Rules Questions - Animal Companions

[N N 959]

Kayas wrote:

You're talking about two completely different things, tricks and natural defenses.

Teaching a bird a trick like grabbing a rock flying high and dropping it is something reasonable that a bird could do on it's own. Just like the dog retrieving a beer from the fridge.

They're not going to use it as an attack if they're defending themselves. Teaching a bird how to do a roundhouse kick instead of pecking/clawing out someone's eyes is what we're talking about here, not teaching it to fetch.

No, an ape using a sword is not comparable to a bird using a round-house kick. An ape is physically capable of holding and swinging a sword.

The Bombard trick is an attack, it's not a defense. Your argument that an ape using is a sword is more unnatural than a bird carrying Alchemist's Fire and attacking people with it is not compelling.

Quote:

Teaching a bird a trick like grabbing a rock flying high and dropping it is something reasonable that a bird could do on it's own

No, it's not reasonable for any eagle or hawk to exhibit such behavior. So now you're just contradicting yourself. No bird picks up flasks or bottles and drops them on people. No bird would ever do that on its own. However, there are real life videos of monkey's using sticks like clubs. So your own rationale works against you. An ape is far more likely to use a weapon than a bird is likely to start dropping flasks of Alchemist's Fire.

[N N 959]

To wit...
Spear using chimps documented in Senegal

Chimps taught to use machetes Though this could be a hoax...lol

Chimp at a zoo attacks another chimp with a stick <-- this one really blow ups the argument that animals won't use a weapon. Take a look at the 1:24 mark.

[Finlanderboy]

As a DM I am generally very accepting of grey area rules.

I feel that us players make imaginary characters and see them in their own little perception. They see them using certain abilities and such as well.

They are sitting at a table I run hoping I will help give them an enjoyable experience playing that imaginary character.

I do not want to take that from them just because we argueably read the rules differently.

[Mahtobedis]

As I like to say, "Unless the rules are pretty cut and dry in an area, I see no need to make the game harder for the players."

With my caveat, "If an interpretation of a grey area seems to go against one of the core aspects of Pathfinder it is probably a wrong interpretation."

[Bbauzh ap Aghauzh]

The problem is, when the player and GM disagree on what is considered a core aspect of the game when making interpretations.

See, I would disagree that allowing animals to take IUS is a core aspect of the game.

[Mahtobedis]

What core aspect of the game would it be going against?

To me an aspect of pathfinder is a something from which all the other rules get built off of. For example, Pathfinder allows for second chances on save or die/lose.

Until you get to very high levels there are very few effects that permanently remove you from a fight without at least having two saves. If a person comes in trying to say that greater grapple lets them pin on one round assuming they get a full attack I'm going to say no. It is unclear that greater grapple specifically lets it do that and it goes against what I see as one of the core aspects of pathfinder.

Can't think of anything that I consider core to pathfinder that gets trounced on by IUS being on an animal.

[Bbauzh ap Aghauzh]

I am not sure how your statement really has anything to do with mine.

You first said that, "If an interpretation of a grey area seems to go against one of the core aspects of Pathfinder it is probably a wrong interpretation."

and then I said, "See, I would disagree that allowing animals to take IUS is a core aspect of the game."

How does your definition of what's core, have anything to do with whether IUS should be allowed or not?

[Akisu]

I just fell over this thread and I am curious, the author of the thread had a pretty nice idea for his paladin and I like it.
However, as I understands the rules of PFS, a tiger is not a legal mount for paladins, am I wrong in regards to the Empyreal Knight?

I Would like to know since I am planning to make a Shelyn paladin riding a big cat myself.

[WalterGM]

Akisu, this is the text you are looking for.

Quote:

As a paladin, your divine bond mount must be at least one size category larger than you starting at 1st level. If you’re a Medium PC, your mount must be Large. If you’re a Small PC, your mount must be at least Medium. You may only select a mount from the listed mounts on page 63 of the Pathfinder RPG Core Rulebook unless another source grants access to additional creature choices. As a cavalier, you may select a mount from those listed on page 33 of the Advanced Player's Guide. No additional mounts are legal in Pathfinder Society Organized Play except when granted from another legal source.

It's from the FAQ.

Since the Empyreal Knight's ability version of Divine Bond reads as follows:

Quote:

At 5th level, an empyreal knight forms a bond with a mount, as the standard paladin ability. Her mount gains the celestial template at 8th level. At 12th level, her mount sprouts wings if it cannot already fly, and gains a fly speed of twice its land speed and good maneuverability. If the mount could already fly, its fly speed and maneuverability improve to at least this level.

This ability otherwise functions as the paladin ability of the same name.

You have to use the restrictions present for the Paladin core class. So you must choose a mount from page 63 of the Pathfinder RPG Core Rulebook. You must also choose a mount that is one size category larger than you starting at first level.

Here's the text from page 63 of the Core.

Quote:

This mount is usually a horse (for a Medium paladin) or a pony (for a Small paladin), although more exotic mounts, such as a boar, camel, or dog are also suitable.

So unfortunately, you can't have a kitty mount as a paladin because it is not listed as an option.

:(

However, you could be a cavalier with the Beast Rider archetype and get a tiger mount.

You won't have the spellcasting and divine protection of Sheyln, but you could still honor her name and virtues while charging around on a tiger; and challenge is almost like smite. You could also have a banner of Sheyln, which would be pretty cool.

[Akisu]

Thank you Walter for your reply.
While it is unfortunately not possible for a paladin, beast riders sounds like a fun alternative.
I was curious for this because this thread is already four pages and it didn't seem like anyone places a comment on the authors idea of a white tiger mount.
I feel like I just ruined a great idea now :S

[Mahtobedis]

Andrew Christian wrote:

I am not sure how your statement really has anything to do with mine.

You first said that, "If an interpretation of a grey area seems to go against one of the core aspects of Pathfinder it is probably a wrong interpretation."

and then I said, "See, I would disagree that allowing animals to take IUS is a core aspect of the game."

How does your definition of what's core, have anything to do with whether IUS should be allowed or not?

I think what we have here is a failure to for me to communicate definitions.

In my mind there are things I consider Core (capitol C). These are the Core Rules. I find that sometimes grey areas come up and the Core Rules don't always have a clear answer.

When this happens I see if an interpretation disagrees with what I have observed to be core (lower case c) aspects of the game. Things related to what I have perceived the design philosophy and what I think RAI are. I usually wont make a ruling against a player based on this unless it seems to go pretty strongly against something that I have observed in Pathfinder. I also wish to reiterate that I only fall back onto this after I have failed to find a clear answer using rules as they are literally written.

Now as they are literally written I see no issue with IUS on an animal companion, but I also see how it could be unclear to some. So my use of Core Rules does not give a perfect answer. I now look at what I have observed of the core aspects (again now talking about what I think designers intend and general aspects of Pathfinder that separate it from other games). I see nothing there that raises any red flags, so if a player wants their boar to know kung fu I will allow it, provided it has an int of 3 or more.

[Raisse]

While I know that animals normally are unable to use manufactured weapons, what if:

1. Animal Companion is the recipient of Monstrous Physique to become humanoid.
2. Animal Companion receives Bestow Weapon Proficiency (for the appropriate weapon).

Are they still unable to use the weapon they explicitly have proficiency with, while having the appropriate anatomy to wield it?

[Mahtobedis]

Anthropomorphic Animal is probably more what you would want and I would say that is a pretty fringe area, expect table variation.

[WalterGM]

Akisu wrote:

Thank you Walter for your reply.

While it is unfortunately not possible for a paladin, beast riders sounds like a fun alternative.
I was curious for this because this thread is already four pages and it didn't seem like anyone places a comment on the authors idea of a white tiger mount.
I feel like I just ruined a great idea now :S

I know the feeling. A lot of the time I think up some cool combination of abilities, then really read through it all to make sure it's correct, and see a simple oversight I made going into it.

Ruined a lot of prospective character builds that way.

[Jiggy]

Walter Sheppard wrote:

A lot of the time I think up some cool combination of abilities, then really read through it all to make sure it's correct, and see a simple oversight I made going into it.

Ruined a lot of prospective character builds that way.

I have a similar problem much of the time that I try to do a "concept first" character building process. I come up with some cool image or whatever, then discover that no matter how many mechanical hoops I jump through I can't actually make a faithful representation of the concept until like 9th level, if at all. :/

I typically have more satisfying results if I come up with a very loose mechanical theme, then build a little bit of concept based on what kind of person would do that thing, then define a little more of the mechanics, then a little more of the concept, and back and forth and back and forth until a final unison emerges.

[WalterGM]

Mhmm. I usually have a few themes in my head, and when I come across cool mechanics I think "what can I do with this?" and go from there.

My actual process when I get going on a new character is to first read everything that could possibly be related to the character: feats, items, class options, races. Second, read any interesting forum topics that I come across while searching for those. And lastly pick one or two keystone features I want the character to have and build around those—backed by all the information I've already gathered.

[The Fourth Horseman]

If you guys are willing to play the long waiting game, you can build to take a level of Mammoth Rider, and then a paladin can have a tiger mount.

[zefig]

The Fourth Horseman wrote:

If you guys are willing to play the long waiting game, you can build to take a level of Mammoth Rider, and then a paladin can have a tiger mount.

Go empyreal knight, eventually have a huge flying tiger...

[Richard Loh]

Universal Monster Rules, under Natural Attacks wrote:

Some fey, humanoids, monstrous humanoids, and outsiders do not possess natural attacks. These creatures can make unarmed strikes, but treat them as weapons for the purpose of determining attack bonuses, and they must use the two-weapon fighting rules when making attacks with both hands. See Table: Natural Attacks by Size for typical damage values for natural attacks by creature size.

Hope this helps. I would really LOVE to see kungfu panda and master shifu in Pathfinder Society play.

[BigNorseWolf]

This is why i really like having Dragon style on my raptor: I don't need to fight with the fighter about who's in front. I can have the pet stay out of his charge lane AND still do a real charge on my own.