|
I just read the faq and have to ask why the hate on paladins and rangers. I know the ranger list is set but some of the archetypes give options for other companions like the Horse Lord and Falconer wile the paladin list isn't set in stone as it reads in the core book so why the hate. I know a few players that wont play paladins/rangers/cavs in pfs because of the faq, if i want to play a mounted character why do i have to be a druid/summoner to ride something other then a horse/camel or wolf/phony is that all that's out there, I would love to play a halfing Falconer that rides around on a axe beak i think it would be funny. But as the faq is i can only take a Eagle/Hawk/Owl. I know this is a little long winded and not the most thought out post but there has to be other people out there that think along the same lines and i want to see what you have to say and just maybe they might change it and that would be very nice. one can hope right.
Thanks for your time Olaf the Joyous
I would love to play a halfing Falconer that rides around on a axe beak i think it would be funny. But as the faq is i can only take a Eagle/Hawk/Owl.
|
As I have both a Ranger (Falconer), a Paladin with a mount, and a cavalier, I understand the frustration. That being said it is a balance mechanic to prevent some crazy character combinations out there. If you want a different animal companion, then you just need to play a druid. Sadly that's just how it is.
While I wish my Paladin from Taldor could have a lion for a mount, that's just not the regular expectation for PFS, so it isn't allowed.
|
Well one time a little over a year ago, while playing PFS, my character was a gnome Rogue2/ Alchemist 3 something like that. one of the other players had a halfling Cavalier/ druid, who had a big bat as his mount/ animal companion. He would charge about on this thing with a lance. We had a good time. Perhaps the Giant Gecko from the Bestiary 3 will be a usable mount when the additional resources are updated
Although i cant quite remember, I think we did some "night time " bombing runs on a ship. His halfling cavalier and my gnome alchemsit/rogue, got on his bat, and we flew over the ship, and I dropped my alchemsist bombs on the ship setting the rigging on fire.....good times.
I think if you want some more "creative" mounts, i think you might have to take a level of druid to have your choices expanded somewhat. I also think you have to be of small size, like a halfling or gnome in order to get a medium mount that might fit in a dungeon.
I hope this helps
|
Perhaps the Giant Gecko from the Bestiary 3 will be a usable mount when the additional resources are updated
It was updated a couple days ago. The Giant Gecko is on the Druid AC list, but nothing was added to the possible mount list.
I'm sure this topic has been discussed before but still, why are mounts limited for those other classes but druids get a significantly longer list? Why not have everyone use the full druid list. It would make for less confusion and balance for everyone.
I agree with you that it would make things more simple on the one hand, but a few of the choises dont make much sense. Where would a rider sit on a Spinosaurus (in the new bestiary 3 as an AC)? Are only quadrupedle animals allowed to be ridden? I think they just want to err on the side of caution, so can do more generial rules and terms for the animals that are allowed. Plus a smaller list means less table variance in how a GM is likely to react to your Spinosaurus trying to climb the rope down a cliff or some such nonsense. :P
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
If your ranger wants to select from the druid list, take the Beastmaster archetype. That is what it was written for. Perhaps there will be future archetypes for other companion classes in the future that will allow the same thing.
The more we make other classes resemble the druid, the more it marginalized the druid class itself. We already have a lot of instances of one class emulating a large portion of the abilities of another. Is it so wrong to want some separation from class to class?
|
|
Sorry Bob but read the faq
As a ranger, what list of companions can I select my animal companion from?
As a ranger, if you choose an animal companion for your hunter’s bond, you may only select one of the animals listed on page 66 of the Pathfinder RPG Core Rulebook. There is no expanded companion list for rangers.
and for Hippygriff i hear you but read the archetype it says any bird of pray. it lists the vulture as a idea but one wouldn't be able to take because it's not a Eagle/Hawk/Owl because of the faq.
|
Sorry Bob but read the faq
As a ranger, what list of companions can I select my animal companion from?
As a ranger, if you choose an animal companion for your hunter’s bond, you may only select one of the animals listed on page 66 of the Pathfinder RPG Core Rulebook. There is no expanded companion list for rangers.and for Hippygriff i hear you but read the archetype it says any bird of pray. it lists the vulture as a idea but one wouldn't be able to take because it's not a Eagle/Hawk/Owl because of the faq.
He knows about the FAQ. But the Archetype is also allowed. The archetype specifically changes the list of animal companions you can choose from. Therefore the archetype trumps the FAQ in this case.
|
|
Andrew thats cool and all but the one line for the faq There is no expanded companion list for rangers. Being that it says rangers it shuts it down NO EXPANDED COMPANION LIST and the beast master expands the list so how would that work tell me i would love to know because then the horse lord/Falconer could take other companions as well because how they read.
|
|
Andrew thats cool and all but the one line for the faq There is no expanded companion list for rangers. Being that it says rangers it shuts it down NO EXPANDED COMPANION LIST and the beast master expands the list so how would that work tell me i would love to know because then the horse lord/Falconer could take other companions as well because how they read.
There would be no reason for them to make the Beast Master legal for PFS play, if it basically didn't get the Druid animal companion list considering that is the ONLY thing that the archetype does.
And the FAQ is merely indicating that they are not going to create an expanded animal companion list. Not indicating that rules from approved sources can't expand the list within that particular class or archetype.
So both can be true simultaneously.
|
Andrew thats cool and all but the one line for the faq There is no expanded companion list for rangers. Being that it says rangers it shuts it down NO EXPANDED COMPANION LIST and the beast master expands the list so how would that work tell me i would love to know because then the horse lord/Falconer could take other companions as well because how they read.
Specific trumps general. the fa is about the general ranger, the beastmaster is a specific archtype. I'm guessing that this is similar to the bestiary feats.... the FAQ is "unless specifically named as being allowed in another ability from an allowed source"
Its simple if the archetype is on the allowed list it succeeds the Faq which was not talking about the archetype.
|
|
The "no expanded list" clause is in reference to the "GM discretion" tag that exists for all classes that receive animal companions because they usually state, "This ability functions like the druid animal companion ability" from the CRB." The druid description indicates that, at the GM's discretion, more animals could be available than what is listed.
Because table GM's in PFS are not empowered to expand the list, the FAQ entry is merely a clarification that only animals from the base lists (and additional resources) are legal for classes that gain companions.
The Additional Resources specifically state what is/not legal from the Advance Player's Guide. Beastmaster is one of the legal options. Therefore, the nature of that archetype expands the ranger's selection by way of the "specific" over-rides a "general" rule.
Think of this as similar to the rule covering feats from the Bestiary. They are not legal for selection unless a class specifically says they are. Similarly, the Beastmaster specifically calls out an expanded list of animal companions.
You may not feel the language in the FAQ/AR makes that clear, but I assure you, it is the intent.
|
|
well Bob there is no "GM discretion tag" on rangers it a set list take a look
The second option is to form a close bond with an animal companion. A ranger who selects an animal companion can choose from the following list: badger, bird, camel, cat (small), dire rat, dog, horse, pony, snake (viper or constrictor), or wolf. If the campaign takes place wholly or partly in an aquatic environment, the ranger may choose a shark instead. This animal is a loyal companion that accompanies the ranger on his adventures as appropriate for its kind. A ranger's animal companion shares his favored enemy and favored terrain bonuses.
that's from the prd and that what the ranger gets that's it. now beast master can only use half of its class feature because it can only have 1 combat companion at a given time so the faq dose change class/archetype. entries.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
We can argue the specifics of what the language says and what is a "general" vs. a "specific" rule, but in this case, the general rule is the limitation of the companion list. The specific rule which over-rides it is in the Advanced Player's Guide, p.124
"Unlike a normal ranger, a beast master's choice of animal companion is not limited to a subset of all animal companion choices - he may choose freely among all animal companion choices, just as a druid does."
If you want to ignore that language, you are free to do so, but that would be incorrect. As a Venture-Captain, I assure you, the intent is a Beast Master is empowered to select from the full druid list of companions.
Again, feel free to claim that the language is not as clear as you would like it to be, but the fact remains, this is the intent. IMO, the language is as clear as it needs to be and alternative interpretations are reaching for something that is not there.
If you do not want to take my word for it, feel free to reach out to your regional Venture-Officer. They will confirm what I have stated.
I feel like people will be repeating the same things over and over again, and Olaf will finally understand somewhere around post 100.
|
|
Olaf, I think it is worth pointing out that what you are complaining about with the ranger is not a Society rule, but part of the Core Rules.
A ranger who selects an animal companion can choose from the following list: badger, bird, camel, cat (small), dire rat, dog, horse, pony, snake (viper or constrictor), or wolf. If the campaign takes place wholly or partly in an aquatic environment, the ranger may choose a shark instead.
Unfortunately, many people ignore that part of the rules, so it had to be spelled out in the Society FAQ.
As many have said before, this does not prevent you from using archetypes, as those specific rules trump the general Ranger rules. A Beastmaster can take any legal animal companion, like a Druid. A Falconer can take any bird of prey, provided you have the appropriate book with its stats. A Horselord can take any legal mount based on their level.
|
|
We can argue the specifics of what the language says and what is a "general" vs. a "specific" rule, but in this case, the general rule is the limitation of the companion list. The specific rule which over-rides it is in the Advanced Player's Guide, p.124
"Unlike a normal ranger, a beast master's choice of animal companion is not limited to a subset of all animal companion choices - he may choose freely among all animal companion choices, just as a druid does."
If you want to ignore that language, you are free to do so, but that would be incorrect. As a Venture-Captain, I assure you, the intent is a Beast Master is empowered to select from the full druid list of companions.
Again, feel free to claim that the language is not as clear as you would like it to be, but the fact remains, this is the intent. IMO, the language is as clear as it needs to be and alternative interpretations are reaching for something that is not there.
If you do not want to take my word for it, feel free to reach out to your regional Venture-Officer. They will confirm what I have stated.
Bob,
You are absolutely correct. However, why can't add five simple words ...
As a ranger, if you choose an animal companion for your hunter’s bond, you may only select one of the animals listed on page 66 of the Pathfinder RPG Core Rulebook. Except for the Beastmaster Archetype, there is no expanded companion list for rangers.
You make things crystal clear and end all reasonable arguments. Why this quick change or something similar can't be done is beyond my understanding.
-Swiftbrook
Just My Thoughts
|
|
| 1 person marked this as FAQ candidate. |
why can't add five simple words
That would create an inclusive exceptions list. You would also need to include (as Neil pointed out) the Horselord and Falconer. Perhaps there are more that escape me.
The concept that general rules are trumped by specific rules is the main point to remember. Whenever we create lists, it becomes something that must be maintained. General rules that establish the standard expactations should be sufficient to cover cases like this.
That being said I would be okay with something like...
"As a ranger, if you choose an animal companion for your hunter’s bond, you may only select one of the animals listed on page 66 of the Pathfinder RPG Core Rulebook. There is no expanded companion list for rangers unless it appears on a chronicle sheet or is specifically provided as part of an archetype or alternate class ability."
|
|
| 3 people marked this as FAQ candidate. Answered in the FAQ. |
That would create an inclusive exceptions list. You would also need to include (as Neil pointed out) the Horselord and Falconer. Perhaps there are more that escape me.
The concept that general rules are trumped by specific rules is the main point to remember. Whenever we create lists, it becomes something that must be maintained. General rules that establish the standard expactations should be sufficient to cover cases like this.
That being said I would be okay with something like...
"As a ranger, if you choose an animal companion for your hunter’s bond, you may only select one of the animals listed on page 66 of the Pathfinder RPG Core Rulebook. There is no expanded companion list for rangers unless it appears on a chronicle sheet or is specifically provided as part of an archetype or alternate class ability."
Or it could say "No additional companions are legal in Pathfinder Society Organized Play for Rangers except when granted from another legal source".
Either would work for me, but until the FAQ is changed to say something like that then we will continue to have this type of confusion from our players. As I see these players weekly I can say it is not just one players confusion. I've been told the FAQ is the final say on the issue and because of that Olaf is limited in what he wants to do until it is changed.
|
|
| 2 people marked this as FAQ candidate. Staff response: no reply required. |
"No additional companions are legal in Pathfinder Society Organized Play for Rangers except when granted from another legal source"
Much more elegant. This is why I am not a game designer/writer :-)
I guess I can see why someone could be confused by the language, but I hope this topic has clarified the intention of the rule. Perhaps if enough of us flag this, Mike will adjust the language printed in the FAQ.
because of that Olaf is limited in what he wants to do until it is changed
I hope that doesn't mean that the local group is denying Olaf the ability to play one of the listed archetypes with the alternate companion options. Because that would be incorrect.
|
|
Or it could say "No additional companions are legal in Pathfinder Society Organized Play for Rangers except when granted from another legal source".
I understand what this is supposed to say. However, I also know that if this statement is added, we are going to be getting people over and over insisting that the Bestiary 2, 3, etc are 'other legal sources' for animal companions, and therefore their Ranger/ Paladin/ Cavalier should get to choose an animal from that. Because obviously the reason that the short list is given in the first place is cause those are the only ones that Paizo wanted them using from the Bestiary 1. :P
|
|
I understand what this is supposed to say. However, I also know that if this statement is added, we are going to be getting people over and over insisting that the Bestiary 2, 3, etc are 'other legal sources' for animal companions, and therefore their Ranger/ Paladin/ Cavalier should get to choose an animal from that. Because obviously...
I don't think we can stop players from trying to read into the rules something that isn't there. If the rule specifically says that the only exception is "other legal sources" it would follow the language used for other FAQ's such as intelligent weapons. The fact that a druid is specifically granted an expanded list, would not automatically provide the same list to other similar, but different, classes. It would however, allow an archetype to select from those additional companion animals based on its granted access limitations.
In general, it is not desirable to have all our rules include lists of inclusive/exclusive material. By nature, that requires constant updates that could lead to errors and/or delays in rules matching. Some players will take advantage of those temporary loopholes and then complain that their character is "screwed" because they are not permitted a rebuild after the fact.