Some idle thoughts running through my brain...
SCENARIO A: When you're mounted, you can spend your actions on a 1 for 1 basis to command your steed.
When you have an animal companion, you can (once per turn) spend an action to command your minion to perform two actions it is physically capable of doing.
Ergo, an animal companion mount can be commanded 1 for 2, then 1 for 1 thereafter.
SCENARIO B: When you're mounted on a mature animal companion with the following (or similar) rule...
...you can Command your mount to take two actions, and then the mount gets a third action for free because the above statement is additive--granting a new ability, not restrictive, saying nothing to the effect that it works any differently if you DO command your mount.
I'm certain I'm wrong in both cases (though I hope I'm not in the case of scenario A), but I want someone to show me why that is. I may play devil's advocate if it will help us to find clearer answers.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
So, you already know that both of your wrong scenarios are wrong? Why does this thread exist?
Scenario A, you're mixing normal mount commanding with minion mount commanding when they aren't rent the same action economy. Minions are already a more specific rule to command than a guard dog. There's no reason that being a mount would change that. If you want to spend an extra action to make the animal companion take a 3rd action, Companion's Cry is already right there.
Scenario B. The claim that the extra action is additive is false. It's clearly, from what you already quoted, what happens when you don't command the minion.
Why does this thread exist?
Because I wanted to do a deep dive analysis of these particular rules, but didn't want to do it alone.
The mounted combat rules are some of the most ambiguous rules in Pathfinder 2nd Edition, and so I feel it warrants indepth discussion and, failing that, at least have attention drawn to it in the hopes that developers might finally clarify a few things about how abilities and rules are supposed to interact.
Every table I've ever played at has run mounted combat differently. That strikes me as something of a red flag.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Being mounted on an animal companion doesn't affect the action economy of the animal companion in any way. I think the first thing you need to do is separate normal mount action economy (I have purchased a horse) from Minion action economy (I have purchased an animal companion that is a Horse).
Trying to mix the two will create ambiguity where there isn't any.
Being mounted on an animal companion doesn't affect the action economy of the animal companion in any way. I think the first thing you need to do is separate normal mount action economy (I have purchased a horse) from Minion action economy (I have purchased an animal companion that is a Horse).
Trying to mix the two will create ambiguity where there isn't any.
Why is it that I can Stride, Strike, Stride on a normal animal, but can't do so on an animal companion?
Surely the designers intended for both to behave similarly. Animal companion mounts should not be worse than their non-companion counterparts.
The confusion here is all because of the word command. Both versions of moving while mounted are commanding the animal.
Normally characters can choose to command an animal for a one to one exchange on their turn. Doing this is commanding the animal, so an animal companion who is receiving these commands does not get an independent action.
Commanding an animal companion is a special variant of this command that changes the way a mounted Animal gets actions for a turn. If you do it, the animal companion can only take 2 actions in the turn, so trying to spend your own action to command it to take more is useless.
*Puts on DA cap.*
Is there anything that explicitly states you can't command an animal companion to perform a single action after having commanded it for two?
If not, then on what basis can you argue that you cannot do exactly that? Just because two rules exist does not mean they are exclusive.
Because if you are treating the animal companion as a minion, which you have to to give it 2 actions instead of just one, it follows the minion rules and has no actions of its own, (or wastes those actions according to the book). So it is probably more of a house rule to begin with to allow animal companions to be treated as mounts instead of as minions, but it is the only way animal companions in exploration mode can make any sense at all. Either way essentially requires action allocation determined at the beginning of the controller’s turn and no creature gets 4 actions to spend without being hasted, which is a conversation of its own.
*Puts on DA cap.*
Is there anything that explicitly states you can't command an animal companion to perform a single action after having commanded it for two?
If not, then on what basis can you argue that you cannot do exactly that? Just because two rules exist does not mean they are exclusive.
The Minion trait. Animal Companions don't stop being minions when you climb on their backs.
"Minions are creatures that directly serve another creature. A creature with this trait can use only 2 actions per turn, doesn't have reactions, and can't act when it's not your turn. Your minion acts on your turn in combat, once per turn, when you spend an action to issue it commands. For an animal companion, you Command an Animal; for a minion that's a spell or magic item effect, like a summoned minion, you Sustain a Spell or Sustain an Activation; if not otherwise specified, you issue a verbal command as a single action with the auditory and concentrate traits. If given no commands, minions use no actions except to defend themselves or to escape obvious harm. If left unattended for long enough, typically 1 minute, mindless minions usually don't act, animals follow their instincts, and sapient minions act how they please. A minion can't control other creatures."
Alright, even though I've not yet seen incontrovertible proof, let's assume they are mutually exclusive.
Which is the more specific rule: mounted combat, or minions? If the former is more specific and the latter is more general, would not the mount rules override the minion rules?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Alright, even though I've not yet seen incontrovertible proof, let's assume they are mutually exclusive.
Which is the more specific rule: mounted combat, or minions? If the former is more specific and the latter is more general, would not the mount rules override the minion rules?
This is not clearly defined RAW which is why you have so much variation. But both exclude each other pretty exclusively in their own description, which is why you can’t combine them to get 4 actions for your mount. Even if mounted is the more specific, it can only apply when you are not treating your animal companion like a traditional minion, but instead as a mount.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Correct specific versus general doesn't work because it is impossible to know for sure which is which.
You just have to use reasonable judgement on what is appropriate. Which is terrible for a rules system like PF2
Yes the difference between minions and non minion mounts is ridiculous. I have to apply common sense to it and end up house ruling it.
|
I could be missing a nuance, but...Mounted Combat (p478) explicitly says "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." What's ambiguous there, sorry? if you Command it, you get one-for-one actions, so still max of three actions.
With an Animal Companion Mount, you get better action economy, more overall actions, but a little less flexibility.