Chuss'tith's page

I thought it might be useful to summarize what I'm taking away from this thread for future adventures.

My interpretation may not agree with all posts here, but I believe it agrees with RAW where they exist (not necessarily what others suggest as RAI) and there are definitely a few situations where there doesn't appear to be a written rule and I have tried to make a reasonable assumption.

I hope that others may find this summary to be useful, although I understand it is a somewhat obscure combat case.

1. The companion has two special attacks, per its listing: pull and tongue (the base creature has these two special attacks also).
2. To use either of the special attacks, it must be able to make the tongue attack, which it not defined in the simplified companion stat block.
3. Tongue is not in the universal monster rules, so you must go to the base creature for a description of how it works.
4. There you find that it is an alternative attack to the creature's bite attack, has a 15' reach (for a large chameleon), does no damage, allows for a free grab without provoking on a successful hit, and if that succeeds the lizard does not gain the grappled condition.
5. A successful grab gives the opponent the grappled condition and moves them to an adjacent square and this movement does not provoke.
6. Pull can also be initiated as a free action after a tongue hit, but it is listed as a combat maneuver and says nothing about not provoking.
Seems a bit odd that grappling and moving 15' with the tongue won't provoke, but a quick 5' tug will. I might argue that it is intended to work the same way, but it isn't explicitly written like that.
7. On a tongue hit you could attempt to grab, and failing that still attempt to pull. Both are free actions allowed as a result.
8. The chameleon could be on a wall or ceiling attempting the tongue attack. As a natural climber it can take 10 on climb checks, and the companion currently has a +20 check modifier. So it could be on a typical ceiling where the climb DC is 30.
9. Perfectly smooth or slippery surfaces could make such climbing either impossible (perfectly smooth) or at least require a check (DC 35 for slippery ceiling not great chances if you need to roll 15+).
10. Both grab and pull are allowed on creatures of equal or smaller size, but the description of these abilities does not explicitly mention anything about movement in 3 dimensions.
11. Carrying capacity does come into play when the movement switches from pull or drag to lift. Maximum pull is 2.5x maximum lift, 5x maximum load (heavy load limit), 7.5x medium load limit and 10x light load limit.
12. A large creature that is light enough for you to pull might also be light enough for you to lift, but depending upon weight and STR there could be a good chance it exceeds your heavy load limit.
13. Check penalties for medium and heavy loads are -3 and -6 respectively. Nothing is listed for loads between max load & max lift because that limits movement to 5' per round and those without a climb speed wouldn't be able to climb a full 5'.
14. Extrapolating, the check penalty might be -9 to -18 for loads between maximum heavy load and max lift (-3 for every light load equivalent). Catching a falling character rules say exceeding your heavy load limit results in an automatic fall.
15. I would suggest that anything that increases your carried load category would require an immediate climb check, so in the case of attacking from the ceiling, you really don't want to lift something that is more than a light load.
16. With a 15' reach and the first diagonal being free, you could attack a creature 15' over and 0-5' down or 10' over and 10' down or 0-5' over and 15' down (measuring between nearest occupied spaces).
17. Because lifting is more work than pulling, I'd suggest that you resolve the horizontal movement first, and only do lifting movement if you can first get the opponent underneath you.
Which basically means you can't do a vertical 5' lift with a pull attack unless you are already in one of the spaces directly above the opponent.
18. With a grab, even though the spaces above the floor may be "open", the lift should cause some increased chance for failure.
I would not make failure automatic (like no space available), but instead treat it like trying to maintain a grapple and move a creature (free attempt to break free at +4 bonus). If they get free you only moved them beneath you.
19. If you do manage to lift them (maintain the grapple) they now move straight up (maximum of 10' if they started 15' below) and you are grappling them directly below your space.
Note that if they started 10' over and 10' down, you can only lift them 5' before they are adjacent, and if they started 15' over there is no lift.
20. If they started 0-5' over and you successfully grab and pull them up 10', you can release as a free action and they will fall, take 1d6 of lethal damage and end up prone.
21. I'm convinced that falling 10' unintentionally does not normally provoke based on two things: a winged creature that takes damage while flying loses 10' of altitude and that movement does not provoke, and dropping prone in your square does not provoke.
22. If you were only able to lift the opponent 5' with an overhead pull or a grab at a creature only 10' lower than you, a release from 5' up might have different results depending upon your GM. Could be no damage, half a d6, or 1d6 nonlethal.
23. I have not seen anything written regarding short falls, but if there is no lethal damage then the opponent would not end up prone. I favor half a d6 - if you roll a 1 then no damage and the opponent is not prone.
24. Creatures do not have a facing. If that applies in 3 dimensions it could save some distance moving into position for such an attack.
If you move to a spot where the floor and wall meet, you might be considered to be on both, and not have to count both perpendicular surfaces when counting movement at the corners.
I believe you are just supposed to count the movement of the center of your space, which doesn't move when you turn.

So overall the tactic isn't as great as it first appeared. It is a long way to go to trip an opponent. In one 40' move action, you need to get over to a wall, up the wall to a ceiling 25-30' above and then over an opponent or within 5' of that. Then you use a standard action and have to hit with your tongue, and following that have to hit with a grab maneuver. All to drop a guy 10' and make him end up prone. You could get about the same effect with improved overrun, with a much greater range against floor-based opponents.

to DM_Blake: Yeah, it doesn't give a different AC (I think creatures with swallow whole have internal AC listed) and unless you are using variant rules for called shots, attacking the tongue has the same effect as attacking the body. If someone was grappling you with arms and legs, how often would you think "oh, I'll just cut off his arm" versus "I'll hurt this guy until he lets go"? Never unless the rules indicated a specific advantage to doing anything other than hit point damage.

Severing appendages is popular in film, but the general rules mechanics seem to avoid providing opportunities for this. The game is simpler if all damage is simply hit point damage. And although the appendage acts like a weapon in some respects, sundering rules apply only to items and not to body parts.

But this thread has gotten off into some obscure topics, especially considering how often the initial tactics mentioned would come into play even for the character and mount in question. I think we should put it to rest. While I would like to understand how some of these things are written or intended to work in 3 dimensions, I think most GMs will simply say no if it sounds too complicated.

The responses thus far have given me a good idea of which questions have a clear RAW answer and which have some differences in interpretation. Which will give me a good idea of what to expect from a variety of GMs who may encounter this duo.

If you successfully grapple a creature that is not adjacent to you, move that creature to an adjacent open space (if no space is available, your grapple fails)

So you are never held by a tongue/tentacle/whatever in your square without also being within 5' of the attacker. You can reach the creature that grabbed you (unless you have less than 5' reach) because the maneuver pulls you adjacent.

There is no attack that leaves an appendage in your square and the creature out of reach from your attacks. I guess if you were tiny you would have to break the grapple before you could move into the creature's square to attack it, but for the general case of small and medium PCs you will always be able to reach something you can damage - on your next action after you've been grabbed.

Cevah, where in SRD/PRD do you see that falling doesn't provoke? I see that dropping to the floor (presumably in your square) doesn't provoke, but moving out of a threatened square/cube should.

I think there may be good reasons why it shouldn't provoke, but I don't see them in the RAW.

I agree with DM_Blake that being released and falling would not allow the acrobatics check of a deliberate jump, per RAW. I could see that being debatable in real life e.g. this, but not in the rules forum.

But to DM_Blake's last post, I don't agree that a successful pull leaves a tongue on the opponent after moving them. A successful grab does, but in that case you are already moved to where you can reach the creature itself and attacking the tongue is of no consequence. Like the reach weapon, the tongue snaps back to the creature's space after performing the pull maneuver. If it had a better hold, you would have been grabbed.

10 very rough wall
15 very rough natural rock surface
20 typical (rough) dungeon wall
25 rough natural rock surface
30 (typical) ceiling
NA perfectly smooth vertical or inverted surface

Above is an abbreviated version of the climb skill DC table, which highlights the progression from very rough surfaces to smooth ones. (Text in parentheses is mine.)

This suggests that natural rock surfaces have less handholds and footholds than manufactured surfaces, with the exception of ceilings which in either case don't have anything a humanoid can really use as a foothold in the normal sense.
Nothing to rest your weight upon when you are upside down, so you must be able to hang on with your hands or other appendages.

Whether the ceiling is higher DC because it is more smooth or because it has nothing you can rest your weight upon (or probably both in comparison to a dungeon wall) - either way the DC is 30.
So whether the ceiling is natural or manufactured it would have to be unusually or unnaturally smooth (or slippery) to have a climb DC higher than 30.

Thus my interpretation that a creature with a natural climb speed (which can take 10 on any climb checks) and a +20 climb check modifier can climb on typical ceilings without any need for a climb check.

Of course, "slippery" leaves a lot of room for GM discretion, even if smoothness isn't in question. If a GM wants to disallow ceiling movement, they could invoke humid conditions or morning dew and you'd have to stay on walls to avoid a check.
Which is why I'll probably put additional skill ranks in climb as the companion advances. Combined with DEX increases, +25 is reachable.

Thanks for all the thoughts on this. I think a few things will come down to GM discretion regardless.

Note that the regular Giant Chameleon has both bite or tongue listed in its attack block, and tongue gives free grab attempt. It also has tongue and pull listed in its special abilities. So it gets both grab and pull options if it hits with the tongue. The companion attack block doesn't mention tongue, but the special abilities list pull and tongue just like the the base creature, and tongue special ability is not in the universal monster rules so the only place to look for it is the base creature.

Ditching the chameleon for the gecko is not an option, and this is a PFS character using a boon to open up the option for that specific species of mount. Plus they have grown fond of each other and the chameleon is superior in many other aspects. As spider climb mentions a climb check bonus, I also have to believe there are conditions (albeit few) where an expert or magical climber may have to make a check. The gecko has +21 so it can climb on ceilings by taking 10, but not on a slippery ceiling. I interpret the first sentence of the expert climber ability as fluff; the second sentence says in effect it functions as spider climb - which says nothing about being able to climb perfectly smooth surfaces.

The key for DC 30 ceiling climb is definitely the presence of handholds suitable for a creature of its size. Normal insects, spiders and small lizards don't need much (typical textured ceiling is plenty if they have +20 on the check). Bigger creatures would need bumps, fixtures or protrusions large enough to grasp and sturdy enough to support their weight. For a large creature you only need about 4 such handholds in any 10x10 area to allow movement across it. A beam every 10' or numerous mortar cracks between bricks or slats (or even ceiling lamps or window frames) would give enough to hold onto. IMO perfectly smooth means some sort of seamless surface finish. I don't think they'd list a 30 DC for ceilings if the thinking was that most ceilings are perfectly smooth. Perfectly smooth just gives GMs and designers some options to foil climbers with traps which are hard to escape without magic or other assistance.

Climb DC 30 is for "an overhang or ceiling with handholds only".

It doesn't say it has to be rough - just has to have handholds and not be "perfectly smooth". I would say most interior rooms do not have ceilings that qualify as perfectly smooth, but most also aren't over 10' high so the ceiling offers no further benefit versus moving on the floor or walls. With large size an 15' tongue attack, you could reach the center of a room 50' across while positioned on the wall. You could also move upside down in any 5-10' wide hallway, bracing against the walls, no matter how smooth the ceiling is.

Good Dwarven stonework or magical construction could make a perfectly smooth ceiling, but most builders and tunnelers wouldn't put forth the effort to polish the ceiling. As long as it provides the desired clearance (or in the case of buildings, support for what's above it) that is probably all anyone cared about. Unless something indicates otherwise, a ceiling should have as many handholds as a natural rock wall or a brick wall.

If your campaign has a thriving sheetrock industry, I suppose the argument for smooth interior ceilings might apply; otherwise wood rafters/timbers or angled/arched stone blocks would be more common for construction.

Any creature with a natural climb speed and +20 or more to climb checks can move on ceilings without making a check (by taking 10), unless the surface is also perfectly smooth or slippery. Even Spider Climb lists a check modifier, so there are cases where even a gecko or someone climbing via magic might have to make a check. The only possible climb with a higher DC is a slippery ceiling (you need +25 to make that taking 10, or a good roll if your modifier is less).

The mount took skill focus climb just to allow the possibility of ceiling movement. His modifier for climb checks rivals that of any other natural climber and he can move on virtually any surface that can support his weight. Giant chameleons are lightweight for their size, but carrying capacity does matter. Climb checks do have modifiers for medium (-3) and heavy (-6) loads, which could require a check if trying to move upside down so encumbered. Fortunately he gets the quadruped mount carrying capacity multiplier and is still has only a light load with a rider. But a little more weight from an opponent grabbed and dangling would require a climb check to stay on the ceiling, because taking 10 would no longer suffice to to make DC 30 after the penalty.

Some structures (thatched roofs come to mind) might not support the weight, but natural stone ceilings and most stone and wood structures should support the chameleon and anything it can carry without penalty.

Regarding the comment about getting an AoO against pull, I would say no - as Diego mentioned you need a special ability to target reach weapons and limbs. If grab after a successful tongue attack does not provoke, there is no reason why pull should. Plus pull doesn't maintain a hold after it is completed (like a grab does) so it is all over very quickly.

Unrelated to the rules discussion, have you ever seen slow motion footage of a chameleon or frog catching bugs with its tongue? Granted it isn't the same mechanically (no grapple, creature pulled all the way into mouth in one action) but you rarely see the bug getting enough time to react. If they get away at all, it is usually due to poor aim on the original tongue attack (complete miss or glancing blow).

If the sticky tongue hits a creature, it is either wrapped up and brought towards the mouth, or at least it gets pulled a little closer before the tongue pulls free. It would need greater size or a good CMD to resist both the grab and the pull after being hit by the tongue.

What I'd really like would be to find a game mechanic that allows the chameleon to trip creatures at range with its tongue when they provoke. It doesn't have improved trip, but maybe that doesn't matter if the tongue works like a reach weapon and most opponents can't attack it directly (CM to trip normally provokes).

I suppose a called shot to pull a leg out from under an opponent would be the closest existing mechanic. A tongue attack at a large body part at range would be -4 to hit, but then a successful pull maneuver might have the same effect as a trip. But this is for a PFS character, so I don't think the called shot rules from Ultimate Combat are allowed.

Also INT 6 is not sufficient to get the combat expertise prerequisite for improved trip or improved reposition. So the comment about instinctively just pulling things straight to its mouth makes some sense, unless the paladin commands the lizard to let go or perform some other maneuver or trick that it is capable of doing or trying.

Although the companion entry does not explicitly detail the "tongue" special attack, it is implied in the pull special ability which lists the type of attack that causes the pull (and it is named after that as a special ability). If you look at the base monster you will see that tongue is a no damage attack, which allows a free grab and/or pull attempt in this case: base creature description of tongue attack
Grab is essentially improved (not greater) grapple, so moving the opponent to an adjacent space should not provoke.

The footnote I refer to is at the bottom of the AoO table in the combat section. It is noted in several places, including under the immediate action for casting feather fall.

1 Regardless of the action, if you move out of a threatened square, you usually provoke an attack of opportunity. This column indicates whether the action itself, not moving, provokes an attack of opportunity.

As grab and pull are both free actions that can be initiated after a successful tongue attack, I interpret a pull attempt as a sort of consolation prize for a missed grab. With pull, the opponent doesn't end up with the grappled condition, and if it was initially 15' away a 5' pull doesn't get it within range of the bite attack for AoO. If the creature did something else to provoke and you had combat reflexes, I suppose you could repeat the tongue attack and grab/pull attempts and get it adjacent to you with the second sequence.

Other than to save space, I'm not sure why the tongue attack is not explicitly listed in the companion stat block. As it apparently has one it can use to initiate a pull attempt, the logical conclusion is that it works just like the tongue attack of the base creature (15' reach alternate to biting, which does no damage but allows grab and/or pull). The only place I've found rules associated with a tongue attack is in monster listings. Only a few monsters have it, so it isn't listed in universal monster rules.

On the question of intelligence, this is a paladin mount, so it gets a 6 INT regardless of companion base INT. In all abilities except CHA, it actually has better scores than the paladin.

Initially I was using it with improved overrun, but with a new level I added combat reflexes so I am trying to figure out what it can do with its tongue attacks and the implied reach. The only way I could come up with for putting opponents on the ground before charging over some on its turn was to drop them - but if it is on the ceiling it probably won't find anything up there it can overrun.

My giant chameleon companion has +20 to climb and can move on ceilings without a check (taking 10 under any conditions). In a room 25' high it could move on the ceiling and still reach medium opponents on the ground with a tongue attack (15' reach plus 10' creature height).

So let's say it snags someone by making a tongue attack and then succeeding on the grab CMB. That is supposed to bring the opponent to an adjacent open space. How about one of the nearby ceiling spaces? Is this legal?

To carry it further, then release the grapple as a free action. Shouldn't that drop the creature 20' and leave them prone on the ground after falling? And allow the chameleon AoO as it falls out of a threatened square/cube (5' reach with bite)?

Furthermore, with combat reflexes, could it make three AoO: one when leaving the cube at the ceiling, one when leaving the cube 5' down and one more when leaving the cube 10' down (before it falls out of reach of the bite)?

Seems a bit crazy, but would RAW allow this? A successful touch attack and combat maneuver opening up 3 bite attacks plus 2d6 falling damage?

To stretch it even further, how about boosted DEX for more AoO? When the opponent falls out of reach for the bite, snag him again with the tongue and pull him up for another set of chomps. The ultimate in playing with your food, with the opponent going up and down like a yo-yo until you run out of AoO and let him fall to the ground.

My gut feel would be that a successful bite attack would slow the fall and reduce the falling damage by the amount due to the distance fallen to that point. And possibly that lifting the opponent vertically would allow an attempt to escape the grapple, much like moving an opponent into a hazardous location does with a maintained grapple.

The opponent weight probably limits the ability to perform this maneuver more than the usual size limit (equal or smaller size category). If it is sufficient to push the chameleon beyond a light load, then a climb check penalty applies and the chameleon would no longer be able to move on the ceiling by taking 10. With STR 19, the light load limit is 350 lbs, which would probably limit this to medium or smaller opponents (or possibly none if already carrying a rider).

Picturing which threatened squares/cubes (if any) my head moves through while I'm strapped in the (centered) saddle and hanging upside down from a large mount moving on the ceiling, depending on the ceiling height...

One last question. When a medium PC is riding on a large mount, how do you determine which square the PC is in? If we use the mount's movement to move past an opponent that is normally entitled to an AoO, can it attack either the mount or the rider, and does the rider get separate move actions before or after the mount carries her?

Example: mount overruns opponent (a move with an attack), rider does fast dismount (free action), rider moves or takes 5' step and then attacks, all in one round? With improved overrun, there is no AoO on the mount from the target creature, but could the rider be subject to AoO, or the mount subject to AoO from non-targeted creatures?

Thintherity. 'Specially since chameleons change color to display their emotional state...

Definitely incorporates the lithsp - perhaps too much or too comical for repeating the name frequently.

Two other options come to mind:

Truth. Easy to pronounce and understand for both Nagaji and common races. And we could talk about the never-ending battle for Truth, Chuss'tith and the Golarion Way.

Liberty. No lithsp, but still good. Perhaps I acquired the trained mount from an Andoran freedom fighter who rescued it from being caged in a menagerie. Then people in distant worlds could hear of our exploits and aspire to have Liberty and Chuss'tith for all.

It's tempting to take a skill focus and another rank in climb, to move the modifier up from +16 to +20. With the ability to take 10 all the time, the mount can already move at full speed (40') along walls (and maybe the corners of ceilings). At +20, ceilings and slippery walls add to the list of surfaces that don't require a check to traverse.

But for getting behind opponents, the improved overrun feat is a more direct route that avoids AoO if we lose initiative. Figure 10' to get a large creature up on the wall, 10' up to get beyond normal reach, and the same amounts to get back down (unless jumping down 10' costs nothing) means a double move would typically be required to get behind an opponent. Of course, the mount could start on the wall or ceiling sometimes - especially if we are in a tight tunnel where there is otherwise not much space near the front of the party.

Lastly, as I am rebuilding the paladin anyway, I'm wondering if I should move some of the favored class bonuses from hit points into ride. If I want to do some fighting while mounted, I need to be able to make a DC 10 most of the time. With no Dex bonus, I'd get a +4 for the 1st rank, but would still need 5 more to always get a 10 or higher. I'd have to give up almost all the extra hit points to do it. For handle animal, the first rank gives me +10 (harness, link, trained bonus), so I'm OK for the known tricks.

I can put the leftover PC ability score point in Dex, but will need another at level 8 before it affects skills and AC. And at that point the mount gets another skill and feat, both of which I might use to boost climb.

Thanks for the help.

I'm still thinking about what to name the mount for Chuss'tith.

In contention right now I have:

- Pae-Shinth
- Merthy
- Temprinth

It has to be something related to paladinly virtues, and which also incorporates the paladin's lithsp.

Leaning towards the first choice - seems to fit with a creature that can hide using camouflage while waiting to attack. Not that this ability will have much of a game effect, other than maybe the mount appearing when called from a place where it blended in with the décor.

OK, got it figured out. Put the mount's stat boost in STR and it can carry another 50 lbs and still have only a light load. A point in INT really shouldn't be needed as I'll put a rank in linguistics so it can converse with the paladin (still not as smart) in Draconic.

Switching the Nagaji to a female isn't a big deal either. Not a mammal, so its sex wouldn't have been obvious even to the players who saw it wrestle a monitor lizard bare-chested in the one module where I played it. And if they could tell a female Nagaji's voice from a male's, having never met one before, we'll just pretend she used the bluff skill with her big CHA modifier.

Bit & Bridle, Training Harness and Studded Leather Armor: 83 lbs.
Exotic Riding Saddle: 30 lbs (upgrade to military at next STR point).
Saddle Bags: 8 lbs. Room for 20 lbs of stuff or 1000 platinum pieces.
Nagaji weapons and armor: 46 lbs.
Female Nagaji (minimum height and weight): 174 lbs.

Total weight: 341 lbs. (light load). Room for another 9 lbs of money or other gear before moving up to a medium load.

If I get UE I can reduce the armor weight and improve the saddle and AC and maybe make snake-girl a little larger.

Interesting. So with Eric's suggestion I am considering 2 choices:

1) Masterwork Studded Leather. +3 bonus, +5 max DEX, 0 armor check penalty, 20% spell failure, cost 250 gp (25 x 4 + 150 for masterwork, I think), weight (4x human) 80 lbs

2) DCLL. +4 bonus, +5 max DEX, 0 armor check penalty, 10% spell failure, cost 990 gp (60 x 4 + 750 includes masterwork), weight (4x human / 2) 50 lbs

The latter option is 750 gp more for essentially just another +1 to the armor bonus. Slightly a better deal than paying 1000 gp for +1 on the studded leather. But as I don't currently have a copy of UE and I already need to pick up Bestiary 3 and possibly Animal Archive, I think I'll start with the studded leather and consider upgrading later.

Of course, if I want him to match the paladin, I should upgrade his armor to dragon hide - but I want to keep the mount in light armor for maximum movement.

It appears that the light load limit for a large quadruped with 18 STR is 300 lbs, so mounted movement looks like it will be lower. An average build Nagaji male with gear would be slightly over 300 lbs without any weight for the mount's gear. With armor (80 lbs), saddle (40 lbs) and riding harness (2 lbs), even a small female Nagaji (220 lbs with current gear) would put the mount into the medium load category.

Actually, for the PC rebuild, to use just one extra point I probably have to put it in one of the median abilities as I won't lower STR or CHA. So it has to go in DEX, CON or WIS.

I came to the same conclusion last night about masterwork studded leather. It says the price is 4x the human-sized version. Does the masterwork cost also need to be multiplied?

To answer the question about the Paladin feats: power attack, cleave and exotic weapon (elven curved blade). The latter is already fire-forged steel, +1 and keen. 15-20 threat range, +11/+6(1d10+7) or power attack +9/+4(1d10+13) plus 1d4 fire in some cases. He won't have a good ride check, but a flanking buddy who can get behind enemy lines would be good. Thinking about power attack, improved overrun and toughness now for the mount.

Yes, the paladin is pretty and shiny. He started with the 20 CHA, and put the stat boost in wisdom to reduce the penalty from the original score of 7. But it looks like I screwed up the math and have to fix it:
STR: 16+2 DEX: 10 CON: 12 INT: 7-2 WIS: 7 CHA: 18+2
10+0+2+-4+-4+17= 21

Considering he has only one chronicle that's not a GM chronicle, and it was his first, I'll just rebuild him the way you've indicated and I'll have another point to put somewhere. That's a tough call. Probably leave INT alone (I have Storyteller for knowledge skill checks). The rest would all lead to some benefit with a 2nd point at level 8. I am leaning towards getting shinier.

Do you have to use up a feat for armor proficiency?

Yeah, makes sense to spread the skill points around to get the +3 on as many class skills as he can actually use. Obviously not fly, but maybe put one in perception (the paladin currently has a penalty) instead of 2 in climb.

Also considering putting the ability score point in WIS to get a further bonus, or in INT to get more combat maneuver tricks.

You are right, the mount is smarter than the paladin. Before adding the point, he beats or ties the paladin in everything but CHA:

P: STR 18, DEX 10, CON 12, INT 5, WIS 8, CHA 20
C: STR 18, DEX 14, CON 16, INT 6, WIS 11, CHA 7

For feats I'm looking at Power Attack / Improved Overrun / Charge Through or Dodge / Mobility / Spring Attack. Not sure about Improved Initiative - won't he typically have to go at the same time as the Paladin?

OK, moving on to skills. It looks like the companion skills are considerably weaker than the 4 HD monster:

Climb: +8 for having a climb speed, plus DEX modifier (vs. +15)
Stealth: +10 if still vs. racial +12 (+22 if still)
and only 6 skill ranks to distribute with a level 6 PC

Am I missing something?

Are there any lists of tricks beyond the dozen listed under handle animal in the CRB? Or doesn't it really matter with 6 INT? I count 18 tricks based on the INT score plus 3 bonus tricks with a 6th level paladin.

Flutter,

This is helping quite a bit to get me started.

Am I reading this correct that the bite becomes 1d8+6, due to 18 STR and 1.5x STR damage bonus?

I may have more questions as I try to figure out skills, feats, tricks and equipment.

My 20 CHA should help a little with handling checks.

I have a boon that will allow my Nagaji Paladin to take a Giant Chameleon for a mount. Sounds cool, but I haven't used the rules for mounts or animal companions before.

In the Divine Bond description for paladins, it says "This mount functions as a druid's animal companion, using the paladin's level as her effective druid level", and the Nature Bond feature of Druids it says "an animal companion's Hit Dice, abilities, skills, and feats advance as the druid advances in level."

The base creature is 4 HD and my paladin is level 6. Do I just apply the differences in the table between level 4 and level 6? What about the "special" column, skills and feats - do I add everything there up through level 6, or again just the difference going from level 4 to 6?

Seems like Link, Share Spells and maybe Evasion should be added no matter what, but a 4 HD creature already has some feats and skills and maybe an ability score bump. And do I automatically increase the INT score to 6, as that is the listed minimum for a bonded mount?

Sorry to have brought it up again. When I posted I didn't see anything about this in the first 50 or last 50 posts.

After taking the time to review the 150 posts in the middle, I see that it was brough up several times, with some differences of opinion on the interpretation of the rules.

Hopefully this will be clarified better in the next version of the GtOP. Although the upgrade section say you can always upgrade a masterwork item to +1, it doesn't say that upgrades are an exception to the fame limits given earlier for items not on the always available list.

Seems to me that if you acquire an item (via PP, gold piece purchase or chronicle) and you want to upgrade it to something that isn't always available, you need to have the requisite fame. I think the "always" in the upgrade section is referring to always avoiding the step of having to sell back at half price before buying the better item - not always being possible regardless of fame limits. The opposite argument falls apart quickly if you try to apply it to upgrades of magical equipment - I don't think the intent was to allow multiple increases to magical bonuses whenever you have the gold, regardless of fame limits. A +2 item is not always available to a character who has the +1 version, but if they have the fame they can always pay just the value difference and not lose half the value of the original item.

Not sure if this should be a new thread, but I have a question about dragonhide armor. The guide says it isn't included in always available items, so I figure I must have to pay for the initial with prestige or fame limits.

But then if I want to make it +1, can I always do that, or do I need to have sufficient fame to pay for the total value?

Example: masterwork dragonhide breastplate 2 x (200 + 150) = 700 gp
versus: +1 dragonhide breastplate 1700 gp value

Looks like I could get the masterwork from my faction for 2 PP
(heckuva deal if someone had to kill a colossal dragon for it)

But then do I need at least 13 fame to upgrade it to +1?
Or do I need 9 fame to pay for a 1000 gp upgrade?
Or is there no minimum fame requirement whatsoever for this upgrade?

Or was the intent to never allow dragonhide in PFS unless you kill your own dragon or earn it on a chronicle sheet?

Thanks to everyone who chipped in with their thoughts. I totally get that organized play has to favor a limited rule set for purposes of consistency and ease of judging.

I also do think what is written in the CRB about the Paladin code of honor is a very narrow viewpoint - and this is not the first time that parenthetical text (which often indicates only an example or partial list) has been taken as the end all of interpretations for PFSOP.

If the PFSOP coordinators decide to keep it that way and not add exceptions or FAQ posts to clarify other options, that's their call and players and GMs have to deal with that in the PFSOP campaign.

In a home game I would most definitely adapt a code of honor to reflect the cultural norms of the PCs race and homeland, or any other code concept that was plausible and didn't create game imbalance. As long as it made sense to the player and the code still came into play frequently as a control on PC choice of action, a different flavor to the sense of "what's honorable" would be no big deal. If you allowed spitting poison, you might need to disallow something else - maybe eating anything other than the meat of something you killed personally.

Note that the Nagaji feat is called "Spit Venom", but the description refers to it as a poison that causes temporary blindness. It is different from many other poisons in terms of effect, but as long as it has the word poison in the description and there is nothing written regarding an exception for Naga worshippers, I can see how many GMs might rule the act as "unpaladinly" or against the code. I would like to see something added to the additional resources regarding Nagaji paladins, but I really don't expect that to be on the near-term development list. But if we knew what the Guardian Nagas thought about the ways poison spittle could be used without dishonor...

@BigNorseWolf: for the fun of it. Not aware of another race where you could get a paladin with 20 CHA and 18 STR using PFSOP point buy. +5 on all saves and 6 uses of lay-on-hands at 2nd level isn't bad either.

@FunkyBadger: the weapon doesn't cause dishonor - how it's used makes the difference. As KestlerGunner mentioned, a policeman can follow a code and have no issue carrying a gun or a can of mace (which both can be used responsibly for good), and an exterminator can use poison in a way that is viewed as neither evil nor dishonorable by his society.

Stature, shiny scales, unblinking eyes may all add to the "presence" of this race, but it still seems odd that these qualities could make a nagaji seem more charismatic to PCs than someone with similar personality and leadership skills from a more familiar race. Maybe that stigma isn't supposed to be there on Golarion, but the initial reaction of other players was to be suspicious of the snake-man. That sounds more like a racial CHA penalty than a bonus. Had to play up the personality and diplomacy skill to overcome the stereotype. All with a forked-tongue lithsp, which was fun although needing some refinement.

There were a few good ideas here for explaining why the character might choose to forego the poison spittle (inventing a backstory that doesn't conflict with the prohibition in the CRB), but in the end he'll do whatever makes him appear as the most awesome and unwavering ambassador of his people (and champion of good and juctice) in the Inner Sea:

"I am the law. I thfollow my own code. I do not recognithe the legitimacy of your human authoritieths in matterths governed by the Guardian Nagas of Nagajor. I will deal out the chuss'tith thfor which I was named. All must thsee the rightheousnessth of the holy onesth of Tian Xia. All (rules and GMs) who opposthe be damned. Sssssth! Now I mustht go atone thfor thswearing."

As CRobledo mentions, paladins are somewhat feat-starved (so many class features instead), so I probably wouldn't select this feat soon, if ever. There are others that will be more effective in the near term, or at least a better deal in terms of cost to use. The character probably won't be able to afford an atonement by the time he can next select a feat.

I do want to give the character a good backstory, and internal conflict that is fun for roleplaying, but not crippling. So I do want to have a better understanding of the racial/cultural background. I don't have the "faiths" books, but nagaji are supposed to revere nagas as gods, which suggests to me that they aspire to be like them. I doubt that there is anything explicit written about an alternate code for paladins that worship them, but that might be something good to develop if many other players have received the boon allowing nagaji PCs and are creating nagaji paladins. I suspect we are a very small minority and that isn't high on the list for PFSOP development.

Other than the ability score adjustments, there doesn't seem to be a lot of rationale for playing a nagaji paladin. They can't call for a reptilian mount (neither horse nor camel seems a good choice) so the handle animal (reptiles) bonus has limited use, the alternate hypnotic gaze is not a lot better than diplomacy (the effect and DC to resist do not improve with level), and the available racial feat conflicts with the paladin code in the CRB. It's also a bit tough to sell a reptilian as the most charismatic member of the party (a lot of human stories seem to have prejudice against reptiles and snakes) and a low intelligence and strange customs/gods feeds the stereotype of a dumb savage brute.

I am trying to make this character option fun and interesting (with some success per others in our last session), but I find some of the racial details to be lacking. Why or how do nagaji have a high charisma? Did naga magic create them in some way that just impresses people? The more unusual this character is, the more fun I think it will be. A snake-man with 20 charisma is already pretty unusual. But if he could have a magical charm affect, a wall-crawling mount and a blinding spittle, that would make for a very unique breed of paladin.

I see the section in the CRB that lists this as a dishonorable act.

But I question whether that would really be in the code for a race that can naturally spit poison (and one that was introduced after the CRB).

Perhaps they would normally use it for hunting lesser creatures or on any opponent they had justification to kill (evil enemies, life or death self-defense).

I don't see this as more dishonorable than making any other lethal attack in combat (it isn't even lethal, only temporarily blinds). If you're a reptilian creature and you're fighting to kill something, I don't see having a code against using your racial abilities.

At a cost of 3000 GP or 8 PP for paladin atonement, I don't think I'd take the risk of a GM ruling this as dishonorable. But if the LG nagas that nagaji revere spit poison, I find it difficult to accept that a nagaji character would find the act to be dishonorable. Seems like it would be a culturally acceptable (and perhaps enviable) attack form.

On a related note, would use of the Hypnotic Gaze racial trait be considered dishonorable? Would the use of spell-like abilities in encounters or combat be considered "cheating"? Where do you draw the line on what is "honorable" to opponents? Should the paladin have to ask permission each time he's going to use detect evil? Otherwise he'd get an unfair advantage of knowing who he can affect with smite evil, before the opponents could object to being scanned. Can a paladin not use bluff to make a feint in combat (is that as bad as lying?)

Overall I don't think any available skill, feat, ability or weapon should be considered dishonorable always, everywhere for everyone. It ought to depend upon the specific circumstances when the action is taken. Using lethal force against a defenseless townsperson is different from using it in self defense or in a military skirmish on a battlefield. An exact definition of honor for OP situations is probably not something we'll see in any rulebook or the FAQ - which will make things interesting when my paladin faces some moral dilemmas or gray areas with regard to the paladin code.

I have a boon that allows me to play a Nagaji PC, and with the STR and CHA bonuses I chose to play a Paladin. The race has a feat available that allows spitting of poison as an attack. Is this really against the code of conduct for a Paladin of this race? It doesn't seem like a natural attack form should be considered so. What is the official rule, and what do you think it should be in this case?