There's an 8-page section in Ultimate Campaign that talks about various companion creatures (hirelings, animal companions, cohorts, eidolons, special mounts, charmed creatures, and so on) and jurisdiction over who controls the creature.Hm... 8 pages vs. 'is it a class feature? then it is solely under player control'.
Of course, it's also 8 pages vs 'GM controls it completely.' :)
Well, with eight pages on who gets to say "The AC charge/pounces" I hope there's at least a paragraph or two on how the heck you're supposed to deal with "charm person".
Well thankfully it says charmed monsters in the quote. Have to wait and see what it says. May just remind us GM discretion and I'll have just as many GMs let my witch mind control people with his charm hex against my will.
Of course, it's also 8 pages vs 'GM controls it completely.' :)
Well, I can't speak for every poster here, but I've been upfront about the concept of 'farming out' to players.
If you want to PAY me, I'm sure I can expand that into 8 pages of campagin advice... ;-)
I think the majority of us have from the beginning suggested that a partnership between the GM and player to "run" the AC is the best way to go. That appears to be what the end result will be for it to take eight pages to describe.
Yes, these are muddy waters, and PFS in particular needs a RAW interpretation of how this is supposed to work.
You don't want raw, you want the dm to control the animals in order to make them less effective. As has been repeatedly pointed out, the animals effectiveness is not significantly hampered by the handle animal skill. So unless the dm is going to say "nah, he doesn't pounce" or "he really doesn't feel like fighting today" a two weapon fighter or rogue is going to lag behind a pimped out AC at some levels.
People keep throwing various things out about what an animal will or will not do, RAW, in PFS.
To help with the (for the most part) incredibly overwrought and ridiculous hyperbole, I thought I would take a break and interject some fact in the hopes it would bring some perspective to the arguments.
If your Animal Companion has a feat, it knows how to use said feat.
Second, if you didn't bother to invest in your class skill that determines the effectiveness of your class feature, and you expect sympathy because you chose bad tricks . . . Sorry I guess.
so, uh, if he just wanted to do that irregardless of RAW, why did he start a separate rules question thread and flag it for developer attention? much less have an effusively positive response to SKR saying that ultimate combat will address the issue (without saying how, i.e. whether it conforms to DB's posts here, or not)? i mean, these pretend games of 'you're really only saying this because... XYZ' accusations are amusing and everything, but can anybody really take it seriously?
|
There's not much even having full DM control to do to make them "less effective". Even if they run through AOOs mindlessly, they are still a non-PC sucking up AOOs. They still have mad phat stats for a society where the PCs get 20 points to build with. They still get effective multi attack . They still have a good deal of hps. They still get their own feats.
I just want things clarified to try to limit these things just a bit. The pet classes will still be considerably more powerful that non-optimized (read: munchkin) classes. I just want the DM to actually be within their bounds to veto commands given to the ACs and check to see if the appropriate tricks are known by the AC. I don't think that's asking too much for PCs that effectively get to run two PCs in most PFS scenarios I've been in.
Another PC should NEVER lag behind another PCs "class feature". That's absurd. Especially given that the druid is a 9-level spell caster. If I REALLY had my way, I'd ban them, and force those classes to choose the other option for their "class feature". But I'm not even proposing that because I work within RAW.
I'm perfectly aware that there are other PC builds that can break scenarios in PFS. I just find pets to be particularly humiliating because they aren't even PCs. The druid that stumbles into the group can just tank the whole scenario with their "class feature".
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
so, uh, if he just wanted to do that irregardless of RAW, why did he start a separate rules question thread and flag it for developer attention?
Because he wasn't getting the answer he wanted.
i mean, these pretend games of 'you're really only saying this because... XYZ' accusations are amusing and everything, but can anybody really take it seriously?
He complains that people are violating the raw in what the animals are doing, after repeatedly being shown how to handle an animal without a check by raw.
He complains that by raw an animal companion can't use complex tactics, despite not being able to show any raw remotely suggesting such a thing.
Insists that raw mandates the dm control the animal, and states that this not being followed is why the animals are too powerful.
Insists "i don't think an animal can do that" qualifies as raw.
Repeatedly refers to pets as cheese.
What other conclusion am i supposed to reach here?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
They still have mad phat stats for a society where the PCs get 20 points to build with. They still get effective multi attack . They still have a good deal of hps. They still get their own feats.
I just want things clarified to try to limit these things just a bit.
No.
There is absolutely nothing unclear about what you're asking for. The stats are printed out in clear text. It spells out in the chart how many feats you get (just in case you forget how feats work with hit dice). Pathfinder specifically gives 90% or so of critter attacks primary status. Their hit dice and con bonuses are crystal clear.
NOTHING you are asking for is "Clarification". You want a change. If you want a change, ask for it. Don't pretend that changing a number written in black and white on a chart is mere clarification.
But anyway, if "that should be in the core book" was the deciding factor, the Core Rulebook would be about 1,200 pages...
I have this mental picture of my old paper Encyclopedia Britannica on one shelf and my 10 volume core rule book on the next shelf. LOL.
|
|
They still have mad phat stats for a society where the PCs get 20 points to build with. They still get effective multi attack . They still have a good deal of hps. They still get their own feats.
I just want things clarified to try to limit these things just a bit.
No.
There is absolutely nothing unclear about what you're asking for. The stats are printed out in clear text. It spells out in the chart how many feats you get (just in case you forget how feats work with hit dice). Pathfinder specifically gives 90% or so of critter attacks primary status. Their hit dice and con bonuses are crystal clear.
NOTHING you are asking for is "Clarification". You want a change. If you want a change, ask for it. Don't pretend that changing a number written in black and white on a chart is mere clarification.
I'm not asking for any changes. They wouldn't happen anyway. I'm literally asking for a ruling on who ultimately has the final say on the actions of the AC. More than likely, the answer they give will look a lot like the way pets are being used currently. It would just be nice to have it writing. Which they are doing, so my personal feelings about it are moot.
|
This is a great thread. It has really helped me clarify my understanding of animal companions and their use.
The second option is to form a close bond with an animal companion. A druid may begin play with any of the animals listed in Animal Choices. This animal is a loyal companion that accompanies the druid on her adventures.Emphasis mine.
Very clearly stated in simple english. The Animal Companion is granted under class features.
The class feature is that the Druid forms a bond with an animal. They also begin play with an animal. The bond is the class feature. The animal is a freebee.
Animal Companions are similar to purchased animals in that they have their own motivations. The difference is that the Druid's special bond allows him to more easily influence the animal and also gives the animal more abilities as the Druid levels.
While some/most GMs allow their players to run the animal companions, it is clear by the rules that the animals are still NPCs.
|
The class feature is that the Druid forms a bond with an animal. They also begin play with an animal. The bond is the class feature. The animal is a freebee.
Animal Companions are similar to purchased animals in that they have their own motivations. The difference is that the Druid's special bond allows him to more easily influence the animal and also gives the animal more abilities as the Druid levels.
While some/most GMs allow their players to run the animal companions, it is clear by the rules that the animals are still NPCs.
Under which section are animal companions made an option?
No matter how carefully you attempt to dissect and pervert the semantics, animal companions are still listed under the class features category. Just like every ability granted to every class.
|
|
It really doesn't matter at this point. The new book will discuss how they are to be handled. It doesn't matter if they are actually a class feature or not.
Hey David. Actually, it does matter. Not everyone has the money to spend on new books just to clarify a rule. It would be nice if Paizo makes the content of the Animal Archive public, but it's pretty unlikely.
Do you (or anyone else) have a quote from the book that clarifies this?
It will actually be in ultimate campaign which actually probably will end up on the prd
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Those continuing to argue that an AC is "just an animal, not a class feature" are totally (and probably deliberately) ignoring the fact that an animal companion is actually NOT "just an animal" at all. It's a special version of an animal with special mechanics, special rules special abilities. The animal that is an animal companion does not exist outside of the designation as an animal companion. The fact that the animal companion is unique and special as defined in the class feature mechanic should make it abundantly clear and obvious that animal companions are class features, not "just animals".
Now, that does not mean that they are therefore not to be treated as NPCs. However it DOES mean that if the GM takes total control of an animal companion, then the GM is by definition controlling a character's class feature.
But as others have said, the argument from a rules perspective is moot at this point. Paizo has some new 8 page explanation of how all of these sorts of pseudo-NPCs work. I am looking forward to reading it. I can't honestly say I expect much from it since I think it will more or less codify the way the vast majority of GMs already run pseudo-NPCs, but hopefully it will at least reduce some of the silly arguments on these boards.
Which is good, we need room for new silly arguments.
Yep silly arguments like how bears never get above medium as a companion.
|
|
It really doesn't matter at this point. The new book will discuss how they are to be handled. It doesn't matter if they are actually a class feature or not.Hey David. Actually, it does matter. Not everyone has the money to spend on new books just to clarify a rule. It would be nice if Paizo makes the content of the Animal Archive public, but it's pretty unlikely.
Do you (or anyone else) have a quote from the book that clarifies this?
If I did, I'd be violating NDA, since it isn't published and released yet. So, no. No quotes.
|
|
Under which section are animal companions made an option?
If I understand the question correctly, it is described under Nature's Bond in the Druid class.
No matter how carefully you attempt to dissect and pervert the semantics, animal companions are still listed under the class features category. Just like every ability granted to every class.
I'm sorry, but that is not correct. I know of no place in the rules where it says that players have 100% control over animal companions (or familiars for that matter). The only statement related to the relationship between the Druid and the animal companion is that "this animal is a loyal companion that accompanies the druid on her adventures". Loyalty does not equal total control by the player.
Obviously, your 'Spells' are not going to decide on their own to take the day off; and I am pretty sure that your Woodland Stride isn't going to run off without you. These abilities have no intelligence. However, keep in mind that it is also well within a GM's rights to alter or nullify any character's class ability (wild magic zones that nullify or change spells, magical environments that hinder Woodland Stride, or animal companions having intelligence, personalities, and motivations).
|
|
Even if the animal companion itself, and not the bond, were a class feature, this, to me, does not protect it from NPC status, nor DM adjudication. But I guess we'll find out soon enough. Also, familiars and such will likely end up in the same boat. So even if they are defined as both a class feature and under DM jurisdiction, what does that actually matter?
Design Manager
|
The bear thing doesn't make much sense to me. They already have large cats.
A medium bear has the same stat spread as most large creatures. There are certain baselines they try to follow for Animal companion stats and abilities, and they wanted bears to be on roughly the same power level as other companions. If you followed the stat progression for bears up to a large-size bump, they'd be substantially more powerful than the bulk of of other animal companions.
So instead of raging grizzly bears, you get cuddly black bears.
|
Animal Archive doesn't really change how an AC works. It gives some extra options for tricks but basically the AC still works via the handle animal skill and tricks.
As a number of people have noted, players normally know their AC better than the DM. However, the DM has the final say over if the command you give your AC has the desired effect. In my experience this is only problematic when the PC's try and have the animal work outside the limitation of the trick. As for rolling the dice, surely that's half the fun of having an AC :)
The grey areas are things such as: does an AC charge or not when ordered to attack? Does an AC do a withdraw action when commanded "down". When does an AC flank? What about animals with int over 2? Normally these areas are when you need to discuss with your dm on a case by case basis, then maintain consistency. If you train your AC to charge on an attack command, it should charge on an attack command.
They are creatures who are fabricated by and linked to the player. Same as the Eidolon. Usually the player is the one who made them, and is always the one in charge of its feats and such. They are that wierd npc that the player has to bring along and make himself. They are not something the GM has fabricated and created or put all his time and love into, especially not in a PFS enviroment.
In PFS where you run into a bunch of random GMs, more than a few of which will entirely disagree with you, I think it would avoid most trouble if it was entirely under the players control. I personally know many GMs I couldn't trust with my animal companion, because I know for a fact they will get him killed and refuse to play him how I feel he should. Regardless of 3 INT, Celestial template, and any tricks that I've given him.
Under which section are animal companions made an option?No matter how carefully you attempt to dissect and pervert the semantics, animal companions are still listed under the class features category. Just like every ability granted to every class.
You keep harping on the fact that it's a class feature while ignoring what said feature actually says.
It says you form a bond with an animal. It does not say you control the animal.
You use the Nature's Bond class feature to give the animal some special abilities, but it is (and I can't stress this enough) an NPC that you have gifted certain abilities.
To reiterate, the class feature is not absolute control over an animal, it's simply the ability to give certain abilities to one. The only ability given to the druid at all to control it is the link ability.
Link (Ex)
A druid can handle her animal companion as a free action, or push it as a move action, even if she doesn’t have any ranks in the Handle Animal skill. The druid gains a +4 circumstance bonus on all wild empathy checks and Handle Animal checks made regarding an animal companion.
You know what you use the handle animal skill on? NPC's.
I usually farm combat tactics out to the player myself, and I get where you're coming from, but the DM has final control over the actions of any AC, or familiar or cohort or summoned creature, etc. If your DM uses this control to make you less effective you should talk to your DM because he's being a jerk. It doesn;t change the fact that he's within his rights to control that NPC, however.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Another example, one of my players is a Cavalier and his mount took the Bull Rush feat. However, I ruled that if he wants the mount to Bull Rush an opponent, he either needs to take it as a trick as well or Push everytime he wants to perform the maneuver. I did allow him to take Bull Rush Trick instead of Attack Trick when determining the mount's initial tricks.
The problem there is that the Maneuver trick requires that you have the Attack trick as well.
The obvious cure to all of this is to give the druid a telepathic link to mind control the animal into doing what he wants. Good druids can ask nicely, bad druids can telepathically whip their stupid animals into doing what they want. Whole new flavor to an old skill!
Kidding aside, I think rolling every turn to see what your animal does is sort of ridiculous.
Kidding aside, I think rolling every turn to see what your animal does is sort of ridiculous.Yeah I agree; it's not under the effects of a confusion spell, but since it's an NPC, the DM runs it. Very easy.
I disagree actually. Its wierd to see you agree with me, then go on to say something I entirely disagree with and that something is obvious after so many pages of talk.
I would argue otherwise, but most of my points relate to the PC creating and owning the pet, and DMs not always running it in the same way the PC would. I'll repeat again, I know many GMs who would gladly kill off Fluffykinz, and in PFS your bound to meet one who will.
Not all PFS games are at conventions where there are nearby judges, and not all judges are good people. There is a huge difference between a GM thinking its okay to control my pet and that their too stupid to know fire or AoOs and the GM going after my pet with a greataxe. A really really big one. At least the second the thing is fodder and I don't feel as robbed.
A purchased animal is much much different than an animal companion. I don't think I'd control some random raven I bought at the pet store and only a lenient GM would even let me use the thing to do something crazy.
|
|
I agree that rolling to see what your animal does is ridiculous.
-James
It's a good point.
The Ranger and Druid are +4 on their check to handle their own animal companion. We would expect them to have at least +8 on the check total at first level. The DC for activating a Trick is DC 10 (DC 12 if wounded), so it will not be long before a check isn't even necessary.
Since the chance of failure is relatively low, I might even decide to allow the Ranger and Druid to automatically succeed at activating tricks for their animal companions just to speed up play.
RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Hey there, folks. Peace be with you all.
I'm not a great GM, but I've run a lot of PFS tables, and the thing I dread most is playrs who think their animal companions work like Eidolons.
At the beginning of the session, I hand out cards and ask people to fil out five initiative checks. If someone has an animal companion, I hand them a second card and ask them to do the same for the critter.
Most popular response: "The Animal acts on my turn." No, I'm afraid it does not. It has its own initiative modifier -- it may have the Improved Initiative feat -- and it may act before or after your character.
On the back of the animal's card, I ask the player to write down the tricks the animal knows.
Most popular response, in an irritated voice: "It's not an animal I picked up at a shop. I'm a druid, and it's my animal companion. It doesn't know 'tricks'. I have a bond with it."
So, I get to teach the Druid's player how the class works. Almost all the time.
Ahrizel's example on page one is pretty much the way I run companions. They are as smart as animals -- avoiding any obvious danger, loyal to their master/mistress -- but no smarter. And I'm the guy who runs them when dice are being rolled. If your AC has some personality quirk (your horse rubs up against posts, or your bear companion is a biter) let me know and I'll do my best to make sure we play that when appropriate.
(Summoned creatures are even less pliant. They know how to attack, and that's about it unless you can effectively communicate some other command.)
Artanthos / Michael, you've said that if I run this way, you'll actively make the game less fun. Do us both a favor and stay away from my tables.
I thought PFS was no reskins and the idea was the animal was one you bought at the pet store. A puppy you raised from birth is an entirely different matter. In a homegame I hope the GM has no control over the poor thing! I've had GMs tell me they intended to kill my children, a puppy seems fair game and I'm not comfortable with that at all! In pfs I hope you aren't letting that thing near danger. He isn't meant to fight is he?
And yes, I think I deserve control over what I am attached to. I love making pets for my characters. I have a character with a menagerie of named pets(He likes foxes... He's a summoner with a fox motif.) I'm not dragging these into adventures. That would be mean and cruel. Not even risking these characters outside of props or roleplay. Similiarly, none of my druids pets I want the DM to control. Those are core concepts to the character sometimes! Poor Garm and Odin wouldn't survive half as long as they did if I let my pfs DMs control him. They were both characters in backstory and I would feel pretty hurt if a DM was able to treat them like his toys or worse fodder.
Oh, for example in my last homegame we had a guy who had a raven. It wasn't his pet, it knew no tricks, it was just a raven. This guy just does things like that, best not to quesiton it. The GM let him tie a note to the raven, and just let it loose in a sewer hoping it would reach the rest of the party... When it did my jaw sorta dropped. There was no logic or reason, but this random bird that was completely untrained delivered a letter. What!? Thats pretty crazy right?
On the other hand this is the same GM that told me a sixth level barbarian weretiger was okay for a party with an APL of 3, and held no regard for my wants with the npcs I built my character around. Whatever was most dramatic was what happened. I wouldn't trust him with my pets. Ever. He really killed my spirit by turning my characters daughter into fodder, and going directly against my wishes when I explicitly told him I had an issue with it. He was pretty sick I thought for doing that.
This is my interpretation of the rules. Since the AC is an Class Feature, I let the player run the AC to the degree they follow the rules as I understand them.
If you want your AC to do something that is a Trick listed in Core, or Animal Archives, and the AC knows said trick you roll a DC 10 Handle Animal check. If your AC does NOT know the trick, you roll a DC 25 Handle Animal check to Push. If you want your AC to do something that is not a trick listed in Core or the Animal Archive, you are out of luck. There are no allowances for making up your own trick in PFS.
I make the AC move the shortest distance possible to meet its general objective.
For example:
Round 1:
Druid: I order my AC to attack.
GM: (GM looks at the creature type, and it is humanoid, monstrous humanoid, giant, or other animal) Does your AC have the attack trick?
Druid: Yes.
GM: Please make a DC 10 Handle Animal check, remember you have a +4 bonus because it is your Animal Companion.
Druid: (Rolls 10). I succeed!
GM: Right, the most direct path that ends with your AC in combat position is here, roll your attack!
Druid: But I want my AC here, (points at map) so he can provide Flanking for the rogue.
GM: Well, on your next turn, you can order your Animal Companion to flank.Round 2:
Druid: Ok, this round I want my AC to provide flanking for the rogue.
GM: Fine; do you have the Flank Trick?
** spoiler omitted **
Druid: No, but he knows how to attack, and flanking is just an attack from a specific location.
GM: I understand, but flanking is a specific trick, if you don't know it, you will have to push your AC, DC 25.
Druid: But all the Guides to Druid told me Cha...
I understand what you're saying, I really do... but wow, talk about sucking the fun completely out of what should be a fast-paced, exciting and rewarding combat. If my games played like that, I wouldn't play.
I don't suppose there's anything to be said for a PC and its animal companion having experience fighting together, sharing a bond and pack-like mentality... in the wild animals flank often on their own without needing to be taught a 'trick', and I imagine if it was in self-defense (or defense of their Human Companion) they wouldn't be unable to fight back because they had only bought 1 'trick' instead of two or the threat facing them was 'the wrong type'.
Ugh.
|
RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16
|
Story Archer, it's my experience that the thing sucking the fun out of the combat there is the player, arguing to have complete control over the animal buddy, despite being unable to effectively handle the animal.
All the rest of your argument is really solid, and is already reflected in the rules, as a +4 to the Handle Animal check, and Handle Animal being a free move, and all the additional tricks the critter knows.
If you only taught your critter "attack normal things" and not "attack anything", you can still get your companion to attack the Gibbering Mouther or the Shambling Mound, but it requires pushing. Do you read the rules differently?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Yeah, I'd play with a GM who ran my druid's AC, but I'd be mostly rolling my eyes in my head over the control issues involved.
Still looking forward to those 8 pages which I feel pretty confident will say "For the most part, let the player control their eidolon, familiar and animal companion, because that's more fun, faster to play and feels more in line with what the classes do."
Which is what all the good GMs I know do already.
We'll see.