Are Mounts Truely This Imbalanced?


Advice

101 to 150 of 167 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | next > last >>

Dasrak wrote:

The big problem I have is that animals are rather heavily over-statted in Pathfinder. They're balanced for gameplay purposes to present credible opposition to fantastic and mythical characters... leaving those animals grossly overpowered against your run-of-the-mill NPC's.

This is unfortunate, and to a certain extent it's just embedded in the rules of Pathfinder. It's something GM's always needs to keep in mind; the amount of power most animals have in pathfinder will far exceed your expectations based on their real-world counterparts.

In real life, run of the mill people (aka NPCs) don't do that well against those same run of the mill animals. It wasn't a stretch at all...


karossii wrote:


In real life, run of the mill people (aka NPCs) don't do that well against those same run of the mill animals. It wasn't a stretch at all...

I dunno, we extinctified a lot of critters with nothing but pointy sticks.


Dasrak wrote:

The big problem I have is that animals are rather heavily over-statted in Pathfinder. They're balanced for gameplay purposes to present credible opposition to fantastic and mythical characters... leaving those animals grossly overpowered against your run-of-the-mill NPC's.

This is unfortunate, and to a certain extent it's just embedded in the rules of Pathfinder. It's something GM's always needs to keep in mind; the amount of power most animals have in pathfinder will far exceed your expectations based on their real-world counterparts.

In my opinion they are understatted. How is something like a polar bear, an apex predator in the real world, supposed to deal with competition from Frost Worms, White Dragons, Remorhaz, etc.?

Liberty's Edge

Vod Canockers wrote:


In my opinion they are understatted. How is something like a polar bear, an apex predator in the real world, supposed to deal with competition from Frost Worms, White Dragons, Remorhaz, etc.?

I agree, just look at the aquatic animals. One look at the Orca is enough to convince me that they got the short end of the stick statistically.

Dark Archive

They may not be overstatted for being apex predators in a fantasy world, but may be for being reasonable facimilies of animals in the real world. Do you really think a tiger could take a 9 foot tall humanoid (ogre) wielding a tree trunk or throwing a boulder as a weapon?


BigNorseWolf wrote:
karossii wrote:


In real life, run of the mill people (aka NPCs) don't do that well against those same run of the mill animals. It wasn't a stretch at all...

I dunno, we extinctified a lot of critters with nothing but pointy sticks.

Not one-on-one, though. it required a lot of planning, skill, and tactics (with a bit of luck too)... which can be accomplished in the game as well. Get a dozen commoners and warriors, give them skills, and let them plan to start with the battlefield advantages they need...I bet they could take out most every animal with minimal injuries.


Cory Stafford 29 wrote:
They may not be overstatted for being apex predators in a fantasy world, but may be for being reasonable facimilies of animals in the real world. Do you really think a tiger could take a 9 foot tall humanoid (ogre) wielding a tree trunk or throwing a boulder as a weapon?

In the real world the tiger would run away, just like they do from people.

But you make my point, that real world predators cannot survive in a fantasy environment.


Vod Canockers wrote:
Cory Stafford 29 wrote:
They may not be overstatted for being apex predators in a fantasy world, but may be for being reasonable facimilies of animals in the real world. Do you really think a tiger could take a 9 foot tall humanoid (ogre) wielding a tree trunk or throwing a boulder as a weapon?

In the real world the tiger would run away, just like they do from people.

But you make my point, that real world predators cannot survive in a fantasy environment.

I dont really agree with this. Our own world got a FAR greater diversity in animals than every single bestiary combined got in creatures.

And yet , they all exist , many of them need the same kind of food in the same territory and still manage to each find their own way to live on.

I will agree that they would not be in the same place in the food chain , but survive? I dont see any problem with them surviving perfectly healthy in a fantasy world.


Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Quote:

In my opinion they are understatted. How is something like a polar bear, an apex predator in the real world, supposed to deal with competition from Frost Worms, White Dragons, Remorhaz, etc.?

...
Not one-on-one, though.

Actually, a single experienced Inuit hunter armed with nothing more than a spear can take down a polar bear. It's certainly risky, but the odds are against the polar bear.

Roman Gladiators with more advanced weapons and armor could take on any animal the Romans could import. Lions, tigers, bears, hippopotamus, elephants; all of them a skilled gladiator could take on solo. Hannibal discovered this the hard way when he pitted one of his elephants against a captured Roman soldier for some entertainment... and the soldier won!

The apex predator of the world is the human. It's easy - and almost romantic - to think of the struggle of primitive humans against those large and dangerous animals of the world. This couldn't be further from reality; we are the predators, and every other animal is our prey.

Lantern Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Hi,

I've read only about 1/3 of the posts, so please excuse me if someone covered these items.

1. I have no problem with taking Rich Parents and buying a Combat Trained Tiger mount. Yes, it's powerful at level 1, but the Tiger never improves and will eventually be killed if used for combat. It goes away and you are out your money (and the trait). This is, of course, assuming you are playing in an on-going campaign, not a one-shot.

2. Damiancrr seems to want the Tiger as a pack animal. I'm not sure exactly what he wants the Tiger to carry, but he does run into the following rule from Ultimate Equipment (Gear/Barding): "A barded animal cannot be used to carry any load other than a rider, and normal saddlebags." I hope everything he wants to carry fits in normal saddle bags. Me, personally, I usually just have my character save up for a Handy Haversack.

3. The Tiger's barding needs to be removed so the Tiger can rest. I guess you could have the Tiger rest in its armor, but it'll take the same penalties as a character who sleeps in armor. So the Tiger's AC may not be so high if the PCs are attacked in camp at night. Keep in mind another rule regarding barding: "Removing and fitting barding takes five times as long as the figures given on the Donning Armor table." So it's 20 minutes to put the barding on, and I assume the Tiger can't do it itself, or 5 minutes to don hastily. You might get around this with certain spells, but it needs to be considered.

4. I think Damiancrr stated a 100' charge,. I'm not sure what stats he's using. The Tiger from the bestiary has a 40' move, so in medium armor, it has a 30' move, or 60' charge. You can pump spells (i.e. resources) into the Tiger to make it go faster, but that's magic and/or money you could have used in other ways.

5. He also stated a 20 AC with Scale Mail, but the bestiary Tiger only has AC 14 (or 14 + 5 = 19 AC). It's possible his GM allowed him to switch around the Tiger's feats (some GMs do) to get Dodge. This is a decent AC at 1st level, but will quickly be out-classed as the campaign progresses.

6. Damiancrr is a spellcaster. If he's going to be casting spells while mounted on a Tiger, he needs to consider the concentration check rules for spellcasting. Vigorous motion (moving mount) while casting is DC 10 + spell level, which isn't trivial at low levels. Violent motion (galloping mount) is DC 15 + spell level. In addition, if you're mounted on the Tiger when it engages in melee, and you then cast, you ALSO need to cast defensively. Keep in mind that under the mounted rules, you are adjacent to any opponent who is adjacent to your mount. It's up to the GM, but given a Tiger's fighting style, I'd still classify it as Vigorous motion if the Tiger is not moving, but is fighting.

7. Riding skill. It's a mount. You need to make ride checks to get it to do certain things or to avoid certain bad things. You don't necessarily need alot of Ride, but some would be helpful. For example, I would require a DC 5 Ride check to stay in the saddle during a Pounce maneuver by the Tiger (some GMs might treat this as a DC 15 leap check, GM's call as far as I'm concerned). If you don't have any ranks in ride, but a good Dex, it might only happen on a roll of 1-3, but falling out of the saddle in the middle of melee is embarrassing, if not fatal at low level (especially if you can't make the DC 15 soft fall ride check). DC 20 fast dismounts won't be viable. You can dismount as a move action, but this eats into your action economy if you plan to dismount before battle and use handle animal to command the Tiger to attack riderless.

8. Handle Animal skill. Not having the Handle Animal skill will limit your use of the Tiger. I'm sure others have covered this in more detail. Also, don't forget that your Tiger does NOT have the Exclusive trick, so anyone with ride or handle animal can rustle your Tiger. There are horse thieves and, yes, there are tiger thieves. As some have pointed out, this is NOT an animal companion. It's a domesticated mount. It will let anyone ride it. You can come out of the Tavern only to find it gone one day. "Cool! A Tiger with a saddle... now that's the mount for me!"

9. Feeding. Let's assume that Tigers are not vegetarians. You could carry meat along, but it's heavy and spoils. Many GM's hand-wave horses, ponies and mules on the assumption (right or wrong) that they eat grass along the way. You have a domesticated Tiger. It doesn't know how to hunt. You need to teach it the Hunt trick, but I think you're out of tricks. You can use Handle Animal to push the Tiger to hunt for itself, but getting it to perform a trick it doesn't know is DC 25... also, I don't know if a domesticated Tiger will consistently be able to bring down sufficient game to keep itself fed. Also, it might just "hunt" one of the other party members' horses! (joke :->) Depending on your GM + your alignment + your religion + your character's background + other factors, you might be okay with having your Tiger eat your fallen foes. Other PCs might very well NOT be okay with that. A Lawful Good Paladin may insist that the bodies of fallen intelligent and/or civilized foes be treated with respect, maybe even properly buried... depends on the GM and how the PC is running the Paladin. A cleric of Pharasma might throw a fit if you start feeding dead people to your Tiger. Some creatures might not be safe to eat (poisonous ones). Also, you have the law of unintended consequences, you teach your Tiger to eat fallen foes, it might start munching at an inappropriate time, or on an inappropriate body. It's not intelligent, dead body is dead body... "Sorry my Tiger ate your dead (or fallen) character." As a domesticated mount, it's probably used to eating steaks or cuts of meat, not actual bodies... you'd be teaching it something that might have unintended consequences. Last, even if your group is okay with you feeding dead bodies to the Tiger, others might not be. Yes, the City Guard, local noble, local Sheriff, etc. agrees that you were justified in killing the gang/slavers/evil-doers/people between you and the treasure, but feeding their bodies to your Tiger crosses the line. Even if there are no direct legal consequences, you might get a range of bad reactions from a wide variety of NPCs.

In a long-term campaign, you might consider taking Nature's Soul, then Animal Ally at 5th Level, and Boon Companion at 7th level, and convert your Tiger to an actual animal companion, which will lessen or solve many of the issues.


Ilja wrote:

"Rule 0" is a perfectly valid response when the rules ask for them. Theres a difference between DMs changing written rules and DMs adjudicating when the rules say the DM should adjudicate.

This. One of the GM's roles in the game is to act as a balance against the possibility of someone attempting to exploit the rules.

The rulebook cannot cover every eventuality, and with a system this complex a human adjudicator is necessary.

All the current rules do is state the suggested price that a player be allowed to purchase said animal for, should the GM wish to make it available for them to purchase. If as GM I want to decide there's no longswords or leather armor available to buy in town, I can do that too (although I better have a really good explanation for why.)


Captain Zoom wrote:

Hi,

I've read only about 1/3 of the posts, so please excuse me if someone covered these items.

1. I have no problem with taking Rich Parents and buying a Combat Trained Tiger mount. Yes, it's powerful at level 1, but the Tiger never improves and will eventually be killed if used for combat. It goes away and you are out your money (and the trait). This is, of course, assuming you are playing in an on-going campaign, not a one-shot.

2. Damiancrr seems to want the Tiger as a pack animal. I'm not sure exactly what he wants the Tiger to carry, but he does run into the following rule from Ultimate Equipment (Gear/Barding): "A barded animal cannot be used to carry any load other than a rider, and normal saddlebags." I hope everything he wants to carry fits in normal saddle bags. Me, personally, I usually just have my character save up for a Handy Haversack.

3. The Tiger's barding needs to be removed so the Tiger can rest. I guess you could have the Tiger rest in its armor, but it'll take the same penalties as a character who sleeps in armor. So the Tiger's AC may not be so high if the PCs are attacked in camp at night. Keep in mind another rule regarding barding: "Removing and fitting barding takes five times as long as the figures given on the Donning Armor table." So it's 20 minutes to put the barding on, and I assume the Tiger can't do it itself, or 5 minutes to don hastily. You might get around this with certain spells, but it needs to be considered.

4. I think Damiancrr stated a 100' charge,. I'm not sure what stats he's using. The Tiger from the bestiary has a 40' move, so in medium armor, it has a 30' move, or 60' charge. You can pump spells (i.e. resources) into the Tiger to make it go faster, but that's magic and/or money you could have used in other ways.

5. He also stated a 20 AC with Scale Mail, but the bestiary Tiger only has AC 14 (or 14 + 5 = 19 AC). It's possible his GM allowed him to switch around the Tiger's feats (some GMs do) to get Dodge. This is a decent AC at...

Gonna address them one by one since someone actually had something constructive to add xD

1. Its an On-going campaign. But the trait pays for itself. The benefits that the 900 start gold gave me far outweigh anything else i could have gotten, and while yes when i hit level15+ it would have been better to get a different trait, for the next 7~ levels you are leaps and bounds ahead of anything coming at you, earning you easy monkey, saving party's from dieing, and taking down big baddies that you otherwise couldnt at this level. Its an investment that pays off pretty well and will continue to do so for quiet a while.

2. He has two saddlebags, one on each side. Plenty of room to carry my stuff. The main problem was that i could only carry like 23 lbs. so something had to be done about that.

3. I did indeed removing his barding while we slept every night, the encounter i mentioned with the orc chief happened when he had no armor and i had to use mage armor on him instead.

4. Yes i mis-stated the charge, at no point in time did the charges my tiger did extend past 30~35 feat so i didnt memorize it, i was probably thinking of the phantom steed spell or something when i mentioned it. Yes i know that with barding he has only 30 base move and it has always been marked on my sheet.

5. I forgot i had an item on him when i said the 20AC. I checked the AC right before i posted about it after the charging speed blunder and it said 20. The Tiger has 10 base + 5 armor + 2 Dex - 1 Size + 3 Nat + 1 Amulet Of Natural Armor to make 20 total.

Regardless of all this like ive said earlier in the post we are def nerfing the tiger and bringing it in line with everyone else and just gonna have it gradually scale till it becomes level6 again. The point of the post though was to first confirm and then point out an obviously broken mechanic.


I think very few people here understand why Rule 0 in and of itself is a Fallacy. I will try to explain as best I can.

The point of having a rule system in the first place is to set an environment where all players can play on even footing and understanding. All players have access to all the same information and thus can plan accordingly. It is the job of the providers of the game to create, balance, and maintain these rules.

When Rule 0 comes into play it instantly says "this situation is not applicable to the rules written". The rule is then changed at the table and everyone is supposed to move on. But this isnt were the issue or the argument should end. Ever.

As the creators and maintanors of the rules it is the job of the company to correct mistakes that have been make and fix broken systems. By accepting Rule 0 as the expected basis, you are undermining the rules as written, and whats worse paizo is encouraging it.

A prime example is the rules written for Diplomacy. If there is anything more broken in this game then Diplomacy I have yet to hear about it and literally shudder at the thought. Using the rules Exactly as written Diplomacy straight up breaks the game. There is a fantastic article about it written here http://www.thealexandrian.net/creations/advanced-rules/diplomacy-design.htm l . The worst part is that this was written about 3.5, not pathfinder. Yet the Diplomacy rules still made it into the pathfinder books. Forcing a entire section of the book to be ignored by 95% of the community and opting the Rule 0.

Yet does saying "I, as the GM, would never let this happen at my table" make the rule any less broken? Does that fix the rule itself? Or make it any less of a problem at other tables? It is not our job as consumers to rewrite the rules into a workable system to play by. Its the company.

So while Rule 0 can and will very much solve ANY problem the rules arraise, that is, in fact, not a viable answer to a broken system. But merely a bandaid that treats the symptoms and not the problem.

And above this and more on a pet-peeve then anything. It is never constructive to a conversation to say that you personally wouldnt allow it. Because until it happens and until you realize its broken you cant disallow it in the first place. And you, personally, disallowing it, has no affect on the rule itself at all and so adds nothing and might as well not have been said in the first place.


Well yes it is imbalanced. Would you be asking this question if you had a fourth level human fighter accompanying your first level adventuring group? Why should a CR 4 monster be any different from a mechanical perspective?

(Of course that said, I think based on rule of cool it's absolutely awesome for a PC to be riding a tiger).


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Damiancrr wrote:
A prime example is the rules written for Diplomacy.

I know this is a little off topic, but... you do know that the Diplomacy rules are significantly different in Pathfinder than they were in 3.5, right?

The article you linked makes a number of specific points, numbers them in fact, and not a single one of the statements is true in the Pathfinder rules.

Not that I am saying Pathfinder diplomacy is perfect, but it absolutely isn't the thing you seem to be saying that it is.

As for Rule Zero - it's one of the most important rules in the book. It's also the only rule in the book that I actively enjoy more when I have less cause to use it.


8 people marked this as a favorite.

As a GM, I would put a stop to this with endless He-Man references.


Mythic Evil Lincoln wrote:
As a GM, I would put a stop to this with endless He-Man references.

Thanks for the laughs, Lincoln.

Dark Archive

What was battlecat 's name?


Titania, the Summer Queen wrote:
What was battlecat 's name?

Cringer.


6 people marked this as a favorite.
Damiancrr wrote:

I think very few people here understand why Rule 0 in and of itself is a Fallacy. I will try to explain as best I can.

The point of having a rule system in the first place is to set an environment where all players can play on even footing and understanding. All players have access to all the same information and thus can plan accordingly. It is the job of the providers of the game to create, balance, and maintain these rules.

When Rule 0 comes into play it instantly says "this situation is not applicable to the rules written". The rule is then changed at the table and everyone is supposed to move on. But this isnt were the issue or the argument should end. Ever.

As the creators and maintanors of the rules it is the job of the company to correct mistakes that have been make and fix broken systems. By accepting Rule 0 as the expected basis, you are undermining the rules as written, and whats worse paizo is encouraging it.

It's important to remember the purpose of RPG rules are not the same as those for a competitive game. They're primarily there to allow the GM to determine the chances of any given action succeeding, and if so the effects of that action. They're not there to provide the actual game itself, as that's up to the GM and the world/scenario they're presenting to the players.

If this were a discussion about how certain combat maneuvers were unbalanced, I'd be in agreement with you over it being a possible flaw to examine. However, it's about the effects of having a tiger pet/companion/mount - which are no different in principle to the effects of having a +10 sword of everything slaying. If the GM is going to allow the players to possess that sword, the rules aren't the thing at fault.

The gp cost of something should not in any way represent the effectiveness of something - it should represent a sensible amount it should be available for in a society that has that item available. Pricing things out of the PC's reach isn't a suitable solution to preventing them from obtaining things that are too powerful for them. The only way to do that is to ensure they don't have the opportunity to obtain it within the game world. "Sorry, no tigers for sale." "Sorry, only untrained ones that'll bite you before they bite anything else.". So, pricing it out of the PC's range isn't really an option unless you believe they really are selling it far more cheaply than they ought to (ignoring game mechanics completely, and going on the trade/utility value of a tiger).

The effectiveness of something, likewise, should not be dictated by game balance but by how effective that item should be to get a realistic (based upon the developer's vision of what it should do in any given situation) effect out of it. So, making a tiger not act like a tiger but something else isn't really an option.

The rules can't be the sole source of balance. The rules allow me to line every street in every town with lethal pit traps. The only thing that stops me doing that is me (and the threat of my players telling me just where I can shove my game if I do it :) )

So. Given those restrictions, how would you propose "balancing" this particular entry, other than simply not making it available when it would be game-breaking? Where is the system broken, exactly? Does the tiger not do the kind of damage you imagine a tiger should do, or is it available cheaper than you believe an NPC would be willing to sell it for in a society where they are routinely available?

Dark Archive

3 people marked this as a favorite.

The problem I see is that we do not sit in these encounters of his, we don't know if the DM is factoring in the CR of the tiger. BTW, the CR of a base tiger is different from a barded one. If the DM is doing it correctly, then the player has selfishly put his team members at greater risk. However that might be ok because a lot of kids with "rich parents" are selfish anyways so its proper role play.


karossii wrote:


I dunno, we extinctified a lot of critters with nothing but pointy sticks.
Not one-on-one, though. it required a lot of planning, skill, and tactics (with a bit of luck too)... which can be accomplished in the game as well. Get a dozen commoners and warriors, give them skills, and let them plan to start with the battlefield advantages they need...I bet they could take out most every animal with minimal injuries.

Probably not. The "Overkill hypothesis" has been debunked.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2001/10/011025072315.htm
"Now, in two new papers, a University of Washington archaeologist disputes the so-called overkill hypothesis that pins the crime on the New World's first humans, calling it a "faith-based credo" that bows to Green politics."

In North American the number of Mammoth kill sites can be counted without taking off your shoes.


Dr. Deth wrote:
"Now, in two new papers, a University of Washington archaeologist disputes the so-called overkill hypothesis that pins the crime on the New World's first humans, calling it a "faith-based credo" that bows to Green politics."

We had 17 periods of global warming and climate change without a mass extinction. Mammals had only gone extinct when replaced by other mammals, and the second (geologically speaking) humans showed up in australia the megafauna went extinct, and the second humans showed up in north america the megafauna went extinct. We had about 500 years of cave men making these gigantic clovis point spearheads which stopped very abruptly.

"Overkill proponents have argued that these animals would still be around if people hadn't killed them and that ecological niches still exist for them. Those niches do not exist. Otherwise the herbivores would still be there."

*headdesk*


Damiancrr wrote:


A prime example is the rules written for Diplomacy. If there is anything more broken in this game then Diplomacy I have yet to hear about it and literally shudder at the thought. Using the rules Exactly as written Diplomacy straight up breaks the game. There is a fantastic article about it written here http://www.thealexandrian.net/creations/advanced-rules/diplomacy-design.htm l . The worst part is that this was written about 3.5, not pathfinder. Yet the Diplomacy rules still made it into the pathfinder books. Forcing a entire section of the book to be ignored by 95% of the community and opting the Rule 0.

We use those Rules as written all the time, and there's no problem. I don;t see how there would be a problem, even.

Incidentally that link doesn't take me to that article and searching doesn't find it. Got a better link or a date?


Damiancrr wrote:


When Rule 0 comes into play it instantly says "this situation is not applicable to the rules written". The rule is then changed at the table and everyone is supposed to move on. But this isnt were the issue or the argument should end. Ever.

But this is not a case of "Rule 0" or a rules change. The DM stating another price than the suggested is very much part of the written rules, which explicitly state in this case that it's up to DM adjudication.

A DM nerfing the tiger's stats is rule 0.
A DM following the written rules and adjudicating the price is the DM following the written rules.

Also, if we are to discount DM adjudication, there is nothing broken at all with the tiger as a mount. Because without DM adjudication there is no opposition, no world in which to use those stats.


BigNorseWolf wrote:
Dr. Deth wrote:
"Now, in two new papers, a University of Washington archaeologist disputes the so-called overkill hypothesis that pins the crime on the New World's first humans, calling it a "faith-based credo" that bows to Green politics."

We had 17 periods of global warming and climate change without a mass extinction. Mammals had only gone extinct when replaced by other mammals, and the second (geologically speaking) humans showed up in australia the megafauna went extinct, and the second humans showed up in north america the megafauna went extinct. We had about 500 years of cave men making these gigantic clovis point spearheads which stopped very abruptly.

When did the North American megafauna become extinct, exactly? (Answer, over a period of some 10-20 thousand years). When did humans arrive in North America- exactly? (answer, we still don't know but recent discoveries have pushed back the date by more than 10 thousand years).

So, my goodness, that coincidence looks amazing when the Pleistocene Overkill proponents simply MAKE UP THE DATES.

And, look at it another way. During that period there were far less than 1 Million natives in North America (estimates say around 100000). Right before Columbus, there were 100 million natives- and living happily with 100 million buffalo. The buffalo were a thriving population.

Or another way. since the invention of modern firearms, mankind has not managed a single extinction of a land mammal megafauna species, despite having weapons hundreds of times more deadly and having a population SEVENTY THOUSAND TIMES GREATER.

Species are hard to extinct by simple hunting. Even some of the best examples- Passenger pigeon for example- was more depletion of the hardwood forests than hunting, altho no doubt hunting played a part.

I have a masters degree in Environmental science, note.

No serious modern scientist accepts the Pleistocene Overkill hypothesis any longer. Some do claim that hunting played a major part, yes. But Martin's hypothesis has been completely and repeatedly debunked in the last couple of decades. It's now been put with the luminiferous aether hypothesis.

Currently it seems to be Climate change was the trigger with hunting (and other human interventions) putting the coffin nail and new species finishing them off. In other words, scientists don't accept simplistic hypothesis without any shred of proof other than a coincidence that turns out to be false once you take a good look at it.


"What iced the mammoths" moved to off topic


DrDeth wrote:

Or another way. since the invention of modern firearms, mankind has not managed a single extinction of a land mammal megafauna species, despite having weapons hundreds of times more deadly and having a population SEVENTY THOUSAND TIMES GREATER.

The western black rhinoceros would like to have a word with you, if you can find him.


I'm just not sure what a battle tiger brings to the table you can't get with a sleep spell. Although, my gut says they are underpriced by about half. Tigers just don't have a lot of useful life skills from a humanoid standpoint. It's a CR 4 monster with a +3 Will and no ranged attacks. It is stronger than anything on the Summon Monster II list, hence my comment that it was probably undercosted.

EDIT: I found a place online you can buy five month old tiger cubs for $13,400 each, which is about 134 days of fairly skilled later, or the equivalent of 134 gp. That's for an untrained cub. So, I'm thinking tigers should be somewhere in the 1000 to 1500 gp range, even before you add in rarity.


I'm somewhat bemused by the idea of using (or even training) a tiger as a mount. It's not really designed for it. I expect there's a good reason why tigers aren't used as mounts IRL. Outside a circus, it's not done. And even inside a circus, it's done by someone light for about 10 seconds.

A tiger isn't a horse. It's a stealth hunter that skulks around, hides and leaps out. Then it scoffs 50 lbs of antelope and goes to sleep for the next 22 hours. Its musculature and skeleton aren't designed for long journeys. It has soft feet. It won't be carrying 150 lbs of adventurer+barding for very long.

Now look at how a tiger (or lion, or similar big cat) fights. It grabs the prey, takes a big bite out of whatever it can reach (ideally the throat) and hangs on, rolling about in the dirt. In this situation, a rider is likely to fall off, especially a 1st level sorcerer with something like +3 max in Ride skill.

The phrase "ride the tiger" essentially means to do something heroically brave and stupid. Or in modern parlance, to inject heroin, which suggests that it might be unwise.

And yes, the MW backpack is utter rubbish, unless you're very strong anyway.


DrDeth wrote:
Damiancrr wrote:


A prime example is the rules written for Diplomacy. If there is anything more broken in this game then Diplomacy I have yet to hear about it and literally shudder at the thought. Using the rules Exactly as written Diplomacy straight up breaks the game. There is a fantastic article about it written here http://www.thealexandrian.net/creations/advanced-rules/diplomacy-design.htm l . The worst part is that this was written about 3.5, not pathfinder. Yet the Diplomacy rules still made it into the pathfinder books. Forcing a entire section of the book to be ignored by 95% of the community and opting the Rule 0.

We use those Rules as written all the time, and there's no problem. I don;t see how there would be a problem, even.

Incidentally that link doesn't take me to that article and searching doesn't find it. Got a better link or a date?

Link

Note that Pathfinder fixed some of the problems of 3.5 Diplomacy (Diplomacy as a standard action and turning someone from Hostile to Helpful)


Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

You guys remember that this is a high fantasy game and not a medieval simulation right?
I would take out horses and ponies from this game if i could^^

Dark Archive

But it does attempt to use some semblence realism and balance where appropriate, which a 500 gp combat trained tiger "mount" pretty much destroys at low level.


Hayato Ken wrote:

You guys remember that this is a high fantasy game and not a medieval simulation right?

I would take out horses and ponies from this game if i could^^

Yes, I do. I don't remember in any of the fantasy, high or low, that I have read anyone riding a tiger. Horses, not-horses, dragons, other mythical beasties, but not one tiger.

Liberty's Edge

Vod Canockers wrote:
Hayato Ken wrote:

You guys remember that this is a high fantasy game and not a medieval simulation right?

I would take out horses and ponies from this game if i could^^
Yes, I do. I don't remember in any of the fantasy, high or low, that I have read anyone riding a tiger. Horses, not-horses, dragons, other mythical beasties, but not one tiger.

Well, there was this cartoon called He-Man for one, and there was that little computer game called World of Warcraft...

:P

But I agree that some of the non standard mounts are non standard for a reason, even in fantasy.


I dont remember any rule saying you cant ride a tiger, it is a large animal , so no problems there even, also , if the tiger got the proficiency , it can use armor and so on , if not it will take the penalty.

The problem was giving the tiger at such low lvl and not bebing able to deal with it.

A druid tiger would only become large and get pounce at level 7.

PS: Honestly i have seen characters riding tigers over and over from games (lol ... far from being just WoW), to animes, to comics...


I don't see why so many people are responding in such a.....visceral tone.

Is having a combat trained tiger unbalanced at 1st level? Yes. But then you can't normally have one.

Having a bunch of extra money at any level is a good way to unbalance things, which is why we have WBL guidelines.

A 3rd level Fighter with a +3 Flaming Burst sword is not balanced, but he can't normally get one of those either.

So taking a trait to triple your money, then using it to buy something that wouldn't normally be available until higher level unbalanced the game....color me surprised.

That said, some of these responses are really puzzling. Yeah, the DM could make the tiger cost more, the book says so. So what. He could do that anyway. The statement in the book doesn't magically mean the price listed isn't the price (in the vacuum we have to discuss it in by not being his the OP's gaming group). Obviously if he bought the tiger, the DM didn't change the price, so he (the OP, a player) isn't "ignoring" anything.

Tigers are found in diverse environments, from mangrove swamps to jungle to taiga forests. The possibility of his purchasing one "near" its natural habitat is also completely within the DM's call, so again we have to assume the OP didn't do anything wrong since the DM allowed it.

Several people have pointed out that there are a lot of limiting factors. Needing to invest in a skill, spend actions, spend gold (though Carnivore Rations are 5 cp a day and specifically says it is enough to feed a tiger), un-scaling animal will die before too long, etc. However, suggesting a Handle Animal check daily to prevent from being eaten by your own pet is actually mentioned under Dire Animals, so I wouldn't apply it to regular animals.

Side note, charging should absolutely be the tiger's natural method of attacking, given its game statistics.


Samasboy1 wrote:
Is having a combat trained tiger unbalanced at 1st level? Yes.

I disagree with your answer, to a point.

I think it is more of a "Not nearly as much as you would think that it would be," than a strict "Yes."

Based, of course, on all of those little limiting factors you mention (and that where mentioned earlier in the thread).

Plus, I firmly believe that anything you can afford with level 2 Wealth by Level doesn't unbalance a 1st level character - if it did, you wouldn't come across any treasure until higher level.


Fomsie wrote:
Vod Canockers wrote:
Hayato Ken wrote:

You guys remember that this is a high fantasy game and not a medieval simulation right?

I would take out horses and ponies from this game if i could^^
Yes, I do. I don't remember in any of the fantasy, high or low, that I have read anyone riding a tiger. Horses, not-horses, dragons, other mythical beasties, but not one tiger.

Well, there was this cartoon called He-Man for one, and there was that little computer game called World of Warcraft...

:P

But I agree that some of the non standard mounts are non standard for a reason, even in fantasy.

Were I playing Cartoon Action Hour, then a tiger might make a great mount. Never played WoW. I wouldn't consider either of them High Fantasy.

Grand Lodge

my question is why did the tiger not just eat the party? although tigers can be trained to not eat people they are somewhat reluctant not to. being that people are so tasty.

Grand Lodge

though i think that would make a very interesting bloodline ability for a sorcerer in gaining an animal companion. hmm a sorcerer with an animal companion would be quite interesting. im going to make one.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Adventure, Rulebook Subscriber; Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber
Damiancrr wrote:

I must be missing some rule some where that makes this mounts not nearly as broken as he seems to be, especially for low level campaigns.

Can anyone chime in on this issue?

You bought a CR 4 creature and are using it against CR 1 encounters. Having it trivialize these encounters is the system working as intended.

Shadow Lodge

Humphry B ManWitch wrote:
though i think that would make a very interesting bloodline ability for a sorcerer in gaining an animal companion. hmm a sorcerer with an animal companion would be quite interesting. im going to make one.

Here you go.


Humphry B ManWitch wrote:
my question is why did the tiger not just eat the party? although tigers can be trained to not eat people they are somewhat reluctant not to. being that people are so tasty.

The same reason a horse doesnt walk off and grase, or a donkey doesnt just stop and stand. The same reason all the other mounts that eat meat dont do the same thing. They have been trained.

Even in reality it is fairly common to get a well trained and domesticated carnivore. Combine that with the magic that is in this worl that can be used for illusion training and things that wouldnt have been possible in our world and you have a pretty reliable method to condition most animals.

As per the rules as a war trained mount he generally only attacks obvious foes or things that threaten its owner. There is nowhere in the rules that suggest a trained animal would suddenly fly off the handle, ignore a life-time of training, and go on a killing spree.

And if you seriously wanted to do that as a GM i would just have them roll a percentile for a %1 each week(or month in campaigns that have long downtimes) because thats honestly about the likelyhood. Its that 1% that always makes the news but its 1% non-the less.


Vod Canockers wrote:
Were I playing Cartoon Action Hour, then a tiger might make a great mount. Never played WoW. I wouldn't consider either of them High Fantasy.

Warcraft is not High Fantasy? Than what is it? And I'd say that He-man was still high fantasy, too.

Digital Products Assistant

Removed a few posts and replies. Please revisit the messageboard rules.

Scarab Sages

Damiancrr wrote:
The point is why are there so many over powered mounts for so little a price(because there are plenty more then the tiger on that list).

As people have pointed out:

1. Looking at gp per level, normally it is not available to you at lvl 1, by the time it is available it is not overpowered. keep in mind the gp per level assumes you spend money on something besides the mount.
2. It is also not overpowered because it is so easy to deal with, given all the examples.
3. Most GMs let players control the mounts and animal companions, but that control is what makes them overpowered, not the stats of the animals themselves.


4 people marked this as a favorite.

As cringe-inducing as the OP's logic is, I love threads like this.

A GM anticipating (or experiencing) a problem like this now has a thread full of basic, fair countermeasures to bring the situation under control.

Well done, fellows.

101 to 150 of 167 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder First Edition / Advice / Are Mounts Truely This Imbalanced? All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.