Would You Allow Flying-Archer-Paladin?

[Lord Lemming]

To put it briefly, Pathfinder paladins can get a highly intelligent mount at level 5 that, with the exceptions noted, functions as a druid's animal companion. While the class feature description gives horses, ponies and dogs as possible mount choices; it also specifically states that more exotic mounts can be used. If I take this to mean that the full selection of druid animal companions that could be used as mounts are available to me, then I could select a Roc as my animal companion. While a human paladin can't ride a medium-sized Roc, it is still TECHNICALLY a mount, for small-sized people. I hang onto my Roc for another couple levels, and he gets the 7th-level size increase to large, and voila! Flying paladin mount!

My question is; is this in fact in accordance with the rules, or have I missed something? And if it is, would you allow it in your games? Particularly if the paladin in question is an archer? It seems to me that this build, a permanently flying archer at level 7 with 80ft speed and the ability to bypass damage reduction, comes closer than many martial builds to the coveted goal of being able to mildly inconvenience a wizard of equal level. And that cannot be allowed. :smalltongue:

Speaking of which, I hear that Pathfinder paladins are normally a tier 4 class. Do you think that this trick is sufficient for the paladin in question to rise a tier?

[oxybe]

Not really enough to bump the paladin up a tier. By level 7 lots of things can have access to flight if they wish and should he be dismounted while flying, or his mount somehow disabled... well, paladins can't learn feather fall to my knowledge.

Plus it's still archery, so it suffers the same issues non-mounted archery has.

[Lord Lemming]

Not really enough to bump the paladin up a tier. By level 7 lots of things can have access to flight if they wish and should he be dismounted while flying, or his mount somehow disabled... well, paladins can't learn feather fall to my knowledge.

Plus it's still archery, so it suffers the same issues non-mounted archery has.

By level 7, a Ring of Feather Fall is less than 1/10th his WBL. A significant chunk, maybe, but something he can afford. Plus, there's at least one paladin oath (Oath Against the Wyrm) that allows him to stick Fly in a 3rd level spell slot at 10th level. Though he could just use an Angelic Aspect, I suppose. So a flying paladin isn't completely at gravity's mercy.

Also, correct me if I'm wrong but to my understanding the biggest problems with archery are the lack of damage relative to melee fighters and difficultly coping with enemy damage reduction. Smite Evil neatly solves both problems.

However, I will admit that it's not quite enough to give a paladin the versatility of a bard. Still, it does seem to be better than most martial classes on that front. A primary combatant who has flight, an animal companion, healing, limited spellcasting and the ability to be a very decent party face isn't something to scoff at.

[Kudaku]

I'm reasonably sure you're using the Pathfinder system, but it might be useful to mention that in the OP. PF archery is significantly better than 3.5 archery because of feats like Deadly Aim, Clustered Shot and the rewritten Manyshot. That difference will likely influence the debate.

And in my opinion, no. Paladins are a great class in PF, but I don't think flight is quite enough to boost them to tier 3.

[Urpriest]

Why a human Paladin? Presumably if you're focused on mounted archery you'd want to be a Halfling anyway.

And yeah, this is more just "basic strong PF Paladin" than something particularly broken...I'm not sure the mount trick works, but IIRC there are others ways to get a flying mount in PF.

[goto124]

*is worries that the DM will bring the campaign to an underground dungeon*

:smalltongue:

[Aetolus]

Why a human Paladin? Presumably if you're focused on mounted archery you'd want to be a Hallfling

Or an elf for ranged smite.

[Elricaltovilla]

Here's the answer to your question: Yes (sort of). (http://www.d20pfsrd.com/feats/general-feats/monstrous-mount)

[BWR]

I would only disallow it on the basis of whether or not it fits the campaign, not on the basis of power.

[Urpriest]

Or an elf for ranged smite.

Not a thing in PF.

[Kudaku]

Or an elf for ranged smite.Not a thing in PF.

To expand a little on Urpriest's post, PF paladins add Smite Evil to all their attack rolls against the target of the smite, including ranged attacks. Smite is no longer limited to melee weapons.

[endur]

There is nothing special about this.

Paladins in both PF and D&D can have flying mounts and can use bows.

I don't have a comment on the tier aspects, as I generally don't believe in the Tier concept (I understand it, just don't agree with it).

[Lord Lemming]

Here's the answer to your question: Yes (sort of). (http://www.d20pfsrd.com/feats/general-feats/monstrous-mount)

Thanks, I didn't know about Monstrous Mount. Still, this I don't really get. You take a feat to get a griffon or hippogriff mount, which it says is for cavaliers, rangers, or paladins. This mount still can't fly you until level 7, and requires a second feat to do so. Once you do, its flight abilities are reduced to a speed of 40 or 50. Alternatively, you could just take a Roc; which is listed in the Bestiary 1 as being a potential mount for a druid or ranger; and is explicitly able to fly a medium sized creature at level 7 with no 'buts' about it. The Roc can fly at a speed of 80, and nothing says you need feats to allow you to fly it, or that its speed is reduced.

The only iffy part of this whole thing is that while a Roc is listed as being a mount for a ranger or druid, it is not EXPLICITLY listed as being available to a paladin. But the description on a paladin's mount ability says that it acts like a druid's animal companion ability, which presumably includes the same list of possible mounts. This, however, is not explicitly confirmed or denied; which is why I asked you guys if you thought it was rules-legal.

Speaking of which, you guys have said that there are other ways for a paladin to get a flying mount. Aside from the Monstrous Mount feat, can you tell me about any of them?

[Elricaltovilla]

Thanks, I didn't know about Monstrous Mount. Still, this I don't really get. You take a feat to get a griffon or hippogriff mount, which it says is for cavaliers, rangers, or paladins. This mount still can't fly you until level 7, and requires a second feat to do so. Once you do, its flight abilities are reduced to a speed of 40 or 50. Alternatively, you could just take a Roc; which is listed in the Bestiary 1 as being a potential mount for a druid or ranger; and is explicitly able to fly a medium sized creature at level 7 with no 'buts' about it. The Roc can fly at a speed of 80, and nothing says you need feats to allow you to fly it, or that its speed is reduced.

The only iffy part of this whole thing is that while a Roc is listed as being a mount for a ranger or druid, it is not EXPLICITLY listed as being available to a paladin. But the description on a paladin's mount ability says that it acts like a druid's animal companion ability, which presumably includes the same list of possible mounts. This, however, is not explicitly confirmed or denied; which is why I asked you guys if you thought it was rules-legal.

Speaking of which, you guys have said that there are other ways for a paladin to get a flying mount. Aside from the Monstrous Mount feat, can you tell me about any of them?

Well, you kind of hit the reasoning on the head. This is RAW, explicit and clear about what kind of mount you can take as a paladin or cavalier (whom this feat is really for) so if your DM doesn't want to fudge things to make your life easier, its much harder for them to argue around this feat.

[Kudaku]

The second type of bond allows a paladin to gain the service of an unusually intelligent, strong, and loyal steed to serve her in her crusade against evil. This mount is usually a heavy horse (for a Medium paladin) or a pony (for a Small paladin), although more exotic mounts, such as a boar, camel, or dog are also suitable.

Note that reading it strictly, Divine Bond only offers a choice of a heavy horse or a pony. You can make a reasonable argument to include more exotic creatures such as a boar/camel/dog and most GMs will probably sign off on that - especially if you're in an environment not friendly to horses. Whether or not a roc qualifies when the language previously refers to dogs and boars as exotic really depends on the GM.

One GM might have no problem with a paladin riding around on a killer orca wearing flying boots, while another GM might find that boars are "straining his sense of immersion".

[Lord Lemming]

Well, you kind of hit the reasoning on the head. This is RAW, explicit and clear about what kind of mount you can take as a paladin or cavalier (whom this feat is really for) so if your DM doesn't want to fudge things to make your life easier, its much harder for them to argue around this feat.

It seems to me that the feat represents some oversight on the part of the authors, though. Monstrous Mount is listed as being for cavaliers, paladins, AND rangers, and implies that it is the only way to get a flying mount. The Roc is listed as being a mount for rangers as well, with no special qualifiers attached to it. Why would a ranger spend two feats to get an inferior mount?

I think we've got a case where Rules As Intended doesn't really work, because the authors intended two different things simultaneously. One author didn't want non-caster classes to fly that easily, while someone else didn't get the memo and inserted a Roc mount; or vice-versa. Meanwhile, a paladin taking a Roc as a mount is something that is not explicitly banned, but can only be implicitly inferred; and so to my way of thinking requires a DM ruling. I'm just wondering whether the rest of you guys think the same way.

[Elricaltovilla]

It seems to me that the feat represents some oversight on the part of the authors, though. Monstrous Mount is listed as being for cavaliers, paladins, AND rangers, and implies that it is the only way to get a flying mount. The Roc is listed as being a mount for rangers as well, with no special qualifiers attached to it. Why would a ranger spend two feats to get an inferior mount?

I think we've got a case where Rules As Intended doesn't really work, because the authors intended two different things simultaneously. One author didn't want non-caster classes to fly that easily, while someone else didn't get the memo and inserted a Roc mount; or vice-versa. Meanwhile, a paladin taking a Roc as a mount is something that is not explicitly banned, but can only be implicitly inferred; and so to my way of thinking requires a DM ruling. I'm just wondering whether the rest of you guys think the same way.

No, the Roc is listed as an animal companion for the ranger. Rangers don't get mounts. And the Griffon is not an inferior mount, depending on your goals. 40 ft. of movement becomes 80 ft. of charge distance, while flying, with pounce and rake to add on to your Spirited Charge empowered lance attacks, resulting in arguably some of the highest single target damage in the game.

[Coidzor]

Here's the answer to your question: Yes (sort of). (http://www.d20pfsrd.com/feats/general-feats/monstrous-mount)

*stares at Griffon and Hippogriff* Wow. Yeah, you don't *need* to be as scared as the PF devs were when it comes to characters getting access to gimped flight at 7th level if you're staying on top of the DMing game.

[Psyren]

Remember also that Paladins were T5 in 3.5. They already rose a tier in PF, so while having a flying mount is nice, it's not going to bump them up significantly higher than they are either - especially in urban or underground campaigns.

[Coidzor]

No, the Roc is listed as an animal companion for the ranger. Rangers don't get mounts. And the Griffon is not an inferior mount, depending on your goals. 40 ft. of movement becomes 80 ft. of charge distance, while flying, with pounce and rake to add on to your Spirited Charge empowered lance attacks, resulting in arguably some of the highest single target damage in the game.

Its fly speed is cut in half for ****s and giggles, making it inferior to one that you can just buy when it comes to mobility.

You have to be 7th level to get a worse flying mount from a feat+class feature than you'd have been able to buy at 4th or 5th level with just your WBL.

That's... That's pretty bad.

[Psyren]

Its fly speed is cut in half for ****s and giggles, making it inferior to one that you can just buy when it comes to mobility.

You have to be 7th level to get a worse flying mount from a feat+class feature than you'd have been able to buy at 4th or 5th level with just your WBL.

That's... That's pretty bad.


Putting aside that the DM would have to somehow make Griffons-R-Us available to you somewhere in the campaign for this comparison to even make any sense, the companion version still gets all the AC advancement goodies as well - including feats, HD, natural armor, saving throws, share spells, evasion, devotion, celestial template etc. So while it would potentially be slower than one you bought at a store (assuming again the existence of such a store), I would consider the bond to be eminently more useful/powerful.

Also, a regular griffon has 16 Str without any advancement opportunity at all. Carrying you with all your armor and weapons, plus whatever barding it would have to wear to be more than a grease stain in any combat, is probably going to put it over the encumbrance it needs to fly at full speed anyway.

[Elricaltovilla]

Its fly speed is cut in half for ****s and giggles, making it inferior to one that you can just buy when it comes to mobility.

You have to be 7th level to get a worse flying mount from a feat+class feature than you'd have been able to buy at 4th or 5th level with just your WBL.

That's... That's pretty bad.

ONLY with regards to movement speed. The Divine Bond/Mount class feature advances nearly every other aspect of your pet, and since you get it for free, you can afford to put the WBL you would have spent to buy a glass cannon on making this one better. Boots of Striding and Springing (horseshoes? Cat-booties?) or boots of haste will make up for the lost movement speed, as would casting any of several different spells.

[Lord Lemming]

No, the Roc is listed as an animal companion for the ranger. Rangers don't get mounts. And the Griffon is not an inferior mount, depending on your goals. 40 ft. of movement becomes 80 ft. of charge distance, while flying, with pounce and rake to add on to your Spirited Charge empowered lance attacks, resulting in arguably some of the highest single target damage in the game.

True enough, I suppose. But my argument is that a paladin's mount class feature is said to act like a druid's animal companion, except that it summons a particularly intelligent steed to act as a mount. It lists a few animals that can act as a mount, but implicitly infers that there are other options. I'm taking a leap of logic and saying that since it acts as a druid's animal companion feature (but only summons a mount) it allows me to use any druid animal companion that is used as a mount unless explicitly stated that I cannot. The Roc is a druid animal companion, and it is explicitly stated to be a mount, so it meets both criteria. This leap of logic is not a particularly vast one, but it's still possible for me to roll a 1 on my acrobatics check, so it probably needs a +5 DM-Approval bonus before I risk jumping across.

On a side note, Pathfinder rangers and paladins have very similar, almost mirrored, class feature progression. A look at their class features makes me think that they're intended to more or less be equals. They even get (the option to acquire) animal companions/mounts at the same level. The difference in that particular feature is that rangers get Animal Companions, whereas paladins get Mounts. It seems odd to me that because of that wording, rangers might actually get BETTER mounts than paladins according to RAW. It flies in the face of common sense; but then, that's D&D for you. :smalltongue:

[Elricaltovilla]

True enough, I suppose. But my argument is that a paladin's mount class feature is said to act like a druid's animal companion, except that it summons a particularly intelligent steed to act as a mount. It lists a few animals that can act as a mount, but implicitly infers that there are other options. I'm taking a leap of logic and saying that since it acts as a druid's animal companion feature (but only summons a mount) it allows me to use any druid animal companion that is used as a mount unless explicitly stated that I cannot. The Roc is a druid animal companion, and it is explicitly stated to be a mount, so it meets both criteria. This leap of logic is not a particularly vast one, but it's still possible for me to roll a 1 on my acrobatics check, so it probably needs a +5 DM-Approval bonus before I risk jumping across.

Inferences are subjective, your DM may disagree with you and his interpretation of the rules is equally legitimate to yours (technically more so). You admit that you're extrapolating from the RAW, but the RAW says your extrapolation is wrong, and the existence of the monstrous mount feat is a point against your interpretation (sorry) since if you were correct, there would be no need for the feat.

I'm not saying I disagree with your interpretation, in fact I'd allow it in one of my games without complaint, but you need to know what you're up against. It's better to have RAW on your side in these kinds of arguments.


On a side note, Pathfinder rangers and paladins have very similar, almost mirrored, class feature progression. A look at their class features makes me think that they're intended to more or less be equals. They even get (the option to acquire) animal companions/mounts at the same level. The difference in that particular feature is that rangers get Animal Companions, whereas paladins get Mounts. It seems odd to me that because of that wording, rangers might actually get BETTER mounts than paladins according to RAW. It flies in the face of common sense; but then, that's D&D for you. :smalltongue:

Why should the ranger be less good at mounted combat than the paladin? You can build a paladin that never gets a mount without ever taking an archetype. You can't do that with a ranger. Rangers have an entire combat style dedicated to mounted combat, and one dedicated to archery which gives them all kinds of incentives to pair the two. In fact, the PF ranger guides I'm familiar with heavily recommend mounted combat and mounted archery because of how potent rangers can be at it.

[Lord Lemming]

Inferences are subjective, your DM may disagree with you and his interpretation of the rules is equally legitimate to yours (technically more so). You admit that you're extrapolating from the RAW, but the RAW says your extrapolation is wrong, and the existence of the monstrous mount feat is a point against your interpretation (sorry) since if you were correct, there would be no need for the feat.

I'm not saying I disagree with your interpretation, in fact I'd allow it in one of my games without complaint, but you need to know what you're up against. It's better to have RAW on your side in these kinds of arguments.



Why should the ranger be less good at mounted combat than the paladin? You can build a paladin that never gets a mount without ever taking an archetype. You can't do that with a ranger. Rangers have an entire combat style dedicated to mounted combat, and one dedicated to archery which gives them all kinds of incentives to pair the two. In fact, the PF ranger guides I'm familiar with heavily recommend mounted combat and mounted archery because of how potent rangers can be at it.

While I am extrapolating from the RAW, I disagree that the RAW outright declares it to be wrong. Rather, I think that the RAW is a little confused on what it's supposed to be doing. I think that RAI was SUPPOSED to be that rangers and paladins shouldn't be able to acquire a Roc mount, but someone didn't get the memo; hence rangers both being specified by the Monstrous Mount feat as candidates for spending two feats on a slower mount, and being specified as candidates for flying a Roc for free. If the Monstrous Mount feat is a point against my interpretation, the existence of the Roc mount is a point in its favor.

Our games so far have tended to be very loose rules-wise. So long as you can justify it, we've allowed it. I just want to know if other DMs would allow it. :smallsmile:

And I'm not arguing that rangers should be less good at mounted combat than the paladin. And you CAN in fact build a standard ranger without an archetype; that's a thing in Pathfinder. In lieu of taking an Animal Companion, Hunter's Bond allows a ranger to share his favored enemy bonuses with his allies. (I was wrong about what level they get their mounts at, though. Rangers get them at 4, paladins at 5). I was pointing out that rangers get the full range of animal companions, whereas paladins only get mounts; but that translates to rangers getting SUPERIOR mounts. You would think that a specialist would at least be able to equal a generalist in their chosen field, but in this case they don't even break even.

[Psyren]

The "exotic mounts" clause in the paladin entry uses "camels, boars and dogs" as examples. This begs the obvious question - if a camel is "exotic," what would they consider a griffon or roc to be?

You're asking what other DMs would allow - and you are now getting that question answered. Monstrous Mount is a way for you to trade something valuable (a feat) for something similarly valuable (a flying mount.)

[endur]

Speaking of which, you guys have said that there are other ways for a paladin to get a flying mount. Aside from the Monstrous Mount feat, can you tell me about any of them?

I can't comment on PF, but several flying mounts were on the list for Paladin Special Mounts in 3.5. See DMG page 205, including Hippogriff, Giant Eagle, Giant Owl, Griffon, and Pegasus.

[oxybe]

I guess what we're all trying to say is that adding "... but he can fly!" to the description of a paladin doesn't really change his overall ability to contribute to the party in a meaningful way. You're not dealing more damage, getting an important/powerful ability earlier then normal or changes your ability to interact with the world around you in a significant way beyond not caring about ditches.

It's flight. It's pretty cool, but by level 7 most of the party should be capable of some form of flight, if not permanent then temporary. A potion of flight is only 750 gold out of the character's cash, less if the party can brew it for him and the wizard can always have a "flight for the meatsack" slot prepared incase you need to send a few hundred pounds of metal and pointy-smashy bits charging at a target in mid-air.

It's not special. Wizards getting flight at level 5 is standard operating procedure. Weck, with a 2 feat chain, at level 10 Aasimars can get permanent, non-magical flight (http://www.d20pfsrd.com/feats/racial-feats/angel-wings-aasimar). Ours did in the kingmaker game we're running.

Flight simply isn't that special in D&D. It's standard operating procedure and giving it to a paladin in some form, be it a mount, natural wings or a spell, is simply assumed. As is giving it to the fighter, the rogue, the cleric, the wizard, the sandwich, the bard, the ranger, the etc...

[Troacctid]

Flying mounts were explicitly available for Paladins in 3.5, so having one would just be using the rules as written, in exactly the way they were intended, to match the classic fantasy trope of a Pegasus rider. Which I see absolutely zero problems with.

I don't know the Pathfinder rules as well, but I know them well enough to know that flight is not that hard to get your hands on by 7th level, so I'm confident it wouldn't be overpowered.

[Ssalarn]

Thanks, I didn't know about Monstrous Mount. Still, this I don't really get. You take a feat to get a griffon or hippogriff mount, which it says is for cavaliers, rangers, or paladins. This mount still can't fly you until level 7, and requires a second feat to do so. Once you do, its flight abilities are reduced to a speed of 40 or 50. Alternatively, you could just take a Roc; which is listed in the Bestiary 1 as being a potential mount for a druid or ranger; and is explicitly able to fly a medium sized creature at level 7 with no 'buts' about it. The Roc can fly at a speed of 80, and nothing says you need feats to allow you to fly it, or that its speed is reduced.


Actually, the Roc is not RAW available to rangers. There's some flavor text that implies that some rangers have them, but there is no rules text adding them to the limited list of ranger companions.

[Lord Lemming]

Actually, the Roc is not RAW available to rangers. There's some flavor text that implies that some rangers have them, but there is no rules text adding them to the limited list of ranger companions.

...Darn, you're right.

EDIT: But now we're left with another question: Why does the flavor text say that rangers can use them as flying mounts if they can't actually have them as animal companions? Is there some class option or feat somewhere that allows a ranger to take other animals as companions?

Also, I just realized something else: A ranger's effective druid level for Animal Companion is equal to his ranger level -3. A paladin's effective druid level is equal to his paladin level. And again, the list of possible paladin mounts is, unlike the ranger list, not exclusive; even if it does refer to boars as 'exotic.'

(Yes, I know I'm really reaching here.)

[Ssalarn]

...Darn, you're right.

Yeah, I lost that particular argument a while back :P

I think the closest I've come on the Paladin to a good 100% RAW flying mount that doesn't cost two feats with weird restrictions is to play a half-orc and dip a couple levels of Order of the Star Cavalier and then grab the Beast Rider feat for a pteranodon. You could use the Luring Cavalier archetype to support your archery, and all you really lose is a questionable capstone.

[Coidzor]

Putting aside that the DM would have to somehow make Griffons-R-Us available to you somewhere in the campaign for this comparison to even make any sense, the companion version still gets all the AC advancement goodies as well - including feats, HD, natural armor, saving throws, share spells, evasion, devotion, celestial template etc. So while it would potentially be slower than one you bought at a store (assuming again the existence of such a store), I would consider the bond to be eminently more useful/powerful.

Also, a regular griffon has 16 Str without any advancement opportunity at all. Carrying you with all your armor and weapons, plus whatever barding it would have to wear to be more than a grease stain in any combat, is probably going to put it over the encumbrance it needs to fly at full speed anyway.

It's not the completely baseless and illegitimate criticism that you're insinuating. There is a price listed, therefore it is generally available by RAW, individual table circumstances be damned. At 7th level you finally get all of the HD that a Griffon would have, but the fly speed is gimped... for no other reason than some misguided notion of game balance. Which is the point you're obfuscating and the actual, y'know, point of the statement.


ONLY with regards to movement speed. The Divine Bond/Mount class feature advances nearly every other aspect of your pet, and since you get it for free, you can afford to put the WBL you would have spent to buy a glass cannon on making this one better. Boots of Striding and Springing (horseshoes? Cat-booties?) or boots of haste will make up for the lost movement speed, as would casting any of several different spells.

So *why* is the movement speed gimped? :smalltongue:

****s and giggles. ****s. And. Giggles. :smalltongue:

[Baroncognito]

If you play an Aasimar, you can just take two feats to have a fly speed at level 11. (Four feats if you want to be able to use your wings as weapons)

And that way you don't need to worry if your mount will fit into the dungeon.

[Psyren]

There is a price listed, therefore it is generally available by RAW, individual table circumstances be damned.

Nonsense. The price is there so the DM knows when it is reasonable to begin making it available. It is still up to them to decide whether to include it in the first place.

Every magic item in the game has a price too, that does not give you carte blanche to establish or expect Magic-Mart at every table.


At 7th level you finally get all of the HD that a Griffon would have, but the fly speed is gimped... for no other reason than some misguided notion of game balance. Which is the point you're obfuscating and the actual, y'know, point of the statement.

And again, the fly speed of your hypothetical "store-bought" griffon with 16 Str would be just as "gimped," serving as a mount for a heavy-armor-wearing, martial-weapon-using, loot-carrying paladin.

[grarrrg]

I think the closest I've come on the Paladin to a good 100% RAW flying mount that doesn't cost two feats with weird restrictions is to play a half-orc and dip a couple levels of Order of the Star Cavalier and then grab the Beast Rider feat for a pteranodon.

Which still doesn't quite work...
Beast Rider (http://www.d20pfsrd.com/classes/base-classes/cavalier/archetypes/paizo---cavalier-archetypes/beast-rider):
"A beast rider cannot choose a mount that is not capable of bearing his weight, that has fewer than four legs, or that has a fly speed"

[Baroncognito]

a good 100% RAW flying mount that doesn't cost two feats with weird restrictions

Couldn't you just take Leadership and then get a Dragon Horse, a Griffon, a Kirin, or a Pegasus?

It's right there as an option.

[Ssalarn]

Which still doesn't quite work...
Beast Rider (http://www.d20pfsrd.com/classes/base-classes/cavalier/archetypes/paizo---cavalier-archetypes/beast-rider):
"A beast rider cannot choose a mount that is not capable of bearing his weight, that has fewer than four legs, or that has a fly speed"

You misread me. I said the Beast Rider feat not the Beast Rider archetype. The feat specifically gives you a pteranodon as an option.


Couldn't you just take Leadership and then get a Dragon Horse, a Griffon, a Kirin, or a Pegasus?

It's right there as an option.

I tend to forget about Leadership since I never get to play at tables that allow it :P


Why does the flavor text say that rangers can use them as flying mounts if they can't actually have them as animal companions? Is there some class option or feat somewhere that allows a ranger to take other animals as companions?


Well, there's the Beast Master archetype that gives the Ranger access to the unrestricted list, so that's something. It could also be intentionally forward-thinking text that leaves the door open for future mechanics.

[Snowbluff]

Plus it's still archery, so it suffers the same issues non-mounted archery has.
They have Saddle Surge and Litany of Righteousness on their spell list. Archery is really strong to the people who know what they are doing.

[Ssalarn]

They have Saddle Surge and Litany of Righteousness on their spell list. Archery is really strong to the people who know what they are doing.

Archery is probably one of the strongest martial options available, mounted archery doubly so since you go from "almost always able to full attack" to "always able to full attack". Paladins just emphasize the potency of archery with their smite and spell options allowing them to power through the few weaknesses the combat style has.

[Kudaku]

I'm guessing Oxy commented on the weakness of archery before the OP was edited and the thread got the Pathfinder tag. Originally it was rather ambiguous if the thread meant the 3.5 paladin or the PF paladin.

A lot of the problems Archery have in 3.5 are solved by PF, so they're on different power levels.

[Urpriest]

Nonsense. The price is there so the DM knows when it is reasonable to begin making it available. It is still up to them to decide whether to include it in the first place.

Every magic item in the game has a price too, that does not give you carte blanche to establish or expect Magic-Mart at every table.


...sure? But similarly, while Griffons are choices for companions with Monstrous Mount, a DM could forbid them if they didn't fit the campaign's fluff. Generally speaking, the reasons would be identical: this isn't a region where people ride domesticated Griffons. If it is, though (and given that Griffons are one of the more fluff-neutral purchasable flying mounts these settings will be pretty common), then the DM has no reason to forbid either.

[Snowbluff]

A lot of the problems Archery have in 3.5 are solved by PF, so they're on different power levels.

Archery is very strong 3.5, too. It's the same case as PF; you have to know what you are doing.

[Psyren]

...sure? But similarly, while Griffons are choices for companions with Monstrous Mount, a DM could forbid them if they didn't fit the campaign's fluff. Generally speaking, the reasons would be identical: this isn't a region where people ride domesticated Griffons. If it is, though (and given that Griffons are one of the more fluff-neutral purchasable flying mounts these settings will be pretty common), then the DM has no reason to forbid either.

A feat however is much more valuable than some gp. It's a tradeoff that should be more conscionable to a DM. In addition, it's specifically only available to classes that already have a mount class feature, so it's much less likely to have unintended consequences (since, functionally, it's not that different from having their regular mount that they already get drink a fly potion) or that the rogue, the barbarian, the gunslinger et al. will start queuing up for one too. There's quite simply a dozen reasons to allow the feat version that don't apply to the Griffon-Mart version.

[Urpriest]

A feat however is much more valuable than some gp. It's a tradeoff that should be more conscionable to a DM.

Irrelevant. The value doesn't matter for setting-appropriateness, and setting-appropriateness is the only thing that determines questions like "is X available to buy?" If the DM thought that the cost was too cheap, they would houserule the cost higher, or houserule that griffons are not purchaseable, rather than solving it in-setting. But in order to do that, they would have to actually have a valid argument that buying griffons is actually unbalanced, which leads to my next point...



In addition, it's specifically only available to classes that already have a mount class feature, so it's much less likely to have unintended consequences (since, functionally, it's not that different from having their regular mount that they already get drink a fly potion) or that the rogue, the barbarian, the gunslinger et al. will start queuing up for one too. There's quite simply a dozen reasons to allow the feat version that don't apply to the Griffon-Mart version.

Either purchasable griffons are unbalanced, or they aren't. If they aren't, then our hypothetical DM should eventually listen to reason and allow them, if they're running a healthy game. If they are, you need to show that yourself, not put your arguments into the mouth of a hypothetical DM as a way to avoid having to defend them.

[Lord Lemming]

They have Saddle Surge and Litany of Righteousness on their spell list. Archery is really strong to the people who know what they are doing.

I just saw the description of Saddle Surge, and my jaw dropped.

At first I thought 'Hey, if I have a mount with 50ft speed, and I have him Run, then he goes up to 250ft and I gain a damage bonus of 50 to each attack!' Being able to cast Saddle Surge at 7th level, I went looking for some CR 10 monsters. A Young Red Dragon, meant to be a challenge for an entire party of my level? I could kill it with a single full attack (4 shots, 2 from BAB, one from Rapid Shot, one from Multishot) even if half my shots missed!

...And then I read the fine print. Fine, damage limited to my caster level, which is 4. So instead I cast Saddle Surge, Smite Evil, and THEN use Litany of Righteousness and full attack. 4 shots, so +28 damage from Smite Evil, average of +18 damage from 4d8 arrow damage, +16 damage from Saddle Surge, +8 damage from bard song, and +4 damage from +1 weapon, adding up to an average of 74 damage. That damage is then doubled by Litany, adding up 148 damage, on average, if all my shots hit.

...So I can STILL kill a Young Red Dragon (115 HP) in a single full attack, with some luck. Am I reading this right?

(EDIT: Litany is short-ranged, so I have to get within about 30 ft to use it. Not practical if the dragon is flying. But casting Litany is a swift action. Can I use a swift action in the same round as a full attack?)

[Snowbluff]

1) IIRC, you're mount may only make a single move if you full attack. However, you can improve your mount's speed with haste and the like.

2) You may full attack and cast a spell with a swift action casting time.

3) Throw in a couple of Named Bullets. IDR if it's on the paladin list, but I know you make poach it from the rnager one with samsaran's mystic past life. Cleric can do the same thing. They have fewer attacks, but you may cast Saddle Surge and Litany more liberally.

4) Wayang Spell Hunter still lets you make a cantrip out of a higher level spell when combined with Magical Lineage. Litany Cantrip. >:o

... It's incredibly silly and you shouldn't do that.

5) If you're wondering if this is how I prefer archery, you are right. A friend is running one of my builds, and every fight the monk goes "damn" as all of our foes drop. Of course, this is the game where I cast Greater Forbid Action because Plane Shift was ending fights too quickly.

[Psyren]

Either purchasable griffons are unbalanced, or they aren't.

Definitely not (https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/black-or-white) - there are different orders of "cost" in this game. Some things can be obtained with just gold. Some can be obtained with a class feature. Some by any class, for a feat. Some at the end of a feat chain. Some at the end of a feat chain with level or even specific class requirements in it. There are degrees and layers. Thus a prize can simultaneously be both, depending on how it can be obtained.

Whether Griffon-Mart is an unbalanced means of acquisition is a matter for individual tables to decide - that is all I'm saying. The feat is there for GMs who agree - the Ultimate Equipment entry, along with its "as the GM deems fit" clause) is there for the ones who are fine with that approach.

[Urpriest]

Definitely not (https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/black-or-white) - there are different orders of "cost" in this game. Some things can be obtained with just gold. Some can be obtained with a class feature. Some by any class, for a feat. Some at the end of a feat chain. Some at the end of a feat chain with level or even specific class requirements in it. There are degrees and layers. Thus a prize can simultaneously be both, depending on how it can be obtained.

This is all perfectly compatible with there existing correctly balanced prices, though. Maybe Griffons aren't balanced when you pay gold, but are if you pay gold plus a feat, or gold plus a class feature. There could be a wide variety of balanced combinations of costs. But a specific cost, as per everything you've argued, is either balanced or unbalanced.



Whether Griffon-Mart is an unbalanced means of acquisition is a matter for individual tables to decide - that is all I'm saying. The feat is there for GMs who agree - the Ultimate Equipment entry, along with its "as the GM deems fit" clause) is there for the ones who are fine with that approach.

All I'm saying is that the method individual tables should use to decide it is essentially the same as the method we would use here: discussion of whether it's balanced with what the various classes give you, whether it trivializes too many monsters, etc. There will be variation in which classes show up at a given table, the power level of the overall game, what monsters you're fighting, etc...but those sorts of things are the province of a gentleman's agreement. It's generally a lot healthier to be explicit about "if you have a flying mount, you're going to trivialize encounters" than just stonewalling any attempts to buy a griffon by arguing about shop locations. The only reason to make griffons especially difficult to purchase compared to other equipment that's relevant to this thread is if they are unbalanced on an overall level, not just the level of one game or another. So again, do you think griffons-for-purchase are unbalanced, and if so why?

[Psyren]

This is all perfectly compatible with there existing correctly balanced prices, though.

Then why did they include a line about "if the GM deems fit" on the paid griffon but not the feat? If they are as equivalent as you claim, surely both or neither should have got the disclaimer, no?


It's generally a lot healthier to be explicit about "if you have a flying mount, you're going to trivialize encounters" than just stonewalling any attempts to buy a griffon by arguing about shop locations.

Why is "trivializing encounters" the only consideration here? "Health" concerns aside (whatever that even means), that seems a rather limited worldview to me. Perhaps your PC is indeed meant to be the special skyknight swooping in from on high, but the DM wants it to be a little more, you know, noteworthy an event than signing a check or taking out a loan at Gringotts. Perhaps the power considerations of having the mount are not the problem, but the banality of your character walking into a shop or pointing at a catalog to get it are.


The only reason to make griffons especially difficult to purchase compared to other equipment that's relevant to this thread is if they are unbalanced on an overall level, not just the level of one game or another. So again, do you think griffons-for-purchase are unbalanced, and if so why?

"The only reason?" Do your GMs always let you run roughshod over anything printed with a pricetag then? And are those who don't somehow doing it wrong?

[Zaq]

I don't have a dog in this fight, but Psyren, you're coming off as really defensive here. I usually respect what you have to say on this forum, but I'm not at all sure where you're going with this argument. Different things can be appropriate in different games. There's no need to paint any position here as being so extreme.

[Psyren]

Where I'm going is simple - I don't think the existence of a griffon pricetag in Ultimate Equipment means that a storebought griffon is expected to be standard issue in every single campaign the way that, say, a set of fullplate or a tower shield is. And I don't think a GM who comes to that same conclusion is doing anything wrong or being unreasonable. I think the existence of the feat chain to get that mount onto animal companion-having classes is a way to make that option more palatable to such a GM. That's really it.

[Baroncognito]

And actually, I find myself agreeing with Psyren on this, especially with the note "While griffons can be trained, some good deities consider doing so akin to enacting slavery, insisting that a griffon must come to its rider on its own free will." (which might also preclude a paladin from buying a griffon)

In fact, if I'm reading this (http://www.d20pfsrd.com/gamemastering/other-rules/settlements) correctly, you've got to be in a large city before you've even got a 75% chance of being able to buy a Griffon.

[Raven777]

I just saw the description of Saddle Surge, and my jaw dropped.

At first I thought 'Hey, if I have a mount with 50ft speed, and I have him Run, then he goes up to 250ft and I gain a damage bonus of 50 to each attack!' Being able to cast Saddle Surge at 7th level, I went looking for some CR 10 monsters. A Young Red Dragon, meant to be a challenge for an entire party of my level? I could kill it with a single full attack (4 shots, 2 from BAB, one from Rapid Shot, one from Multishot) even if half my shots missed!

...And then I read the fine print. Fine, damage limited to my caster level, which is 4. So instead I cast Saddle Surge, Smite Evil, and THEN use Litany of Righteousness and full attack. 4 shots, so +28 damage from Smite Evil, average of +18 damage from 4d8 arrow damage, +16 damage from Saddle Surge, +8 damage from bard song, and +4 damage from +1 weapon, adding up to an average of 74 damage. That damage is then doubled by Litany, adding up 148 damage, on average, if all my shots hit.

...So I can STILL kill a Young Red Dragon (115 HP) in a single full attack, with some luck. Am I reading this right?

(EDIT: Litany is short-ranged, so I have to get within about 30 ft to use it. Not practical if the dragon is flying. But casting Litany is a swift action. Can I use a swift action in the same round as a full attack?)

It's ok. You're one of the "decent at damage dealing" melee guys. You are allowed to one shot stuff by punching it hard. That's actually your job description. So is Fighters, Barbarian, Vivisectionists, Magus, Ranger and Gunslinger. It's poor Rogue and Monk who have to pick up the slack and stop embarrassing the party in front of the monsters.