
... that spears are inferior weapons compared to swords (when in reality spears are so much better).
We now return you to your regular thread.