So I had an interesting conflict come up in a game I played last night, in which the Cavalier had the Impressive Mount dedication feat (https://2e.aonprd.com/Archetypes.aspx?ID=53), making his mount mature and unlocking "During an encounter, even if you don't use the Command an Animal action, your animal companion can still use 1 action on your turn to Stride or Strike."
The issue came up when someone else at the table pointed out the Mounted Combat rules (https://2e.aonprd.com/Rules.aspx?ID=463) - TL;DR, if you don't command a mount, your mount can't act.
"You must use the Command an Animal action to get your mount to spend its actions. If you don’t, the animal wastes its actions. If you have the Ride general feat, you succeed automatically when you Command an Animal that’s your mount.
For example, if you are mounted on a horse and you make three attacks, your horse would remain stationary since you didn’t command it. If you instead spent your first action to Command an Animal and succeeded, you could get your mount to Stride. You could spend your next action to attack or to command the horse to attack, but not both."
So there's the question - which rule overrides which, given the context? It seems rather odd that such a Feat would get a portion of it hampered just by virtue of being in the saddle rather than next to the animal, but it could also be argued that you still get the intrinsic benefit of having a hardier steed.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
There is a similar issue with a Pixie with a Corgi familiar where the familiar has the independent trait.
The rule is quite unclear. Two rules clash with no way to resolve which wins.
But, in practice, I've come to the conclusion as the player of a Corgi mounted pixie that allowing the character to move for free (essentially, as the mount takes its independent action) is just a bit too powerful.
It's not game breakingly powerful but a free move action combined with 3 non move actions is pretty darn good.
I only really noticed how useful it was when it was taken away from me. In PFS most GMs allowed it, one didn't. It was in that last game that I realized how useful that extra action could be in practice.
So, from a balance point of view, I think the mount rule SHOULD win
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Minion rules overwrite standard Mount rules. Click here for more info on riding an Animal Companion in combat.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
There is a similar issue with a Pixie with a Corgi familiar where the familiar has the independent trait.
The rule is quite unclear. Two rules clash with no way to resolve which wins.
But, in practice, I've come to the conclusion as the player of a Corgi mounted pixie that allowing the character to move for free (essentially, as the mount takes its independent action) is just a bit too powerful.
It's not game breakingly powerful but a free move action combined with 3 non move actions is pretty darn good.
I only really noticed how useful it was when it was taken away from me. In PFS most GMs allowed it, one didn't. It was in that last game that I realized how useful that extra action could be in practice.
So, from a balance point of view, I think the mount rule SHOULD win
Cavalier Dedication has feats revolving around a mount only getting two actions when you command it. For example, Cavalier's Charge. You spend two actions to do the following:
1. Command an Animal1a. Stride
1b. Stride
2. Strike at any point during the movement
3. Gain a +1 circumstance bonus in that strike
Since you're Commanding your Animal, you can't do it again this round, nor can they take their free action.
I don't see any issue with you using class abilities you choose like independent or mature to gain more actions, as you are giving up other viable options to do so. It's also not that powerful, compared to feats like Sudden Charge or Ki Rush combined with Flurry or Blows. Mobility is a choice and shouldn't be punished.
|
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Minion rules overwrite standard Mount rules. Click here for more info on riding an Animal Companion in combat.
I love it when people so confidently assert their opinion as if it is fact.
That link doesn't address this issue in the slightest. Not even a little bit.
The issue is that the rules contradict themselves. Mount is clear. Animal Companion and familiar are clear. But they are contradictory
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
As Cordell Kintner essentially said, specific overrides general. Any willing animal at least 1 size larger can be used as a mount, and so there needs to be rules for that. This is the purpose of mounted combat rules. A incredibly general rule that seems to assume you're dealing with a regular animal considering that it also mentions that each action you spend commands the animal to perform one action, going against how animal companions work.
Then we have animal companion rules, which were linked, and summarize the limitations added for balance fairly well, and primarily keep people from getting extra kinds of movement too easily at low levels, like flying.
Finally, even more specifically than that, is certain class feats that mention a limited action that it can use "even if you don't use the Command an Animal action." Note that this isn't given to all mature animals. It's part of the feat.
I can't think of a single example of a class / archetype feat that's overridden by a rule that everyone has access to. If there was that limitation it would almost certainly be mentioned in the class feat itself. If that wasn't what was intended, then that was a huge oversight by the developers.
As for balance purposes, it does seem strong if you allow your player to use it's mounts movement at the start of their turn, but our opinion on strength doesn't affect RAW, though it might affect your table. Additionally, I see nothing wrong with saying that the action has to be used at a certain time, such as at the end of the player's turn. The feat simply mentions that it happens "on your turn."
One more point to hopefully help clarify that allowing this is RAI at the very least:
Imposing Destrier, a lvl 10 champion feat reads as follows (Link: https://2e.aonprd.com/Feats.aspx?ID=238)
"Under your care, your mount has realized its innate potential. The mount you gained through the divine ally class feature is now a nimble or savage animal companion. During an encounter, even if you don't use the Command an Animal action, your mount can still use 1 action on your turn to Stride or Strike."
This animal companion is clearly specifically designed to be a mount, yet the wording on it is exactly the same as other free action features for animal companions. There isn't anything in it to say that this ignores the mounted combat rules, or "even while mounted" or anything like that. Technically it uses the word mount, but mentions nothing about mounted combat, and all of these feats call your animal companion your "mount." It's just the creature's name.
So, either this feat is worthless if you actually use your mount *as a mount*, or the free action can be used while animal companions are being ridden. Paizo is very specific with their language and clarifies wherever they think is necessary, and it seems pretty clear to me that they didn't think this clarification was necessary.
|
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Minion rules overwrite standard Mount rules. Click here for more info on riding an Animal Companion in combat.I love it when people so confidently assert their opinion as if it is fact.
That link doesn't address this issue in the slightest. Not even a little bit.
The issue is that the rules contradict themselves. Mount is clear. Animal Companion and familiar are clear. But they are contradictory
Why wouldn't Minion rules overwrite the general rules on Mounts?
General Rule: If you use Command an Animal, it does one action for each Command action, and you make a check. If you don't command it it does nothing.
Slightly more specific rule: If riding an animal, it won't act if you don't Command it, as normal for Animals in Combat. Also stuff about MAP.
Even more specific rule: When you Command your AC, it gets two actions instead of one. You can only do this once per turn.
Even more specific than the last: If you don't Command your AC, it still gets one action.
That link wasn't "proof" it was just additional info on using an AC ad a mount. My main comment was "Minion rules overwrite Mount rules" which is true, since Minion rules are more specific than the Mount rules.
|
General Rule: If you use Command an Animal, it does one action for each Command action, and you make a check. If you don't command it it does nothing.
Slightly more specific rule: If riding an animal, it won't act if you don't Command it, as normal for Animals in Combat. Also stuff about MAP.
Even more specific rule: When you Command your AC, it gets two actions instead of one. You can only do this once per turn.
Even more specific than the last: If you don't Command your AC, it still gets one action.
This is how I understand things, too.
Why wouldn't Minion rules overwrite the general rules on Mounts?General Rule: If you use Command an Animal, it does one action for each Command action, and you make a check. If you don't command it it does nothing.
Slightly more specific rule: If riding an animal, it won't act if you don't Command it, as normal for Animals in Combat. Also stuff about MAP.
Even more specific rule: When you Command your AC, it gets two actions instead of one. You can only do this once per turn.
Even more specific than the last: If you don't Command your AC, it still gets one action.That link wasn't "proof" it was just additional info on using an AC ad a mount. My main comment was "Minion rules overwrite Mount rules" which is true, since Minion rules are more specific than the Mount rules.
Very well put, and way more concise than what I said XD. I'll keep my posts up for reference, but I think this sums it up way better.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Not all mounts are minions and not all minions are mounts. How do you determine one set of rules is more specific and thus overrides the other?
Because not all classes get minions, yet everyone can ride mounts. With a minion, you can even ride mounts that aren't your Minion. Mount rules are more general.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I'll take the position that the Impressive Mount feat, by itself, creates the most specific situation, and allows the mount to take a Stride or Strike even if not commanded.
You can ride some creatures into combat. As noted in the Mount specialty basic action (page 472), your mount needs to be at least one size larger than you and willing. Your mount acts on your initiative. You must use the Command an Animal action to get your mount to spend its actions. If you don’t, the animal wastes its actions. If you have the Ride general feat, you succeed automatically when you Command an Animal that’s your mount.
Other than tying the mount's initiative (and MAP, in nearby sections) to your own, this is just the general rule of using animals: you must successfully spend an action to Command, after which the animal can take the desired action. (Minion trait is a specific rule that lets you issue two Commands with the same action.)
Now for Impressive Mount:
You've trained your mount to become a powerful force on the battlefield. The mount you gained through the Cavalier Dedication feat becomes a mature animal companion, granting it additional capabilities. During an encounter, even if you don't use the Command an Animal action, your animal companion can still use 1 action on your turn to Stride or Strike.
It's pretty clear to me.
(Note: Sprites that take Corgi Familiar and assign the independent familiar ability get to do the same thing, for the same line of reasoning.)
|
|
I take a very, very simple view of a huge number of rules arguments.
When reasonable people disagree as to what the rules mean, then the rules are unclear. And lengthy nitpicking arguments citing 20 different places in the rules very, very, very rarely result in consensus being reached.
The primary basis for my view is that English is a quite ambiguous language AND Paizo has quite deliberately (and I believe correctly) decided that attempts to disambiguate rules completely cannot occur without making the text extremely turgid and hard to read. The solution, in other words, is far worse than the problem. Especially in this edition which specifically has as one of its goals empowering the GM to make decisions like this.
Very, very occasionally there is 1 (or even more rarely 2) people disagreeing with EVERYBODY else. In those cases the 1 person is pretty much wrong and the rules ARE clear.
But that is NOT the case here. There are several reasonable people on BOTH sides of this discussion.
The rules are unclear. Both for animal companion mounts and for familiar mounts (I have yet to see an argument for the free move being legal that wouldn't apply to BOTH cases)
The only solution is ask your GM how they interpret it. At a PFS table, either be prepared to play your character with the unfavourable ruling, have a back up character, or be prepared to leave the table (if the latter, hopefully discuss it with the GM ahead of time :-)).
Speaking for myself, my solution with my Pixie is to be quite willing to play with the unfavourable ruling. My familiar takes extra speed as opposed to Independent. Having a speed of 80 for a single move action once a turn is still pretty good :-).
And as to power level, I at least have actual game experience with both interpretations (from level 1 through level 5). And, even with all the biases caused by my being the player, I personally think the independent trait on a mount is just too much for a racial feat, even granted that the race is mechanically a bit weak.
Obviously, peoples disagree on questions of power and balance. But keep in mind that at least my opinion is based on actual play experience and not just theory.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I take a very, very simple view of a huge number of rules arguments.
When reasonable people disagree as to what the rules mean, then the rules are unclear. And lengthy nitpicking arguments citing 20 different places in the rules very, very, very rarely result in consensus being reached.
The primary basis for my view is that English is a quite ambiguous language AND Paizo has quite deliberately (and I believe correctly) decided that attempts to disambiguate rules completely cannot occur without making the text extremely turgid and hard to read. The solution, in other words, is far worse than the problem. Especially in this edition which specifically has as one of its goals empowering the GM to make decisions like this.
Very, very occasionally there is 1 (or even more rarely 2) people disagreeing with EVERYBODY else. In those cases the 1 person is pretty much wrong and the rules ARE clear.
But that is NOT the case here. There are several reasonable people on BOTH sides of this discussion.
The rules are unclear. Both for animal companion mounts and for familiar mounts (I have yet to see an argument for the free move being legal that wouldn't apply to BOTH cases)
The only solution is ask your GM how they interpret it. At a PFS table, either be prepared to play your character with the unfavourable ruling, have a back up character, or be prepared to leave the table (if the latter, hopefully discuss it with the GM ahead of time :-)).
Speaking for myself, my solution with my Pixie is to be quite willing to play with the unfavourable ruling. My familiar takes extra speed as opposed to Independent. Having a speed of 80 for a single move action once a turn is still pretty good :-).
And as to power level, I at least have actual game experience with both interpretations (from level 1 through level 5). And, even with all the biases caused by my being the player, I personally think the independent trait on a mount is just too much for a racial feat, even granted that the race is mechanically a bit...
I mean, you say that there's been arguments on both sides, but so far I've seen basically two arguments against allowing this:
1. It's too powerfulThis one isn't really an argument for RAW, so I won't spend time on it.
2. It's unambiguous because the rules conflict
But, by that same logic I can make almost every feat worse by saying that a rule in the core rulebook overrides it. Specific beats general is a VERY important concept in games like this. A feat that says it ignores MAP could be countered by saying that MAP is a thing. You can say that's a ridiculous example, since it specifically mentions it, but I see literally no difference here. The feat quite clearly says "even if you didn't use command an animal." It mentions the rule very specifically. Why would it apply to non-mounted combat, but not to mounted combat? In both scenarios the rules clearly say your animal companion doesn't do anything if you don't command it.
When reasonable people disagree as to what the rules mean, then the rules are unclear. And lengthy nitpicking arguments citing 20 different places in the rules very, very, very rarely result in consensus being reached.
Yes. I try to just state how I see it once and move on. Unfortunately many people don't take it all in, and I am not all that good at expression, so the discussions can drag on. Especiallly where I am wrong.
Specific versus General, is not very clear some times.
In this case the feat Mature Animal Companion does refer the general rules of Animal Companions, and the general rules on Command an Animal. But does not directly refer to the rules for Mounted Combat
So the feat for Mature Animal Companion (there are 4 of these in different classes)
During an encounter, even if you don't use the Command an Animal action, your animal companion can still use 1 action on your turn that round to Stride or Strike.
clashes with the rules for Mounted Combat
You must use the Command an Animal action to get your mount to spend its actions. If you don’t, the animal wastes its actions.
Also occurs with a Sprite mounted on a Corgi familiar with the Independant trait.
I get that the rule for mounted combat is a specific rule modifying the more general rules for animal companions. But is also a general rule for all mounts that is neccessary to say that they can't run around using their full actions for free. They don't have to be animal comanions you can buy them at the shop.
However if specific beats general is to mean anything at all a feat has to be able to override a rule. Also the more general case of all the mounts actions is overridden by the specific case of one action. So I have to side with this sort of mount use working.
But technically if you see this as a clash it is a GM call.
I do totally get that you see this as very strong and perhaps a balance problem. I agree. But it typically costs you 2 class feats to get and that is a significant investment though. Consider all the action efficiency you can get in other feats like Skirmish Strike or Attack of Opportunity. In fact my advice to all players is if you want to be effective, getting these sorts of action efficiency powers should be a priority.
A Sprite archer or caster gets an insane amount of mobility out of their Corgi mount from very little investment and downside. Every one else can get that outside. Though they are at least on a size large mount that a GM can restrict a little as to where it can go. Sprite are rare notionally too. Still if you are not going to be too unfair to your Giant Barbarian or specialist Wildshaper, you shouldn't make every room small.
I'm just not that super concerned about balance. Near enough is good enough. We played the older editions for so long and coped fine.
It should be clarified by Paizo. But this is exactly the sort of thing that they duck as there are two significant groups of players with different interpretations.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
"Specific overrides general" is basically one of the most fundamental principles of Pathfinder.
The rules for commanding an animal tell you how they work normally, but then you have a feat that does something different and changes that interaction. That's... how feats work in the most general sense. Honestly I'm having trouble even wrapping my head around the argument that it's somehow ambiguous whether or not a specific feat takes precedence over general rules.
It's also worth noting that the description for Minions also says that they "take no actions" if you don't command them. In which case I guess the last sentence of Impressive Mount is completely meaningless? I don't know how we can call that a reasonable interpretation.
|
|
First, I pretty much agree with the rest of your post.
I do totally get that you see this as very strong and perhaps a balance problem. I agree.
That is slightly overstating my position. In my experience it has been a balance problem but not a particularly huge one.
My Pixie is a longbow wielding Electric Arc using warpriest.
For the most part I thought that the effect had been to let him use both electric arc and longbow on the same turn without taking the -2 penalty for shooting at close range (he either shoots and moves closer or Electic Arc and moves away).
That really didn't seem like a huge issue. It wasn't as if my bow was doing huge amounts of damage, after all.
But the session when the GM (he is a very good and rules knowledgeable GM, btw) ruled that the mount rules "won" so I couldn't do it I noticed other things that I could no longer do, things that I really hadn't noticed had been enabled.
Once I wanted to both do a ranged heal AND move over to another character and Battle Medicine them.
Another time I needed to reposition, battle medicine MYSELF so I didn't go down and then Electric Arc a couple of bad guys who REALLY needed some damage put onto them.
Its a lot for a Racial Feat. And while a mount costs two class feats that class feat also buys you another combatant on the board which has value over and above the mount
Its definitely more a balance issue with the Corgi than with an Animal Companion. Similar effect but at a significantly lower opportunity cost
Its definitely more a balance issue with the Corgi than with an Animal Companion. Similar effect but at a significantly lower opportunity cost
Maybe GM's need to start handing out cover bonuses for being on the other side of a desk, versus a Sprite.
:)
|
|
Its definitely more a balance issue with the Corgi than with an Animal Companion. Similar effect but at a significantly lower opportunity costMaybe GM's need to start handing out cover bonuses for being on the other side of a desk, versus a Sprite.
:)
The Corgi is also quite fragile. Many GMs have threatened to kill it if my mounted antics get too aggravating :-). So far, he has lived although area of effect attacks HAVE meant that I've had to spend actions getting him back up several times.
Which is a bit of a balancing factor that I hadn't really taken into account.
The Corgi is also quite fragile. Many GMs have threatened to kill it if my mounted antics get too aggravating :-). So far, he has lived although area of effect attacks HAVE meant that I've had to spend actions getting him back up several times.Which is a bit of a balancing factor that I hadn't really taken into account.
Oh, yeah, definitely. I understand that sometimes it feels bad to kill off a character's pet or something similar, but if it's useful in combat, then enemies will go for it, at least from time to time.
I wouldn't even go through the process of "threatening" to kill it. If the enemy perceives it to be a big enough threat, then they should attack it, and the player can respond to that by retreating, healing it, etc. If it's NOT a big enough threat (as far as the enemy is aware), then they shouldn't attack it. Simple as that in my opinion. Also, remember, dying rules applies to familiars, so you might have more time to save it than you think.
|
|
Please note that your mount is the one that triggers Attacks of Opportunity, so if you ever trigger one the mount should be attacked, not you.
Familiars are way more squishy than ACs, in my games any corgi mounts will likely get KOed pretty quickly.
The upside to a familiar or AC dying though is that you only need a week to replace it. Your PC dying is much more expensive.
I think with Incredible Mount in mind it is pretty hard to say that an animal companion won't act while you are riding it. I also don't think the extra mobility is overpowered.
1) Mounts are inherently pretty fragile. Even if the GM doesn't specifically target them (which is discouraged but may still come into play if, say, the flying mount is the only way a melee character can reach am intelligent enemy) than there are still AoEs and psuedo AoEs with creatures like gugs that strike everything in reach.
2) Relying on the mount's single action means not using support benefit or specialized action. That's already a pretty big trade off.
|
|
Please note that your mount is the one that triggers Attacks of Opportunity, so if you ever trigger one the mount should be attacked, not you.
Familiars are way more squishy than ACs, in my games any corgi mounts will likely get KOed pretty quickly.
The upside to a familiar or AC dying though is that you only need a week to replace it. Your PC dying is much more expensive.
If you're willing to sink a familiar ability into tough (likely after sinking a class feat into Improved Familiar) and if you've invested in your own AC and saves they're not TOO TOO fragile. Generally fine if your intent is to stay at range.
But yeah, I'm sure poor Koko will die at some point :-(
|
|
Please note that your mount is the one that triggers Attacks of Opportunity, so if you ever trigger one the mount should be attacked, not you.
Familiars are way more squishy than ACs, in my games any corgi mounts will likely get KOed pretty quickly.
The upside to a familiar or AC dying though is that you only need a week to replace it. Your PC dying is much more expensive.
If you're willing to sink a familiar ability into tough (likely after sinking a class feat into Improved Familiar) and if you've invested in your own AC and saves they're not TOO TOO fragile. Generally fine if your intent is to stay at range.
But yeah, I'm sure poor Koko will die at some point :-(
I mainly mean HP wise. They only get 5 (or 7 if you take Tough) per level, while a Horse has 8+(6+Con)*Level HP. At level 14 a Nimble Racer Horse has 162 HP, while the Corgi would only have 98 with Tough, and 70 without it.