|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The implementation of the UC rules for PFS don't allow for the retraining of animal companions.
However, one can always dismiss one's companion and get a new one. I know that some people view their companions as expendable, and as such get new ones from time to time. My understanding is that there's no penalty for doing this if you do it between scenarios. (There's the time needed that makes it impossible to complete during most if not all scenarios.)
Given this, would it be OK for somebody to "retrain" their animal companion by rebuilding it with legal options, but say it was the same animal companion? Mechanically, it's no different from dismissing the animal companion and getting a new one. The only difference is roleplaying-- the animal companion has the same name, and from a RP point of view would be the same animal that was with the character all along, only now with (say) a different archetype (from one of the companion archetypes in Animal Archive).
A player asked me this, and as GM I told him I thought it would be OK, and that I'd allow it in my game. However, I wanted to run it by the powers that be here. Given that mechanically it's the same as dismissing and getting a new animal companion, I don't think the rules are being abused here, even though the "new" animal companion has the same name and memories (i.e. roleplaying things that don't have any mechanical impact) as the old one.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
That's not what you're doing. You're telling your best friend of dozens of adventurers that you no longer need him. You're getting a new best friend who is better than your old best friend in every way. It is not your old best friend, and in no way has your old best friend's memories.
How would you feel if your friends kept asking you if you remembered all those great times they never had with you? It was some other guy that you never met who just happened to have the same name...
|
|
But it is -- the same creature, with a different archetype.
There is a mechanical way for characters to retrain themselves. It costs gold and PP, yes, but just because they've changed feats, archetypes, etc., doesn't mean that they're not the same people. There is no mechanical way to retrain feats, archetypes, etc., for people without paying for gold, PP, however. Nor, crucially, is there a mechanical way to turn a person with a given PFS# (including all his gold, experience, and prestige) into a completely different person (except at first level, where that is allowed).
However, there is a mechanical way to completely replace an animal companion -- "turn it into a different person", in that the animal companion that you have with you is now a modified version of the animal. However, there's no way to retrain an animal without it being different.
The point of all this is: retraining doesn't make something a different individual, because it can be done for people. And, yes, while that retraining for people costs, it doesn't cost to replace your animal companion, which is the closest equivalent to retraining. Why mechanically punish the people who want, for purely roleplaying (not mechanical) reasons, to keep the same animal, and are not willing to view their animal as expendable? If you let them do a retrain, they're not getting away with anything. And, if anything, they're probably roleplaying a character who has a bond with an animal companion than the folks out there who view animal companions as expendable.
|
|
Of course retraining doesn't change who or what you are. (Unless you're talking about the total transformation allowed prior to second level.)
And, as you say, there are no rules like that for animal companions. But, as you also point out, you can replace them for free. Now, why can you not replace your companion with itself? Because...
Edit: If you want to fight for retraining rules for animal companions, I will fully support that goal. But you can't get a new pet, name it Fluffy II, and claim that it's still Fluffy I. Because it isn't.
|
|
If getting a new animal companion is "anti-fun" for you, then I guess you're just stuck with the current one.
If you get a new one, it can't possibly have the "memories" of the old one, because it comes to you with only its "bonus trick" tricks known. You can only teach it one trick per chronicle per rank you have in handle animal, and failed checks still count as one attempt per chronicle.
So fine, take your Fluffy II and call it Fluffy. And when someone asks why Fluffy II forgot how to _______, you can say it's because...
|
|
You missed the point of what I was saying about it having the same memories as the old one.
I was saying, make it the same companion, and it would mechanically be no different from a new companion with the same name and memories. Not in roleplaying terms, just mechanically.
I'm arguing that we can justify retraining our animal companions on the basis that mechanically, it's no different from just getting a new companion, which is allowed, for free. I'm not arguing that it really is a new companion.
Unless you insist that mechanics correlate 1:1 with in-game-world reality. I would disagree with that interpretation of game mechanics, however; there's necessarily a level of abstraction.
|
|
Edit: Just noticed I'm responding to a different poster, so sorry for the confusion but my position still stands.
You're telling me there is no difference, I'm telling you there is a difference because it's not the same creature. You're telling me there is no mechanical difference, I'm telling you there is a difference in tricks known. You're telling me there is no difference that matters, and I'm telling you I'm done with this conversation.
I'm not giving you the answer you want, and you'll not accept any other.
|
|
I am not simply disagreeing with you because I am an obstinate stubborn blockhead who refuses to see the might of your infallible logic.
I had to post again, because this literally made me lol. Woke up my wife and everything. :D
My argument had neither strength nor weakness, because I was simply stating what the rule is. Your wanting it to be different, and your feeling that it should be different, does not make it so.
Personally, I hate the idea of recyclable animal companions. I personally feel that your proposed variant would lead to more recycling of animal companions, but with the added ability to pretend it wasn't happening. I'm sure my feelings on the matter colored my response, but the response would be the same nonetheless. I have made it, and you will not be swayed by it, so neither of us gains from repeating it.
|
I'm arguing that we can justify retraining our animal companions on the basis that mechanically, it's no different from just getting a new companion, which is allowed, for free. I'm not arguing that it really is a new companion.
Unfortunately for what your suggesting there is a mechanically different from getting a new animal companion versus simple retraining. As per the Pathfinder Society FAQ:
You can teach any animal a trick so long as you follow the rules for Handle Animal on pages 97–98 of the Pathfinder RPG Core Rulebook. A GM must observe your Handle Animal check, and must initial what tricks the animal gained in the "Conditions Gained" section of the scenario's Chronicle sheet. The first time a character with levels in druid, ranger, or any other class that grants an animal companion gains an animal companion, the animal enters play knowing its maximum number of tricks as dictated by the animal companion's Intelligence and the character's effective druid level. If the character replaces the animal companion for any reason, the new animal starts with no tricks known, save for bonus tricks granted based on the PC's effective druid level. Once per scenario, you may attempt to train the animal companion a number of times equal to the number of ranks you have in the Handle Animal skill. Each success allows you to teach the animal a single trick; a failed attempt counts against the total number of training attempts allowed per scenario, and you may not attempt to teach the same trick until the next scenario. Alternatively, you may train one animal for a single purpose as long as you have enough ranks in Handle Animal to train the animal in each trick learned as part of that purpose. You may take 10 on Handle Animal checks to teach an animal companion tricks.
Also be cautious when using terms like, "I'd allow it in my game" for the Pathfinder Society. If it's allowed in the PFS, it's allowed at every table. If it's disallowed, it should be disallowed at every table. That's what keeps a living campaign fair for everyone.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
If You Love Someone, Set Them Free. If They Come Back They’re Yours. (and they'll have better feats!)
Raw the only thing up in the air is whether you can release at the end of scenario 14 and train at the start of scenario 15. When the "once per session" occurs isn't spelled out.
There's no rule preventing it from being the same creature. You turn your T rex loose to romp around the mawangi expanse for a few months, maybe settle down with a nice guy and lay a few eggs, then come back and pick them up.
|
|
my argument had neither strength nor weakness, because I was simply stating what the rule is.
You are doing no such thing. You are stating what you think the rule is without citation, evidence, or real argument. Linking to your own post merely demonstrates how circular, and thus weak, your argument is.
|
|
my argument had neither strength nor weakness, because I was simply stating what the rule is.You are doing no such thing. You are stating what you think the rule is without citation, evidence, or real argument. Linking to your own post merely demonstrates how circular, and thus weak, your argument is.
If a druid releases her companion from service, she may gain a new one by performing a ceremony requiring 24 uninterrupted hours of prayer in the environment where the new companion typically lives. This ceremony can also replace an animal companion that has perished.
Is that sufficient citation to show that it cannot be the same animal companion?
|
|
Unfortunately for what your suggesting there is a mechanically different from getting a new animal companion versus simple retraining. As per the Pathfinder Society FAQ:
Ah! Thanks for the quote. That does make a difference. That's part of what I was looking for; thank you for being constructive.
Also be cautious when using terms like, "I'd allow it in my game" for the Pathfinder Society. If it's allowed in the PFS, it's allowed at every table. If it's disallowed, it should be disallowed at every table. That's what keeps a living campaign fair for everyone.
Yes, I know, and that's why I posted here. When I said I'd allow it at my table, I wasn't saying that it was my choice of house rule, I was saying that according to my understanding, there was no mechanical difference between retraining an animal companion's archetype (which is specifically what I was asked about) and getting a new animal-- hence, my belief was that the PFS rules wouldn't really have been violated.
In reality, this kind of thing does happen. One GM allows something that he thinks is reasonable and should be allowed, and another GM disallows something that should be allowed. You can find threads on both here. Ideally, it doesn't happen, but in practice with a game as complicated as Pathfinder it's going to be difficult to really stamp out.
|
|
If the character replaces the animal companion for any reason, the new animal starts with no tricks known, save for bonus tricks granted based on the PC's effective druid level.
As an aside-- if GMs actually enforced this, I suspect it would cut way down on people treating their animal companions as expendable. There really is a mechanical cost (number of scenarios before the animal can have all its tricks again) to losing your companion, even to folks who view them simply as another piece on the game board.
And, as much as I'm loath to propose adding paperwork, this also makes it clear that the death of an animal companion is something that really ought to be listed under "resources expended" or some such on a chronicle sheet. Future GMs would need that to be able to tell if the player has made a mistake about how many tricks the animal knows. (I suspect a few would cheat, but more people wouldn't really cheat, just not know the rule.)
In practice, keeping track of tricks seems to be a level of rule detail that few GMs actually keep up with; animal companions seem to be able to just go where and do what the PC wants at all times. If the GM really ran them as Int 2 NPCs responding to the tricks they'd been trained, they probably wouldn't get some of the complaints they get now about being overpowered. This would especially be true when the 5th level Druid got a new animal companion who only knew 2 tricks-- it wouldn't be able to do a lot of things that PCs want their animals to do.
|
|
As an aside-- if GMs actually enforced this, I suspect it would cut way down on people treating their animal companions as expendable. There really is a mechanical cost (number of scenarios before the animal can have all its tricks again) to losing your companion, even to folks who view them simply as another piece on the game board.
If you can train the critter before or in between scenarios, you're back to disposable critters. It only takes or so ranks in handle animal to get a critter back up to full training in one shot.
|
|
I'm pretty sure there's also a "one trick trained per scenario" rule somewhere... does anybody have the reference?
Once per scenario, you may attempt to train the animal companion a number of times equal to the number of ranks you have in the Handle Animal skill. Each success allows you to teach the animal a single trick; a failed attempt counts against the total number of training attempts allowed per scenario, and you may not attempt to teach the same trick until the next scenario. Alternatively, you may train one animal for a single purpose as long as you have enough ranks in Handle Animal to train the animal in each trick learned as part of that purpose. You may take 10 on Handle Animal checks to teach an animal companion tricks.