|
They aren't useless. They just apply at a later level.Because then about 100 to 200 words of text are useless in that archetype, and that is certainly not the intent.The devs have confirmed that 41 words of text in that archetype are useless. What's another 12 - 14?
Fair enough. But my point--if I had one--is that you're trying to apply logic to an archetype that doesn't have any. You're saying "why would they specifically list a mount if you can't actually use it?" The devs have confirmed that "you can't select things unless you can use it as a mount." The archetype then later lists things you can't select as a mount. Which includes dinosaurs.
As Walter said, the Beast Rider and Titan Mauler archetypes are both a mess as written. They're easy enough to fix in home games, but in PFS you have to deal with the fact that they don't do what they say. Which sucks if you show up at a table with your level 5 tiger mount or your Large Greatsword and find out you can't use them.
|
They aren't useless. They just apply at a later level.Because then about 100 to 200 words of text are useless in that archetype, and that is certainly not the intent.The devs have confirmed that 41 words of text in that archetype are useless. What's another 12 - 14?
Fair enough. But my point--if I had one--is that you're trying to apply logic to an archetype that doesn't have any. You're saying "why would they specifically list a mount if you can't actually use it?" The devs have confirmed that "you can't select things unless you can use it as a mount." The archetype then later lists things you can't select as a mount. Which includes dinosaurs.
As Walter said, the Beast Rider and Titan Mauler archetypes are both a mess as written. They're easy enough to fix in home games, but in PFS you have to deal with the fact that they don't do what they say. Which sucks if you show up at a table with your level 5 tiger mount or your Large Greatsword and find out you can't use them.
I'm not disagreeing that the Beast Master is a horribly written archetype, based on the clarification on the language on medium sized mounts for medium cavaliers.
However, I completely, and totally disagree that the last sentence in the last paragraph does anything but modify the last paragraph.
I think a GM who reads that far into the messily written archetype that they'd disallow a 7th level allosaurus riding cavalier would be failing on the "don't be a jerk" rule.
|
|
However, I completely, and totally disagree that the last sentence in the last paragraph does anything but modify the last paragraph.
Normally I'd agree with you, but the clarification kind of throws everything out the window. Basically, they said, "no matter what the archetype says, you have to follow the rules for what you can use as a mount." I still see your argument, but they're very muddy waters.
|
|
However, I completely, and totally disagree that the last sentence in the last paragraph does anything but modify the last paragraph.Normally I'd agree with you, but the clarification kind of throws everything out the window. Basically, they said, "no matter what the archetype says, you have to follow the rules for what you can use as a mount." I still see your argument, but they're very muddy waters.
Sure, but there are no general mount rules that say it has to be 4-legged. You can’t apply a specific case to the general category just because other specific cases within the whole don’t make sense when looking at the general category rules.
Only mounts chosen from the last paragraph have to be 4-legged.
|
|
However, I completely, and totally disagree that the last sentence in the last paragraph does anything but modify the last paragraph.Normally I'd agree with you, but the clarification kind of throws everything out the window. Basically, they said, "no matter what the archetype says, you have to follow the rules for what you can use as a mount." I still see your argument, but they're very muddy waters.Sure, but there are no general mount rules that say it has to be 4-legged. You can’t apply a specific case to the general category just because other specific cases within the whole don’t make sense when looking at the general category rules.
Only mounts chosen from the last paragraph have to be 4-legged.
Andrew you might be right, but it's currently unclear. I am not the only one who reads it differently from you, so you should expect table variance.
I used to think that medium riders could ride the given mounts at level 4 as it specifically said you could, but that was changed.
|
I don't enjoy agreeing with Andrew, but I do agree that the last sentence of that paragraph is only relevant to that paragraph. not the entire archetype, based on english grammar, which the RAW are written in.
if it were separated out into a new paragraph, or attached to the part for 4th level animal lists, that would be a different story.
|
RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16
|
Again, and I firmly believe this, if as a GM you are going to nerf this archetype more than it already has been nerfed by the fact that it was poorly written, to nigh uselessness, then as a GM, you are being a Jerk. ... If you want to interpret the last line of the last paragraph to basically make this archetype useless, that's on you, and any player would be right to be very pissed at you.
Andrew, my friend,
People of good conscience can disagree with one another. People can read one or another part of the game and conclude that it is, in fact, useless (pre-errata "Prone Shooter") or incoherent (pre-errata Tetori monk).
If I sat at your table a month ago and asked, "I got 'Prone Shooter'. What the heck does it do?" and you explained "It doesn't do anything! You chose a useless feat," would that make you a jerk?
If so, and if the rule for messageboard behavior ("don't be a jark") applies to all PFS behavior, what should you have ruled, instead?
Back a few months ago, when synthesist summoners were allowed, you might have had a synthesist PC sit at your table with a serpentine eidolon without the Extra Limbs evolution. You'd follow SKR's guideline and announce that the character couldn't cast spells with somatic components when the eidolon was out. That could mess up a character. I think we can all agree that the purpose of that summoner archetype was to allow the character to function inside her eidolon. If you wanted to enforce the rules as SKR explained them, would that be "on you"? Would a player be right to be "very pissed at you"?
Right now, in lieu of any upcoming clarification or errata, some people are reading the Beast Master archetype as useless. I don't think they're being jerks.
|
|
Right now, in lieu of any upcoming clarification or errata, some people are reading the Beast Master archetype as useless. I don't think they're being jerks.
I appreciate that. However, I disagree strongly that disallowing 3 mounts out of the 20+ mounts granted by the archetype makes the archetype useless.
I agree riding a two legged dinosaur is a staple of fantasy. The iconic druid is a gnome with a white tiger, but a gnome beast rider cannot pick a white tiger. Only medium-sized beast riders can.
In pathfinder it is also canon that rocs, dire bats, and geckos are used as riding beasts. They even give us the price of hypogriff eggs and templated extra giant geckos. However, the beast rider can ride none of these, but a small druid could ride them at level 1 (roc and bat) and level 4 (gecko).
Unfortunately, the staple of fantasy is covered by druids. Beastrider caveliers are still horse-centric.
|
|
I don't enjoy agreeing with Andrew, but I do agree that the last sentence of that paragraph is only relevant to that paragraph. not the entire archetype, based on english grammar, which the RAW are written in.
if it were separated out into a new paragraph, or attached to the part for 4th level animal lists, that would be a different story.
Again, under normal circumstances, I would agree that normal practices of grammar and context make that clear.
But we have a situation where the archetype says "at this level you can do this." And the devs are saying "yes, it says that, and that's right, but you can't do it if it's not allowed." How are we supposed to know which exceptions trump standing rules? If the case they call out doesn't, should we assume the others do?
