|
I will play my first Pathfinder game this Saturday and I am taken with the Cavalier. A couple questions that will affect my enjoyment:
1) What percentage (guessing) of scenarios will be friendly to mounted combat, or at least a vignette for my mount? I ask because I ran one of the early mods and it occurred in a dock town where at one point you're on a rowboat. I just want to know how many are like this.
2) In 4E, there is no reason why you can't reflavor simple things as long as the rules stay intact. Is this the case in PathFinder? Can I say that my dwarf is riding a large boar while using the stats and attacks of a horse?
3) Cavaliers get to ride boars at 4th level. But I believe this is only for small characters and because boars become medium at 4th. Is there any way I could apply a template to the boar or swap out for a dire boar at later levels? It would be nice to actually be riding a boar.
Thank you.
I will play my first Pathfinder game this Saturday and I am taken with the Cavalier. A couple questions that will affect my enjoyment:
1) What percentage (guessing) of scenarios will be friendly to mounted combat, or at least a vignette for my mount? I ask because I ran one of the early mods and it occurred in a dock town where at one point you're on a rowboat. I just want to know how many are like this.
In my experience, a fair proportion of encounters (up to 50%, maybe?) take place in locations where it would be odd or inconvenient to take a horse (e.g. in sewers or indoors or on a ship). That's not to say that you couldn't take a horse in those places, but you might get into an argument with the GM over whether horses can walk down stairs or whether people will look at you funny if you bring your horse into a tavern.
For other mounts (e.g. a riding dog), you might have less problem squeezing them in. YMMV.
2) In 4E, there is no reason why you can't reflavor simple things as long as the rules stay intact. Is this the case in PathFinder? Can I say that my dwarf is riding a large boar while using the stats and attacks of a horse?
I don't think most GMs would have any problem with that, as long as you make clear it's just a flavour thing.
3) Cavaliers get to ride boars at 4th level. But I believe this is only for small characters and because boars become medium at 4th. Is there any way I could apply a template to the boar or swap out for a dire boar at later levels? It would be nice to actually be riding a boar.
I don't think that a dire boar (or any other Large-sized pig) is a possible animal companion at the moment.
| 3 people marked this as FAQ candidate. Answered in the FAQ. |
2) In 4E, there is no reason why you can't reflavor simple things as long as the rules stay intact. Is this the case in PathFinder? Can I say that my dwarf is riding a large boar while using the stats and attacks of a horse?
This is not a feature of Pathfinder Society and here's why:
In your home brew campaign, with your GMs permission, this is rarely a problem, right? You have the same GM every time and no one is going to complain about the choice.
The thing about org play, is that the campaign's GM is the Guide to Pathfinder Society Organized Play. Since players can see many different table GMs, they need to follow the same rules. So if you say, "My mount is a boar but uses the horse stats" any GM would be within their rights to say, "No, dude, that's a horse. You can't pretend it's a boar." and you'd have to follow that.
If I were to say, "Sure! Make it whatever you like!" then we'll get a flood of cavaliers saying, "It has the stats of a horse, but it's actually a rainicorn--half unicorn, half rainbow!"
So, in so far as Pathfinder Society is concerned, if you select a horse, it's a horse.
I've seen about 25% options for mounted combat..but no, not a lot of outside battles. There's still a lot of dungeon-crawly-ism
My warhorse was eaten by zombies last night when I took it on-board a ship (as a joke because there have been few opportunities for MY cavalier to use the horse..I guess I paid for that judgement call ;)
jh
|
|
2) In 4E, there is no reason why you can't reflavor simple things as long as the rules stay intact. Is this the case in PathFinder? Can I say that my dwarf is riding a large boar while using the stats and attacks of a horse?This is not a feature of Pathfinder Society and here's why:
In your home brew campaign, with your GMs permission, this is rarely a problem, right? You have the same GM every time and no one is going to complain about the choice.
The thing about org play, is that the campaign's GM is the Guide to Pathfinder Society Organized Play. Since players can see many different table GMs, they need to follow the same rules. So if you say, "My mount is a boar but uses the horse stats" any GM would be within their rights to say, "No, dude, that's a horse. You can't pretend it's a boar." and you'd have to follow that.
If I were to say, "Sure! Make it whatever you like!" then we'll get a flood of cavaliers saying, "It has the stats of a horse, but it's actually a rainicorn--half unicorn, half rainbow!"
So, in so far as Pathfinder Society is concerned, if you select a horse, it's a horse.
This is disappointing. What does the player gain by saying he's riding a rainbow with the stats of a horse? Only enjoyment. He shouldn't be reducing the fun of any of the other players, and if he is, that's a different issue.
One of the things that is making me consider a more long term switch from 4E to Pathfinder is the explosion of character power and the lack of roleplay and contiguous story. I would like a bit more structure in my DnD, but this is too much.
I have heard it said that Pathfinder is a "say no first" campaign but it shouldn't be a say no to fun if it doesn't fit a non mechanical game impacting element campaign.
When I sit down at my next table, I'm going to be Dwarf and I'm going to be riding a Boar with the stats of a horse, and if the DM says I have to call it a Horse, I'm done.
|
I would suggest gathering a few players up and having private gaming sessions before dismissing the entire system because of organized play having a more rigid structure.
There needs to be this structure in the organized environment to keep things consistent. It would be pure chaos with house rules if I played 10 sessions with 10 GMs. I wouldn't know what was going on half the time.
I have heard it said that Pathfinder is a "say no first" campaign but it shouldn't be a say no to fun if it doesn't fit a non mechanical game impacting element campaign.
When I sit down at my next table, I'm going to be Dwarf and I'm going to be riding a Boar with the stats of a horse, and if the DM says I have to call it a Horse, I'm done.
While Pathfinder Society Org Play uses PRPG, because of its very nature as a world-wide organized play campaign, it has to have some more restrictive rules to maintain fairness and balance. Additionally, our org play takes place in a world, for example, where there's no such thing as a rainicorn. Were a player to show up and declare he had one, he could actually disrupt play for the others as the presence of a rainicorn could skew their verisimilitude with regards to the campaign setting.
The "my way or I quit" attitude in your post isn't very productive. I'd hope you'd give our rules set a shot before declaring your time with it is at an end because we can't cease the rigidity of our org play rules system.
Once you move outside the established rules (re: calling a horse a boar), you'll have to accept the GM's ruling at the table. Some GMs might be okay with it. Some might not. The GM's call, within the rules, is law at a Pathfinder Society table.
As for Pathfinder Society being a "say no first" campaign--I would humbly disagree. The entire campaign has evolved and changed over the past two years because 80% of the time I say yes to good ideas and implement them in the rules. If saying no to 20% of the good ideas--likely because they would skew balance or fairness, see above--is our campaign being a "say no first" campaign, then I'm confused as to what frame or context in which you're using "say no first" as a reference point. Sometimes I have to say no--I can't say yes to everything.
Hopefully you stick around and give it a shot. I'd love to read about how your first session went.
When I sit down at my next table, I'm going to be Dwarf and I'm going to be riding a Boar with the stats of a horse, and if the DM says I have to call it a Horse, I'm done.
Dude, if you are going to play a Cavalier, have you read the APG Playtest completely yet? It says this about mount choices for a cavalier:
A Medium cavalier can select a camel or a horse.
A Small cavalier can select a pony or wolf, but can also
select a boar or a dog if he is at least 4th level.
These are it. So if you are playing a small-sized character that is at least 4th level, then you can have a boar who has the stats of a boar. But since a dwarf is medium, you are stuck with a camel or horse. And I know that seems odd, since most fantasy, including Tolkien, must have dwarves as small since they are always riding ponies and not horses.
You also need to remember that this is from the playtest and there may be things different in the final published book when it comes out in a couple of months.
|
Medium cavalier can select a camel or a horse.
A Small cavalier can select a pony or wolf, but can also
select a boar or a dog if he is at least 4th level.
I have a Halfling Cavalier and I've been wondering how this works. At level 4 can I just say "bye-bye Wolfie, nice knowing you!" and say "Hello there Fido!"?
Well, the rules only talk about replacing a mount that dies, so either you would follow the same rules to release one in order to get a new one or you would just not take a mount until you are 4th level. And I would guess that changing your mount would be hand-waved in PFS anyway, since there are no set amounts of time that pass between scenarios and various funky prestige class requirements do not have to be role-played out either.
I have a Halfling Cavalier and I've been wondering how this works. At level 4 can I just say "bye-bye Wolfie, nice knowing you!" and say "Hello there Fido!"?Medium cavalier can select a camel or a horse.
A Small cavalier can select a pony or wolf, but can also
select a boar or a dog if he is at least 4th level.
Sure. You can dismiss your old mount and get a new one, just like a druid can dismiss an animal companion and get a new one.
|
|
I have heard it said that Pathfinder is a "say no first" campaign but it shouldn't be a say no to fun if it doesn't fit a non mechanical game impacting element campaign.
When I sit down at my next table, I'm going to be Dwarf and I'm going to be riding a Boar with the stats of a horse, and if the DM says I have to call it a Horse, I'm done.
While Pathfinder Society Org Play uses PRPG, because of its very nature as a world-wide organized play campaign, it has to have some more restrictive rules to maintain fairness and balance. Additionally, our org play takes place in a world, for example, where there's no such thing as a rainicorn. Were a player to show up and declare he had one, he could actually disrupt play for the others as the presence of a rainicorn could skew their verisimilitude with regards to the campaign setting.
The "my way or I quit" attitude in your post isn't very productive. I'd hope you'd give our rules set a shot before declaring your time with it is at an end because we can't cease the rigidity of our org play rules system.
Once you move outside the established rules (re: calling a horse a boar), you'll have to accept the GM's ruling at the table. Some GMs might be okay with it. Some might not. The GM's call, within the rules, is law at a Pathfinder Society table.
...
Hopefully you stick around and give it a shot. I'd love to read about how your first session went.
I thought about this whole interaction and I will admit I didn't look at things from a campaign perspective. I am also humbled by your even response. I also didn't mean to say I would ditch the campaign, but rather the table and judge.
I guess my disappointment comes from that fact that I am trying to build a flavorful character where the fluff is as important as the crunch. Dwarves on horses doesn't fit into my vision. At the same time, I guess I didn't understand why this couldn't be an "everyone wins" situation. I understand now the slippery slope that even a minor and insignificant bending of the rules such as this could cause.
Unfortunately, your comments about verisimilitude make me hesitant to even run this by a judge. What if he rules I can call it a boar and a player at a later game asks me why I'm on a horse. Have I not jeopardized his realism by forcing an interpretation of my mount on him?
Either way, I'm sorry and I'll let you know how it goes.
Venture-Captain, Arizona—Tucson
|
"Geez, mister. That's got to be the ugliest horse I've ever seen. Whatcha been feedin' it?"
Most GMs won't have any problem with your request, but Josh is in the position of setting boundaries for the entire organized play campaign. Unfortunately, even minor allowances can trigger unforeseen consequences, forcing him to err on the side of caution.
For example:
"Can I buy and train a goat?"
"Sure, why not?"
"Cool, I've bought 100 goats and they've all been trained to attack what I tell them to. Every combat, I will use my 100 combat goats to slow combat to the point of absurdity, make the game fun only for me, invalidating the choices and fun of both the GM and the other players at the table."
"Okay, you can't have more than 1 trained combat animal with you at a time."
"Awwwww, that sucks. It completely invalidates my flavor choices so I quit."
---
You think, "There's no way that interaction can happen."
Except it has.
You give an inch, they take a thousand miles. So I have to be very, very careful about saying yes. :-)
If you´re worried about mobility of your mount (Companion) in all situations, it´s pretty easy to pick up something like a Shrink Object item or a large Bag of Holding, or something of the sort, which let´s you ¨store¨ your Mount when it´s not usable.
Before you can afford that, you may have to leave your mount behind in certain situations. most GMs will say you can return to retrieve your mount from wherever, since running off-screen events to kill a character´s companion isn´t really relevant to the plot (i would only expect mount death/disappearance if you leave it in a dangerous place).
If you can´t afford a large Bag of Holding or item to Shrink-a-Dink your Mount, your Mount probably doesn´t have that much gear itself, meaning you can replace it with a rather similar copy of itself next game when you do run into a GM who wants to mess with your Mount or you just can´t avoid leaving it in a bad situation.
|
|
For example:
"Can I buy and train a goat?"
"Sure, why not?"
"Cool, I've bought 100 goats and they've all been trained to attack what I tell them to. Every combat, I will use my 100 combat goats to slow combat to the point of absurdity, make the game fun only for me, invalidating the choices and fun of both the GM and the other players at the table."
"Okay, you can't have more than 1 trained combat animal with you at a time."
"Awwwww, that sucks. It completely invalidates my flavor choices so I quit."
To be fair, my situation would more accurately be if someone called their trained guard dog a guard goat. This is also a situation of someone trying to use something improperly. I want to use the boar exactly as I would use a horse.
Point taken though.
|
Venture-Captain, Arizona—Tucson
|
Josh wouldn't let me train chickens to attack, either.
An example of how reflavoring a creature could become an issue, suppose a small cavalier from the Mwangi wanted a Heyuannia dinosaur as his mount. These dinosaurs had bird-like characteristics. Setting aside the problem of everyone at the table mocking its name, the player indicates that he'll just use the statistics for a pony.
We'll further postulate that a few dinosaur-themed feats and magic items crept into some upcoming supplement or guidebook, items permitted into Society play.
Do these items affect the Mwangi cavalier's mount or not? How about something that affects reptiles, or controls birds? Unexpected synergies like these could cause serious heartburn.
|
|
Josh wouldn't let me train chickens to attack, either.
An example of how reflavoring a creature could become an issue, suppose a small cavalier from the Mwangi wanted a Heyuannia dinosaur as his mount. These dinosaurs had bird-like characteristics. Setting aside the problem of everyone at the table mocking its name, the player indicates that he'll just use the statistics for a pony.
We'll further postulate that a few dinosaur-themed feats and magic items crept into some upcoming supplement or guidebook, items permitted into Society play.
Do these items affect the Mwangi cavalier's mount or not? How about something that affects reptiles, or controls birds? Unexpected synergies like these could cause serious heartburn.
Your example calls out mechanical benefits: the ability to take feats or meet prereqs. I didn't ask for any of this. I want to change a name and leave mechanics intact.
|
Venture-Captain, Arizona—Tucson
|
Your example calls out mechanical benefits: the ability to take feats or meet prereqs. I didn't ask for any of this. I want to change a name and leave mechanics intact.
I didn't mean to imply that you did (As a GM, I wouldn't personally have any issue with the reflavoring you proposed). My point was that unexpected issues arise from such changes, so the campaign leadership errs on the side of caution. (Blissfully free of any authority, I have no such burdens.)
Dwarves on horses doesn't fit into my vision. At the same time, I guess I didn't understand why this couldn't be an "everyone wins" situation. I understand now the slippery...Here's one solution that I recall one player of another organized campaign using:
The mount is really a horse, or whatever it is officially. That is how every other PC sees the mount.
YOUR character on the other hand, pathologically believes it is (whatever you want it to be- in your case) a boar.
It makes for interesting and amusing tables I assure you. But perhaps it is not the direction that you were hoping to go with the character.
-James
Only one problem with this: boars have tusks and can gore and, by the rules, are not big enough to carry a dwarf, while horses are much bigger and can trample if trained to. Re-skinning is not good enough when there are mechanical differences like this. Now, if there is some way to legally make a dwarf small enough to qualify as small instead of medium, then a boar would be a legal mount.
|
Dwarves on horses doesn't fit into my vision. At the same time, I guess I didn't understand why this couldn't be an "everyone wins" situation. I understand now the slippery...Here's one solution that I recall one player of another organized campaign using:
The mount is really a horse, or whatever it is officially. That is how every other PC sees the mount.
YOUR character on the other hand, pathologically believes it is (whatever you want it to be- in your case) a boar.
It makes for interesting and amusing tables I assure you. But perhaps it is not the direction that you were hoping to go with the character.
-James
This was my thought. Depending on how you view dwarfs this could be an excellent role-play situation, or it could royally p*ss some people off.
Some people have a very strict view of how dwarfs perceive the world, and see them as no-nonsense upright straightlaced folk. Some would take a dim view of any dwarf who failed to perceive reality correctly, and would consider him less than dwarf-like.
Instead, if I were to roleplay a dwarf on a horse, I'd show up at the table with my dwarf-on-horeseback miniature (I actually crafted one by re-modeling two miniatures). I'd refer to him as "Boar", and when asked relate the story behind the strange name, I'd allow that I had wanted to buy a boar, but in this infernal land, none could be found that were of sufficient size and strength to properly carry a dwarf into combat. I had to settle for this horse, and though he is a fine beastie and serves me well in combat, I had named him "Boar" in frustration for not having the real thing. And I might allow as to when I wrote back home to me ma and pa, I had mentioned my sturdy mount - boar - and not elaborated on his true lineage, not wanting to waste ink and paper on unimportant details.
|
Dwarves on horses doesn't fit into my vision. At the same time, I guess I didn't understand why this couldn't be an "everyone wins" situation. I understand now the slippery...Here's one solution that I recall one player of another organized campaign using:
The mount is really a horse, or whatever it is officially. That is how every other PC sees the mount.
YOUR character on the other hand, pathologically believes it is (whatever you want it to be- in your case) a boar.
It makes for interesting and amusing tables I assure you. But perhaps it is not the direction that you were hoping to go with the character.
-James
This was my thought. Depending on how you view dwarfs this could be an excellent role-play situation, or it could royally p*ss some people off.
Some people have a very strict view of how dwarfs perceive the world, and see them as no-nonsense upright straightlaced folk. Some would take a dim view of any dwarf who failed to perceive reality correctly, and would consider him less than dwarf-like.
Instead, if I were to roleplay a dwarf on a horse, I'd show up at the table with my dwarf-on-horeseback miniature (I actually crafted one by re-modeling two miniatures). I'd refer to him as "Boar", and when asked relate the story behind the strange name, I'd allow that I had wanted to buy a boar, but in this infernal land, none could be found that were of sufficient size and strength to properly carry a dwarf into combat. I had to settle for this horse, and though he is a fine beastie and serves me well in combat, I had named him "Boar" in frustration for not having the real thing. And I might allow as to when I wrote back home to me ma and pa, I had mentioned my sturdy mount - boar - and not elaborated on his true lineage, not wanting to waste ink and paper on unimportant details.
HA! Love it! lol
|
Similar situation, I play Madusha, a human Mwangi witch-doctor (witch class). Typing against cast for a witch, he's a large african-looking guy with an 18 Str. I chose a viper familiar, but describe it as a boa constrictor. I just like the image of this big strong voodoo guy from the deep jungles with a boa coiling about his shoulders.
Similar to RtrnofdMax, the available choices of animal companion don't quite fit my character image, so I chose the closest fit, and reflavour the description.
Now there are statistical differences between a viper and a constrictor, namely size, poison vs constrction etc. But I don't use my familiar in combat, so it's largely irrelevant. My familiar is just part of my charcter's costume. If ever my familiar was forced into a combat situation, I'd use the stats for the viper. If a later supplement introduced a constrictor as a new familiar option, then I'd swap it out. Until then, my familiar remains a constrictor in my mind.
As a Pathfinder Society GM most of the time, I try to allow players their flavour, as long as they're not trying to gain a statistical rules advantage, spoiling the enjoyment of others at the table, or just being disruptive or rediculous. I have a few of those dwarf on boar WotC minis too, it does makes sense. I wouldn't have a problem with your dwarf using stats for a horse, but describing it as a boar - Osirion/Qadiran characters have been advised to use the stats of a horse for their camel mounts until camel stats appear in a future bestiary. Boar-horse is a little more of a stretch than camel-horse, but similar logic applies.
For the record, I wouldn't allow horses to climb down a ladder into a sewer, and they're too heavy for a party to lower one down by rope. Other GMs may (and have) allowed it. So in the end, you'll have to accept the judgement of the GM at your table, including riding a horse instead of a boar during a scenario or three, and keep the game moving for the enjoyment of everyone.
For example:
"Can I buy and train a goat?"
"Sure, why not?"
"Cool, I've bought 100 goats and they've all been trained to attack what I tell them to. Every combat, I will use my 100 combat goats to slow combat to the point of absurdity, make the game fun only for me, invalidating the choices and fun of both the GM and the other players at the table."
"Okay, you can't have more than 1 trained combat animal with you at a time."
"Awwwww, that sucks. It completely invalidates my flavor choices so I quit."
---
You think, "There's no way that interaction can happen."
Except it has.
You give an inch, they take a thousand miles. So I have to be very, very careful about saying yes. :-)
Something very like this happened in another living campaign when a group of people decided to get a herd of war trained cattle.
A fun time was not had by all.
Eric W. Brittain
Just to clarify -- when I asked if my PC could have 100 goats, that was my jocular way of suggesting that a limit on pets would be a good idea (as pointed out by Eric, that's something that living campaigns have to deal with). I certainly didn't quit PFS over it.
:-)
|
|
Ok ...
Here is how I would rule it in a campaign ..
Does the character have the adequate handle animal skill to train a boar of size (and hit dice) ?
Edit: it would have to be a large size boar (dire boar?) If not, Id do the below to train a pet boar as character fluff, and mount a horse (or camel based on faction/area) and ease into the dire boar mount when level/skill is sufficient.
Does the character train the animal in a given week (much like a profession/craft check at the end of the module) to teach the animal a new trick, or spent that time to train the animal for mount?
I think that going this route, meets the animal (pet) companion in the rules (limited to 1 I think?).
Meaning he would have to purchase (rule check?) train and doesnt count towards the 'free' animal companion mount for the cavalier class skill.
This follows the rules for any character that wants a mount (flying griffon??) ...
Um however, best bet would be druid, my girlfriend can mount a roc!!!
Anyways, my opinion, and believe its fair to rules and the campaign
|
|
At first level, I will have a +5 Handle Animal. I assume you are asking for my take 10 and if it's sufficient for a Dire Boar? I don't have my bestiary on hand.You could buy and train a dire boar if it's available for purchase as a mount in the core rulebook or the adventurer's armoury (not sure if it is--don't have either on hand right now), but it would just be a dire boar pet that you were riding. You couldn't use it as your special cavalier mount because medium cavaliers are only allowed a horse or a camel for their special mount. Assuming you did decide to ride the trained dire boar instead, you'd be giving up all of the mount bumps and abilities to do so. I don't think it's really a good tradeoff. In a home campaign it would totally work, but in PFS, where you're only allowed one combat animal with you, it would keep you from using the coolest benefit of the cavalier class--the mount who's smarter than some barbarians.
Right, so you cant have the cavalier mount class feature pet, and the combat animal dire boar.
Have to give up the mount feature.
BUT, much like druid or ranger, you get a starting option for the pet (cavaliers camel or horse), but Im sure you can dismiss the pet down the road for another type of mount (cavalier on dragon, yes please).
I believe the general rule (at least in 3.5e) was your pet cant exceed your HD, not sure if thats the case in pathfinder (rule check).
So basically, you just scratch the mount class feature, cause you spent the time (alot of it, along with money) to train the animal.
Again, something I doubt at first level, DC's would be somewhere in the 30s
|
|
*blows dust off pile of books*
Indeed, the text for the mount class feature is limited, and also applies to the benefits granted with the class feature:
A cavalier does not take an armor check penalty on
Ride checks while riding his mount. The mount is always
considered combat trained and begins play with Light
Armor Proficiency as a bonus feat. A cavalier’s mount
does not gain the share spells special ability.
blah blah.
I think the misconception is that we confuse the STARTING animal with what can be gained in the future. Again, like the druid, bound to a specific animal, but should be alotted by the handle animal skill
PFC guide version 2.2 page 19
What kind of tricks can I teach to an animal using
Handle Animal? You can teach any animal a trick so
long as you follow the rules for Handle Animal on pages
97–98 of the Pathfinder RPG Core Rulebook. For the unique
purposes of Pathfinder Society, you may attempt to train
one animal to do one trick per scenario. A GM must
observe your roll—failing this roll means you have to wait
until the next scenario to try again. If you succeed on this
roll, you must note that your animal gained a trick on your
“Conditions Gained” section of that scenario’s chronicle.
This does mean you cannot train an animal until after
you’ve completed your first scenario (some classes’ animal
companions have exceptions to this rule).
Do purchased animals come fully trained or do I have
to train them myself ? The entry for Handle Animal in the
Skills chapter of the Pathfinder RPG Core Rulebook details
which animals come trained—namely, some riding horses
and riding dogs have training and they only come trained
to bear a rider into combat. All other animals are subject to
Handle Animal to learn additional tricks. See the “Mounts
and Related Gear” table on page 159 of the Pathfinder RPG
Core Rulebook for additional details.
Sorry for the quotes,
but according to this I read that I can train any animal limited to my handle animal skill (rules apply), and it specifically mentions ranger and druid, Im confident that the animal companion can stretch beyond the given wolf, camel, raptor, etc, to something more vicious ... dire elephant ? :>
Eh, meaning that the rules apply to the mount, animal companion, etc.
This is how I would rule it, but again, this is far far far from level 1 camel horse option.
Mount rules apply, mounts have to be 1 size category larger then the PC. Medium dwarf equals large size boar, bestiary would say, Dire Boar; HD, plenty.
Bump yo charisma cause you need it here... lol
|
|
So my first two mods are in the books and I had fun. I only played the cavalier in the first scenario and the GM had no issue with my reskinning. I felt a little bit like I was playing a Boar (horse) with a Dwarf on it to look good. Due to many mobility issues and the fact that I only was able to be mounted in the first combat, I made 6 attack rolls all mod and hit twice with my mount. Oh well, my Dwarven Waraxe will bite into some flesh one of these mods.
|
|
APG is out and it specifically says that while Dwarven Cavaliers are rare, they usually ride ponies or GIANT BOARS! Yet, still no mechanical way for them to ride anything but a camel or a horse. Can we get some crunch to match this flavor?
Unfortunately the reality of any large scale organized campaign is that the flavor options of every book cannot always be allowed in the "crunch" of the campaign. Some concepts do not work out very well because of this. Normally flavor like that would be adjudicated by a GM dedicated to only a table's worth of players. Josh has to create rules that insure a fair and balanced game for an exponentially larger group of people.
Does it suck? Yes. Personally, I do like the idea of a boar riding cavalier. I play a character whose concept would be all the better were he Lawful Evil. Organized Play works best without evil characters, thus the rule banning them, and thus his Lawful Neutral alignment. I wouldn't do horrible things to derail play or hurt the fun of the players in this process, but the rule stands because it is the only way to ensure any variety of antics never happen. The same is to said of the Cavalier mount limitations being hard and fast. Druids are also unable to give their companions feats from the Bestiary, again, for balance. Yes, it would make more sense for them to take feats oriented towards them. But balance limits this to avoid headaches.
With all due respect, the above statement reads like a demand. One insisting a mechanic be put into place to allow your concept to work as you'd like it. You may want to rethink your strategy here.
|
|
As evidenced early in the thread, I tend to post without thinking. At the same time, my small sample size of responses from Josh lead me to believe he's not going to be offended by the odd rant here and there.
As for a demand, it's no more a demand than if I walk outside my house and yell at the sky. I don't expect to get what I want so I won't be broken up when I don't get it. I was just piqued after reading that flavorful bit about boar riding, getting excited and then not finding the crunch to back it up.
It would be pretty cool though!
