DigitalMage's page

kikidmonkey wrote:

I once played a character that had an Int score below that of a child's, several times throughout the campaign the party would run into puzzles/challenges that the other PC's could not figure out (including characters with Intelligence scores that would make Einstein look like a blathering fool). Since I knew the answers, i came up with ways to have my character reveal them to the rest of the party.

One such example is when there was an idol sitting on a pedestal that would teleport us to the next area. As the rest of the party scrambled around the room trying to find hidden passages and such, I had my character play with the "pretty doll" that someone left behind...

That’s just poor roleplaying and turning your stat dumping, which should be a disadvantage to an advantage. Borderline cheating. Not “good metagaming”.

It depends, if the other players had had a fair crack at the puzzle but were struggling then it was potentially good meta-gaming as the alternative could have been the adventure stalling and players getting bored.

This is especially true if you have a pixel-b+&$$ing GM who isn't ensuring the game keeps going by giving hints, Intelligence checks to figure the puzzle out, or simply other alternatives that don't require the puzzle to be solved.

I have some sympathy for SKR here.

I feel that he's not allowed or feels he can't use the 3.5 exception for whatever reason. So he has to find another way to make sense.

I can't see why he wouldn't be allowed to re-institute the 3.5 exception other than someone at Paizo higher up the chain not allowing it. Even if the exception isn't in the SRD, you can still institute the same rule, just not use the wording WotC used in the 3.5 PHB.

DigitalMage wrote:

In the worse cases the attitude that all metagaming is bad can lead to the situations where someone tries to use "But I'm only doing what my character would do" to excuse being a jerk. . .

Yes! It irritates me so much when someone plays their character in an obviously jerky (self serving, manipulative, greedy, etc.) way and uses "It's what my character would do" as an excuse. It's like when somebody launches an insult then says, "I was just kidding, geez, can't she take a joke?"

Yep, and this is where good meta-gaming should be used; if an action that in-character makes sense, but that out-of-game would make the game less fun then the player needs to meta-game and come up with a different course of action for his character, even if it makes less sense than the original course.

Some of the things being talked about are less "metagaming" and more just glossing over details to further the session and the story.

I would disagree but that comes down to us having different definitions of meta-gaming, I just use the term to mean using out of game knowledge to make in game decisions.

I would define metagaming as abusing OOC knowledge to the player's advantage such as using knowledge you read from the Beastiary to instantly know a foe's weaknesses and exploit them or reading ahead in the AP to intentionally avoid traps and ambushes.

Yep, different definitions.

The trouble is, when the term meta-gaming is used only to describe the bad forms of it, some people come to think that they should never use out of character knowledge to make in character decisions (whether the result is beneficial or not) - and that can lead to games involving less fun.

In the worse cases the attitude that all metagaming is bad can lead to the situations where someone tries to use "But I'm only doing what my character would do" to excuse being a jerk, e.g. stealing from the party, not including all players in discussion over plans, not allowing a new PC to join the party, actively trying to prevent a PC achieving their faction goal in PFS etc.

Hmmm, I think I will go with my initial stance. At the start of a PFS game I will ask the GM if I can control my animal companion, and if not I will try to judge whether I trust the GM to run my character's animal companion appropriately - if not I will elect to have my character leave his dog back on the farm.

As for increasing my character's animal companion's Intelligence to 3, I will have to think about it, I am not sure that fits my concept for the "mostly loyal but sometimes distracted mutt".

Thanks for all those who corrected me :)

Annoyingly I did check the rulebook for Cover and Concealment, the Invisible condition and the Invisibility special ability. Unfortunately because I saw a Cover and Attacks of Opportunity: section explicitly spelt out under the Cover section, I was looking for a similarly titled section in the Concealment section and I missed the pertinent text by skimming.

So whilst I was correct in saying...

Cover prevents AoOs yes, concealment doesn't though.

I was not correct in then saying...

So technically an invisible character does provoke I believe.

...because being invisible doesn't just give your Concealment (which doesn't prevent AoOs) but gives you Total Concealment (which does).

More generally, creatures with concealment or cover do not provoke.

Cover prevents ApPs yes, concealment doesn't though. So technicallyan invisible character does provoke I believe. E.g. an invisible opponent is in front of you and starts casting a spell with verbal components, you should be able to make an AoO.

Doh! Yes, a typo, I meant drain, not damage, so that fourth paragraphe should have read:

However if that character had instead taken 4 points of Dexterity drain(not penalty) his Dexterity of 18 (+4) would have become 14 (+2) and his AC would have remained at 18 (10 + 2 for his reduced Dex Bonus + 6 for chainmail).

Sorry for the confusion!

The change to Ability bonuses and penalties & damage is one of the things I really dislike about Pathfinder as it just causes lots of "WFT?!" moments (especially when it interacts with other rules).

For example A Dex 18 character wearing Chainmail (Max Dex Bonus of +2) has an AC of 18 (10 + 2 of his Dex Bonus + 6 for chainmail).

If that character suffers a -4 Dexterity penalty, he suffers a -2 penalty to Dexterity skill checks, ability checks etc [i]and AC[/]. So in PF that character ends up with an AC of 16 (10 + 2 of his Dex Bonus + 6 for chainmail -2 for the 4 points of Dexterity penalty).

However if that character had instead taken 4 points of Dexterity damage (not penalty) his Dexterity of 18 (+4) would have become 14 (+2) and his AC would have remained at 18 (10 + 2 for his reduced Dex Bonus + 6 for chainmail).

Although I believe the designers intended that the change to Ability Penalties and Damage would make tracking those changes easier, it IMHO actually causes more issues than it solves.

Well I guess I killed that thread dead! :( Sorry Yemeth

Things with too many fiddly bits, 3.5 grapple (bad) vs. pathfinder grapple (good)

Funny, but I would actually have that the other way around - PF seems more fiddly to me what with having to keep track of who is the Grappler and Grapplee for example. The CMB / CMD idea is good in principal but flawed (IMHO) in practise. See the following example...

Adam is Medium sized, has BAB of +1, Dex of 16 (+3), Strength of 12 (+1) and is wearing Studded Leather armour (+3 AC).
Blaze is Medium sized, has a BAB of +1, Dex of 12 (+1), Strength of 14 (+2), 1 rank in Escape Artist and a feat that gives +2 to Escape Artist (Stealthy in PF, Agile in 3.5).

If Adam with an AC of 16 (+3 Dex, wearing Studded Leather +3 AC) has managed to Pin Blaze what is Adam's effective AC?

If Adam with a CMD of 15 (+1 BAB, +3 Dex, +1 Strength) is just grappling Blaze who has CMB of +3 (+1 BAB, +2 Str) and an Escape Artist modifier of +4 (1 rank +2 from Feat and +1 Dex) what would Blaze roll to escape being grappled by Adam and what would be the DC?

What would Blaze roll to escape if she was instead pinned?

Are Blaze's chances to escape better or worse if she has been pinned?

Note that option 2 is similar to the interpretation of Combat Reflexes - without CR, you can only make one AoO, but with CR you can make a set number of AoOs that are NOT an addition to the general 1, but are a replacement for it, so there is precedent for the 2nd interpretation.

Actually Combat Reflexes provides additional AoOs (i.e. in addition to the one everyone gets) equal to your Dex Bonus.

Combat Reflexes actually allows ADDITIONAL attacks of opportunity in PF instead of the set number from 3.5.

Um, 3.5 was the same - you got additional AoOs equal to your Dex bonus.

On the other hand it can work in your favour. Say a character has a Dexterity of 18 (+4) but is wearing Chainmail (Max Dex Bonus of +2) and is affected by a Cat's Grace spell giving a +4 Dexterity Bonus. In this instance the character would get a +2 to AC even with the armour (so AC would be 10 + 2 of Dex Bonus +2 from Cat's Grace + 6 for chainmail = 20).

The way temporary bonuses work in Pathfinder, they don't increase Dexterity but instead provide a bonus to Dexterity related stats including AC.

But make that spell permanent and after 24 hours the bonus to AC would be gone as then you have Dex of 22 and a Dex bonus of +6 which is then limited by the armour (so AC would be 10 + 2 of Dex Bonus +6 for chainmail = 18).

Yes, as you haven't actually moved from your square (just used a Move action to Stand) you can take a 5' step.

I believe "other kind of movement" in the sentence "You can move 5 feet in any round when you don't perform any other kind of movement" is meant to refer to the actions of Move (including climb, swim etc), Run, Withdraw and Charge etc - not Stand Up.

No, and I don't intend to as it'd not worth the effort to me. It is the first RPG I have run where I haven't read the core book cover to cover (although just reading the 3.5 Monster Manual now; phb and dmg read cover to cover ages ago).

As I only play PF in PFS I am deliberately restricted to just Paizo PF material. However, if it's not PFS I always prefer 3.5 and wouldn't allow any PF material.

You'd need to change the base of the numbers. For spells vs saving throws, instead of a DC of 10+spell level + stat bonus + other bonuses you'd have a bonus to the "Attack" roll of spell level + stat bonus + any other bonuses. Instead of a Saving Throw bonus, you'd have 10 + your class saving throw bonus + stat bonus + any other modifiers.

(There may be an off by one error in there changing the odds by 5%. Adjust for that.)

The Defense stat would become 12+Save Bonus

Base Save modifier of +0 against a Cantrip (spell level zero) cast by a wizard with a +0 Int modifer

Save is rolled:
d20 + 0 Save vs Spell DC of 10 (10 +0 +0) = 9 in 20 chance (roll of 1 thru 9) of failure or 45% chance of spell taking effect.

Spell attack if rolled versus static Save defence:
d20 + 0 (0+0) vs Save of 12 (12 + 0) = 9 in 20 chance (roll of 13 thru 20) of success or 45% chance of spell taking effect.

How do you think players would feel if you cast dominate person on them, which lasts for days? How do you think they would feel if, under the rolling system, you told them no matter what they rolled they couldn't succeed?

You're basically taking away the ability to save against super specialized wizards in mind controlling effects. If they stack it high enough it will be literally impossible to save. Even if it's only 5% there's always the chance you'll succeed on a spell. With the defensive method you no longer have that 5%. You can literally be mind controlled for days on end and have no chance of doing anything about it.

I don't understand. In PF on a Save a natural 1 is always a fail and a natural 20 always a success, similarly on an attack roll. So if Saves became static defences against which an attack roll was made why would you assume you still wouldn't have the 5% chance to fail and 5% chance to succeed?

All that would happen is who rolls the dice a natural 20 on an attack roll is the equivalent of a natural 1 on a save and vice versa.

Funny how WotC has taught people that the game must follow the "completely new edition every 5 years" paradigm. Call of Cthulhu players must be amused, in particular :_

Funny, I learnt that from Shadowrun (started in 1989 and getting its 5th edition soon, or 6th if you include the 20th anniversary edition as seperate from 4th ed). Savage World's has had quite a few editions as well. M&M is on 3rd ed as well. Really WotC aren't doing anything much different by releasing new editions as regularly as they do.

I dislike 4e defenses because of an actual mechanical change. You always succeed on natural 20's. That's why dice roller has somewhat of an advantage. Dice roller almost always has advantage because its easier to buff your rolls than it is to buff static dc's in pathfinder.

So basically, in 4e they made save or suck spells that more potent. You don't get the chance of a natural 20 so someone who stacked around that basically can *boom* you're down. Otherwise you have to remove save or sucks from the game, and personally I felt like they did add to the game. I just feel that making some things completely unsaveable is a design flaw and this can happen with a defense system for saving throws.

But in PF a natural 1 on a Save is always a failure no matter how many buffs you have, so I don't really see a difference.

Pathfinder flourishes because:1. Wotc/Hasbro abandoned 3.5 and replaced it with something far inferior

I imagine you mean that in the sense that it is your opinion, I have heard many others say 4e is best version of D&D they have played.

What I would say is that 4e was a very different game in its mechanics and that is what I think meant many weren't happy with (especially as the shift from 3.0 to 3.5 was so minimal). The post from Alexander Augunas (see my quote below) and BPorter's seconding of that idea seems to corroborate that.

3. Pathfinder turned out to be an improvement on 3.5

Again, debatable. Whilst PF improved some things, it IMHO made many others worse. I (and I don't believe I am alone) still prefer 3.5 over PF, to the point that I have recently re-purchased the Core Books and Spell Compendium in the Premium versions,

along with great service and support by the company.

I have to agree with you there, Paizo have great customer service and really connect well with the players (apart from one rather poor Facebook incident I encountered, and no I will not go into details here).

On a different note, one of the things that bugged me about Dungeons and Dragons was that new "edition" actually meant "entirely new game." If your core mechanics aren't staying pretty much the same and you're getting a massive overhaul, you don't really have a new edition anymore. You have a new game. A new edition should be minor tweaks and changes to the previous edition that cleans it up a little bit.

I think it comes down to semantics, some would say a new version of just tweaks and changes is a revision, not a new edition (see Star Wars D6 2nd Edition and Star Wars D6 2nd Edition Revised and Expanded).

What I will say about 4e being an "entirely new game" is that it gives me reason to play it alongside 3.5 - I get different things out of it. Pathfinder gave me no such enticement, its too close to 3.5 to encourage me to make the shift and learn all the little tweaks and changes. The Organised Play Campaign is the only reason I play PF. So while I prefer 3.x over 4e, I have a hell of a lot more 4e books than PF books.

Anyway... I just wanted to provide the other perspective.

I want to make my animal companion go full defense or fight defensively? Is this under the normal attack command or is it any other trick? Is it even possible to handle animal to do that?

I don't believe these sorts of things have a formal Trick. If its a home game you could always create one if you wanted your character to command his animal to take such a stance.

However, if you feel your animal would naturally choose to use such a stance in light of the command given (e.g. when badly wounded but commanded to Attack it may choose to Fight Defensively, if told to simply Stay whilst being attacked it may choose to go Total Defense) then I would argue you don't need a trick.

However whether you as a player get to decide that your animal companion naturally chooses to use such a stance, or whether its the GM who gets to decide how the animal interprets and implements the commands given is debatable.

Several people are adamant that it should be the GM making the call, whereas others like myself think RAW is unclear either way but as the animal companion is part of the player's character build its probably best to let them decide.

So, for those saying "There's nothing wrong with rules":

How do you run it?
Can you leave cover and sneak attack if you can reach the target in a round?
Can you cross between two areas of cover without losing stealth?

The key thing for me is whether combat has started or not. If combat is ongoing characters have no facing as they are considered to be constantly looking around for incoming threats. So in combat, no, no sneaking up to attack someone if that involves you leaving cover and concealment. Also no moving between two areas of cover.

Before initiative is rolled however its a different story. A guard at a town gate may not be looking around constantly (that state of alertness is hard to keep up) and indeed even if alert may be focusing on the area outside the gate (and so is not observing the area behind him inside the town gate; at least not with his eyes). So in such an instance if this is how the GM describes the scene a PC could sneak up on that guard, or move across open ground behind him (assuming he makes his stealth check).

Now if a PC wanted to approach the guard from outside the town gate (i.e. the area being observed) then that would normally be impossible as it would mean leaving cover or concealment - however there rules say "If your observers are momentarily distracted (such as by a Bluff check), you can attempt to use Stealth."

So if the guards are distracted a PC could sneak up and attack them, or move through open terrain. This distraction could be a Bluff check, but could also simply be a servant bringing the guard his evening meal and that guard turning to the servant for a few seconds, or even just one guard turning to the other to have a chat. The key thing is outside of the strict timing of a combat round PCs can wait for that momentary distraction and then act quickly (and thus have the -10 penalty).

Of course having said all that I play 3.5 mainly (only PF RPG for PFS) and 3.5 has explicit rules for moving between open areas and up on someone (from Complete Adventurer and reprinted, albeit with a slight error due to reformatting, in Rules Compendium):

Move between Cover: If you’re already hiding (thanks to cover or concealment) and you have at least 5 ranks in Hide, you can make a Hide check (with a penalty) to try to move across an area that does not offer cover or concealment without revealing yourself. For every 5 ranks in Hide you possess, you can move up to 5 feet between one hiding place and another. For every 5 feet of open space you must cross between hiding places, you take a –5 penalty on your Hide check. If you move at more than one-half your speed, you also take the normal penalty on Hide checks when moving quickly (–10 for moving faster than normal speed, or –5 for moving between half speed and normal speed).

You can also use this option to sneak up on someone from a hiding place. For every 5 feet of open space between you and the target, you take a –5 penalty on your Hide check. If your Hide check succeeds, your target doesn't notice you until you attack or make some other attention-grabbing action. Such a target is treated as being flat-footed with respect to you.

That is pretty much it yes.

However to continue your exmaple if Bob then attempt to reverse the grapple again or break free, it isn't clear whether Bob still gets the +5 to his CMB:

"If your target does not break the grapple, you get a +5 circumstance bonus on grapple checks made against the same target in subsequent rounds."
Pete didn't break the grapple on his second turn, he reversed it instead, so according to a literal reading of the RAW Bob should get the +5, however I don't believe that is what was necessarily intended.

Also remember that apart from the initial check to start the grapple all subsequent CMB checks are against the opponent's CMD-2 (as both parties have the Grappled condition that imposes a -4 Dexterity penalty that equates to a -2 to all Dex related stats including CMD). Also that bonus applies to CMB if Bob or Pete have Agile Manouevres (or they are Tiny) and thus add Dex to CMB instead of Strength.

Yes, it is metagaming, but most likely it is a good type of metagaming, especially if the GM is running a pre-published scenario that is written with the assumption of a "balanced party".

Readying an action is itself a Standard action, but you then choose what action to ready and it can be any of the following types: a standard action, a move action, a swift action, or a free action. So you could ready to use a move action to move your speed (but that would be all).

If you don't use the action to actually move you can also 5 foot step (if you haven't already done so).

The majority of the rules for Dungeons & Dragons 3rd Edition was released as Open Game Content (OGC) using the Open Game Licence (OGL). Paizo originally wrote adventures and setting material for D&D 3rd Edition under a brand they called Pathfinder.

When D&D 3rd edition was superceded by 4th edition Paizo took those rules available to them under the OGL, made some changes and created the Pathfinder RPG. The Pathfinder RPG system is very similar to, but not the same as D&D 3rd edition.

In their store Paizo use the term OGL to indicate that a product was written was D&D 3rd Edition, and uses PFRPG to indicate that a produce was written for the Pathfinder RPG.

This is a little confusing as most of the content of the Pathfinder RPG and many of its books is also released under the OGL.

Maybe the barbarian could issue commands like Attack (or Flank) before he Rages? Once raging the dog carries on that last command.

Or maybe have someone else in the party trained in Handle Animal :)

Kthulhu wrote:

You do realize that Wayne Reynolds was already working for WotC for several years before Paizo even existed, right?

He didn't do anything with the first 4th edition books, though, that is for sure.

Um, the very first 4e books (PHB, DMG and MM) all had Wayne Reynolds covers! So yeah, I wouldn't be so sure :)

EDIT: Doh! Steve Geddes already said that! That will teach me to respond to posts as I am reading through the thread rather than reading all to the end.

Wait, how does running Pathfinder in a 3.5 (like Ebberon) setting require conversion? Unless you are using a module, you don't need to convert anything.

Maybe warforged could be boosted, but otherwise it works.

The Artificer class, the iconic new class introduced in Eberron would require conversion, for example how does their Craft Reserve work in PF now that magic item crafting no longer requires XP (at least that is what I understand, I haven't actually read those PF rules as I only play in PFS).

In addition Prestige Classes would need to have their Class Skills amended and the Skill Rank Requirements adjusted (8 ranks would be 5 ranks) and other Requirements may need to be waived (e.g. Eldeen Ranger Track Feat requirement).

Finally, new monsters and NPCs are statted up in the books (not just adventures) that would need some conversion, e.g. CMB/CMD calculating, some feats would become useless and need replacing etc.

So yeah, it may not be as much as converting to a completely different system like GURPS, but to me at least it is a non-trivial investment. And an investment that would then have me using a system that I prefer less than 3.5!

DigitalMage wrote:

In terms of non PFS games I now decline to play (and it was one reason why I left my weekly game group of several years). Basically I want to make use of the 3.5 material I have on my shelves.

I have a pretty wide collection of 3.X material in my personal library myself. And with each passing month, my desire to ever use any of it again continues to dwindle, as Paizo offers better alternatives to any of that work that I would use, and the rest is of no further interest.

Which just shows that people's tastes differ. Another reason for me leaving that group was because I had a load of other RPGs on my shelf as well that weren't seeing play whilst I was playing RPGs with the group that I just wasn't bothered about.

So while I enjoyed it for the social aspect the gaming was interesting me enough.

DigitalMage wrote:

I love how Eberron is a kitchen sink setting, but it is done in such a way that it has a cohesive theme and feel.

[...]
So because Golarion is the only setting for PF, and it isn't one I am fond of, my interest in PF isn't as great as it could have been.

You can run Pathfinder if 3.5 settings though.

Not without some conversion though which is in itself enough to make me unlikely to do so, but when I also prefer 3.5 over PF, there really is no incentive to do so other than perhaps if I get to the point when I can only find players willing to play PF but not 3.5.

If however, Golarion had been even more appealing to me than Eberron I might have pursued the PF RPG in spite of itself - hence why settings can help the success of a system.

So... read two pages and no one has mentioned my reason for the success.

The one thing Pathfinder does do is concentrate it's efforts into one setting. Though the "kitchen sink" setting (like Eberron) sometimes gets it's detractors, this setting has stirred the imaginations of many through excellent products that treat the setting as a place instead of a generic placemat.

For me, the fact that Pathfinder RPG only has one official (i.e. Paizo created) setting is actually a turn off.

I got into D&D with 3.5 and I bought the 3.0 Forgotten Realms setting book thinking that would be my D&D setting (I liked the map with trade routes etc) - however I got really bored slogging through reading the book (Dale after Dale after Dale!). If FR had been the only D&D setting available I think my love of D&D would have been shortlived, but luckily there was Eberron! :)

I love how Eberron is a kitchen sink setting, but it is done in such a way that it has a cohesive theme and feel. Golarion on the other hand feels like a hodge-podge of mini-settings, and while I can like some individually (Darkmoon Vale for example) as whole it feels "bitty".

So because Golarion is the only setting for PF, and it isn't one I am fond of, my interest in PF isn't as great as it could have been.

Could you not create the NPC as a lower level, e.g. cleric level 12? Or does he still need to be able to cast the higher level spells?

In most cases, it's simply better for the party to whale away on the monster since the Grappled condition prevents it from taking AOOs and it takes a -4 Dex penalty, making it easy to surround and pound.

Yep, and if the monster has actually pinned your ally his AC will lose any dex bonus and still suffer -2 AC due to the -4 Dex penalty from the Grappled condition (due to, as I understand it at least, the weird way Ability Penalties and Damage work in PF).

So if the Monster was a constrictor snake with AC 15 (+3 Dex, +2 natural) if it had pinned your foe its AC would be only 10.

This thread confuses me. As far as I can tell, 3.5e died in 2008. Pathfinder is a different game.

I agree Pathfinder is a different game, but to be fair the thread title refers to 3.x not 3.5; so that to me includes 3.0, 3.5 and 3.P (i.e. PF).

Also, this is the most active community about a game, that at least resembles a game I care a lot about.

That is pretty much the reason I play PF, I only play PF RPG in Pathfinder Society organised play games because its the closest I can get to a 3.5 living game at conventions that is popular enough for me to always get a game.

In terms of non PFS games I now decline to play (and it was one reason why I left my weekly game group of several years). Basically I want to make use of the 3.5 material I have on my shelves.

When a monthly local PFS game ended in a TPK after only two adventures it was suggested just playing a non-PFS PF rpg game. I was reluctant but said I would be interested if I could use it as an opportunity to trey out some 3.5 sourcebook material, maybe a class from Tome of Battle - the potential GM was reluctant to allow 3.5 material and so the game never happened.

I love 3.5 and tolerate PF.

Yep, that pretty much sums up my feelings too, and my tolerance has to keep getting more and more as I discover more and more weird stuff about PF that worked okay in 3.5 (e.g. grappling and most recently how Ability Penalties and Bonuses give counter-intuitive results when 3.5's way worked fine)

Can I play a drow ranger?

By the core rules, no.

Apples and oranges - creating a PC who is a drow and controlling an animal companion are completely different things.

Again the default is that the DM runs the animal companion.

I know you 100% think the RAW states animal companions are run by the GM, but I still do not believe that to be true despite all that you have stated and quoted (and I don't think I am alone). That fact alone should indicate that the RAW is not clear on this, otherwise we would have been convinced a long time ago.

As a matter of rules, the player portrays only his/her character.

Debateable, but even if we agree with this, there is a valid argument for the animal companion being considered part of the PC and thus to be played by a player.

So basically, its not clear, and if something isn't clear in the rules (whether its who controls an animal companion or something else) it is best to have a discussion about it before it comes up in play.

You do, however, have an argument that the player shouldn't demand that they control their AC. I don't think anyone could argue against that.

Yep, well said! So while I agree with the following:

Here is the crux of it: do the core rules allow the player to demand to run things besides his PC? No.

Can a DM let a player do so? Yes.

I also agree with the reverse:

Can a Player let a GM do so? Yes.

Basically it should be a discussion and an agreement - if no agreement can be achieved maybe the player would be better off playing a PC without an animal companion.

DigitalMage wrote:

I am not saying that a GM not playing animal foes without animal level intelligence and instinct does not matter at all, just that over the course of an adventure it is not a big deal (emphasis on the word 'big').

I understood what you were saying, but I disagree and believe that it is a big deal.

Fair enough, you obviously feel such animal foes have a much bigger impact on the feel of the setting than I do.

Now this can come in multiple flavors:

1. The DM is new and learning. They will likely welcome players running allied creatures for him/her. In which case, for your concerns and goals this will be a moot point.

2. The DM is not new, but is willing to learn. They likely will also welcome players running, or helping run allied creatures. Again your concern about the animal companion suicide runs would get alleviated.

3. The DM is not new, but is unwilling to learn. Here if they do not insist on portraying the animal companion or other allies, you still have great problems here. This is the tip of an iceberg that is going to sink the ship. Get to a life boat.

How about...

4. The DM is running several NPCs and monsters per scene, in addition to adjudicating rules, keeping an eye on the time (be it PFS or a home game), thinking ahead about the next encounter, coming up with ideas of how he can salvage the adventure if it looks like the PCs will actually be defeated by an encounter that was only supposed to be a hindrance etc that he knowingly gives a little less thought to the tactics of one of his several monsters. In this instance the players may not mind too much if it means the adventure runs quicker and smoother.

Now, your particular concern seems to be focused on PFS

Not necessarily, I have the same concerns about any theoretical private game I were to play in where I played a druid with an animal companion.

Since when did D&D localize and not refine their definitions?

The rules are simply not written that way. They tell you a story, but that gets further clarified as you progress through the rules. It's the chosen style for them and has been throughout this edition.

And that is fine, but then once you have made that extra clarification on what a PC is, you can't then return to the much broader definition to say "well animal companions are not PCs and thus cannot be portrayed by players as that doesn't fit with the looser definition" - either use the broader definition or the narrower one, don't use whichever combination "proves" your interpretation of the rules.

This is a set of rules for the game. Not legalistic, but rather teaching oriented.

Exactly, and yet you appear to be trying to treat it as legalistic text by piecing together bits of text that are not so much rules but explanatory text describing the normal case scenario, and trying to extrapolate black and white RAW rulings for all scenarios.

For example, many classes don't have extra companions such as familiar and animal companions, and so mainly it is correct to described how each player plays one character - but should that be interpreted as strict rule to enforce? I would say no.

Thus a gaming group could decide any of the following (non-exhaustive):

1. The GM runs everything but the PCs.
2. The player of the druid portrays the animal companion.
3. The GM assigns each of the non-PCs allied to the party with players.
4. Any of the above is decided by the GM at a given time.

For the core rules, however, the answer is #1. The GM can certainly allow for the others, but here you move into house rules and campaign decisions and away from the core rules.

And here I say again that whilst you do have an argument that #1 is the default method, it is not clear cut.

As stated, it can equally be argued that an animal companion is part of a PC (as a PC is not just the fluff of name, personality and background, but also mechanics such as classes, levels, hit points etc) and so even if we agree that #1 is correct and "The GM runs everything but the PCs" that would mean the GM does not get to run the animal companion - as doing so would mean the GM as running a PC, albeit only in part.

My view is not that players always run animal companions, but that the RAW has no clear voice on it one way or the other - and I am yet to be convinced otherwise. Sorry!

They are only contradictory/inconsistent if you taken as given that the player portrays the animal companion.

You know, thinking about this, I guess I can start to see where you are coming from, and I guess you could have an argument for your case.

Player Character (Character, PC): These are the characters portrayed by the players.

I believe your argument relies on reading the above not as a definition of what constitutes a player character (as that would mean any character played by a player is a PC) but rather inferring that it is a statement/rule that means "all character played by players must be PCs".

If that interpretation is taken (and I guess it could be seen as a valid interpretation) then that leads on to the next part of your argument...

Defining a Player Character as a character that, as well as being played by a player (and not the GM), is created and run according to a specific set of rules, e.g. generation of ability scores, choice of Race and Class from a specific subset, beginning equipement based on class starting goal, gaining of XP and levelling up etc.

If this is your definition of what a PC is, it can be seen that an animal companion is not a PC. However, this definition is not exactly clear from the rulebook.

So, combining the inferred rule that "all character played by players must be PCs" and the interpretation of the definition of a PC as being "a character that, as well as being played by a player (and not the GM), is created and run according to a specific set of rules" then yep it would seem that animal companions shouldn't be run by players.

However, the above is based on inference and interpretation. If we take the literal reading of page 12 as being the definition of a PC (i.e. that it is a character played by a player) then that is the definition pure and simple - the definition does not then get additional clauses that the character has to earn XP etc. So with this in mind, you have an argument in the debate, but I wouldn't say it is the only argument or one that is necessarily even convincing.

But let's say we go with your definitions and interpretations. By stating that a in order to be a Player Character a character needs to have class levels, earn XP etc, you are implying that a character is made up of fluff (concept, name, background story etc) AND mechanics, Hit Points, Class Levels, XP, Ability Scores etc.

If that is the case, I believe an equally strong argument could be made that an animal companion, while having a distinct and separate personality from the PC's main personality, is mechanically part of the Player Character build - its Hit Dice, size and so forth are integrally tied to the class levels of the PC build. Therefore, an animal companion being part of the PC should be played by the player.

So even if we accept your interpretation of the text, we can still make an argument that animal companions should be played by players without contradicting your definitions (and with this argument we are actually making the claim that animal companions should not by default be run by GMs!)

In the end, I think that whilst there are arguments for GM controlling animal companions and arguments for players controlling animal companions there is no clear and definitive ruling on the subject. Therefore I believe it should be a discussion between GM and players right at character creation - and that seems to be what the designers had in mind too!

DigitalMage wrote:

However if a GM plays his animal foes without any instinct or animal level intelligence its no big deal, even if it means that animal winds up dead.

I disagree. If the DM is not portraying the animals as animals, then he is lowering your immersion in his/her world. I would think that you would want to speak with them about it even if 'it only made an easy encounter easier'.

I am not saying that a GM not playing animal foes without animal level intelligence and instinct does not matter at all, just that over the course of an adventure it is not a big deal (emphasis on the word 'big').

For example, the PCs encounter a pack of wolves as they are just about to turn in for the night in their camp and the fire has begun to die. If the GM has one of the wolves run straight at a particular PC, even though that means it suffers an attack of opportunity from another PC, the players are unlikely to be that bothered by it (I mean they got an extra attack in).

And if it means that wolf dies a few rounds earlier than it may have done otherwise then again, I don't think the GM or players will lose sleep over it, as it was likely expected that the PCs would kill or rout the wolves anyway and they would play no further part in the adventure.

Now if by a GM playing an animal companion in a similar way the animal companion died rather than surviving - it is a much bigger deal. A part of a player's character has been killed off and the player may likely be more annoyed at the GM for using bad tactics and not playing up the fact that even animal companions have some level of intelligence and an instinct to avoid danger.

TL;DR, yes ideally all GMs would play animal, whether foes or companions, as if they were animals with the appropriate level of intelligence and instinct. However, if they don't, it will likely be a lesser issue in regards to NPC animals than with a player's animal companion.

So, if a DM control a mundane animal as an ennemy of the PC, it will take the perfect path to dodge opportunities, but not when he controls the AC ? What kind of DM would do that in a standard play ?

Animals may have 1 or 2 INT, but they do have instincts of survival, and for some of them, hunter instincts.

I would hope any GM would roleplay animal foes and animal companions in the same manner.

However if a GM plays his animal foes without any instinct or animal level intelligence its no big deal, even if it means that animal winds up dead.

But should a GM run a player's animal companion without any instinct or animal level intelligence it is a big deal for the player, especially if it means that animal winds up dead.

Actually, there is no need to argue if a AC is in the Player's or the DM's control, isn't it ? The rules are clear : the player need to do a Handle animal skill check to make him act as he wants.

The discussion is about whether there are any rules as to who controls the animal companion in regards to how the animal reacts without any given commands, or in the performance of any commands.

So in combat :

You succeed : you control the creature.
You fail : the MD control the creature, which is doing something it would naturally do (protect its master, attacking a random creature instead of the creature targeted, ...).

Some people are arguing that whether the Handle Animal skill succeeds or fails, the GM is by RAW the person to control the animal, whereas others feel there is no rule in RAW either way. I am not sure anyone is actually trying to prove by RAW that a player should run animal companions.

So its a matter of what path an animal follows to get to the target it has been told to Attack, whether it uses its Stealth skill when performing the Track trick, or whether the players gets to dictate how an animal acts if its master hasn't performed a command (does it flee from a foe that attacks it or does it fight back?)

I realize I kind of started this, but isn't the quote from animal archive pretty conclusive.

Yep! More convincing than anything else I have read :)

Animal Archive wrote:

Questions To Ask Your GM

3) Do I control my animal directly in combat the same way I control my PC, or is it treated as an NPC under the GM's control?

Then follow this logic:

1. The animal companion is not a PC. PCs have many rules and the animal companion does not follow these.

2. You believe that the animal companion is a character, but not a player character. Right?

3. The characters portrayed by the players are the [/i]the player characters[/i].

Now from logic this gives us that the animal companions would be characters that are not portrayed by the players.

I will reiterate what I said a few posts back here:

Step 1 of your logic relies on your definition of a PC as being more than just a character a player portrays, the character needs to earn XP, have class levels etc, to be considered a PC (I assume this is what you mean by "PCs have many rules"). Therefore by that definition yes, an animal companion is not a PC.

Step 2, I agree that an animal companion is a character in the story correct, and that if we use the definition of PC outlined in step 1 I agree it wouldn't be a PC.

Step 3, here is where your logic falls down. You now use the much broader definition of PC in the core rulebook of "characters portrayed by the players" (PF p12) to argue that any character played by a player is a PC, and therefore because Step 1 and 2 shows an animal companion to not be a PC, an animal companion cannot be portrayed by a player.

If you are consistent and use the definition of PC to be simply "characters portrayed by the players" as per PF p12 in all steps of your logic, then in steps 1 and 2 nothing would rule out an animal companion as being considered a PC and thus in step 3 your don't come to the conclusion that animal companions are not run by players.

Alternatively, if you are consistent and use the definition of PC to be "characters portrayed by the players who earn XP and have class levels" in all steps of your logic, then in steps 1 and 2 animal companions would be seen to not be considered PCs, but in Step 3 you still couldn't come to the conclusion that animal companions are not run by players (instead they would be "characters portrayed by the players who don't earn XP or have class levels").

Sorry, but I am still not convinced that the RAW says who should control animal companions either way, and the quotes from Animal Archive seem to indicate that the designers of the game don't feel such a rule exists either.

Each player plays ONE PC (singular) and nothing else. By RAW they do not play multiple characters.

[...]
The DM, indeed, plays all the other characters.

So is the basis of your argument the following?

A player only gets to play one character by RAW.

All other characters are therefore played by the GM.

If so, could you provide (again if you already did so) the quotes (with page numbers) for the above assertions. Also could you clarify what you believe "character" means in the above two statements; i.e. is it a specific game term? Is it short for Player Character? Are all living creatures in the game "characters", as well as certain contructs? etc.

Basically, could I ask you to go to the effort of summarising the basis for your assertion that, by RAW, animal companions are played by the GM?

DigitalMage wrote:

The point is, there is no clear category for "characters controlled and portrayed by a player but not that player's Player Character" unlike in games such as FATE where you have Companions and Minions..

And here's my question to you: who says that there is such a situation in this game?

And who says that there isn't? If there is no rule either way, it is ambiguous - which is the what many of us are saying about the issue of who controls the animal companion - it is vague in the core rulebook and thus there is no right or wrong way.

Other games might routinely demand that a player play more than his/her PC, but D&D does not. The other games have such a category, but D&D does not.

If we agree with your definition of PC, that they earn XP, have class levels etc, then an animal companion is not a Player Character. So continuing with that definition, a player could run their PC's animal companion as well as their PC and still only be running one PC (their animal companion being something other than a PC).

Now I know that you are likely used to playing the animal companion as a second PC of yours.

I think of it as another character I portray, though not as a second PC, because as I stated previously the term PC has more connotations than just "a character the player portrays" - it has implied in it that it is one of the story's protagonists, earns XP, etc.

Possibly you are also used to having the animal companion's turn in initiative shared by your PC.

I am used to that yes, but only because I have only played a Druid in PFS and pretty much every PFS GM I have had has asked me to run it on the same initiative. I do however recognise that is a change from RAW though - I implied as much in the 9th post of this thread.

I posit to you, that the same is true for your role playing your animal companion. It has been the house rule for so many, that this is confused with RAW.

I will happily admit that if you can show me the rule that says GMs should run animal companions. Seriously, I could have missed such a rule as I haven't read the PF core rule book cover to cover.

There is no presupposition that the player is playing more than a single character. The text of the core rule book supports this. It also goes against the companion being considered a player character in their own right.

Hold on, this is where I feel your reasoning falls down. You are using two definitions of PC to argue your case (definitions I previously noted as potentially being contradictory).

Let us assume that you are correct in that the RAW assumes a player will only play one PC; by your definition of a PC (requiring to again XP etc) you showed that an animal companion was not a PC. Therefore if a player were to play his animal companion that would not go against any assumption that a player only has one PC.

You can't go and then use the much broader definition of PC in the core rulebook of "characters portrayed by the players" (PF p12) to then argue that if a player were to portray his animal companion that would make it a PC and that goes against the assumption of 1 PC per player.

Either an animal companion is a PC, in which case by definition it should be controlled by the player, or it is not a PC in which case it does not contradict any supposed assumption of a player only playing 1 PC. So which is it? I would go for the latter myself.

Now I'm not saying whether or not having the druid's player also run the animal companion would be a good house rule for any specific group (PFS, the 6 kids at the local gaming store, etc). But I am saying that this is a house rule. I can get into more of this once everyone is up to speed on the animal companion not being a Player Character (fairly basic as you admit) and that it is a creature with its own initiative score.

I continue to wait in anticipation...

PS: In 3.5 during a surprise round, only those that were not surprised would roll initiative in the surprise round. After the surprise round the rest of the combatants would roll for initiative. This can lead to fun situations where an unsurprised wizard casts cat's grace on a surprised PC to help their initiative in round 1. Pathfinder removed this and has everyone roll initiative at the same time.

Interesting I hadn't really clocked any change in that area, so thanks for pointing that out. Was it meant to be relevant to the discussion of animal companions though?

The bottom line is that this is too difficult to elucidate from the current rules available. Which is why they are dedicating 8 pages to this topic in Ultimate Campaign.

Well, they are dedicating 8 pages to discussion of animal companions, familiar etc in Ultimate Campaign - I imagine only a paragraph of that will be specifically about who controls them. At least I hope its not 8 pages of rules to determine who controls them!!!! :)

The home campaign GM would be as familiar and competent with the animal companion as with every other creature that they are running.

Possibly, but possibly not. Is every GM going to be as familiar with all their player's characters as those players are (who get to choose the build and only have the one character build to worry about)?

That aside, it's not your call who runs it but rather that of the GM.

Actually, because it is not explicit in the rules either way, it should be a discussion between player and GM, and it should be a discussion had at character creation.

I suspect that the expectation most players would have is that they would get to control the animal companion (as it is after all part of their character build) and so if a GM intends to run them himself he should make that intention clear from the outset, and if a player disagrees the discussion can take place.

However that is a far cry from demanding that I run the BBEG instead of the GM! Competency of the GM in his/her playing is as tangential as the power level of the druid class below

Equally, if I have to leave a game early I may allow the GM to run my character for me, but that too is a far cry from the GM demanding he always plays my PC.

That issue would be the same regardless of who runs the animal companion though.

Consider here how many people have trouble understanding what a Player Character is!!!!

That is the most disturbing part of this thread. Things that are thought to be...

To be honest, I don't think most people have trouble understanding what in general a PC is - its only because we have got down to semantic word games in order to try to prove a point that things get tricky and people don't share the same exact and specific definition.

It is not that I needed all of the quotes I supplied, but rather I felt I would address the claims of lack of proof in the core rules by quoting many, many places where this claim that the AC is a PC falls flat on its face.

I don't necessarily think its that people feel animal companions are PCs just that they feel they can be characters that can be played by players. And so when someone tries to take the debate into the realms of strict definitions of PC and NPC, then yeah if pushed to classify animal companions in one of those two categories they (and I) could put them in the PC category.

The point is, there is no clear category for "characters controlled and portrayed by a player but not that player's Player Character" unlike in games such as FATE where you have Companions and Minions.

The only category animal companions seem to clearly fit into is Monsters, which are defined neither as PC or NPC, but rather capable of being either or neither. I.e. ambiguous!

Yet even this is still not enough for some, and they offer no rule quotes to counter it.

I am not actually sure anyone is trying to definitively prove that animal companions by RAW should be played by players, rather they are contesting that the RAW is silent on the issue - therefore they do not need to provide any rule quotes, the burden of proof is on those who contend the RAW states GM control.

I don't see the contradiction. Could you supply a quote or two that you feel contradicts this?

Here are a couple of quotes you used:

Player Character (Character, PC): These are the characters portrayed by the players.

So if the definition of a PC was this simple then any character they portray is a PC. So if a player was to portray his animal companion it would simply by this definition be a PC.

As player characters overcome challenges, they gain experience points.

This was a quote you used to try to indicate that animal companions are not player characters, because if they were they would earn XP, but they don't.

So by the first quote, an animal companion portrayed by a player would be a PC, but by the second quote they would not be.

What do you have in support of the animal companion being a PC?

I am not trying to contend that animal companions are PC, rather that they are characters that can be played by players (or they could be run by GMs), but that likely most players' expectations would be that they would get to play them.

Besides my next step is showing that the animal companion is a creature, and as such is required to roll its initiative when combat begins

While more pertinent to this thread than the discussion of who controls an animal companion, I thought you were going to provide evidence that, by RAW, animal companions are run by GMs. Are you no longer going to do that?

a change from 3.5 which would not have surprised creatures roll initiative until the first non-surprise round

As I still run 3.5 I am curious what you mean by this as I didn't quite understand.