I need an unbiased view please

[The Immortal]

Hey, long time lurker and comic reader here,

I'm running an evil campaign using the Pathfinder rules, and come across an issue regarding what to do.
The Necromancer of the group has a flaming skeleton that he controls and likes. Together with some other undeads. Now the group came across an outpost in the Underdark and get their hands on a bunch of riding lizards. The flaming skeleton obviously can't sit on a lizard without harming it. The necromancer wants to make it an undead so he doesn't feel pain and the flaming skeleton can come with them. And all the players like this idea.
Now when it comes down to the rules, it doesn't fly. Animate dead makes the creature lose its special qualities like wall walking. And it would still get harmed by the fire ofcourse. Now when it comes down to rules, I don't mind changing them if I think I have a better ruling, or come up with homebrew things to let them have cool stuff. But I like consistency, as a DM and as a player. I'm not talking about rule of cool stuff, when a player thinks outside the box and does something cool. That's just one action. This is the ruling of a spell that I should change for their convenience. So my first reaction was "No" and I told them the rules.
Now one of the players asked me if ruling it like this would be more fun.
That got me thinking and if I would be a player I would want it the way I rule it. But the players at my table obviously like it the other way. I would like to get someone else his view on the matter to help me with it. So how would you rule it, and why? Am I too stuck up on the rules?

Thanks in advance

[Kelb_Panthera]

I lean pretty heavily toward making conservative rulings. Letting something slide once in a while for rule of cool is one thing but this would be a constant, ongoing change. I'd rule against it and maybe suggest to the player he might find some fireproof container to put his skelly in. Maybe homebrew a weaker variant of the iron flask for containing undead or something similar.

[Vinyadan]

For me, the easy answer would be to have him run into an exemplar of a rare underground race of fire-immune skeletal lizards. The lizard is alive, but, for some evolutionary quirk, it looks like a skeleton.
This way, you don't have to make sweeping rule changes like making the undead immune to fire, or giving skeletons special qualities. After all, if the players aren't against him acquiring it, I don't see much of a problem.
In general, I see the source of the problem in asking a single character (the necromancer) to give up a boon (the skeleton) so that the whole party can get another one (the riding lizards).

[H_H_F_F]

To me, an important question in these cases is "why". Meaning, why do the players want the rules changed?

In tbis case, it's not for the sake of power, it's for the sake of keeping the party together.

However, I agree with your point regarding consistency - so the answer in my view is making this a narrative point, an independent challenge. You guys want to keep the party intact? Exert some effort. The creativity is already in, so now is the time to demand time or resources. Give them a way to modify the spell, but make it costly or interesting, and specific. Open a possibility (again, costly in one way or another, or narratively interesting) for the undead to keep that specific quality and be proteceted from that specific source of fire.

It's up to the players, that way, whether or not they want to make the investment. That's my best idea, anyway.

[Silly Name]

One option would be to give them the chance to craft/commission a custom magic saddle that shields the lizard from the skeleton's flames (does not give fire resistance - just makes it so the rider being on fire doesn't hurt or harm the mount in any way). Easy and clean, demands some resources (money and time) without feeling like the players have to jump through hoops to keep their pet and have their mounts too.

[Beni-Kujaku]

Hey, long time lurker and comic reader here,

I'm running an evil campaign using the Pathfinder rules, and come across an issue regarding what to do.
The Necromancer of the group has a flaming skeleton that he controls and likes. Together with some other undeads. Now the group came across an outpost in the Underdark and get their hands on a bunch of riding lizards. The flaming skeleton obviously can't sit on a lizard without harming it. The necromancer wants to make it an undead so he doesn't feel pain and the flaming skeleton can come with them. And all the players like this idea.
Now when it comes down to the rules, it doesn't fly. Animate dead makes the creature lose its special qualities like wall walking. And it would still get harmed by the fire ofcourse. Now when it comes down to rules, I don't mind changing them if I think I have a better ruling, or come up with homebrew things to let them have cool stuff. But I like consistency, as a DM and as a player. I'm not talking about rule of cool stuff, when a player thinks outside the box and does something cool. That's just one action. This is the ruling of a spell that I should change for their convenience. So my first reaction was "No" and I told them the rules.
Now one of the players asked me if ruling it like this would be more fun.
That got me thinking and if I would be a player I would want it the way I rule it. But the players at my table obviously like it the other way. I would like to get someone else his view on the matter to help me with it. So how would you rule it, and why? Am I too stuck up on the rules?

Thanks in advance

The first thing to consider in this kind of case is the following: "Will it break the game?" If transporting the flaming skeleton makes the challenges you want to throw at your players too easy or more difficult to balance, then you probably shouldn't allow anything like that. But that doesn't seem to be the case here, since the party has had the skeleton for a while without problems. If there is no balancing issue, then I think a DM's job is first to make everyone have fun and only then to follow the rules to the letter. I would allow it, I think, even more so since changing the lizard to an undead was actually a good idea in the first place.

However, if you want to make sure your players understand that you can't change everything for them, I suggest you make them work for it. You could say that Create Undead (more expensive than Animate Dead, but also much broader) may be able to create a fire-resistant undead out of the lizard, but that having a rotting member of their kin with a flaming skeleton on top of it would really deter the other lizards. They would take constant Ride checks, and/or could only be ridden by PCs, which would make them have to choose between taking the flaming skeleton or taking all the other undeads who couldn't control a frightened lizard with them.
Another way to see this would be that they simply have to buy a fire repellent thing to use as a saddle for the flaming skeleton (they would still have to make it undead, or the lizard would never accept to be ridden by a flaming skeleton, seeing as animals do not like undeads at all in RAW), but for a price (that you could set, or just say "it's a riverine saddle"), they wouldn't have to worry about fire damage.

This is, as far as I am concerned, the best way to rule RAW vs fun. Do not let RAW ruin the fun, but always try to find a way, as roundabout as you'd like, to make RAW and fun agree.

[Batcathat]

One option would be to give them the chance to craft/commission a custom magic saddle that shields the lizard from the skeleton's flames (does not give fire resistance - just makes it so the rider being on fire doesn't hurt or harm the mount in any way). Easy and clean, demands some resources (money and time) without feeling like the players have to jump through hoops to keep their pet and have their mounts too.

This was my thought too and I'm not sure it even need to be a magical saddle. Wouldn't it be enough to cover everything the skeleton would touch with something non-flammable? Granted, I'm not sure how hard it is to get something like that in the setting, so the magical alternative might still be easier.

[King of Nowhere]

zombies are not immune to fire. you put a thing on fire on top of a zombie mount, the zombie takes fire. anything else would kill any consistency. any application of the hollywood trope "immune to pain = immune to damage" does that. pain is your body telling you you're taking damage. shut it off, you still take damage. it's not a matter of ruling, but common sense.

Now, if they want their cool skeleton to ride a cool mount, there are many ways to do it. magic items of fire protection are one thing, though i doubt they have the money to give one to their mount. perhaps they could find an artisan to craft for them a special saddle reinforced with asbestos that would specifically protect the mount from a flaming rider. that could come at a reasonable price, and make everyone happy. such a saddle would be heavy, but just by coincidence the weight is half a kg less than what would give penalties to the lizard. bump a bit the lizard's strenght score if needed.
Or, the necromancer could turn the lizard into another flaming skeleton; that would be immune to fire, i suppose.

basically, there are a lot of ways to let the flaming skeleton ride something, without insulting anyone's intelligence.

[Fizban]

Now when it comes down to rules, I don't mind changing them if I think I have a better ruling, or come up with homebrew things to let them have cool stuff. But I like consistency, as a DM and as a player. I'm not talking about rule of cool stuff, when a player thinks outside the box and does something cool. That's just one action.
You say you value consistency, but also seem to suggest that you will change the rules for one action because rule of cool, which is the opposite of consistent.


Now when it comes down to the rules, it doesn't fly. Animate dead makes the creature lose its special qualities like wall walking. And it would still get harmed by the fire ofcourse.

Does whatever template or ability that makes the skeleton fiery actually state that it causes damage to creatures simply by being in contact? Unless it deals damage to people touching or grappling it, there is no mechanical issue. If it just adds fire damage to attacks, then clearly the fire is localized enough that it's not a problem. Regarding consistency: even if the flaming skeleton does RAW damage things when they touch it or it grapples them, unless that has actually happened to some significant degree, "retconning" that part out when it hasn't affected the game does not affect consistency. If it does deal damage to things touching it, then losing that ability makes it worse. Is it fair to trade a weaker version of the "flaming" ability to let it ride? Probably.

And with a googling: so the Burning Skeleton deals damage to anything adjacent to it, eh? If you squint you could make a silly RAW ruling that because it is sharing its space with its mount, the mount is not adjacent, and thus unharmed, but no. This one is a problem then, because the Burning Skeleton has been dealing damage to adjacent creatures, and the party has been avoiding standing next to it, for its entire existence. This should not change without a reason, but you're still free to allow any number of reasons.

There are two major solutions here: get the mount energy resistance, or let the Necromancer find a way to dim the skeleton's flames down to just improving attack damage rather than harming anything nearby. Letting the Necromancer mess with the templates they're applying would be a dangerous precedent, but making something deliberately weaker should always be fine. Changing things after they're created, now that's a sketchy prospect, but again if they're deliberately weakening something, there's little reason to deny it. But Burning Skeletons are immune to fire themselves, so the most obvious solution is to just put the flaming skeleton on a flaming skeleton lizard.

Another major question would be whether a skeleton can actually ride something: can a mindless creature use Ride untrained? Skeletons on skeleton mounts is definitely cool, but if your first concern is RAW, then you're already hosed before the flaming problem.



As for the loss of the wall climbing if they skeletonize the lizard: there are at least three different versions of "riding lizards" in 3.5, let alone Pathfinder, some of which have a supernatural or spell-like Spider Climb effect, and some of which simply have Climb speeds. Once again, unless these specific capabilities have already played a significant part (or are required to do so in the future), replacing them is no problem.


This is the ruling of a spell that I should change for their convenience. So my first reaction was "No" and I told them the rules.
Now one of the players asked me if ruling it like this would be more fun.
That got me thinking and if I would be a player I would want it the way I rule it. But the players at my table obviously like it the other way. I would like to get someone else his view on the matter to help me with it. So how would you rule it, and why? Am I too stuck up on the rules?
To be clear- as a player you say you would want the DM to rule that flaming skeletons on skeleton lizards is not a thing you can do?

Clinging to RAW for no reason other than because it is RAW, goes explicitly against the instructions given to the DM. You should not change rules for no reason, but you also should not refuse to change rules for no reason.


I get the feeling the real problem here is wanting to suddenly ignore the drawbacks of an ability they've been using up until now. That would be inconsistent, and I would laugh at the suggestion- no, you don't get to suddenly ignore the back edge of the double-edged sword you've been wielding, if you don't like getting burned then pay the price to deal with it. But unless there's some limit preventing the Necromancer from making more than one Burning Skeleton, the fiery aura isn't a problem here, it's just skeletons riding skeletons, and those are fairly minor rules that can be easily changed:

1: Will letting mindless undead ride things cause a problem?

In terms of practical use, almost certainly not. In terms of mechanical consistency, nothing hinges on the fact that they cannot normally do so, so changing it has no cost. The controller gives orders to both of them anyway, and all the rider has to do is not fall off. Unless you were always intending to make a huge deal out of the tiny details of Animate Dead (which is possible with a Necromancer in the party), there's no real reason to deny this.

2: Can the riding lizards do their job with non-magical climb speeds?

If the riding lizards need supernatural climbing to do their job in the game, then skeletonizing one is a problem, because keeping that ability would cause a significant inconsistency vs the normal rules for skeletonizing things. So if the riding lizards need to have supernatural climbing for the plot to continue (a risky plot to begin with), then the party should not skeletonize one, and will need to find or create a spell or item to deal with the problem of carrying a Burning Skeleton with them.

[MoiMagnus]

You say you value consistency, but also seem to suggest that you will change the rules for one action because rule of cool, which is the opposite of consistent.

He says that he value/like consistency, not that he places consistency above all else. The following sentence clarifies that he is usually fine with inconsistency when they are very localised (an action) and grand enough "cool" to be worth the cost of inconsistency (which he still see as a cost, not as something irrelevant).

[Remuko]

Is turning a lizard into a flaming skeleton lizard not an option? that seems the simplest option.

[Quertus]

A lot of good answers. I find that the way to maintain consistency and still allow "rule of cool" is to move outside of RAW into rule zero territory: fireproofing, custom Create (Greater) Undead, etc. The rules should be handled by the rules; things outside the rules can accommodate rule of cool.

[malloc]

https://www.d20pfsrd.com/magic/all-spells/r/resist-energy/

Pretty simple solution to a pretty simple problem, IMO. Get a metamagic extend rod if necessary.

[Gorthawar]

I understand your concern about consistency and believe there have been some good answers on how to solve the issue like the special saddle that protects the mount.

Having said that I'd argue that travelling the underdark with a flaming skeleton would advertise the party to anyone and anything living in the dark. A portable hole or enveloping pit might be a better way to bring it along instead.

[Beni-Kujaku]

https://www.d20pfsrd.com/magic/all-spells/r/resist-energy/

Pretty simple solution to a pretty simple problem, IMO. Get a metamagic extend rod if necessary.

If they have to travel all day, they probably do not want to use all their 2nd and 3rd level spells, just to protect a lizard all day.

[Telonius]

Away from my books right now, but it seems like there would be something in Sandstorm or Frostburn that would enable something like this.

[JoeNapalm]

I would think a Type I Bag of Holding would be a pretty easy solution...a portable hole was mentioned, above, but would be much more expensive (and potentially more problematic as they try to figure out how many skels they can pack in there).

It's Undead, so no issues being stored in the bag...might need to be careful getting it inside the bag, though I would think being magical it would be fairly flame resistant...maybe they have to douse it with water first just to be on the safe side.

-Jn-

[Troacctid]

Undead aren't immune to fire, and I'm not sure why your players think they should be. Just give the lizard fire resistance; it's not that hard.

Edit: Of course if the lizard were also animated as a burning skeleton, that would make it immune to fire.

[Gallowglass]

Man did you come to the wrong place to ask a question like this.

Is it going to make the game worse to let the minion skeleton ride a lizard? No.

Is it going to break anything? No.

Are they the kind of players who will take your generosity and use it against you by finding a way to game this rule. ("Oh well that one lizard is fireproof so we will all hide under him when we get fireballed, instant evasion!"): ?

The rules are there to facilitate the game, not stifle it. Don't say no to things your players try that don't make YOUR game worse in any appreciable way. Understand that not all groups of players are the same and this is something you have to decide for THIS group, not "for the game" as a uber-entity.

Me, i'd tell the player that if he comes to the next session with a bad-ass drawing of a flaming skeleton on a riding lizard, then he can get it to work.

[JoeNapalm]

Are they the kind of players who will take your generosity and use it against you by finding a way to game this rule. ("Oh well that one lizard is fireproof so we will all hide under him when we get fireballed, instant evasion!"): ?



They're (and by "they" I mean "we") are ALL that kind of player.

Anyone who tells you different is either deluding themselves or about to ask you if they can do something weird with the rules..

-Jn-

[Particle_Man]

Half-red dragon template? As a bonus, the riding lizard breathes fire once a day. It can fly too but that might be les relevant underground.

[Godofallu]

Goal of DND is to have fun. If the players want to keep the game moving by having everyone move at the same speed I would be fine with it.

Imagine a party where 5 players are on a griffon mount and flying and the other is a Dwarf on the ground. How are they realistically going to play and adventure together without the Dwarf getting a mount or something as well? Is the entire party going to move 20' max all day and fight on the ground? Or are they going to ditch the dwarf player and do quests weeks before he actually arrives and have fun sky battles while the Dwarf gets left behind?

Teamwork is the most important element of DnD. If everyone else has a mount I would probably want a mount for the final character as well. Either give him a special saddle or make it so he isn't on fire or just hand waive it aside if the group is fine with that. Don't let rules get in the way of fun IMO.

[The Immortal]

One option would be to give them the chance to craft/commission a custom magic saddle that shields the lizard from the skeleton's flames (does not give fire resistance - just makes it so the rider being on fire doesn't hurt or harm the mount in any way). Easy and clean, demands some resources (money and time) without feeling like the players have to jump through hoops to keep their pet and have their mounts too.

I don't know why I didn't thought of this. Such a simple solution haha. Thanks for the idea!

[The Immortal]

Man did you come to the wrong place to ask a question like this.

Is it going to make the game worse to let the minion skeleton ride a lizard? No.

Is it going to break anything? No.

Are they the kind of players who will take your generosity and use it against you by finding a way to game this rule. ("Oh well that one lizard is fireproof so we will all hide under him when we get fireballed, instant evasion!"): ?

The rules are there to facilitate the game, not stifle it. Don't say no to things your players try that don't make YOUR game worse in any appreciable way. Understand that not all groups of players are the same and this is something you have to decide for THIS group, not "for the game" as a uber-entity.

Me, i'd tell the player that if he comes to the next session with a bad-ass drawing of a flaming skeleton on a riding lizard, then he can get it to work.

You think? I got some wonderful answers from this thread! Including yours!
I agree with it that it's not going to break the game, that was not the problem.
They would go and abuse it later on, wouldn't be the first time either haha

But I got sent in the right direction with this one, some pretty simple solutions that fit my playstyle entirely. So I know what to do next!

[nedz]

This is a problem for the players to solve and it can be wrong for the DM to take this challenge away from them with a wave of their hands. This does depend upon the group, basically whether the players are up for finding a solution themselves.

[JNAProductions]

Above all, talk to your players. They're the ones actually at your table, they're the ones who need to have fun.

As for me... I do think it's reasonable to say that "These lizards are not fireproof, so you can't just stick your flaming skeletons on them." But I would add something along the lines of "But, if you take this feat/go on this quest/snag this magic item, you can make flaming zombie lizards, who will retain their abilities like wall-climbing."

Basically, as presented right now, it doesn't make sense that the player can just add skeletons to lizards and everything be hunky dory. However, that mental image is awesome and likely to make the game better, so just make the player work for it a bit.

Regardless of what you decide to do, best of luck making the game fun for the table!

[Fizban]

Away from my books right now, but it seems like there would be something in Sandstorm or Frostburn that would enable something like this.
No specialized saddles if that's what you're looking for. They had rings granting the fire/cold subtypes, but those cost far more than a Ring of Minor Resistance, as would having the permanent Mantle of the Firey/Icy Soul spell cast.

The cheapest solution I could see would be returning the 3.0 version of Endure Elements, which granted resist 5 to fire or cold, and then a convenience ruling that resist 5 fully negates d6/round effects because it would negate the average.

Speaking of Sandstorm, Unearthly Heat is the level that deals 1d6 lethal every round, and is negated by protection level 4 or greater. Although the environmental heat protection section explicitly says such measures never apply to attacks, you could rule that the adjacent damage from the Burning skeleon is effectively environmental, and allow Endure Elements plus a Desert Outfit or Keepcool Salve to protect the mount anyway (the latter would take more than a single pot, but also gives no duration).

Of course, a DM who was much against the idea could instead rule that the bones themselves are hot, and prolong contact is just as bad as with metal, inflicing 2d4 per round as the Heat Metal effect high heat has on armor.

I'm all 3.5 so I don't know any esoteric Pathfinder solutions.

And I see the OP has gone with custom magic saddle. I would recommend looking for an existing item that grants resist 5, and reducing a bit from there.

[Calthropstu]

Throw them a bone and let them obtain a ring of lesser fire resistance that they can put on a lizard.

[blackwindbears]

Do not change the ruling. It just teaches your players that the easiest way to resolve a problem is to have the GM handwave it away. Encourage them instead to engage with the fiction.

How hot is the skeleton's fire? Can the lizards be trained? Can you give the lizard resist fire? Specialized saddles have already been mentioned, those are a reasonable option.

As a rule of thumb players want more for less. But a game without obstacles isn't a game anymore. Your job isn't to say yes to everything players say they want, it's to provide a satisfying play experience.

[Aharon]

You could allow the player to learn the 3.0 version of resist energy, with hour/level duration. He expends spell slots for the skeleton being able to ride, so there's a cost involved, but it's not as huge as creating a magic item.

[Fouredged Sword]

I don't know why I didn't thought of this. Such a simple solution haha. Thanks for the idea!

You don't even need to go outside RAW. A Ring of Minor Fire Resistance grants FR 10 and costs 12,000gp. Have them buy one, stick it on the lizard's toe, and call it a day. It would be a good thing to have around if they wanted to have a burning skeleton anyway, because you can move the ring from person to person when someone, like the necromancer, wants to cast a touch spell on the burning skeleton.

https://www.d20pfsrd.com/magic-items/rings/ring-of-energy-resistance/

[Taffimai]

I think it all depends on how long the riding lizards/fire skeleton are expected to be with the party.

If the skeleton is going to be replaced in two sessions when your necromancer levels up anyway, or if the lizards are only there for this one short stretch of the dungeon, I wouldn't do anything, let the skeleton try to keep up or have the necro drag it behind his lizard on a fireproof rope or whatever the players come up with that works within the rules and the way your world works. Bonus points if Flamy lags behind, falls out of sight, is gone and lost forever... then several sessions later when they're camping there's a speck of light on the horizon, moving ever closer until they make their spot check and there he is again! Hurrah!

Now if they're both supposed to be long-term boons, then some more flexibility and one of the previously mentioned workarounds is a better idea. You don't want to give your players a poisoned gift.

[Bonzai]

Regarding the loss of wall crawling... I am not as familiar with Pathfinder, but in 3.5 there are undead templates that let them keep their extraordinary abilities. I seem to remember making a pit trap in a campaign with several undead rust monsters at the bottom. Unfortunately it has been so long, I forget the template and spell used to create it.

[DeTess]

Personally, if you as a GM value consistency with the RAW rules, it's fine to rule it as you had, but I'd also make it clear to your players that you're not opposed to them finding some other solution.

Personally, in a case like this I'd probably let the player throw together an ad-hoc ritual to create an undead mount with the properties they want, but at some significant cost (such as, for example, needing a sizeable and costly ruby as a material component, or needing to spend a high-level spell slot each morning to reanimate the creature or similar). The thing they want is fairly reasonable in my opinions, and as it doesn't work in the rules, I'd make up some new rules that make it work in the fiction.

[icefractal]

Fireproof saddle seems like the way to go, but for a fully RAW alternative, just put the skeleton in a bag/box.

You just need a fully enclosing container with enough hardness to resist the fire damage. No LoE means the person/mount carrying the bag doesn't take any damage, and the skeleton doesn't need air and won't get motion sick being jostled around.

[rel]

Never discount the mundane solution. A quest to find the materials for some spiffy asbestos barding with which to armour your mount is clearly in order.

As an added bonus, the rules are silent on the subject of asbestos barding, so you can tailor the cost and effects to meet your needs without pedants coming out of the woodwork to argue with you.

[Quertus]

Never discount the mundane solution. A quest to find the materials for some spiffy asbestos barding with which to armour your mount is clearly in order.

As an added bonus, the rules are silent on the subject of asbestos barding, so you can tailor the cost and effects to meet your needs without pedants coming out of the woodwork to argue with you.

Oh - I'm suddenly reminded of the rules. So, the skeleton deals damage to everything in adjacent squares… and, while mounted, it counts as being in every square its mount occupies. So, by RAW, if anyone (say, PC, their mount) is adjacent to the asbestos lizard, they take damage.

On the flip side, I'm now curious… how much "X riding a Y riding a Z" can we stack, to bring the pain flame? Or… how many flaming skeletons could we strap to a Red Dragon, and would *they* all count as being in every square it occupies as it flies over an army, not even needing to use its breath weapon to leave a trail of destruction?

[Fouredged Sword]

Fireproof saddle seems like the way to go, but for a fully RAW alternative, just put the skeleton in a bag/box.

You just need a fully enclosing container with enough hardness to resist the fire damage. No LoE means the person/mount carrying the bag doesn't take any damage, and the skeleton doesn't need air and won't get motion sick being jostled around.

You don't even need special material. Fire damage does not ignore hardness. Anything with 6 or higher hardness would be immune to the fire damage of a burning skeleton. An iron saddle would be sufficient to prevent the skeleton from touching it's steed.

A leather saddle would work with a single application of the Hardening (https://www.d20pfsrd.com/magic/all-spells/h/hardening/#:~:text=This%20spell%20increases%20the%20hardness ,1%20cubic%20foot%20per%20level.) spell. Leather naturally has hardness 2, but the hardness spell as a scroll has a minimum caster level of 11th, so +5, total 7. Hardness 6 is all that is required to be immune to the skeleton's burning effect. The effect of the hardening spell is naturally permanent. - 1650gp.