Well I know I've seen a cavalier mount with way more hps than anyone else in the group. Way more. And they use the same progression table. So I'm not sure how that jives with ACs supposedly having fewer hps.
I'm not claiming facts per se. What I'm claiming are experiences that are in fact true. But maybe people are not building ACs legally in my area. I don't know. I have never actually stopped the game to have people explain why or how their AC is making our group fighter redundant baggage.
Okay, they probably didn't. So there you go. Just don't freak out and call them a munchkin at the table.
Horse starts with 15 con and it goes up to 17 at 4 btw. He still has 4.5 per HD and doesn't have a full one at level 1. Chances are he calculated it wrong, had toughness, you didn't have a group high in con/HD, or a combination of this. He may have buffed the horses HP to keep it from dying becuase it was important to him. Barbarian at level 1, with 16 con will have 15 health and the horse at druid 1 will have 13. It only gets worse for the horse. at level 2 fighter with 14 con will have 20 and the horse will have 18.
Theres some math.
|
Well I know I've seen a cavalier mount with way more hps than anyone else in the group. Way more. And they use the same progression table. So I'm not sure how that jives with ACs supposedly having fewer hps.
I'm not claiming facts per se. What I'm claiming are experiences that are in fact true. But maybe people are not building ACs legally in my area. I don't know. I have never actually stopped the game to have people explain why or how their AC is making our group fighter redundant baggage.
Okay, they probably didn't. So there you go. Just don't freak out and call them a munchkin at the table.
Horse starts with 15 con and it goes up to 17 at 4 btw. He still has 4.5 per HD and doesn't have a full one at level 1. Chances are he calculated it wrong, had toughness, you didn't have a group high in con/HD, or a combination of this. He may have buffed the horses HP to keep it from dying becuase it was important to him. Barbarian at level 1, with 16 con will have 15 health and the horse at druid 1 will have 13. It only gets worse for the horse. at level 2 fighter with 14 con will have 20 and the horse will have 18.
Theres some math.
Hmm. Interesting. Still, I certainly can't demand character audits at every PFS table.
Okay, say something after like "Hey, are you sure about this?". At the table during the game or right before hand isn't your job. Your not the Judge most of the time. My brother has had someone ask our local venture lieutenant to peak at his summoner becuase he built his summoner around a single flying six armed super gopher. I'm actually not keen on the PFS rules for audits and asking about that kind of thing becuase I'm no longer interested in going to those events.
Just read through the books and faqs and learn somethings for yourself so you know how things work. Really helps at the table to know the rules and it gives you some solid ground for both helping others and yourself. Be careful not to take out personal issues on others. Not that I'm accusing you, but I've seen a lot of people do it even if they don't mean to. Stuffs all in the back of your head.
|
|
No, I don't get mad or aggressive at such tables, I just kind of disconnect and get bored. It's better than my PC be completely superfluous and me be bored than to cause table drama.
I like PFS because it fight my schedule very well, but it requires RAW rulings on everything and people seem to love breaking the scenarios with mathematically overpowering builds.
Many people break rules without even thinking about it. Its very easy to read over something, or miss a moment where specific trumps general. They aren't out to break the system by purposefully ignoring things. Usually anyway.
Homegames can be pretty regular if you find one of those. Also much more flexible. My own work times never work with PFS anymore.
4.5+2 +4.5+2 (critters start off with 2hd at first level) 3 +toughness (standard first level feat for many a critter) = 16 hp.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
This isn't even about what is RAW anymore. It is really about some people wanting more DM fiat room correct perceived "imbalances" at the table in PFS.
Just because you don't like AC's or think that a player getting to control what is basically part of their character is an unavoidable call to metagame, the problem is one of DMing.
A DM needs to trust the players to know their characters (including AC's) and to be able to separate IC and OOC. As this thread has illustreated there are a surprising number of DMs who refuse to have such basic trust and respect for their players and that is the root of the problem. They have just latched onto AC's since somehow a controversy basically got manufactured around the topic a few threads ago.
I, for one, am putting most of the "AC's are categorically NPCs" DMs on my list of people to avoid playing with not because I disagree with them about the animal rules but because it is just a symptom of a larger problem and I am not going to encourage bad DMs who power trip and distrust/disrespect players.
|
|
This isn't even about what is RAW anymore. It is really about some people wanting more DM fiat room correct perceived "imbalances" at the table in PFS.
Just because you don't like AC's or think that a player getting to control what is basically part of their character is an unavoidable call to metagame, the problem is one of DMing.
A DM needs to trust the players to know their characters (including AC's) and to be able to separate IC and OOC. As this thread has illustreated there are a surprising number of DMs who refuse to have such basic trust and respect for their players and that is the root of the problem. They have just latched onto AC's since somehow a controversy basically got manufactured around the topic a few threads ago.
I, for one, am putting most of the "AC's are categorically NPCs" DMs on my list of people to avoid playing with not because I disagree with them about the animal rules but because it is just a symptom of a larger problem and I am not going to encourage bad DMs who power trip and distrust/disrespect players.
When it comes to PFS, DMs are on a reverse power trip. They are completely constrained by RAW and MUST run the scenarios as written, including being told in the scenario what tactics to use. So who is really on the power trip? The DMs? Or the pet users?
4.5+2 +4.5+2 (critters start off with 2hd at first level) 3 +toughness (standard first level feat for many a critter) = 16 hp.That's another thing I noticed on the animal progression chart. I think these things get way too many feats. It's basically doubling the feats the pet user has access to.
Have you hit the levels where almost everything has damage reduction yet? It tends to put a real crimp in their style.
Damage reduction seems quite rare in PFS. I've seen it far more frequently in modules than in scenarios. The bottom line is that there are too many squishy humanoid NPCs for pets to really go out of style in PFS. PFS ends right when pets are beginning to lose some mathematical luster.
Sure.
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. It's easier to simply allow the player use his pet during a combat.
BUT : what happen when you order your AC to scout ? In my opinion, it's the DM that is in control at this moment.
The same can be written about Cohorts, Familiars or even Summons.
Animal Summons (even fiendish or celestial ones) are actually the best example : you need a Handle animal to ask the to do anything except attacking.
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, ...).
Out of combat (scouting, ...) :
You succeed : the creature is doing its mission well, under the DM control.
You failed : the creature goes to your feet, or ask for food or something.
That's how I see it.
I have to remind my DMs that my familiar has an intellegence if he ever wants to control it. They still think the vermin has - intellegence. Nope! It starts with 6 and only gets smarter. At level 3 he becomes as smart as my brothers paladin.
David, pets have as much feats as any PC does and they have to be spent on specific feats. They have one for each odd numbered HD, just like everyone else. The feats are spent on them so they can keep up. The ACs will end up as powerful as a creature with the animal type of equal HD. The ACs HD is less than the PC, and animals are one of the weakest type of creatures you can fight. Outsiders and magical beast have full BAB and usually special abilities. Animals will always be mundane and have 3/4 bab, D8 HD, and no special abilities. All weak for a frontliner.
|
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?)
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.
|
|
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.
I agree with james maissen.
When it comes to PFS, DMs are on a reverse power trip. They are completely constrained by RAW and MUST run the scenarios as written, including being told in the scenario what tactics to use. So who is really on the power trip? The DMs? Or the pet users?This isn't even about what is RAW anymore. It is really about some people wanting more DM fiat room correct perceived "imbalances" at the table in PFS.
Just because you don't like AC's or think that a player getting to control what is basically part of their character is an unavoidable call to metagame, the problem is one of DMing.
A DM needs to trust the players to know their characters (including AC's) and to be able to separate IC and OOC. As this thread has illustreated there are a surprising number of DMs who refuse to have such basic trust and respect for their players and that is the root of the problem. They have just latched onto AC's since somehow a controversy basically got manufactured around the topic a few threads ago.
I, for one, am putting most of the "AC's are categorically NPCs" DMs on my list of people to avoid playing with not because I disagree with them about the animal rules but because it is just a symptom of a larger problem and I am not going to encourage bad DMs who power trip and distrust/disrespect players.
Seriously? The player is power tripping? The only thing they are doing is availing themselves of character options which you don't happen to like.
DMs power trip in PFS just as badly as in real campaigns. Disregarding tactics, giving players crap for their fluff, threatening to mark characters evil at the drop of a hat and being a jerk when they don't like a player's playstyle. It is all powertripping and none of it is cool.
|
|
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.
This is something i saw ravens do while working at a wolf center.
There was a wolf munching on a haunch of meat. Six ravens flew down at the same time and landed just out of reach. The raven in the back bit and picked up the wolf's tail. When the wolf turned around to bite the raven, the one in front grabbed the meat and flew off.
Now lets try to put that in pathfinder terms.
The animals synched their initiative to act as a coordinated unit.
They flew in a precise formation to land in a precise, apparently preplanned formation.
The one in front held his action for the one in back to bite the wolfs tail.
The two in back used aid another for armor class (flapping wings are really distracting)
Now that's an intelligence 2 bird-brain with no combat training. Moving around the battlemat, I don't think the pathfinder system allows for a higher level of strategy than real life critters are already showing, much less what a hyper intelligent combat trained beast that's been working with the druid for every waking moment of its life and has traveled the world biting and clawing its way through vampires, zombies, demons, giants and dragons.
So if i just let the player run the critter its really, really REAAALY rare that they do something that stretches the plausibility of an animals tactics because the game just doesn't have much tactical depth that animals can't reach between their instincts and the handle animal skill.
I let the player run the critter the same way I let them run a monk.
The rules assume you can, unless for some reason I say they can't.
There is no such thing as 'synching' your initiative in the real world
Sure there is. 1.2.3 LIFT and you lift at the same time.
See Lethal weapon
No, the rules assume that you run them, unless for some reason you allow them to run the animal companion instead.
You don't get to decide how I meant things. I am not getting into a pedantic game of equivocation gotcha in an internet conversation.
No, the rules assume that you run them
And the Animal Archive has a line that contradicts your statement. Done. What else ya got?
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. But since tabletop RPGs are typically played among friends or in a collaborative environment for Society play, I doubt this is a problem in practice.
All of the other stuff you've said about hypothetical GMs with "poor skills" and "initiative" that "doesn't exist in the real world" smacks of pedantry. Relax, dude. We know how to run our own games. We know what our players' level of desired verisimilitude is which is why they still game with us.
But none of that has anything to do with the rule. Who controls animal companions? The rules don't say. Decide for your table. YMMV. And above all, remember that you as the GM need the players more than the players need you as their GM.
|
|
I understood what you were saying, but I disagree and believe that it is a big deal.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').
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.
|
|
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.
Bingo.
|
|
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.