Next thread: cat boots, bat horseshoes and horse's hats!
You're making this too easy
http://images2.fanpop.com/image/polls/469000/469278_1276808222844_full.jpg
http://everydayislikewednesday.blogspot.com/2010/12/breaking-batman-totally -riding-horse-in.html
http://iamfashionweak.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/06/photo-108-400x276.jpg
Creative Director
|
I think James is having a bad day... what possessed him to even comment on this thread??? :)
James has actually been having a few bad weeks, in fact, but that's not why I posted here. I just felt that I needed to point out how silly a snake wearing clothes was.
But at the same time, this is EXACTLY the kind of ruling that you'll probably never see us nail down in print. The rules don't care, first of all—and in fact, they somewhat assume that a "properly numbercrunched" animal companion WILL be wearing armor, regardless of its shape. But more to the point, this is precisely the type of thing that is best handled not by us making an official ruling one way or another. I certainly have my preference, but that's neither the "right" nor the "wrong" way to play the game. Unless I'm the run running that particular game, I guess.
So, yeah. Absolutely make the decision for your own game. It's not something that we need to officially say yes or no to.
|
Nothing in the rules prevents snake-barding, in fact by the numbers banning it would be handing down a pretty heft penalty on the poor slob who thought having a snake companion would be cool (so I hope you remembered to tell him 'no snake barding' up front).
If you're worried about the potential effects such an 'unrealistic' thing would have on the verisimilitude of your game, then simply ask him to find (or produce) some cool fantasy art which depicts a snake in armour. That tends to help everyone picture the thing you're probably picturing instead of going to the 'armoured sock' place which may be people's kneejerk reaction.
|
Since you can push an animal companion's intelligence to almost human, and at least demihuman, echelons, having them trained to move in something magical, or properly set in place to not inhibit the vermiform movement(I can imagine several "shields" or shells covering an emperor cobra, but leaving only chain straps under the belly, not covering it, but providing fixtures), does not seem out of the question.
I'll totally do this if I ever get to gm CotCT. Saddles too. And sorcerers in those saddles. Wielding greataxes! With SPIKES AND LIGHTNING!
Why? 'cos it's freacking METAL.
|
So, rather than reiterate my own arguments, I'm just going to address the three most prevalent pr-armored snake arguments:
1) It's a Fantasy Game! - I call this the "If Jesus, Then Aliens" argument, because it's based on the premise that if you accept one ridiculous premise then you must accept all ridiculous premises.
It's true that D&D/Pathfinder is a fantasy game and that it has fantastic elements. That is not blanket permission to ignore reality whenever it slams the brakes on your plans. My response to anyone who wants to throw out this argument is simple:
If you were GM, would you allow my character to fly by flapping his arms really fast? If you say no, then you yourself don't believe your own argument and agree with me that sometimes the real world and what is possible in the real world comes into play during the game.
If you say yes, then that's cool, but I don't want to play with you, and I think you're an utterly ridiculous person.
2) The rules don't say you can't do it. - This argument really makes me think of the recent thread about RAI vs RAW and people who know they are being cheesy.
The rules don't say that I can't buy full plate barding for my thrush familiar. A thrush is a small bird, about 3 oz. It can carry weight equal to about a nickel (as in the $.05 coin). Maybe. Full plate weighing less than a gram or so of metal would be so thin that a small child could crumble it in their hand. It would provide absolutely no protection from a warrior swinging a sword. But the rules say nothing about it.
If you were GM, would you allow my character to give his 3 oz. thrush a +4 AC bonus by wrapping it in a particularly weak chainmail shirt? If you say no, then you yourself don't believe your own argument and agree with me that sometimes the real world and what is possible in the real world overrides rules that were intended for other purposes.
If you say yes, then that's cool, but I don't want to play with you, and I think you're a cheesey power-gamer.
|
Your points are good Gail, I agree with the premise of them until magic enters the picture.\
If a wizard magics up some full plate that does not encumber flying creatures then I would likely allow it. Being a non-standard item I would have final approval on costs and features.
Magic gloves of flying that require arm flapping could be made for slightly less than boots of flying (since your arms are busy). I would allow that with no problem.
The suggestion I made before about magic self adhering barding falls into the same category.
So in summary "if fireballs then snake barding."
|
So, rather than reiterate my own arguments, I'm just going to address the three most prevalent pr-armored snake arguments:
1) It's a Fantasy Game! - I call this the "If Jesus, Then Aliens" argument, because it's based on the premise that if you accept one ridiculous premise then you must accept all ridiculous premises.
It's true that D&D/Pathfinder is a fantasy game and that it has fantastic elements. That is not blanket permission to ignore reality whenever it slams the brakes on your plans. My response to anyone who wants to throw out this argument is simple:
If you were GM, would you allow my character to fly by flapping his arms really fast? If you say no, then you yourself don't believe your own argument and agree with me that sometimes the real world and what is possible in the real world comes into play during the game.
If you say yes, then that's cool, but I don't want to play with you, and I think you're an utterly ridiculous person.
2) The rules don't say you can't do it. - This argument really makes me think of the recent thread about RAI vs RAW and people who know they are being cheesy.
The rules don't say that I can't buy full plate barding for my thrush familiar. A thrush is a small bird, about 3 oz. It can carry weight equal to about a nickel (as in the $.05 coin). Maybe. Full plate weighing less than a gram or so of metal would be so thin that a small child could crumble it in their hand. It would provide absolutely no protection from a warrior swinging a sword. But the rules say nothing about it.
If you were GM, would you allow my character to give his 3 oz. thrush a +4 AC bonus by wrapping it in a particularly weak chainmail shirt? If you say no, then you yourself don't believe your own argument and agree with me that sometimes the real world and what is possible in the real world overrides rules that were intended for other purposes.
If you say yes, then that's cool, but I don't want to play with you, and I think you're a cheesey...
Reductio ad absurdum.
|
|
Your points are good Gail, I agree with the premise of them until magic enters the picture.\
If a wizard magics up some full plate that does not encumber flying creatures then I would likely allow it. Being a non-standard item I would have final approval on costs and features.
Magic gloves of flying that require arm flapping could be made for slightly less than boots of flying (since your arms are busy). I would allow that with no problem.
The suggestion I made before about magic self adhering barding falls into the same category.
So in summary "if fireballs then snake barding."
Sure, you can magic handwave away just about anything.
But if you're going to magic up a snake, why not just use sovereign glue to affix a talisman of natural armor to its forehead? It'd look cool and cost less. Or, you know, cast a spell that changes its scales to iron. Or whatever. Once you've decided that magic is an option, then there are a lot more options.
My issue is with non-magical barding for a snake.
Though the more I think about this, the more annoyed I'm getting that snakes are animals and not vermin. Because having owned many snakes, I know that you absolutely cannot train a snake to do anything. They don't respond to treats, and frankly are barely even aware their owners exists. I call my snake a "mobile houseplant" because as animal companions go, he's not very companionable. Snakes really should be vermin, they're pretty much the definition of mindless eating machines.
|
|
Sure, you can magic handwave away just about anything.But if you're going to magic up a snake, why not just use sovereign glue to affix a talisman of natural armor to its forehead? It'd look cool and cost less. Or, you know, cast a spell that changes its scales to iron. Or whatever. Once you've decided that magic is an option, then there are a lot more options.
My issue is with non-magical barding for a snake.
Then we agree.
The sad part is I cannot tell if people are joking about this or are actually serious. I'm not sure which terrifies me more either.
|
|
Anywho, since the discussion has turned to classy name-calling, perhaps we can offer some constructive ideas.
I wonder what sort of cost would be appropriate for a minor magical armor enhancement that allows armor to 'cling' to the dorsal surface of a snake, without all sorts of straps and whatnot impeding it's ability to use its tummy muscles to slither across a surface. Maybe +500 gp? (unseen servant or summon nature's ally as a prereq?) It doesn't seem to be doing anything mechanically other than overcoming the 'that's silly and wouldn't work!' common sense restriction, and, as James as pointed out, there's no game-balance issue to armoring a snake, just a 'that looks wrong!' issue.
A more generic 'beastfriendly' armor enhancement might allow one to make barding that works on other non-humanoid body forms, like that of a larger-than-normal eagle, owl or smaller-than-normal roc, without hampering it's movement any more than it would a humanoid wearer.
.
Mechanically, it's possible that snake-armor could hang from / attach too the sorts of spikes / bone spurs that cover 'dire snakes' from 3.X, where 'dire' anything meant 'bigger, meaner and covered with spikes.'
I don't like bone-spur covered 3.5 dire animals much (and that artistic notion has been mostly dropped in Pathfinder), although a 'dire snake' with keratin ridges giving it more of a horny toad look might be more palatable (less 'horned viper,' more 'spurs and ridges all down the back and sides, like crocodile hide')... Still, ye average snake companion wouldn't necessarily be from a species with convenient 'hardpoints' for armor hangage.
I'd stick to the cheapo magic armor enhancement option (which would be able to be put on masterwork armor that isn't +1 or better, since it's such a low-powered thing, just overcoming a flavor problem and not changing game-balance), since it would also be usable by druids who bond with eagles or other animals that wouldn't intuitively be able to wear normal barding and still function.
|
|
So, rather than reiterate my own arguments, I'm just going to address the three most prevalent pr-armored snake arguments:
1) It's a Fantasy Game!
2) The rules don't say you can't do it.
You must be able to count to three to play this game. ;)
In seriousness, I don't subscribe to either of the positions you've presented, although it being a fantasy game is why I'm willing to look at it at all.
3) The rules say you can do it. Snakes are animals. (All) Animals may wear armor, which is called barding. Therefore snakes may wear barding. This is a rules discussion board and this argument follows from the rules. That all animals can wear barding is a premise that could possibly be attacked.
To paraphrase your argument, "I know a lot about snakes. I cannot picture armor that would fit on a snake that would allow it to move and which is would keep on. Therefore, there idea of snakes wearing armor is wacko and I wouldn't allow it." That is a fine basis for your decision, for yourself. But frankly, the "I'm an expert in real life and it doesn't work that way" positions don't work for me at all. They are excellent for determining what the game should do. They are horrid for determining what the game does in whatever flawed version it has come up with. For those of us who play PFS, knowing what is permitted under the rules, what is questionable, and what is clearly prohibited...this is all part of the process.
This is a very interesting idea. I'm surprised at James that he finds this unrealistic, as many things in pathfinder are not realistic. But, I am happy to hear he's maintaining his stance that ideas could be allowed, but he doesn't agree. That's a very amicable position to advocate and allows player creativity to thrive.
IMO. Armor could be created that would allow the snake to function.
Snakes need their underbellies to be revealed so they can move, but adhering, grafting, magically affixing or attaching armor at spaced intervals probably would allow the snake to wear the armor. Imagine sort of like plates with a few inches of space between them, probably with cloth or leather binding them.
Furthermore, I'm in agreement with howie on this one, Barding is available for animals. In my opinion this should be for *all animals* if what James wrote is true, that the game accounts for animal companions to have armor at a certain point. Then that would make certain animals more or less viable as the game progresses, not the intention of the designers I think.
Thus barding is available for snakes, and needs only a creative mind to envision how such a barding would be achieved.
|
|
So, rather than reiterate my own arguments, I'm just going to address the three most prevalent pr-armored snake arguments:
1) It's a Fantasy Game!
2) The rules don't say you can't do it.
You must be able to count to three to play this game. ;)
In seriousness, I don't subscribe to either of the positions you've presented, although it being a fantasy game is why I'm willing to look at it at all.
3) The rules say you can do it. Snakes are animals. (All) Animals may wear armor, which is called barding. Therefore snakes may wear barding. This is a rules discussion board and this argument follows from the rules. That all animals can wear barding is a premise that could possibly be attacked.
To paraphrase your argument, "I know a lot about snakes. I cannot picture armor that would fit on a snake that would allow it to move and which is would keep on. Therefore, there idea of snakes wearing armor is wacko and I wouldn't allow it." That is a fine basis for your decision, for yourself. But frankly, the "I'm an expert in real life and it doesn't work that way" positions don't work for me at all. They are excellent for determining what the game should do. They are horrid for determining what the game does in whatever flawed version it has come up with. For those of us who play PFS, knowing what is permitted under the rules, what is questionable, and what is clearly prohibited...this is all part of the process.
This isn't really a different position, it's just the "Rules don't say you can't" position rephrased. So I'll put you down for one thrush-sized chainshirt. The rules say you can do that too.
Also, this is why I gave up on PFS. Rules-lawyering cheesemeisters unchecked by GM fiat make PFS painfully unfun.
|
Creative Director
|
This is a very interesting idea. I'm surprised at James that he finds this unrealistic, as many things in pathfinder are not realistic.
I may have been misquoted or misunderstood.
It's not that I find armored snakes unrealistic. Not at all.
It's that I find the idea silly.
There's PLENTY in the game that's unrealistic. That's not really what I'm concerned about. I just find the core concept of a snake wearing clothes and/or armor to be goofy.
If someone described snake armor to me in a way that didn't seem goofy I'd be tempted to let it into the game. I'm a pretty imaginative guy, though, and I can't think of a way to envision an armored snake without imagining it just flopping around or being immobile or just plain looking silly.
I've let plenty of things into the game that were unrealistic. Starting with giant bugs, for example.
I try not to let silly and goofy stuff in there unless the humor is legit and well done.
If someone described snake armor to me in a way that didn't seem goofy I'd be tempted to let it into the game. I'm a pretty imaginative guy, though, and I can't think of a way to envision an armored snake without imagining it just flopping around or being immobile or just plain looking silly.I've let plenty of things into the game that were unrealistic. Starting with giant bugs, for example.
I try not to let silly and goofy stuff in there unless the humor is legit and well done.
Ah, I see :). Well I think most of us are on your boat then, but I'm sure players & GMs can come to a sensible agreement with a fair amount of thought behind the barding. This is defninitely something that would warrant a reasonable rationalizaton to be implemented, but its not terribly over the top.
If you were GM, would you allow my character to fly by flapping his arms really fast? If you say no, then you yourself don't believe your own argument
Complete, total, and utter straw man. Accusations of intellectual dishonesty should be justified by far, far FAR More than what you are presenting here.
Raw says an animal can have barding. Raw even gives animal companions the ability to get armor proficiency.
Animal Feats
Animal companions can select from the following feats: Acrobatic, Agile Maneuvers, Armor Proficiency (light, medium, and heavy), Athletic, Blind-Fight, Combat Reflexes, Diehard, Dodge, Endurance, Great Fortitude, Improved Bull Rush, Improved Initiative, Improved Natural Armor, Improved Natural Attack, Improved Overrun, Intimidating Prowess, Iron Will, Lightning Reflexes, Mobility, Power Attack, Run, Skill Focus, Spring Attack, Stealthy, Toughness, Weapon Finesse, and Weapon Focus. Animal companions with an Intelligence of 3 or higher can select any feat they are physically capable of using. GMs might expand this list to include feats from other sources.
Armor for Unusual Creatures
Armor and shields for unusually big creatures, unusually little creatures, and nonhumanoid creatures (such as horses) have different costs and weights from those given on Table: Armor and Shields. Refer to the appropriate line on Table: Armor for Unusual Creatures and apply the multipliers to cost and weight for the armor type in question.
If you were GM, would you allow my character to fly by flapping his arms really fast?
By raw, you have to use a skill to move with a movement type that you don't have. Your character doesn't have a fly speed, and the fly skill specifically says it doesn't let you fly.
So if there's anything not to be believed here its your own comparison. One is rock solid raw saying "you are allowed to do X" one is the raw saying "you are not allowed to do Y"
and agree with me that sometimes the real world and what is possible in the real world comes into play during the game.
Fine, I'll have an accountant over at your house and he'll make sure that your barbarian never beats the world long jump record. Jumping 100 feet is umpossible!
2) The rules don't say you can't do it. - This argument really makes me think of the recent thread about RAI vs RAW and people who know they are being cheesy.
The rules don't say that I can't buy full plate barding for my thrush familiar.
I think I've seen rules for reduced AC values for armor that small. But as i can't for the life of me find them, Sure. I don't think he can fly in it however.
If you were GM, would you allow my character to give his 3 oz. thrush a +4 AC bonus by wrapping it in a particularly weak chainmail shirt?
Yes. And if you let the chain mail puffin there onto the battlefield i'd be sure to have some critter with the grab maneuver ready.
If you say yes, then that's cool, but I don't want to play with you, and I think you're a cheesey...
Cheese mongers aren't using snakes with spiked armor. they're using pouncing creatures greater magic fanged out the wazoo wearing amulets of natural armor set to elemental damage.
You needlessly attribute a difference of opinion into a difference of motive. Making armor for a snake sounds like a pain in the rear. But i don't think its any less plausible than using a star knife, using a dire flail without getting a concussion, wielding a large bastard sword in an actual combat, using 4 arms in combat, or a thousand other things PC's are allowed to do without magic.
You know if you encase a horses legs in metal they actually can't run, I guess all those real life barded horses break pyhsics, oh wait... No the armor is made around their body movements, my bad. Just like the snakes would be.
Just for you james: imagine it as a metal plate on their head followed by metal plates that essentially look like a second set of scales only gray and metallic. If I wasnt on my phone id post a link to a pic of what snake barding would look like.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ihCK5Q03bZI
http://www.google.com/imgres?imgurl=http://suptg.thisisnotatrueending.com/a rchive/15260251/images/1308033352985.jpg&imgrefurl=http://suptg.thisisn otatrueending.com/archive/15260251/&usg=__AJMigXbXR53YawuWBQbb4JxBCSY=& amp;h=600&w=500&sz=162&hl=en&start=4&zoom=1&tbnid=i nz-1oRMZpuXfM:&tbnh=135&tbnw=113&ei=J_QkTufrOMrniAL3m6XvCQ& prev=/search%3Fq%3Dcat%2Barmor%26hl%3Den%26safe%3Doff%26sa%3DG%26biw%3D1366 %26bih%3D644%26gbv%3D2%26tbm%3Disch&itbs=1
You know if you encase a horses legs in metal they actually can't run, I guess all those real life barded horses break pyhsics, oh wait... No the armor is made around their body movements, my bad. Just like the snakes would be.
Just for you james: imagine it as a metal plate on their head followed by metal plates that essentially look like a second set of scales only gray and metallic. If I wasnt on my phone id post a link to a pic of what snake barding would look like.
I'm glad someone finally mentioned this.
Since a snake's feet is it's belly, I really don't understand why someone would assume that barding would be covering it's belly. Horses wearing barding on their backs, this would be the same thing for a snake.
Like it's been mentioned already, if a snake has a bit/strap on it's maw, connected to extremely segmented armor laying on it's back and curving around the sides, it would not fall off.
If it has a tail like a rattlesnake's, then you could easily have straps holding down that end as well, although it's not exactly necessary.
Hooded snakes would make this even easier (it has a part that can flare out and catch straps).
If you can imagine someone riding a snake, then you can imagine segmented armor plates on it's top giving it an armor bonus.
I completely agree that a snake trying to move around in a tube of armor is completely ludicrous. Then again, I'd say the same for a horse. Perhaps some people need to think outside the sock?
|
|
I don't even understand how it is "silly". At one point, riding a flying horse was probably silly as well, except ancient Greece had myths of Perseus himself (arguably the very first fantasy hero ever) riding Pegasus.
If a giant snake can be used as a fighting creature, how is the science of trying protect it as best as possible not acceptable? I'm sure somebody in existence has put a Ring of Protection on a snake as well, around the tail or around the head. Or bracers of armor. God forbid we use special magic fangs for +1 weapons.
Better Metal Snake?
I totally sniped you about four posts up.
But yeah.
How cool would it be for the OP to be a ranger, and pick up Preferred Enemy Mermaid.
|
|
Complete, total, and utter straw man. Accusations of intellectual dishonesty should be justified by far, far FAR More than what you are presenting here.
It's not a straw man. It's Austin Morgan's argument: "no but seriously, it's fantasy - get over it. The "but it's not realistic!" argument goes out the freakin' window the second any PC or NPC takes a single level in at least half the classes."
Fine, I'll have an accountant over at your house and he'll make sure that your barbarian never beats the world long jump record. Jumping 100 feet is umpossible!
Right, because if I accept one impossible thing, then I must accept every impossible thing, regardless of how stupid it is. That's totally how imagination works. Everything a person can imagine is awesome, and if you think anything that someone imagined is dumb, then you absolutely must be a complete stick in the mud who only accepts the 100% plausible in the game.
You've got it all worked out, Wolf. Except that it's a facile and flimsy argument that holds no water at all. Just because you allow one thing by "rule of cool" (like dire flails) doesn't mean you have to allow everything.
Just because you allow one thing by "rule of cool" (like dire flails) doesn't mean you have to allow everything.
You know what else is cool? Snake barding.
Just because you allow one thing by "rule of cool" (like dire flails) doesn't mean you have to allow everything.You know what else is cool? Snake barding.
I disagree. I think it's stupid. I think the imagery looks stupid. And I think it's something I would see in an anime targeted to 12 year olds.
But that's all opinion, which is really what matters, no? I think that's really the overarching theme here. Ideally, you join or host a game with people who accept a certain premise on the game you're playing. Some things fly, some things don't. And it all comes down to how you play your game.
|
|
I completely agree that a snake trying to move around in a tube of armor is completely ludicrous. Then again, I'd say the same for a horse. Perhaps some people need to think outside the sock?
Just for the record, when this conversation started and I said this was a ridiculous idea, I was imagining exactly what you've described -- a snake trying to move around in a half-tube of segment armor held in place by a bit in the mouth and straps -- and not a "sock" at all. Which would be even more ridiculous.
You can't compare how horse barding works with snakes. Snakes move in an entirely different manner than horses, and have an entirely different shape.
An intelligent, trainable snake (i.e. a magic snake) could possibly be trained to carry the sort of armor you're describing -- and make no mistake, it wouldn't be wearing the armor, it'd be carrying it -- but it's movement would be extremely hampered, it wouldn't be able to attack, and it would almost certainly hate and resent you with every fiber of its being.
|
|
Just because you allow one thing by "rule of cool" (like dire flails) doesn't mean you have to allow everything.You know what else is cool? Snake barding.
Nope, sorry. Much like sparkling vampires, the idea of armor for snakes doesn't tickle my "that's cool" reflex so much as it tickles my "gag reflex."
Snake barding is just plain dumb.
Snake barding is just plain dumb.
I'm pretty sure snake barding thinks you're a dumb sparkle vampire, too.
(Since you've reduced us to that level of discourse.)
/thread
It's not a straw man. It's Austin Morgan's argument: "no but seriously, it's fantasy - get over it. The "but it's not realistic!" argument goes out the freakin' window the second any PC or NPC takes a single level in at least half the classes."
Yes, the arm flapping thing is a strawman on several fronts, for starters, the rules of the game say you can do one but not the other.
Right, because if I accept one impossible thing, then I must accept every impossible thing, regardless of how stupid it is. That's totally how imagination works. Everything a person can imagine is awesome, and if you think anything that someone imagined is dumb, then you absolutely must be a complete stick in the mud who only accepts the 100% plausible in the game.
Secondly you're committing the fallacy of the excluded middle. The question is NOT some binary option between complete realism and utter malarky. There are DEGREES in between. It has been established that even the mundane things in the game don't always conform to strict realism. I do not consider snake armor to be remotely on par with flapping your hands to fly.
You should heed your own advice here, just because someone accepts a snake wearing armor does NOT mean they must accept allowing them to fly by flapping their arms.
In fact, if i was told that for a million dollars to either make armor for a boa constrictor, long jump 100 feet by Olympic regulations, or learn to use a dire flail as a weapon I'd opt for the snake armor.
Some sort of flexible, stretchy base in a fine web pattern with small. leather backed scales fixed to it might work. Or you could make a series of plates with a bubble on the top like a buckler, letting it stay on then the snake expands and contracts to move.
You've got it all worked out, Wolf. Except that it's a facile and flimsy argument that holds no water at all. Just because you allow one thing by "rule of cool" (like dire flails) doesn't mean you have to allow everything.
Since you commit the very error you object to for half of my argument and don't respond to the other half i don't see how you can judge its water resistance.
I'm putting snake armor on a scale of realism, not a binary yes/no. I look at the scale of realism for the rest of the game. I don't think the snake armor is outside of that. Either because you think snake armor would be harder to make than i do or you want a more realistic game we get different results. Outside of some experimental engineering that would probably involve a protest from PETA the differences will have to remain either theoretical or aesthetic.
You attribute that difference to an complete disregard for realism and a desire for cheese. It is neither. It is a difference of opinion on a matter of engineering, xenoergonomics, thematic aesthetics, and game balance. I don't feel a druid should be penalized just for making a less common animal companion choice.
|
|
So I thought I would take a stab at magical barding for a large snake. The idea here is the equivalent of half plate. It is a a series of connected plates that attach to the top of the snake. Nothing on the bottom. The armor can be attached to the snake as if using Sovereign Glue and detached as if using Salve of Slipperiness. Each feature is usable 1/day to keep costs down.
I calculate the total cost to be 5250 gp with a cost to make, if you have Craft Wondrous or Arms and armor, 3900gp.
See the spoiler for details:
1st MW half plate barding for a large animal = 600 gp x4=2400gp +150gp for MW to enchant= 2550 gp total.
Sovereign Glue uses Make whole and Salve of Slip uses Grease.
SG feature: Make Whole = 3*2*1800=10,800
SS feature: Grease = 1*1*1800*1.5(for second feature)=2700
Each is usable 1/day so both amounts are divided by 5 giving 2160 and 540 gp respectively.
Total armor and enchanting costs for a base price of 5250 gp or 3900gp if you do the enchanting yourself.
Mundane barding for a snake seems far fetched if nigh impossible to me. But as you can see a magical solution is quite reasonable.
|
|
Reductio ad absurdum.Very good, Happler. You have correctly identified the form of argument I'm making.
And...?
I agree that you have to take barding on a case by case answer, but at the same token, you also have to take all things in the game one case at a time. For example: Reach weapons allow a character to attack a square 10' away. If you take your style argument into case, then a reach weapon in the hands of a tiny fey should also reach 10' away.
Barding on a thursh for example, while it may gain little no direct AC bonus to the bird (+0 to +1) does count as armor for the sake of enchantments. Or are all animal companions not allowed magic items?
That aside, this is a moot point. The rules, as they are written, allow it and have rules for it (see "Armor for Unusual Creatures" in the equipment section).
|
|
Once you get past the idea of how to put magic items on a snake you can have some cool things heck some magic items can take an AC and make them awsome:
Headpiece of invisibility. Velociraptor out of nowhere!
Bridle of speed. That's right and invisible hasted tiger!
Thingamajig of flying. Oh yeah, now he is flying and invisible. Here boy, where are you?
Mighty fists. Feel the pain!
Hat of disguise. Why is my horse growling like a lion? I have no idea officer. You know those crazy wizards.
Neckband of vast intelligence. Yes, my snake is smarter than the fighter.
The concept of a magic item making druid seems kinda cool all of a sudden.
|
Ruleswise, giving barding to a snake is absolutely not any more overpowered or underpowered than giving armor to any other animal companion.
It's just silly looking to me. Like putting shoes on a dog or a hat on a fish.
Make the rule as you will in your games, just don't expect to see any armored snakes show up in print is all.
Starknives don't seem silly to me. I can imagine them being wielded and/or thrown in combat.
But a snake in armor? Nope. Silly.
Aw man... there goes THAT submission to Paizo: "The Quest for the Snake Bardings". How will the town survive the threat of a horde of goblins unless the town's champion snakes have the armor of their legendary forebears? HOW???
|
|
It's kinda' interesting that in Golarian non-magical armour made out of leaves is 'cool', but armour (even magical armour) on a snake is always 'silly'... just sayin'... YMMV... ;)
... But on a (slightly) more serious note - this is the company which brought us the Misfit Monsters book trying to redeem some of the silliest D&D monsters of all time. Any reason such progressive thinking couldn't be applied to make armour for a snake 'cool'?
Meh. Snake barding sounds pretty lame to me, but it's all just preferences, really. This is where the individual culture of the gaming group & DM judgement come in to play and have to make common cause to ensure a happy medium is met.
But what about a flying snake? Would it be ok to have non magical barding then??
This thread cracks me up!
|
Creative Director
|
| 1 person marked this as FAQ candidate. |
One of the disadvantages about being Creative Director is that when you post to messageboards, you open up what you say to overanalysis.
To be more accurate... I'm not objecting to the idea of an armored snake being unrealistic (although it does have that problem). I'm mostly objecting to the idea that, in my opinion, a snake with armor (or clothes, or a hat, or a ring on its tail, or a necklace, or ANYthing like clothing or accessories) is silly. Snakes have very little things going on body-wise to hang clothes or accessories on, and they move their whole bodies to move around. As a result, it just looks silly to me. THAT'S what I mostly object to.
And the fact that there are real-world examples of how to armor a quadruped (be it a horse or an elephant or a lizard or whatever) while I can't think of any real-world examples of an armored snake doesn't help.
And as I've said before (but apparently not enough), if you like the idea of armored snakes in your game, do it! The rules allow it by not specifically DISallowing it. And from a game balance standpoint, it's MORE logical to allow a snake to wear armor since all other animal companions can.
|
Creative Director
|
"I'm in the "nope; not realistic, the snake would just crawl out of the armor" camp." – James Jacobs
"It's not that I find armored snakes unrealistic. Not at all." – James Jacobs
Draw your own conclusion.
My conclusion: You deliberately left off date stamps to make it look like I said two contradictory things back to back because I'm insane.
Another conclusion: every word must be analyzed excessively before committing anything to the remorseless machine that is the Internet.
I could see it with chain or lamellar of some form. Kind of like the iron cobra. Truthfully making it just a bit 'tight' on the snake should cause the muscles to hold it in place for the most part.
Use of sovereign glue would help -- but you would need to keep some on hand for each time the snake mottles. If it is mithral and the snake has endurance there will be little reason for the snake to take it off.
All in all though -- whatever.
Just becouse you can do a thing dosent mean you should do a thing.
Think of the kittens...