Can you train an animal companion to have the mount trait.


Rules Discussion


In pathfinder only certain animals have the mount trait. However in reality horses, camels, mules, and other such animals have to go thru a training process called "breaking" or "busting" to get them to accept a rider and the accompanying equipment. So why are there no rules for training animal companions to be mounts? Plus since they look favorably upon their companion it should also be easier to do than a wild animal.


Can you train in the mount trait? No. As far as the rules go, that would be like training your A/C to have a higher Speed; it's a property of the animal ("it's especially suited for riding"), not a learnable trick.

Should you be able to train in the mount trait? Dunno. I haven't heard much explanation of the meta-reasons driving its current limited availability. But I would be wary of anything that might let someone not only ride their companion, but do so while it flies. Under the current rules a properly sized flying companion could automatically do this if it had the mount trait.


Derblade wrote:
In pathfinder only certain animals have the mount trait. However in reality horses, camels, mules, and other such animals have to go thru a training process called "breaking" or "busting" to get them to accept a rider and the accompanying equipment. So why are there no rules for training animal companions to be mounts? Plus since they look favorably upon their companion it should also be easier to do than a wild animal.

I guess that those in the companions list are meant to be just "Basic templates" in terms of stats, damage, perks and so on.

Which means it is implicit that you could use a Camel or even a mule with the same horse sheet.

It will simply be a re-skinned horse.

Same could go with other other animals, untill you try to exploit the flying part ( which could be granted at higher lvls. A paladin unlocks his mount flying at lvl 20 ). So you could even have a Wolf with the horse sheet.


Most of the Mount animals don't naturally accept riders but somehow they do...and if wolves, goblin dog, and riding dogs are normally mounts for certain races why wouldn't they have it? If there is a game balance issue I am fine with that. However if it is just something arbitrarily decided upon that is just wrong.


Derblade wrote:
Most of the Mount animals don't naturally accept riders but somehow they do...and if wolves, goblin dog, and riding dogs are normally mounts for certain races why wouldn't they have it? If there is a game balance issue I am fine with that. However if it is just something arbitrarily decided upon that is just wrong.

Remember that the fact they can ride something doesn't necessarily mean that that animal is meant to be ridden.

You could be riding even a hyena, but if the animal itself is not suited to being a mount, it would be always be worse in comparison.

Apart from that, compare the horse sheet with a bear and a Wolf, in terms of differences ( and eventually balance ).


K1 wrote:
Derblade wrote:
Most of the Mount animals don't naturally accept riders but somehow they do...and if wolves, goblin dog, and riding dogs are normally mounts for certain races why wouldn't they have it? If there is a game balance issue I am fine with that. However if it is just something arbitrarily decided upon that is just wrong.

Remember that the fact they can ride something doesn't necessarily mean that that animal is meant to be ridden.

You could be riding even a hyena, but if the animal itself is not suited to being a mount, it would be always be worse in comparison.

Apart from that, compare the horse sheet with a bear and a Wolf, in terms of differences ( and eventually balance ).

The problem occures when you imply that any animal was "ment" to do be ridden. Humanity has "ridden" a huge number of animals, elephants, ostriches, zebra, dolphins, other people and we find the ones that are the easiest to break and make them into our transportation. Horses are fundamentally a herd animal that is adapted to their particular region and adapted to running from predators. People changed how we viewed them when we decided to tame them and shape them to our purposes.


Pathfinder Maps, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Maps, Starfinder Society Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber

I think one thing that cropped up is that they made a rule saying that you can't get your animal companion's support ability, if you are riding your companion, because, presumably, it providing you transportation is what you get from it. However, for the horse, the support trait they gave the horse, was for when you are riding it.

At some point, I think they said, hey, lets call a horse a mount and make that why you get the support benefit when you are riding it!.

However, that isn't all it does, as it prevents you from being able to ride a dolphin, giant stingray that is swimming, a giant tick or gekko that is climing or a pegasus that is flying. (unless a pegasus is a horse with a saddle of wings, since then I guess it would alread be a mount)

I certainly hope that in some expansion book they will touch on the topic and make it so that horses (small or large) aren't the only creatures that can be made into highly effective mounts. Given the cannon that other races do regularly, and presumably effectively ride other beasts, and get more than just land movement from some of them. Even though people may presume that humans primarily should ride horses, it just absolutely should open other options for other races, who shouldn't probably be riding horses.

Honestly, I wish the horse's support benefit were just an exception to to not getting the support benefit, rather than it being tied to the mount feat. I think that will make the developers hesitate to give other valid riding creatures the mount trait for movement purposes, because it may open up the support benefit for an animal they don't think it should apply when mounted.

Maybe they can come up with a Mount(swim) which grants only the ability to utilize a mount's swim speed, and Mount(climb) trait that allows the use of the climb speed of a mount.


I think that maybe in this case the mount trait is referring to horses being particularly well suited to being ridden - other animal companions can still be ridden, just not as well as a horse or horse equivalent that would use the same stats(which actually makes sense, there are very good reasons that in the real world, no one has ever ridden certain animals that could theoretically support a rider (such as zebras, bears, moose, bison, dolphins and sharks) and that comes down largely to temperament and how easy or difficult that animal is to domesticate).

Remember, the mount ability simply makes the animal better at using its abilities in sync with being ridden, it isn't mandatory for using the animal as a mount. A bear certainly has other things going for it.

(Note that the same things that make most nonstandard mount candidates impossible to domesticate also make them impossible to train in any meaningful way, and your character is already fantastical and exceptional just by being able to control that creature at all).


I think it is safe to say that there is no current method for giving a non-horse animal companion mount yet.

PF2 is still very much new, so we are sure to get expanded rules for animal companions. Why wouldn't there eventually be a "Domesticated" trait for an animal companion that gives it Mount?

Or perhaps a variant Magical saddle that provides Mount. There is already a president for it with the Barding of the Zephyr providing one of the benefits of Mount after all.


beowulf99 wrote:

I think it is safe to say that there is no current method for giving a non-horse animal companion mount yet.

PF2 is still very much new, so we are sure to get expanded rules for animal companions. Why wouldn't there eventually be a "Domesticated" trait for an animal companion that gives it Mount?

Or perhaps a variant Magical saddle that provides Mount. There is already a president for it with the Barding of the Zephyr providing one of the benefits of Mount after all.

Magical saddle is what I'm betting on myself.


A goblin champion using his racial feat to have a wolf mount can be pretty screwed by this at level 20. He can invest an ancestry feat for Rough Rider then a whole slew of feats so that his wolf becomes this angelic thing with wings by level 20. But, the wolf still doesnt have the mount trait so he wouldnt be able to ride it while it flies.

Man, what a bummer.


Because it is not meant to be a mount ( as for your celestial form. You will simply gain flying speed. Which is huge ).

A champion is meant to have a mount like a horse. And a horse has a specific set of stats, skills and attacks.

This also includes the mount perk, which is huge.

This is why his dmg and special manouver are different from a Wolf.

If a companion, flying one apart, wants the mount perk, then he should trade something else for it.

And because of that, it would be simpler to use the horse stuff instead of, for example, the Wolf one.

You will be then able to ride a Wolf which deals low dmg, has no knock down or trip skills, and is meant to be ridden.

I forget: the goblin perk is huge because it allows a champion to choose between a mount and a combat companion. The fact that the Wolf doesn't have the mount advantages it's simply legit.


Naw, bad design in my view. Lots of gotcha design in this edition. Easy enough to fix with house rules at least.


The mount trait right now makes the game more boring. That's bad. I don't know about the rest of you, but I role-play to do awesome stuff. Riding a horse is something I can already do. So it's fun and all, but not awesome.

Riding Nightmares has been a part of D&D from the beginning (albeit for bad guys). Dragons, pegasi, dinosaurs, wolves, and eagles are all part of standard fantasy role playing and right now Paizo is pooping all over that. No fun.

Until they explain themselves and their party-pooping ways, I will ignore the mount rule. If you make your wolf or eagle big enough to ride you go ahead and do so.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Aservan, the mount-trait-relevant rules don't stop you from riding your wolf. I honestly can't tell whether you get that.

They stop you from
(1) riding your wolf when it spreads its wings and flies, and
(2) simultaneously (in a single turn) while riding the wolf, having it move and getting its Support effect to your attacks.

I don't believe Support effects have "been part of D&D from the beginning"---in fact, I'm pretty sure Paizo just invented them for PF2---so complaining that they poop on that is pretty silly.

And if you want to know why you can't ride your wolf as it soars through the air, the devs have made it pretty clear (and I believe sometimes even discussed) that PC flight is considered a killer ability, all too capable of rendering encounters trivial. So ta-da, their party-poop has been explained.

If you want to let your party soar over half the encounters in the AP you're GMing, you go ahead and do so. Paizo won't show up to stop you, or even make a mean post about you.


I think the whole thing is that Paizo deliberately wants:
1) PCs not to get special movement through their mounts
2) Not to get the support abilities while ridden, except in the case of specific animals which was basically given a support ability related to being ridden.

I don't expect were going to see a general ability to give animal companions the mount trait, because they don't want #1 to happen, more than anything else.


Claxon wrote:

I think the whole thing is that Paizo deliberately wants:

1) PCs not to get special movement through their mounts
2) Not to get the support abilities while ridden, except in the case of specific animals which was basically given a support ability related to being ridden.

I don't expect were going to see a general ability to give animal companions the mount trait, because they don't want #1 to happen, more than anything else.

Yeah, its pretty much a case of "fine, at level 20 you can ride a flying horse into battle, but there is no way in hell that you are flying around on a flying bear that is also giving you +2d8 damage to your strikes"


Sure you can ride your animal companion, but it's not an effective practice. Animal companions are different stat-wise from the bestiary version. You're paying a fairly hefty price tag in terms of feats and class abilities to get that companion.

Take the champion. You're sacrificing a spiffy weapon or shield to get that companion. If you have a character concept that revolves around a dwarf riding bear back, you're hurting yourself. Your bear isn't even as capable to start as a standard monster. It's a mini-bear. Eventually, you'll earn your way to a big bear that you can ride. After you've paid all those feats and levels to get there, your reward is that your bear is no longer much help in a fight.

Support benefits don't suck, but they aren't amazing either. It's a measly 1d8 or 2d8 of damage. A situational d8. Compare that to the flaming sword divine weapon. That's only d6s but it will apply most of the time. Your bear can only follow you sometimes.

Take the ubiquitous bar fight. No critters in the tavern, but your sword usually gets to go with you.

Characters can fly via spells by 7th level. Flying via a mount is not 13 levels better. If your GM can't handle flying PCs then, respectfully, he/she just isn't that bright. It's not ample justification for dumbing down the game. Maybe that's just me.


Actually, with flight specifically is much rarer in this edition.

Looking quickly, it seems like the heightened 7th level version of fly is the longest lasting at 1 hour. And you have to spend a 7th level spell slot for that.

There is no more all day flight. Which is what a flying animal companion represents.

Spending a limited daily resource to bypass a challenge is great. Spending a class feat to get something that can take actions, cause damage, enhance your character's actions, and could potentially subvert many spatial challenges every day is overly strong.

Frankly I'm glad easy access to all day flight is gone. It's now a tactical decision about when you use flight, and it means things like climb speeds and the ability to high jump remain relevant because rather than fly up to something you can climb up to it or jump up to it.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

There is also the Wild Shape Druid who doesn't gain access to Flying forms until what, level 8?

Flight is always a huge wrench in the works for any GM. Saying that a GM that can't, "handle flying PCs... just isn't that bright," is painting with a pretty wide brush. Flight is a mechanic that requires specific counters that will just become ubiquitous in every AP and homebrew adventure if it's allowed to be over used, like anti-Scrying gear/spells etc.. ended up on big bads to avoid Scry and Die. PF2 removed Scry and Die entirely by making Scry incapable of being used for Teleport, and severely limited flight in almost every way you can gain it.

I for one like the change. The game becomes boring when parties can just fly away from all of their problems on their magical jet packs, or practically ignore overland travel time. How are you supposed to plan an epic LotR style overland chase if the Wizard can just magic up a Leer Jet for the party to overtake their foe?


Pathfinder Maps, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Maps, Starfinder Society Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber

Then I'm going to ask the following question... Why do the rules specifically allow you to fly atop a horse if it gets a fly speed?

The horse is specifically allowed, yet the dog (if it gets a fly speed) you can't utilize the mount's move.

A horse or pony is no more 'engineered' to be ridden than a dog of appropriate sized for the rider. I've seen a child ride a dog, it isn't hard to imagine a halfling or goblin doing so, especially if a saddle were made to better enable it. They had no more trouble doing it than I did the first time I tried riding a horse. [and I had the advantage of a saddle, which they didn't]

So it is true, we have generations of development of saddles and riding skills with horses in this world, but in Golarion the other ancestries have had that long, if not even longer to develop the same for their own culturally tied mounts.

Keeping the support action from being abused along side a movement ability in the same round, SURE, that absolutely sounds perfectly valid reason to prohibit normal use of support ability unless that ability actually 'requires' being mounted such as the horse.

Your argument that the mount trait makes sense for a horse to have and not others, because it keeps people from flying is wrong. It is just as possible to cause a horse to be given a fly speed, as a dog or wolf, and there is simply no justifiable reason I've seen why if a horse starts being able to fly, that someone should be able to ride it and fly, if another individual's riding dog also started being able to fly, and they would be suddenly prohibited from being able to ride it then.

That is the net result of the current rule, as is.

If you want to limit mount's ability to grant a specific movement speed, that is fine. Some creatures who can move a specific way may not make sense for them to be able to do it with something on their back or shoulders. (flying, climbing, swimming, burrowing, etc) Require a trait Mount(Fly), Mount(Swim), Mount(Burrow), or Mount(Climb) to provide that speed when mounted.

It makes no sense that a Horse has Mount(Fly), Mount(Swim), Mount(Burrow), or Mount(Climb) abilities implicitly in the rules, but a Halfling with a riding dog can not be provided with any of those movement options. I'm waiting to imagine how horses are such naturally divine mounts, that they, if gaining the Burrow ability via some means, will automatically naturally convey it to their rider.

Trying to keep people from getting easy/cheap/long-term flying. That is fine, understandable, perhaps even commendable. There are ways to deal with flying in campaign, but allowing the GM to have control _how_ they want to deal with flying [restricting it generally up front, or allowing for it with natural mitigation in game world such as nets over fortresses, etc.] is perfectly viable game design. What I have an issue with, is making Human's preferred mount, a special mount that has special privileges for all movement types across the board(including ones that would baffle you if mentioned explicitly), while others ancestries mounts sound like they will not be permitted to have access to granting any of those movement options. We should in my opinion do better than that, especially when we know many fantasy stories where creatures chosen as mounts are not just horses.

Make the support benefit a general rule... you don't get it if your mount has moved. [Unless that support ability requires being a mount who moved] or if you don't like that as a rule. Provide a Mount(Support) trait which means you get to have access to support ability when moving on a mount.

Then offer mount traits per movement type and grant them to each species as considered safe for a baseline. And the GM can be more generous handing these out, if they are doing an aquatic campaign, or a campaign that is three dimensional and presumes flying earlier on. Some general guidelines can be handed out. Most species can get ground speed Although I could for instance imagine birds being unable to walk with someone on their back, instead needing the strength of their wings to carry a rider normally, thereby liming them to Mount(fly), not allowing Mount(walk).


The GM can handle a dog or wolf or even a bear but with all the horse stats.

Same attacks, hp, bonuses etc...

You will be then able to ride whatever you want, but not to exploit by having both a combat companion and a mount companion.

You will renouce to knockdown, grab, and so on.

A dm giving free mount perk without trade doesn't really know about balance, and how the companion archetypes are balanced.

On the other hand, a player who pretend to have both the combat companion benefits and the mount traits doesn't understand the balance too.

A simply reskin is what you are looking for. Nothing more, nothing less.

Unless unbalanced trades.


Loreguard wrote:

Then I'm going to ask the following question... Why do the rules specifically allow you to fly atop a horse if it gets a fly speed?

The horse is specifically allowed, yet the dog (if it gets a fly speed) you can't utilize the mount's move.

It basically restricts access to flying mounts to high level champions. At least with the current options available.

The restriction is purely a mechanical balancing act, that the designers felt inclined to put into the game.

You're trying to use internal logic to the game world about suitability of animals for riding when likely none of that factored in. They don't want special modes of transportation available to PCs through animal companions so they said "You can't do it" and then realized the way they had written the rules they needed to add something to horses to make the support ability work. I really can't imagine it playing out any other way.


What about Griffons? They're enmeshed in RPG fantasy lore back to Gygaxian times, plus the current entry lists them being used as mounts, even for military forces.

There's also the caveat that the Griffon chooses the rider and there's an arduous training period, both facts giving the GM much control. But Griffons are out there, in use, and PCs are going to want them.

But how do they work mechanically?


Pathfinder Maps, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Maps, Starfinder Society Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber
Claxon wrote:
Loreguard wrote:

Then I'm going to ask the following question... Why do the rules specifically allow you to fly atop a horse if it gets a fly speed?

The horse is specifically allowed, yet the dog (if it gets a fly speed) you can't utilize the mount's move.

It basically restricts access to flying mounts to high level champions. At least with the current options available.

The restriction is purely a mechanical balancing act, that the designers felt inclined to put into the game.

You're trying to use internal logic to the game world about suitability of animals for riding when likely none of that factored in. They don't want special modes of transportation available to PCs through animal companions so they said "You can't do it" and then realized the way they had written the rules they needed to add something to horses to make the support ability work. I really can't imagine it playing out any other way.

No it is not restricting flying mounts to high level champions. It is restricting it to the High Level Champion you think of... it is still prohibiting high level champions. A goblin paladin of Sarenrae, whose concept involves being a wolf rider with a mount honoring Charlabu. My paladin will wait for a long time for her companion to be large enough to ride, then when finally getting to be 20th level, will have a Celestial wolf with wings... with no way to ride them while flying. Why... because she is a goblin... who would not want to ride a horse... so chose a mount for herself that both honored her ancestry, and her patron. Guess she should have chosen a stinky horse instead. (can she retrain her wolf into a horse at 20th level, and pretend she's become a human?)

It does not limit flying. It only limits flying to people who want horses. People who want horses can have flying as soon as they find a way to give their horse flying for any amount of time. If the issue is availability of flight at low levels... eliminate it from an available movement for any animals, even the horse. Grant the ability to utilize it while mounted to the paladin who gets the celestial mount.

You worry about the animal having a better support ability. (which moving around as a mount it doesn't get to use, which drops that argument) I didn't argue for getting rid of the support prohibition relating to being mounted. The mount trait is 'purely a balancing act' (according to you) which mechanically only functions to limit those who don't want a horse. There are no limitations on horses. That means it isn't a balancing act. It is a game preference towards those specific concepts that want a horse. Flavoring a celestial wolf as a horse with hard paws that work as hoof attacks is not anywhere near an acceptable solution.

Castilliano wrote:

What about Griffons? They're enmeshed in RPG fantasy lore back to Gygaxian times, plus the current entry lists them being used as mounts, even for military forces.

There's also the caveat that the Griffon chooses the rider and there's an arduous training period, both facts giving the GM much control. But Griffons are out there, in use, and PCs are going to want them.

But how do they work mechanically?

Presumably, they will be marked RARE (which is fine and appropriate) and will be given the MOUNT trait so they can be ridden while flying. Since it is almost pointless to have traditional griffons without the mount trait. Even moreso, when we have hippogrifs, those too would be rare and with the mount trait, presumably.

Also, of course enabling them to if somehow enchanted with an ability to burrow, will allow them to be ridden doing that. ;)

Checking, opse... I guess I was a little off, Griffons already exist, and don't have the mount trait, so unlike the text above them, they can't be ridden in the air.

Actually, thinking about it. A relatively simple solution would be some guidelines for campaign design that might say. Generally only grant Mount(flying) trait to creatures of 15th level or higher. Or provide a tiered flying rules, causing flight movements to be carefully limited by additional rules when a flying creature is a mount. Chewing ups actions, or forcing the creature to land by the end of any turn unless it is a certain high-level creature, or has a special feat-like ability.

All this also really applies to the sea-elf riding a hippocampus in an aquatic adventure. Although I guess the wonderful thing would be that perhaps the sea-elf's hippocampus might get the mount trait (since it is horse-like) and the charge support ability, so that if the character's champion makes it to 20th level, it would be able to fly upon getting to the surface, still holding its champion on its back.

edit: Realizing after post, I got kind of emotionally charged being told I missed the point that I was missing the point, and interpreted it as saying I was asking for something overpowered, to allow me to ride a wolf with wings at 20th level like the human with a horse could do. I am not asking for an over-powering companion. I'm not asking for full current mount trait on wolf so I can get the support action while mounted. I'm just saying either remove the provision to allow creatures with the mount trait to grant all its movements to the rider, or allow the wolf, or goblin dogs to have the same ability. If you remove it, grant it instead explicitly via the celestial mount ability.

Anyway, I'm not redoing all of the above, since it would take quite a while, but I apologize if it comes off emotionally charged, because of how I felt at the moment, feeling that I was being told the concept of a goblin riding a wolf was an unreasonable expectation to be equally supportable in 2nd edition.


Pathfinder Maps, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Maps, Starfinder Society Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber
K1 wrote:
Loreguard wrote:
edit: Realizing after post, I got kind of emotionally charged being told I missed the point that I was missing the point, and interpreted it as saying I was asking for something overpowered, to allow me to ride a wolf with wings at 20th level like the human with a horse could do. I am not asking for an over-powering companion. I'm not asking for full current mount trait on wolf so I can get the support action while mounted. I'm just saying either remove the provision to allow creatures with the mount trait to grant all its movements to the rider, or allow the wolf, or goblin dogs to have the same ability. If you remove it, grant it instead explicitly via the celestial mount ability.

But it is overpower.

All the companion archetypes have a specific set of abilities, stats, commands, attacks and so on.

Here is the HORSE

Quote:

PFS Legal Horse

Source Core Rulebook pg. 216
Your companion is a horse, pony, or similar equine.
Size Medium or Large
Melee Single Action hoof (agile), Damage 1d6 bludgeoning
Str 3, Dex 2, Con 2, Int -4, Wis 1, Cha 0
Hit Points 8
Skill Survival
Senses low-light vision, scent (imprecise, 30 feet)
Speed 40 feet
Special mount
Support Benefit Your horse adds momentum to your charge. Until the start of your next turn, if you moved at least 10 feet on the action before your attack, add a circumstance bonus to damage to that attack equal to twice the number of damage dice. If your weapon already has the jousting weapon trait, increase the trait’s damage bonus by 2 per die instead.
Advanced Maneuver Gallop

Here is the WOLF

Quote:

PFS Legal Wolf

Source Core Rulebook pg. 216
Your companion is a wolf or other canine creature, such as a dog.
Size Small
Melee Single Action jaws (finesse), Damage 1d8 piercing
Str 2, Dex 3, Con 2, Int -4, Wis 1, Cha 0
Hit Points 6
Skill Survival
Senses low-light vision, scent (imprecise, 30 feet)
Speed 40 feet
Support Benefit Your wolf tears tendons with each opening. Until the start of
...

You potentially just proved that the horse is sort of a stronger companion for mount actions, so perhaps the wolf needs a boost. The horse has a STR based attack, and has a higher strength, and has an agile attack. While it has a larger die, it is a finesse weapon and will do 1 less STR damage, that will eliminate the advantage of the higher die at least in early levels. It also is not agile, only finesse, so multiple attacks are less likely to be effective if you chose to do them. And on the viability side, it only has 6 HP to the horse's 8.

Again, we could compare the support benefit, comparing +2 per die damage, vs debuffing an opponents movement by 5 or 10 ft depending on the level of success. However, we don't really need to compare them, since either way they are a support benefit that for anything but the horse (whose support benefit requires moving/specifically charging to work) if an animal companion, mount or not chooses to support. It otherwise means it is the only action it is doing the whole turn, and using up one of your actions in the meantime. So really these are more separate items, that don't interact directly with if you grant non-walking movement when mounted, save for the fact that the horse has to have an exception from the rule that mounted animal companions can't move after they start their support action. (because they have to move to enable it)

Now back to movement, the bigger concern. They both have a move speed of 40. Neither one is better than the other. If in order to balance horses, horses have to have the ability for champions celestial ally horse mount to be able to fly, then the wolf's debuff of speed of -5 feet must be enormous, especially considering that it gets it at first level. That doesn't see right to me.

Either remove the part where you have to have the mount trait to allow an animal to use walking movement, or leave it in place an remove the mount trait's removing that restriction.

If you leave it restricted. Have the ability to ride an animal with a fly speed be tied to a rank of Nature, or granted by a skill feat, or potentially granted by specific abilities (such as champion feats that grant flying companions, or special creatures like dragons who might pick their own riders who might not yet be trained.) Again, as far as I can see, you pointed out how the horse and the wolf are already balance, without the 20th level fly facilitation/explicit blocking difference between the two.

I think the fact that there was only one Mount trait creature in the core book shows it wasn't fully thought through where it belonged and what it should do. In the end it got tied to two different things. (locking of movement types, and enabling the support action + move on a mount) I think both things should have been separate.


Castilliano wrote:

What about Griffons? They're enmeshed in RPG fantasy lore back to Gygaxian times, plus the current entry lists them being used as mounts, even for military forces.

There's also the caveat that the Griffon chooses the rider and there's an arduous training period, both facts giving the GM much control. But Griffons are out there, in use, and PCs are going to want them.

But how do they work mechanically?

We don't have rules for them yet, so hard to know. But I imagine they'll be restricted to a high level option, and will be not as good mechanical in terms of offensive abilities, as a trade off for giving access to flight.

And that's the whole point, the wolf is a better companion, unless you specifically want it to be a mount. The horse's thing is that it gets to be a better mount.


Pathfinder Maps, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Maps, Starfinder Society Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber

@k1

You realize my goblin champion could choose to have a pony divine ally. And with that pony, take it into dungeons like as a mediums sized wolf or other medium creatures, it can make it many places. And I don't have to be on the pony's back, because it is an animal companion and has the minion trait. So I can use it to flank and get extra hoof strikes, if I so wanted.

I.e. you get a combat pet with the Pony as well. (choosing the horse sized large admittedly may be harder to justify getting into some dungeons, and used as a combat pet, but is still an option for instance outside)

Granted, it doesn't work to have her choose that. She can smell ponies and horses from a mile away... or at least a few feet away, and really doesn't like their smell. Repugnant to say the least. She tolerates it from her friends having them. But why would she choose a less 'true' companion?

Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder Second Edition / Rules Discussion / Can you train an animal companion to have the mount trait. All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.