|
The way he ruled, you have to look at each class on an island. A level 4 cavalier can only have what a cavalier can have. It doesn't matter if he has druid levels or not.
Are you talking about JJ's comments? As I said before, JJ's comments violate the druid RAW, which explicitely specify that they stack.
So is PFS going by RAW or by JJ?
Also note Mike Brock's comment a few posts up.
I saw that. A beast rider cavelier extends the cavelier list in a dramatic way, and a samarai cannot be a beast rider. Hence my question
|
The way he ruled, you have to look at each class on an island. A level 4 cavalier can only have what a cavalier can have. It doesn't matter if he has druid levels or not.Are you talking about JJ's comments? As I said before, JJ's comments violate the druid RAW, which explicitely specify that they stack.
So is PFS going by RAW or by JJ?
Also note Mike Brock's comment a few posts up.I saw that. A beast rider cavelier extends the cavelier list in a dramatic way, and a samarai cannot be a beast rider. Hence my question
We are going by RAW in PFS.
However, RAW absolutely does not state that a level dip in druid expands another classes list of allowable animal companions and/or mounts.
If your druid animal companion is a valid choice for samurai mount, then the two levels will stack and you have one animal companion/mount.
If your druid animal companion is not a valid choice for samurai mount, then the two levels will not stack, and you have one animal companion, and one mount.
So basically, if they only reason you would dip into druid is to expand your available options for mount, don’t bother. Doesn’t work that way.
You have to apply the most stringent of class restrictions to determine if they are compatible or not.
|
|
The way he ruled, you have to look at each class on an island. A level 4 cavalier can only have what a cavalier can have. It doesn't matter if he has druid levels or not.Are you talking about JJ's comments? As I said before, JJ's comments violate the druid RAW, which explicitely specify that they stack.
So is PFS going by RAW or by JJ?
Also note Mike Brock's comment a few posts up.I saw that. A beast rider cavelier extends the cavelier list in a dramatic way, and a samarai cannot be a beast rider. Hence my questionWe are going by RAW in PFS.
However, RAW absolutely does not state that a level dip in druid expands another classes list of allowable animal companions and/or mounts.
If your druid animal companion is a valid choice for samurai mount, then the two levels will stack and you have one animal companion/mount.
If your druid animal companion is not a valid choice for samurai mount, then the two levels will not stack, and you have one animal companion, and one mount.
So basically, if they only reason you would dip into druid is to expand your available options for mount, don’t bother. Doesn’t work that way.
You have to apply the most stringent of class restrictions to determine if they are compatible or not.
So, the crocodile would be legal for a level 7 medium beast rider, but illegal for a small one even if the small one multiclasses druid.
|
If your druid animal companion is a valid choice for samurai mount, then the two levels will stack and you have one animal companion/mount.
Until another Paizo employee is willing to devote considerable time to answering every question, rules and otherwise, the only ruling from Paizo does not even allow this. I know what the book says, but if the release of splatbooks has allowed for a situation that was not intended in the original printing, I think you should go with what James says is how it should work.
|
|
So, the crocodile would be legal for a level 7 medium beast rider, but illegal for a small one even if the small one multiclasses druid.The way he ruled, you have to look at each class on an island. A level 4 cavalier can only have what a cavalier can have. It doesn't matter if he has druid levels or not.Are you talking about JJ's comments? As I said before, JJ's comments violate the druid RAW, which explicitely specify that they stack.
So is PFS going by RAW or by JJ?
Also note Mike Brock's comment a few posts up.I saw that. A beast rider cavelier extends the cavelier list in a dramatic way, and a samarai cannot be a beast rider. Hence my questionWe are going by RAW in PFS.
However, RAW absolutely does not state that a level dip in druid expands another classes list of allowable animal companions and/or mounts.
If your druid animal companion is a valid choice for samurai mount, then the two levels will stack and you have one animal companion/mount.
If your druid animal companion is not a valid choice for samurai mount, then the two levels will not stack, and you have one animal companion, and one mount.
So basically, if they only reason you would dip into druid is to expand your available options for mount, don’t bother. Doesn’t work that way.
You have to apply the most stringent of class restrictions to determine if they are compatible or not.
rocodile (Alligator)
Starting Statistics: Size Small; Speed 20 ft., swim 30 ft.; AC +4 natural armor; Attack bite (1d6); Ability Scores Str 15, Dex 14, Con 15, Int 1, Wis 12, Cha 2; Special Qualities hold breath, low-light vision.
4th-Level Advancement: Size Medium; Attack bite (1d8) or tail slap (1d12); Ability Scores Str +4, Dex –2, Con +2; Special Attacks death roll, grab, sprint.
Small-sized beast riders can choose a pony or wolf mount at 1st level. At 4th level, a Small beast rider can also choose an allosaurus, ankylosaurus, arsinoitherium, aurochs, bison, boar, brachiosaurus, elephant, glyptodon, hippopotamus, mastodon, megaloceros, riding dog, snapping turtle (giant), triceratops, or tyrannosaurus. At 7th level, he can also choose a dinosaur (deinonychus or velociraptor).
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). To generate statistics for such a mount, apply the following modifications: Size Large; Ability Scores Str +2, Dex –2, Con +2. Increase the damage of each of the mount's natural attacks by one die size. A beast rider cannot choose a mount that is not capable of bearing his weight, that has fewer than four legs, or that has a fly speed (although the GM may allow mounts with a swim speed in certain environments).
Crocodile
This reptile lunges out of the placid water with shocking speed. Its jaw gapes open in a roar, its powerful tail lashing behind.
Crocodile CR 2
XP 600
N Large animal
RAW, you are absolutely 100% correct.
Small Beast Riders can never ride a crocodile, per the archetype and cavalier class restrictions on what Small Beast Riders expanded list is comprised of.
|
|
If your druid animal companion is a valid choice for samurai mount, then the two levels will stack and you have one animal companion/mount.Until another Paizo employee is willing to devote considerable time to answering every question, rules and otherwise, the only ruling from Paizo does not even allow this. I know what the book says, but if the release of splatbooks has allowed for a situation that was not intended in the original printing, I think you should go with what James says is how it should work.
You mean the only ruling other than the text from the Druid in the players handbook itself.
Adopting JJ's ruling also would create a weird situation in which you can only have one familiar ever, and those stack due to the wizard language specifying they stack, but animal companions never stack because he disregards the druid language specifying they stack.
|
|
If your druid animal companion is a valid choice for samurai mount, then the two levels will stack and you have one animal companion/mount.Until another Paizo employee is willing to devote considerable time to answering every question, rules and otherwise, the only ruling from Paizo does not even allow this. I know what the book says, but if the release of splatbooks has allowed for a situation that was not intended in the original printing, I think you should go with what James says is how it should work.You mean the only ruling other than the text from the Druid in the players handbook itself.
Adopting JJ's ruling also would create a weird situation in which you can only have one familiar ever, and those stack due to the wizard language specifying they stack, but animal companions never stack because he disregards the druid language specifying they stack.
The Druid language does not specifically expand another class’s list of available animals to be a mount. A GM, may, at their discretion (per the writeup of Cavalier, Paladin, & Ranger) expand a class’s available list of animal companion/mounts.
In PFS, the GM ruling has been that there are no expanded lists unless another legal source specifically expands the list (i.e. beastrider archetype).
The language in the druid class is not “another legal source” as it does not specifically expand the list.
If the animal chosen is valid for both class lists, then they will certainly stack, unlike what James Jacobs said.
|
|
We all acknowledge that only the listed mounts are acceptable for PFS play. That is clear. Thanks to Michael for that.
I know this is a PFS specific thread, but the remaining question is NOT PFS specific. I still hope we can get resolution.
In a non-PFS game where the GM and players want to play RAW, can Druid AC levels stack with Samurai Mount levels in such a way as to allow for a Tiger Mount at 7th level.?
I am not interested in GM's allowing things willy-nilly in home games.
I want to know the RAW ruling on this (outside of PFS games).
Alexander stated that the animal must be specifically listed as being usable as a mount otherwise it is not usable as a mount. See below:
The legal source point is that it must be from a legal source that expands its mount list. Unfortunately, no tiger riding samurai is how I read it. Truly a shame, as I rather liked the idea of it.
Is there a citation for this quote or not? If there is, it settles the matter once and for all. If there isn't it keeps the matter open for interpretation.
BTW: I just read some of the newer posts. Where does it say that the more stringent of the two must be applied?
Can we get this case closed once and for all? :)
|
|
I just think it's the height of conceit to believe you know better than a dev. Not that they, or even he in particular, don't make mistakes. But if the guy with his name on the book says it works a certain way, I'm gonna take his word for it.
Have you read the entire thread in detail? :) Many people are debating the original comment by JJ. That's not arrogance, it's curiosity. I want clarity in a rather murky area. It's these sort of questions/answers that make for better players, GMs and better games in general. :)
P.S...I'm incredibly grateful for all these opinions and references. They will make me a better player and GM in the long run.
|
|
We all acknowledge that only the listed mounts are acceptable for PFS play. That is clear. Thanks to Michael for that.
I know this is a PFS specific thread, but the remaining question is NOT PFS specific. I still hope we can get resolution.
In a non-PFS game where the GM and players want to play RAW, can Druid AC levels stack with Samurai Mount levels in such a way as to allow for a Tiger Mount at 7th level.?
I am not interested in GM's allowing things willy-nilly in home games.
I want to know the RAW ruling on this (outside of PFS games).
Alexander stated that the animal must be specifically listed as being usable as a mount otherwise it is not usable as a mount. See below:
The legal source point is that it must be from a legal source that expands its mount list. Unfortunately, no tiger riding samurai is how I read it. Truly a shame, as I rather liked the idea of it.Is there a citation for this quote or not? If there is, it settles the matter once and for all. If there isn't it keeps the matter open for interpretation.
Can we get this case closed once and for all? :)
1) This is the wrong forum to get a non-PFS rules clarification. The rules forum is the correct forum to appeal to the development team.
2) You are likely never going to get a specific citation saying that the rules specifically say you can’t do something. The way that DnD has worked since the old blue box and throughout Ad&d (1st and 2nd ed) when Skip Williams was answering questions, was assume you can’t do it, unless the rules specifically say you can. Things haven’t changed. That’s the way the rules set works.3) The onus is actually on you to find citation that says you can do something. Not the other way around. See item #2 above for more explanation.
|
|
1) This is the wrong forum to get a non-PFS rules clarification. The rules forum is the correct forum to appeal to the development team.
2) You are likely never going to get a specific citation saying that the rules specifically say you can’t do something. The way that DnD has worked since the old blue box and throughout Ad&d (1st and 2nd ed) when Skip Williams was answering questions, was assume you can’t do it, unless the rules specifically say you can. Things haven’t changed. That’s the way the rules set works.
3) The onus is actually on you to find citation that says you can do something. Not the other way around. See item #2 above for more explanation.
That's exactly what I needed to hear. Thank you!
BTW: Can you post a link to the rules forum?
|
|
I just think it's the height of conceit to believe you know better than a dev. Not that they, or even he in particular, don't make mistakes. But if the guy with his name on the book says it works a certain way, I'm gonna take his word for it.
James Jacobs is not a developer. He's the creative director. And by his own admission, his rulings are not necessarily strict RAW based, but rather more how he'd run it in his home campaign.
|
|
I just think it's the height of conceit to believe you know better than a dev. Not that they, or even he in particular, don't make mistakes. But if the guy with his name on the book says it works a certain way, I'm gonna take his word for it.James Jacobs is not a developer. He's the creative director. And by his own admission, his rulings are not necessarily strict RAW based, but rather more how he'd run it in his home campaign.
Just backing up what Andrew has stated, but JJ has stated this several times. JJ is the main guy behind the Golarion world, but isn't part of the rules team that makes the pathfinder rules set.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
A cavalier multiclassing into druid would see his mount becoming more powerful.
A druid with a horse or camel multiclassing into cavalier would see his animal companion (mount) becoming more powerful.
A druid with an AC other than horse or camel multiclassing into cavalier must release his previous companion from service in order to gain a new one (his mount).
I still stand by this set of statements; Mike's ruling makes me even more sure of it.
|
|
And for that reason I would take a SKR ruling over his any day. But until any other Paizo employee is willing to spend as much time answering questions as James does, I think his rulings should be respected.
Respected, yes. I’ve even changed my opinion on how something should work that is very ambiguous and open to table variation, based on one of his answers (read animal companions fighting intelligently with tactics). But when his ruling blatantly goes against RAW, then you have to view it as his home rule.
You have to be discerning with his responses, and see if it actually fits as a clarification or as his house ruling.
|
|
In a non-PFS game where the GM and players want to play RAW, can Druid AC levels stack with Samurai Mount levels in such a way as to allow for a Tiger Mount at 7th level.?
The RAW states it's the GM's call.
If I was the GM, I wouldn't allow it, as tigers (like all felines) are not physically built to bear heavy weights on their backs.
But as Andrew says, this thread/forum isn't the right place to ask.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I just think it's the height of conceit to believe you know better than a dev. Not that they, or even he in particular, don't make mistakes. But if the guy with his name on the book says it works a certain way, I'm gonna take his word for it.I think it's the height of conceit to get preachy about other people not accepting a comment from a dev as an official ruling, when that dev has explicitly said he's not an authoritative rules source.
Rules as written say the GM has the authority to expand the cavalier mount list to reasonable other mounts. So on a case by case basis, it might work, depending on the GM. If the GM so strictly adheres to rules as written as to never make judgement calls even when the rules suggest it, then nothing in druid or cavalier says that multiclassing expands the cavaliers list of allowed animal companion mounts.
Personally, I think most GMs would be cool with it, assuming it matches a character concept and makes some amount of sense.
And you are correct. It is the GM’s call.
In this case, Mike Brock is our GM. He’s made his call.
|
And for that reason I would take a SKR ruling over his any day. But until any other Paizo employee is willing to spend as much time answering questions as James does, I think his rulings should be respected.
Mike Brock is a Paizo employee. He said no for PFS. A gm can do whatever they want in a home game. In that case, take the discussion to the rules forums. For PFS, the question has been asked and answered.
|
so Druid / Samurai or Druid / Cavalier has now been ruled as not stacking ? when the rules as written explicitly do say that the levels of animal companion stack between classes that grant animal companion?
This is a deviation from a previous Frost ruling that expanding one classes' list of animal companion choices would expand your list period.
A druid 1 takes large cat as his animal companion. he then takes levels in cavalier. the rules for animal companions clearly state that these levels stack for determining the character's effective druid level for his animal companion.
Class Level: This is the character's druid level. The druid's class levels stack with levels of any other classes that are entitled to an animal companion for the purpose of determining the companion's statistics.
it doesn't say "any other classes entitled to an animal companion, but limited to their animal selection list." if both classes grant an animal companion, the levels stack for determining benefits. Am i reading the posts above incorrectly? is there something I missed? was brock just vetoing a standard samurai riding a tiger without the level dip in druid ?
previous citation: link
Druid and ranger animal companion levels stack. A multi-classed ranger/druid selects his animal companion from the most permissive list. In your example, a druid selects animal Z at level 1 (which is not on the ranger list). When he then takes a level of ranger later, that level of ranger stacks with his levels in druid for animal Z even if animal Z isn't on the ranger list.
In reverse, a ranger would have to select only from the ranger list at level 1. If that ranger were to later take a druid level, he would now have access to the druid list and when he was able to do so by the rules, he could select a new animal companion from the druid list.
it may not fit the flavor of the game world, but by the rules as written, and by previous rulings, it was kosher.
edit: i'm sorry if that came out obnoxious. i just have a lot of love for druids / animal companions. and like to make sure I stay on top of every iteration of rules pertaining to them for my characters.
|
|
there's no way it goes. it says it in the rulebook that they stack. you get a full hd kitty , or a full hd mount. you can choose. and you can choose to ride the kitty if he's a suitable size. i'm more at a loss for the sudden rules disconnect on the issue. I've been correcting people on it for years already.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
there's no way it goes. it says it in the rulebook that they stack. you get a full hd kitty , or a full hd mount. you can choose. and you can choose to ride the kitty if he's a suitable size. i'm more at a loss for the sudden rules disconnect on the issue. I've been correcting people on it for years already.
The quote you give talks about Druids and Rangers. Both classes get animal companions. Cavalier gets a mount, not an animal companion. RAW, it says that the mount counts as an animal companion for purposes of figuring out what abilities the mount has. It says nothing about giving the Cavalier access to more animals. The rest is GM approval, which Mike has said (which means he overrides Josh Frost) isnt PFS kosher.
So, as a Druid/Cavalier you can have a kitty or a mount. Sure, you can ride an appropriately sized kitty all you want, but that still doesnt make it your mount. So you'll take your AC Penalty to your Ride check, and wont gain all the other nice bonuses you get specifically for riding on your mount.
|
|
In a non-PFS game where the GM and players want to play RAW, can Druid AC levels stack with Samurai Mount levels in such a way as to allow for a Tiger Mount at 7th level.?The RAW states it's the GM's call.
If I was the GM, I wouldn't allow it, as tigers (like all felines) are not physically built to bear heavy weights on their backs.
But as Andrew says, this thread/forum isn't the right place to ask.
not many animals are.....
|
|
mounts use the rules for animal companions. the rules for animal companions state that effective druid level from all classes that grant the animal companion stack.
the frost post about animal companions applies, as the ranger has a very limited selection of choices for animal companion, while the druid has a very wide choice of animal companions.
in pfs a ranger can select from
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.
saying that cavaliers get a Mount instead of an Animal Companion is like saying Rangers get a Hunter's Bond instead of a Nature's Bond like a druid.
a cavalier's class ability is called "Mount", but
Mount (Ex): A cavalier gains the service of a loyal and trusty steed to carry him into battle. This mount functions as a druid's animal companion, using the cavalier's level as his effective druid level.
, emphasis added.
and the way an animal companion works is
The druid's class levels stack with levels of any other classes that are entitled to an animal companion for the purpose of determining the companion's statistics.
|
|
mounts use the rules for animal companions. the rules for animal companions state that effective druid level from all classes that grant the animal companion stack.
the frost post about animal companions applies, as the ranger has a very limited selection of choices for animal companion, while the druid has a very wide choice of animal companions.
in pfs a ranger can select from
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.saying that cavaliers get a Mount instead of an Animal Companion is like saying Rangers get a Hunter's Bond instead of a Nature's Bond like a druid.
a cavalier's class ability is called "Mount", but
Mount (Ex): A cavalier gains the service of a loyal and trusty steed to carry him into battle. This mount functions as a druid's animal companion, using the cavalier's level as his effective druid level., emphasis added.
and the way an animal companion works is
The druid's class levels stack with levels of any other classes that are entitled to an animal companion for the purpose of determining the companion's statistics.
But the type of animal and expanding the list of allowable animals is not one of the animals statistics.
There is a difference to stacking levels for the purposes of the power of the companion, and saying that the stacking language refers to expanding the list of allowable companions.
And frankly, it doesn't matter what Josh Frost said 3 years ago (its been shown that a lot of what Josh Frost said did not abide by RAW but rather conformed to his own sense of the way he wanted the rules to work). Today, right now, Mike Brock is the campaign coordinator, and what he says goes.
|
|
Whether Mike's ruling follows raw or is a house rule doesn't really matter. It is still the rule for PFS that we all will abide by. To get this back on course: Has anyone put together a list of the options available that expand your class animal companion list? Is it really just the two I threw out (Beast rider and Mammoth rider)?
|
|
Whether Mike's ruling follows raw or is a house rule doesn't really matter. It is still the rule for PFS that we all will abide by. To get this back on course: Has anyone put together a list of the options available that expand your class animal companion list? Is it really just the two I threw out (Beast rider and Mammoth rider)?
The Ranger has a couple archetypes, one being the Falconer, and I think there is a Beast Master one or something too.
