DigitalMage's page

GameMastery Maps Subscriber

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).

GameMastery Maps Subscriber

1 person marked this as a favorite.

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.

GameMastery Maps Subscriber

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.

GameMastery Maps Subscriber

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.

GameMastery Maps Subscriber

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.

GameMastery Maps Subscriber

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.

GameMastery Maps Subscriber

1 person marked this as a favorite.

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.

GameMastery Maps Subscriber

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.

GameMastery Maps Subscriber

1 person marked this as a favorite.

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.

GameMastery Maps Subscriber

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.

GameMastery Maps Subscriber

1 person marked this as a favorite.

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".

GameMastery Maps Subscriber

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).

GameMastery Maps Subscriber

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.

GameMastery Maps Subscriber

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 :)

GameMastery Maps Subscriber

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.

GameMastery Maps Subscriber

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!

GameMastery Maps Subscriber

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.

GameMastery Maps Subscriber

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.

GameMastery Maps Subscriber

1 person marked this as a favorite.

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.

GameMastery Maps Subscriber

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?

GameMastery Maps Subscriber

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.

GameMastery Maps Subscriber

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)

GameMastery Maps Subscriber

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.

GameMastery Maps Subscriber

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:

do the core rules allow the GM to demand to run things besides his NPCs? No.

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.

GameMastery Maps Subscriber

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.

GameMastery Maps Subscriber

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!

GameMastery Maps Subscriber

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!

GameMastery Maps Subscriber

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.

GameMastery Maps Subscriber

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.

GameMastery Maps Subscriber

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?)

GameMastery Maps Subscriber

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?

GameMastery Maps Subscriber

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:

You are using two definitions of PC to argue your case (definitions I previously noted as potentially being contradictory 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.

GameMastery Maps Subscriber

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?

GameMastery Maps Subscriber

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?

GameMastery Maps Subscriber

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!!!! :)

GameMastery Maps Subscriber

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.

GameMastery Maps Subscriber

But I am happy that it seems that at the very least people are understanding that the animal companion is not a PC. Let us make sure that is unanimous, and then we'll move on to it having it's own initiative, and see if we can agree upon that.

Yep, I agreed previously that I don't view animal companions as PCs, though I do believe they are characters in the story that can be played by players.

However if you take your quote of page 12 "Player Character (Character, PC): These are the characters portrayed by the players" as the very definition of a PC, then yeah an AC could be considered a PC.

But then again, you yourself don't seem to feel that is enough of a definition (and I would agree) as you go on to talk about earning experience having class levels etc.

So really the core rulebook is contradictory on its definitions it would seem.

But anyway, lets assume ACs are not PCs, please continue with explaining how that means GMs control ACs.

GameMastery Maps Subscriber

The veto thing is fine until the AC is out of line of sight of the main PC. So if you send the bird or whatever to scout ahead, how is that handled? Because there is a psychic link spell for ACs, and it is not available at lower levels.

The player doesn't need a psychic link to a fictional animal companion! You again seem to be confusing the player with their character!

If the animal companion goes off to scout ahead the GM relates to the player what the animal companion sees and the player then decides what the animal will do. Its that simple.

The when the animal returns the player may roleplay out how he learns anything of what the animal companion found out (maybe a Speak with Animals spell, maybe simply noting the animal companion does look frightened or having been attacked etc)

GameMastery Maps Subscriber

Additionally, from a balance perspective, I don't think it's fair at all for some PC classes to get to run multiple PCs, particularly in time-limited PFS scenario blocks.

I would imagine asking the GM to run an animal companion in addition to all the NPCs and monsters, especially an animal companion he is not familiar with, would actually take longer than the player doing it. So in time limited circumstances I think it would be better for the player to run it.

For it to even be remotely fair, each PC in question would have to be one-half a PC in terms of capability, but this is demonstrably untrue for druids in particular. Druid + pet >>>>> fighter PC of equal player skill and build quality.

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

I don't think giving up some control is too much to ask for that level of power.

Giving up control will likely lessen the fun of the player so basically it seems a bit mean-spirited "Oh you have a really powerful character, well I will continue to allow you to play that powerful character but make it less fun for you".

I have said it before, but if your issue is with the power level of Druids and Animal Companions, having GMs run those ACs is not the solution - instead petition your GM, or Mike Brock re PFS, to nerf the druids or not allow animal companions.

GameMastery Maps Subscriber

While it doesn't tie in with magical healing, you may find some use in Reserve Points from Unearthed Arcana (which luckily is Open Game Content and can be found here: http://dndsrd.net/unearthedInjury.html#reserve-points)

I used them in my 3.5 Freeport campaign and found they were very useful and turned what would have been a TPK into a capture and daring escape scene.

GameMastery Maps Subscriber

Ultimate campaign can't get here fast enough.

"If the check fails, the player portrays the animal companion as looking confused and just standing there, or running away fearful for its life as the undead approaches. "

Too many players will metagame this and there is no time in PFS to be policing metagaming everytime the AC fails a push roll or non-trivial trick roll. I agree that this sounds good in theory, but I don't want to see it attempted in PFS.

As I have said before, if you don't feel players can be trusted not to metagame in such a way then the problem is greater than just animal companions. Maybe I am just lucky but I haven't been witness to any blatant bad metagaming in PFS yet (good metagaming yes, but not bad).

And if this should occur in a PFS I would recommend GMs handle it just as they would if the player were blatantly metagaming in any other fashion - have a polite word with the player and if absolutely necessary over-ride the player's stated action, and at worse case eject the player from the table under the "don't be a jerk" rule.

GameMastery Maps Subscriber

DigitalMage wrote:

And if he does? What of it? Why is it a big deal if an animal companion gets classed as a character?

First of all, it's not a PC.

Yeah, I would not call it a PC, but the term Player Character has some connotations beyond just being a character portrayed by a player.

But an animal companion is a character in the story and can be played by the player, so if that is your sole definition of the term PC, then I guess you could say it is actually a PC.

As to your underlying question: what's the big deal?

People have confused what some groups can elect to allow with the rules that are mandated.

Or rather people have made different decisions in the absence of any clear ruling. I am still not seeing any clear rule that states GMs control animal companions. I am not advocating that the rules state Players should by default run animal companions, I am merely stating that I think the rules are silent on the issue.

You obviously feel the rules are clear on this, but the fact that some (maybe many) of us are not convinced either way after all these posts would indicate to me that the rules are not clear on the subject.

The animal companion:

1. Is a creature. As such it gets its own initiative score, as any other creature that is present at the start of a combat receives.

2. It *not* the player's PC.

3. Is separate from the player's PC, and not an extension of their psyche. What one desires/thinks is not automatically shared with the other.

4. Is not a PC in its own right.

5. Has limited means of understanding what his druid (et al) desires him to do until the druid (et al) PC invests resources in expanding his/her communication ability.

6. Is still an animal. Its understanding and motivations are fundamentally different from any PC at the table as a result.

I don't see any of the above as a reason why a player cannot control the animal companion.

From the rest of your post I get the impression that you feel that if the rules prove that an animal companion is by default controlled by the GM and player control is thus a privilege granted by the GM, then the GM revoking that privilege should cause less angst. Is that about right?

Unfortunately like others in this thread I don't see the rules clearly proving who controls the animal companion.

I do however feel that many players may feel entitled to control the animal companion as it is part of their PC's mechanical build and they are much more intellectually (and possibly emotionally) invested in the animal companion than an NPC created by the GM. It is this investment that can cause issues if a GM assumes control of an animal companion.

If a GM does want to have the option to take control of a PC's animal companion if they feel it is necessary they do not need rules (unless playing PFS) but should instead at the start of the campaign, before character creation simply state that as a right they reserve as GM. This way expectations are set and players can choose to have an animal companion or not.

* * *

On another note, are you suggesting that having to control a second character is an extra burden, and as such the GM should have the right to take that burden off the player if the player isn't upto it? Further are you saying then that for this reason animal companions by default should be controlled by the GM?

If so I cannot agree.

A player new to PF who chooses to play a cleric may be massively overwhelmed with the burden of choosing which spells to prepare (as clerics get access to all clerical spells, not just a few) and so it may help if the GM takes on the burden of choosing the cleric's spells. However that is not an argument to say that by default the GM should choose every clerics' spells.

* * *

Now I can understand your reasoning about players playing two characters who then end up interacting with a lot (and you end up with a player talking to themselves). But that is more play preference than anything that should be mandated by the rules. With animal companions there is unlikely to be indepth conversations with the two, more narrative description by the player as to what the animal does.

Also interaction may predominately be between the animal companion and another PC "Hey! Your damn mutt has stolen my socks again! Damnit give me them back!" and so even with the animal controlled by a player, the interaction is still between different players.

Finally, there is the option of the animal companion being played by a different player (much like in Wraith: The Oblivion one Player A would have their own PC and Player B would play their Shadow and vice versa). So again it would be possible to not have GMs controlling animal companions and still avoid the one person conversations.

So yeah, although the one person conversations may be a valid concern, it is not always a problem and if it is there are several different solutions so it is not a strong argument for GM default control over animal companions.

it is a perception issue on what the rules demand vs what a DM can allow.

I don't perceive that the rules make any demands on who controls an animal companion by default, so it comes down to what the group as a whole are comfortable (and not just what the GM will allow). Though having said that IMHO due to the fact that it is part of the character's mechanical build it could be inferred that the rules encourage the player to have control.

GameMastery Maps Subscriber

Animal companions are NPCs. That has been true going back many iterations, it was very clearly spelled-out in 3.5

I still run 3.5 so am curious if you could provide a reference for this. Thanks!

To allow a player to play his animal companion would be a house rule.

I still think we are all waiting for a definitive rule citation that indicates an animal companion is played by the GM. The rules are vague on the issue, so neither way of playing is a house rule.

The PC issues the animal companion a command. The GM rolls a Handle Animal check. The PC is relieved to see his animal follow it, or surprised and pissed-off to see the animal run away or stand there, confused.

Alternatively it could run like this:

The PC issues the animal companion a command. The player rolls a Handle Animal check.

If the check succeeds, the player controls the animal companion and has it carry out the command, attacking the undead. The player then portrays the PC's relief at seeing his companion do as it is told.

If the check fails, the player portrays the animal companion as looking confused and just standing there, or running away fearful for its life as the undead approaches. The player then portrays the PC as being surprised or pissed off at the animal companion's inability to understand and / or disobedience.

How does the level of verisimilitude differ in this case where the player controls the animal companion? It doesn't.

GameMastery Maps Subscriber

MrTsFloatinghead wrote:

That leaves us with the definition of GM.

And as the GM

Quote:

you control all of the characters that are not being played by the players.

Do you contend that the animal companion is a character played by a player?

And if he does? What of it? Why is it a big deal if an animal companion gets classed as a character?

What is the point for your PC making handle animal checks to order your animal companion if the same player is meant to play both?

Because sometimes those Handle Animal checks may fail and the animal companion will not do as the character wants? A player is actually capable of running two characters with different behaviours, motivations and goals!

I mean as a GM you control NPCs that are allies to the PCs and and NPCs that are foes of the PCs yes? If those NPCs came into direct conflict you would still be able to run those NPCs and have them act on their own desires even though they conflict, yes?

I mean if you as GM are running a player's animal companion as well as the NPC that animal companion fights you must be able to portray those characters in a way that is consistent with their goals (the defeat of the other), yes? Just because you are playing the foes of the PCs who want to kill the PCs you don't suddenly have the animal companion join those foes and fight the PCs do you?

So why do you think that it is somehow impossible for a player to portray both his PC and his PC's animal companion even when those two character's desires conflict (such as when a Handle Animal check fails)?

Seriously, if it all comes down to "I don't trust my players not to metagame" then your issue extends further than just player control of animal companions.

GameMastery Maps Subscriber

I do have issues with people thinking that they are entitled to play multiple characters simultaneously (Thank you BNW). They are not. The rules certainly do not tell them this, on the contrary the rules suppose and assume otherwise.

What is it about the idea of a player playing two characters that annoys/upsets/frustrates you? Is it that as a player another player is getting more screen time?

Even if its not explicit in the "rules" of the Pathfinder RPG it is not an uncommon concept in RPGs in general that a player may portray more than one character in a game.

I am trying to understand what you feel is so wrong with a player playing two characters.

GameMastery Maps Subscriber

Are there many people still playing 3.5?

I hope to play more 3.5. I ran the Freeport Trilogy last year using 3.5 (even though I own Pathfinder) because I still prefer that system overall. Although I am not currently playing it (GMing a Starblazer Adventures Star Wars campaign) I do hope to run some Eberron with 3.5 next.

I figured Pathfinder's success would have a more deleterious effect on that game than it did on just about any other.

This was my biggest fear about the success of Pathfinder, and in terms of convention play Pathfinder does seem to be much more prevalent than D&D3.5, and hence why I play Pathfinder RPG; Pathfinder Society is the closest I can get to a 3.5 game at conventions.

In my local area Pathfinder isn't as popular though it seems. In my gaming meetup it was ages before we had any PF games and now there is only one ongoing PF campaign, whilst there have been many more 4e games and still some 3.5 games.

I dont recall any recent 3PPs producing stuff for 3.5 - havent they all switched to supporting Pathfinder?

I can't recall any 3.5 3rd party products being released recently, though this was never a big deal for me as I pretty much stick with WotC stuff.

Freeport was the one exception and why I am very sad that the latest edition of the City of Adventure is going from being a systemless setting (with multiple rules companions supporting Savage Worlds, 3.5, 4e, M&M2e, FATE etc) to being tied in with Pathfinder RPG. It means I won't be continuing on the Freeport voyage :(

GameMastery Maps Subscriber

Yes, I think the wonkiness in that specific case can be dealt with by a strict application of the stacking concept, which is an existing game term. By the terms of that concept, the largest modifier applies, which means that Grapple's -4 DEX penalty (really -2 to checks) would take precedence over Pin's negation of bonus to checks. The thought had occured to me that explicitly having Pin negate Grapple but re-iterate any common features could have been clearer.

I just flagged that as a FAQ candidate because if it is meant to be as you described then its a big change to me.

GameMastery Maps Subscriber

If you read 'not stacking' a bit more broadly than normal rules usage, i.e. that if you have Pinned condition you no longer have the Grappled condition,

That is exactly how I read it, you have one condition or the other. If that is not what Paizo meant they should have made it clearer or ideally have duplicated all the bits of the Grapple condition that do still apply in the Pinned condition and then have it as either/or.

EDIT: Damn, I thought I could delete, edit, and re-post this, after I realized how the specific PRPG approach to stat penalties was crucially important... I was hoping to AVOID you seeing the post before I could edit it... 8-O

Fear my awesome ninja skills! :)

GameMastery Maps Subscriber

My point is that the penalty is to the Dex based statistic.

Correct it is a penalty to the Dex based statistic of Armour Class.

It is not a straight -2 to AC.

It is though!

Dexterity: Damage to your Dexterity score causes you to take penalties on Dexterity-based skill checks, ranged attack rolls, initiative checks, and Ref lex saving throws. The penalty also applies to your Armor Class

It is a -2 to the Dex Bonus of AC.

That isn't what is stated in the RAW (and if it were it would be a -2 to the Dex Modifier, not just the bonus).

If you take it after the loss, you are putting it in two different places and giving it more power.

I am just trying to understand the RAW, if anyone gave it more power it was Paizo.

If it was a bonus to Dex based rolls and skills and statistics, it would be clear. You would not add it to the AC after you lost the bonus to AC. Why would you do it with the penalty?

Actually, Ability Bonuses work in the same way, so a Dexterity Bonus would give a bonus to AC even if you were denied your Dex bonus to AC. This way a character with Dexterity 5 (-3 Modifier) who gained a 4 point Dexterity Bonus would get to apply the +2 to AC giving him a base AC of 9.

Of course this does create the odd situation that a Dex Score bonus could end up increasing your base AC above 10 even though you are denied your dex bonus to AC.

Yep, that doesn't make sense but it seems like a valid interpretation of the RAW. TBH the more I think about this the more of a mess it seems to be.

GameMastery Maps Subscriber

Are you still able to use them or not after taking a penalty / damage / drain?

Ability Damage and Penalties don't reduce the score, so you wouldn't lose access to Feats with an Ability score pre-requisite (one of the benefits of the Pathfinder change!)

Ability Drain does reduce the score however, and so you could lose access.

- Str damage reduces my melee attack rolls, with no allowance for Finesse or the +Wis (guided?) attack

- Str damage drops my defence when I've got Agile Manoeuvres.

The rules say "Strength: Damage to your Strength score causes you to take penalties on Strength-based skill checks, melee attack rolls, and weapon damage rolls (if they rely on Strength)."

As a GM I would argue that the "(if they rely on Strength)" clause applies to the "melee attack rolls" as well as the "weapon damage rolls" and so attack rolls that use Weapon Finesse wouldn't be affected.

By RAW however, CMB would be affected (unless you are smaller than Small) even if you had Agile Manoevures. Personally, as a GM in a private game I wouldn't have it apply (and though it may be technically wrong to do so, I would do the same in PFS).