|
I've seen it written that despite Cavalier's mounts not getting Share Spells, they should just ignore this requirement for the Charger archetype, and I've seen it suggested that they should give up Link instead (which is a pretty bad thing to give up).
But for PFS play, is there an actual ruling? Should I ignore the Share Spells requirement, or, by the strictest definition of RAW, would I need to take a dip in Druid or Mad Dog Barbarian to then apply the archetype to my mount, because doing so would stack the Druid/Barbarian and Cavalier levels for my animal companion / mount and I could apply it then (as it would have share spells).
|
| 1 person marked this as FAQ candidate. |
It has been about a month since this post, has there been any follow up on this issue, or a clarification given?Just so people are aware, I am still in the process of evaluating the Charger/cavalier discrepancy (as well as other potential errata posters have pointed out), and am formulating an official response. Since we've got a lot of projects going on right now, I haven't been able to devote as much time to these issues as I'd like, but rest assured they are being considered and should be addressed within the next few weeks.
Until then, Jason's excellent suggestions should more than suffice for players and GMs running home games. :]
The simplest and fairest solution to the charger archetype issue is to remove the last sentence from the charger archetype's mounted challenge ability and replace it with the following: "This ability replaces link."
Reasoning: Finding a mount that is bred to ride into battle clad in armor and bearing a heavily armored rider would no doubt be a dauntless task, and these war horses are likely more obstinate than their less-outfitted counterparts. As such, a cavalier who gains a charger as a mount would need to have ranks in Handle Animal to make the most of such a wild and powerful breed.
This is from the developer.
|
|
Currently there is no PFS specific ruling that overrides the requirements from those listed in Animal Archive.
Unfortunately in PFS you can't go by developer's opinions on rules issues such as this until it shows up in an official errata or FAQ.
This is similar to the Titan Mauler Barbarian's author saying they eventually got to wield large sized or bigger 2handed weapons, but the published rules for the class do not grant the ability to do so.
|
|
Thanks for the responses. I currently am playing a Cavalier in a home game, so it's easy to find something that works, and another that's at Level 3 in GM credits and hasn't actually been played yet.
It's my understanding, that normally it requires a DC 10 Handle Animal check (free action) to get a mount to attack, and a DC 10 Ride Check (free action that turns into a move action if you fail) to get a mount to attack someone.
So, by removing Link, you'd no longer be able to do the DC 10 Handle Animal check as a free action, you'd need to do it as a move action, meaning that you couldn't get your mount to attack on a charge?
Both my cavaliers are halflings, both with 14 Dex and 14 Cha, and Outriders, so they have enough of a Ride and Handle Animal skill to not actually need to roll for either of those checks... or am I doing it wrong?
|
your actions and your mounts actions are seperate things. You could spend a move action to command your horse to charge, it would spend it's full round action doing so, and then you could make a single attack once your mount reaches the target.
This is not entirely accurate. Some actions do get combined in mounted combat (for example, you cannot take a full attack after your mount has moved). Check the mounted combat section of the CRB for the full rules.