Mounted + Reach = Which Threatened Squares?


Rules Questions

51 to 84 of 84 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>
Grand Lodge

GinoA wrote:

Might I offer a couple pieces of information on the "What reach does my Animal Companion have" question?

Quoted text is from paizo.com/.../prd/...

CRB/Druid wrote:

Ape

Starting Statistics: Size Medium; Speed 30 ft., Climb 30 ft.; AC +1 natural armor; Attack bite (1d4), 2 claws (1d4); Ability Scores Str 13, Dex 17, Con 10, Int 2, Wis 12, Cha 7; Special Qualities low-light vision, scent.

4th-Level Advancement: Size Large; AC +2 natural armor; Attack bite (1d6), 2 claws (1d6); Ability Scores Str +8, Dex –2, Con +4.

Please note there is no reference to reach.

Monster Index wrote:

Ape, Gorilla

Space 10 ft.; Reach 10 ft.

Now, I know Mike Brock is only the word-of-god for PFS, but he's also closely connected to the design team.

Mike Brock wrote:
The large ape has 10' reach.

And since he posted that specifically for PFS, that implies that other animals don't have reach for PFS as he provided no context. I was already aware of that post and it really isn't relevant.


You still haven't answered the question of "What is the reach of a Horse", either.

I will take that to mean you concede that a large-sized Axebeak has 10ft reach.

Grand Lodge

Axebeak Sanctuary Society wrote:

You still haven't answered the question of "What is the reach of a Horse", either.

I will take that to mean you concede that a large-sized Axebeak has 10ft reach.

Or you can take it to mean that I'm ignoring you because my answer is obvious given my stance on the Axebeak.


claudekennilol: While I think it is obvious that Axebeak Sanctuary Society is asking a leading question I also believe it would be beneficial to understand how you came to your conclusion. I mean, I think I know. I think he knows. But it is possible you have some insight from some other source that we are unaware of?

Grand Lodge

1 person marked this as FAQ candidate.

It doesn't describe what sizes animals are so we can't use the chart described in the combat section because it lists large creatures with both 5' and 10' natural reach. There are plenty of examples that animal companions aren't the same entry as the monster they represent. Since animal companions don't say they have reach (except for a very few specific ones) they don't. I would be more than happy to have animal companions with reach, but until some blanket rule comes along and says that they should reflect the bestiary entries, they simply don't.


So animal companion Axe Beaks are some different breed or something and are built physically different than those in the Bestiary?

If I had a character schooled in all things nature and he happened across a pasture occupied by both Axe Beaks and Axe Beaks (of the animal companion variety) would he be able to tell the difference between the two?

I'm sorry... I'm just having trouble wrapping my head around this theory.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
claudekennilol wrote:


And since he posted that specifically for PFS, that implies that other animals don't have reach for PFS as he provided no context. I was already aware of that post and it really isn't relevant.

Or it implies that you check the bestiary.

Grand Lodge

BigNorseWolf wrote:
claudekennilol wrote:


And since he posted that specifically for PFS, that implies that other animals don't have reach for PFS as he provided no context. I was already aware of that post and it really isn't relevant.

Or it implies that you check the bestiary.

I don't see that implication at all in Mike's post. It looks to me like he just said that large apes have reach. Nothing more. Nothing less.


Here is my take on the issue:
There is nothing stating outright that an animal companion does not have reach. Few of them state outright that they do.
Devoid of any further information that would not be enough to convince me one way or the other.
...but there is other information.
The Bestiary lists several of these animals as having reach (like the Axe Beak). As these are things that depend on basic body shape and not special properties of an animal then it seems like they would carry over.
And again, in the Combat chapter it talks about the reach of large (long) and large (tall) creatures. It doesn't mention how you determine which each creature is. Do you know how to determine which creatures are long and which are tall? The only way that I know to determine that is to look at the Bestiary entry.

That is one proof that is rather ambiguous and two that are strongly in favor of reach.

The only way I can reconcile this information with the idea of animal companions not having reach is to say that the animals gained via animal companion are somehow different in basic body shape than those that are in the Bestiary. That seems more far fetched than simply to go by the rules presented in both the Combat and Bestiary which are straight forward, do not need further interpretation to make sense of them.


claudekennilol wrote:
BigNorseWolf wrote:
claudekennilol wrote:


And since he posted that specifically for PFS, that implies that other animals don't have reach for PFS as he provided no context. I was already aware of that post and it really isn't relevant.

Or it implies that you check the bestiary.

I don't see that implication at all in Mike's post. It looks to me like he just said that large apes have reach. Nothing more. Nothing less.

Does it imply that other animals don't have reach or nothing more nothing less?

Grand Lodge

Lune wrote:
The only way I can reconcile this information with the idea of animal companions not having reach is to say that the animals gained via animal companion are somehow different in basic body shape than those that are in the Bestiary. That seems more far fetched than simply to go by the rules presented in both the Combat and Bestiary which are straight forward, do not need further interpretation to make sense of them.

I'd say that's a pretty safe assumption since we already have evidence of this in the 4th/7th level advancement where not all bestiary entries have corresponding sizes.

BigNorseWolf wrote:
claudekennilol wrote:
BigNorseWolf wrote:
claudekennilol wrote:


And since he posted that specifically for PFS, that implies that other animals don't have reach for PFS as he provided no context. I was already aware of that post and it really isn't relevant.

Or it implies that you check the bestiary.

I don't see that implication at all in Mike's post. It looks to me like he just said that large apes have reach. Nothing more. Nothing less.

Does it imply that other animals don't have reach or nothing more nothing less?

It doesn't imply anything about other creatures.


claudekennilol wrote:
I'd say that's a pretty safe assumption since we already have evidence of this in the 4th/7th level advancement where not all bestiary entries have corresponding sizes.

I do not think it is a safe assumption due to the fact that the animals that you are referencing clearly ARE of different size and/or shape. The Roc is a perfect example. The Bestiary rock is of a much larger size than the one that is an animal companion. So is the Trex, and in fact most of the Dinosaurs. That doesn't help with the issue at hand.

We know what reach the Bestiary animals of these types have, that isn't in question. For that matter we know what size these animals would have if they were decreased in size due to the information in the Combat chapter. Since that is essentially what is happening when you get an Animal Companion version of these creatures (they are smaller versions of the Bestiary critters) that seems like the right place to look to determine their reach.

claudekennilol: You and I typically agree. I feel like if I could understand where your point of view I might be able to get behind it. The issue here is that I do understand where you are coming from but I disagree. And you are only looking at the issue from a single perspective. You seem to be purposefully ignoring other sections of rules that talk about how to determine reach for a creature.

...I'm afraid I cannot get behind purposefully ignoring rules to be in favor of any opinion. I don't think I'm with you on this one, bro. : /

Grand Lodge

Lune wrote:
...I'm afraid I cannot get behind purposefully ignoring rules to be in favor of any opinion. I don't think I'm with you on this one, bro. : /

No worries, you're obviously welcome to your interpretation. I just don't see enough support for it because I haven't see anything that says that we should compare animal companion entries to bestiary entries for any purpose.

What about "Most animal companions don't have a natural reach listed for their attacks. For determining whether or not a natural attack should have reach for these animal companions, should we compare it to a bestiary entry for a corresponding creature?"

Sovereign Court

claudekennilol wrote:


What about "Most animal companions don't have a natural reach listed for their attacks. For determining whether or not a natural attack should have reach for these animal companions, should we compare it to a bestiary entry for a corresponding creature?"

Can't we just apply logic and do so? Do we really need designer permission?


That seems reasonable. Are you going to do a thread to FAQ? ...or are you just saying that is a reasonable interpretation?

Grand Lodge

Lune wrote:
That seems reasonable. Are you going to do a thread to FAQ? ...or are you just saying that is a reasonable interpretation?

I don't see myself starting any more FAQ threads in the near future. Though if someone where to start one I would definitely click the button.

Charon's Little Helper wrote:
claudekennilol wrote:


What about "Most animal companions don't have a natural reach listed for their attacks. For determining whether or not a natural attack should have reach for these animal companions, should we compare it to a bestiary entry for a corresponding creature?"
Can't we just apply logic and do so? Do we really need designer permission?

I fail to see how what I'm applying isn't logic. And I know there are GMs in my area that interpret it as I do. So any insight on how it's actually supposed to work would solve the issue.


Pathfinder Maps, Starfinder Maps Subscriber
claudekennilol wrote:
I don't see myself starting any more FAQ threads in the near future. Though if someone where to start one I would definitely click the button.

Done


Lets turn this around slightly.

Assume for a moment that the Bestiary entry for a creature lists an ability that the Animal Companion entry does not list. Do we add the ability to the Animal Companion? (Examples: Tigers racial stealth bonuses or a Tyrannosaurus' Swallow Whole ability.)

What a creature's Reach is *could* be interpreted by some as the same thing. Ie. if it does not list that it has reach it defaults to the minimum amount for the size (5' for large).

Personally, I just look up the stats in the Bestiary and compare them to the AC listing and apply some logic.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Its not remotely the same.

The animal companion has SOME reach catagory: be it 0,5,10, 15 etc. You cannot have a blank spot on the animal companion for reach.


I apply logic liberally. With a butter knife. It is delicious and my home made logic tastes better than yours. ;)

Gauss: I couldn't tell from that last post which side of the fence you fall on.

Either way, I'm going over to the other thread and hitting FAQ.


BNW, please re-read my post. I did not state that there is no reach category. I stated that since it is not listed some people could interpreted as minimum (ie: 5' for large).

The logic for that being that, like other abilities not listed, if it isn't listed you don't get anything extra.

Lune, the line that says 'personally' doesn't give it away? :P

I swear, people read too much into what I write rather than actually reading what I write.


Pathfinder Maps, Starfinder Maps Subscriber
Gauss wrote:
I swear, people read too much into what I write rather than actually reading what I write.

You are learning the great truth. Every conversation has *at least* three sides: 1) What I said. 2) What I think I said. 3) What you think I said.

Ironically, the first is the least important.


http://www.d20pfsrd.com/bestiary/monster-listings/animals/axe-beak

Axe beak has 10ft range. End of discussion. Stop interpret some s$$% and just watch at the main animal.

You cant compare that with dmg dice.

If the main animal is large and 10 ft range. The animal companion has 10 ft range.

If the main animal is huge and 15 ft range. The animal companion has 10ft range.

If the main animal is large and 5 ft range. The animal companion has 5 ft range.

If the main animal is huge and 10 ft range. The animal companion has 5 ft range.

You make it so much complicated. No Paizo designer would EVER think about your super strange thoughts.


Maybe not assume that I didn't read what you wrote? Everyone in this thread believes that they are using logic. Some are even siting the same rules that you are and coming up with differing opinions. Hence the bit about my logic being more delicious.

...so, you believe they DO have reach if their typical entry in the Bestiary does?

Grand Lodge

Tesailion wrote:

http://www.d20pfsrd.com/bestiary/monster-listings/animals/axe-beak

Axe beak has 10ft range. End of discussion. Stop interpret some s&!% and just watch at the main animal.

You cant compare that with dmg dice.

If the main animal is large and 10 ft range. The animal companion has 10 ft range.

If the main animal is huge and 15 ft range. The animal companion has 10ft range.

If the main animal is large and 5 ft range. The animal companion has 5 ft range.

If the main animal is huge and 10 ft range. The animal companion has 5 ft range.

You make it so much complicated. No Paizo designer would EVER think about your super strange thoughts.

Who is making it complicated? To me it looks like you're just making up correlations and throwing numbers in..


Gauss wrote:
BNW, please re-read my post. I did not state that there is no reach category. I stated that since it is not listed some people could interpreted as minimum (ie: 5' for large).

Stop blaming poor arguments on poor reading comprehension.

Your post was read

Your post was understood.

My point still stands. "re read" is not a counter argument.

Quote:
The logic for that being that, like other abilities not listed, if it isn't listed you don't get anything extra.

This makes no sense.

". Ie. if it does not list that it has reach it defaults to the minimum amount for the size (5' for large)"

.... this is completely random. Having less than , normal, or greater reach than a monster of its size is not usually a special, enumerated quality the way swallow whole or grapple is. There is no such entry, its decided in practice based off of the monsters gross physical form: a physical form it shares with the animal companion version.


BigNorseWolf, apparently you are NOT reading ALL of my post. You are clearly not reading the part where I am saying "by some".

Let me spell it out for you: I am NOT arguing for what I was saying. I was providing a rationale for why some people may be arguing for that.

Perhaps you should try to read ALL of my post rather than focusing only on the part you can argue with.


I think there are some legitimate questions to be had. There are lots of examples where the animal companion creature doesn't match the animal in the Bestiaries. It would be nice if there were clarification. I'll go click the FAQ thread, too....

(I'm trying to build a bear riding Dwarf Cavalier. Interestingly, the bear you can build as an AC has no relation to any bear in the Bestiaries..


Gauss wrote:

BigNorseWolf, apparently you are NOT reading ALL of my post. You are clearly not reading the part where I am saying "by some".

Let me spell it out for you: I am NOT arguing for what I was saying. I was providing a rationale for why some people may be arguing for that.

Perhaps you should try to read ALL of my post rather than focusing only on the part you can argue with.

I can consider an analogy so bad its nuts whether its yours or you're the messenger.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Maps, Pawns Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Starfinder Charter Superscriber
Axebeak Sanctuary Society wrote:
Just as with any Companion, you compare its natural reach to its Bestiary entry.

This is what I do, and believe to be the intention.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Saldiven wrote:


(I'm trying to build a bear riding Dwarf Cavalier. Interestingly, the bear you can build as an AC has no relation to any bear in the Bestiaries..

I don't think that Dwarf Cavalier could carry the bear very far. ;P

Grand Lodge

Grammar Cop wrote:
Saldiven wrote:


(I'm trying to build a bear riding Dwarf Cavalier. Interestingly, the bear you can build as an AC has no relation to any bear in the Bestiaries..
I don't think that Dwarf Cavalier could carry the bear very far. ;P

Why not? Dwarves can't be encumbered ;).


If someone already stated this, good. If not, then here is your answer.

Pathfinder makes use of the 3.5 OGL. In the 3.0 core three books you have your answers. Like if a creature is tall or long. The change from 3.0 to 3.5 did NOT change whether a creature is tall or long.

Grand Lodge

D. Masters wrote:

If someone already stated this, good. If not, then here is your answer.

Pathfinder makes use of the 3.5 OGL. In the 3.0 core three books you have your answers. Like if a creature is tall or long. The change from 3.0 to 3.5 did NOT change whether a creature is tall or long.

It did in that there's nothing that actually states what creatures in PFS are long or tall. Also, good grief, let sleeping threads lie in peace.

51 to 84 of 84 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder First Edition / Rules Questions / Mounted + Reach = Which Threatened Squares? All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.