Is it possible to put barding on an Constrictor Snake Animal Companion?


Rules Questions

101 to 150 of 207 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | next > last >>
Dark Archive

James Jacobs wrote:

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.

I'm surprised you commented on this topic, as you surely knew the possible results.

I'm even more surprised you believe it's silly. People have different views of course, but the very nature of PRGs and the fantastic elements it brings should open people's minds, not close them. This isn't a balance issue, and I'm very glad you said that at least. I just find it surprising that we the players can accept a lot of things, and you, the creative director should be even more open to things. It might be silly at first, but then somebody takes a different approach, and then it becomes a serious topic.

Why not have a writer think of some ways for yuan-ti, snakemen, or naga to develop barding for their snake mounts? I haven't touched Carrion Crown, but was there any snake mounts or other mounts the ancient snake races might have used?

There's magic horseshoes in the game. Magic fangs for snakes can't be that surprising. And from there, snake barding can be developed. It can be uncomfortable sure, but horse barding isn't meant to stay on forever either.


James Jacobs wrote:
Axl wrote:

"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.

Both of your conclusions are wrong.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Nothing silly about Sir. Hiss. Nothing at all

Dark Archive

James Jacobs wrote:
I'm in the "nope; not realistic, the snake would just crawl out of the armor" camp.

What if it was magic snake armor? :O

But seriously, they live in a world where magic is relatively commonplace - I can throw fireballs and fight dragons, but I can't make some armor for a snake? Hardly the craziest thing that can happen in a high-magic setting...


@the James thumping topic

Hey now, he's just a guy like the rest of us. He can express his opinions and debate like the rest of us, and he can expand his ideas. We're not calling out Axl for contributing very little to this topic.

Back on the topic: Has anyone seen Legend of the Guardians?

Owls with armor, magic items, weapons etc. And it looked pretty sweet.

BigNorseWolf wrote:
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.

This. I think this is the biggest argument to pull for Snake Barding. Well, and a snake in sweet armor seems like a bad mama-jamma.

The Exchange

Serpent Barding: constructed individually for each snake this armour consists of a series of plates formed to match the serpent's own major dorsal scales and articulated into an armoured 'spine'. The armour lays atop the serpent, and wraps a little round the sides, following the curvature of the snake's ribs, but is held in place by the muscular control of the snake itself, rather than any complex system of straps - such control is a challenging task for any serpent to learn, and as a result only the most exceptional specimens (such as Animal Companions) can wear serpent barding. Light serpent barding is made with hard boiled leather plates laced together (and counts as studded leather armour), whilst medium serpent barding is constructed of articluated metal plates (and counts as breastplate armour). Heavy serpent barding is generally unknown.

... Mechanically and biologically accurate in real world terms? Doubtful.

... As silly as armour made out of leaves? Also doubtful... ;)

But hey - YMMV.

Dark Archive

Stynkk wrote:

@the James thumping topic

Hey now, he's just a guy like the rest of us. He can express his opinions and debate like the rest of us, and he can expand his ideas. We're not calling out Axl for contributing very little to this topic.

Back on the topic: Has anyone seen Legend of the Guardians?

Owls with armor, magic items, weapons etc. And it looked pretty sweet.

BigNorseWolf wrote:
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.

This. I think this is the biggest argument to pull for Snake Barding. Well, and a snake in sweet armor seems like a bad mama-jamma.

+1

Liberty's Edge

BigNorseWolf wrote:
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.

Shifting the goal posts after the fact does not make my argument a strawman fallacy. It just means you shifted the goalposts.

Quote:
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.

I'm committing the fallacy of the excluded middle? Me? You're a bit confused there, Norsey. You're the one who committed the fallacy of the excluded middle with you long jumping barbarian.

Quote:
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.

My argument about flapping your arms is in response to Austin's argument that no appeals to reality are worth considering in a fantasy game - an argument that itself is a fallacy of the excluded middle.

But seriously, you're the one who should be heeding your own advice. First you accuse me of making a strawman of Austin's argument by presenting your own completely different argument after the fact, and then you accuse me of excluding the middle right after you did that yourself.

Liberty's Edge

Cartigan wrote:

You would have a valid counterargument... were your argument not "THAT'S UNREALISTIC!"

Realistic: A 4 armed Ape thing with boar tusks wearing armor.
Too unrealistic: A 30 foot snake in barding.

The first strikes me as fantastic, the second as unrealistic. Your mileage may vary.

I own a python. I've owned many other snakes over the years, mostly constrictors but I've also owned a sidewinder and a rattlesnake. I'm very familiar with snakes, very knowledgeable about them (as you might gather from the fact that I've owned poisonous snakes, amateur herpetology is an interest of mine), and so -- naturally -- it's a lot easier to break my sense of verisimilitude when dealing with snakes.

See, snakes are real to me. I know how snakes are, and when someone suggests a snake doing something I know a snake wouldn't do it sets off my BS detector and I think "No, that's not right."

Giant snakes don't seem unrealistic to me because it's just a bigger snake, and its easy to imagine anything normal sized as simply bigger. Especially something with the inherent size variance of real snakes, which do get pretty fantastically huge.

On the other side, I have absolutely no frame of reference for four-armed, tusked ape things in armor. Unlike snakes, I've never owned, handled, or studied four-armed, tusked ape things. To me, such things are pure fantasy. They have no basis in reality, so not only would I not call them realistic (they're "fantastic").

You do not get to demand that because I think snake barding is not fantastic, simply unrealistic, that I must therefore think some completely unrelated thing is not fantastic, simply unrealistic. Aesthetics are not rational, and it's entirely possible to think that one thing is unrealistic and another is fantastic.

Quote:
Besides, how, exactly, is so unrealistic? Is it because armor can't bend? Because you can't attach it to the snake? What, exactly, is your realism contention?

My contention is that the way snakes, and constrictors in particular, move makes it next to impossible to design armor that they could passively wear. And since the ability to be passively worn is essential to the concept of armor, if it can't be passively worn then its not armor.

A fantastically intelligent and motivated snake could possibly carry an armored half-shell (made of segmented plates) it could hide under, but it would so severely limit its ability to move and fight effectively that I don't think it could possibly be worth the effort. Manipulating the shell would be a full-time job, and the more that is done to limit the shell's movement (i.e. underbelly straps or gluing it to the snake), the less effective the snake will be at doing what it does best: constricting!

Armor made of cloth or any other highly flexible material (like chain) won't work at all, because it would just slip right off the snake.

Quote:

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.

A warrior swinging a sword, were it to actually HIT a thrush, would cleave it in twain. Your argument is invalid.

Excuse me? That's my point: if a warrior hits a thrush with a sword, the thrush is dead, regardless of whether its wearing plate mail or not.

How does that invalidate my argument?


James Jacobs wrote:
It's just silly looking to me. Like putting shoes on a dog or a hat on a fish.

It's been a while since this was said, but my dog wears shoes when inside so she doesn't scratch the floor.

Tiny little soft shoesies!


Quote:
Shifting the goal posts after the fact does not make my argument a strawman fallacy. It just means you shifted the goalposts.

Picking a random fallacy and flailing it around doesn't help your case. You made an analogy. The analogy doesn't hold on multiple fronts, hence it is a strawman. The two fronts it doesn't hold on are 1) being allowed by the rules and

Quote:
I'm committing the fallacy of the excluded middle? Me? You're a bit confused there, Norsey. You're the one who committed the fallacy of the excluded middle with you long jumping barbarian.

2) Your own if jesus then aliens analogy. The point of the long jumping barbarian was to point out the problem to you. You're halfway there. You can see the problem in other people's arguments. Now try applying that to "if you let a snake wear armor you have to let people fly by flapping their arms."

Quote:
My argument about flapping your arms is in response to Austin's argument that no appeals to reality are worth considering in a fantasy game - an argument that itself is a fallacy of the excluded middle.

Would assuming sanity on the part of another speaker be too much on the internet?

Quote:
But seriously, you're the one who should be heeding your own advice. First you accuse me of making a strawman of Austin's argument by presenting your own completely different argument after the fact

You made the analogy to the general argument of those eschewing realism, one of which i was making. If you use buckshot in a crowded room, expect multiple angry people.

You'll note that my posts predate yours. The goalposts have always been there

Can you address the argument of snakes in armor as a continuum?

Paizo Employee Creative Director

Don't make me come in here and use my "Jack Baur is Lawful Good, James Bond is Lawful Evil, Batman is Chaotic Good" Alignment Derailing powers on this thread!


James Jacobs wrote:
Don't make me come in here and use my "Jack Baur is Lawful Good, James Bond is Lawful Evil, Batman is Chaotic Good" Alignment Derailing powers on this thread!

But those are all true. Who would argue you that?

Paizo Employee Creative Director

Shadow_of_death wrote:
James Jacobs wrote:
Don't make me come in here and use my "Jack Baur is Lawful Good, James Bond is Lawful Evil, Batman is Chaotic Good" Alignment Derailing powers on this thread!
But those are all true. Who would argue you that?

Wait and see, that's who!

(ALSO: You get 2 Dino Points for agreeing with me. Well done!)


Realism doesn't matter too much. Doing [x] as nonmagical ability hasn't surprised me since I learned a barbarian could, nonmagically, get angry enough to grow claws and course with lightning.

But the silliness issue bothers me. Why do people think a snake animal companion with barding (or whatever) is any sillier than a lion companion who has to wear a pretty necklace (amulet of mighty fists) when it wants to go into battle? And also my lion has "horseshoes" of speed. So, *if* I'm optimizing, my animal companion is going to have a pretty necklace, a headband, a belt (which, btw, really screws with feline locomotion IRL), and some little cat boots? Maybe lets give my horse a friggen' sombrero of underwater action , just for good measure? Come on. That's goofy. Way goofier than my metal battlesnake.


James Jacobs wrote:
Don't make me come in here and use my "Jack Baur is Lawful Good, James Bond is Lawful Evil, Batman is Chaotic Good" Alignment Derailing powers on this thread!

How dare you! James Bond is Neutral Evil, Casino Royale anyone?

Liberty's Edge

BigNorseWolf wrote:
Quote:
Shifting the goal posts after the fact does not make my argument a strawman fallacy. It just means you shifted the goalposts.
Picking a random fallacy and flailing it around doesn't help your case. You made an analogy. The analogy doesn't hold on multiple fronts, hence it is a strawman. The two fronts it doesn't hold on are 1) being allowed by the rules and

Oh my god, dude, you seriously need to direct this comment to yourself.

What does "The analogy doesn't hold on multiple fronts, hence it is a strawman." even mean? That's not what a strawman is. A strawman is a weak proxy for an argument that is rebutted instead of rebutting the actual argument made.

You don't even seem to know what a strawman is, and you're accusing me of making one? Austin didn't say anything about the rules of the game. His argument was essentially "Any claim that any element of the setting is unrealistic is invalidated because the setting includes elements of the fantastic."

That is the argument I was responding to. You are trying to take that response to Austin's argument and make it a response to your argument. That is shifting the goalposts - changing the argument being rebutted after the rebuttal is offered.

And I am not "picking a random fallacy." If anyone is doing that, it's you with your completely made up definition of a strawman argument as an "analogy that doesn't hold on multiple fronts."

Quote:
Quote:
I'm committing the fallacy of the excluded middle? Me? You're a bit confused there, Norsey. You're the one who committed the fallacy of the excluded middle with you long jumping barbarian.
2) Your own if jesus then aliens analogy. The point of the long jumping barbarian was to point out the problem to you. You're halfway there. You can see the problem in other people's arguments. Now try applying that to "if you let a snake wear armor you have to let people fly by flapping their arms."

You're being really condescending for a guy who is so amazingly wrong. You're presenting a straw man here, because my argument was not "if you let a snake wear armor then you have to let people fly by flapping their arms," it was "if lack of realism is never cause to reject a concept, then you must never reject concepts as being unrealistic."

Which leads one to the absurd conclusion that one must accept flapping one's arms as a means of flight, despite it being so clearly unrealistic and absurd.

It's called a reductio ad absurdum, and it's the perfect rebuttal to an argument such as Austin's that makes universal claims that exclude the possibility of middle positions.

You're not pointing out a problem in my argument, you've simply completely failed to understand the argument.

Quote:
Quote:
My argument about flapping your arms is in response to Austin's argument that no appeals to reality are worth considering in a fantasy game - an argument that itself is a fallacy of the excluded middle.
Would assuming sanity on the part of another speaker be too much on the internet?

Get real. According to your comment above, your claim about the barbarian was the exact same form of argument I made against Austin's

argument. So if I'm assuming Austin is insane, then you must logically be assuming I'm insane.

I'm done talking to you, Norse. You're condescending and don't know what you're talking about, a combination of traits that I find completely infuriating.

Liberty's Edge

Irulesmost wrote:

Realism doesn't matter too much. Doing [x] as nonmagical ability hasn't surprised me since I learned a barbarian could, nonmagically, get angry enough to grow claws and course with lightning.

But the silliness issue bothers me. Why do people think a snake animal companion with barding (or whatever) is any sillier than a lion companion who has to wear a pretty necklace (amulet of mighty fists) when it wants to go into battle? And also my lion has "horseshoes" of speed. So, *if* I'm optimizing, my animal companion is going to have a pretty necklace, a headband, a belt (which, btw, really screws with feline locomotion IRL), and some little cat boots? Maybe lets give my horse a friggen' sombrero of underwater action , just for good measure? Come on. That's goofy. Way goofier than my metal battlesnake.

Sounds to me like you're powergaming and know it. If you know the outcome of "optimizing" is "goofy," then either you're intentionally aiming for goofy or you're powergaming. Because "optimizing" means "making optimal choices that fit the concept of the character," while powergaming means "making optimal choices for metagame purposes."

I also would point out that absolutely no one in this thread has said that snake barding is sillier than turning your lion companion into some half-assed battle cat.

On a side note, I've been thinking about banning animal companions from my next campaign, because I don't think they're balanced and they seem prone to cheese. This thread has gone a long way towards convincing me that is the right decision.


Gailbraithe wrote:
Irulesmost wrote:

Realism doesn't matter too much. Doing [x] as nonmagical ability hasn't surprised me since I learned a barbarian could, nonmagically, get angry enough to grow claws and course with lightning.

But the silliness issue bothers me. Why do people think a snake animal companion with barding (or whatever) is any sillier than a lion companion who has to wear a pretty necklace (amulet of mighty fists) when it wants to go into battle? And also my lion has "horseshoes" of speed. So, *if* I'm optimizing, my animal companion is going to have a pretty necklace, a headband, a belt (which, btw, really screws with feline locomotion IRL), and some little cat boots? Maybe lets give my horse a friggen' sombrero of underwater action , just for good measure? Come on. That's goofy. Way goofier than my metal battlesnake.

Sounds to me like you're powergaming and know it. If you know the outcome of "optimizing" is "goofy," then either you're intentionally aiming for goofy or you're powergaming. Because "optimizing" means "making optimal choices that fit the concept of the character," while powergaming means "making optimal choices for metagame purposes."

I also would point out that absolutely no one in this thread has said that snake barding is sillier than turning your lion companion into some half-assed battle cat.

On a side note, I've been thinking about banning animal companions from my next campaign, because I don't think they're balanced and they seem prone to cheese. This thread has gone a long way towards convincing me that is the right decision.

Lol. I'm no cheesemonkey. And that's a different definition of "optimal" than most on these boards use (even though I am inclined to agree with you on the definition of optimizing vs. powergaming.)

If I powergame, it's when I take a strange, offbeat character concept (Dirty Trick oriented fighter, or a Geomancer wizard, a blasty sorcerer, or, according to some, any given monk) and then do a whole bunch of crunching to make the "suboptimal" concept par or better. I've never played, for example, a Falchion-wielding, power-attacking, hyper-fighter. You're clearly much more upset by some of this thread than you should be, and taking some of that out on me, and others, without fully understanding where the targets of your ire are coming from.

Now, I shall clarify. Powergamers and cheesemonkeys love the "Big Cat" animal companion. They love it because of pounce, they Greater Magic Fang it like crazy, give it an amulet of mighty fists(Holy), light (or medium mithral) barding, and, if they can get away with it, a belt of +Str. Maybe even a headband of +Wis or a cloak of some kind. This is silly. This is also "optimal," and I've never seen anybody bat an eye at these goofy battlecats. Sure, nobody has disagreed with how silly they are, but I've seen games with them wherein that was par for the course, and on a fair amount of CharOp threads on these boards, things like this aren't restricted on grounds of "that's silly."

Edit: As for the bit about banning animal companions? That's...arrogant. They exist as they do for a reason, and the staff made plenty of considerations regarding their balance as a class feature etc, and "big" houserules can have far-reaching effects and implications that were not considered.
I mean. Your game is your game, but I've yet to see an animal companion throw off the balance of a setting, AP, encounter, etc. to an unreasonable degree. Eidolons, on the other hand? Maybe. But only with lots of misinterpretation, accidental or otherwise.

Liberty's Edge

Irulesmost wrote:

Edit: As for the bit about banning animal companions? That's...arrogant. They exist as they do for a reason, and the staff made plenty of considerations regarding their balance as a class feature etc, and "big" houserules can have far-reaching effects and implications that were not considered.

I mean. Your game is your game, but I've yet to see an animal companion throw off the balance of a setting, AP, encounter, etc. to an unreasonable degree. Eidolons, on the other hand? Maybe. But only with lots of misinterpretation, accidental or otherwise.

I had an entire 3.5 campaign essentially destroyed by a druid with a sea serpent animal companion. With no magic armor, no buff spells, just straight out of the box.

By third level it had an AC that required criticals to hit by everything in the game, and it had a nearly unavoidable strength drain (delivered as a ranged touch attack thansk to the Spit Poison feat) that was a chore to manage (having to recalc hit bonuses every single round because of constant strength drain was so tedious I eventually just stopped doing it without telling the player).

I couldn't run a single damn adventure out of the book, I had to rewrite every single encounter to take into account this snake, and had to cheat like crazy when the player (who was just an obnoxious jerk by every measure) kept it out of combat and the creatures I had amped up to fight it were pit against the other players in the campaign, none of whom were significantly optimized.

You can call it arrogant, but I just don't think the party's fighter should be completely upstaged in every single combat by the druid's companion animal, but that's what I saw happening. I don't think its arrogant for me to tell players that they should take their Domain special ability instead of the animal companion. In fact, I've always assumed that option was introduced because Jason recognized how prone to abuse animal companions are.


Well I was looking at some options to increase the AC of my Snake Constrictor Animal Companion. At level 8 Ranger my animal companion has an AC of 17 and 39 HP.

Needless to say the Animal Companion doesn't last long. My companions have made jokes about how I'm making extinct the Snakes in the area.

I've had several feat combos like Dodge + Toughness to help it survive, but doesn't really last any longer.

Looking at increasing its AC and thought of adding barding. I don't want to take Boon Companion (3.5) feat so I've pretty much expect it to die because I don't know how to protect it.

Oh and the reason why I'm using a Snake is because it has both a Climb and Swim speed - good for the campaign we are in that has many terrain changes.


Animal companions in Pathfinder aren't what they were in 3.5. Explaining the how and why of it is a long dissertation but if you don't mind taking my word for it, they're significantly less powerful across the board.

Played well, the 3.5 druid (using any number of angles) did the adventure, and the other characters got to watch.


ProfPotts wrote:

Serpent Barding: constructed individually for each snake this armour consists of a series of plates formed to match the serpent's own major dorsal scales and articulated into an armoured 'spine'. The armour lays atop the serpent, and wraps a little round the sides, following the curvature of the snake's ribs, but is held in place by the muscular control of the snake itself, rather than any complex system of straps - such control is a challenging task for any serpent to learn, and as a result only the most exceptional specimens (such as Animal Companions) can wear serpent barding. Light serpent barding is made with hard boiled leather plates laced together (and counts as studded leather armour), whilst medium serpent barding is constructed of articluated metal plates (and counts as breastplate armour). Heavy serpent barding is generally unknown.

... Mechanically and biologically accurate in real world terms? Doubtful.

... As silly as armour made out of leaves? Also doubtful... ;)

But hey - YMMV.

Thanks ProfPotts, I'll ask my GM for this!!! +100 XP

Dark Archive

harmor wrote:

Well I was looking at some options to increase the AC of my Snake Constrictor Animal Companion. At level 8 Ranger my animal companion has an AC of 17 and 39 HP.

Needless to say the Animal Companion doesn't last long. My companions have made jokes about how I'm making extinct the Snakes in the area.

I've had several feat combos like Dodge + Toughness to help it survive, but doesn't really last any longer.

Looking at increasing its AC and thought of adding barding. I don't want to take Boon Companion (3.5) feat so I've pretty much expect it to die because I don't know how to protect it.

Oh and the reason why I'm using a Snake is because it has both a Climb and Swim speed - good for the campaign we are in that has many terrain changes.

According to some posting in this very thread, you are power gaming because you want your animal companion to live longer.


Quote:
What does "The analogy doesn't hold on multiple fronts, hence it is a strawman." even mean? That's not what a strawman is. A strawman is a weak proxy for an argument that is rebutted instead of rebutting the actual argument made.

yes. And why is your argument weak? Because it differs on both the scale of reasonableness and fails to take into account that one action is allowed in the RPG rules and another is not. If someone's argument is "lets allow anything allowed by the rpg rules no matter how unrealistic" and your example is "lets allow anything" you are indeed attacking a lesser and weaker argument. Your argument would be valid IF the pathfinder rules allowed you to fly by flapping your arms. They don't so it isn't.

Quote:
You don't even seem to know what a strawman is, and you're accusing me of making one? Austin didn't say anything about the rules of the game. His argument was essentially "Any claim that any element of the setting is unrealistic is invalidated because the setting includes elements of the fantastic."
Quote:
So, rather than reiterate my own arguments, I'm just going to address the three most prevalent pr-armored snake arguments:That is the argument I was responding to

You made an open rebuttal against all pro armored snake arguments. Not just one particular persons. That and your declarations of power gaming are what I objected to. Your response was to everyone. Now you claim its to a particular person. THAT's a moved goalpost.

Quote:
You're being really condescending for a guy who is so amazingly wrong. You're presenting a straw man here, because my argument was not "if you let a snake wear armor then you have to let people fly by flapping their arms,"

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.

Quote:

Get real. According to your comment above, your claim about the barbarian was the exact same form of argument I made against Austin's

argument. So if I'm assuming Austin is insane, then you must logically be assuming I'm insane.

You went to one extreme. I pointed out the problem with the other extreme, and then argued for finding out where to draw the line. You have completely refused to address that. How unreasonable is the snake armor? How unreasonable is the rest of the game? Where does this fit on the scale? How much do you look the other way from reality for the sake of game balance or a cool concept?

These are questions I've been asking you, questions that demonstrate the search for the middle ground that you think I'm excluding.


You know a snake with spines would be even easier to bard. just attach it to the spines.


GM said yes! Now I just need to add Armored spikes :-)


Glad to hear it Harmor

@the confrontation -

Get a room you two ^.~

Silver Crusade

This has me thinking about armored couatls now. Crazy awesome.

James Jacobs wrote:
Don't make me come in here and use my "Jack Baur is Lawful Good, James Bond is Lawful Evil, Batman is Chaotic Good" Alignment Derailing powers on this thread!

Don't forget Dexter to round out the wheel! ;)


Stynkk wrote:

Glad to hear it Harmor

@the confrontation -

Get a room you two ^.~

They won't let me have one after the incident with the kangaroo.


Mikaze wrote:
This has me thinking about armored couatls now. Crazy awesome.

Ooh. I like this. *steals the idea and runs away, dragging an armored coatl by the tail like some kind of disgruntled serpentine kite*


Eureka!

Reularly feed your giant snake 7 halflings. That will give you snake all the shoulders and contours you need to keep the armor on.

Liberty's Edge

Why armor for a snake? Why not a magical item/spell/potion made permenate to increase the serpents AC?

Reptiles including snakes get tagged. Make the item a magical tag that increases the AC AND make it trackable aka a Homing Beacon.

I tend to agree with Gailbraithes arguments. I'm no herpatologist, but I have work along side them in places of emplyment. I also know how snakes move.

It is totally up tot he DM to decide and IF a DM said No, I'd ask for a reasonable explaination as to why like Gailbraithes and accept it.

I as a player if a DM would allow it would say OK I am makeing mundane wings like Icarus and I am flying by flapping my arms. Or I'd demand I could have a worm that could constrict or slime someone. Or better yet I could teach my Dog to say to speak in a language everyone could understand. But then again I would expect my DM and players to laugh me out of the game.

While Pathfinder is a fantasy game, my group tries to base what we do on factual concepts. Can you personally jump a chasm 200 feet long? NO and neither could Jackie Chan or Jet Lee. Now IF they had a magic item that assisted them... I'd say yes.

But this all goes away from the snake. Once again it is up to the DM. If you as a DM cannot decide, then I'd say your not a DM I'd play with. If in my group the DM needs help... we base it on party vote and we do it outside of being players. In the end, DM's judgement over rules.

I as a DM say NO to the armor made for a snake. I as a DM would sit down with my player, find his reasoning and come up with an alternative like a magic item or spell. OR better yet have the spell casters and armours inthe party work togather to transform the snakes natural armor into a higher AC snake skin maybe like a snake golem withthe snakes personaility ingrained in it.


Quote:
I as a DM say NO to the armor made for a snake. I as a DM would sit down with my player, find his reasoning and come up with an alternative like a magic item or spell. OR better yet have the spell casters and armours inthe party work togather to transform the snakes natural armor into a higher AC snake skin maybe like a snake golem withthe snakes personaility ingrained in it.

Some things to consider for the magic item:

It should confer an armor bonus. Its pretty much assumed that working for a druid comes with access to barkskin (for a natural AC boost)

It should be enchantable, like armor.

It shouldn't cost more than barding.(or at least a not more)

Making a golem with the snakes personality doesn't work, mechanically, to be the equivalent of other animal companions. Golems have a host of immunities, and the druid can't cast spells like animal growth on it.

I also don't think it works thematically. Druids worship nature, and a golem is imitation life no matter how you cut it.

There's a lot of forms the magic item could take: a wearable golem, a bag of loose scales that take a few minutes to affix over the snakes real ones, a giant wearable snake skin, a giant macrame contraption with turtle shells, a cape of leaves...


What is funny is how people are going for a binary response to the theoretical semblance of reasonableness in this thread. There is either the no it cannot be done because there is no where to attach the armor camp, and then there is the "in a world where magic exists" why can't armor for a snake exist?

From a bio-engineering standpoint, it could easily be done, and I don't understand why people are having such a hard time with this. The snake has a very tough skin and thus has a higher natural armor than say a human. If you simply used a couple of piercings (several tribal people already do this to various parts of their body) along the top side and along the spine one could find points where you could attach armor. Yes, there is a chance that these piercings could become infected or break off or be shed. At that point you apply healing or simply treat the wound (mundane version) to prevent infection. If eventual shedding of the skin removes the piercings aka lanyards then you simply redo the piercings.

Bingo, you now have your attachment locations, and only on the "top" side of the snake so as to keep it from having problems with locomotion.

Regarding power gaming or optimizing, I think everyone plays this game with the intention to succeed. There is a reason you level and get stuff, in order to make yourself more "able". If you start off more able, then you simply gain in power faster. Optimizing and power gaming are basically akin to anything competitive. It is the same reason people race or are competitive in anything else we do.


delaneyalysa wrote:

Why armor for a snake? Why not a magical item/spell/potion made permenate to increase the serpents AC?

Reptiles including snakes get tagged. Make the item a magical tag that increases the AC AND make it trackable aka a Homing Beacon.

I tend to agree with Gailbraithes arguments. I'm no herpatologist, but I have work along side them in places of emplyment. I also know how snakes move.

It is totally up tot he DM to decide and IF a DM said No, I'd ask for a reasonable explaination as to why like Gailbraithes and accept it.

I as a player if a DM would allow it would say OK I am makeing mundane wings like Icarus and I am flying by flapping my arms. Or I'd demand I could have a worm that could constrict or slime someone. Or better yet I could teach my Dog to say to speak in a language everyone could understand. But then again I would expect my DM and players to laugh me out of the game.

While Pathfinder is a fantasy game, my group tries to base what we do on factual concepts. Can you personally jump a chasm 200 feet long? NO and neither could Jackie Chan or Jet Lee. Now IF they had a magic item that assisted them... I'd say yes.

But this all goes away from the snake. Once again it is up to the DM. If you as a DM cannot decide, then I'd say your not a DM I'd play with. If in my group the DM needs help... we base it on party vote and we do it outside of being players. In the end, DM's judgement over rules.

I as a DM say NO to the armor made for a snake. I as a DM would sit down with my player, find his reasoning and come up with an alternative like a magic item or spell. OR better yet have the spell casters and armours inthe party work togather to transform the snakes natural armor into a higher AC snake skin maybe like a snake golem withthe snakes personaility ingrained in it.

This magic item side debate is ridiculous and distracting from the real problem of people going "That's not realistic!" in D & f-ing D. You're advocating a magical item replacement for christ's sake! Moreover, magical items are FAR more expensive than mundane items. Why can't a snake have barding? Because someone considers themselves an animal expert. Great. Don't care. D&D/Pathfinder/Dont-care is not a real life simulation. It is a fantasy game that is covered by explicit rules. If a snake can't have barding, then EVERY OTHER CREATURE is inherently better than snakes as an animal companion because those other animals CAN have barding. THAT is the relevant fact here. A snake can have mundane barding because a wolf, a boar, an ape, and an alligator can have mundane barding.


The definitive rules answer to the question of whether or not you can put barding on any sort of snake is "Yes, you can" because the rules do not explicitly exclude snakes, or serpentine creatures, from the provided barding rules - which is what would have to be done to say that "snakes cannot have barding" by the rules of the game.

Whether or not you, XYZ DM, likes it or think it is "too unrealistic" is irrelevant to the rules answer.

Dark Archive

Posit the existence of a cadre of elite, incredibly knowledgeable druids in a high-magic setting who are totally into snakes. Suppose, then, that they decide to design some mundane armor for their snakes. Give them, say, a decade. Will they eventually design some sort of working mundane armor for a snake? Likely so. Remember that we, in the real world everyone is so concerned with comparing Golarion to, do not 1) travel with snakes and 2) have no need for armored snakes. Where there is demand, there comes supply. Given infinite resources (say, three 20th-level druids) anything is possible except that which is inherently self-contradictory (ie. no amount of effort will make a square circle). What is armor? Stuff that's intended to prevent harm to the wearer. What is a snake? A creature. This task is not self-contradictory, and while it would probably look as ridiculous as dogs in little booties, it can be done somehow.


The barding snake will be MUCH COOLER once you cast Awaken on it, and start advancing it in PC levels.

Just don't advance it as a druid, or you'll need WOODEN barding for your snake, and we all know that's not realistic at all.

Paizo Employee Director of Game Design

Hey there folks,

There seems to be a lot of arguing about how to properly argue in this thread. Lets know that out right now.

Next up, although I think it a bit comical, the rules do allow for armor for non-humanoid creatures, of which a snake would certainly qualify. So, barring a clear rule on the matter, it comes down to GM interpretation (as it does in most corner cases).

If it were me, I would probably disallow it, as a snake does not really have much of anything to attach armor to and wearing such gear is not within the animals nature. But that would be my call. Its a bit odd that we have a slightly more codified understanding of how creatures interact with magic items, in that they have to have the requisite slot physiologically to use the item, but when it comes to something like this, it is decidedly less clear.

I will investigate the issue a bit, but I doubt we will be able to craft a "catch all" guideline for such a variable question.

Please play nice folks. I dont want to have to lock this thread.

Jason Bulmahn
Lead Designer
Paizo Publishing


Jason Bulmahn wrote:

Hey there folks,

There seems to be a lot of arguing about how to properly argue in this thread. Lets know that out right now.

Next up, although I think it a bit comical, the rules do allow for armor for non-humanoid creatures, of which a snake would certainly qualify. So, barring a clear rule on the matter, it comes down to GM interpretation (as it does in most corner cases).

If it were me, I would probably disallow it, as a snake does not really have much of anything to attach armor to and wearing such gear is not within the animals nature. But that would be my call. Its a bit odd that we have a slightly more codified understanding of how creatures interact with magic items, in that they have to have the requisite slot physiologically to use the item, but when it comes to something like this, it is decidedly less clear.

I will investigate the issue a bit, but I doubt we will be able to craft a "catch all" guideline for such a variable question.

Please play nice folks. I don't want to have to lock this thread.

Jason Bulmahn
Lead Designer
Paizo Publishing

The bold. (emphasis mine), actually makes sense to me.

Thanks


Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Pathfinder Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Jason Bulmahn wrote:

Hey there folks,

There seems to be a lot of arguing about how to properly argue in this thread. Lets know that out right now.

Next up, although I think it a bit comical, the rules do allow for armor for non-humanoid creatures, of which a snake would certainly qualify. So, barring a clear rule on the matter, it comes down to GM interpretation (as it does in most corner cases).

If it were me, I would probably disallow it, as a snake does not really have much of anything to attach armor to and wearing such gear is not within the animals nature. But that would be my call. Its a bit odd that we have a slightly more codified understanding of how creatures interact with magic items, in that they have to have the requisite slot physiologically to use the item, but when it comes to something like this, it is decidedly less clear.

I will investigate the issue a bit, but I doubt we will be able to craft a "catch all" guideline for such a variable question.

Please play nice folks. I dont want to have to lock this thread.

Jason Bulmahn
Lead Designer
Paizo Publishing

Quick everyone gang up on Jason and say it doesn't know the rules. ;)

Makes a run for it


Jason Bulmahn wrote:


If it were me, I would probably disallow it, as a snake does not really have much of anything to attach armor to and wearing such gear is not within the animals nature. But that would be my call. Its a bit odd that we have a slightly more codified understanding of how creatures interact with magic items, in that they have to have the requisite slot physiologically to use the item, but when it comes to something like this, it is decidedly less clear.

(A) Magic items are meant for humanoids

(B) Pathfinder is a lot looser with magic items locked into specific slots

Dark Archive

beej67 wrote:

The barding snake will be MUCH COOLER once you cast Awaken on it, and start advancing it in PC levels.

Just don't advance it as a druid, or you'll need WOODEN barding for your snake, and we all know that's not realistic at all.

But then the snake will complain about not being able to use barding. And then we'll have to tell him because Paizo said so

:)


BYC wrote:
beej67 wrote:

The barding snake will be MUCH COOLER once you cast Awaken on it, and start advancing it in PC levels.

Just don't advance it as a druid, or you'll need WOODEN barding for your snake, and we all know that's not realistic at all.

But then the snake will complain about not being able to use barding. And then we'll have to tell him because Paizo said so

:)

If it were me, I would totally allow it, but I would restrict it to SCALE MAIL.

Nyuk yuk.

So hey, guys, can a dragon wear dragonhide armor and have the AC stack, since one is a natural armor bonus and the other is an armor bonus? Paizo seems to say 'yes' according to the response above...

:)


2 people marked this as a favorite.

hello all,

let me tell you this is indeed possible in real life, and also, that it is a bad bad idea. I can tell you this with certainty of experience.

it all started a few days ago, upon the first reading of this thread an the arguments that quickly cropped up. On my off time, I like to do various projects with metal, blacksmithing, welding, scultping, that sort of thing. I also am the armor-master of our local Fantasy Acting Guild, so I thought I may be in the unique position to end this discussion once and for all.

So yesterday I started a design based on a segmented scale armor with attaching straps. I admit I cheated a bit and instead of makiing a custom piece, I instead used an unfinished scale-mail arm and altered it to fit my vision. After staying up all night at the forge and leatherworking bench I think I did a damn fine job and could see that this would indeed be plausiable and even dare I say awesome. It fit snuggly on my wooden dummy snake, and when stretched and worn over my GFs arm, seemed to still allow full range of motion with moderate to good protection. So I finished up that night and planned to put it to the test the following morning.

There is a quite large wooded area behind my shop and so come sun up, I went to beating the bushes looking for a test subject, something my brothers and I used to do in our youth. Finally a beautiful specimen raced from under a bush, but I was able to trap it with my bush beating stick and place it in my bucket. Upon returning to my workshop I put the bucket into a large freezer for about 15 minutes (a quick google said this should force the snake into a psuedo-hibernation), after the quick chill, I checked on my subject and he was right out, even nonresponsive after a good poking with my stick.

here's a pic of Slith btw right before I got him in the bucket
Slith

So I quickly set about putting the newly fashioned armor on Slith (that's whay I called him). To my surprise it went on pretty easy and as I moved him around, it seemed to keep his full range of motion...then he woke up.

I had Slith by the tail as I was swinging him about to see how the armor moved, and when he hissed and moved on his own I freaked a little and slipped my grip. At first it was funny looking watching Slith contort and unjulate under the armor barding and I thought that this was the proof I needed that snake armor was impossible. Then I guess Slith got tired of my laughing and my poking stick, cause then the bastard sat straight up and hissed at me and charged! It was amazing, the straps and anchor points held just as intended, they sure didn't seem to slow him down much, well maybe a little, but that's what armor check penalties and movement penalties simulate right?

Normally I wouldn't be too worried about it, I had my stick after all, but after my first two swipes at him bounced harmlessly off his armored hide, a brief moment of wonder at the irony of the situation struck...as did Slith. His first bite got me in the shin, but I was able to kick him off pretty quick. I then threw down my stick and picked up the ash shovel from the forge and brought it down to severe the head of my betrayer, but alas, I am too good at my craft and the armored segment behind his head held (note: again irony is a pain, as I had taken extra time in forging the tiny helmet for Slith, thinking that such a vulnerable spost should be heavily armored)

He struck again, this time catching me in the forearm as I withdrew from my blow and then as quick, well as a snake, got me again on the upper thigh as I tried to back up.

At this point I was pretty desperate and backpeddling on the ground as I bled blood and peed myself a little. I thought surely though he'd just leave after I was retreating, but...but it was like he was emboldened by the armor, given power.

I can see his squinty little eyes behind the little visor I made him everytime I close mine. I don't want to see them anymore.

I kept feebly smashing at Slith with my shovel, as he moved forward like some armored juggernaut from the cover of some '80s heavy metal band. I swung for all I was worth and I know I hit him, but that DAMN armor was just too good! All I remember is those eyes, those damnable eyes, staring at me with...with ****ing malice and something like triumph.

I woke up in this hospital bed about 2 hours ago. The doc says the paramedics counted 27 bite wounds in addition to the 3rd degree burns on my ass and back (apparently I passed out against the forge they say) and it is a miracle that I'm not dead. Again apparently, anti-venom is becoming pretty rare and it took the last of their stores just to survive this long, but they think things are looking hopeful, eveyone smiles real nice at me when they talk. So that's good right?

Anyways, so snake armor is quite possible, even successful, but damn if it isn't a bad idea.

well I've got to go, the doctor just came in and its time for another round of anti-venom and the plastic surgeons want to look at my burns and discuss skin-grafts, so I hope I'll be around.

I hope this sheds some light on the discussion.

101 to 150 of 207 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder First Edition / Rules Questions / Is it possible to put barding on an Constrictor Snake Animal Companion? All Messageboards