Not a thing other then size, but wolf is not on the paladin list. So as small paladins normally used dogs it was added to the list.
Also tripping with a rider is not something I am sure I would allow. I am guessing I am not alone there
Not a thing other then size, but wolf is not on the paladin list. So as small paladins normally used dogs it was added to the list.
Also tripping with a rider is not something I am sure I would allow. I am guessing I am not alone there
Paladins don't actually have a list... just that they have a mount. A wolf hits large size eventually and could be ridden then.
They do, horse, pony, boar, camel dog are the listed mounts. With boar, camel and dog, being listed as suitable.
Edit: I know you may add more if your GM allows, I do myself. but if going straight by the book it only lists 5, 2 for human sized, 3 for small
but if going straight by the book it only lists 5, 2 for human sized, 3 for small
Uh, no. If you go straight by the book, you can have anything available as an animal companion. It doesn't list allowed mounts, it lists example mounts.
Not the way I see it, your limited to that list, unless your GM allows you to have something else. But then druid is the same way.
Edit: Just saying that is the standard list. It is not a closed list but is the "norm". Which is why I think dog was added, some Gm's will say no to a wolf, but not to a riding dog, which is a common mount to small races
|
I hope this helps...
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.
It says that more exotic animals like a boar, camel, or dog. It does not say you are limited to only the ones listed above.
Again, the list is the "norm" mounts, I never said it was a closed list, but it is a list.They are much more limited then a druid do to a few things
1> You need to be able to ride it, that cuts out a chunk of the list right there
2> To me and , folks like me it is not the same as a companion, it uses the same rules but is not the same. A companion is an animal you bond with, a paladin mount is a gift from your god. So I can easily seeing some gods having other mount options "ol dead eye and elks for example" but the list is the "standard" mount list
So again dog would slide by every GM i know, wolf not so much. And there is still the issue of tripping with a rider on your back, I for one would not allow it
Not to derail, but what is up with types?
Any 'animal' with more than 2 Int should be a magical beast. So, A), why doesn't it point this out for paladin mounts before level 11, and B) why do animal companion rules keep mentioning Int 3+ animals?
It started with talking of balance, and such...ya know how derails happen, we start responding, heh sorry bout that
What prevents you from being a ranger riding a wolf?
Assuming the ranger is small/wolf is medium, nothing, actually. You just need to be prepared to take a -5 penalty to all ride checks for using an animal ill-suited to be used as a mount (as I understand the rules, anyway).
It does bring up some questions for my Eidolon that I use as a mount. Can I assume I can shape the mount to be formed in such a manner that it is suited to be a mount. Furthermore, do I need to use an exotic saddle? I'd assume yes on both accounts.
What prevents you from being a ranger riding a wolf?
Assuming the ranger is small/wolf is medium, nothing, actually. You just need to be prepared to take a -5 penalty to all ride checks for using an animal ill-suited to be used as a mount (as I understand the rules, anyway).
It does bring up some questions for my Eidolon that I use as a mount. Can I assume I can shape the mount to be formed in such a manner that it is suited to be a mount. Furthermore, do I need to use an exotic saddle? I'd assume yes on both accounts.
Wolf gets large at lvl 4 druid, 7 ranger. And what makes a trained wolf any less suited to being a mount than a trained dog?
Trip is the big one. I would never allow you to trip while with a rider. Over all I would not allow a wolf unless your god used wolves as messanger or something. They are not mounts, they are not pack animals, they are hunters, not gaurd dogs
To be sure though SoS, that's your homerule (not saying it's a bad one)... by RAW nothing stops a wolf from tripping when it has a rider.
Just to clarify for those that might be confused.
No, but nothing saves the rider from the AoO as well. he will drawl one. as he is kinds tripping as well and in the threaded space, kinda kneeling now
I see nothing that says he is immune to drawling the AoO, the wolf might be his rider is not
No, but nothing saves the rider from the AoO as well. he will drawl one. as he is kinds tripping as well and in the threaded space, kinda kneeling now
I see nothing that says he is immune to drawling the AoO, the wolf might be his rider is not
What on Earth are you talking about? The wolf/dog auto-trips are from biting, latching on, and pulling the prey down. Watch a YouTube video of a wolf pack attacking a herd animal and you'll see where the trip attack comes from.
Also, the auto-Trip doesn't provoke AoOs on either the wolf or its rider (if it has one).
No, but nothing saves the rider from the AoO as well. he will drawl one. as he is kinds tripping as well and in the threaded space, kinda kneeling now
I see nothing that says he is immune to drawling the AoO, the wolf might be his rider is not
You only provoke an AoO if you take the action. The rider isn't tripping, the wolf is.
Can't provoke for what you don't do.
The way I see it as you take negatives from a charge as well[an action you do not take] your get one from the wolves trip. Unless you can point out where it says a rider is immune to his mounts trips AoO.
What on Earth are you talking about? The wolf/dog auto-trips are from biting, latching on, and pulling the prey down. Watch a YouTube video of a wolf pack attacking a herd animal and you'll see where the trip attack comes from.Also, the auto-Trip doesn't provoke AoOs on either the wolf or its rider (if it has one).
I know how they do it, I have seen wolves bring down deer. Which is why you'll never tell me the rider is not wide open. He might as well be on his knees prone
The way I see it as you take negatives from a charge as well[an action you do not take] your get one from the wolves trip. Unless you can point out where it says a rider is immune to his mounts trips AoO.
You can't take one example and apply it across the board. If I cast a spell in combat does that mean you get a free swing at the mount?
From a realistic point of view it may work, but that does not mean it(tripping=AoO) works in a game. Right now it's a house rule you are trying to pass off as a real rule.
If your statement had any basis then anything on riding dogs would take an AoO, and I am sure the same precedence would have been noted in 3.5. It was not a rule in 3.5, nor has there been any introduction of a new rule in pathfinder.
No mount in 3.5 could trip. No mount in pathfinder has trip as far as I know.
edit: It is funny as across the board example is what started this whole thing. A wolf is not a mount. It might make a nice house rule but he is not a mount
Wolf gets large at lvl 4 druid, 7 ranger. And what makes a trained wolf any less suited to being a mount than a trained dog?What prevents you from being a ranger riding a wolf?
Assuming the ranger is small/wolf is medium, nothing, actually. You just need to be prepared to take a -5 penalty to all ride checks for using an animal ill-suited to be used as a mount (as I understand the rules, anyway).
It does bring up some questions for my Eidolon that I use as a mount. Can I assume I can shape the mount to be formed in such a manner that it is suited to be a mount. Furthermore, do I need to use an exotic saddle? I'd assume yes on both accounts.
Good point on the large animal thing, just wasn't thinking with that frame of reference. From a mechanical point of view, I suppose any quadruped could function as a mount perfectly find. If I were a DM, though, I'd have trouble considering a wolf a mount (vs. a riding dog, for example...which is explicitly trained in being a mount). A lot of bestiary entries explicitly mention that a creature can be used a mount (wolf doesn't, btw), but beyond that it falls to DM discretion. Personally, I dont think a wolf would want to be saddled. You could make an argument that it could be used as a mount just as easily as a dog as they're anatomically pretty similar (although wolves are generally leaner and far less built for load-bearing as a good deal of dogs have been domesticated for).
That said, Im a particularly lawful person, and it would be great to know which animal companions, if any, explicitly would suffer the -5 to ride for not normally being a mount.This of course has absolutely nothing to do with the Eidolon beyond is it possible to sculpt it enough with your force of personality to be a "suitable mount".
No mount in 3.5 could trip. No mount in pathfinder has trip as far as I know.
PRD Pathfinder
Dog, Riding
This burly dog is fitted with a small saddle. A low, menacing growl rumbles up from its chest.
Riding Dog CR 1/2
XP 200
N Medium Animal
Init +2; Senses low-light vision, scent; Perception +8
Defense
AC 13, touch 12, flat-footed 11 (+2 Dex, +1 natural)
hp 13 (2d8+4)
Fort +5, Ref +5, Will +1
Offense
Speed 40 ft.
Melee bite +3 (1d6+3 plus trip).........
-------------------------------------------------
SRD 3.5
Dog, Riding
Combat
If trained for war, these animals can make trip attacks just as wolves do (see the Wolf entry). A riding dog can fight while carrying a rider, but the rider cannot also attack unless he or she succeeds on a Ride check.
Well don't I feel foolish. Thank ya I did not know that,
No mount in 3.5 could trip. No mount in pathfinder has trip as far as I know.
edit: It is funny as across the board example is what started this whole thing. A wolf is not a mount. It might make a nice house rule but he is not a mount
Actually any creature in 3.5 that was properly sized could be a mount. Heck even The gelatinous cube was a mount.
Do you actually have something saying that "Only these things can be a mount"?
A wolf is a fine mount and can be ridden by the rules for mounts. You'll probably want an exotic saddle but that's optional too if you are willing to take the penalties.
No mount in 3.5 could trip. No mount in pathfinder has trip as far as I know.
Riding dogs could. It's one of the big reasons Druids were said to have companions better than the party Fighter at level 1.
A wolf is not a mount. It might make a nice house rule but he is not a mount
1. Tell that to Tolkein. He's the one who originated the genre and originated the concept of wolves as mounts.
2. Why can a dog be a mount but a wolf can't? Dogs and wolves are the same thing, except that dogs are domesticated and wolves cannot be fully domesticated. Wolves are actually bigger than dogs, which would make riding them even easier.
heh, guys I have been proven wrong on trip. I never had it come up in game before, so am glad this came up.
On wolves and mounts, nope they are not mounts. Now you can do it, but they are not really suited for it. You can ride alot of things, does not mean it would be the best to ride. Heh, most other mounts don't clear the stable out if ya forget the oats, or go wild.
Ya need to think before ya select such a beast. I mean ya got to stable it some time...would you stable someones wolf in your barn?
2. Why can a dog be a mount but a wolf can't? Dogs and wolves are the same thing, except that dogs are domesticated and wolves cannot be fully domesticated. Wolves are actually bigger than dogs, which would make riding them even easier.
They are not as good a mount as a dog, by your own statement you can not domesticate them. Sure they are large, you do not want a mount that will go nuts and kill the sleeping party members. Most races anyhow. So sure why you may see some, you will not see it often.
They are not as good a mount as a dog, by your own statement you can not domesticate them. Sure they are large, you do not want a mount that will go nuts and kill the sleeping party members. Most races anyhow. So sure why you may see some, you will not see it often.
A wolf companion won't go nuts and kill sleeping party members. A lone wolf isn't going to attack a group of anything if it's fed. Wolves are pack hunters and extremely risk-averse; solo wolves are even more risk-averse and if it is kept fed it has no reason to attack any creature. If the wolf were to attack someone, it'd be a dominance thing and wouldn't result in death unless the target refused to submit. It also wouldn't be done while the party was sleeping.
Actually, it's far, far more likely that a wolf companion in an adventuring party will view the party members as pack members and its "owner" (ie, the character with the Animal Companion or Special Mount class ability) at least as being a higher "rank" than itself. Wolves don't fight amongst the pack except when determining dominance.
Seriously, you plainly don't know much about wolves and are just trying to justify a bad position with worse logic.
Nope, we are talking about a mount and why wolves are not mounts. It has little to do with the class ablity. The question was why is a dog a better mount then a wolf.
The town folks don't give a damn about your magic power to control it, the man at the Inn does not care you "say" he is tame. They don't care a well feed wolf wont attack anything. They "know" he'll kill the live stock, they "know" he'll attack the children
You seem to see it as only a rules issue where it is not only a rules issue. A wolf is not a mount and telling the town folk is is really does not change that.
The town folks don't give a damn about your magic power to control it, the man at the Inn does not care you "say" he is tame. They don't care a well feed wolf wont attack anything. They "know" he'll kill the live stock, they "know" he'll attack the children
What the frell does that have to do with the price of tea in China? Is a Nightmare not a mount because commoners are scared of it? Your arguments make no sense whatsoever.
Yours don't make much to me either to be honest. Yours seem to be "we'll the rules never says I can't"
A mount is an animal commonly used as such. A nightmare is a mount. A cow is as much a mount as a wolf.
Look at the rules for Handle Animal. You can train any animal to be a mount.
Look at rules for Ride. 'If you attempt to ride a creature that is ill suited as a mount, you take a –5 penalty on your Ride checks.'
Even if you decide a Wolf qualifies (and there's no reason to think this), at worst you're talking about a -5 Ride check.
1. Tell that to Tolkein. He's the one who originated the genre and originated the concept of wolves as mounts.I seem to remember a certain part of Norse mythology involving women riding flying wolves to coleect the souls of those who fell bravely in battle... Now what were they called again?
You remember incorrectly. Valkyries did not ride wolves. In fact, they generally were not mounted at all.
The town folks don't give a damn about your magic power to control it, the man at the Inn does not care you "say" he is tame. They don't care a well feed wolf wont attack anything. They "know" he'll kill the live stock, they "know" he'll attack the children
I think that if a paladin, ranger, or druid had animal X people would know that animal was an exception. In Eberron monsters such as minotaurs are seen in Sharn and people are somewhat ok with it as long as someone is with it. In CoT druids and their animals are accepted, but I am sure a lone tiger, wolf, croc, and so on would be not be kosher.
As a real life example I am not fond of bigger dogs, but police dogs don't bother me because they have been trained.
Now if you are in a world where the PC classes are not common that might change things, but most D&D fantasy worlds have such characters as a common occurrence.
You remember incorrectly. Valkyries did not ride wolves. In fact, they generally were not mounted at all.1. Tell that to Tolkein. He's the one who originated the genre and originated the concept of wolves as mounts.I seem to remember a certain part of Norse mythology involving women riding flying wolves to coleect the souls of those who fell bravely in battle... Now what were they called again?
This we can agree on anyhow :)
Yours don't make much to me either to be honest. Yours seem to be "we'll the rules never says I can't"
Bull. The books explicitly say you CAN:
An enormous version of a normal wolf, dire wolves represent the wolf in its most primal form. These creatures follow the same basic behaviors of regular wolves, but are much more aggressive. Dire wolves often serve giants as hunting companions and vicious guard animals. Some ferocious humanoids and woodsmen use trained dire wolves as mounts.
A mount is an animal commonly used as such. A nightmare is a mount. A cow is as much a mount as a wolf.
According to the rules, a mount is any animal that is trained to be a mount.
Ok let me try to explain, sorry I am not always great at making myself clear. Flaw of mine
What I mean is wolves are not mounts in the way a horse or dog are. They are not rode by anyone out side a few small groups or people. When I say mount I mean an animal commonly used for such.
A wolf is not a mount, a elk is not a mount a bear is not a mount. Now some folks can train and ride them but they are not animals used as mounts. Mostly do to issue with raising or training them
Yours don't make much to me either to be honest. Yours seem to be "we'll the rules never says I can't"
Now I do agree that a wolf is not a "traditional" mount, but I don't see anything wrong with it, since it is statistically inferior to the riding dog.
If it's just a the storyline aspects I don't have never heard of a ranger with a wolf(seemingly most common choice) have issues in a game so why the wolf dislike.
Edit: I just read the post above this one. I added the word since to the first paragraph.
Really the wolf most common? Didn't know that. I have never had anyone take one
An elf and dwarf is not a person in the way humans are, bards aren't spellcasters the way wizards are, ...
You're talking about a lot of assumed world, setting, and flavor that isn't universally held. Which is cool, but arguing as if it's evident fact or has any importance than 'I like to run it this way' is just wrong.
Really the wolf most common? Didn't know that. I have never had anyone take one
I have no stats on that. That is just from reading PbP post on various boards over the years, and seeing characters posted.
That might be changing, cats get rake and all, and scent, later on pounce. They seem to have become common of late as well. Thats and who has not wanted to have a pet couger or lion?
I think we could argue that almost anything could be a mount. Heck, I could ride an Owlbear if I really wanted to! Beyond that, it'd be nice to see an explicit list of "suitable mounts" for the sake of PFS, where DM fiat does not apply (which I think what we're discussing here...).
And at the risk of seeming like a jerk, I have to ask...what does any of this have to do with the summoner (which is what the name of this stickied post implies...)...
Maybe the discussion on animal companions warrants a new post :P
|
|
You remember incorrectly. Valkyries did not ride wolves. In fact, they generally were not mounted at all.
In modern art, the valkyries are sometimes depicted as beautiful shieldmaidens on winged horses, armed with helmets and spears. However, valkyrie horse was a kenning for wolf (see Rök Stone), so contrary to the stereotype, they did not ride winged horses. Their mounts were rather the packs of wolves that frequented the corpses of dead warriors. They were gruesome and war-like. Whereas the wolf was the valkyrie's mount, the valkyrie herself appears to be akin to the raven, flying over the battlefield and "choosing" corpses ([1]). Thus, the packs of wolves and ravens that scavenged the aftermath of battles may have been seen as serving a higher purpose.
Really the wolf most common? Didn't know that. I have never had anyone take one
My ranger has one! In an Oriental campaign no less...