[PF] Cavalier and mount power

[TauFirewarrior]

I'm running a PF campaign for a group of people that's going to be centered around PF and none of us are terribly experienced with the rules.  One is playing a Beast Rider Cavalier which I'm fine with, since there should be some exotic and interesting mounts for him.  What we both don't know, is if mounts function much like Druid animal companions in 3.5. 

Do more powerful mounts like dinosaurs treat your level as - something to offset the power of the creature? 
How do you determine power for the mount relative to disruption of playstyle?  (i.e.  Getting a triceratops at 4th level)

I'm trying to figure out some custom mounts for him but I don't want to unbalance the game.  The book seems to imply that getting a creature whose CR is 2-4 greater than a PC's level is not unbalancing.  What do you guys think?

[StreamOfTheSky]

You use this: http://www.d20pfsrd.com/classes/core-classes/druid/animal-companions

The answer to your question is that much like polymorph no longer turns you into the creature but instead makes you an imitation version w/ some stat bonuses, animal companions now are not the same as they would be out of the bestiary.  Anything that can be a companion gets its own companion statblock and upgrades at either 4th or 7th level.


For example, this is the stablock for a Triceratops companion:

Triceratops
 
Starting Statistics
 
Size Medium; Speed 30 ft.; AC +6 natural armor; Attack gore (1d8); Ability Scores Str 10, Dex 13, Con 11, Int 2, Wis 12, Cha 7.
 
7th-Level Advancement
 
Size Large, AC +3 natural armor; Attack gore (2d6); Ability Scores Str +8, Dex –2, Con +4; Special Qualities powerful charge (gore, 2d8).

So he has those starting stats and attacks, then at 7th it grows to Large, nat armor goes up by 3 (to +9), gore damage becomes 2d6, it gets some stat bonuses/penalties, and it gains powerful charge...with a retarded damage amount (shouldn't it be like...4d6?!).

[TauFirewarrior]

Ah, thanks for the hasty reply and link.  So that means if I throw any unique options at him like a Dragon Horse or whatnot it /is/ actually a bit dumbed down.  But I'd probably have to figure out how to dumb those unique ones down since there are a few magical beasts that in the fluff specifically say they can be Cavalier or Paladin mounts... but don't list any dumbed down statblocks that I saw.  (Kirin, Dragon Horse, and Sleipnir are the three I've found so far)

[StreamOfTheSky]

The magical beasts stuff is probably holdover text from 3E where a paladin could get an actual, honest to goodness, magical beast animal companion, as listed in the DMG.  Cavalier also having such text smacks of especially lazy writing, though.  Paladin it'd just be an oversight, Cavalier saying such means they were mindlessly copy/pasting.

[Basket Burner]

Ride (Dex; Armor Check Penalty)

I have nothing else to add, but someone insisted I posted this because it was funny.

[veekie]

Ah, thanks for the hasty reply and link.  So that means if I throw any unique options at him like a Dragon Horse or whatnot it /is/ actually a bit dumbed down.  But I'd probably have to figure out how to dumb those unique ones down since there are a few magical beasts that in the fluff specifically say they can be Cavalier or Paladin mounts... but don't list any dumbed down statblocks that I saw.  (Kirin, Dragon Horse, and Sleipnir are the three I've found so far)

You probably could, just use the same basic spread of 'class' abilities for the mount as every other mount and you're fine.

[StreamOfTheSky]

Ride (Dex; Armor Check Penalty)

I have nothing else to add, but someone insisted I posted this because it was funny.

I was going to reply that it was the same in 3E and only certain applications of ride have the acp....but then I checked PF rules and it seems they nerfed ride to carry acp on all ride checks.  Wow... *face palm*

http://www.d20pfsrd.com/skills/ride

[Halinn]

PF rules have simplified ACP to work on all str and dex skills. I do not know why anyone thought it needed simplifying.

[StreamOfTheSky]

PF rules have simplified ACP to work on all str and dex skills. I do not know why anyone thought it needed simplifying.

Hoyl crap, you're right!  That's bs.  On a positive note, that makes Wisdom in the Flesh trait, which my character has on Acrobatics, even nicer...if ACP is based on it being a str/dex skill, then making it a wis skill removes that association.

But it's still stupid.

[Basket Burner]

Given their track record of simplification = don't use it is anyone surprised?

[StreamOfTheSky]

Nah, despite the exclamations, this is par for the course and I'm not really that surprised.  Just reminds me of Frank Trollman's excellent early review of Pathfinder ("Pathfinder: The Lowdown"), where he said of combat maneuvers (paraphrasing), "They decided to streamline them all into 'not working'."

[Basket Burner]

Nah, despite the exclamations, this is par for the course and I'm not really that surprised.  Just reminds me of Frank Trollman's excellent early review of Pathfinder ("Pathfinder: The Lowdown"), where he said of combat maneuvers (paraphrasing), "They decided to streamline them all into 'not working'."

I've gotten rather mixed reviews of him, but should make for an interesting read. What's this about?

[StreamOfTheSky]

It was a thread he started when PF was just coming out to express his opinion of it and dispel false notions people had.  Some things that were true in the beta when he wrote it were later changed (CMD being calculated on a base 15; though to be fair they instead added dex to it and such to still make CMB impossible to win reliably, just for different reasons than he states) and some of his opinions I disagree with (archery was powerful in 3.5?  wtf?!), but it's mostly accurate and certainly entertaining to read.

[Mooncrow]

It's too bad really; Frank would probably be a well-known game designer by now if he didn't combine an utter certainty in his own infallibility with some of the worst interpersonal skills on the planet.

But yeah, as a rule his work is worth reading; he has some really good ideas, even if he doesn't always hit the mark.  Just don't ever try to engage him in debate

[Basket Burner]

He had a reputation, and I quote: "A completely incompetent little fuckwit that once did something great but can never repeat his success, so he's instead doomed to things like flailing about dragons being impossible, mostly because he sucks too big a barrel of cocks to figure out how to kill something that actually fights back."

When asked to explain the hyperbole he simply pointed out that everyone on that board obsesses about dragons and outsiders being impossible when any decent player can easily beat them despite them being a bit harder than other types.

So I'm not going to take him that seriously but should still be good for a laugh.