|
| 2 people marked this as FAQ candidate. 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
This really needs clarification.
He answers the question of not needing a feat for a mundane (non-magical?) saddle but needing a feat for a magical saddle with an answer that gets made invalid with the explanation.
My interpretation of the quote is as follows:
Yes, you need a feat for a magic saddle, but if the creature doesn't use a saddle in the normal course of business you need also need the feat for a mundane saddle.
Arsinoitherium, aurochs, baluchitherium, camel, cat (big), elk, horse, mastodon (elephant), megaloceros, rhinoceros, triceratops, wolf, or woolly mammoth (use stats for a mastodon).
A steed is a working animal used as a mount (especially for warfare), thus in it's normal course of business it uses a saddle.
|
It's because he says someone is correct, and then immediately changes the statement he just said was correct.
Not to mention substantially changes a feat without actually giving us new text for the feat. And, as redward points out, makes a ruling that is completely unclear in terms of what it affects (I'd claim Mikes statement arguably applies to boars as much as lions)
It is quite clear that RAW is unclear.
|
|
This really needs clarification.
He answers the question of not needing a feat for a mundane (non-magical?) saddle but needing a feat for a magical saddle with an answer that gets made invalid with the explanation.
My interpretation of the quote is as follows:
Yes, you need a feat for a magic saddle, but if the creature doesn't use a saddle in the normal course of business you need also need the feat for a mundane saddle.** spoiler omitted **
** spoiler omitted **
I've done a lot of digging on this. What I've determined is that trying to get this all sorted out will very likely result in anyone with a flying mount taking a -10 to their Ride checks, or -5 if they spend the feat.
I can show my work if you like, but I'm hesitant because I think it's going to adversely affect a lot of people who are quite happy with their Rocs and Dire Bats.
|
Venture-Captain, Minnesota
|
Hmm has collected and organized it into a Google Doc. Take a look at that.This thread should be Stickied.
Or even better: Stickied with Flutter's different parts all at the beginning.
Nefreet, is there anyway to put a link to the google doc in the first post in this thread? How do we ask a Mod to add the following to the beginning of the first post?
This information from this thread is compiled in the following Google Doc:
Druid's Log: Animal Companions
|
Venture-Captain, Minnesota
|
This really needs clarification.
He answers the question of not needing a feat for a mundane (non-magical?) saddle but needing a feat for a magical saddle with an answer that gets made invalid with the explanation.
My interpretation of the quote is as follows:
Yes, you need a feat for a magic saddle, but if the creature doesn't use a saddle in the normal course of business you need also need the feat for a mundane saddle.** spoiler omitted **
** spoiler omitted **
I've marked Damanta's post as a FAQ candidate. Otherwise, someone might want to use their Summon Campaign Leadership spell.
Hmm
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
Hmm has collected and organized it into a Google Doc. Take a look at that.This thread should be Stickied.
Or even better: Stickied with Flutter's different parts all at the beginning.
Nefreet, is there anyway to put a link to the google doc in the first post in this thread? How do we ask a Mod to add the following to the beginning of the first post?
This information from this thread is compiled in the following Google Doc:
Druid's Log: Animal Companions
Done :)
|
|
First off, thank you for this thread Flutter & friends, before reading this I was too confused by ACs to consider making a PC of a class that uses them.
I have an idea for a hunter from Mwangi that takes eye for talent (+2 int) and has a triceratops AC.
My question is: Can ACs use weapons? Specifically in this case, Armor Spikes.
My thought was to use my AC's 1st feat on Martial Weapon Proficiency: Armor Spikes because of not being able to take Power Attack 1st.
The eventual goal is to use overrun combat maneuvers on charges to activate Spiked Destroyer and Powerful Charge while knocking enemies prone and setting up a flank for other melee PCs.
Plus seeing a Large Triceratops plow through the enemy sounds awesome to me.
Thanks again for all the info you've put out there, I know that I have already pointed others who had questions about ACs to this and it has helped them as well.
|
|
I'm not sure in that blog post where anyone definitively says that animals can't use weapons. I know that James Jacobs does say that he doesn't like animals being smart, but nothing about animals not using weapons. Jason Bulmahn seems to say that it is up to GMs to rule whether it is allowed or not.
2. Because we are dealing with something that has a real world analog (animal intelligence), it is pretty easy to get into heated debate about what an animal can and cannot do. Remember that we are running a game here, not trying to simulate every exact possibility of reality. That means that in some situations, the rules might not be able to properly replicate every situation without opening up the system to easy abuse. Some GMs will certainly view the weapon wielding animal companions in this way, which is why we left it open for GM interpretation (such as in PFS). I am going to let Hyrum and Mark make the call on this situation for PFS, based on their experience and vision for the Org Play program.
and
If you have questions about how animals work in PFS, I highly recommend you ask them in the PFS forum. Hyrum and Mark are going to pay a lot more attention to posts over there, and I am not fully qualified to answer such questions (and it helps keep design thoughts and theories from getting in the way of Org Play rulings).
and
In the end, if you want monkeys in your game wielding greatswords and using wands, thats fine. Its your game (Core Rulebook, page 9). The rules are relatively unclear so we left that door open at this time. Its not really what I envision the druid being about (and there are serious power balance issues to be considered, which is why many consider the druid to be terribly unbalanced), but for now anyway, the rules leave it open.PFS, is another matter entirely, and I will not address it here.
Did any of Paizo's designers or the PFS leadership make a ruling somewhere not in the blog or in the blog's discussion thread?
I can understand not wanting ACs running around with swords or kukris, etc. I didn't think armor spikes would be necessarily different from an ACs nature of attacking, since it would be using it's body to attack.
I think I'll shelve my idea for a home campaign that I could convince the GM to let me use though, as having my AC build nixed by a GMs decision would probably be maddening.
|
|
It's actually in the Pathfinder Society FAQ
Animal companions of any type may not use manufactured weapons.
Since armor spikes are manufactured weapon, they are not allowed to use them.
|
|
It's actually in the Pathfinder Society FAQ
Animal companions of any type may not use manufactured weapons.Since armor spikes are manufactured weapon, they are not allowed to use them.
Thanks, so I'll definitely save my idea for a home game then.
|
While that's a flavorful choice, when your notes are in a form that only you can read, you fail that part of the test.
What part of o___o was unclear?
|
Venture-Captain, California—Sacramento
|
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.
Except that tiger is listed as a riding animal... (And I beleive there is even fluff to that effect...)
|
|
Personally, I believe that the availability of the exotic saddle in the CRB indicates that mounts other than horses should be able to equip them without the benefit of a feat from Animal Archives. But I don't know where that line should be drawn.
The following are legal mounts available via class features, archetype class features, and feats:
Animal Archive lists several more options for mounts, both as "riding animals" available for purchase and as mounts that are "favored beasts" for specific races:
Dwarve: Camels, donkeys, giant frilled lizards, giant geckos, horses, mules
Elves: Dolphins, giant bats, giant eagles, horses
Gnomes: Boars, dire badgers, dire weasels, dogs (riding), giant eagles, giant geckos, monitor lizards, war ponies, wolves
Halflings: Boars, monitor lizards, riding dogs, war ponies
Human: Camels, donkeys, horses, mules
Orcs and half-orcs: Boars, camels, horses, monitor lizards, wolves
The following riding animals are legal for purchase (as long as they are size Large and smaller may be purchase, and the goblin dog is restricted to goblin PCs).
Whether this qualifies any of the above as "suitable" mounts or as creatures that wear saddles "in the normal course of business" is currently up to individual GMs.
|
Venture-Captain, Minnesota
|
I am trying to figure out how we add this issue to the google doc guide. Currently there is no ruling, so do we need to mark the saddle as a mark of contention? I refuse to believe that mundane exotic saddles require an extra magic item slot, but I know that PFS is RAW, and that the confusing message board post is troublesome.
I'm thinking that this issue arises solely from a developer omission of a key word while typing hurriedly, but agree that we should get it clarified.
Do we need to post this question as a separate rules question thread in this forum, or can we all pick a single post in this thread and FAQ it to summon Campaign Leadership?
Hmm
|
Venture-Lieutenant, Minnesota—Minneapolis
|
If it requires a feat, I would be more likely to take Skill Focus (Ride) than an extra slot. With the skill focus, bareback would only be a -2 total and the mount would have that much more carrying capacity. At higher level (10 ranks or more), it would be a positive modifier.
There will probably be a FAQ ruling to clear up how the Hunter's AC uses Skirmisher tricks. Until it does, technically you could teach your animal companion Cunning Pantomime. I'm not sure how that would work out but it seems intriguing
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Is there a way to get my ac to talk?
Item, spell, feat. ???
Gain additional languages?
There is a ring that grants you a set of 4 predetermined languages that you can speak, regardless of form. It was designed for Wildshaped Druids, but Animal Companions can also utilize it with the Extra Item Slot feat, as it's a continuous item that requires no activation.
|
There is a ring that grants you a set of 4 predetermined languages that you can speak, regardless of form. It was designed for Wildshaped Druids, but Animal Companions can also utilize it with the Extra Item Slot feat, as it's a continuous item that requires no activation.Is there a way to get my ac to talk?
Item, spell, feat. ???
Gain additional languages?
But only if their form allows ring slot, so only Avian and Biped companions would qualify.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I'm also pretty sure that the ring does not grant a creature the ability to speak if it does not already have it. It only grants that creature the knowledge of the languages.
Actually, it does.
Fine etchings spell out the alphabets of four languages around the inside of this finely crafted silver band. The wearer gains the ability to speak and understand the four languages whose alphabets are inscribed on the ring. Normally the languages are Common, Dwarven, Elven, and Gnome. Less often, such rings are attuned to Giant, Goblin, Orc, and Undercommon, and rings with different sets of languages might also exist. The wearer retains the ability to speak in these languages even if she assumes a form normally unable to do so (such as a druid wild shaped into a wolf).
|
|
We are, verbatim, using the same words here.
pretty sure that the ring does not grant a creature the ability to speak
The wearer gains the ability to speak
The inability to speak before putting on the ring affecting your ability to speak after putting on the ring is a restriction that is being created without any rules basis.
The answer is pretty clear, and if this question was posted in the Rules Forum, that's the answer you'd get. Our discussion in this thread is how GMs should deal with it.
So I suppose we can take this topic to the PFS GM Discussion Forum.
|
|
The guide is pretty damn nice, I had missed Monstrous Mount completely, unfortunately it is a bit unclear if hunters are supposed to gain access to it.
It's actually quite clear
Prerequisite(s): Handle Animal 4 ranks; Ride 4 ranks; divine bond (mount), hunter's bond (animal companion), or mount class feature with an effective druid level of 4.It's explicitly clear that you need
- Divine Bond (mount) - gained at 4th lvl paladin
- Hunter's Bond (animal companion) - gained at 4th lvl ranger
- Mount class feature with an effective druid level of 4 - so cavalier/samurai (and they gain this at first level so druid level of four means at fourth level)
I don't think it could be much plainer. They intend for the feat to be available no sooner than 4th level to those classes. If hunters qualified for it, then so would druids. And it's obvious druids weren't meant to as their class feature is specifically not on that list.
That being said, if you take one level of cavalier and three levels of hunter then you would have the mount class feature with an effective druid level of four since those stack for determining the level of your animal companion and the wording of the feat says "You can select an exotic beast from the list of monstrous mounts to serve as your animal companion or special mount." So as long as you pick a mount from the list that's an appropriately sized mount (or have the Undersized Mount feat from the ACG) then you can be a hunter with Monstrous Mount. Cavalier also has the added bonus of getting a free teamwork feat at first level which works awesomely for Hunters.
I have a character I've done a ton of work on that will be a human hunter with a worg companion. So believe me, the easiest/best way to do it is to take 1 level of cavalier then you're good.
A question of my own. I know this belogs in the rules forum, but I'm sure there are more than enough animal experts here that can answer my question(s).
Does an animal need to be told to flank or if I tell it to attack will it also try to flank? Do I have to tell an animal to "attack that target" or can I just tell it to "attack" and it will find something to attack on its own?
|
|
If going by the letter of handle animal then yes you need to make a handle animal check to let it flank (DC 10 if it knows the trick and is unharmed) while attacking, which also requires a separate roll.
Usually though most GM's will ask for your bonus on handle animal and then just handwaive the rolling if it's high enough.
Having a smarter than normal animal also helps justify it a bit as well.
Venture-Lieutenant, Netherlands—Leiden
|
Flank (DC 20): You can instruct an animal to attack a foe you point to and always attempt to be adjacent to (and threatening) that foe. If you or an ally is also threatening the foe, the animal attempts to flank the foe, if possible. It always takes attacks of opportunity. The animal must know the attack trick before it can learn this trick.
That sounds innocent enough to me? It just means that the companion takes the first AoO provoked (by an enemy, I assume), even if it's provoked by a different enemy.
The way it's written, this is a must-have trick to get companions to do stuff we always assumed they would always do already.
|
Venture-Lieutenant, Maryland—Hagerstown
|
I agree that flank is a must have trick. I was kind of disappointed that Lini the pregen druid didn't have it for her companion -- especially since they've started giving the core pregens things from other books in terms of traits and such.
Hmm
It would be nice if they change the pregens when new class list drops, so the pregens can benefit form the advanced options.
|
Venture-Lieutenant, Netherlands—Leiden
|
Well, it also means the animal companion will swat at stuff that will harm it when it attacks them (like jelly cubes), which even with the Down trick it will do because of the wording of the Flank trick.
It might even swat at a creature you just commanded it Down from because it provoked.
That's... pretty dumb.
Well, it also means the animal companion will swat at stuff that will harm it when it attacks them (like jelly cubes), which even with the Down trick it will do because of the wording of the Flank trick.
It might even swat at a creature you just commanded it Down from because it provoked.
You know, originally I was going to disagree with you; however, I started thinking about watching police K9s in action. Even when their handlers give them a command to Heel, sometimes they will continue to bite if a suspect is actively fighting the K9. Given that perspective, I can definitely see grounds of a standard AnC taking an AoO against a still aggressive foe.
Now if you have an AnC of above intelligence or the foe only provokes in an unagressive manner, then I see the AnC heeding his owner's command of Down. For example, if a PC orders their AnC to Down and the foe grabs a potion, then technically they provoke from the AnC, but I would not view that as a reason for the AnC to attack said foe.
|
|
With regard to flanking, I've seen it explained that the purpose of that trick is to get the animal to take a circuitous route around the enemy, to engage them in the rear.
Otherwise, it would charge to the nearest available square.
In future rounds, I don't see why an animal couldn't take 5' steps to get a better position, with or without the Flank trick.
In fact, I've seen it ruled that doing so would be instinctive behaviour, especially in the case of pack hunters like wolves, and they would have to be specifically commanded not to do it, if you wanted to prevent your enthusiatic pet from blocking up your ally's charge lane.
In the case of a Hunter, you could choose Pack Flanking, the Teamwork feat that allows allies to count as flanking, if they're adjacent to you, and you prevent that awkward situation. (And may be able to do without the Flank trick.)
|
|
I'm going to take the Monstrous Mount feat to get a worg which is a magical beast. Is there anything I need to be aware of?
I would assume that the intent is that its still subject to the animal item slot restrictions.
You're probably good on not making handle animal checks for it.
You need to be True neutral in PFS (because you can only be one step away from it, and its NE)
Nothing else I can think of really.
I hope you two get along! They can be a little.. erm. Grumpy. Please don't leave him unattended near any small children.