Dessio's page

An oft overlooked option is to treat the horse as a combat pet, rather than specifically a mount.

A four hooved, biting, skull-shattering, armored 'fluffy'. One that looks like a horse, smells like a horse, and walks like a horse.

Investing in the UMD skill & Scrolls and/or potions of reduce animal/spider climb makes for avoiding any underground obstacle challenges, to boot. A UMD'd scroll of Heal Mount makes for one wonderful ace to keep in your sleeve in case the party healer proves to disapprove of diluting his heals to your additional melee combatant companion.

Don't overlook the synergy you can attain by teaching your mount teamwork feats, to boot. (once you get it's INT to 3, of course) Since a cavalier gets them for free, may as well have at least one N/PC to use your TWFeats w/o wasting actions to trigger Tactician.

Cavaliers think they have it rough now? I remember when Druids were absolutely useless in dungeons. You still have your melee abilities with you, dungeons simply were not made for mounted combat, end of story. Making a character in Pathfinder generally means tradeoffs.

It's amazing how few people realize (GMs included, based on how often I get automatic "You won't be able to ride in this scenario.." comments I get during character introductions) that Cavaliers are perfectly fine NOT riding their mounts. In fact, a full BAB progression martial character with a full powered animal companion (with free armor proficiency feat, to boot) is one hell of an effective combatant. Trick out your animal companion (since that' what it is when you're not riding it) with teamwork feats, and watch the bodies hit the floor ;)

**obligatory, general statement of support of GMs giving gnome/halfling cavaliers grief**

It may not be always legal, but it just feels like sunshine to see cavaliers who take small sizes just to squeeze mounts inside in turn get those mounts excluded.

**obligatory, general disclaimer that yes, I'm aware that not ALL gnome/halfling cavaliers are not attempting to cheese the game. It's a guilt by association thing.**

Cavaliers (of any size) with problems convincing a GM to let you bring a mount into a dungeon are, in my experience, mollified by showing them that my character keeps a ream of scrolls of Spider Climb for obstacle navigation. And Reduce Animal, so giant destriers can travel without squeezing.

It assumes the GM is making a ruling based on "I don't like it", and not "That isn't how it works", which are two different things.

Agreed. However, someone who just 'doesn't like' a rule will rather probably insist 'That's not how it works!'. He might even convince himself as an unintended byproduct of the effort to convince his players.

A GM should be striving to always question why he's making a change lest he find himself having crossed the line.

Dessio, are you saying that GMs shouldn't change rules they don't like for their homegame?

Shouldn't change for no good reason or without giving it due thought, no.

Assuming that's not the case, then of course. Do what you will. I'm not saying it's unreasonable to say Escape Route doesn't work with your mount while mounted due to 'not being adjacent, but atop instead'. I'll even agree that I'd give it serious thought to running it that way, myself.

What people seem to be getting stuck on is how dare I suggest that people might NOT be able to know the game better than the designers who desgined it?

THAT's what I'm defensive of. No, you DON'T automatically know the game better than the designers themselves. Yes, it's possible you do. Granted. Please do me the favor in return of acknowledging that it's possible that you don't.

On the other hand, it's great form, and indeed should be encouraged at every chance, to have the GM follow the intentions of the rule, rather than the words.

What I was getting at is it's bad form to assume that you know what the designers intended better than their own technical writers did. You may very well be right, but then again maybe you're not.

Whenever invoking Rule 0, you should always be able to honestly say you're not changing a rule just to punish a player or to satisfy some personal greivance (with a player or a rule that you simply don't like). If you can fairly say that to yourself, then by all means have at it. Its your table.

A cavalier needn't use the eye for talent to make use of the combo.. since his bonded mount is able to (at sufficient level) go to 3 INT and then qualify for teamwork feats on its own.

Just saying.

While a GM is still allowed to say 'you can't use that one to ride around and never provoke AoOs..' it's still pretty bad form to do so on no basis other than "I don't like the rule".

First and foremost, moral =/= morale :D

Being able to challenge all foes w/in 20 feet is probably OP. I'd think it should have the full challenge effect on your one target as usual, then maybe some smaller bonus versus all the extra foes.

Excellent ideas however. It's a shame that Paizo's writers weren't more successful at portraying Cavaliers being successful as something OTHER than Sir Lancelot clones in most players' minds.

Still doesn't explain why medium characters can ride tigers but small can't, but that WAS posted as an aside. ;)

Yeah, well, small sized cavaliers are cheesy and should be discouraged at every turn. Huzzah for 'real' cavaliers having better mounts! :D

... And if he can't use the mount, he just isn't as good as a Barbarian, Fighter, or Paladin. Or as useful or powerful as a Ranger...

A mount may not have the melee power of a martial character, but it's got the armor proficiency and more CON than most animal companions to make it a credidble front-line combatant. And a Cavalier may not have all the power of a barbarian/fighter/paladin, the challenge ability makes the difference slim. But a barbarian/fighter/paladin doesn't have the power of a cavalier AND his mount combined.

And if you make UMD a class skill, keeping around a supply of scrolls of spider climb and reduce animal ensures the mount can fight alongside the cavalier in the (many) times he's unable to RIDE his mount.

Nitty gritty?
A cavalier with the spirited charge feat on open ground will probably destroy any non-range martial character. But aside from those ideal conditions?

A barbarian is more stout, but the cavalier has more party buffs. Still, with all the rage powers most people would consider the barbarian to be the stronger class.
A fighter has more feats for flexibility in combat, but the cavalier has more skill points to do helpful things outside of combat.
A paladin has a little less martial capability than the cavalier (except when smite qualifies for double damage) but better utility buffs via spells. But like the fighter, the paladin has less skill-challenge utility than the cavalier.

I play a cavalier and have had good success 'without' a mount.

I do in fact use the mount.. it's just rarely riding it. I took the trait to make UMD a class skill & have a few scrolls of spider climb and reduce animal so that the horse is able to join me effectively even on underground expeditions (not sure how often that happens in CR, though)

Once you get enough levels to boost the mount to int 3, you can teach it Teamwork feats and synergizes rather well with your tactician ability. (mount is flanking and knows same tmwk feats you do, don't need to burn a use of the ability!)

One doesn't have to invest in the mounted combat/ride by atk/spirited charge feats in order to play a cavalier. The class abilities you get for free already make you a viable mounted combatant.. and if you pick feats that work whether mounted or not, you're not hamstrung in the majority of time it is impossible (or inappropriate) to ride. I went with the power attack chain.. two handed weapon hits with cavalier's challenge.. things don't stay up for long and I'm not built around a mounted charge.

I also like the amount of skill points. My cavalier is equal parts melee combatant and 'face' character for a party.

Kudos to you for not wanting to play a halfling or gnome cavalier ;) Down with cheese! Play regluar sized cavaliers at every turn!

I think the brightest gem to consider is the combination that Cavaliers are a full BAB/d10 class and a full-level Animal Companion.

You needn't even RIDE a horse to make awful effective use of it.. flanking, learning teamwork feats (once the Int is boosted), just plain being another melee combatant with decent AC/HP and respectable (if not spectacular) damage.

If you use traits, you can make UMD a class skill.. with plenty of skill points to go around. Get a couple of scrolls of reduce animal and a large sized horse can adventure in dungeon delves just as well as any druid's large size animal companion. Maybe better, since UMD will let you use Spider Climb on it to get up walls, to boot!

My favorite character build is the halfling cavalier...

Sigh. *Another* step backwards for cavalier-dom. Let's hope you do less damage in your capacity as a Paizoan! :D

Cavalier: Animal Crackers (horses and camels only, please)

I'm curious to see whether there'll be a take on a cavalier build(s) w/o the mounted combat feat chain.

Might be on that same track with recommending the Beast Rider archetype...

I played an adventure where the BBEG happened to have bard class levels. The nature of the encounter was the rather obnoxious crowd-control he could inflict on us pathfinder protagonists.

Once I finally managed to close with him for some long denied beating down, the GM (roleplaying the BBEG) turns to me and offers his extended finger, asking that I pull it.

Thus began a memorably-roleplayed casting of 'Hideous Laughter'.

IMO it is inadvisable to play a cavalier in PFS unless you are a small race -- far too many dungeon crawls which prevent easy entry of large mounts.

Speaking as a medium sized cavalier for PFS-

it's certainly doable. Dangerously Curious trait for UMD to be class skill, and keep a ream of scrolls of Reduce Animal. If a GM would allow a Druid's large sized animal companion, you point out then that he shouldn't have any trouble allowing a large sized horse as an animal companion. If 5' spaces are an issue, burn one of your scrolls. If ladders or other hoof-unfriendly terrain obstacles arise, fire off a scroll of spider climb (on the horse, naturally). Treat it like a druid's animal companion whenever the terrain doesn't allow for riding it as a mount (which will be almost all of the time). Plus, if you fight NEXT to your mount rather than astride it, you and mount can both take the teamwork feat precise strike (eventually, anyway) and you'll always have at least one combatant at a collection of random partymates that makes a PFS table that has the shared feat w/o needing to spend tactician ability...

You'll only rarely get to ride a mount in combat in PFS, but you can fight alongside it virtually all the time. In my case, I've had exactly 3 opportunities to perform a mounted charge, in 13 chronicles. (due to the constricted nature of indoor/underground adventures, still wouldn't have that many more opportunities were I Small sized and riding a med sized mount.)

First TWO times I had the chance I rolled a goddamned '1' to hit on my lance charge anyway, so I consider myself fortunate that I never even started the mounted combat chain, and instead focused on Power Attack chain (usable equally well whether on foot or mounted) and 'Face' abilities. Since my horse is usually a 'druid in plate's animal companion', I'm rarely astride it in combat anyway and mounted combat feat tree seems a large waste for PFS.. only in a home game where the GM caters a campaign to outdoorsy/horselords style adventures would they be really worth it. You don't NEED to throw those huge spirited charge+lance hits to succesfully complete PFS adventures. Indeed, there are more than a few times PFS scenarios will just be utterly unaccomodating to mounts of any size.. if all your feats and abilities revolve around being mounted, you'll be severely gimped in that sizable minority of PFS scenarios.

EDIT- Best use of Mounted Combat feat: Keeping the decidedly non-beefy horse summoned by your Wand of Mount alive. Of course you took the wand because you've had one too many PFS GMs who tell you at the start of an adventure that you can't your bonded mount along 'because he said so'. I'm contemplating the feat at my next level for that very reason.

In general, yes attacks should be directed rather often at the mount.

Intelligent enemies know that a mounted-specialized lancer is going to be far less dangerous if the horse is taken out from under him.

Non-intelligent enemies aren't going to recognize the difference between mount and rider, and will sometimes direct attacks at the mount because it's simply the larger center of mass of the combined 'creature' that is mount and rider.

Furthermore, it gives mounted combat characters a chance to actually use their Mounted Combat feat and bring it out of simply being an otherwise useless chain prerequisite.

There's a portrait of a halfling cavalier next to the definition of cheese in every dictionary I've ever seen.

Noone mentioned rule #1.

Rule #1 for a Unicorn mount: Never play leapfrog with your mount.

Our ninja burned down a spice factory, in spite of the protests of the entire party (in his defense that was his faction mission)...

I know exactly what you're talking about. I had a faction-mate pick some innocent merchant at random and clumsily attempt to burn down his tent & wares. I was able to convince the city guards that my fellow adventurer was 'touched' and managed to get us all extricated from legal trouble at cost of that character's wounded pride.

When I saw the production facility (in the course of following a target crucial to the success of the overall pathfinder mission) I had the same thought as the ninja.. one vial of alchemist's fire and I'd have a mission complete. My downfall was bothering to try to clear the facility beforehand.. the party wanted no part of it, and my so called faction teammate was eager to see me fail. I was able to intimidate the lowly laborers out, but the guards were another story. I retreated outside to make a stand, still wrongly assuming that if the party won't back me up, at least my faction-mate would.

They were happy to watch all the guards surround and gang up on me.. but I was able to toss the alchemist's fire once the guards came outside, and was able to escape with my hide intact after the ensuing explosions. I was able to truthfully say about the breach of peace that I was giving full diligence to convince everyone to evacuate the facility.. because I knew there was going to be a fire! :D

With regards to the original question.. I've been lucky thus far in finishing adventures hale & healthy. Quite unlike my very first encounter in my first chronicle.. A certain air elemental was bobbing in and out of view of a catwalk in a certain cathedral, annoying the heck out of our melee heavy party.

A rogue threw a rope over the edge, down to the marble floor 40' below. Party members begain going over the edge, and when it came to my turn I voiced my preference of finding the stairs. The party threw the 'don't split the party' rule, and the GM attempted to assuage my fears by promising that with rope, the climb DC is going to be low. In the end I unwisely caved in and took my chances.. between a hefty armor check penalty & a bad roll, I did indeed plummet down to a violent and sudden stop on the marble floor. My very first time taking damage put me in negative HP, 1 measly HP away from instant death. Luckily, it's been uphill since then :D

Thanks Ross :)

The more I think about this, the more OCD I get on it. Mebbe this does afterall deserve to be in the general rules forum..

The 'at least small size' clause is a real poser. If a banner is free in terms of wealth, free hands, and encumbrance, why specify that it has to be 'at least small size'?

Maybe I'm misanthropic but I honestly believe that all rules in the form of restrictions exist solely deal with the lowest common demoninators amongst us. (Coffee is hot! Don't spill in your lap!) If that's true, the 'at least small size' is only specified to prevent someone from flying a lapel-pin or some balsa-wood parade flag as the cavalier's banner. If the banner is free in every way that matters, what's the purpose of preventing someone from flying a banner that's too small to be considered proper?

And yet despite this specific rule, nowhere does it say anything about the banner having any sort of cost at all. It's just bizzare..

Thanks everyone for the thoughts so far.

I do wanna mention that I am very deliberately choosing the PFS forum.. while alot of what I'm asking are rules questions, they're really going down into minutae that a GM can just fiat as he sees fit, that's why the Core rulebook didn't go into that level of detail.

It's how PFS has multiple GMs instead of a home campaign having one common set of house rules/interpretation of written word. One GM may force me to track a banner 'of at least small size' as being 5 pounds towards my encumbrance limit, but another one may not. Looking to see what the common picture is so I know what to expect.

Not sure what the problem would be.

Mainly, whether something besides a lance's pennant can be the banner. And how they'd work while not riding since virtually all of the time cavaliers will be dismounted in PFS scenarios. And what the costs involved in acquiring/maintaining the banner, if any.

Not really sure what I'm looking for, I guess kind of trying to feel out a consensus as to what people think (or who knows, mebbe Mark or Mike's view). Personally, I'd like to say my shield is my banner, but I don't wanna have to have issues with dealing with GMs who say it can't be. If I see that noone else seems to think that way, I know not to bother with that approach.

So.. since in PFS OP you can't just wing something with your GM, just how does the nuts and bolts of this rule actually work, spelled out without any need for interpretation? Particuarly, what counts as a 'banner' and how much is a PC supposed to pay for it?

PFS OP has recently brought in a stress on asian-inclusiveness. Has anyone noticed a sashimono (samurai back-banners) being listed as equipment, and if so, a reference? I assume this would have to meet any and all criteria for the cavalier banner rule perfectly.

What about having a crest painted on a shield? Would the 'clearly visible' clause allow for it to still apply if the shield were slung across the back whilst fighting with a two-handed weapon? Would the shield have any prerequisites on quality? (ie, can a non-masterwork/magic shield be called 'your banner')

The iconic cavalier appears to simply have a pennant attached to his lance. Mebbe I'm assuming too much here but I imagine that's his cavalier's banner. Would carring a banner in this way (non-equipped lance poking up from your back/hip like a flagpole) satisfy the rules?
If so, what about the 99% of the time when he's dismounted.. can the lance be carried solely to 'display the banner'?

Is there any 'writer's intent' that a Cavalier must devote a free hand to 'equiping' a banner in order to benefit from this rule? I don't see one.. but you never know what some people will insist on..

Do those fromage-flavored halfing cavaliers still have to possess/display a banner that is at least as big as they are in order to benefit from it? Or one just as big to them as small sized is relative to a medium sized cavalier? (to be fair, Alain's flaccid, stringy pennant really seems to be just squeaking by on the 'at least small sized' clause)

Assuming a sashimono or shield-crest is not an option and a banner must be some sort of freely waving flag-like cloth item, does it come for free as part of the class ability? It would seem to me that it should, since no cost is listed nor is there one listed anywhere I've seen for a vanity type heraldry-braggy banner. if it comes for free, what are the restrictions on replacing it should it be lost/soiled? If it's not free and no cost is listed, what cost should be paid?

EDIT: Wouldn'tchaknow you think of another one after hitting 'submit post'?
Does 'freely visible' mean that the banner must be displayed above the head of the cavalier? if so, does this mean that he has an extra 5' of ceiling intolerance while benefitting from a banner?

Dessio that is a good idea, What sort of trait is Cossmopolitan? Linguistics could be useful

It's not a trait, but a feat.

It's still better than the 'Extra traits' feat because they'll both let you end up with 2 new class skills, but Cosmo will also give you 2 free languages (make them Kelish and Ancient Osirian for best milage :D

I took the Cosmopolitan feat to help gain cross-class skills (and languages) to further my secret Taldor goals. Haven't regretted it.

something to consider is why is a big dumb brute who only knows how to thump things even a member of the pathfinders organization in the first place? (and say, not an enforcer for some city's thieves' guild or a mercenary or so on)

whatever hook you come up with can probably be easily expanded upon to find a faction (I'd agree with the suggestions of scarnzi or shadow lodge if intimidate is going to be your go-to skill)

One of the reasons for faction missions is to help give reason that PFS OP doesn't descend into roll-play instead of role-play. You can't ever ENSURE it doesn't happen, but they're there to make non-combat skills useful from time to time.

Diplomacy is a skill relied upon across the board, and very often. Notably (imo) Grand Lodge, Andoran

Theivery style skills are notably used by pre-Dalsine affair Taldor, Qadira, Scarnzi

Depending on your GM, he may or may not allow skill substitution when it comes to faction missions, so it does pay to be more broadly skilled in PFS OP than in a typical home game.

That being said, probably between 1/3 to 1/2 of your missions (regardless of faction) can be done w/o any skill check being made at all.

I put a portion of my gold into jewelry... not only does it support my character's affection for bling, it also dovetails with a few special social skill rules that encourage/require the display of expensive jewelry.

I always assumed that like gems, jewelry could be treated as a 'trade good' and resold for its purchase price... aka be a way to store wealth in great density.

Be curious to see what the PFS consensus is on gems, if not jewelry, being resold for full value.

I furthermore assume that you lose the Dazzling Display feat should you change Orders at some point, as well.

Dessio wrote:

It's a matter of extreme. A cavalier with no feats usable while dismounted is essentially playing a warrior NPC class when dismounted.

How about the rogue who can't sneak attack because the module features elementals as opponents? How about the illusionist who can't use their illusion spells versus undead, plants and so forth.

It isn't just cavaliers who can be neutered by modules, it happens to every class. If PFS is going to make special allowances for cavaliers while ignoring the equally disruptive issues for other classes, it's only going to increase the resentment against the cavaliers.

First and foremost, the Pathfinder Society should present a level playing field for all classes. No class should receive special dispensation because a module is a poor fit for their abilities.

Lol, I can't tell if you're agreeing or disagreeing with me.

But to clarify my position.. if a player brings a PC that's overly specialized (such as a cavalier fully invested in mounted combat chain feats) it's not the GMs fault when he has his inevitable issues. A GM's failing to cater to your narrow specialization does not constitute antagonism.

(before I get accused of rekindling flames- if the orginal post was not exaggeration, there's been advice on how to handle over-reaching GMs already given)

I completed a PFS scenario that awarded Horseshoes of Speed as well as other things. However, my halfling character rides a wolf, not a horse.

Can this magical item be 'reskinned' to fit a canine?

It just did not seem right that only horses gets access to this kind of item but other legal mounts do not.

Thank you.

You can have horseshoes for your medium sized mount when my large sized mount can be ridden in a dungeon.

Oh wait, wrong thread! :D

Dessio wrote:

If you're reliant on being served a feast, you've set yourself up for tons of fail even without considering whether a GM decides to be a jerk to you.

How is it any different than a fighter going through weapon focus with a weapon? They're making the /assumption/ that they are going to have a greatsword. They're screwed if it gets sundered and they have no backup.

The cavalier situation is the same, the way I see it.

It's a matter of extreme. A cavalier with no feats usable while dismounted is essentially playing a warrior NPC class when dismounted.

A weapon specialist fighter loses much of his punch when he loses his weapon, but at least he doesn't lose everything. And unless he chose to specialize in something bizzare, there's always the slim but realistic chance that a new weapon of his type can be found/had by the time the BBEG shows up should his weapon be lost/stolen/sundered/etc.

If a GM is perfectly amenable to a small cavalier, but the mount ends up dying halfway thru the adventure.. no mod I've yet heard of affords the opportunity to acquire a new mount mid-adventure. the cavalier is gimped and it's completely the player's fault that he's gimped w/o a mount.

And let's not forget that this is a workaround to let the cavalier use their standard class abilities.

Cavaliers give up a hell of a lot compared to a fighter, for instance - no weapon training, not as many feats, and so on. Their compensation comes in things like cavalier's charge.

I think some of the issue can be attributed doubling down on Mounted Combat feat chain, on top of being a cavalier. Feast or famine characters are just (imo) never a good idea.

If you're reliant on being served a feast, you've set yourself up for tons of fail even without considering whether a GM decides to be a jerk to you.

What I intended to say was that workaround builds draw the attention of GMs to varying degrees. I think that is the source of the reaction (or sometimes over-reaction) the OP experiences.

Eloquently done.

"Some people are going to see workarounds as cheese, and when these are GMs, some of THOSE are gonna push back against it."

Only you never said the word cheese! :D

*replied to a bunch of stuff I wrote*

Somehow I ended up mixing up the 'you' with various forms of you meaning specifically the original poster, you meaning an indefinate hypothetical, and in once specific case you meaning heretic :) So please accept my apologies for making that seem like it was all directed at 'you heretic'.

Anyway, I'm sure neither of us is budging on our opinions and we've probably both said everything we should on the topic :)

...But the complaint wasn't ever really about that in the first place. It was about how the GM(s) in question would find situation after situation after situation to impose made-up penalties (seriously, go back and read the middle paragraph in the OP; it's pretty bad) to just that one character (or type of character).

So the player comes onto the boards to ask what to do when GMs essentially pick on him and cheat, and how do the GMs on the boards respond? By chastising him for having the gall to question a GM's ruling, and picking out one specific example and arguing for its reasonableness.

What the crap, guys?

Actually, the original post was a self-described rant where the word 'cheese' was first brought up. Not to deride it.. just saying it is what it is. Assuming he didn't exaggerate and the GMs did exactly what he said they did, and assuming they did it for the reasons he says they did, he's gotten his advice about what to do about it in the thread already.

Furthermore, perhaps I'm overinflating my ego, but I assume my responses are part of the origin of the 'what the crap' sentiment.

If so, I'll point out that my opinions were never voiced from the context of the GM side of the screen, but as a fellow player. A fellow Cavalier player, at that :)

Let's agree to disagree, shall we?

Dessio wrote:

Not so much...

It's a fundamental disconnect about understanding opposing viewpoints.

Sorry I don't get you... Someone "cracking down" on small cavaliers is in fact attempting to rebalance the game, an interpretation you back up when you go on to talk about munchkinism...

That's exactly what I was saying... if someone is doing something you don't like it doesn't mean they're automatically doing it for the reason you imagine.

If in your view a GM is giving you a hard time about a medium sized mount indoors/underground, there is the possibility that he's doing so for a reason shy of attempting to rebalance the game. I'm pointing out that you're ignoring that possibility.

I then compared this to the faulty thinking that 'if one plays a halfling cavalier, he must be a munchkin out to break the game' as another example of the worst not necessarily being the case, since I was guilty of this myself, as is possible your GMs were.

If player and GM assume the worst in each others' intentions and fail to communicate, how can there be compromise? I've said it a bunch of times now, this'll be the last.

It's not the forumites you need to convince.. not just because it'll never happen (see my Sisyphus reference! :) but because the one you need to be talking to is your GM(s). They're the ones who've given you a sour experience in play, they're the only ones who can prevent it from happening in the future.

What is at issue here is interpreting the rules to try and make medium feline and canine mounts equally restricted as an attempt to jury rig a perceived design flaw of PFRPG.

Not so much.

It's a fundamental disconnect about understanding opposing viewpoints.

Just because a GM cracks down on a small cavalier riding around indoors/underground, it doesn't mean he's taking it upon himself to rebalance the game. Now to be fair, as Mark pointed out not every halfling cavalier is played by a roleplaying-averse munchkin hell-bent on bending the game... so there's a happy medium where players and GMs of differing viewpoints on this issue should be able to find common ground.

It's been said again and again... if you don't like what the GM is doing you need to talk to him about it. Also as Mark pointed out, it's not gonna be resolved here. If you've sincerely got a problem with GMs not being fair the next step is to talk to your region's VC.

Setting aside questions of cheese. as well as all of the previous suggestions of how to deal with a GM who doesn't see things eye to eye with you..

Another thing you can do is make sure your mount's acrobatics & climb skill ranks aren't neglected. A GM who's set on punishing you for riding when/where he feels you 'shouldn't' would be wise to skip the Ride checks entirely and see how long your mount makes its own skill checks.

I'd also recommend getting UMD (lots of ways to get it as a class skill) and having various forms of magic on tap to deal with GM rulings. Spider climb would be invaluable, not to mention being able to heal your own mount as a way to defeat a possible GM strategy of making the party healer be the one to tell you 'Leave the dang thing behind..'

Is it cheesy to play a small sized cavalier simply to have a medium sized mount, in turn simply to have an argument about NOT leaving your mount at the door?

While the infestation of halfling cavaliers in OP would suggest that there are plenty of those who don't.. there are still plenty who would say it is. And those who'd have an issue with the cheese are only going to be further set against you by protestations about how you chose a halfling for roleplaying reasons, rather than an attempt to work the rules to your advantage.

When one of those people is your GM, you just have to suck it up and deal with it (or use the other options voiced earlier)

In Society play the GM is not the law of the game, the Society guidelines are. A GM does not have the authority to subtract or change any of the rules that exist in the core assumption, only make judgement calls when something comes up outside the rule set.

Heh, I wanted to be done with this thread, but there's one last thing I gotta say here.

Opionions about whether something is allowed or disallowed when it is not covered by the rules (such as riding a dog indoors) becomes arguments about the rules (whether something not covered is legal: "It doesn't say I can't" or not: "It doesn't say you can.") In this case as Nimon says, the GM has say so, unless he's contradicting OP play. Nowhere in OP play does it say you're allowed to ride indoors w/o situational penalties as levied by a GM. But as he pointed out, the core rules assumption DOES say the GM gets to 'make up stuff'.

If one disagrees with the GM you can always play another character instead (as suggested by one person) or play at another GM's table.. that's one big change in OP play from home games.

And that's what I am pointing out, GMs feeling justified in warping published scenarios in organized play to punish perfectly legal mounts. And as you can also see, I am not alone in being baffled by all the hate.

The forums are a great place to vent when you're angry, mebbe get some 'amens' from a choir agreeing with you :) Very occasionally you'll find a gem of wisdom, and maybe there were none in this thread.

Not much else is gonna happen. Doesn't matter who's right or who's wrong on this, because opinions aren't changing. Fact remains things at the gaming table are gonna be as they were, no matter how a thread discussion goes. I hope either some wisdom or some satisfaction was found. :)

Edit: Mebbe a good name for your halfling cavalier should be Sisyphus :)

Would you be feeling the same way if you played another character who had a very narrow focus of specialization?

For example, is it the player's fault or his various GMs' if a Desert Druid rarely finds adventures that feature his strengths? Or a Sea Witch often being forced to leave her Octopus Familiar behind on adventures out of the water?

Just because you pick a narrow focus doesn't mean adventures need to be reconsidered they way you want them to be in order to accomodate your narrow focus.

Again I feel for you in that so many adventures simply out and out prevent mounted combat options. Really, I do. What I'm against is chosing a small size PC/med size mount as an attempt to get around that. It's legal, sure. IMO it's also cheesy, and I don't believe I'm alone in the opinion, based on your experiences with GMs ;)

Wow. . . Just wow.

I'm loathe to put words in Nimon's mouth (lol, I made a mess of that last time ;) but I think what he's getting at is the very important distinction between ordinary navigation and tactical movement. They ain't the same, no matter what the rulebook says. And if you wanna play something without having a GM's interpretation, play a MMO or video game.. it's the nature of a RPG.

What *I* was getting at is while one may very reasonably navigate around through a dungeon on the back of a dog, I'd support a GM leaning against even this reasonable act because if you allow the player to move through hallways/up & down stairs outside of the pressures of combat, they'll 99.9999999999999999999999% of the time whine when you lay down the 'in this case you can't ride' card. Sure sure, SOME combats it's feasable to ride a dog around in some dusky cellar. But far from ALL.. there's just infinite reasons why a particular terrain layout is just simply mount-impractical and it's bound to happen, sooner rather than later.

So when confronted with those inevitable impracticalities, having been given a free pass up to that point, many players whine and complain. Compound this with the nature of OP play where a GM is playing with people he doesn't know and hence doesn't know how a player would react, can you blame him for erring on the side of preventing a mid-game blowup?

I would urge GMs not to try and rebalance the game on the fly by adding hurdles to builds like small cavalier or paladins.

I think this is the disconnect. What some are calling 'enforcing realism', others are calling 'making up stuff'.

Me, I find myself firmly in the 'riding when you weren't meant to is cheese' crowd. And again, my main IS a cavalier. Just go with the flow rather than bucking it, and you'll have a more fun time. Cavalier class abilities give you all you need in the realm of mounted combat for those handfuls of times it'll even be relevant over the course of your 12 level career.. don't bother 'wasting' mounted combat feat chain since most of the time in PFS OP you'll be that featless-fighter. Focus on something besides mounted combat, and you won't suck/fight with GMs.

Why is that cheesy? ...
The GM in question is being silly.

My main character is a cavalier and I still gotta throw the 'I question this' flag. It is cheesy to expect to be riding around making mounted charges in combat whist in a dungeon environment. Or whislt indoors, excepting on a giant arena type floor.

Making excuses (about size, terrain, etc) is just an attempt to quibble away at the ultimate goal of 'getting away with being cheesy'.

Just one cavalier's opinion ;)

Goes to show however that a GM isn't just being silly when putting his foot down about permitting riding around in unreasonable situations.

(inconsistent Jumping DCs notwithstanding)

The problem cavaliers have isn't the GMs. It's the nature of organized play itself.

First problem is that the GMs can't write their own adventures. Furthermore, most adventures begin literally right at the entrance of a dungeon, so you're even denied your mount for some possible random encounters en route to the adventure proper.

Second problem is that in OP you don't have continuity of who you play with. In a home/private game that decided to only run PFS OP sanctioned modules, the GM could still cherry pick mount-friendly adventures. Not gonna happen in practice at a public game.

One way to think of it is if you play a cavalier going in on mounted combat feats, you're playing a feat-less fighter in most adventures. Trying to force the mount in is going to annoy some GMs, since they'd think you knew full well that you were picking such a narrow (and often pointless) specialization.

The best idea I've seen for OP is to treat the mount as a simple fighty animal companion (that is, don't ride it), and have potions of Reduce Animal/Pup Form on hand to deal with ladders/tightropes/etc.

Me, I'm biased but I believe a cavalier should be played in OP as a fighter that gives up feats for social skills. The rare times PFS OP modules offer chance for mounted combat you can still rely on class abilities for credible mounted combat.. you don't need a Spirited Charge in order to lay out a smackdown.

I find myself a little confused, i just looked at the addditional resources page here and i can not see anywhere that is not allowed, if someone can please point me to where it says it is not allowed, it would be greatly appreciated.

My gunslinger concept was a muskeeter and i would love to play him in PFS so just getting some clarifiaction

here wrote (in the ultimate combat section):