|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I've read the FAQ regarding animal companions and familiars and their ability to wear magic items. It makes sense to me, but I have a gripe with it.
The idea of uniformly allowing neck and barding options I like, and I don't at all mind having to own Animal Archive or take Extra Item Slot to gain access to additional item slots (even though I'm pretty much never in favour of house rules, since they're frequently hard for players to remember and they needlessly complicate an already complicated game).
What I do mind is that by campaign RAW (table variance not withstanding) snakes are the only animals not benefiting from neck and barding options. As an owner of the Animal Archive, I can infer from the FAQ that piscine, serpentine, and verminous animal companions/familiars would all fail to benefit from the barding and neck slot rule, but this leaves people in the peculiar pickle of having to own Animal Archive in order to know that their animal companion is not capable of wearing armour or necklaces.
I realize the intent of the FAQ is to ask players and GMs to make reasonable educated guesses about which anatomies can support which item slots, but I think that's a taller order than it may at first blush seem. For instance, even with the explicitly stated snake example, there's just no part of my being that believes a neck slot for a snake is less realistic than a belt or headband slot (both of which appear on the Animal Archive item slot list for serpentine bodies, opening them up for Extra Item Slot availability in PFS). I mean, how is a headband in any way realistic for a snake? They don't have foreheads. And in what way is a belt different than a tight-fitting necklace? Or for a snake, isn't a headband effectively the same as a necklace or belt? Magical items explicitly resize themselves to fit their wearers, don't they?
Looking through the animal companion lists, there are precious few animals whose anatomy seems incompatible with being able to wear a necklace. The only ones I'm seeing are manta rays, stingrays, and crabs. And I can't think of a single animal that couldn't wear armour specifically fitted for them.
I guess I'm just saying that the FAQ as-written is pretty ambiguous, and I think the main reason more people haven't voiced confusion over the issue is because most people don't realize they can't just equip their animals however they want, and haven't seen the FAQ. I also think it's always in the interests of the campaign to be as clear, concise, and uniform as possible. A specific list of which animals can't wear barding and neck-slot items would do the trick, but I honestly think it would be a much healthier ruling (not to mention a smaller workload for the campaign staff) to just fully uniformly allow neck and barding slots. The few cases which would test suspension of disbelief would be well worth the fewer player headaches and table variation that would result.
John, Mike, et al.: as always, I think you're doing a great job, so I hope you read this in the spirit of helpful feedback and not mean-spirited griping and nit-picking. Thanks!
|
|
Also, as a side note with regard to my comment that I don't think most people have seen the FAQ entry. I actually just polled a few long-time players who have PFS druids and only one was aware of these restrictions. Has the campaign staff given any thought to reserving the FAQ for actual issues of contention, and listing house rules like these in the Guide instead? People check FAQs when they're confused about the way something works. When they believe they know how things work because they know the RAW of the game, they don't check the FAQ because they don't believe they have a reason to. If house rules like equipping animal companions were included in the Guide, players would have no excuse for not knowing them.
|
I see plenty of Constrictor Snake animal companions in my area that don't seem phased by this ruling. Within the last couple weeks I was at a table with two of them, and they effectively shut down every encounter. They don't need to become any more deadly than they already are.
Also, the title of this thread should be changed. The animal companion equipment rules are being applied consistently. Allowing snakes to wear armor breaks that consistency.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I'm not saying constrictors aren't good enough. I also think cats, dinosaurs, and rocs are plenty good enough without being able to wear amulets or armour, but they're allowed to wear those things. This isn't an argument about game balance because the policy isn't about game balance. The argument is about the rules being consistent and easy to follow, and the policy as it exists is about reasonably debatable simulationism.
Owner - Enchanted Grounds, President/Owner - Enchanted Grounds
|
Is it a house rule? Are the rules applied differently in PFS than in the PFRPG? I was kind of under the impression that this was how snakes have always been treated, even before the animal archive. At least, I remember reading quite a few comments from James Jacobs and team about it in the past.
I do agree that it's an uneven application of the animal companion rules to exclude different body types from different gear, though. As Benn mentioned, cats are plenty strong without barding and amulets, moreso than snakes, in my opinion. This kind of rules application merely makes the "right" choice to be something that can wear all these different things, and when the "right" choice equals the optimized choice, that's just kind of boring.
But, then again, Nefreet is right, too: I have a constrictor snake for my druid, and it certainly does shut down encounters. I'd keep it as my choice even without item slot versatility.
So, I guess I'm not sure what side of the fence I'm on. I suppose I'm on the side of whatever the PFRPG rules are. But I don't think that the way the Animal Archive applies them is the right answer to that question. Because if it is, then owning the Animal Archive becomes a requirement for any animal companion class. That seems a bit unnecessary.
|
Is it a house rule? Are the rules applied differently in PFS than in the PFRPG? I was kind of under the impression that this was how snakes have always been treated, even before the animal archive. At least, I remember reading quite a few comments from James Jacobs and team about it in the past.
The rules for PFS state that you can only have items for a companion in the neck and barding slots unless you buy the extra item slot feat. For normal pathfinder, in the Animal Archive, you can get items for any of the listed slots for that animal type, no feats needed.
Edit: So that way, animal companions without the neck and barding slots are shortchanged in PFS, as they have to get a feat to use any items at all.
|
|
I would think that if you have the Animal Archive, the barding slot would be open for every animal companion since you can buy the barding stitches from that book for serpentine or other creatures normally incapable of wearing barding.
Barding stitches is not a legal item according to additional resources, along with fury drops and poison caps.
I move that uniformity is NOT your answer, rather diversity IS. Snakes are not imps are not ravens are not small elementalsare not tomatoes, and should be treated differently in respect to what they can and can't do or wear. Otherwise, buy a book/PDF, or take the feat. Be careful your petitions do not close off options for others
|
Owner - Enchanted Grounds, President/Owner - Enchanted Grounds
|
Is it a house rule? Are the rules applied differently in PFS than in the PFRPG? I was kind of under the impression that this was how snakes have always been treated, even before the animal archive. At least, I remember reading quite a few comments from James Jacobs and team about it in the past.
The rules for PFS state that you can only have items for a companion in the neck and barding slots unless you buy the extra item slot feat. For normal pathfinder, in the Animal Archive, you can get items for any of the listed slots for that animal type, no feats needed.
Edit: So that way, animal companions without the neck and barding slots are shortchanged in PFS, as they have to get a feat to use any items at all.
Ugh. I should probably simply read these things before posting about them, I guess.
Edit: And, after reading it, the FAQ makes sense and is easy applicable. I don't see a need to change it.
Not all animals are created equal.
All animals are equal, but some are more equal than others.
|
I move that uniformity is NOT your answer, rather diversity IS. Snakes are not imps are not ravens are not small elementalsare not tomatoes, and should be treated differently in respect to what they can and can't do or wear. Otherwise, buy a book/PDF, or take the feat. Be careful your petitions do not close off options for others
I don't think he is asking for uniformity, other than in clarity.
In order for the FAQ to make sense and work correctly, you need to:
Own the Animal Archive
Have read the FAQ and understood that it changes the actual basic rules from both the CRB and the Animal Archive for Animal COmpanions
CRB: fairly basic, more-or-less comonly known
AA: More advanced, not all of us own or read it.
PFS FAQ: Nodifies and/or changes both the CRB and AA AC rules, but only really makes sense if you have read the AA rules...
Poster is requesting that the FAQ be setup so that it makes sense without having to read the AA specific portion of the rules, and, in addition, that it be put in the Guide, since it is not an FAQ, but a PFS specific rules change.