|
There's a ruling going around the tables at one of the PFS stores I play at that a small-sized cavalier/paladin/etc. on a medium mount is unable to take his mount indoors or into caves. The GM who told me of this rule insists that Joshua Frost had a post on it somewhere; I was wondering if anyone knew of this rule or could find the post in question?
Official input would also be excellent. I don't think there's such a rule (I know there isn't one in the CRB), but I could have missed it.
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I'm not sure why a mount couldn't be taken indoors, for instance in a cave or some such. If the space is big enough and they don't have to climb a ladder or some such, I don't now why a ruling would be made to disallow it. The mount might not like the cave but I'm sure it could be coaxed to at least enter.
As Mergy said, if someone knows of a post from a previous campaign coordinator, please point it out so I can take a look at it.
|
|
I'm not sure why a mount couldn't be taken indoors, for instance in a cave or some such. If the space is big enough and they don't have to climb a ladder or some such, I don't now why a ruling would be made to disallow it. The mount might not like the cave but I'm sure it could be coaxed to at least enter.
As Mergy said, if someone knows of a post from a previous campaign coordinator, please point it out so I can take a look at it.
Thanks for the quick response! This post alone should be enough to get our mounted characters some freedom at PFS.
|
Mounts and going indoors with them come with a lot of discretion. Ruleswise the animals aren't necessarily forbidden to enter, but there are many obstacles some GMs would see insurmountable for the animals in question.
Also a bartender might order to keep the pets outdoors. A cleric would ask for the dog to be left outside, lest it ruins the churches benches/walls/whatever.
Under donkey/mule it does say it the following (emphasis mine):
This lets me understand that horses need to be pushed into the cave and are on their toes, likely to panic and flee, requiring successful handle animal checks.
But yeah, I hate small-sized cavaliers and their "me and my dog are inseparable" attitude. Then again I hate all pet classes.
|
|
It should be a case by case ruling on the mount. While Dogs can manage them, I'd say ponies would have major problems with stairs.
While some horses do have issues with steps. In many cases, with training, horses can and do climb up and down steps. Police horses in at least the UK and the US are trained to navigae stairs.
|
RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
That's not exactly something that can be assumed under standard riding training. And last I checked.... the Police don't use ponies since they don't seem to have a lot of gnomes on the force.It should be a case by case ruling on the mount. While Dogs can manage them, I'd say ponies would have major problems with stairs.While some horses do have issues with steps. In many cases, with training, horses can and do climb up and down steps. Police horses in at least the UK and the US are trained to navigae stairs.
On the other hand, you can be 3ft tall and move on stairs without penalty. To penalize a larger creature (medium-sized mount) on those same stairs is just vindictive GMing.
Again here, I'm surprised by how many people seem really eager to deny certain classes their class features. How is it 'gaming the system' for a small paladin or cavalier, who is playing with significant penalties to strength and damage, to use their size to their advantage?
|
RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Again here, I'm surprised by how many people seem really eager to deny certain classes their class features. How is it 'gaming the system' for a small paladin or cavalier, who is playing with significant penalties to strength and damage, to use their size to their advantage?
Just be glad that scenarios' narrowest corridors only go down to 5ft. If they were 3ft instead, then playing a gnome/halfling of ANY class would be gaming the system.
|
RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
To ignore essential differences between quadrapeds and bipeds is simply not right.
I'd say it's approximately as "right" as ignoring the difference in reach between a 7ft-tall half-orc's greatsword and a 3ft-tall halfling monk's unarmed strike, but guess what? They both threaten the same area.
|
|
Again here, I'm surprised by how many people seem really eager to deny certain classes their class features. How is it 'gaming the system' for a small paladin or cavalier, who is playing with significant penalties to strength and damage, to use their size to their advantage?
I don't think anyone is really 'eager' to deny their players something or another, Muninn. A lot of GMs have a hard time swallowing a wolf making a climb check up/down a cave wall.
I think every GM want's their game to follow common sense and while I don't agree that a small Cavalier/Paladin should be restricted from playing in a dungeon, a class with a mount is going to have difficulty in some PFS scenarios. Similarly, some Paladins will have trouble with their faction missions.
|
To ignore essential differences between quadrapeds and bipeds is simply not right.On the other hand, you can be 3ft tall and move on stairs without penalty. To penalize a larger creature (medium-sized mount) on those same stairs is just vindictive GMing.That's not exactly something that can be assumed under standard riding training. And last I checked.... the Police don't use ponies since they don't seem to have a lot of gnomes on the force.It should be a case by case ruling on the mount. While Dogs can manage them, I'd say ponies would have major problems with stairs.While some horses do have issues with steps. In many cases, with training, horses can and do climb up and down steps. Police horses in at least the UK and the US are trained to navigae stairs.
I dunno, medium sized dogs seem to do just fine with any kind of stairs unless the stairs are built for giants.
|
|
**obligatory, general statement of support of GMs giving gnome/halfling cavaliers grief**
It may not be always legal, but it just feels like sunshine to see cavaliers who take small sizes just to squeeze mounts inside in turn get those mounts excluded.
**obligatory, general disclaimer that yes, I'm aware that not ALL gnome/halfling cavaliers are not attempting to cheese the game. It's a guilt by association thing.**
Cavaliers (of any size) with problems convincing a GM to let you bring a mount into a dungeon are, in my experience, mollified by showing them that my character keeps a ream of scrolls of Spider Climb for obstacle navigation. And Reduce Animal, so giant destriers can travel without squeezing.
|
RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I don't think anyone is really 'eager' to deny their players something or another, Muninn. A lot of GMs have a hard time swallowing a wolf making a climb check up/down a cave wall.
What does "I don't think your dog can climb the wall" have to do with banning all mounts from caves and buildings or insisting that medium mounts have trouble with stairs even though their small riders suffer no movement penalty?
A trend I've noticed around here is that when someone points out an unjustified restriction X that a GM is trying to impose, and someone calls shenanigans, invariably someone will come in and point out that it's not unreasonable for a GM to have issues with unrelated absurdity Y that no one was even talking about.
Pointing out the completely absurd does not justify banning the completely reasonable, it's a bit disrespectful toward the affected players to pretend that the two situations are comparable.
|
|
Cavaliers think they have it rough now? I remember when Druids were absolutely useless in dungeons. You still have your melee abilities with you, dungeons simply were not made for mounted combat, end of story. Making a character in Pathfinder generally means tradeoffs.
It's amazing how few people realize (GMs included, based on how often I get automatic "You won't be able to ride in this scenario.." comments I get during character introductions) that Cavaliers are perfectly fine NOT riding their mounts. In fact, a full BAB progression martial character with a full powered animal companion (with free armor proficiency feat, to boot) is one hell of an effective combatant. Trick out your animal companion (since that' what it is when you're not riding it) with teamwork feats, and watch the bodies hit the floor ;)
|
|
I don't think anyone is really 'eager' to deny their players something or another, Muninn. A lot of GMs have a hard time swallowing a wolf making a climb check up/down a cave wall.What does "I don't think your dog can climb the wall" have to do with banning all mounts from caves and buildings or insisting that medium mounts have trouble with stairs even though their small riders suffer no movement penalty?
A trend I've noticed around here is that when someone points out an unjustified restriction X that a GM is trying to impose, and someone calls shenanigans, invariably someone will come in and point out that it's not unreasonable for a GM to have issues with unrelated absurdity Y that no one was even talking about.
Pointing out the completely absurd does not justify banning the completely reasonable, it's a bit disrespectful toward the affected players to pretend that the two situations are comparable.
This
|
|
ThisI don't think anyone is really 'eager' to deny their players something or another, Muninn. A lot of GMs have a hard time swallowing a wolf making a climb check up/down a cave wall.What does "I don't think your dog can climb the wall" have to do with banning all mounts from caves and buildings or insisting that medium mounts have trouble with stairs even though their small riders suffer no movement penalty?
A trend I've noticed around here is that when someone points out an unjustified restriction X that a GM is trying to impose, and someone calls shenanigans, invariably someone will come in and point out that it's not unreasonable for a GM to have issues with unrelated absurdity Y that no one was even talking about.
Pointing out the completely absurd does not justify banning the completely reasonable, it's a bit disrespectful toward the affected players to pretend that the two situations are comparable.
I don't think either of you actually read my post. I don't agree with a GM restricting a mounted class because a scenario takes place in a dungeon and I did NOT point out the absurd. In all of my years of GMing PFS, I have encountered numerous instances of dogs, wolves and horses climbing vertical surfaces with Climb checks.
|
RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
I don't think either of you actually read my post.
Well, then let's go over it bit by bit so we don't miss anything:
Context: The OP says a GM is banning medium mounts from entering buildings/caves/dungeons/etc. Additionally, some people in the thread advocate penalizing the movement of animals on stairs (despite rules to the contrary).
Again here, I'm surprised by how many people seem really eager to deny certain classes their class features. How is it 'gaming the system' for a small paladin or cavalier, who is playing with significant penalties to strength and damage, to use their size to their advantage?
This poster talks about "deny[ing] certain classes their class features" (i.e., banning medium mounts from caves), and references the power-for-mobility tradeoff of small characters.
Unless you clicked "reply" on the wrong post, this is what you're talking about.
I don't think anyone is really 'eager' to deny their players something or another, Muninn. A lot of GMs have a hard time swallowing a wolf making a climb check up/down a cave wall.
So the context of the thread is putting unreasonable restrictions on medium mounts, which Muninn calls "denying class features". Your first line of response is to contradict this. You imply, therefore, that the GMs' actions discussed in this thread are reasonable.
You follow up this statement (in the same paragraph) with a reference to quadruped wall-climbing. Having offered the example as support for the preceding sentence, have equated "wolves can't enter caves" with "wolves can't climb walls" and implied that the two actions (entering and climbing) are equally unreasonable and that a GM is right to have an issue with them.
I think every GM want's their game to follow common sense and while I don't agree that a small Cavalier/Paladin should be restricted from playing in a dungeon, a class with a mount is going to have difficulty in some PFS scenarios. Similarly, some Paladins will have trouble with their faction missions.
Now you reference "follow[ing] common sense". This implies that common sense is the basis of what you've already said - basically, you've just said that common sense precludes medium mounts from both entering caves and climbing walls - and precludes them equally.
You then say that it's okay for a small character to enter a dungeon, but that they should expect issues with their mounts anyway. This fails to contradict any of the statements you've made or implied thus far.
So yes, I did read your post.
|
RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
You completely ignore the second part of my post where I said that I DON'T agree with restricting mount classes, but I do SEE where the OPs GM is coming from. That is what you didn't read.
I quoted and replied to your entire post (at least, the one you originally said I didn't read). Or do you mean the second part of your next post?
|
RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
The original post stated that I don't agree with the restriction
No, it didn't. Check your wording before you accuse others of not reading or of misconstruing.
You said that small characters should not be prevented from playing those scenarios, but that characters with mounts should expect difficulties. That is the opposite of disagreeing with the aforementioned restrictions.
The second post I made was meant to clarify my original statement.
And it did. I just take issue with being accused of not reading when I respond to what you said instead of what you meant to say.
|
|
Let's calm down and break up the squabble please? My question has been answered.
Todd, I don't believe you mean to ban medium mounts from entering caves, and I believe you were mentioning as an aside that there are things that you might ban a mount from, such as climbing a sheer rock face with hooves.
Jiggy, you read Todd's original post and wanted to clarify so that others might not misunderstand him and spout arguments that don't have to do with the question, if I properly understand your post.
Once again, this isn't a needed argument.
|
RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
Jiggy, you read Todd's original post and wanted to clarify so that others might not misunderstand him and spout arguments that don't have to do with the question, if I properly understand your post.
Actually, it was more that his post, as phrased, matched a trend that really really really needs to stop.
But apparently that's not what he meant, so my ire was unnecessary.
Then I got butthurt about being told I didn't read, which didn't help anything.
