|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Forgive my ignorance if this is a quite basic question, we are still new to PFS here in Portugal.
I have a player that has a 4th level Gnome sorcerer with a high Handle Animal skill that has bought a copy of Pathfinder Player Companion Animal Archive.
"Animals: all animal companions on pages 28–29 are legal for purchase. Animals on pages 14–15 are legal for purchase except dinosaurs and megafauna (unless already allowed in this document in Bestiary 1, Bestiary 2, Bestiary 3, or Ultimate Equipment) and dire animals. Additionally, only creatures of the animal type of size Large and smaller may be purchased. Goblin dog is restricted for purchase and only available to goblin PCs" from additional Resources
who wants to buy a combat trained Tiger for 500gp, the resource would seem to be allowed and they clearly have fame enough to make such a purchase
"An animal trained to bear a rider into combat knows the tricks attack, come, defend, down, guard, and heel."
You can try to teach the animal one trick per scenario according to the PFS guide. Does the tiger come being rid-able by a Gnome, it is in a section headed Riding animals?
A Tiger would seem a very good buy for 500gp and if I was a 4th level Druid I'd be a bit annoyed as this tiger seems better then my tiger companion, ok they don't get a +4 bonus on handle animal and the Druid's Tiger knows more tricks, but!
Is my player allowed this tiger, am I doing something wrong?
|
It is legal.
Your best bet to attempt to balance it is to make sure your player adheres closely to the Handle Animal rules. Of note:
- handling the animal requires a move action.
- if all it has is basic combat training, it will not attack anything but humanoids, monstrous humanoids, giants, or other animals. (getting it to attack other creatures will require retraining it's tricks and selecting "attack" twice)
To answer the riding question, the combat trained tiger comes with the standard "combat training" trick package, which does not prohibit riding in any capacity. So yes, it should be able to serve fine as a mount.
And yes, it is quite strong at low level, and does blow most class-based companions out of the water for several levels. The best management is to make sure your player follows the rules for using them and monitor social stipulations (no, your tiger is not allowed in the Duke's ball), while making an effort to not be a tyrant about it.
|
|
Also keep in mind the following:
1. It appears on the riding animal chart, and is clearly intended as a mount.
2. You may only have one combat animal in a session, so he may not be out at the same time as a familiar, animal companion, or other animal that has an effect on combat.
3. It is not an animal companion and does not level or gain hit dice.
|
There have been several threads on this since Animal Archive came out. Try Battle Cattle for a recent one.
Yaks/Bison are even cheaper than Tigers, and purchasable by a new level one (and arguably more effective with trample). Though require more training.
Basically you have to quickly review the handle animal rules if one shows up, and be aware of what tricks they know. Also be prepared for the "everyone is here to have fun" discussion.
|
|
Thanks for the replies everybody.
So it seems it is legal :(
I think the biggest problem is the low price, if I was running a home game I could easily insist that the price be higher or that you had to find a tiger cub to raise.
I am afraid allow this thing will start an arms race and require me and other GMs to take on a confrontational GM vs Player attitude that I don't enjoy as a game concept.
i.e. either I set out to block the player's actions at every step, or attempt to kill it or worse everybody will get a Tiger or a Battle Cattle, if I was a Druid why wouldn't I, this thing is better than my animal companion etc!
Players and GM all come together to make a story, the job of the GM is to set a scene, interpret the players actions and turn them into challenge that in overcoming (or not) the players seem like the major actors and that success was not guaranteed.
I know it would not be legal to make me insist that the Tiger take a young template, but I think the player is mostly taken with the concept, they used to have a riding dog (which at low levels was a significant help all by itself) and were just looking for an upgrade, if I asked nicely they might accept to take the template for game balance. The young tiger would still be powerful, after a few more levels I could remove the young template. Would it be PFS legal to apply such a template?
|
Also, because the tiger only has the attack trick once, the thing will only attack humanoids, monstrous humanoids, giants, or other animals. You'll can push it with a DC 25 handle animal check to attack abberations, constructs, dragons, feys,magical beasts,oozes, outsiders,plants, undead and vermin otherwise it tells you you're on your own, biped.
Non pet animals don't get bonus tricks. Its unclear whether you can train the animal to lose one trick and pick up another, so if you buy combat trained you may be stuck with those tricks.
|
|
I am pretty sure that the Guide to PFS allows you to teach an animal 1 trick per scenario (although I can't find the specific section in it except to mention in the chronicle filling in bit where it says you note the trick there - interestingly it says train an animal companion there)
However I get what you are saying, a Tiger can know 6 tricks, a Combat trained Tiger knows 6 tricks "attack, come, defend, down, guard and heel"
I can't see any rule that says you can replace a learnt trick with a new trick, although I do think common sense would say you could, but common sense can be put aside in this brave new world of player vs GM ;)
So the player will only get attack vs humanoids, monstrous humanoids, giants or other animals, otherwise a "push" is needed (the Handle animal of the player is high enough that they might just succeed anyhow)
So basically the situation is controlled by telling the player at every opportunity they can't take their tiger there (but would have have to restrict a druid's companion or a familiar in the same way or would they be more socially acceptable?) and nitpicking at the Handle Animal rules
Would still prefer a ruling that "No bought animal companion greater than HD (or HD+1 ?) can be used for combat"
|
No, the situation would be sitting down with the player, and making sure that they understand that the tiger might break the game, and therefore reduce/remove everyones' enjoyment of playing.
If the player is responsible with the tiger, including following all the Handle Animal rules, there shouldn't be a problem. It will serve as a mount, and maybe, for a while, as an emergency anti-TPK item, but it won't dominate the game.
But the important thing is to make sur eth eplayer understands both the Handle Animal rules, and the possible consequences if they let their new tiger dominate play. Ain't no fun to not get invited back to play again.
I agree with kinevon.
Talk to the player. Reading between the lines, the player is simply looking to have a mount that won't die in the first fireball (and being a small creature, increase their movement rate due to being mounted). If that is the case, then talking to them is likely the best way to ensure that there won't be any problems.
Animal Archive has been out for a while, and I haven't heard of any area where it has caused an explosion of battle cattle (or tigers). That being the case, don't escalate things if you don't need to. But I would recommend that you make sure that you know the rules about handling animals.
Ain't no fun to not get invited back to play again.Unfortunately the player in question is my daughter, wouldn't be able to invite her without causing a family crises.
I suppose I should count myself as lucky that this is amongst the least of problems that a teenage daughter could cause ;)
Get her to start GMing
:)
|
Forgive my ignorance if this is a quite basic question, we are still new to PFS here in Portugal.
I have a player that has a 4th level Gnome sorcerer with a high Handle Animal skill that has bought a copy of Pathfinder Player Companion Animal Archive.
It seems to me that the last place a sorcerer wants to be is in the thick of combat.
Also remember, that unless a mount has armor proficiency feats the armor check penalty subtracts from the to-hit roll.
On the other hand, most casters I have seen just want a mount with more hit points than a riding dog.
You mentioned that your daughter just liked the animal companion concept, but wanted to at least keep it viable.
Firstly, of course you can do that using actual classes that include animal companions... If necessary, using a rebuild for that.
I can see how promoting rebuilds would itself not be the best thing to introduce as normal to a new player, though.
You might want to check out this feat: http://www.d20pfsrd.com/feats/general-feats/animal-ally
That grants what amounts to a Ranger companion: at "character level-3" and from the following animals:
badger, bird, camel, cat (small), dire rat, dog, horse, pony, snake (viper), or wolf.
Cat (Small) or maybe Wolf would be obviously useful combat pets. You can take Boon Companion to raise the effective Druid Level.
Beyond that you really should have real Animal Companion Class Levels to get a Companion, though there's quite a few ways to do so:
Druid, Cleric or Inquisitor (Animal Domain), Wildblooded Archetype Fey Bloodline Sorceror, vanilla Ranger/Cavalier/Paladin, the previous with Beast Rider Feat for Half Orcs for more mount choices, Beast Master/Rider Archetypes for Ranger/Cavalier, and Nature Oracle (+more?). If you can take Cavalie to I believe 6th level, there is a Feat that can let you count all class levels towards Druid Level for the Companion.
So I think discussing things and just pointing out other options that should "work" is a good approach.
A "Small" Cat for a Gnome is pretty much like a "Big" Cat for normal Size characters... or something like that ;-)
You can be honest about why it is not a good idea, even if the RAW technically allows it,
you can explain how the game would not work well if any NPC could trivially get a real Tiger for minimal investment, even though the RAW allows that...
so sometimes it's just best not to do anything the RAW allows, because the RAW isn't always perfect.
If it's necessary, you can say that this just isn't the type of thing you want in the games you are GM'ing,
no reason to be deceitful about what the RAW allows, but you can make your own GMing preferences clear,
and if she wants to play with a real Tiger with other GMs that's no problem for you, but you choose not to GM games with real Tigers.
|
|
You can be honest about why it is not a good idea, even if the RAW technically allows it,
you can explain how the game would not work well if any NPC could trivially get a real Tiger for minimal investment, even though the RAW allows that...
so sometimes it's just best not to do anything the RAW allows, because the RAW isn't always perfect.If it's necessary, you can say that this just isn't the type of thing you want in the games you are GM'ing,
no reason to be...
It shouldn't be the GMs job regulate balance. Turning away character options may fly in a home setting, but it's unreasonable in an open event.
It's not about the GM's "job" being to regulate balance, it's about them having equal choice in what games they wish to play.
PFS rules don't force you to play a game don't want to, for whatever reason, whether you're a GM or "player" (both are playing a game).
Ever having GM'd a PFS game doesn't mean you're obligated to run any module with any players at any time.
Clearly, it is not a good thing if people start being ultra particular all the time,
but that doesn't means it's always unreasonable or disallowed completely.
Certain settings like Cons may impose further "job-like" obligations on participating GMs, but that's their thing, not a global rule for PFS GMs.
|
|
Well she agreed to "voluntarily" take the young template for her tiger and has played with the tiger like that. The tiger still has a big impact on combat, especially when it charges and gets the rake attacks.
She has overcome the restriction on the number of tricks (and has thus thought Attack twice) by getting her animal a Headband of Vast Intelligence. At least now she has paid money enough to justify such a major asset.
My problem now is that at the time I promised that she need only have the young template until her character reached lvl 5, which her character now has, so I dread the next scenario as I look over the full tiger stats
http://paizo.com/prd/monsters/tiger.html
on a charge the tiger gets
4 attacks +12
and 1 attack +11
plus 3 attempts to grab
if they all hit (and there is a good possibility of this happening)
4d8 + 2d6 + 54 points of damage + grab
please somebody tell me where I am getting this wrong.. in particular does the grab have to succeed for the tiger to get the rake attack during pounce?.. how many grabs have to succeed?
So combat will become a case of everybody else waiting until the tiger comes and charges their opponent
I think I will have to persuade her to keep the young template.. but if anyone thinks this will be easier because she is my daughter.. then I say they probably don't have a teenage daughter.
Sigh, guess she is learning valuable skills rule lawyering ;)
|
|
She has overcome the restriction on the number of tricks (and has thus thought Attack twice) by getting her animal a Headband of Vast Intelligence. At least now she has paid money enough to justify such a major asset.
As much as I appreciate improving the education of our furry friends, this trick doesn't work in pathfinder society. Animals are limited to either the more restrictive of either barding and neck slots, or the chart in the animal archives. This means without a feat (that a purchased tiger cannot have) the tiger cannot use the headband.
|
|
She has overcome the restriction on the number of tricks (and has thus thought Attack twice) by getting her animal a Headband of Vast Intelligence. At least now she has paid money enough to justify such a major asset.
Animals and animal companions are limited to neck and barding slot items, unless they take a feat to open up other slots. FAQ
|
|
Animals and animal companions are limited to neck and barding slot items, unless they take a feat to open up other slots. FAQ
Ooh that is going to go down just fine when I try to have the "your tiger is too powerful, why not continue to have a young tiger" talk :(
|
|
In order for the tiger to gain it's rake attacks, it must begin it's turn already grappling. Thus on the charge/pounce, it is "only" the 2 claws and bite with the grab attempts.
but the Tiger has the Pounce ability, which states
"Pounce (Ex) When a creature with this special attack makes a charge, it can make a full attack (including rake attacks if the creature also has the rake ability)."
|
|
In order for the tiger to gain it's rake attacks, it must begin it's turn already grappling. Thus on the charge/pounce, it is "only" the 2 claws and bite with the grab attempts.but the Tiger has the Pounce ability, which states
"Pounce (Ex) When a creature with this special attack makes a charge, it can make a full attack (including rake attacks if the creature also has the rake ability)."
When the tiger pounces, it gets the rake attacks. It does not need to succeed in a grab.
There are two times a big cat (lions get rake too) gets to use the rake: when it is pouncing, and when it starts a full attack already in a grapple.
Yes, five attacks is a lot.
As others have pointed out, there are a few controls on this: using handle animal correctly means that the PC is spending actions on the animal, and might not be able to do other things, like run away from danger, animals have pretty low will saves and can be compromised by spells, and opponents can use handle animal on the beast until it gets the exclusive trick.
The thing is, the OP arbitrarily applying the Young Template is against the rules for PFS as well, that's not what a purchased Tiger IS by RAW. That he now realizes headbands are a no-go is just compounding the problem there. (Actually, there is no problem with using Ioun Stones with an animal, they are just 2x as expensive)
There are legal options to get Animal Companion in line with what she wants, while being more conventionally balanced by the rules, and I think you should use them, via a Rebuild if necessary. It will be much easier to use with Companion Bonus Tricks and +4 to Handle Animal, and full Feat customization will allow you to make a viable build of it no matter what.
You mentioned she is a Gnome Sorceror. What Bloodline? Whether she is Fey bloodline or not, you can easily rebuild to a Wildblooded (Sylvan) Fey Bloodline Sorceror (from Ultimate Magic), which gains a Full Druid List Animal Companion at Druid Level equivalent of Sorceror Level -3 (minimum 1). That gets her what she wants while being mechanically balanced within the rules (albeit people think that is a strong option, but it's still scaled to level). She doesn't need to take Boon Companion (which boosts Companion 2 levels up to character level, i.e. to only -1 below a full Druid).
The other option if she wants to be a Sorceror and not a Druid/Cleric/Inquisitor/Ranger/etc is taking the 2 Feats Nature Soul and Animal Ally (from Faith and Philosophies), to get a Ranger Companion which can be a Small Cat. That is also at Character Level -3 for equivalent Druid Level (scaling the Companion), and given it is a weaker animal type she might want to use Boon Companion Feat in that case. Full Casters like Sorcs don't really have major dependency on Feats, so that isn't a huge hassle IMHO.
I would just be honest that your original suggested solution (Young Template) was itself illegal, and that approach just doesn't work out. Present her the legal options that can still fit into a balanced game (Wildblooded or Animal Ally, using Rebuild to get either ASAP), and she'll probably take you up on it... After extracting other favors from you in apology, of course. :-)
Ah, I remembered something about the master being able to set it in orbit around a creature's head, irrespective of their lack of hands.
I believe that is true, but I found a post clarifying that Iouns Stones specifically say they don't apply to non-sentient animals, constructs, etc. In the same thread Mike Brock said implanted Ioun Stones are fine if there was any debate about the 'activating' an Ioun Stone part (which isn't really 'activating' in the rules sense), but non-sentient animals can't benefit from them period... And any way to get an animal sentient would increase it's INT anyways.
