Animal Companions and Reach


Rules Questions


15 people marked this as FAQ candidate. 1 person marked this as a favorite.

In various conversations, this question has come up. In a recent one, I posted the below information. There is a debate going in [u]that thread[/u] about whether we can infer other details about Animal Companions based on this line of reasoning.

Please click that FAQ button up there.

GinoA wrote:

Might I offer a couple pieces of information on the "What reach does my Animal Companion have" question?

Quoted text is from paizo.com/.../prd/...

CRB/Druid wrote:

Ape

Starting Statistics: Size Medium; Speed 30 ft., Climb 30 ft.; AC +1 natural armor; Attack bite (1d4), 2 claws (1d4); Ability Scores Str 13, Dex 17, Con 10, Int 2, Wis 12, Cha 7; Special Qualities low-light vision, scent.

4th-Level Advancement: Size Large; AC +2 natural armor; Attack bite (1d6), 2 claws (1d6); Ability Scores Str +8, Dex –2, Con +4.

Please note there is no reference to reach.

Monster Index wrote:

Ape, Gorilla

Space 10 ft.; Reach 10 ft.

Now, I know Mike Brock is only the word-of-god for PFS, but he's also closely connected to the design team.

Mike Brock wrote:
The large ape has 10' reach.

Grand Lodge

Please post an actual question so it is FAQ-worthy as the devs like actually having questions to answer instead of having to infer questions and hope they answer the unspoken question correctly.

edit: Specifically, I don't think the question in your title (as it currently is) has anything FAQ'able in it. I suggest asking the specific question you want answered.


In any case, Large(tall) creatures normally have Reach 10-foot, so you do not have to refer to the Bestiary entry for it.


6 people marked this as FAQ candidate. 1 person marked this as a favorite.

...actually, I'm not FAQing this. It doesn't have a clear question in it like claudekennilol suggested, "Most animal companions don't have a natural reach listed for their attacks. For determining whether or not a natural attack should have reach for these animal companions, should we compare it to a bestiary entry for a corresponding creature?"


Brf wrote:
In any case, Large(tall) creatures normally have Reach 10-foot, so you do not have to refer to the Bestiary entry for it.

Exactly. If you go from Medium to Large, you gain 10ft reach. There is no need to repeat the information in multiple areas when it is covered in the same book.


Brf, there are creatures that are not clear if they are Large long or Large tall without looking at the Bestiary.


An Ape is a two-footed, two-armed creature though. Those are almost always (tall).


Lune wrote:
...actually, I'm not FAQing this. It doesn't have a clear question in it like claudekennilol suggested, "Most animal companions don't have a natural reach listed for their attacks. For determining whether or not a natural attack should have reach for these animal companions, should we compare it to a bestiary entry for a corresponding creature?"

Shamelessly stolen.

Grand Lodge

GinoA wrote:
Lune wrote:
...actually, I'm not FAQing this. It doesn't have a clear question in it like claudekennilol suggested, "Most animal companions don't have a natural reach listed for their attacks. For determining whether or not a natural attack should have reach for these animal companions, should we compare it to a bestiary entry for a corresponding creature?"
Shamelessly stolen.

I really hate to always seem like a jerk, but if you could put that at the top of your post it'd help instead of just in the thread title.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

lol, no way. I like the way he did it more. It is hillariously long in the thread list. I'm FAQing it now. hahaha


Gauss wrote:
Brf, there are creatures that are not clear if they are Large long or Large tall without looking at the Bestiary.

Can you give an example?

Paizo Employee Developer

4 people marked this as a favorite.

Holy subject line, Batman!


James Gibbons, any creature that does not exist in the real world or that the person looking at the Animal Companion entry is not familiar with. Without looking at the Bestiary, do you know what every dinosaur looks like?


James Gibbons wrote:
Gauss wrote:
Brf, there are creatures that are not clear if they are Large long or Large tall without looking at the Bestiary.
Can you give an example?

Beastrider Cavalier taking Bear as the mount. At 7th level, the normally medium (at 4th lvl) bear becomes large. There is no generic "bear" in the Bestiary. The options are Grizzly Bear and Dire Bear {I assume, considering the sizes listed for the AC bear that it's a Black Bear.} From just using what I know about bears, they're normally quadrupedal (Large, long), but when they fight often stand on their hind legs (Large, tall). The two bears in the Bestiary are Large-Long, but there's no indication whether or not the AC bear is related to the Bestiary bears, as far as stats are concerned.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Pathfinder Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Axebeak Sanctuary Society wrote:
Just as with any Companion, you compare its natural reach to its Bestiary entry.

This is what I do, and believe it to be the intention. Nor do I believe this to be especially FAQ worthy.


Its one of those things I didn't even know it was questioned by anyone until I brought it up. If there are a lot of people who question it then maybe it IS FAQ worthy. *shrug*


GinoA wrote:
Lune wrote:
...actually, I'm not FAQing this. It doesn't have a clear question in it like claudekennilol suggested, "Most animal companions don't have a natural reach listed for their attacks. For determining whether or not a natural attack should have reach for these animal companions, should we compare it to a bestiary entry for a corresponding creature?"
Shamelessly stolen.

Grr. Now I can't edit the first post to add the well-worded question and the silly-long subject got moderated down to something reasonable. So, my FAQ suggestion is officially Luna's question that I quoted above.


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber

Interesting question, but I think that comparing the animal companion to the bestiary entry for determining reach is the common sense thing to do. If there's somehow a creature that becomes large as an AC but the bestiary version is only medium, then it might be a real question.

Not hitting FAQ either.

And large bears totally don't have reach, especially if you're a beastrider cavalier RIDING on the bear. Are you sitting on its shoulders as it lurches awkwardly around on its hind legs? Sure, I get that the game follows its own rules that aren't always reflective of reality (iterative attacks with a muzzle loaded gun), but that's a little silly to me.


Castarr4 wrote:
And large bears totally don't have reach, especially if you're a beastrider cavalier RIDING on the bear. Are you sitting on its shoulders as it lurches awkwardly around on its hind legs? Sure, I get that the game follows its own rules that aren't always reflective of reality (iterative attacks with a muzzle loaded gun), but that's a little silly to me.

What if you're not riding it?

The point is the same, though. Many of the CRB animal companions do not have a direct, same size analogue in the Bestiaries for how large they can get with the current rules interactions.

I mean, how hard would it be for them to just come out and say, "Use the Bestiary entry or the closest thing to it (such as the Grizzly Bear for a Bear AC)?"


Lune.
Male, not female.
...also, not French.


A while back, I made a list of large animal companions whose corresponding creatures appear to have reach equal to their space.

For the most part, I think going off of the bestiary entries is an effective method. Although, if this does get FAQed, I would definitely like to know what to do about the Diplodocus and Elasmosaurus animal companions, whose corresponding bestiary entries have reaches greater than their spaces.


Lune wrote:

Lune.

Male, not female.
...also, not French.

Well geez! This thread is making me look dumber every time I say something. I wonder what I scerwed up in this one.

Although, to be fair, I would have been calling you Italian, not French. I'm not cruel enough to call someone French.

- Gino Antonio...

Sczarni

Some people assume that since no reach is specified, that all large-sized companions have 5ft reach. These people feel no need to reference the Bestiary, or actively argue against it.

But there's an inherent flaw in that thinking.

There are two types of Large: tall and long. The first has 10ft reach, and the second has 5ft reach. Assuming that all large-sized creatures have 5ft reach is just as erroneous as assuming that all large-sized creatures have 10ft reach.

If someone says an Axebeak has 5ft reach, I'm just as able to claim a Horse has 10ft reach. They're both made up answers.

Since that's silly, let's rely on the reference we're given.


Heh. Italian and Native American actually. Wasn't offended (unless you were calling me French). Just correcting.

Nefreet: That is probably the most succinctly worded, logical based perspective I have seen yet.

Grand Lodge

There is the additional factor that both the enlarge person spell, and the Eidolon Large evolution both stipulate that only Humanoid (Enlarge Person) and Bipedal (Eidolon evolution) gain reach when increasing from size medium to size large. (This is in line with Nefreet's "tall" vs "long")

The problem is that tall vs long only applies to large and larger creatures, so the authors don't designate for a lot of medium creatures which they are supposed to be. But we can be pretty sure that if you are humanoid or bipedal, you are meant to be tall, and if you are quadropedal or serpentine, you are meant to be long.


FLite: That is pretty close to how I rule as well. With a few possible exceptions to things with long necks or something.

Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder First Edition / Rules Questions / Animal Companions and Reach All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.