|
I'm a fan of consistency.
The rules for animals apply equally to all animals, unless called out otherwise.
The only case I can think of that being right now are the rules for armor and item slots.
All animals can use Acrobatics.
Not just squirrels, apes, and turtles.
All animals with an INT of 3+ can take Improved Unarmed Strike.
Not just badgers, monkeys, and bears.
Consistency is the best way for PFS to operate.
Not this suggestion of arbitrary restrictions.
|
In the case of a horse using Acrobatics...
I would thusly allow a horse that skill roll.So in your world, horses can climb free hanging ropes?I really wish you wouldn't do that.
What? Point out that some ridiculous situation that most GMs wouldn't allow is not an explicit restriction in the book?
And as such, the rules implicitly give a GM the right to make rulings based on circumstances despite the rules not explicitly supporting that ruling?
If you demand that I allow a camel to use acrobatics to avoid an AoO, because the rules don't explicitly support it, then you gotta allow some pretty ridiculous things.
At some point a GM needs to be able to reserve the right to day no, if an action attempted is flat out ridiculous.
|
|
I'm a fan of consistency.
The rules for animals apply equally to all animals, unless called out otherwise.
The only case I can think of that being right now are the rules for armor and item slots.
All animals can use Acrobatics.
Not just squirrels, apes, and turtles.
All animals with an INT of 3+ can take Improved Unarmed Strike.
Not just badgers, monkeys, and bears.
Consistency is the best way for PFS to operate.
Not this suggestion of arbitrary restrictions.
The rule in the book that I quoted above supports arbitrary restrictions.
And I'd rather deal with that as a player, than play next to a player who is abusing the rules to make their animals do all kinds of ridiculous things that animals can't do, just because the rules don't cover everything.
RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16
|
Andy, animals climbing ropes is a canonical example of common sense limitations. A quadruped without manipulative paws is physically unable to grasp a rope. I don't see unarmed strike to be the same. Animals should be physically able to attack in unusual ways. The limitation there is on an animal's mental capabilities. Without the training inherent in a feat, an animal doesn't understand how to attack with a head bash or a circle kick.
|
|
At some point a GM needs to be able to reserve the right to day no, if an action attempted is flat out ridiculous.So how does that play out with a snake that had IUS, for prerequisite purposes only, and never uses it?
Its a prereq. If you can't gave improved grapple without IUS then you can't have improved grapple if you can't have IUS.
That's pretty hard coded into the rules unless some specific ability says otherwise.
Allowing one without the other, or just to meet a prereq would be a house rule.
And even though it does make sense that a snake could be trained to be better at grappling, allowing IUS opens up many other options.
Like teaching a turtle boar style. Or a horse panther style. Or a badger scorpion style.
Teaching an animal kung fu is ridiculous.
Teaching an animal IUS is also ridiculous.
|
|
I don't see where the climb skill says you physically need hands. It refers to needing "both hands free" similarly to the way the rules talk about weapon use. But its been clarified over and over that this is not referring to actual anatomic hands but rather figurative hands.
Climb speed doesn't negate the need to have both "hands" free. You still need to make a climb check. Just most creatures with a climb speed get a +8 racial bonus and can take 10 in combat. Therefore they almost always auto succeed and so rolling is a waste of time.
RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
Teaching an animal kung fu is ridiculous.
Teaching an animal IUS is also ridiculous.
I have a friend who trained her dog to respond to "It's movie time!" by opening the fridge, grabbing a drink, closing the fridge, turning out the lights, and bringing the drink to the person.
|
RPG Superstar 2014 Top 16, RPG Superstar 2013 Top 16
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I have a friend who trained her dog to respond to "It's movie time!" by opening the fridge, grabbing a drink, closing the fridge, turning out the lights, and bringing the drink to the person.Teaching an animal kung fu is ridiculous.
Teaching an animal IUS is also ridiculous.
That person is now my friend as well.
|
|
Snake Style is also on my eventual list.
It makes some sense that an animal could possibly learn the humanoid fighting style that is inspired by how that type of animal fights, but realistically it doesn't.
Because humans have adapted that fighting form to be used with sapient intelligence and different anatomy.
The snake already fights with snake style, because its a snake. It shouldn't be able to fight like a human version of a snake, because a snake is neither as sapient nor physically the same as a human.
So a Lion that does not have a climb speed can't climb a tree?Lions can't climb trees.
|
RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
What?In the case of a horse using Acrobatics...
I would thusly allow a horse that skill roll.So in your world, horses can climb free hanging ropes?I really wish you wouldn't do that.
Replying to something you disagree with by completely ignoring what was actually said and asking them to defend a far more absurd claim that they never made.
As an interesting bit of trivia, this is actually the second time I've seen someone on this forum do this with that same "horse climbing a rope" setup. Last time (IIRC), it was someone trying to assert that a dog could go up stairs to which someone else replied with the "horses climbing ropes is ridiculous" non-sequitur.
|
|
I have a friend who trained her dog to respond to "It's movie time!" by opening the fridge, grabbing a drink, closing the fridge, turning out the lights, and bringing the drink to the person.Teaching an animal kung fu is ridiculous.
Teaching an animal IUS is also ridiculous.
Your point?
There will always be unique examples that break the norm.
It doesn't mean that a GM is not allowed, where the rules grant the leeway, to determine what the norm is at their table. And to make rulings based on that.
RPG Superstar Season 9 Top 8
|
So a long time ago I was GMing a module where in the PCs had to disable a trap along the bridge to proceed. Rather than disable it (they had no one capable) someone leaped across the chasm and tied a rope across. The rest of the PCs shimmied along it to get to the other side.
When it was the druid's turn to cross I asked how her camel was going to make it across. She responded with "it'll make a climb check." I forget the roll, but it was no where near the DC I decided it would require. The camel stepped onto the rope like a tight rope walker, steadied itself, and then promptly crashed to the pit below.
Rather than descend into the chasm and heal the animal companion, or try to pull it out, the party decided that this is where it's journey would end. Not the one to leave her injured camel to die a slow agonizing death, she drew her longbow and put it down.
I don't know how relevant this is to the current discussion of animals without appropriate appendages climbing a sheer cliff (a horse AC tried this) or trying to pick locks (a rhino AC tried this), but it gave everyone at the table a good chuckle at the time.
|
|
The figurative meaning of "hands" that you are referring to only concerns wielding weapons.
But that's another 800+ thread we don't need right now.
It also applies to climb.
Climb speed does not negate the need to use the climb skill. The animal just needs whatever appendage the have to climb with, available to do so. So if a leopard, who has a climb speed, had its paws tied up, it couldn't climb. Its paws, figurative hands, are not free.
It is reasonable, though , to say that a horse could not climb a wall with no obvious handholds, because hooves aren't made to find small cracks and such.
|
RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
Nope.There will always be unique examples that break the norm.You mean like an animal with an INT of 3 or more?
Wait, so my friend (commoner 1, or maybe expert 1) gets to have a dog with INT 1-2 that's a special exception, but an extraordinary fantasy hero with an INT 3+ companion is constrained to a lower standard?
|
|
What?In the case of a horse using Acrobatics...
I would thusly allow a horse that skill roll.So in your world, horses can climb free hanging ropes?I really wish you wouldn't do that.Replying to something you disagree with by completely ignoring what was actually said and asking them to defend a far more absurd claim that they never made.
As an interesting bit of trivia, this is actually the second time I've seen someone on this forum do this with that same "horse climbing a rope" setup. Last time (IIRC), it was someone trying to assert that a dog could go up stairs to which someone else replied with the "horses climbing ropes is ridiculous" non-sequitur.
Go reread the conversation and you'll see that nefreet was saying that I can't determine what actions make sense for an animal to be physically capable of.
So while he wasn't saying a horse could climb a rope, his assertion of what I can rule as a gm or not, would have resulted in me needing to allow it.
So it fit, was relevant, and was not a logical fallacy.
I wish youd read the whole conversation rather than cherry pick single comments.
|
|
Nope.There will always be unique examples that break the norm.You mean like an animal with an INT of 3 or more?Wait, so my friend (commoner 1, or maybe expert 1) gets to have a dog with INT 1-2 that's a special exception, but an extraordinary fantasy hero with an INT 3+ companion is constrained to a lower standard?
Nope.
But you can keep trying to debunk my argument with crazy stories that don't fit the conversation if you like.
|
|
There are two debates here, though.
1) actions that "make sense" for animals
and
2) taking IUS as a prerequisite for other feats
As in, my snake has IUS only because she needs it as a prerequisite for other feats that are reasonable for a snake to have.
Not that I'm training my snake to be in the next Crouching Serpent, Hidden Viper movie.
|
|
I understand what you are saying for 2. However not sure how you can justify a couple issues.
You want consistency where the rules are not 100% clear. I'm with ya.
But you agree that in some situations as a GM you gotta be able to say no, like a camel climbing a free hanging rope (the argument of what a free hand means, notwithstanding).
But you want to be able to take a feat, only as a prereq (which leads me to believe that you agree that IUS for a snake is silly) to get a feat that does make sense.
In a home game, as a GM, I'd either wavecthe IUS prereq for feats like improved grapple for a snake, or come up with another prereq.
I think though that the grab ability does count as the prereq for the grapple feats.
So how do you justify breaking consistency in your instance of what makes sense, but telling me I can't break your version of consistency for what makes sense for me?
|
|
I feel that a lot of your examples and justifications are arbitrary, though, and others seem to agree. You've taken an extreme stance that puts the consistency of PFS at odds with a whimsical GMing style.
The horse being unable to use Acrobatics to avoid an AoO was one example I took issue with. A horse being unable to climb a rope is not.
A snake using IUS to punch is silly, I agree. That's why mine won't. But using it as a prereq I believe is supported by the rules.
Qualifying for something and using something can be subtly different at times.
I wouldn't let someone's snake use IUS to break a cement block in The Ruby Phoenix Tournament, for example.
But asking a horse to climb a rope, as someone said earlier, is a breach of common sense. It's an obvious one at that, and most people would rule against it.
But that's about the only example here in this thread that makes sense for being disallowed.
That's a bit of a ramble. Perhaps someone else can phrase their concerns more eloquently.
|
Andrew is both right and wrong.
He is right that there are a great many things that an animal can't do physically. There is no way to list them all, but examples would include a horse climbing a free standing rope or a camel shimmying across a rope.
He is wrong in applying it far, far, far too stringently. An animal should be allowed to do anything actual animals can do. Which is a LOT more than he thinks animals can do. There are several examples upthread of him saying animals can't do that they clearly can.
Some amount of GM variation is going to be inevitable, but surely can be reduced if GMs all apply the standard of "if it is conceivable to them it works". I can't conceive a horse climbing a rope but I can certainly conceive a zebra dodging a lion acrobaticly
|
|
Nefreet:
There is nothing in the rules for having a climb speed, that supports that you still don't need two free hands to climb with.
So the only ways to interpret that, is to, as a GM, arbitrarily interpret a climb speed as negating that need (which the language and precedence of clarifications does not support) or that the free hands for climbing are not referring to needing anatomical hands.
Of course a horse climbing a rope is ridiculous. That's why I used the example.
In 3.5, the skill for avoiding an AoO was called tumbling. The idea is, that you somersault, back flip, cartwheel, or otherwise do some sort of gymnastics move to make it so you don't provoke an Attack of Opportunity.
All Pathfinder did to Jump, Balance, and Tumbling, was combine them into one skill called Acrobatics. But the premise is still the same.
A Zebra going to great lengths to avoid a lion, is not tumbling. That's just dexterity to their AC. They try to avoid the Lion, and the Lion still gets its AoO on the Zebra. Maybe it hits, maybe the Zebra gets away to live another day.
But the Zebra is not performing acrobatic maneuvers to get out of the way. They aren't tumbling, somersaulting, cartwheeling, back hand-springing, or whatever, to avoid the Lion's attack.
Acrobatics to avoid an AoO is exactly what the skill says it is. Its acrobatics to avoid an AoO. Acrobatics is pretty clearly not just ducking and dodging or sidestepping. No matter what definition of acrobatics you want to use.
To me, its pretty ridiculous think about a Horse doing tumbling maneuvers to avoid an AoO, especially if they have a rider. What happens to that Paladin in full plate when the horse does a somersault or dive roll?
To that vein:
IUS is exactly what it says it is. Its Improved Unarmed Strike.
I can really appreciate that you don't plan to have your snake attack by punching. I really can. In a home game, I'd bend over backwards to work with a guy like you to make something work so your snake could get Improved Grapple.
But I can't break the rules in PFS and make a house rule like that.
So now I have to look at what my interpretation of what is, and is not ridiculous for an animal to be able to accomplish when determining if they can have a particular feat. The rules, as I quoted above, say "Animal companions with an Intelligence of 3 or higher can select any feat they are physically capable of using."
So as a GM, I need to determine whether I feel an animal is physically capable of using a particular feat or not.
Because, not all players are as reasonable as you, and would have their snake out punching people.
GM: Druid, the evil wizard has cast lipstitch on your snake, so he can't attack anymore.
Player: Yeah, but my snake has IUS, so I'm going to punch the badguy.
GM: <face desk>
So what you are saying here is, "I'm reasonable, so I can take IUS and only use part of it, because I'm not going to abuse it."
while at the same time saying, "I don't accept your interpretation of what a horse is physically capable, and since the rules don't expressly forbid it, you can't stop me from rolling acrobatics to avoid attacks of opportunity with my horse."
So you want to be able to use only part of a feat, the part that makes sense to you, despite agreeing that the other part of it your snake would not physically be capable of using, so you can use it as a prereq for a feat that does make sense for your snake, while at the same time saying that as a GM, I don't have the right to use what I feel is common sense to make circumstantial rulings on what an animal is physically capable of?
You want to be able to essentially "break the rules" as long as you don't use the part that doesn't make sense, but you don't want me to be able to "follow the rules" by making interpretative decisions where the rules specifically allow me to?
|
|
A snake using IUS to punch is silly, I agree. That's why mine won't. But using it as a prereq I believe is supported by the rules.
I wouldn't let someone's snake use IUS to break a cement block in The Ruby Phoenix Tournament, for example.
Actually, don't be so quick to concede ground on this one. The description of IUS says nothing about the form of the attack that IUS applies to. It does not mention any requirement for hands, feet, elbows, or knees.
Add to that this FAQ
Should it be assumed that animal companions know how to use their feats with a Handle Animal check?
Yes.Which means that a snake could definitely be able to use IUS. While the snake wouldn't "punch" there's nothing to say it couldn't be a tail strike or a head butt, as such license is taken with Monks on Flurry of Blows attacks. Perhaps the hurdle is removing the preconception that IUS can only be used with an arm or a leg? There is no such requirement.
If there is some RAW basis for disallowing IUS on an animal, any and all animals, it would be that an animal can't make an unarmed strike i.e. animals only have natural weapon attacks and are incapable of making an unarmed strike. Of course, that's not the argument Andrew is putting forth, but it might still apply.
Applying an FAQ about a feat already taken and the animal being able to use it, to whether an animal should be allowed to take it on the basis of whether they are physically capable or not, is disingenuous at best.
Tail Slap is a specific style of natural attack form. The snake would not be using IUS to do a tail slap, but using a natural attack for that they do not have.
The postulation here, is that there are no animals that can take IUS, because they use natural weapons. All forms of attack that they would choose to do, would be a natural attack. As a Home GM, you could certainly give the player a pseudo-IUS feat that grants a snake a tail slap attack or a gorilla a slam attack (using its fist instead of claws or bite). But you couldn't teach a snake how to physically fight like an unarmed humanoid in such a way that their unarmed-ness is now considered armed.
Animals are not unarmed. Therefore IUS does them no good.
|
|
Andrew is both right and wrong.
He is right that there are a great many things that an animal can't do physically. There is no way to list them all, but examples would include a horse climbing a free standing rope or a camel shimmying across a rope.
He is wrong in applying it far, far, far too stringently. An animal should be allowed to do anything actual animals can do. Which is a LOT more than he thinks animals can do. There are several examples upthread of him saying animals can't do that they clearly can.
Some amount of GM variation is going to be inevitable, but surely can be reduced if GMs all apply the standard of "if it is conceivable to them it works". I can't conceive a horse climbing a rope but I can certainly conceive a zebra dodging a lion acrobaticly
You are assuming I'm being super stringent.
I'm not.
I actually am fairly liberal at the table.
I have yet to tell the guy in our area, that his gnome cavalier on a boar cannot use IUS and Dragon Style so that he can charge through allies and across difficult terrain. The character is retired now, so now I definitely don't have to deal with it.
But boy did I want to disallow it.
And as far as what actions can an animal reasonably take?
I was playing my gnome cavalier with an axebeak through Rats of Round Mountain Part 2. And it came to the part:
Every GM will have their own interpretation of what animals can, and cannot accomplish. And as players, we (including myself), must abide by their ruling. They have that right. They are the ones adjudicating the story at that moment.
I was ready to argue my case above. Fortunately the wizard resolved it without discussion.
But ultimately I would have not belabored the point with the GM, and found another way.
|
|
I feel that a lot of your examples and justifications are arbitrary, though,
For the record, I'm not a draconian GM. I am more than willing to listen to a player and their justification for why something should work.
If it adds to the story, is cool, or fun, I will find some way to help them do something. Whether its making a more difficult roll to do something they normally wouldn't physically be able to do (in my interpretation) or giving them a suggestion for something else to try that grants the same end result. I will do this especially for lower level characters and newer players.
If the player is just trying to eke every last ounce of cheese out of their build, I will be inclined to roll my eyes and say, "no, your horse cannot climb up the cliff."
And yes, I've had a player try to argue that point before.
|
|
Perhaps we should make a new FAQ request, in either the Rules Forum or here, asking if animals can take IUS?
That would clear up half this mess, and give GMs and players something concrete to work off of.
Its been on my list of things to do, but I keep forgetting.
And it wasn't really worth it to me to make sure I remembered, just to "nerf" one player's build in my region that was using it.
I see so few players use IUS with their animals, that I forget that I feel its an issue.
But if you want to go write the FAQ on the rules forums, I'll click the FAQ button.
|
|
I'm trying to figure out if it should be a PFS FAQ or a general rules FAQ. It's PFS that has more restrictions on Animal Companions, and it's PFS that we'd need the ruling for.
My area has several Constrictor Animal Companions. They tend to shut down encounters. One of the reasons I made one was to compensate for the inferior combat abilities of her Bard/Ranger master, who's my least optimized character out of 12 (but an absolute blast to roleplay!).
|
|
You are assuming I'm being super stringent.
I'm not.
I actually am fairly liberal at the table.
I am glad to hear that (that is sincere, by the way, NOT snark). If you look at your postings above hopefully you can see why you were giving a different impression to those of us who have never played at your table.
It sounds like our positions are reasonably close.
As an aside, I STRONGLY recommend that just about everybody with an animal buy a scroll or two of Carry Companion. There is usually somebody in the group who can cast or UMD it. And it solves SO many potential problems.
|
|
I'm trying to figure out if it should be a PFS FAQ or a general rules FAQ. It's PFS that has more restrictions on Animal Companions, and it's PFS that we'd need the ruling for.
My area has several Constrictor Animal Companions. They tend to shut down encounters. One of the reasons I made one was to compensate for the inferior combat abilities of her Bard/Ranger master, who's my least optimized character out of 12 (but an absolute blast to roleplay!).
I think a general rules FAQ. This is not something I think that PFS campaign leadership is likely to rule on.
|
|
You are assuming I'm being super stringent.
I'm not.
I actually am fairly liberal at the table.
I am glad to hear that (that is sincere, by the way, NOT snark). If you look at your postings above hopefully you can see why you were giving a different impression to those of us who have never played at your table.
That's for 2 reasons.
1) I wanted to express a strong opinion I had on something I don't feel should be allowed. For both reasons that I feel it just doesn't fit, and for balance reasons. Animal companions are strong enough without needing combat styles and improved combat maneuver feats.
2) Its important to really express where table variation can happen based on GM interpretation of rules that demand GM interpretation.