Probably better off taking a Roc. Maybe not quite the flavour you want, but full fly speed is a big +. Grab on claws is useful, but low con is something to be aware of.
Sorry, yes should have added a link. It's a an option opened up in bestiary 1 - which is why it's not mentioned in the CRB as an option for rangers (technically not mentioned as an option for druids either). As an added bonus it saves you feats too!
There are still arguments about whether that fully opens them up as an option for rangers. The class might have just been open language in case they make later changes (such as potential archetypes or feats that could have granted it, such as the beast master archetype), and the rest of the rules are just saying 'it is relatively small ones.'.
Just saying- most of the flying mounts for rangers are locked behind the feats listed in the first post, and rocs are much stronger than a good portion of those options.
You can try arguing for it, but I think just sticking with the things that are explicitly granted to you. Griffons are considered better than hippogriffs, I do believe, since they have better stats, pounce, and rake. They are basically flying lions, obviously.
There are still arguments about whether that fully opens them up as an option for rangers. The class might have just been open language in case they make later changes (such as potential archetypes or feats that could have granted it), and the rest of the rules are just saying 'it is relatively small ones.'.
I don't see how there can be any sustainable argument against it. It's pretty cut and dried. Rangers have a limited list (that includes no size restriction). Later book opens up an additional option. That's specific>general at work right there.
Ah, ok I get the counter now - it isn't expressly opened up as an option, it is implied. I see the wriggle room, don't agree with it, but I see it.
There are still arguments about whether that fully opens them up as an option for rangers. The class might have just been open language in case they make later changes (such as potential archetypes or feats that could have granted it), and the rest of the rules are just saying 'it is relatively small ones.'.
I don't see how there can be any sustainable argument against it. It's pretty cut and dried. Rangers have a limited list (that includes no size restriction). Later book opens up an additional option. That's specific>general at work right there.
Ah, ok I get the counter now - it isn't expressly opened up as an option, it is implied. I see the wriggle room, don't agree with it, but I see it.
It is enough wiggle room that you can at least see why a GM might find problems with it since it has 4 times the amount of nautral armor compared to the next cheapest flying mount (the hippogriff) and doesn't need 2 feats in order to get flying as a mount.
If paizo honestly thought of roc as a default option, why does it keep releasing the hippogriff..again and again (two different releases of sable company marines, which is an archetype that allows you to grab hippogriffs)? By comparison, it is a clearly inferior option (with only darkvision and a couple points of con in its favor), yet it keeps on being presented center stage through three different special methods.