"How many animals can I have at any given time? (from the FAQ)
During the course of a scenario, you may have one combat animal and as many noncombat animals as you like. Noncombat animals (ponies, horses, pet dogs, and so on) cannot participate in combat at all. If you have so many noncombat animals that their presence is slowing a session down, the GM has the right to ask you to select one noncombat animal and leave the rest behind. A summoner's eidolon is considered an animal companion for the purposes of counting combat and noncombat animals. If you have more than one class-granted animal companion (or eidolon), you must choose which will be considered the combat animal at the start of the scenario. In general, a mount, a familiar or mundane pet, and your class-granted animal(s) are acceptable, but more than that can be disruptive."
So my question is, if I am riding a riding dog or horse and have another combat animal alongside and get surprised into initiative, does my mount just *poof* disappear? Am I assumed to have jumped off (as a free action) and the mount has run away? Or am I still on the mount who, being a 'non-combatant', is effectively invulnerable?
It is a big question for a gnome/halfling, who can go from 40' to 15' if the mount disappears.
|
IMO if the mount is having an effect on the combat, which nearly tripling you movement certainly is, then it's not a non-combatent. So you couldn't have both animals. And it wouldn't be invulnerable to area attacks either.
Though it is a very interesting question, and I look forward to seeing other answers.
|
|
The key is the last sentence of the FAQ.
In general, a mount, a familiar or mundane pet, and your class-granted animal(s) are acceptable, but more than that can be disruptive.
It says "and." You can have a mount, a familiar or mundane pet, and an animal companion or eidolon. The GM can ask you to go without one or more companions if (s)he likes if the sum of creatures you have is getting disruptive, but by default your mount's position is secure.
This is separate from the consideration regarding noncombat animals. Your mount is vulnerable to attack like any other creature.
Note that the base assumption is (presumably!) that your familiar is providing its generic familiar benefits, your mount is conducting you around the battlefield, and your animal companion or eidolon is making attack rolls. If you ride a combat-trained tiger around the battlefield while urging on your eidolon and Mauler familiar you may find requests to leave your posse behind more frequent.
|
Venture-Captain, California—Sacramento
|
In no case is an animal you are riding in combat invulnerable. If it is giving you a significant movement advantage, or if you are using a lance, it is definitely a valid tactical choose to target it. And since any animal you can buy has stats, you would use those stats.
As a matter of simplicity, most GMs I know assume that pack animals are 40 feet behind the party, or safely below decks, etc.
So it seems "cannot participate in combat at all" is just not phrased well. I was viewing getting targeted, killed or moving my PC around the battlefield as "participating in combat".
So when talking about a 'non-combat' mount, "Cannot participate in combat at all" possibly really means "Cannot attack in combat at all"?
|
Venture-Captain, California—Sacramento
|
So it seems "cannot participate in combat at all" is just not phrased well. I was viewing getting targeted, killed or moving my PC around the battlefield as "participating in combat".
So when talking about a 'non-combat' mount, "Cannot participate in combat at all" possibly really means "Cannot attack in combat at all"?
That is the grey area mentioned above.
Almost all will let you have a combat pet and a "standard" familiar (one that just gives a passive stat bonus and hides in your pouch.)
Some GMs will insist that if you have a combat pet and a mount, you must dismount at the beginning of combat, whatever action that takes for you. (Though most of these will be kind enough not to target your mount.)
Others will let you ride the mount, assuming you use it as a passive move bonus. (Some will not target the mount, some will)
Some will just say "Okay, your mount can enhance your speed during travel, but whatever encounters occur just happen to occur when you have dismounted to give it a break, so just treat it as if it isn't there during combat."
As it currently stands, each GM is trusted to make the decision that is best for that table, during that scenario.
Venture-Lieutenant, Netherlands—Leiden
|
I'd say that if a critter isn't allowed to help you because of the population limit, then it's also safe from harm. Fairness both ways.
It's not precisely realistic, but that's not what the rule is about anyway. And all animals except one having a brain seizure isn't realistic either, but it's a practical rule.
it seems to me a reasonable assumption to make that non-combat animals run away and hide when combat begins.
it seems to me a reasonable assumption to make that non-combat animals run away and hide when combat begins.Given that the OP is talking about riding a non-combat trained mount, it's not something that you can blithely just let go. If the PC is for instance, surprised attacked and his mount panics, he may have to deal with either getting thrown off his mount, or being carried away from the field of battle.
ay, that is indeed a caveat.
|
Venture-Captain, California—Sacramento
|
it seems to me a reasonable assumption to make that non-combat animals run away and hide when combat begins.Given that the OP is talking about riding a non-combat trained mount, it's not something that you can blithely just let go. If the PC is for instance, surprised attacked and his mount panics, he may have to deal with either getting thrown off his mount, or being carried away from the field of battle.
I assumed the PC was riding a "combat trained" mount as his "non-combat" pet.
|
If it provides any form of game effect or benefit, it's "in combat" even if it's not trained "for" combat. Which means it's fair game.
That doesn't appear to match the actual rule though which allows for a familiar along with another class-granted animal such as an animal companion. Both provide a mechanical benefit.
|
As GM, I usually consider the motives of the opponents. Eg, if you have a group of adventurers threatening with weapons and spells, the opponents are likely to target them first, and only worry about "non-combat" pets if they somehow contribute to the combat, eg a Cavalier charging or ride-by-attacks on his mount, then obviously taking down the mount. Otherwise, they're not considered a threat - the opponents have more dangerous and immediate threats to deal with before wasting precious attacks on animals.
Nonetheless, this approach may not cover all situations, eg hungry non-intelligent beasts, or area-of-effect spells.