
![]() |

In another thread James mentioned he would like to see where the PFRPG 'Core' and Bestiary, contradict each other. I figured it would be good to start a new thread for this. Also I figured we could put any other concerns that cross between the two books here.
So I'll start,
In the PFRPG, p.54 for example, there is mention of the combat trained Special Quality mentioned, mostly in the animal companion section. It says to see the Bestiary. I have searched the bestiary for this and had no luck. I have not taken the time to peruse the PRD yet so maybe its there, but I had no luck finding an explanation it in the Bestiary.
graywulfe

![]() |

In another thread James mentioned he would like to see where the PFRPG 'Core' and Bestiary, contradict each other. I figured it would be good to start a new thread for this. Also I figured we could put any other concerns that cross between the two books here.
So I'll start,
In the PFRPG, p.54 for example, there is mention of the combat trained Special Quality mentioned, mostly in the animal companion section. It says to see the Bestiary. I have searched the bestiary for this and had no luck. I have not taken the time to peruse the PRD yet so maybe its there, but I had no luck finding an explanation it in the Bestiary.
graywulfe
The place this should/would appear is in the entry for the horse. I think we MIGHT have ended up using different wording though. A good example of a contradiction!

![]() |

I had noticed this also, and had been hoping that combat trained was a template that could be applied to any animal, so you could have war elephants, war tigers, etc. in addition to war horses. I guess until something more official comes along, the advanced template should work. It would be nice to know if there are any rules intended on how this does or doesn't interact with the handle animal skill and various tricks, as well as how this affects the price of a combat trained animal compared to a regular one.

![]() |
3 people marked this as FAQ candidate. |

I had noticed this also, and had been hoping that combat trained was a template that could be applied to any animal, so you could have war elephants, war tigers, etc. in addition to war horses. I guess until something more official comes along, the advanced template should work. It would be nice to know if there are any rules intended on how this does or doesn't interact with the handle animal skill and various tricks, as well as how this affects the price of a combat trained animal compared to a regular one.
Try checking in the Handle Animal skill... I can't be sure, but I THINK we were gonna put something in there about how to combat train an animal...
EDIT: Yeah; combat training is in Handle Animal. The reference to it being in the Bestiary's in error.

Staffan Johansson |
Summon Monster II can summon an "Ant, drone.". Summon Monster III can summon an "Ant, Soldier". This would have worked OK if "drone" was just a renamed version of "Giant Ant, Worker" from 3.5, but in the Bestiary we have Soldier being the basic version of Ant, and Drone being an advanced version with better stats and wings.
So I'm guessing the level 2 summon should be "Giant Ant (worker)" and the level 3 summon should just be "Giant Ant". This would also match better with the CR of other summons, since almost all level 2 summons are CR 1 (as a worker ant), and almost all level 3 summons are CR 2 (normal giant ant).

![]() |

JoelF847 wrote:I had noticed this also, and had been hoping that combat trained was a template that could be applied to any animal, so you could have war elephants, war tigers, etc. in addition to war horses. I guess until something more official comes along, the advanced template should work. It would be nice to know if there are any rules intended on how this does or doesn't interact with the handle animal skill and various tricks, as well as how this affects the price of a combat trained animal compared to a regular one.Try checking in the Handle Animal skill... I can't be sure, but I THINK we were gonna put something in there about how to combat train an animal...
EDIT: Yeah; combat training is in Handle Animal. The reference to it being in the Bestiary's in error.
I guess what I was trying to get at was based on my assumption that "combat trained" would be the equivilent of previous editions war horse as opposed to just a heavy horse or light horse: i.e. a template or something that would grant some bonuses for being combat trained beyond simply being able to perform the combat tricks from the handle animal skill. If this isn't part of PRPG, that's fine, like I said, it was based more on an assumption on my part than anything else.

![]() |
2 people marked this as FAQ candidate. Staff response: no reply required. |

I guess what I was trying to get at was based on my assumption that "combat trained" would be the equivilent of previous editions war horse as opposed to just a heavy horse or light horse: i.e. a template or something that would grant some bonuses for being combat trained beyond simply being able to perform the combat tricks from the handle animal skill. If this isn't part of PRPG, that's fine, like I said, it was based more on an assumption on my part than anything else.
Since "combat trained" is something that would only ever need to be applied to a creature with an Int of 1 or 2 (be it an animal or whatever), using the trick mechanic to handle it is actually pretty elegant and requires very little additional statblock work (unlike most templates). To "combat train" an animal, you need to train it with Handle Animal. If the creature you're applying this to isn't an animal, chances are good that it doesn't need combat training in the first place.

![]() |

I have trouble reconciling the mental stats between some Animal Companions entries in the core rulebook and their entries (as regular Animals) in the Bestiary.
For example, a Lion AC has a base Wis = 15 and Cha = 10. The Bestiary version has Wis = 12 and Cha = 6 (less perceptive and less impressive).
An Eagle AC has base Wis = 14 and Cha = 6, while its Bestiary version has Wis = 15 and Cha = 7 (better if it ever advances).
The few Bestiary-AC I have checked do not have such discrepancies.

![]() |
1 person marked this as FAQ candidate. |

On a (slightly) related note, I am still confused as to whether combat training grants an animal armour proficiency, and if so, at what level (Light, Medium, Heavy). The D20PFSRD states-
"Combat Training (DC 20)
An animal trained to bear a rider into combat knows the tricks attack, come, defend, down, guard, and heel. Training an animal for combat riding takes 6 weeks. You may also “upgrade” an animal trained for riding to one trained for combat by spending 3 weeks and making a successful DC 20 Handle Animal check. The new general purpose and tricks completely replace the animal’s previous purpose and any tricks it once knew. Many horses and riding dogs are trained in this way. (An animal trained in this way counts as trained for war, and becomes proficient with all forms or armor. See FAQs and Animal Type.)"
Whereas the core rulebook states-
"Combat Training (DC 20)
An animal trained to bear a rider into combat knows the tricks attack, come, defend, down, guard, and heel. Training an animal for combat riding takes 6 weeks. You may also “upgrade” an animal trained for riding to one trained for combat by spending 3 weeks and making a successful DC 20 Handle Animal check. The new general purpose and tricks completely replace the animal’s previous purpose and any tricks it once knew. Many horses and riding dogs are trained in this way."
As a final point, the Cavalier's mount receives Light Armour Proficiency as a bonus feat; somewhat pointless if when it is trained for war it effectively gains three feats anyway? Granting an animal three feats while simultaneously teaching it six tricks is ridiculous IMO.
I'd love some clarity on this.
Edit: +1 to Blackraven; a standard bestiary horse has a higher constitution than an animal companion horse, thus the animal companion has 1hp less per HD.

![]() |

I have trouble reconciling the mental stats between some Animal Companions entries in the core rulebook and their entries (as regular Animals) in the Bestiary.
For example, a Lion AC has a base Wis = 15 and Cha = 10. The Bestiary version has Wis = 12 and Cha = 6 (less perceptive and less impressive).
An Eagle AC has base Wis = 14 and Cha = 6, while its Bestiary version has Wis = 15 and Cha = 7 (better if it ever advances).
The few Bestiary-AC I have checked do not have such discrepancies.
While we specifically designed the animal companions to be SIMILAR to their monster stats, they don't match up exactly. The rules for building an Animal Companion and the rules for building a monster are not exactly the same, and as a result a lion or tiger or bear or horse built as an animal companion isn't going to always exactly match the stats in the Monster Manual.
In other words... don't reconcile those stats. They're technically stats for entirely different creatures.

PathfinderEspañol |
4 people marked this as FAQ candidate. |

Hello, there's weird stuff in the rules for Natural Attacks.
Pag 182 of core rulebook, Standard actions:
[...]You can make attacks with natural weapons in
combination with attacks made with a melee weapon and
unarmed strikes, so long as a different limb is used for
each attack. For example, you cannot make a claw attack
and also use that hand to make attacks with a longsword.
When you make additional attacks in this way, all of your
natural attacks are treated as secondary natural attacks,
using your base attack bonus minus 5 and adding only 1/2
of your Strength modifier on damage rolls. In addition,
all of your attacks made with melee weapons and unarmed
strikes are made as if you were two-weapon fighting. Your
natural attacks are treated as light, off-hand weapons for
determining the penalty to your other attacks. Feats such as Two-Weapon Fighting and Multiattack (see the Pathfinder RPG Bestiary) can reduce these penalties.
Now, page 302 of the Bestiary (Universal Monster Rules, Natural Attacks), talks about the same issue, but the bold part is missing.
However the Bestiary has got the Multiweapon fighting and Multiattack feats.
-Is that a contradiction, or the rules in the Core rulebook are for transmutated characters and the rules in the Bestiary are for monsters.

![]() |
1 person marked this as FAQ candidate. 1 person marked this as a favorite. |

The bolded part of the sentence is, I believe, incorrect; a fragment left in the rules from an earlier draft. Additional attacks made with natural weapons while you wield a manufactured weapon are treated as secondary attacks (and thus get a -5 penalty on attack rolls; a penalty that can be offset by Multiattack) but do NOT suffer additional penalties as if they were off-hand weapons.
Basically, the bolded part of the post above is wrong. It's a fragment left in the game from an earlier draft, and it should go away (hopefully in the latest upcoming round of errata).

Maugan22 |

The D20PFSRD states- (An animal trained in this way counts as trained for war, and becomes proficient with all forms or armor. See FAQs and Animal Type.)"
As suggested in the second sentence this bracketed text is an inference based on the statement's made by James here as compared to the animal description's "Proficient with no armor unless trained for war."
It's not really clear if this inference is what James had intended.

Pinky's Brain |
Basically, the bolded part of the post above is wrong. It's a fragment left in the game from an earlier draft, and it should go away (hopefully in the latest upcoming round of errata).
Is this still going to go into the Errata? Presently basically you are better off ignoring a bite attack if you have it, it's not worth giving up 10% of your to hit chance for. It should be a bonus to a character and instead it just becomes completely useless.
The Eidolon which can get both a ridiculous amount of natural weapon attacks and a ridiculous amount of manufactured weapon attacks (through multiweapon fighting) of course would benefit most from such an errata, but that's an eidolon specific problem which should be solved separately.
The only thing I would limit is precision damage and favoured enemy damage, only let them be added to primary natural attacks. Easy enough to fluff, just say that secondary attacks are too instinctive to benefit from class training.