|
According to the druid's animal companion table, a wolf advances to become Large size at 7th level so it seems like it should be possible since it would become an appropriate size.
If not, would it become possible if I took the Undersized Mount feat from the Advanced Class Guide? Or is that feat inapplicable to Cavaliers and Samurai for some reason?
Sorry, I'm just very confused about how mounts work in PFS and what the actual available options are. I just think a wolf would be slightly more cool than a camel or horse. Please advise, and if possible, cite appropriate sources. Thanks.
|
In PFS, a Medium sized cavalier can select a camel or a horse as a mount (APG) as can a Medium samurai (UC, otherwise identical text). The GM (PFS campaign staff, in the Organised Play FAQ) has decided not to allow other mounts except by means of published game abilities.
Undersized Mount doesn't alter the cavalier or samurai's Mount ability in any relevant way, and says explicitly that the character's choice of mounts may be restricted by other factors.
A wolf would be slightly more cool and considerably more mechanically beneficial (despite some pretty vicious camels in my area).
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Cavaliers and samurai have access to what's listed in their class, and no more, unless modified by another game element (such as the Beast Rider cavalier archetype). If I recall correctly, that's just camel or horse - PFS doesn't add anything to that list by default (though certain Chronicle sheets do so). Not a lot I can cite for you, other than the class itself (which I assume you already have access to).
That said, keep an eye out for when Ultimate Wilderness is added to the Additional Resources page. The Wolf Rider feat was made just for you. ^_^
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
It seems to be an incredibly useful feat to me.
But nothing in its text implies it expands a Cavalier's list of Mounts, so it may not be useful in this narrow instance.
One of these days I'm definitely giving a Halfling a Pig Familiar and using Undersized Mount to ride it ^_^
|
|
It seems to be an incredibly useful feat to me.
But nothing in its text implies it expands a Cavalier's list of Mounts, so it may not be useful in this narrow instance.
One of these days I'm definitely giving a Halfling a Pig Familiar and using Undersized Mount to ride it ^_^
A halfling druid can already hop on their roc. Note that undersized mount doesnt technically remove the unsuited penalty.
It won t let a cavalier get a dog to ride on in pfs, so the ability to ride a dog is.. less than useful. The feat should open up mount options s if the rider were a size smaller
Undersized mount is a legal option that by that reading does absolutely nothing. They really need to give that a clarification or a ban.
What is unclear about the Undersized Mount feat, warranting a clarification, and why in the world would it warrant a ban?
|
|
Undersized mount is a legal option that by that reading does absolutely nothing. They really need to give that a clarification or a ban.What is unclear about the Undersized Mount feat, warranting a clarification, and why in the world would it warrant a ban?
PFS has a special rule for cavaliers and pallies that medium cavalers slash pallies can take ABC animals which are all large and small cavaliers can take xyz animals, which are all medium. That functionally keeps cavs and pallys from taking it, since it wont open up their list of acceptable critters.
A ban would be going to far. A warning sign? Or just clarify it as i ve mentioned above to let the feat bypass the pfs specific rule that stops it from working
|
Undersized mount is a legal option that by that reading does absolutely nothing. They really need to give that a clarification or a ban.What is unclear about the Undersized Mount feat, warranting a clarification, and why in the world would it warrant a ban?PFS has a special rule for cavaliers and pallies that medium cavalers slash pallies can take ABC animals and small cavaliers can take xyz animals. That functionally keeps cavs and pallys from taking it, since it wont open up their list of acceptable critters.
A ban would be going to far. A warning sign? Or just clarify it as i ve mentioned above
Can't they just take a Shetland Pony?
Undersized mount is a legal option that by that reading does absolutely nothing. They really need to give that a clarification or a ban.What is unclear about the Undersized Mount feat, warranting a clarification, and why in the world would it warrant a ban?PFS has a special rule for cavaliers and pallies that medium cavalers slash pallies can take ABC animals which are all large and small cavaliers can take xyz animals, which are all medium. That functionally keeps cavs and pallys from taking it, since it wont open up their list of acceptable critters.
A ban would be going to far. A warning sign? Or just clarify it as i ve mentioned above to let the feat bypass the pfs specific rule that stops it from working
That's not really a function of the Undersized Mount feat in any way, though. It has zero interaction with animal companion selection for any class, in or out of pfs.
Venture-Lieutenant, Netherlands—Leiden
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Currently, what the feat does is say "if somehow you got your hands on a mount that's a little on the small side for you, you can still ride it" - it doesn't let you obtain such a mount.
You could buy one but the life expectancy of mounts that don't level alongside the rider is rather poor.
Cavaliers and paladins have a Mount class feature that says "if you're medium you can take these size-appropriate mounts; if you're small, then these other mounts are size-appropriate for you".
So yeah, if the feat makes more mounts size-appropriate for you, it would be nice if you could get them via the class feature.
What we would like is a clarification for Undersized Mount:
Add the following text to Undersized Mount: "Special: A medium character with a mount or steed class feature that allows her to select a mount appropriate to her size, may also choose mounts as if she were a small character. This only works if the character chooses mounts from an enumerated list of options such as with Cavaliers and Paladins."
That issue is with the pfs restriction, NOT the undersized mount feat.
The feat itself still fully allows a medium cavalier to ride a medium sized mount, he just can't take it as his animal companion because of the pfs restriction in the FAQ.
In any case, an undersized mount makes a terrible cavalier/paladin mount. A 1st level wolf animal companion (medium), for instance, is encumbered at 75 lbs, which makes for a pretty unimpressive steed for a medium rider.
|
|
That issue is with the pfs restriction, NOT the undersized mount feat.
The feat itself still fully allows a medium cavalier to ride a medium sized mount, he just can't take it as his animal companion because of the pfs restriction in the FAQ.
The medium cavalier already can without the feat ride a medium sized mount. This feat just removes a penalty when doing so.
|
|
That is not what the feat says.The medium cavalier already can without the feat ride a medium sized mount. This feat just removes a penalty when doing so.That issue is with the pfs restriction, NOT the undersized mount feat.
The feat itself still fully allows a medium cavalier to ride a medium sized mount, he just can't take it as his animal companion because of the pfs restriction in the FAQ.
It's right in the normal line of the feat.
feat"Typically a mount suited for you is at least one size category larger than you."
ride skill
"If you attempt to ride a creature that is ill suited as a mount, you take a –5 penalty on your Ride checks."
All the feat does is make smaller mounts suited for you.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
It's right in the normal line of the feat.
feat
"Typically a mount suited for you is at least one size category larger than you."
ride skill
"If you attempt to ride a creature that is ill suited as a mount, you take a –5 penalty on your Ride checks."All the feat does is make smaller mounts suited for you.
Is this a generally agreed upon interpretation? I've never read the rules in this manner before, though I can see how having the word "suited" in both sections does lead to such a reading.
|
|
Is this a generally agreed upon interpretation? I've never read the rules in this manner before, though I can see how having the word "suited" in both sections does lead to such a reading.It's right in the normal line of the feat.
feat
"Typically a mount suited for you is at least one size category larger than you."
ride skill
"If you attempt to ride a creature that is ill suited as a mount, you take a –5 penalty on your Ride checks."All the feat does is make smaller mounts suited for you.
This is the first time I've heard of it, but I've been focusing on that exact wording since he pointed it out.
Is this a generally agreed upon interpretation? I've never read the rules in this manner before, though I can see how having the word "suited" in both sections does lead to such a reading.It's right in the normal line of the feat.
feat
"Typically a mount suited for you is at least one size category larger than you."
ride skill
"If you attempt to ride a creature that is ill suited as a mount, you take a –5 penalty on your Ride checks."All the feat does is make smaller mounts suited for you.
I haven't interpreted it as that - and still don't. There's a difference in what those two sentences are talking about. The first is describing a mount 'suited for you', meaning okay for YOU to ride, which is about the relative size relationship, the second being 'suited as a mount', meaning the physiology of the creature in it's ability to properly carry a rider. A ferret may be a suitable mount for a sprite, but that certainly doesn't mean a human can ride one by just taking a -5 to the check. However, a human CAN ride a Tyrannosaurus, but only with a -5 because it's upright posture makes it an unsuitable as a mount.
Undersized Mount expands the validity of the first sentence, to include mounts of the sames size category as the rider.
And exotic saddle could expand the validity of the second sentence to include some otherwise unsuitable to ride creatures.
Neither of which matter when discussing cavaliers or paladins in pfs, and riding their bonded mount, because the only options available to TAKE as their bonded mount are already suitable as mounts, and suitable for the character.
|
|
I haven't interpreted it as that - and still don't.
Ok, so you are reading the feat to do absolutely nothing then? What does the feat actually do?
Its suited for you as a mount. Thats the context of suited. Something isn't just suited, it's suited FOR something. (unless the feat is supposed to be about dressing up a dapper pony?) Pathfinder doesn't use the word to mean anything else.
|
|
I just looked at the PRD Core Rulebook, and it too uses the term “suitable” to describe how different races fit on different sized mounts, with medium races on large mounts and small races on medium mounts.
So, it seems to me that a human without the Undersized Mount feat could ride a size M pony with a -5 on all Ride checks, assuming encumberance all checks out.
|
|
I haven't interpreted it as that - and still don't.Ok, so you are reading the feat to do absolutely nothing then? What does the feat actually do?
I have always understood that mounts were required to be at least one size category larger than their Rider (barring one or two odd exceptions, such as Dwarves and Goblins), before Undersized Mount was published, and believed that arguments to the contrary were Munchkinry at its finest, used as logic for humanoids riding other humanoids and protecting each other via Mounted Combat.
When Undersized Mount was released, it confirmed my understanding, and now opened up the option of riding a Mount that was your size.
That is the stronger of two interpretations, IMO. You may differ. But Chess Pwn's argument of suitability is making me question my interpretation. It may indeed simply mitigate the –5 penalty. Which I think is balanced as far as feat design.
It's unlikely to bring the question to a close, but I may start treating the Ride skill differently. I disagree strongly with the Prone Shooter comparison. Any way you look at it, this feat does something. What exactly it does seems to be the question.
|
|
I have always understood that mounts were required to be at least one size category larger than their Rider (barring one or two odd exceptions, such as Dwarves and Goblins), before Undersized Mount was published, and believed that arguments to the contrary were Munchkinry at its finest, used as logic for humanoids riding other humanoids and protecting each other via Mounted Combat.
There's a reason master of master blaster is a Gnome...so this isn't going to solve that particular problem (rolled up newspaper perhaps?)
As for being able to ride, there's no rules for it. But its kind of hard to make an argument that humans can't ride donkeys when theres no explicit rule against it, and appeals to realism don't work because humans ride donkeys all the time.
-5 to do anything fancy is reasonable though. Cept maybe fast mount and dismount...
|
|
Even if the ferret were stronger and the rider lighter, I still think a -5 penalty is probably a little on the weak side for something that ridiculousThe human likely can't ride the ferret because the ferret isn't strong enough to carry the human.
Nothing in the rules say you can't ride something that isn't the correct size, and it has the unsuitable line to cover things that aren't meant for you to ride.
Meh, since a fine spider can crane wing a gargantuan dragon's bite I ignore any claims of "ridiculous situations" as a reason to stop something.
|
|
The undersized mount feat is kept from 3/4s+ of its functionality by a PFS rule so yest.. that is one heck of an interaction.
That's not really a function of the Undersized Mount feat in any way, though. It has zero interaction with animal companion selection for any class, in or out of pfs.
There are still situations where it is valid - Multiclassed to a class with a larger list of available choices, having a boon that adds a small mount to your mount list, buying a small mount instead of using the free one from the class ability, and summoner eidolons all come to mind. Much more useful than prone shooter.
|
|
Nothing in the rules say you can't ride something that isn't the correct sizeAnd nothing says you can't flap your arms to gain a Fly speed.
You know Pathfinder is permissive. You need rules that tell us we *can* do something, not rules telling us what we can't do.
I'm sorry I didn't know that there were people that didn't know that the rules allowed us to ride things. I assumed competence of the reader to know that the ability to ride stuff exists in the rules, hence why I didn't mention it, I suppose this is on me to not have any expectations of my readers to understand basic established permissions the rules allow like that we are capable of riding other things. My point was to point out that off of that permission to ride stuff there wasn't an exception stating that you can't ride something not the correct size, because I was assuming that everyone knew that the rules allowed riding.
So to be fully clear.
The rules that let you ride anything are what grants us the ability to ride.
So
You can ride, this is the permission we need to ride stuff if this permission didn't exist then no one could ride anything, since people can ride stuff this exists.
Riding a mount one size larger is a suitable mount.
Riding an unsuitable mount imposes a -5 to ride checks.
Nothing prevents us from riding something that isn't the correct size, it's just obviously not labeled as suitable so it's unsuitable.
|
|
That's certainly a way of looking at it. I had to tilt my phone to adjust for the level of head cocking I was doing to read it, though.
That probably falls into the "Munchkinry" I was referring to earlier. I wouldn't allow it at my table.
So you wouldn't allow a dwarf or human to ride a strong pony? That's too "Munchkinry" for you?
|
|
By the rules, yes actually. The question is whether it has the strength to actually carry the human.
This is one of the areas in Pathfinder that can be bit silly by the rules but is indeed the rules. More often than not it's fine though considering the str issue.
But back to your proposed example. A cat has 3 str and is tiny. It's max carry weight for a heavy load is 15 lbs. So no, a human can't ride the cat.
|
|
Can a Human ride a tiny-sized cat under these rules you're referencing?
Can a Human ride ANYTHING under the rules you're apparently using?
EDIT:
I've said it and I'll explain again.
Pathfinder lets you ride stuff do we agree on this?
Pathfinder says you take a penalty for riding an unsuitable mount, again do we agree on this?
Pathfinder does not say you can't ride something smaller than you aka a more specific rule than the general rule of "you can ride stuff" do you agree?
If so, then what is stopping a human from riding a strong pony without the feat?
|
|
Can a Human ride a tiny-sized cat under these rules you're referencing?Can a Human ride ANYTHING under the rules you're apparently using?
Yes. A human can ride a creature one size category larger than them (or greater).
Until you can quote to me something that says you can ride a cat, or a pony, that is how I will rule as a GM.
When a GM asks a player "Show me where it says you can do this", the burden of proof is on the player.
If the player has the Undersized Mount feat, then they have the ability to demonstrate to their GM that they have that ability.
This is pretty elementary stuff. If you tried to play word games with me at the table I'd just say "We'll talk about this after game" and move on.
That's what I refer to, again, as "Munchkinry".