The large Gorilla in the monster manual has 10 feet of reach. While there is technically a difference between the animal companion and the animal, since it doesn't say what the reach is on the animal companion the monster itself having the reach should hold a fair bit of weight.
|
Real good question.
Typically, any animal not in the CRB that is available for an animal companion, lists out that little stat block under the animal in question.
Therefore, it is reasonable to assume that the Ape is the animal companion version of the Ape, Gorilla.
As such, reach at large size is reasonable to assume.
However, all special abilities that the AC's get are noted in the AC's mini-stat block. So as such, it would also be reasonable for a GM to not allow 10' reach for a Large Ape AC.
I hate to say it, but this may be a table variation issue unless something gets clarified.
I personally would lean toward allowing the 10' reach.
I've wondered this in the past as well. I flagged your post as a FAQ candidate.
|
The only large creatures that I know of that do not have a 10 foot reach are bipeds like lions or tigers. Since an ape is not one of those I would agree that they have a 10 foot reach even as an animal companion.ah... I think you mean "quadrupeds". Bipeds have 2 legs, Quads have 4 (like the lion and tiger from your example).
Thanks I totally switched those around. That's what I get for posting early in the morning.
|
It never occurred to me that my druid's large ape AC wouldn't have 10 ft. reach. I'm at work and don't have my rulebooks handy, but based on the PRD I don't think there's a specification in PF that *any* size creature gets reach automatically.
(By 3.5 rules, all Large(Tall) creatures had 10 ft. reach, and an ape should qualify as that, so I was kind of going with that assumption.)
|
| 2 people marked this as FAQ candidate. 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
It's not. I also checked the first two Bestiary erratas.
[rant]Paizo is, in my opinion, not doing a great job with their FAQ system. It is the only way to request that a thread get Dev attention, but it doesn't seem to work in a way that makes the rules team want to answer questions.
We see a thread and the first post got 8 FAQ requests, and then someone offered some subtly different question, or a better restatement and that gets some amount of FAQ requests, and we think the Devs now see that the thread is getting a lot of attention from players. However, they have described a system when they get a database of posts where there is no obvious link between multiple FAQ requests in the same thread.
What's more, they have a limited list of options for how to respond to a FAQ request. Someone above the Rules team has probably set up a metric to gauge how well they are answering FAQ requests; probably something as simple as tracking how many open requests their are and how many are closed. Also, it is likely tracks how long something has been open.
Well a little while ago, there came this huge rash of threads that all stated that their questions had been answered in the FAQ, and they hadn't. After much pressure, one of the devs stated that they were saying threads were answered in FAQ just so they no longer showed up as items they needed to address, despite the fact they never answered the question.
This may have been what happened to this thread. It also may be that someone decided that Mike's answer was sufficient (which it is) and lacking a better way to close this thread, they simply chose the Answered in Errata option.[/rant]
