|
Would a horse animal companion who has gained "combat training" from achieving 4th level advancement also gain the 6 tricks?
you look familiar...
I'm inclined to slightly to no.
Mostly because when there's a corner case or ambiguity in the rules you're best off taking the worst case scenario: this goes at least triple for organized play.
Also combat training spells out that it replaces your other tricks, so it sounds like you'd replace all the known tricks not add to them.
I seem to recall the bestiary horse, the bestiary natural attack rules and the handle animal rules, and the animal companions weren't all quite done at the same time, leading to a bit of confusion.
The argument for it is that the horse is kinda weak as an animal companion already and the extra tricks really help it. I think those people just don't know how awesome we are.
|
|
you look familiar...
You look rather dashing!
Well, at the very least, it would mean a horse (after 4th level advancement) would have combat training if it was a replacement animal companion - that's 6 tricks learnt before a die is rolled in PFS. That makes a horse a good low-level replacement AC.
Horses are not weak - but don't tell anyone - it'll ruin the surprise!
Venture-Captain, Minnesota
|
Question for y'all. I am trying to consider future developments for Zahra, my human sylvan sorceress with tiger friend. I looked at Improved Spell Sharing (maybe later on) and Weapon Finesse for me so that I could possibly deliver touch spells remotely with spectral hand. And then I thought I'd better ask... Are there any PFS-legal feats / spells / magic items that would allow an animal companion to deliver touch spells the way familiars do?
By the way, I'm okay if the answer is a straight-up "No." As hilarious as I find the idea of a tiger delivering shocking grasp, I realize that Pumpkin can do many things that familiars cannot (grapple foes and do multiple attacks). It would make sense that the ability to deliver touch spells be reserved for familiars. I'm just exploring options because right now I'm not sure what to do with Zahra's feats other than standard options (all good) of improved initiative, toughness or combat casting.
Hmm
|
Hmm... Tempting. Since such an item cannot be activated by the tiger, would it have to go off immediately on the first target the tiger attacks?
Hmm
Could you activate the item if you are not actually wearing it and have the effect apply to someone else? That sounds like it will be open to table variation. I know I was just happy to find the Beast Bond Brand so I could cast personal/touch spells at range without needing to have a legality discussion on the interaction of Reach Spell and the Share Spells class ability with the GM beforehand.
|
Venture-Captain, Minnesota
|
I actually don't think the spell storing idea is very viable. If and when my character ever has cash for it, I may get a furyborn mighty fists amulet.
However, I've just added beast-bond brand to my list of potential magical items to pick up. Note: I'm really low level in PFS. I can't buy anything magical over 500 gold yet, so this just goes on the potential purchase list.
Hmm
|
Venture-Captain, California—Sacramento
|
Word of warning on furyborn AoMF.
there are two interpretations. One is that it turns all of your natural attacks into a single furyborn weapon that hits X times a round. Where X is your number of natural attacks.
So if you hit with three different natural attacks, your next attack is +3.
The other interpretation is that it turns each of your natural attacks into a separate furyborn weapon. So if you hit with three separate natural attacks, next round those attacks each get +1 (and your other attacks get nothing.)
|
Venture-Captain, Minnesota
|
Hey Gang --
With Flutter's permission, I have compiled Flutter's posts into a google doc: Druid's Log: Animal Companions.
Please make comments if you would like.
Hmm
Given all the mixed feelings that our furry friends sometimes engender in other players and GMs, I'd like to suggest that we add an etiquette section to the end of the guide.
I'd love suggestions from all who have strong feelings on the issue on the following:
1. How to share any of your pet's special abilities / proclivities / tricks with the rest of the party and the GM.
2. How to make certain that all the other members of the party get to do the things that they built their characters to do, and share the spotlight.
3. Ideas for ways to support the party as a whole with your AC -- Flanking, tracking, aiding.
And more. I would ideas and thoughts, even (or especially) if you're a player / gm who does not like ACs.
Thanks!
Hmm
|
My suggestion? If your Animal Companion is built somewhat... "wonky"... have an alternative statted up.
My Ranger has a Constrictor Snake as his Companion. He has the Eye For Talent alternate racial trait so the snake started with an Int of 3. The snake took Improved Unarmed Strike as his first feat, needing it as an eventual prerequisite for both Improved/Greater Grapple and Snake Style.
The problem though, as I've found out in person and here on the forums, is that not all GMs appreciate a snake with Improved Unarmed Strike. The first GM that ran for me when I first got my snake asked if I had an alternative statted up instead, because otherwise I couldn't play my snake (he believed it was an illegal build).
So, since that encounter, I bring a "Version 2" with me that's much more tame. It also has an Int of only 1, and my Ranger has another feat, since if I couldn't have built the Snake for Improved Unarmed Strike, I wouldn't have given it a +2 Int.
If you have a Dragon Style mount, or an Improved Grapple snake, or something else against the grain, it's probably smart to bring a "Version 2", just in case.
|
Things to check for/keep in mind:
1) Be aware of how long your turns take, even if you can't speed them up. Warn people ahead of time so they are less upset when it happens. Especially at low level, when your pet may have three attacks to resolve, plus the actions of your actual PC. Remember that most other PCs are only getting time in the spotlight equal to your druid alone. (This is why my eidolon only has one attack at level 5)
2) Be aware that your *class feature* may be the most potent melee entity in the group. I've seen newer players with pregens or first-build characters get extremely frustrated extremely quickly when they realize they are vastly inferior to the druid's *minion*. This circumstance presents a lose/lose dilemma for the table. The group can't use their most potent melee asset without neutering/humiliating entire PCs. This situation, to me, is created by Paizo allowing 1st level *class features* to swing three times as compared to the martial expert fighter swinging once.
Also consider that animal companion advancement gives a huge pile of stat boosts that regular PCs would have to pay for. Calculate the gp cost for PCs that the animals get for free. Then factor in the ability to charge and take full attacks. Then factor in the fact that this is a *class feature* on a 9-level spell casting class with other significant class features. (Wild shape) These class features factor back into item 1, turn length.
I don't know what to about this, honestly. Druids are just BETTER. Like Archer says, I can't hear other classes over the sound of my own awesomeness. They are better because Paizo says so. The bottom line is that animal companions are too strong when you look at the druid's other class features.
http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0346.html
3) Movement is an issue for animal companions. Many (most?) GMs will not let animal companions take special paths to their target. Once you order them to attack, off it goes. Once pets become large, this can create serious issues as most of them lack reach. (This is why my eidolon has reach) This means a 10"X10" animal companion can easily squeeze other PCs out of a combat, with no way for the druid to reasonably prevent it except by keeping it out of the fight. This is less of an issue with eidolons because they are not subject to the trick system.
OOEOOO
----PP---
OOPPOO
FOOOOB
In the above diagram, dashes are a wall and "E" is the enemy. If the druid wins initiative and orders the pet to attack, the large pet will occupy the spaces labeled "P", including the door spaces. This prevents the fighter "F" or brawler "B" from doing anything without tumbling into the room through AOOs from "E". "O" is open square.
My personal anecdote for this is a scenario I played with a dwarf fighter with two druids and a summoner. My PC literally never got to attack the entire scenario because the pets closed distance much faster and squeezed my PC out of every fight.
4) Realize it's very easy to put an animal companion's armor class out of the reach of NPCs. This is due to barding, large DEX scores, free armor buffs from advancement, druid buffs, and free armor class buff from the magic animal advancement table. This feeds back into number 2, but this really honks of some GMs. Technically, they are powerless to act on this, but I've seen a couple vindictive ones (not me, I just suck it up and collect my GM chronicle sheet) try to "do something about it". This one really only matters if you care whether you aggravate your GM or not. Because they really are powerless before the might of the super high armor class, as they must run as written.
5) Druid spells themselves are a bit of an issue for me. A major temptation is just to use spells to create death kitty. This exacerbates the many of the problems outlined above. Other melee PCs are even more overshadowed, as they don't have access to or the action economy to gain these buffs. Animals move faster/get larger so they clog the combat more effectively. At least summoners frequently sling haste, and most players will feel better vis a vis the summoner since they are getting extra movement and extra attacks themselves, even if the eidolon is a total horror show in its own right. We'll call this the self-contained nature of druid spells as opposed to the arcane buffs summoners have access to.
The other thing that druids can choose to do (which I have seen) humiliates even summoners. Druids can, with their full-powered animal companion fully active, literally fill the board with summons by burning their spell slots. Note that they are 9-level casters, so they have a TON of spell slots. Unlike the summoner SLA, there is no limit to how many summons the druid can have out.
This tactic is incredibly powerful, but also multiplies all the problems listed above. The druid's turn takes even longer, they are doing an even larger percentage of group melee damage. I've seen it where a druid's turn is longer than all other PCs combined. But again, perfectly legal, and would force other players into pulling the "don't be a jerk" card, which I consider kinda lame.
|
Venture-Captain, Minnesota
|
Bringing documentation for your GMs seems to be a very important point. High IQ companions do seem to cause consternation among GMs. I am considering bringing printouts from the FAQs and developer posts with me to show that the build is PFS legal.
But the question is... How do you approach the GM politely about stuff like this? Having two versions of the same character (with the same PFS number) would cause legality problems of its own, wouldn't it?
Hmm
|
|
I don't think that solution is remotely legal, except in the case of a GM ruling that a build is actually illegal. You can't have a nerfed pet build on tap and whip that out when you like.
I suppose given what I outlined above, some level of self-nerfing is going to be involved in pet etiquette. The question is whether it's better for the group to get through using a few resources as possible and marginalize some PCs in the process, or for the pet user to hold back and let less effective melee entities participate, costing the group more net resources.
I forget to get into the complete and utter expendability of the animal companion/eidolon. Obviously a luxury regular PCs don't have.
|
Venture-Captain, Germany—Bavaria
|
I don't think that solution is remotely legal, except in the case of a GM ruling that a build is actually illegal. You can't have a nerfed pet build on tap and whip that out when you like.
I suppose given what I outlined above, some level of self-nerfing is going to be involved in pet etiquette. The question is whether it's better for the group to get through using a few resources as possible and marginalize some PCs in the process, or for the pet user to hold back and let less effective melee entities participate, costing the group more net resources.
I forget to get into the complete and utter expendability of the animal companion/eidolon. Obviously a luxury regular PCs don't have.
Well, it is worth mentioning that new animal companions start with only the bonus tricks, and since many people prefer to buff their intelligence, training them all those tricks (skirmisher tricks for hunters) can take some time, especially at low levels.
I would welcome an effective way for animal companions to assist in combat (something like the eidolon abilities to shield others), but even tricks like flanking help.
Maybe a special animal companion item, that serves ice cream to frontliners ^^
|
Venture-Captain, Minnesota
|
I suppose given what I outlined above, some level of self-nerfing is going to be involved in pet etiquette. The question is whether it's better for the group to get through using a few resources as possible and marginalize some PCs in the process, or for the pet user to hold back and let less effective melee entities participate, costing the group more net resources.I forget to get into the complete and utter expendability of the animal companion/eidolon. Obviously a luxury regular PCs don't have.
I don't see etiquette and consideration for others as self-nerfing. If it's a desperate battle, I send Pumpkin in full force. If not... I try to let other PCs have a chance to do their thing. In one recent scenario, we had Jiggy's Bloodrager, Jenter the Happy Swordsman, with us. Jenter liked to grapple everything. In that case, I held Pumpkin back from his normal grappling maneuver so that Jiggy's character could shine.
I think we will have to agree to disagree on the expendability of animal companions. Pumpkin is very dear to Zahra. From a roleplay perspective, she would be devastated if he died. I spend time roleplaying him, making him sniff the PCs, look longingly at food stalls in the market, etc. He's not death kitty -- or more accurately, he's not just death kitty. He's family.
That's the roleplay viewpoint. Then there's the mechanics viewpoint. Pumpkin knows 13 tricks. I'm only 2nd level. It would take a very long time to retrain him.
You may be right about the expendable nature of eidolons, who can come back on the next adventure, unharmed. But if I played a summoner, I think I'd still want my eidolon to be okay!
I would welcome an effective way for animal companions to assist in combat (something like the eidolon abilities to shield others), but even tricks like flanking help.Maybe a special animal companion item, that serves ice cream to frontliners ^^
Ice cream kitty! Sign me up.
Hmm
|
Venture-Lieutenant, Minnesota—Minneapolis
|
I would welcome an effective way for animal companions to assist in combat (something like the eidolon abilities to shield others), but even tricks like flanking help.
Maybe a special animal companion item, that serves ice cream to frontliners ^^
Animal Archive added Aid as a trick, which allows the combat use of Aid Another.
This trick would allow the critter to give an ally +2 to hit or +2 AC for the next attack involving a particular opponent.
See CRB, pg 197 for exact text of what Aid Another can do in combat.
Animal Archive also added the Flank trick.
|
|
I suppose given what I outlined above, some level of self-nerfing is going to be involved in pet etiquette. The question is whether it's better for the group to get through using a few resources as possible and marginalize some PCs in the process, or for the pet user to hold back and let less effective melee entities participate, costing the group more net resources.I forget to get into the complete and utter expendability of the animal companion/eidolon. Obviously a luxury regular PCs don't have.
I don't see etiquette and consideration for others as self-nerfing. If it's a desperate battle, I send Pumpkin in full force. If not... I try to let other PCs have a chance to do their thing. In one recent scenario, we had Jiggy's Bloodrager, Jenter the Happy Swordsman, with us. Jenter liked to grapple everything. In that case, I held Pumpkin back from his normal grappling maneuver so that Jiggy's character could shine.
I think we will have to agree to disagree on the expendability of animal companions. Pumpkin is very dear to Zahra. From a roleplay perspective, she would be devastated if he died. I spend time roleplaying him, making him sniff the PCs, look longingly at food stalls in the market, etc. He's not death kitty -- or more accurately, he's not just death kitty. He's family.
That's the roleplay viewpoint. Then there's the mechanics viewpoint. Pumpkin knows 13 tricks. I'm only 2nd level. It would take a very long time to retrain him.
You may be right about the expendable nature of eidolons, who can come back on the next adventure, unharmed. But if I played a summoner, I think I'd still want my eidolon to be okay!
I would welcome an effective way for animal companions to assist in combat (something like the eidolon abilities to shield others), but even tricks like flanking help.Maybe a special animal companion item, that serves ice cream to frontliners ^^
Ice cream kitty! Sign me up.
Hmm
I meant mechanically expendable. Even an easily removed temporary negative level or something would be nice.
|
Venture-Captain, Germany—Bavaria
|
I would welcome an effective way for animal companions to assist in combat (something like the eidolon abilities to shield others), but even tricks like flanking help.
Maybe a special animal companion item, that serves ice cream to frontliners ^^
Animal Archive added Aid as a trick, which allows the combat use of Aid Another.
This trick would allow the critter to give an ally +2 to hit or +2 AC for the next attack involving a particular opponent.
See CRB, pg 197 for exact text of what Aid Another can do in combat.
Animal Archive also added the Flank trick.
Yes, I am aware of that, I should have phrased it better. What I was trying to say, was that those tricks are a good choice (of course skirmisher tricks have the potential to be far better).
Primal Companion hunters actually have some toys in their toy box that could serve to make them more useful (someone just has to take all those rusty nails and reactive armor).
|
Venture-Captain, Minnesota
|
Is there anything written up anywhere on skirmisher tricks? I am curious about them.
Meanwhile: I've put together an additional page for the Druid's Log, called Druid's Log: Animal Companion Etiquette based on David Bowles's observations and my own responses to how such problems could be mitigated. I'm planning on linking the two guides together, but I'd love comments / critiques / additions.
I'd love to add a section on talking to GMs about your animal companions, but I'm still figuring that out myself. :)
Please, fire away!
Hmm
Is there anything written up anywhere on skirmisher tricks? I am curious about them.
Meanwhile: I've put together an additional page for the Druid's Log, called Druid's Log: Animal Companion Etiquette based on David Bowles's observations and my own responses to how such problems could be mitigated. I'm planning on linking the two guides together, but I'd love comments / critiques / additions.
I'd love to add a section on talking to GMs about your animal companions, but I'm still figuring that out myself. :)
Please, fire away!
Hmm
Unfortunately...no. So far there has been no response to the skirmisher tricks FAQ request yet. Hopefully this week there will be something, I'm very much looking forward to seeing the final decision. Depending on the outcome, I will either be leaving my hunter as is, or I will be retraining him and dropping all but one skirmisher trick.
Does anyone know when Spinosaurus was removed from the Additional Resources? I know it used to be on there, but when I look now it is not. I wanted to mention this here because I know it was recommended at some point on this post, but seems to have been changed recently.
|
|
Quick question: the various flying mounts (pteranodon, dire bat, roc, etc.) only have the neck and armor slots available. Does this mean I'd need to add a belt slot with the Extra Item Slot feat to use a saddle? Or is a saddle even available to these creatures once the belt slot is added? Or is the feat necessary at all?
|
Quick question: the various flying mounts (pteranodon, dire bat, roc, etc.) only have the neck and armor slots available. Does this mean I'd need to add a belt slot with the Extra Item Slot feat to use a saddle? Or is a saddle even available to these creatures once the belt slot is added? Or is the feat necessary at all?
Check up thread.
|
|
Quick question: the various flying mounts (pteranodon, dire bat, roc, etc.) only have the neck and armor slots available. Does this mean I'd need to add a belt slot with the Extra Item Slot feat to use a saddle? Or is a saddle even available to these creatures once the belt slot is added? Or is the feat necessary at all?Check up thread.
This appears to be the relevant answer:
You do not need an extra feat to place a mundane saddle on a mount that uses the saddle in the normal course of business, such as a horse. An animal such as a tiger would have to take the feat to place a saddle upon it.
For some reason I couldn't figure that out from Flutter's summary alone.
This is my huntress. I built her inspired by my Night Elf Huntress in WOW. this is her just after finishing Dragon's Demand. She's now reached the point where she can ride her big cat properly.
** spoiler omitted **...
This has nothing to do with ACs but Keen is not an enchant you can put on a bow :/
|
Venture-Captain, Minnesota
|
Quick question: the various flying mounts (pteranodon, dire bat, roc, etc.) only have the neck and armor slots available. Does this mean I'd need to add a belt slot with the Extra Item Slot feat to use a saddle? Or is a saddle even available to these creatures once the belt slot is added? Or is the feat necessary at all?Check up thread.This appears to be the relevant answer:
You do not need an extra feat to place a mundane saddle on a mount that uses the saddle in the normal course of business, such as a horse. An animal such as a tiger would have to take the feat to place a saddle upon it.For some reason I couldn't figure that out from Flutter's summary alone.
Redward, do you have a suggestion for how we can reword it to make it more clear in the linked google doc?
Hmm
|
|
Redward: Mike brocks answer (anda few around that) confused me a bit. Putting a non magical saddle on something that doesn't normally serve as a mount is what an exotic saddle is for. Dire bats for example specifically take an exotic saddle to ride. Since i wasn't sure sure how it worked I kind of avoided it.
|
|
Redward, do you have a suggestion for how we can reword it to make it more clear in the linked google doc?
In the bulleted list under Part VI: Hocks, withers, fetlocks, toes -- Magic Items & Animals I'd add an additional bullet (I'd probably place it fourth) reading:
You do not need an extra feat to place a mundane saddle on a mount that uses the saddle in the normal course of business, such as a horse. You would, however, need to add Belt slot to equip a magical saddle, or to equip a mundane saddle on an exotic mount.
I'd also update the entry on Quadruped: Hooves to reflect that horses and ponies can equip mundane saddles without the need for an extra item slot. I'm not sure which other animals, if any, can do the same, but if there are others I'd indicate that as well.
P.S.
Thanks for compiling all this. It's been extremely helpful!
|
|
Redward: Mike brocks answer (anda few around that) confused me a bit. Putting a non magical saddle on something that doesn't normally serve as a mount is what an exotic saddle is for. Dire bats for example specifically take an exotic saddle to ride. Since i wasn't sure sure how it worked I kind of avoided it.
Fair enough! For now I'm not seeing enough of a benefit to the saddle to worry about it too much. Not falling unconscious off a Roc from 40ft is great and all, but you don't fly around on birds in combat if you're not willing to take some risks.
|
Venture-Lieutenant, Minnesota—Minneapolis
|
Yeah, Mike Brock's answer does confuse the issue quite a bit. If he hadn't put that second line in I would be considering a mundane saddle to include the exotic saddle.
I think part of the problem is there are exotic animals which aren't normal riding animals (tigers) and exotic animals that are considered riding animals (dire bat, hippogriff, griffin, pegasus, etc). An exotic saddle would be required for all of these.
|
|
Soo, that ruling eh, it means I'll either have to go mounted bareback, or waste one of the precious 4 feats my mount gets to enable it to wear a non-magical exotic saddle?
Steed (Ex)A mammoth rider can choose from among the following animal companions to serve as her loyal steed:
Arsinoitherium, aurochs, baluchitherium, camel, cat (big), elk, horse, mastodon (elephant), megaloceros, rhinoceros, triceratops, wolf, or woolly mammoth (use stats for a mastodon).A GM might expand this list to include other possible steeds. This steed functions as a druid's animal companion, replacing any animal companion or mount gained from another class. The mammoth rider's class levels stack with other classes that grant an animal companion to determine her effective druid level.
As can be seen, the tiger (cat, big) is a legal mount for me. I'd prefer not to have to waste a feat to use 11 of the 13 of my possible mounts.
|
|
I'm looking at that remark by Mike and am interpreting it differently.
RainyDayNinja: I'm assuming that I don't need to take the feat to gain access to the belt slot before I put a mundane saddle on my mount. Is that right? But I would need to take the feat before I could use a magic saddle, correct?
Mike:That is correct. You do not need an extra feat to place a mundane saddle on a mount that uses the saddle in the normal course of business, such as a horse. An animal such as a tiger would have to take the feat to place a saddle upon it.
Mike agreed with RDN. Mike is just reiterating that a tiger needs a feat for a MAGIC saddle. It is the only way that his statement can be taken as agreeing with RDN. And pretty clearly the "that is correct" indicates agreement :-).
Until told otherwise, I'm definitely assuming that my riding trained lion can still wear a saddle. Heck, its even listed as an allowable purchase in additional resources
|
|
I'm looking at that remark by Mike and am interpreting it differently.
RainyDayNinja: I'm assuming that I don't need to take the feat to gain access to the belt slot before I put a mundane saddle on my mount. Is that right? But I would need to take the feat before I could use a magic saddle, correct?
Mike:That is correct. You do not need an extra feat to place a mundane saddle on a mount that uses the saddle in the normal course of business, such as a horse. An animal such as a tiger would have to take the feat to place a saddle upon it.
Mike agreed with RDN. Mike is just reiterating that a tiger needs a feat for a MAGIC saddle. It is the only way that his statement can be taken as agreeing with RDN. And pretty clearly the "that is correct" indicates agreement :-).
Until told otherwise, I'm definitely assuming that my riding trained lion can still wear a saddle. Heck, its even listed as an allowable purchase in additional resources
It seems like you're ignoring the next sentence:
You would, however, need to add Belt slot to equip a magical saddle, or to equip a mundane saddle on an exotic mount.
|
|
It seems like you're ignoring the next sentence:
You would, however, need to add Belt slot to equip a magical saddle, or to equip a mundane saddle on an exotic mount.
That is NOT in the link posted a few entries up (I quoted ALL of Mikes post and the one he was replying to). Could you please provide a link to that quote (I looked for the link in this thread but if it is there I missed it).
|
|
That is NOT in the link posted a few entries up (I quoted ALL of Mikes post and the one he was replying to). Could you please provide a link to that quote (I looked for the link in this thread but if it is there I missed it).
It seems like you're ignoring the next sentence:
You would, however, need to add Belt slot to equip a magical saddle, or to equip a mundane saddle on an exotic mount.
Oops! Quoted myself on my suggested edit. Here's Mike's actual quote:
1) Only horses, mules and donkeys. Pigs and any other animals with hooves can not use horseshoes.
2) That is correct. You do not need an extra feat to place a mundane saddle on a mount that uses the saddle in the normal course of business, such as a horse. An animal such as a tiger would have to take the feat to place a saddle upon it.
|
|
2) That is correct. You do not need an extra feat to place a mundane saddle on a mount that uses the saddle in the normal course of business, such as a horse. An animal such as a tiger would have to take the feat to place a saddle upon it.
That quote contradicts itself. He says something is correct and then explains how it is not correct.
So I think it is intended to read "... a tiger would have to take the feat to place a magic saddle upon it"
Obviously I can't be sure that is what he meant. But that makes by far the most sense to me, especially when I can buy a combat riding trained tiger AND exotic saddles. And I AM sure that his statement contradicts itself so nobody except Mike can be sure what he meant.
Venture-Lieutenant, Netherlands—Leiden
|
@pauljathome:
I think he really did mean that you need feat for a mundane saddle for a tiger. He makes a comparison between a traditional mount animal (horse) and one that isn't (tiger).
That's problematic though, because neither CRB nor Animal Archive has any rules like that. In fact, the CRB has the Exotic Saddle precisely for nontraditional mounts.
Also, the Extra Item Slot doesn't actually switch on the ability to use mundane items such as a mundane saddle, so Mike's "solution" isn't legal.
So, I agree that the sentence should have the word "magic" inserted to make sense.
|
|
So it looks like by PFS RAW, you need the Extra Item Slot feat to add a saddle to anything that isn't...actually, this is a bit vague too, but let's be conservative and assume the list of creatures that use a saddle "in the normal course of business" is limited to those available to the Paladin/Cavalier, so: heavy horse, pony, boar, camel, dog, and wolf.
In addition, if the creature is "ill suited as a mount," that's another -5.
So we have "using a saddle in the normal course of business", which doesn't include a strict list and is therefore up to GM fiat, and "ill suited as a mount," which is explicitly left to GM fiat.
Which means a player showing up at a table with a mount other than a heavy horse, pony, boar, camel, dog, or wolf could be looking at no penalty, a -5 penalty, or a -10 penalty (if they didn't play it safe and take the Extra Item Slot (belt/saddle) feat for their companion) to ride checks, all depending on their GM.
This may need to be looked at by campaign management.
|
Venture-Lieutenant, Minnesota—Minneapolis
|
This thread should be Stickied.
Or even better: Stickied with Flutter's different parts all at the beginning.
Hmm has collected and organized it into a Google Doc. Take a look at that.
|
|
I just want to reiterate that I (and others) disagree that is RAW
And yes, I plan on repeating that as often as you repeat your claim that it is RAW.
The answer is not contradictory:
2. I'm assuming that I don't need to take the feat to gain access to the belt slot before I put a mundane saddle on my mount. Is that right? But I would need to take the feat before I could use a magic saddle, correct?
2) That is correct. You do not need an extra feat to place a mundane saddle on a mount that uses the saddle in the normal course of business, such as a horse. An animal such as a tiger would have to take the feat to place a saddle upon it.
He answers the question, then further explicates that the answer is different for horses than it is for tigers. I don't particularly like the answer, but I don't see how it can be read differently.