| 1 person marked this as FAQ candidate. |
This topic had been discussed previously in another thread.
It has been brought to my attention that the is a well-known PFS scenario that has the end boss riding an Axebeak.
I don't know the name of the scenario but it had a very Seven Samurai feel.
I was told this Axebeak is listed as having reach. Can anyone confirm this? Perhaps even post it's stat block?
If true then this establishes precedent for international reach on animal companions that should be Large (tall).
Wow. Phone posting fail. Stupid auto correct.
That should be "there is a well-known" and "intentional" rather than "international".
Someone has to have this scenario. Anyone? Bueller?
This is from the Tier 4-5 encounter
Jikon CR —
Axe beak animal companion
N Large animal
Init +4; Senses low-light vision; Perception +7
DEFENSE
AC 19, touch 13, flat-footed 15 (+3 Dex, +1 dodge, +6 natural,
–1 size)
hp 45 (6d8+18)
Fort +8, Ref +8, Will +2
OFFENSE
Speed 50 ft.
Melee bite +8 (1d8+7)
Space 10 ft.; Reach 10 ft.
Special Attacks sudden charge
Keep in mind that statblocks aren't a basis for rules.
Otherwise Vicious gets blocked by DR.
And, luckily, we don't require statblocks like this to tell us how reach works for Animal Companions.
We know a Horse has 5ft reach because it's a Large (Long) creature, and we know an Axebeak has 10ft reach because it's a Large (Tall) creature.
This is explained in the Core Rulebook, with examples given in the Bestiary.
How can we know if an animal is Large(long) or Large(tall)? When I look at these entries in the Bestiary they just say Large. Do we just deduce that a Horse is Large(long) because it's reach is 5 ft so it has to be long? It would be helpful if each entry in the bestiary was updated to include (long) and (tall) after it's size.
How can we know if an animal is Large(long) or Large(tall)? When I look at these entries in the Bestiary they just say Large. Do we just deduce that a Horse is Large(long) because it's reach is 5 ft so it has to be long? It would be helpful if each entry in the bestiary was updated to include (long) and (tall) after it's size.
The only way to tell is to look at the animals reach. But in general, bipeds are tall, quadrupeds are long.
As the only thing it matters with is reach, and that is already included in the stat block, don't count on there ever being a (long) or (tall) notation in a stat block. It has worked without that for 15 years, no need to change.
Axebeak Sanctuary Society: That is not true. Nowhere in Animal Companions does it say to use the features given in the Bestiary. That is, in fact, the entire basis of this thread. I recommend reading the previous thread (linked above) to see the arguments of people who do not believe that you default creatures to their Bestiary entry. While that does seem like the logical thing to do not everyone agrees.
As it was questioned that is why I wanted to see if there was anything in print from the Devs showing how they interpret it. Luckily there is. As Jayder22 posted an example of Developer interpretation we can clearly see that it is the Devs' belief that things that are Large (tall) in the Bestiary keep this when they become Animal Companions.
Thank you, by the way, Jayder22. :)
LazarX: Not all large creatures with only a bite have reach. See Dire Wolf as an example.
So let's look at one example I've seen come up in play.
An Ankylosaurus is a huge animal that walks on 4 legs, but it's reach is set to 15 ft, this lets me know I treat this animal as a Huge(tall) creature. But is this a tall creature? or does it just have a long tail affording it the ability to strike out farther than would normally be possible? This animal only has 1 attack so the stat-block doesn't differentiate like it would with a different animal (the Kamadan has 5ft reach, but 10ft with snake attacks)
This issue comes up if the ankylosaurus gains extra attacks, like a bite attack or hoof attacks. According to the stat block, should the GM assume those are reach attacks because the animal is listed like a Tall creature, or should those attacks not have reach because the ankylosaurus is obviously a quadruped.
Now this example at least to me is fairly simple and if I were gming it, I would rule that the tail attack has reach, but the ankylosaurus is a large(long) creature and if it gained a bite or hoof attack these would not have reach, but the tail does. However, that is a fairly common creature (we all probably learned about it in highschool), some of the creatures in the bestiary I would have no idea looking at it's name and statblock how gained attacks, size changes and the like might change it's reach. I guess I could pull out the bestiary for cases like this, and make a judgment call based on the art, but what if the art isn't there?
That is why I think it would be a nice change to see the (long) and (tall) descriptions on bestiary entries.
Now, do I see this as a top priority issue? I do not, but it doesn't seem like it would be a hard fix either. I guess my question would be, what would it hurt? I can't see this taking that long, but I am sure they have a list of a million things that "wouldn't take long" and this would just be another thing on that list. I'm ok with it being added to the list though...
I recommend reading the previous thread (linked above) to see the arguments of people who do not believe that you default creatures to their Bestiary entry. While that does seem like the logical thing to do not everyone agrees.
I recommend reading the thread as well. As we were both active in that thread, let's not condescend each other in this one.
I kept asking a very important question in that thread that dissenters were unable (or, I believe, unwilling) to answer:
When you find, in print, the reach of a Horse, you will likewise find, in print, the reach of an Axebeak.
(I'll give you three guesses as to which book it's in, and the first two don't count)
Axebeak: I am not condescending to you. I am stating that what you are saying is not the truth. It was pointed out in the previous thread as well. You are lieing.
This:
We know a Horse has 5ft reach because it's a Large (Long) creature, and we know an Axebeak has 10ft reach because it's a Large (Tall) creature.
This is explained in the Core Rulebook, with examples given in the Bestiary.
...is not true when referring to animal companions (the topic of this thread). Nowhere does it say this in the rules. Please do not sully this thread further with mistruths about rules that you say are printed but are not. We are on the same side on this discussion. We do not need to lie to prove a point.
This is what you want it to say. This is the way that I believes that it works. But if it said this in the rules anywhere then this thread (and the several before it) would not exist.
Jayder22: I totally agree with your assessment.
LazarX: Not all large creatures with only a bite have reach. See Dire Wolf as an example.Which is a quadraped which typically does not gain reach by being large. The universal size rules give you these guidelines in building the monster, not writing up it's Bestiary entry.
What you said was, "As a large creature it has the standard 10 foot reach with it's bite. It has no other attacks."
That strongly amplies that large creatures with bite have reach.
I was pointing out that this is not true. Being Large does not innately provide reach. Being Large and having a Bite attack does not innately provide reach.
The two things that typically provide reach for critters is being Large (tall) and/or having a long appendage that you attack with. Not just "Large" or "Bite".
I know you know this so I'm not really correcting you for the point of correcting you. I'm doing it so that onlookers don't get confused thinking that all things that are Large and have a Bite attack should have reach.
This:
...is not true when referring to animal companions (the topic of this thread).We know a Horse has 5ft reach because it's a Large (Long) creature, and we know an Axebeak has 10ft reach because it's a Large (Tall) creature.
This is explained in the Core Rulebook, with examples given in the Bestiary.
It is true, because those rules are for all creatures in Pathfinder. And they're in the Core Rulebook, not some obscure splatbook. We don't have the choice to ignore them.
The specific exceptions to those general rules would be creatures with abnormal reach, such as the Diplodocus in Bestiary 4, or the tentacles of the Giant Octopus.
But nothing in the Core Rulebook (or Bestiaries) tells us to treat Animal Companions differently, so we don't.
Those examples are the more appropriate question to be discussed. They are specifically different from the general rules presented in the Core Rulebook.
However, most likely, if we follow the same logic as determining the reach of a Horse, then creatures with double the reach of their space (Diplodocus) or with a reach of Space+5 (Elasmosaurus) would have similar reach as Animal Companions.
That definitely makes sense, although it's slightly less supported by the rules
Agreed. The table we have now isn't Long/Tall/ExtraLong. Those that aren't Tall or Long can legitimately be debated, since we have no firm rules for handling them.
But claiming that we cannot figure out the reach of a Horse (or Axebeak) is ludicrous, and does not deserve to be debated on.
It is true, because those rules are for all creatures in Pathfinder. And they're in the Core Rulebook, not some obscure splatbook. We don't have the choice to ignore them.
That is 100% completely untrue.
Nowhere does it say that you use the stat block in the Bestiary for anything for Animal Companions. And if you believe this so vigorously then I challenge you to post that rule.
You say that it is explained in the CRB. Where? Post the rule.
It's the same rule I linked the last time you and I had this discussion (you can find it in the previous thread).
And you're clearly not reading what I'm writing here, either, because you missed my point entirely.
There need not be a rule that states Animal Companions follow the general rules. General rules are the default assumption. What you're doing is claiming that the general rules don't apply to Animal Companions, and not providing a basis for that reasoning.
I've already supplied the relevant evidence. It's up to you to show that Animal Companions are handled differently.
I also just found this link.
While still not a printed rule (which you will not find because it doesn't exist despite what Axebeak Sanctuary Society wants you to believe) that is Mike Brock basically saying that they get reach.
We're speaking different languages here, apparently.
No. I am speaking (typing) very clearly.
Post the rule that says how you determine if your Animal Companion has reach or not.
Lune, all creatures in Pathfinder (with the exception of those few already discussed earlier) determine their reach according to the table in the Core Rulebook. It doesn't matter if you're a Human, a Giant, a Horse, an Axebeak, a creature with a template, or an Animal Companion.
.
If we didn't use that table, we'd have no clue what the reach of a Horse is. Could be 5ft, could be 10ft. Could be 0ft. We'd have no clue. Same goes for the Axebeak. Same goes for Animal Companion versions of either.
The Rules are written right in the Core Rulebook. The examples are given in the Bestiaries.
It's up to you to show that they're wrong.
I hope I explain this right, because I believe this is what Lune is getting at, but maybe just not explaining clearly for you.
In the Core Rulebook, on page 195 it states "Creatures that take up more than 1 square typically have a natural reach of 10 feet or more"
It than presents a table showing that a Large(long) creature has a natural reach of 5 ft, and a Large(tall) creature has a natural reach of 10 ft.
In most cases for regular animals, you can go to the bestiary and look at what the reach of the animal is, and from that stat block you can see if an animal is tall or long (there are tons of execeptions, but this is the general rule).
However, Animal Companions are not the same as their counterparts in the bestiary, they have their own stats, sizes and abilities. Nowhere in the description of the animal companion or in the class ability does it say to reference the bestiary stat block. The Animal Companion has it's own stat block, but the problem is that it's stat block does not say what it's natural reach is, or if it is a (long) or (tall) type creature.
Many people assume you should reference the bestiary to draw a conclusion of whether the animal companion is (long) or (tall), but some do not, stating the valid point that nowhere does it say you should do that.
I don't think Lune is arguing with you that Animal Companions definitely do use that table, he is just pointing out that at this time we don't have a solid answer to "Is this animal companion (long) or (tall)?"
Post the rule, Axebeak Sanctuary Society.
Post the rule, Axebeak Sanctuary Society.
I will do no such thing.
Again, we're speaking different languages here.
And since we've both asked each other a question that the other refuses to answer, I expect this thread to die.
Meanwhile, people with Horse Companions will continue to treat them as having 5ft reach, and people with Axebeak Companions will continue to treat them as having 10ft reach.
Have a good day.
nicholas storm: While I agree that is the way that it should work it is NOT spelled out in the rules. There are PFS GMs that do not rule that way due to this.
The cost would not go up for them to print Large (tall) next to the ones that are tall. Or just print that they have reach. Same page count. No more space is taken up. It is one single word.
Or better yet. Just make a declaration in a FAQ stating that if the Bestiary entry says it is (tall) then the Animal Companion version of that creature is also small.
