| 1 person marked this as FAQ candidate. |
We recently playtested the cavalier and the question came up; What items can an animal use?
i asume it can use barding withe the reight armor prof feat(light/medioum/heavy)
but what about rings of protection, amulet of the mighty fist/or natural armor, cloak of resiteance and so on... are there any official rould on the subjekt?
We recently playtested the cavalier and the question came up; What items can an animal use?
i asume it can use barding withe the reight armor prof feat(light/medioum/heavy)
but what about rings of protection, amulet of the mighty fist/or natural armor, cloak of resiteance and so on... are there any official rould on the subjekt?
I think any body part that can match a humanoids can have an equivalent, but anything else is up to the dM. They dont have fingers as an example, but I could see a headband working.
PS:I was using a horse an an example.
The rules dont really handle this. But my group always used a houserule. Animal Companions could use barding ofcourse if they were profficient, and had one other slot for a magic item that could be head, neck, cloak, or waist slot. The all had to ofcourse be custom made as there arent many belts that fit a bear.
RaW is pretty silent on the issue however. So you will have to sort it out on your own at your table.
I can imagine a wolf or dog would have:
* one slot for its head (earring of greater magic fang for example)
* one neckslot (collar of resistance)
* one Torso slot (barding of Protection)
Maybe a more exotic slot, like a tail slot (tail ring of dexterity?)
Don't think they could wear stuff on their paws/legs.
That would be about it.
A Gorilla could wear most stuff that humanoids can wear and a snake companion would not have a slot at all.
Also keep in mind that, according to the rules, most magic items that are worn can shrink or enlarge a bit in order to fit the wearer.
I would think a magic ring would fit in the leg of a hawk or eagle for instance.
The shrink to fit a small woman instead of a large man, not to fit a hoof instead of a finger. It just isnt mean to work that way.
|
No, I realize that, but the rules DO leave it pretty ambiguous.
I think ruling that a magic ring of protection, which fits a finger of, say, an inch in diameter give or take, will also fit the leg (not an individual claw) of a bird companion, which is also around an inch in diameter, give or take, is well within the spirit of the rules.
My Dire Weasel has a legband of sustenance on.
Was thinking of eventually getting an earring and then doing the druid thing of weaving magical feather's into his fur.
Heh, a Phoenix feather would hold some magical qualities, i am sure.
Unless they changed it a creature is assumed to have all the "slots" available since 3.x. I think they clarified it further in savage species saying a creature who didn't have a particular limb (say a naga without legs) could have an item crafted to perform the same (as boots for example) function but in a different form (in the case of the naga maybe towards the end of the tail that was the "boot" slot). Basically anatomy didn't mean you lost slots, just meant the item had to be crafted to fit the creatures anatomy. I also want to say there have been descriptions given where animals do wear rings, whether they be small rings on digits of paws/claws or around the forearm of the creature (who didn't have digits) it doesn't matter as long as the balance of the slots is enforced. Whether a ring is a ring as we think of it or a "forelimb band" is irrelevant for the balance of the game and rules. Fluff it up however you like or however it makes sense to you, just don't break the slot rules ;-)
- horse can definitely have barfing.
I don't know about horses, but my cat definitely has barfing.
Savage species rules are not part of the Pathfinder ruleset, not being open property for Paizo to use. Mostly common sense rules here. Animals obviously can't conciously activate magic items so those are out. Anything that obviously can't fit is out as well.... i.e. no boots for your pet snake. Others... adjudicate on a case by case basis.
I never said they were, but the book does go and explain that a creature was never meant to be "short changed" by lack of anatomical features and that a creature was not supposed to be given extra slots (IE for having 3 arms) unless specifically written to be allowed them and thus given an "advantage" in that way. As pathfinder is written with the basis of 3.5 SRD and that the book in question is part of the backwards compatibility and written in that rule set it does warrant mention in case the OP wants something more credible than an anonymous posters opinion on the subject.
Feel free to house rule it as you want, but there are rules for the 3.5 rule set which can be considered pertinent whether you want to consider them so or not. Where there is a vacuum of information I'll go to an "official" source for the game rule set that PFRPG was built off of and for, and use those until Paizo gives us something more. For me, the rules in the book in question make sense and they work with game balance across the board for all creatures. That is important and reason enough for me to use them instead of some willy nilly call for every creature we encounter.
K.I.S.S - all creatures have all slots, instead of having to keep a log of what was ruled to have what every time it comes up. It doesn't get much simpler than that.
Don't forget that for +50% cost, abilities can be stacked on a single item, and for +100% cost they don't take any slot at all.
So, if your GM says that hawks can wear one ring around each leg, but no other magic items, but you wanted a Ring of Protection +2, Ring of Feather Falling, and Ring of Sustenance, you could put the latter to rings together into a single item for an additional 1100 gold (550 do-it-yourself price).
You need to understand something. There's a big misconception that Pathfinder was built to be backwards compatible with all or the majority of 3.5's baggage. It wasn't. And they never promised anything like that.Pathfinder's "Backward's compatibility" was built on the descending level of priorities.
1. The previous published set of Pathfinder modules and Adventure Paths.
2. The Core Rules of the 3.5 SRD. (not the Unearthed Arcana stuff, the Epic Rules, nor the Psionics, that got grafted in as a secondary addon.)
3. Everything else ranges from being either a distant third to not in consideration at all. (i.e. the Complete Series, Ghostwalk, Savage Species, all other non SRD material)
In order for Pathfinder to have been truly "backwards compatible" it would have been nothing more than Mongooses's reprinting of the SRD.
The bulk of the stuff in the third category is in the "You're on your own" level of support.
I understand that perfectly. As I said, unless they changed something, meaning if they don't want it to work the way it did in 3.5, the rules I was refering to were how it worked. There are plenty of good unburdened rules that Paizo can't touch as they aren't OGL, if anything SS wasn't baggage it was an attempt to make things "doable" within a screwed up CR system, it was clarification of rules as well. That it (the item slot system) wasn't broken nor required some nerf bat seems to elude you. If they don't intend for it to work this way, I'm sure we'll hear from them about it at some point, just as they changed all the other things they didn't like about the system. Until then SS is a heck of a lot more "official" than your say so, wouldn't you agree? Paizo has also STATED that they would like to keep the game simple and enjoyable, to not bog it down with unnecessary rules. Saying that every creature should be an exception to the slot rules is most definitely going to slow the game down as it is hashed out what has what, instead of just saying everything has these specific slots. Keeping a log of which creatures have what to refer back to every time it comes up, is a great deal more complicated and time consuming than just saying here are the slots every creature has. Again K.I.S.S. A blanket slot systems is as good as anything else in a vaccuum regarding what was and what is, it existed already as part of the rule set, doesn't require any extra work or book keeping, simple and effective. Sounds like what Paizo wanted for the game to me...
Maybe that offends your sensibilities, but then again it is possible your sensibilities have no interest in game balance or any one elses playstyle. The end result is, I gave an official published game designer ruling to answer the OPs question and you have given your opinion. Instead of cluttering the thread with you attempting to prove you are right and I am wrong, how about you let it be, comtemplate there is more than just your point of view and let the OP decide what is good for their game?
Do you happen to have a post from Paizo stating as much about the points of backwards compatibility or is that how you see it? I have been around since PFRPG was announced and actually don't recall any of the designers actually saying what backwards compatibility "meant", I'd love to see the post if there is one as it might clear up a few other questions as well. I'm serious about that.
We recently playtested the cavalier and the question came up; What items can an animal use?
i asume it can use barding withe the right armor prof feat(light/medioum/heavy)
but what about rings of protection, amulet of the mighty fist/or natural armor, cloak of resiteance and so on... are there any official rould on the subjekt?
In 3.5 the answer was one of anything a human could, regardless of anatomy. The world's magic system was anthro centric, and all creatures had the same slots for everything regardless of anatomy.
I don't think pathfinder has gotten around to revisiting the issue.
For a horse
Armor: suits of armor: Not a problem. Horses have barding. If the horse doesn't need to attack, get it armor its not proficient with. If the horse needs to attack get it masterwork studded leather (no penalty despite non proficiency) and at higher levels the mithral chain shirt barding.
Belts: belts and girdles. Not a problem, build it into the sadle
Body: robes and vestments. Decorative. Not a problem.
Chest: mantles, shirts, and vests.Decorative. Not a problem.
Eyes: eyes, glasses, and goggles. Horse blinders of true seeing?
Feet: boots, shoes, and slippers: Problematic. You'd probably have to build them as a horse shoe.
Hands: gauntlets and gloves: see feet.
Head: circlets, crowns, hats, helms, and masks.: Not a problem, horses wear halters and reigns all the time.
Headband: headbands and phylacteries" Same as head.
Neck: amulets, brooches, medallions, necklaces, periapts, and scarabs.: Easy, slip it around the horses neck on a longer string and call it a day.
Ring (up to two): rings: Real DM's call here. The hoof is technically a finger. I suppose you could make a horse shoe to hold the ring, or hammer the ring into the hoof.
Shield: shields: Nope.
Shoulders: capes and cloaks. Horse blanket of protection +2
Wrist: bracelets and bracers: leggings of X