|
It's a foundational trope that we have mounted flying knights. There is just way too much fantasy literature that dwells on this imagery and it ought to be something that is locked into the rules at this point.
Bad fantasy literature, sure.
If it's such a trope for your playgroup have your GM houserule it and move on.
So what are the beast rider's options in regards to new mounts? I've got to admit I'm surprised to hear that there's no support for flying mounts in UC.
I just allow the minibestiary dragonne to all cavaliers.
But you are essentially right OP. Gods. The sadness.
Pretty melodramatic thread... FYI: If something wasn`t had in the first place, it can`t be taken away.
BTW, I think there`s a PRPG Sable Guard Ranger Archetype that rides Hippogriffs. Not sure if it`s PFS-legal or not.
Supposedly linked to the Korvosa Sable Guard, but since it doesn`t do anything besides the Hippogriff thing, there`s no reason anybody else couldn`t take it.
...OH, bonus points for complaining about `only` having a regular Mount until 4th level.
Hmmm.. Rather than positing neural malfunction within Paizo`s design staff, I`d rather suppose it`s just a difference of opinion re: balance and class design. I don`t see the conceptual gap when Companions are already built to have Level Pre-Req`s to access their `grown up` version... I would see this ability as simply saying that the `un-natural` Companions have a higher level pre-req even to access their `baby` version... And don`t see how that`s controversial, 1st level characters are assumed to be within a certain power band and not have certain abilities at their disposal... What they did achieves that. And I don`t see how having (say) a standard Bear Companion from Level 1 doesn`t count as having a `Beast` you ride...
Sorry you can`t tell your DM that the book says you can have a dragon companion from Level 1. /shrug
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
But it is okay to tell your DM
"I stab fluffy in the face, repeatedly"
Dm: "What why????"
"It is part of a 24 hour ritual to turn him into a dragon :D"
|
The big part though that really bugs me about the Beast Rider is how it explicitly denies the use of flying mounts. The UC was supposed to be the last best hope for all things cool, but it slammed the door shut on having solid RAW support for flying mounts.
Unless, I'm missing something, you can get a flying mount at 7th:
In addition, a 7th-level or higher Medium
beast rider can select any creature whose natural
size is Large or Huge, provided that creature is
normally available as a Medium-sized animal companion
at 7th level (like a bear).
This would seem to let you ride a roc, dire bat, or pteranodon (with my quick glane-over). Too bad it says "medium-sized animal companion" or you could ride a giant mantis or giant beetle, which would be amazing.
It would be cool if they added a prestige class, like a Dragon-Knight or something along those lines. Ever since the Dragonlance books I have liked the idea of Dragon Knights.
Man, that sux no hippogriff or Griffon. Still a Tiger would be cool. What does it give up?
Is there a Houndmaster variant (though i suppose the beast master could pick a wolf buddy)
Flying can be a game breaker, errr for instance:
My group is currently playing Serpent Skull, I play a druid. It starts with me being able to sustain everyone, including the NPCs (PCs + NPCs -> 10 people) just by spells (Create Water + Goodberry) and if I reached level 4 before finding the usual means of escaping the island, I could shift into a bird, fly to the next city and bring a ship along. Now the adventure path creators had druids in mind which means, I won't reach level 4 before...
Now imagine the impact if druids could shift at level 1... (I mean, a class really based on shapeshifting should be able to, eh?)
And it's the same with every mean of flying.
So basically: If one would create a class that gives out flying at level 1, there'll be some trouble.
As it is now, why don't you just houserule that you can take a flying mount? I don't get why people have to abide to the RAW that strict, the rules are writen as a solid base, not as something that covers everything
It's a foundational trope that we have mounted flying knights. There is just way too much fantasy literature that dwells on this imagery and it ought to be something that is locked into the rules at this point.
Bad fantasy literature, sure.
If it's such a trope for your playgroup have your GM houserule it and move on.
Bad fantasy literature like the ancient tale of Bellerophontes who rides Pegasos?
Oh and LotR/Hobbit, to some extent? (giant eagles and stuff, for the evil ones the flying nazgul mounts)
Flying can be gamebreaking at low level - true.
But one could just expand the list at higher levels when flying in more common.
I can agree that you cannot play the aforementioned Bellerophon at level 1, but by level 12 you should :(
Bad fantasy literature like the ancient tale of Bellerophontes who rides Pegasos?
Oh and LotR/Hobbit, to some extent? (giant eagles and stuff, for the evil ones the flying nazgul mounts)
Exceptions to the rule
Druids don't get flying at level 1. Unless you're using the extreme example of a gnome druid with a roc companion.So basically: If one would create a class that gives out flying at level 1, there'll be some trouble.What, you mean like druids?
I had a halfing druid with a bat companion, flew on it at level 1 just fine. Did some scouting for the party and made an awesome dynamic entry on some goblins.
Also the hobbits did not fly the eagles, they were carried as baggage.Exceptions to the ruleBad fantasy literature like the ancient tale of Bellerophontes who rides Pegasos?
Oh and LotR/Hobbit, to some extent? (giant eagles and stuff, for the evil ones the flying nazgul mounts)
This explains Bellerophontes too I suppose. Carried as baggage.
If fear you want to defend something that can't be defended.
|
|
I'm trying to wrap my head around how this archetype even works.
It says you get a beast as if your cavalier level was your druid level. It also says at 4th level the cavalier can take an ankylosaurus as their mount but they don't become large until level 7.
So they start out as large or is this a typo and you can't select them until 7th level?
I believe Jason Nelson said Beastmasters don`t have to ride their `mounts`,
so it doesn`t seem problematic for Medium Beastmasters to have a Medium Ankylosaur Companion.
There is also the Sable Company Ranger Archetype that gains a FLYING Hippogriff Companion.
|
|
Exotic Mount (Ex): At 1st level, a beast rider forms a bond
with a strong, loyal companion that permits him to ride
it as a mount. This mount functions as a druid’s animal
companion, using the beast rider’s level as his effective
druid level. The animal chosen as a mount must be large
enough to carry the beast rider (Medium or Large for a
Small character; Large or Huge for a Medium character).
Medium beast riders can choose a camel or horse mount
at 1st level. At 4th level, a Medium beast rider can also
choose an allosaurus, ankylosaurus, arsinoitherium,
aurochs, bison, brachiosaurus, elephant, glyptodon,
hippopotamus, lion, mastodon, megaloceros, snapping
turtle (giant), tiger, triceratops, or tyrannosaurus as
his mount. Additional mounts might be
available with GM approval.
Huh?
Well... That`s just what he wrote in the boards. Apparently it conflicts with RAW.
Or maybe he just meant you didn`t have to ride, even if the rules require that you COULD if you tried to.
I would just read that section of the rules as `the animal species must be rideable... even if that will happen when the animal `grows up` and not right away, when you are just bonding with it and training it to be a mount`. Problem solved.
Ok.Here's what I don't understand.
The animal chosen as a mount must be large
enough to carry the beast rider (Medium or Large for a
Small character; for a Medium character).
At 4th level, a Medium beast rider can also
choose an allosaurus, ankylosaurus, arsinoitherium,
aurochs, bison, , elephant, glyptodon,
hippopotamus, lion, mastodon, megaloceros, snapping
turtle (giant), tiger, triceratops, or as
his mount.
If I'm not mistaken, brachiosaurus and tyrannosaurus, are gargantuan monsters. I mean, doesn't this contradict the large or huge rule?
Also, since we're on the subject, I was wondering if a samurai can choose the Beast rider archetype since he is an alternate class of the cavalier.If anyone can enlighten me, I would be grateful.
Ok.Here's what I don't understand.
The animal chosen as a mount must be large
enough to carry the beast rider (Medium or Large for a
Small character; for a Medium character).At 4th level, a Medium beast rider can also
choose an allosaurus, ankylosaurus, arsinoitherium,
aurochs, bison, , elephant, glyptodon,
hippopotamus, lion, mastodon, megaloceros, snapping
turtle (giant), tiger, triceratops, or as
his mount.If I'm not mistaken, brachiosaurus and tyrannosaurus, are gargantuan monsters. I mean, doesn't this contradict the large or huge rule?
Also, since we're on the subject, I was wondering if a samurai can choose the Beast rider archetype since he is an alternate class of the cavalier.
If anyone can enlighten me, I would be grateful.
The animal companion versions are not the same size as the bestiary versions. They have special rules.
AAAh...OK then my bad. Thank you for the quick reply.
There is also the Sable Company Ranger Archetype that gains a FLYING Hippogriff Companion.
Which book is this on? And is it PFS acceptable?
Which book is this on? And is it PFS acceptable?
PathfinderWiki says Curse of the Crimson Throne 3: Escape from Old Korvosa.
Can't tell you whether or not it's acceptable. Sorry.
There is also the Sable Company Ranger Archetype that gains a FLYING Hippogriff Companion.Which book is this on? And is it PFS acceptable?
It's in a Paizo blog post, it's an archetype that grants you a hippogrif animal companion at 4th level, i don't know if it's legal for PFS.
The thing is this archetype has one problem, it says that it replaces favored terrain, if it means the 1st favored terrain then it's ok BUT if it means it gives up the favored terrain in general then it's a very bad one (from a mechanical point of view) because the loss of all the favored terrains means the loss of camouflage and hide in plain sight.
|
Flying can be gamebreaking at low level - true.
But one could just expand the list at higher levels when flying in more common.
I can agree that you cannot play the aforementioned Bellerophon at level 1, but by level 12 you should :(
i would disagree that flying is inherently gamebreaking at low levels...in kingmaker i played a stryx who almost died during the very first enemy encounter of the game...granted i broke cover to chase down a fleeing enemy who got off a lucky shot...
it was actually usually more of a hindrance because while flying gave me easier access to things...it also left me cut off from the rest of the party...and i also seemed to attract the most powerful enemies which meant i was constantly in more danger hehe...but i would say it never broke the game or lessened others' enjoyment of it...
Also, Paladins in UC (Empyreal Knights) get a flying mount. Yet a Beastmaster Cavalier can't? Lame.So basically: If one would create a class that gives out flying at level 1, there'll be some trouble.What, you mean like druids?
Thank you for bringing that to my attention, i didn't know that Empyreal knights get flying mount at 12th level.
Dragon riding wouldn't really work in a D&D-based game because dragons are ancient, highly intelligent, and incredibly proud. Okay, it's not impossible to enslave one or earn its respect, but that sounds more like a major in-game achievement to me than a prestige class. Wyvern riding, on the other hand... yeah, I can see it.
Dragon riding wouldn't really work in a D&D-based game because dragons are ancient, highly intelligent, and incredibly proud. Okay, it's not impossible to enslave one or earn its respect, but that sounds more like a major in-game achievement to me than a prestige class. Wyvern riding, on the other hand... yeah, I can see it.
WotC released two Dragonrider PrC's plus Mongoose Publishing had three or four. Supplement's always looked for ways to give this one and griffon rider's PrC.
Reply to the rest of the comment: Depends on the dragon and age type. The WotC Draconomican and Dragonlance Campaign Setting deal with gain the mounts. It either typically involves lots of money/items to add to the horde, and/like a common goal and outlook.
Take for example Blues in DLCS:
Blues were commited to Takhisis' greater plans and that included joining the Knights of Takhisis. During the War of the Lance they were tasked with their own goals that still required them to 'serve' as mounts within the actual Dragonarmies.
Through most of the D&D based lore I've come across Brass and Silvers typically enjoy humaniod interaction especailly in the Adult and lower age groups.
As a DM I'd allow Dragon mounts under very specific conditions. Typically it will be an entire adventure length to gain it's trust, you must have like minded ideas and desires, it must make sense within the context of the world (i.e. a Gold Dragon will probably side with an Arcane magic user before a knight, and a Paladin shouldn't be making pacts with a typical Red Dragon). The player will also have to pay the piper as it were, whether that be forgoing most wealth to supply the dragon's hoard, or whatever I feel the dragon's payment should be.
To the overall discussion though, everything is the DM's call. If you are of the right level, it doesn't break the game, and it makes sense then the DM shouldn't have a problem saying yes to a griffin or other flying mount.
So this Sable Company ranger is one that you will only know about if you REALLY dig deep and is not PFS acceptable. Anyone has anything actually useful to add? There is the Dragonrider class from SGG, that is probably more core than the ranger archetype. A flying dragon as a steed, from level one.
Well, there is this:
Additional mounts might be
available with GM approval.
Flying mounts are not appropriate for all campaigns. While a little guidance might have been nice, by doing things this way, the GM is allowed to say, "Yes," instead of being forced to say, "No."