Pathfinder Player Companion: Animal Archive (PFRPG)

Which brings up another point, which I highly doubt is addressed in this book (I don't have it, but I'll definitely buy it if I ever get around to doing a PC with an AC). Merida's bear companion was a mama bear with 3 cubs. How would you handle something like that in Pathfinder?

Ranger with the Beastmaster archetype. Split the levels four ways, then use Boon Companion for momma bear.

Ssalarn wrote:

Patrick Renie wrote:

Just so people are aware, I am still in the process of evaluating the Charger/cavalier discrepancy (as well as other potential errata posters have pointed out), and am formulating an official response. Since we've got a lot of projects going on right now, I haven't been able to devote as much time to these issues as I'd like, but rest assured they are being considered and should be addressed within the next few weeks.

Until then, Jason's excellent suggestions should more than suffice for players and GMs running home games. :]

It has been about a month since this post, has there been any follow up on this issue, or a clarification given?

The simplest and fairest solution to the charger archetype issue is to remove the last sentence from the charger archetype's mounted challenge ability and replace it with the following: "This ability replaces link."

Reasoning: Finding a mount that is bred to ride into battle clad in armor and bearing a heavily armored rider would no doubt be a dauntless task, and these war horses are likely more obstinate than their less-outfitted counterparts. As such, a cavalier who gains a charger as a mount would need to have ranks in Handle Animal to make the most of such a wild and powerful breed.

This brings up a question that has come up before, does Ride replace Handle Animal? Near as I can figure, it does not. It requires both a Ride check AND a Handle Animal check to get your mount to attack while you are making an attack.

If Link is removed then it is no longer a Free action to use Handle Animal to tell the mount to attack.

Note: I know the RAI is that Ride is a replacement for Handle Animal but the RAW does not support it since no exception seems to be provided.

- Gauss

It's always been my interpretation that it is a Ride check to get your mount to attack, while it is a Handle Animal check to train it to do so in the first place.

Which brings up another point, which I highly doubt is addressed in this book (I don't have it, but I'll definitely buy it if I ever get around to doing a PC with an AC). Merida's bear companion was a mama bear with 3 cubs. How would you handle something like that in Pathfinder?

Well Mama bear has to be size M at most, which is a pain, although the three cubs could notionally be 'bought' and trained as pets (as opposed to Fams/Comps).

With a bit of wrangling the Houndmaster Archtype from the original Superstar comp could probably work (Though it is a Cav) or the Beastmaster Ranger (bu you will absolutely need Boon Companion).

Still shirty about the No Large Bears conspiracy.

Marik, technically, for a trained animal to attack requires a Handle Animal check. Nothing in the ride skill specifically overrides this. Since nothing in the Ride skill overrides this it means that first you must make a Handle Animal check to order your mount to attack and THEN you must make a Ride check to allow you to both attack in the same round.

Note: I do not think this is RAI, but it is RAW (even if nobody uses it this way).

- Gauss

So, does the book present rules for more mystical "animal companions" such as hippogriffs, gryphons, unicorns, etc?

3.5 used to allow Paladins to gain unicorn companions and such, but Pathfinder doesn't seem to allow this for anyone but a particular ranger archetype. This has always been a problem for me, especially since I have long had a major player in my setting who is a paladin with a unicorn mount, and the lack of that option in the legitimate rules is very frustrating.

If it does have them, how do they shape up? If it lacks them, will Paizo ever address this lack of backwards (and thematic) compatibility?

So, does the book present rules for more mystical "animal companions" such as hippogriffs, gryphons, unicorns, etc?

3.5 used to allow Paladins to gain unicorn companions and such, but Pathfinder doesn't seem to allow this for anyone but a particular ranger archetype. This has always been a problem for me, especially since I have long had a major player in my setting who is a paladin with a unicorn mount, and the lack of that option in the legitimate rules is very frustrating.

If it does have them, how do they shape up? If it lacks them, will Paizo ever address this lack of backwards (and thematic) compatibility?

nope. outta luck

So, does the book present rules for more mystical "animal companions" such as hippogriffs, gryphons, unicorns, etc?

This book is strictly about creatures of the animal type, so magical beasts such as the ones you mentioned aren't covered in here.

3.5 used to allow Paladins to gain unicorn companions and such, but Pathfinder doesn't seem to allow this for anyone but a particular ranger archetype. This has always been a problem for me, especially since I have long had a major player in my setting who is a paladin with a unicorn mount, and the lack of that option in the legitimate rules is very frustrating.

If it does have them, how do they shape up? If it lacks them, will Paizo ever address this lack of backwards (and thematic) compatibility?

Actually, it is very much within the rules to acquire a unicorn as a mount with the Leadership feat. I encourage you to check out Appendix 6 on page 316 of the Pathfinder RPG Bestiary for information on how to do this.

Quote:

3.5 used to allow Paladins to gain unicorn companions and such, but Pathfinder doesn't seem to allow this for anyone but a particular ranger archetype. This has always been a problem for me, especially since I have long had a major player in my setting who is a paladin with a unicorn mount, and the lack of that option in the legitimate rules is very frustrating.

If it does have them, how do they shape up? If it lacks them, will Paizo ever address this lack of backwards (and thematic) compatibility?

Actually, it is very much within the rules to acquire a unicorn as a mount with the Leadership feat. I encourage you to check out Appendix 6 on page 316 of the Pathfinder RPG Bestiary for information on how to do this.

That's a handy link, but it doesn't address the issue that characters with special mounts used to be able to obtain mystical mounts without leadership. As of right now, there's only one class that can - the Ranger, with an archetype, can acquire a hippogriff.

I'd like some expansion of that concept for all the animal companion classes, honestly. Cavaliers riding pegasi, paladins astride unicorns... that sort of thing would be cool, but requiring the leadership feat isn't the best way to do it. It'd work, sure, but it's not exactly what I'm looking for when there was another way to do it in the past.

Personally I'd allow it, but I think by RAW they are not officially animal companions so it wouldn't work. Patrick may add it to the FAQ if you flag it.

The second type of bond allows a paladin to gain the service of an unusually intelligent, strong, and loyal steed to serve her in her crusade against evil. This mount is usually a heavy horse (for a Medium paladin) or a pony (for a Small paladin), although more exotic mounts, such as a boar, camel, or dog are also suitable. This mount functions as a druid's animal companion, using the paladin's level as her effective druid level. Bonded mounts have an Intelligence of at least 6.

RAW would actually seem to state that they are officially Animal Companions. I know I have a Paladin in a RotRL game, who will be taking the Totem Guide Archetype for her Mount once she reaches 5th level. Granted, that was the GM's decision to allow it, but the wording seem to me to indicate it is legal.

I don't know that cavaliers are so overpowered as a class that this would be a big problem to add an extra benefit for them, but I'd have to take a closer look at the archetypes again to suggest anything different.

how about:

The Chavalier has to expand one use of her challange to confer the bonuses to his Mount.

The Mount get the full bonus, till the cavalier has two uses per day at 4th level both get half the benefit.

The Piscine(fishy!) category is listed as Belt, chest (saddle), eyes

is that supposed to be belt (saddle), or chest, belt (saddle)

The Piscine(fishy!) category is listed as Belt, chest (saddle), eyes

is that supposed to be belt (saddle), or chest, belt (saddle)

The Available Slots text for Piscine creatures should be changed to "Belt (saddle), chest, eyes". Similarly, the magic item slot for the saddle of the sky-river on page 26 of Animal Archive should be changed to "belt" rather than "chest".

Thanks!

The Ferocious Beast rage power does not state that its use is optional. This differs from the wording of Ferocious Mount. Was that an intentional design choice? Or should Ferocious Beast also be optional?

What I want to do is dip 2 levels of barbarian with my lunar mystery oracle. My only rage power would be Ferocious Beast, which would allow the tiger companion gained from my mystery to rage along with me. But if Ferocious Beast is an "always-on" rage power, then I will burn through my rage rounds way too fast for my liking, even if I take the Extra Rage feat.

If it is optional to activate the rage power, then is it safe to assume that it is a free action to toggle it on/off?

The feat also states that the AC gains the benefits of rage, but it does not mention the drawbacks (i.e. -2 to armor class, inability to use certain skills, fatigue). Is that part intentional?

Finally, what should be the range limit of the AC's rage effect?

Thanks!

I hope this is not considered bad form, but I thought I should acknowledge that Patrick Renie responded to a PM I sent him about these questions. He clarified the rage power quite well with his response, which I have copied below:

Hey Gliz,

The language of the Ferocious Beast rage power should change as follows (changes in bold):

Ferocious Beast (Ex): While the barbarian is raging, her animal companion also gains the effects of rage (including greater rage, mighty rage, and tireless rage), though the barbarian must spend 1 additional round of rage per round if her companion begins or ends its turn adjacent to her, and 2 additional rounds of rage per round if not. She can elect not to pay this cost, in which case her animal companion does not rage. Regardless, the animal companion must remain within 30 feet of the barbarian to gain the effects of the barbarian's rage.

Quote:

The Ferocious Beast rage power does not state that its use is optional. This differs from the wording of Ferocious Mount. Was that an intentional design choice? Or should Ferocious Beast also be optional?

This was not an intentional design choice; use of the Ferocious Beast feat should also be optional.

Quote:

If it is optional to activate the rage power, then is it safe to assume that it is a free action to toggle it on/off?

I'd say that's safe to assume.

Quote:

The rage power also states that the animal companion gains the "benefits" of rage, but it does not mention the drawbacks (i.e. -2 to armor class, inability to use certain skills, fatigue). Is that part intentional?

RAI, the animal should receive the penalties of raging as well. Changing "benefits" to "effects" clears up this.

Quote:

Finally, what should be the range limit of the companion's rage effect?

30 feet. Adding a sentence to the end of the feat fixes this.

Hope this helps!

P

I hope this is not considered bad form, but I thought I should acknowledge that Patrick Renie responded to a PM I sent him about these questions. He clarified the rage power quite well with his response, which I have copied below:

Was just about to post this as well. Thanks for taking care of it, Gliz!

Is the bombard trick supposed to use just the critters BAB? No size, dex, or other modifiers?

Protoman wrote:

I think the Charger companion archetype has a typo/need for errata.

The mounted challenge ability says it works for cavaliers riding the companion and replaces shared spells, but cavalier mount class feature doesn't get shared spells. As of now, cavalier mounts don't qualify for the archetype and only times cavaliers seem to benefit off the mounted challenge ability are if riding an animal companion that belongs to another character or it obtained an animal companion via multiclassing (not with the Mount class feature) but that seems rather weird.

Oops!

You are absolutely right. I missed that note in paragraph 2 of the mount ability for cavaliers about no share spells.

The question then becomes what they *should* exchange for the ability, and one answer could be nothing. Simply add a specific exemption for cavaliers, like:

A cavalier's mount gains this ability automatically when selecting the charger archetype even though it does not have the share spells ability.

I don't know that cavaliers are so overpowered as a class that this would be a big problem to add an extra benefit for them, but I'd have to take a closer look at the archetypes again to suggest anything different.

Just a suggestion.

What about the familiar ones? Kinda sucks that only basic animal familiars can take archetypes, when they're the ones most likely to get killed doing the stuff. Plus, why can't a lyrakien be a valet just cause she's... not able to speak with others of her kind... except she is... ? Or same with an Imp... why not an Imp Valet? Cause they don't get what is for them a completely worthless ability?

Protoman wrote:

I think the Charger companion archetype has a typo/need for errata.

The mounted challenge ability says it works for cavaliers riding the companion and replaces shared spells, but cavalier mount class feature doesn't get shared spells. As of now, cavalier mounts don't qualify for the archetype and only times cavaliers seem to benefit off the mounted challenge ability are if riding an animal companion that belongs to another character or it obtained an animal companion via multiclassing (not with the Mount class feature) but that seems rather weird.

Oops!

You are absolutely right. I missed that note in paragraph 2 of the mount ability for cavaliers about no share spells.

The question then becomes what they *should* exchange for the ability, and one answer could be nothing. Simply add a specific exemption for cavaliers, like:

A cavalier's mount gains this ability automatically when selecting the charger archetype even though it does not have the share spells ability.

I don't know that cavaliers are so overpowered as a class that this would be a big problem to add an extra benefit for them, but I'd have to take a closer look at the archetypes again to suggest anything different.

Just a suggestion.

What happens with this if a Paladin wants his mount with this archetype?

What happens with this if a Paladin wants his mount with this archetype?

RAW the full template applies. That means the paladin;s steed loses share spells, even though the ability ti gets for that only applies if a cavalier is riding it. (And still would, if an allied cavalier happened to leap onto the steed and use challenge).

I think just skipping that ability for paladins is a perfectly reasonable houserule.

I have a question concerning the Mad Dog barbarian archetype, and if this has already been asked, then my apologies for not noticing. According to the archetype, it gains Damage Reduction at level 10, but the regular barbarian gains it 7. Yet the Mad Dog doesn't lose this class feature at 7th level. Is this a typo or was the archetype supposed to follow the normal progression, with the addition that the animal companion gains it as well?

I have a question concerning the Mad Dog barbarian archetype, and if this has already been asked, then my apologies for not noticing. According to the archetype, it gains Damage Reduction at level 10, but the regular barbarian gains it 7. Yet the Mad Dog doesn't lose this class feature at 7th level. Is this a typo or was the archetype supposed to follow the normal progression, with the addition that the animal companion gains it as well?

Since it doesn't replace anything, I believe the damage reduction gets delayed to 10 for both the barbarian and the animal companion with a stated maximum of DR 4 rather than the regular barbarian's DR 5.

Blayde MacRonan wrote:

I have a question concerning the Mad Dog barbarian archetype, and if this has already been asked, then my apologies for not noticing. According to the archetype, it gains Damage Reduction at level 10, but the regular barbarian gains it 7. Yet the Mad Dog doesn't lose this class feature at 7th level. Is this a typo or was the archetype supposed to follow the normal progression, with the addition that the animal companion gains it as well?

Since it doesn't replace anything, I believe the damage reduction gets delayed to 10 for both the barbarian and the animal companion with a stated maximum of DR 4 rather than the regular barbarian's DR 5.

That's how I read it as well. It's like the rage ability for the mad dog, which states when she does get it, rather than noting that at 1st level she doesn't get it yet.

Thanks for the response. I wasn't sure since this was the first time I had seen something like that with an archetype.

It would probably be safest to have included a line that said something like "This acts as and replaces Damage Reduction" or some such. There is precedence in some sources for that kind of line. I swear I have seen it, just not sure where.

We use the language "This ability modifies... " fairly often. The Huntmaster, also in Animal Archive says "This ability modifies the challenge ability." for bestial challenge, and something like that is my preference.

It would probably be safest to have included a line that said something like "This acts as and replaces Damage Reduction" or some such. There is precedence in some sources for that kind of line. I swear I have seen it, just not sure where.

As of the ACG archetypes section, the official language is either "alters" or "replaces."

If something "replaces" an ability, that ability is gone. Nothing of the original ability remains. If something "alters" an ability, you apply the changes listed by the archetype but otherwise, the ability is still that ability.

For example, if something "alters" wild shape, you still qualify for all of the spells, feats, and prestige classes that go with wild shape. The greensinger's plant shape is a good example of this. But if an ability "replaces" wild shape, then you no longer have that class feature and don't qualify for feats / prestige classes / etc that require it.

I was not trying to suggest specific language but rather the addition of any language to that effect. Sorry if I was not clear. :)

Funny question. Anyone know why the circlet of speaking was banned/disallowed from PFS? Is your animal speaking, talking to their master, and calling out danger really that broken that it's not allowed to be in the game?