I do not remember if it is in a book or in a post on the forums here by someone from Paizo, but the Druid description says the animal companion has as many hit dice as the druid has class levels. Boon Companion gives the animal companion a level bonus equal to the difference between druid level and total character level up to a max of +4. A single-class druid has a druid level and character level that are the same, so no bonus from boon companion, making the animal companion still equal to the druid's level. There may be another feat or trait or magic item out there I do not know about that specifically says an animal companion can have more hit dice than a character has levels, but just with the core rules and Boon Companion, an animal companion can never have hit dice higher than a character's total number of character levels.
|
but the Druid description says the animal companion has as many hit dice as the druid has class levels.
Um. No.
Animal companions start at 2HD for 1st level druids, and progress up to 16HD for 20th level druids.Boon Companion gives the animal companion a level bonus equal to the difference between druid level and total character level up to a max of +4.
Not as printed. As printed it gives a level bonus equal to the character level, up to a max of +4.
It's bad enough that the rules are using awful horrible terrible wording that doesn't mean what they actually state. Please. Please. Do not simply make up rules and claim that they are in core. If you can find them in the core, and can quote them, I'll gladly bow to superior rule-search fu. But I've been playing a Pathfinder Druid since season 0, and I've been looking hard for the rules to actually mean what they say.
As I said, the characters that I have that use boon companion are not using the rule as written. They use the 3.5 version, which did cap at character level. The boon companion feat as written has no such cap. (I wish that it did, because then it would mean that I would be playing by the actual rules, instead of trying to kludge together a semi-consistent rule set by reading tea leaves, casting bones, and examining troll entrails to ascertain what the designers might possibly mean in the absence of something resembling errata or FAQ.)
but the Druid description says the animal companion has as many hit dice as the druid has class levels.Um. No.
Animal companions start at 2HD for 1st level druids, and progress up to 16HD for 20th level druids.
Yeah, I forgot that part since I normally do not use animal companions. So replace hit dice with level. An animal companion's level is the same as a druid's class level.
Boon Companion gives the animal companion a level bonus equal to the difference between druid level and total character level up to a max of +4.Not as printed. As printed it gives a level bonus equal to the character level, up to a max of +4.
It's bad enough that the rules are using awful horrible terrible wording that doesn't mean what they actually state. Please. Please. Do not simply make up rules and claim that they are in core. If you can find them in the core, and can quote them, I'll gladly bow to superior rule-search fu. But I've been playing a Pathfinder Druid since season 0, and I've been looking hard for the rules to actually mean what they say.
As I said, the characters that I have that use boon companion are not using the rule as written. They use the 3.5 version, which did cap at character level. The boon companion feat as written has no such cap. (I wish that it did, because then it would mean that I would be playing by the actual rules, instead of trying to kludge together a semi-consistent rule set by reading tea leaves, casting bones, and examining troll entrails to ascertain what the designers might possibly mean in the absence of something resembling errata or FAQ.)
But in using the 3.5 version you are playing by the intent of Russ, who wrote the PRPG version. As he was quoted earlier and said in other posts in that other thread, the Boon Companion feat was never supposed to give you an animal companion with a higher level than your character level.
|
|
I don't expect to ever see an Actual fix to the feat since it is not in a PF RPG book, since they only Errata when they do reprints, and the only book that happened for that was not a PF RPG book was the Adventurer's Armory, and the Errata did not even make it into the book because of a Mistake!
Yeah I know. Doesn't make me any happier to know, but yeah - I know.
|
Though I have looked very hard for such, I have never seen any rules text which states this. Do you have a cite, or are you simply making this up?
The info was provided by Omega Man above. While it might not exist in the FAQ or errata anywhere, the writer (Russ Taylor) having posted as such is as definitive as it gets. I have also received clarification of the RAI from him directly. you may not want to accept that as cannon since it is not actually printed in any official materials, but Russ does not control Paizo's publishing schedule or content.
Some of Russ Taylor's comments extracted from that thread...
"Here's the authority: it caps at your character level. So a 6th level druid / 2nd level bard can have an 8th level companion. Wrote the feat, sorry about the strange wording."
"...it works for rangers, wizards, and some sorcerers too...and should work for summoners. Probably "the maximum effective level for the class ability cannot be higher than your character level" would have been best, even though it does the double level thing"
Owner - D20 Hobbies
|
There is no wording that restricts the effective druid level to character level.
No idea what you are talking about. Well, I have an idea.
I think you are taking "Character Level" (a well known defined game term) and interpreting it as "class level."
If you are a 5 th level character (1st druid/4th fighter) and you take Boon Companion, then you have a 5th level AC. If you are a 5th level Druid and you take it, you still have a 5 th level AC (no bonus.) If you are a 20 th level character with 19 levels of fighter and 1 level of druid, you have a 5 th level AC.
Though I have looked very hard for such, I have never seen any rules text which states this. Do you have a cite, or are you simply making this up?
There is no rule allowing for it, and since Boon Companion is the only "AC Boosting" effect I know and it explicitly limits to your Character Level, there is no Paizo written way to get a 20 th level AC at 19 th Character Level.
Not as printed. As printed it gives a level bonus equal to the character level, up to a max of +4.
Oh I see. You got it flipped around. I'm not sure how.
It grants a static bonus of 4, which is capped at whatever is required to take it to your character level.
Of note, yes I'm aware the author intended rangers to take it to get a boost beyond their Character Level. I'm also aware what he wrote was not what was printed, and Paizo's stance is a straight Ranger gains no benefit from the printed feat. Forget who said that, I think it was JB.
|
|
There is no wording that restricts the effective druid level to character level.No idea what you are talking about. Well, I have an idea.
I think you are taking "Character Level" (a well known defined game term) and interpreting it as "class level."
If you are a 5 th level character (1st druid/4th fighter) and you take Boon Companion, then you have a 5th level AC. If you are a 5th level Druid and you take it, you still have a 5 th level AC (no bonus.) If you are a 20 th level character with 19 levels of fighter and 1 level of druid, you have a 5 th level AC.
Though I have looked very hard for such, I have never seen any rules text which states this. Do you have a cite, or are you simply making this up?There is no rule allowing for it, and since Boon Companion is the only "AC Boosting" effect I know and it explicitly limits to your Character Level, there is no Paizo written way to get a 20 th level AC at 19 th Character Level.
Not as printed. As printed it gives a level bonus equal to the character level, up to a max of +4.Oh I see. You got it flipped around. I'm not sure how.
It grants a static bonus of 4, which is capped at whatever is required to take it to your character level.
Just read the feat. Quote the feat. Don't just spout off on what you think the feat says or doesn't say. It's quoted in the thread. NOt hard to read. Small words even.
None of it says what you think it says. It says something else entirely, for which the author of the feat apologized for the crappy wording, as the wording has no relationship to the actual "intent" of the feat.
Just RTFF.
Leaving the messageboards for a while now. Too many people who spout off as authorities on rules without bothering to actually quote the rules.
|
|
Leaving the messageboards for a while now. Too many people who spout off as authorities on rules without bothering to actually quote the rules.
Easy there killer, no need to get upset. In this case, quoting the rules is not going to help. I think that most of us agree the language (RAW) is poor and should be corrected. We can also agree it is not going to happen for a "nitch" product like SoS. However, since the author of the feat (Russ Taylor) has posted on the boards as to the intend (RAI), we can all sigh a breath of relief that we know how it is supposed to work. I have personally confirmed it with him, so at least I am satisfied.
|
RPG Superstar 2012 Top 4
|
I played in a game at the Mace convention in North Carolina last fall with Steve miller. I think we all had allot of fun.
Yes, we did have a great time at MACE.
|
Owner - D20 Hobbies
|
Just read the feat. Quote the feat.
- I read the feat.
- I have characters using the feat.
- I've read threads by Paizo employees on how the feat works.
- I didn't post about anything of how I thought the feat works, I posted how the feat officially works.
So if your interpretation of the feat doesn't match mine, then you need to read the feat.
Or you need to choose to have an alternate interpretation and you need to understand that there isn't any way you can formulate your position that will insure others change their interpretation to match yours. In other words, don't go to GenCon and expect all players to play the feat the way you believe it is worded.
And that is yet another reason why we need an official PFS ruling on how the feat should be used. Is it as written allowing overpowered animal companions or is it as the author or the feat posted how it was meant to be used where the animal companion level is capped by the character level?
|
|
And that is yet another reason why we need an official PFS ruling on how the feat should be used. Is it as written allowing overpowered animal companions or is it as the author or the feat posted how it was meant to be used where the animal companion level is capped by the character level?
Unfortunately, this is not a PFS issue, it is a PF issue and I doubt that Hyrum/Mark are going to clarify a rule that would ripple through PF. It will remain up to the GM/coordinator to enforce their interpretation of the rule, which hopefully, is the author's RAI.
Creative Director
|
Not sure anyone's already asked this very important question... but isn't a stegosaurus one of the least comfortable things to ride in the fossil record?
As for whether it's legal or not, or whether it stacks with other class's animal companion features... I'd cede that distinction to your GM, because it's his/her game that you're in, not mine. He/she has more authority over how this works in your game than myself and all the rest of the posters on this thread combined, after all... ;-)
(Although, and in full disclosure... the more dinosaur-mounted characters there are, the better!)
|
|
Not sure anyone's already asked this very important question... but isn't a stegosaurus one of the least comfortable things to ride in the fossil record?
As for whether it's legal or not, or whether it stacks with other class's animal companion features... I'd cede that distinction to your GM, because it's his/her game that you're in, not mine. He/she has more authority over how this works in your game than myself and all the rest of the posters on this thread combined, after all... ;-)
(Although, and in full disclosure... the more dinosaur-mounted characters there are, the better!)
Excellent point, but in the context of PFS, the GM does not own 100% control. There are OP guidelines to follow and this issue seems to need some clarification.
|
RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16
|
As for whether it's legal or not, or whether it stacks with other class's animal companion features... I'd cede that distinction to your GM, because it's his/her game that you're in, not mine.
But James, this thread is in the Pathfinder Society forum. If we allow character-building decisions to be adjudicated on a GM-by-GM basis, then a stegasaur-mounted character you bring to a gaming convention will be illegal at one table, then legal the next session under a different GM, and then maybe illegal again in the evening session!
Or else players will start trying to cherry-pick GMs based on which ones will allow the character.
|
Owner - D20 Hobbies
|
As for whether it's legal ... cede that distinction to your GMPathfinder Society ... GM-by-GM basis
Or else players will start trying to cherry-pick GMs based on which ones will allow the character.
Which is why I have one thing I'd like Paizo to change?
Stop ceding to GM for rules interpretation issues. The GM is always free to decide how he wants a rule to work, but Paizo should answer one way or another on how the rule works.My local PFS games have a number of rules interpretations that are in debate here on the forums. I know this means their characters are legal/illegal depending on what table they sit down and I know they are not happy when they are forced to rebuild their character on the fly for one module to be "legal" in the eyes of the GM at the CON for the PFS game.
If they answers could be put to rest on one side or the other, the players could build compliant (legal) characters and would have to deal with much less change in their characters at cons.
|
|
Which is why I have one thing I'd like Paizo to change?
Stop ceding to GM for rules interpretation issues. The GM is always free to decide how he wants a rule to work, but Paizo should answer one way or another on how the rule works.
The problem is that when they do post a clarification on the boards (usually after a lot of b*~$$in' and whining), they get blasted because it's not in the errata or FAQ and not all players read the boards. Updating those docs takes time, and a lot of effort (despite the opinion to the contrary) and takes them away from developing the modules/books/products we love to buy.
|
Creative Director
|
As for whether it's legal or not, or whether it stacks with other class's animal companion features... I'd cede that distinction to your GM, because it's his/her game that you're in, not mine.But James, this thread is in the Pathfinder Society forum. If we allow character-building decisions to be adjudicated on a GM-by-GM basis, then a stegasaur-mounted character you bring to a gaming convention will be illegal at one table, then legal the next session under a different GM, and then maybe illegal again in the evening session!
Or else players will start trying to cherry-pick GMs based on which ones will allow the character.
But Chris, I was responding to a post where Twilight Knight was claiming it wasn't a PFS issue but a PF issue.
For the Pathfinder Society, it's my understanding that you're limited to the choices in the core rules, correct? In which case, very few classes can get a stegosaurus as an animal companion. Most rangers can't do this. And a cavalier's selection is limited to pony or wolf (or boar or dog if he's 4th level). In this case, it doesn't matter that the text also says "The GM might approve other animals as suitable mounts."
Honestly, if you're going to play a character that pushes the limits of what's obviously legal by common sense standards, you're going to just be setting yourself up for all sorts of conflicts and problems.
If you're trying to do something with a character build that feels sketchy and unusual, to the extent that you need to seek special permissions from Paizo, chances are good that you can spare yourself a lot of frustration by simply coming up with a less outlandish character concept. Personally, I feel that fewer outlandish and bizarre character builds is a good thing, since that cuts down on the weird "this party feels like a bunch of circus performers and not an adventuring party" that, personally, would quite frustrate me as a player in an org play campaign.
That said, I do understand that a big draw for a lot of players in an org play campaign is digging deep into the rules and finding loopholes to make unusual or flat-out bizarre characters (often, it seems, with no care if the concept fits into the world with any level of logic). I don't have to like that, though.
|
RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16
|
But Chris, I was responding to a post where Twilight Knight was claiming it wasn't a PFS issue but a PF issue. For the Pathfinder Society, it's my understanding that you're limited to the choices in the core rules, correct?
Thanks for the clarification. (And yes, if by "core" you mean most anything that Paizo's ever published for Pathfinder.)
Personally, I feel that fewer outlandish and bizarre character builds is a good thing, since that cuts down on the weird "this party feels like a bunch of circus performers and not an adventuring party" that, personally, would quite frustrate me as a player in an org play campaign. That said, I do understand that a big draw for a lot of players in an org play campaign is digging deep into the rules and finding loopholes to make unusual or flat-out bizarre characters (often, it seems, with no care if the concept fits into the world with any level of logic). I don't have to like that, though.
I have thought about why this is the case. (There's a lot more "circus performer" PCs in PFS OP than in any home game I've ever seen.) If I had to take a guess, I would say that the lack of continuity from one adventue to the next (a) frees characters from much of the responsibility of strange behavior, and (b) makes it very useful for a player to be able to very quickly make his character identifiable and memorable to the other players at the table. "The creepy guy with flensing knives" is more memorable than "the half-elf fighter with lots of feats that improve her damage on a critical hit."
|
Owner - D20 Hobbies
|
play a character that pushes the limits of what's obviously legal by common sense standards, you're going to just be setting yourself up for all sorts of conflicts and problems.
Does a Monk using Brass Knuckles (a mundane item) push the limits?
They have unanswered questions that vary wildly from table to table:
Which feat helps a Monk's attack when using Brass Knuckles?
Weapon Focus (Brass Knuckles)
Weapon Focus (Unarmed Strike)
|
|
This does not push the limits, but reaching for loopholes does. The Brass Knuckles are specifically listed as a monk weapon, so what's the problem? What he/we are talking about is a situation like the OP where you know that cavaliers only get a very limited list of AC. But wait, let me multi-class with druid so I can skirt the limitation and 'game' the system to get something exotic (not saying that's what the OP is trying to do, just an example). What comes after that? A cavalier/wizard wanting his horse to also function as his familiar? What about a Cavalier/witch?
|
Owner - D20 Hobbies
|
This does not push the limits, but reaching for loopholes does. The Brass Knuckles are specifically listed as a monk weapon, so what's the problem?
The problem is getting a benefit you are not entitled by using a loop hole. The "I deal Monk Unarmed damage with Brass Knuckles so I can make use of the combined BK/Unarmed benefits pick and choose which suit me" loophole. In other words this:
- Amulet of 5d6 damage
- +5 BK
- WF/WS/GWF/GWS Unarmed to improve my BK attacks
- Cut thru DR magic
I get to buy two +5 weapons which is cheaper than a single +10.
Anyway, this is off topic of my initial response. Which was that I don't like to see Paizo deciding they don't want to answer rules questions because they feel it is the domain of the DM, because that doesn't even make sense. It is like answering the questions somehow invalidates the DM. The DM is always free to decide which rules he wants to use, and no amount of "because the rule book says so" or "because Paizo says so" will change a DM's mind if he wants it his way.
|
RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16
|
I've thought further about why there are more ridiculous characters in an organized play environment than in most any other RPG setting. The lack of a GM to tell you "no" is one reason, and the need to come up with an easy "sound bite" persona for the other players is another.
I've already mentioned those.
The third reason, I think, is that there's very little else to pin a character's interesting facets on, or develop any more mature role-playing, by the nature of playing through a series of disconnected, unpredictable adventures, with a constantly-changing staff of colleagues and GMs.
I realized that there's a difference between a PC in a PFS OP home game, and the same character at a convention. If I know most everybody at the table, and the DM can provide us with continuity ("Ah, Venture-captain Dreng! How's that cough coming along?") then I can role-play those connections. If I'm playing with folks I don't know that well, and the GM changes from session to session, then I'm the Roleplaying Tortoise, who has to carry all his role-playing hooks and connections with him. And that echo-chamber roleplaying, without anybody else to bounce off of, without anybody else to add to the dialogue, leads to further and further absurdities, because there's no consequence for most of them.
GM: All right, let's get started. You want to introduce your characters?
Me: My name is Lanbiorn. I'm the son of the goddess Desna and a mortal lover. I chose to become entirely mortal, and I've joined the Pathfinder Society to honor the love of exploration my mother bequeathed to me.
|
|
It's important to remember that some of us just plain LIKE playing off-the-wall characters.
I've been RPGing for over a decade now; I've had my share of sword&board fighters, Two-handed barbarians, Clerics of a Healing god, and other such staples. Nearly every character I build now has to have some reason for me to want to play it. Mock up Marvel characters for "The Westcrown Avengers"? There. Neandrathal (human, with the Racial Heritage and Razortusk feat) druid for PFS? All me. Deaf oracle who is a Mime based caster? Totally. Ranger with a bow? No way.
I think another issue, and back to the main topic at hand, is the apparent lack of flexibility with what a cavalier can get. Druids have acess to all number of animals, wizards have a plethora of animals and an expanded list of exotic familiars (abeit with a feat), and summoners get whatever you can possibly imagine. Cavaliers get one of two options: a horse or a camel. They just seem so dull by comparison. I mean, I can ride a horse in real life (our group base of operations owner has a pair of them). Noone has ever gotten the chance to ride a dinosaur. This is my chance to BREAK from reality, and I'll take it every time I get.
A final issue, to the legality standpoint. It's understood that the cavalier is limited to his selection. It's still unclear as to how the limitation applies to a druid who goes cavalier later, as the classes animal companion ability stacks.
As far as "Legal by common sense," common sense woud dictate that my dinosaur and I grew up together (Druid levels first), and now I've taken that bond further and turned him into my trusted steed (cavalier levels). It is common sense that a druid capable of riding his companion and wanted to focus more on that bond then magic would multiclass into cavalier. A 7th level druid who wanted to become a skyknight alongside his roc would make a compelling arguement for taking up Cavalier at 8th.
It's important to remember that some of us just plain LIKE playing off-the-wall characters.
I've been RPGing for over a decade now; I've had my share of sword&board fighters, Two-handed barbarians, Clerics of a Healing god, and other such staples. Nearly every character I build now has to have some reason for me to want to play it.
THIS.
I think another issue, and back to the main topic at hand, is the apparent lack of flexibility with what a cavalier can get. Druids have acess to all number of animals, wizards have a plethora of animals and an expanded list of exotic familiars (abeit with a feat), and summoners get whatever you can possibly imagine. Cavaliers get one of two options: a horse or a camel. They just seem so dull by comparison.
and THIS.
Honestly, if you're going to play a character that pushes the limits of what's obviously legal by common sense standards, you're going to just be setting yourself up for all sorts of conflicts and problems.
I'm not the one that made dinosaurs an animal companion-able feature, perhaps the finger should be pointed elsewhere, like a developer maybe? I asked the question because the RAW for this situation are unclear and contradict themselves depending on what page you're reading (like many others)... especially when being shoehorned by society play. I'm not entirely sure where "legal by common sense" plays into contradicting RAW.
--------------------------
I'd also like to add that I find it a bit irritating that because I want to play something original it's immediately thrust into the "loop hole" or "ridiculous" categories. What I ask can be LEGALLY done as a full Druid, so exactly at what point does this become "loop hole" or "ridiculous"? Because I want a unique mount and not have to be a spellcaster?
|
|
A thought on being mounted on the Stegosaurus.
When I was a little kid, I had a me-sized inflatable stegosaurus that I would often climb on and "ride" If the dino were larger, say adult human sized, it would have been actually quite comfortable. That said, a small (child size) character on a medium steo, or a medium (adult) on a large sized stego (actual size, or smaller than irl) wouldn't be much a stretch.
Stegosaurus (most species) plates are now believed to be placed in a staggering pattern (At least by most members of the Society of Vertebrate Paleontology). A Stegosaurus saggle would be an exotic saddle, obviously. For a right handed character, the horn of the saddle would be positioned/braced over a right side plate, so that the rider straddled said plate with one leg on the dino's back and one on the side. The saddle would be braced against a left side plate, which would not only secure the saddle, but would act as a natural riding shield for the rider.
Just two cents from an aspiring paleontologist.
|
Creative Director
|
For the record:
My concern about a stegosaurus mount being ridiculous has more to do with the fact that it's back is covered by sharp pointy things. Where the hell would you sit?
(Also—just as it would be weird for someone to ride a polar bear in a tropical city, it's weird for someone to ride a stegosaurus in an area... like Absalom... where dinosaurs aren't all that common.)
|
For the record:
My concern about a stegosaurus mount being ridiculous has more to do with the fact that it's back is covered by sharp pointy things. Where the hell would you sit?
Sir, I give you Exhibit "A"
|
Creative Director
|
Sir, I give you Exhibit "A"For the record:
My concern about a stegosaurus mount being ridiculous has more to do with the fact that it's back is covered by sharp pointy things. Where the hell would you sit?
If you print that picture out and bring it to any PFS game I happen to be running, I'll let you have a stegosaurus mount if you are a druid with the animal companion ability and are high enough level or of a build that lets you ride that size stegosaurus.
That said... if I happen to run a PFS game, I'll be making my own rules calls and adjudications left and right as I please to make the game more fun without worrying if they're "right" or not.
|
|
Again, current interpretation is that they stagger. Like So.
As you can see, there's plenty of space next to the 9th plate. The saddle would rest against the 8th plate (to the anterior ventral or the saddle) and be supported by the 9th (to the left distal). The 9th plate would also offer a nice little shield for the rider (obviously no mechanical bonus).
Sir, I give you Exhibit "A"For the record:
My concern about a stegosaurus mount being ridiculous has more to do with the fact that it's back is covered by sharp pointy things. Where the hell would you sit?
That's awesome! That's pretty much what I pictured WITH an "exotic" saddle inbetween the plates, something that would likely use the plates for support, along with some impressive rope/straps.
None of the copeous amounts of stegosaurus minis I've acquired in search of a good medium-size, use the staggered plates. Likely using THIS for the large-size.
It is also about playing in one setting. The issue I am having with most people wanting this is they are not wanting to play in Golarion, a setting where people do not normally ride dino's or tigers and the like, but horses,camels and riding dogs.
It is not Eberron with whole regions of dino riding halflings, they are not mounts for any culture in the book. They are not used as mounts in the world in which PFS takes place.
One of a kinda pc's that ride one of a kind mounts are for home games, PFS games are not homegames, having 30 people riding odd mounts breaks the style and feel of the setting.
The issue I am having with most people wanting this is they are not wanting to play in Golarion, a setting where people do not normally ride dino's or tigers and the like, but horses,camels and riding dogs.
...aaaaaand Axe Beaks! In Absolam they also ride Axe Beaks (or camels) as to not offend the neighboring Centuar civilization. That would be different, yet part of the norm! Though I'm unaware of any APs in Absolam, haven't really looked into it, but Kingmaker is right next door! :D
Sir, I give you Exhibit "A"If you print that picture out and bring it to any PFS game I happen to be running, I'll let you have a stegosaurus mount if you are a druid with the animal companion ability and are high enough level or of a build that lets you ride that size stegosaurus.
*Save & Print*
Now, who wants to pay for my trip to GenCon '11? LMAO
|
It is also about playing in one setting. The issue I am having with most people wanting this is they are not wanting to play in Golarion, a setting where people do not normally ride dino's or tigers and the like, but horses,camels and riding dogs.
It is not Eberron with whole regions of dino riding halflings, they are not mounts for any culture in the book. They are not used as mounts in the world in which PFS takes place.
One of a kinda pc's that ride one of a kind mounts are for home games, PFS games are not homegames, having 30 people riding odd mounts breaks the style and feel of the setting.
Aaaaand 30 people playing functionally identical archer-fighters or melee barbarians or blaster sorcerers doesn't break the style and feel?
Look! It's Super-Archer!
One of the reasons I multi-classed my Fighter Archer was to make him a little bit different from all the OTHER Fighter Archers out there. Even so, I have played mods with him with other archer types. Common.
That type of thing can get sort of.... boring.
But making a different character that is mechanically NOT inferior is a bit of an issue.
And, I think, that is a significant part of what this thread is circling around.
In other words, find me a Wizard or Sorcerer PC capable of casting third level spells who does NOT have either Fireball or Lightning Bolt. Please?!
A lot of the time, to break the mold, your character loses some functionality. This wouldn't, and, if the ACs are properly balanced, won't have any game unbalancing effect.
The issue I am having with most people wanting this is they are not wanting to play in Golarion, a setting where people do not normally ride dino's or tigers and the like, but horses,camels and riding dogs....aaaaaand Axe Beaks! In Absolam they also ride Axe Beaks (or camels) as to not offend the neighboring Centuar civilization. That would be different, yet part of the norm! Though I'm unaware of any APs in Absolam, haven't really looked into it, but Kingmaker is right next door! :D
Sir, I give you Exhibit "A"If you print that picture out and bring it to any PFS game I happen to be running, I'll let you have a stegosaurus mount if you are a druid with the animal companion ability and are high enough level or of a build that lets you ride that size stegosaurus.*Save & Print*
Now, who wants to pay for my trip to GenCon '11? LMAO
Heeeyyy I want a chocobo..I mean Axebeak !
|
|
Already noted.I'm reporting this to a higher authority!
That said... if I happen to run a PFS game, I'll be making my own rules calls and adjudications left and right as I please to make the game more fun without worrying if they're "right" or not.
*insert bit from Monty Python and the Holy Grail opening with the 'those who were doing the sacking have now been sacked' and somesuch*
Also, if James ever does run a PFS game, I hope Daniel shows up with that picture, and I hope Im there to lol, cause I lolled just now when I saw it.