Question about Drake Companions

[Xavier319]

So the fluff about them states...

"A drake can be a powerful ally to one who understands how to deal with its surly and obstinate attitude. Such a character is called the drake’s “charge,” as drakes refuse to refer to another being as their master. While drake companions enjoy accumulating hoards of shiny treasure, they adamantly refuse to wear barding, armor, or clothing items of any kind (belts, boots, and so on); they can wear magical jewelry such as amulets or rings but will agree to wear only one such item."

So clearly they did this as a balance attempt to keep them from spiraling out of control, and to limit the number of slot-based magic items (you could give them slotless ones).

The question is thus. The party gives him little stuff to use in combat, wands, alchemy, scrolls. Clearly you'd have to 'give' them to him, since he wouldnt accept a loan, just on the agreement he'd help the party out with those items. Would it be reasonable to say he could be convinced to wear a pair of little pouch things, to carry his shiney bits, treasure, and small magic items in? Otherwise, he wouldnt be able to at all. So I'm talking little saddle bag type things to carry HIS stuff in, not magic backpacks or big packs on his back. I dont think it's unreasonable, and could be very cute/funny.

[vhok]

bags are not clothing so I would say its fine. but up to your dm

[Xavier319]

fair enough. Good point friend.

[DeathlessOne]

Easy enough to get around those restriction with Magic Tattoos. Inscribe Magical Tattoo.

If the GM is unreasonable and says that you can't ink on a dragon's or drake's scales, simply tattoo yourself and use Transfer Tattoo to give the tattoo to the drake.

[Sennje]

vhok wrote:

bags are not clothing so I would say its fine. but up to your dm

I would disagree it even sets belt on the list of things it will not wear, so a bag would be as if not even more intrusive. but as you say in the end it is up to the DM.

[Xavier319]

Sennje wrote:

vhok wrote:

bags are not clothing so I would say its fine. but up to your dm

I would disagree it even sets belt on the list of things it will not wear, so a bag would be as if not even more intrusive. but as you say in the end it is up to the DM.

I talked to the player about it, and phrased it like this: They like to keep collections of valuables, and are not dumb. Do they trust others to hold onto their valuables found during trips? Or would they want something that they can keep track of? I couldnt give him a good answer. I think the restriction on belts and clothing was more to keep them from wearing the magical versions of these things, not to prevent them from having a bag to put stuff in, dont you think?

[vhok]

it was to stop magic items or mundane armor/anything useful in combat. if you give him bags don't fill them with scrolls and wands and potions. its just for him to carry his gem and gold etc. nothing abusable in that.

[CBDunkerson]

The text doesn't prohibit them from having ANY type of gear... it just sets specific limitations; no barding, armor, or clothing and only one piece of jewelry.

Nothing saying they can't use or carry wands... and given that they get UMD as a class skill, there's no logical reason they wouldn't. Potions and scrolls should be fine too. Not to mention mundane equipment, rods, wondrous items that don't fall into any of the prohibited categories, et cetera.

The question is... do they have any means of storing this stuff? Also, does a drake which serves as a mount have a saddle? Bridle? How does the rider stay on and/or direct it... especially if flying? I'd argue that such riding gear is not 'clothing' and neither would be saddle bags, a 'scroll bandolier', and/or other 'tools for holding possessions'. Thus, it should be fine to equip a drake with various non-prohibited items.

[The Golux]

Drakes don't have hands, so Wands might be tricky.

[Xavier319]

Drakes seem to have little claw wing hands, like bats, at the 'elbow' of their wing. Bats have surprising manual dexterity. I'd argue they could hold a wand or manipulate a potion. Probably not while flying however, they would need to land to do that.

https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B1gDgAamoxKnc1p5UDRhcTdkS0k/view

Then again, they could hold a wand in their mouth and speak the command word. I've seen people speak around large enough cigars well enough to say a word or two. Just for the sake of argument.

[Sennje]

Xavier319 wrote:

Sennje wrote:

vhok wrote:

bags are not clothing so I would say its fine. but up to your dm

I would disagree it even sets belt on the list of things it will not wear, so a bag would be as if not even more intrusive. but as you say in the end it is up to the DM.

I talked to the player about it, and phrased it like this: They like to keep collections of valuables, and are not dumb. Do they trust others to hold onto their valuables found during trips? Or would they want something that they can keep track of? I couldnt give him a good answer. I think the restriction on belts and clothing was more to keep them from wearing the magical versions of these things, not to prevent them from having a bag to put stuff in, dont you think?

I agree that was probably RAI and I would let a player do it, but it would refuse to carry stuff for other people (as an extension of not letting people ride it).

[Xavier319]

Absolutely. I think of them as prissy cats that are self aware and can talk. They will risk themselves for their 'ward' and they care about them. but they wont be pack animals. I think that what some say, that you must diplomacy them to even get them to fight in every encounter, is foolish, it's just to get them to unduly risk themselves. It's to represent that they are self-aware, and doing this by choice. Not like an animal companion or familiar.