Venture-Captain, Minnesota
|
When I reach second level, I think that I am definitely giving Pumpkin a skill in linguistics. The way I see it, knowing a language will work well with some of Pumpkin's tricks, including fetch (fetch what?) and deliver (deliver what?) so that Pumpkin has a better idea of what is going on. It won't remove the need for tricks, but it will sure make the tricks work better.
Hmm
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
When I reach second level, I think that I am definitely giving Pumpkin a skill in linguistics. The way I see it, knowing a language will work well with some of Pumpkin's tricks, including fetch (fetch what?) and deliver (deliver what?) so that Pumpkin has a better idea of what is going on. It won't remove the need for tricks, but it will sure make the tricks work better.
Hmm
Replying to both posts above in one.
It sounds like your GM was one of those who really hate ACs and goes out of their way to put obstacles in their way that are NOT in the rules. Making you roll an untrained Handle Animal roll for attacking a construct is very clearly wrong.
The linguistics skill is very useful with some GMs as it will cause them to more liberally interpret what an animal can do. With others (like the GM above) it will likely be all but useless.
I always take it, though. It helps to justify what the animal can and should do IN MY MIND. Makes things more realistic to ME. And that is more than worth the skill ppint
Venture-Captain, Netherlands
|
And the Nagaji paladin is being accompanied by:
Human paladin with 7 int, but with eye for talent so his mount is at 8 int.I see a very nice party in the making, where the animals are the ones that make the decisions of where to go and what to do, because the humanoids are too stupid.
We already have that. He is called Mr. Piglet :P
|
Venture-Lieutenant, Minnesota—Minneapolis
|
It sounds like your GM was one of those who really hate ACs and goes out of their way to put obstacles in their way that are NOT in the rules. Making you roll an untrained Handle Animal roll for attacking a construct is very clearly wrong.
The linguistics skill is very useful with some GMs as it will cause them to more liberally interpret what an animal can do. With others (like the GM above) it will likely be all but useless.
I always take it, though. It helps to justify what the animal can and should do IN MY MIND. Makes things more realistic to ME. And that is more than worth the skill ppint
It was at a PFS event and since her skill was high enough to do it, I don't think it was worth arguing at that point.
I don't think it was anything malicious on the GMs part, they probably had never dealt with animal companions before. Perhaps we should have taken time after the session to discuss it, so that next time they would be aware but the store was closing as we finished.
PFS events tend to be pressed for time so unless it is critical I hesitate to slow down the game in order to go over the rules. Tends to slow down play a lot doing that.
|
When I reach second level, I think that I am definitely giving Pumpkin a skill in linguistics. The way I see it, knowing a language will work well with some of Pumpkin's tricks, including fetch (fetch what?) and deliver (deliver what?) so that Pumpkin has a better idea of what is going on. It won't remove the need for tricks, but it will sure make the tricks work better.
Hmm
Replying to both posts above in one.
It sounds like your GM was one of those who really hate ACs and goes out of their way to put obstacles in their way that are NOT in the rules. Making you roll an untrained Handle Animal roll for attacking a construct is very clearly wrong.
The linguistics skill is very useful with some GMs as it will cause them to more liberally interpret what an animal can do. With others (like the GM above) it will likely be all but useless.
I always take it, though. It helps to justify what the animal can and should do IN MY MIND. Makes things more realistic to ME. And that is more than worth the skill point
Ok, just remember when you do that your AC is now a valid target for the telepathy ability of outsiders. When that succubus hits your AC with dominate monster and telepathically tells it to kill you and your party members (with an opposed charisma check the AC cannot possibly succeed at) it's your fault.
spoken from experience watching a pouncing tiger turn and murderize his party and a vital striking wolf one shot his Ranger boss.Those things are nasty.
|
|
You might want to read the Charm Monster spell (my bad on that, forgot it was charm monster).
The spell does not enable you to control the charmed person as if it were an automaton, but it perceives your words and actions in the most favorable way. You can try to give the subject orders, but you must win an opposed Charisma check to convince it to do anything it wouldn't ordinarily do.
Make that Charisma check and you can make that pet tiger do anything you want as long as you can actually talk it into it. Remember there is no magical connection between the tiger and it's owner (Nature Bond is an EX ability so spells trump it) and a decent story for an int 2-3 critter is your hungry and that guy there is easy meat AND he keeps making you fight things that hurt you.
Succubus Charisma check
Tiger Charisma check
Tiger eats whoever the succubus says to eat.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
You might want to read the Charm Monster spell (my bad on that, forgot it was charm monster).
I have read it. The problem is that the spell doesn't say that the opposed charisma check will make the creature violate its core principles and precepts.
Charm: A charm spell changes how the subject views you, typically making it see you as a good friend. (magic chapter) You do not eviscerate one good friend for another. You might tackle them to get both of your friends to stop fighting, but you don't behead your old best friend because your new best friend said so.
The spell does not enable you to control the charmed person as if it were an automaton
And this is exactly what you want to do.
but it perceives your words and actions in the most favorable way.
There is no favorable way to read "Kill your best friend"
You can try to give the subject orders, but you must win an opposed Charisma check to convince it to do anything it wouldn't ordinarily do.
There are levels. The example given is for getting an Orc to plow a field for you. Not kill their best friend.
The spell makes the target your friend. It will treat you kindly (although maybe not your allies) and will generally help you as long as your interests align. This is mostly in the purview of the GM.
If you ask the creature to do something that it would not normally do (in relation to your friendship), that is when the opposed Charisma check comes into play.
For example, if you use charm person to befriend an orc, the orc might share his grog with you and talk with you about the upcoming raid on a nearby settlement. If you asked him to help you fight some skeletons, he might very well lend a hand. If you asked him to help you till a field, however, you might need to make that check to convince him to do it.
This answer originally appeared in the 9/11/12 Paizo blog.
] Remember there is no magical connection between the tiger and it's owner (Nature Bond is an EX ability so spells trump it)
This is not a rule.
Blingsight(ex) will counter invisibility
Dominate, a much stronger charm spell, would be needed to do this and even THEN you'd be giving the creatures additional saves with extra bonuses.
|
|
You might want to read the Charm Monster spell (my bad on that, forgot it was charm monster).I have read it. The problem is that the spell doesn't say that the opposed charisma check will make the creature violate its core principles and precepts.
Charm: A charm spell changes how the subject views you, typically making it see you as a good friend. (magic chapter) You do not eviscerate one good friend for another. You might tackle them to get both of your friends to stop fighting, but you don't behead your old best friend because your new best friend said so.
The spell does not enable you to control the charmed person as if it were an automatonAnd this is exactly what you want to do.
A. The charm person spell doesn't address the core values question at all, it has nothing to do with it. It simply makes the target your friend and explicitly gives you the ability to make it do something it normally wouldn't (like the examples given Share supplies, tell you secrets, Fight your enemies and do back breaking physical labor) with the only limitation being if it's something it doesn't want to do you need to succeed on an opposed charisma check in a language/communication method it can understand. That's it, that's all the limitation built into spell by RAW. RAI may be different but this is society play where RAW is LAW.
but it perceives your words and actions in the most favorable way.There is no favorable way to read "Kill your best friend"
You can try to give the subject orders, but you must win an opposed Charisma check to convince it to do anything it wouldn't ordinarily do.There are levels. The example given is for getting an Orc to plow a field for you. Not kill their best friend.
The spell makes the target your friend. It will treat you kindly (although maybe not your allies) and will generally help you as long as your interests align. This is mostly in the purview of the GM.
If you ask the creature to do something that it would not normally do (in relation to your friendship), that is when the opposed Charisma check comes into play.
For example, if you use charm person to befriend an orc, the orc might share his grog with you and talk with you about the upcoming raid on a nearby settlement. If you asked him to help you fight some skeletons, he might very well lend a hand. If you asked him to help you till a field, however, you might need to make that check to convince him to do it.
This answer originally appeared in the 9/11/12 Paizo blog.
Remember there is no magical connection between the tiger and it's owner (Nature Bond is an EX ability so spells trump it)This is not a rule.
Dominate, a much stronger charm spell, would be needed to do this and even THEN you'd be giving the creatures additional saves with extra bonuses.
Well first there is nothing written in the spell saying you can't convince the target to kill their best friend, it simply says you have to succeed on an opposed charisma check to get it to do something it doesn't want to. Like convincing a target to cheat on their spouse, or feed poison kool-aid to their children (Jim Jones reference) all of these are simply charisma checks, difficult ones but still basic checks. As for the "against their nature" that's a specific written limitation of the Dominate spell by a Dev not a general rule for the Enchantment School.
Finally EX abilities by their nature are non-magical:
Indeed, extraordinary abilities do not qualify as magical, though they may break the laws of physics.
Nature Bond doesn't give you any kind of magical control over this animal, it's still a relatively normal Wild Animal ruled by it's instincts and normal nature. Heck the went out of their way to define this in the Ultimate Campaign book:
Nonsentient Companions: A nonsentient companion (one with animal-level intelligence) is loyal to you in the way a well-trained dog is—the creature is conditioned to obey your commands, but its behavior is limited by its intelligence and it can’t make altruistic moral decisions—such as nobly sacrificing itself to save another. Animal companions, cavalier mounts, and purchased creatures (such as common horses and guard dogs) fall into this
category.
AC's are even weaker to enchantment magic then the most basic fighter in the game since they are explicitly defined as amoral nature and can be convinced to do ANYTHING you want with a successful handle animal check or failed will save.
Let me guess, you probably don't allow your bad guys do handle animal to control your PC's animal companions either? hint, that's legal too.You're adding a bunch of conditions and expectations that are written nowhere in the spell or nature bond ability.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
A. The charm person spell doesn't address the core values question at all, it has nothing to do with it.
It has everything to do with it. You do not control the other character. (explicitly stated) the other character is your friend (explicitly stated) if you want to get the orc to plow a field for you, that takes a charisma check (explicitly clarified)
{i]Nothing[/i] There says, hints, or even suggest that you can control the fighter or anyone else as an automaton just because you made the charisma check. It says the exact opposite. The Caster of the charm is your FRIEND. Not your unquestioned lord and puppet master.
(like the examples given Share supplies, tell you secrets, Fight your enemies and do back breaking physical labor) with the only limitation being if it's something it doesn't want to do you need to succeed on an opposed charisma check in a language/communication method it can understand. That's it, that's all the limitation built into spell by RAW.
Incorrect. You cannot treat it as an automaton. Your charisma check would do exactly that. You completely ignore the clarification in the spell, the wording in the magic chapter, and the FAQ.
RAI may be different but this is society play where RAW is LAW.
Fine. I land on the opposing Bad guys head. He's my mount. I make a dc 5 ride check to guide with knees and walk him through my meatshields to soak up 5 attacks of opportunity and then off the cliff. Chronicle please.
PFS is no more raw than any other campaign. It still relies on the DM to derive intent from the rules and sanity.
You can try to give the subject orders, but you must win an opposed Charisma check to convince it to do anything it wouldn't ordinarily do.
It says "wouldn't ordinarily do" not "would rather die than do".
Well first there is nothing written in the spell saying you can't convince the target to kill their best friend
The target treats you as a friend.
Not an automaton.it simply says you have to succeed on an opposed charisma check to get it to do something it doesn't want to. Like convincing a target to cheat on their spouse, or feed poison kool-aid to their children (Jim Jones reference) all of these are simply charisma checks, difficult ones but still basic checks.
The last two are probably beyond the power of the spell unless the person was inclined to do it anyway. You would not poison your children for your best friend, and thats exactly how the spell tells you to treat the caster.
As for the "against their nature" that's a specific written limitation of the Dominate spell by a Dev not a general rule for the Enchantment School.
So why on earth would you ever cast a 4th level spell if the first level spell is BETTER by your reading?
Finally EX abilities by their nature are non-magical:
This is a total non argument. I didn't argue that Ex abilities were magical. I said that spells trumping ex abilities is not a rule. Blindsense trumps invisibility.
AC's are even weaker to enchantment magic then the most basic fighter in the game since they are explicitly defined as amoral nature and can be convinced to do ANYTHING you want with a successful handle animal check or failed will save.
That isn't a rule either.
The animal companion is probably still the druids friend (baring as stated above, an abusive owner), even if he suddenly has another "new friend"
Let me guess, you probably don't allow your bad guys do handle animal to control your PC's animal companions either? hint, that's legal too.
That is rules lawyering cheese and good reason to angrily walk from the table then and there and never look back. Training a guard dog does not make it EASIER to have people make it attack you.
You're adding a bunch of conditions and expectations that are written nowhere in the spell or nature bond ability.
You've made up an entire rule that Spells trump Ex.
I'm reading the spell and the description in charm school.
|
Which is, for the purposes of PFS, an irrelevant detail, as there is an unspecified period of time between scenarios.your special friend is part of your class feature and a gift from nature itself. It is not bought, so the listed prohibitions don't apply.I've got an Mammoth (Elephant) as animal companion. (Mammoth Lord trait, and I'm planning on going Mammoth Rider prestige class)
So, I'm not really sure how that would work :P
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.
I know it's part of my class feature, so as long as I manage to keep it alive I'm perfectly good.
However we were discussing the options of buying a trained animal to bond with if the most unfortunate circumstance would come to pass. In that case it'd be impossible for me to buy a trained mammoth to bond with, I'll always have to travel back to the Realm of the Mammoth Lords and bond with a completely new to train mammoth.
But, for PFS purposes, a replacement mammoth would start with only the bonus trick(s), and, if available, tricks equal to however many ranks the mammoth rider has in Handle Animal, if the GM allows him to do the training of the new mammoth at the end of the session he lost the old mammoth in.
Then he could get the same number of tricks in at the beginning of the next scenario, hopefully, but even that won't help either below 3rd level, or if you have to roll for training, instead of taking 10 with success, since you will likely get failures if you need more than a 10 to succeed.
After a certain point, it...
Fair enough, but this would be the case whether he found the animal in the wild or purchased it.
|
|
Stuff...
A. The text of both the spell and the faq on it explicitly give examples of convincing you're new friend to attack a target you choose that most things usually avoid attacking. If getting your new friend to attack something is making them an automaton then there it is in black and white in the FAQ you posted, the text of the spell and the magic chapter.
B. Fine, is the bad guy a horse? If not then it falls under the "something exotic" rule and requires GM permission to do.
Is the bad guy at least one size category larger than you or you have the Undersized mount feat? If not it is an illegal target and you can't ride it.
As for PFS not being a RAW campaign have you not read the direct post from from the leadership (Mike Brock) specifically asking all GM's to run the scenarios exactly as written HERE with the rules as written? That's the point of PFS.
C. Yes it says "would not usually do" and most Tigers would not usually eat people especially their handlers but it does happen (ask Sigfried and Roy about that), surprisingly more often then you'd think.
As for this crazy idea that an animal companion somehow loves and adores it's handler I have no idea where in the world you are getting that idea. There is NOTHING in the pathfinder rules that even begins to suggest the connection between handler and AC is anything other then master and servant. The rules actually explicitly state that the connection is as strong as:
A nonsentient companion (one with animal-level intelligence) is loyal to you in the way a well-trained dog is
. Period. Heck even the official write ups of every iconic example in the game with an AC shows the bond between them is one of Dominance/submission (Lini), mutual need (Andowyn) or unmentioned follower (Harsk). There is literally nothing in any of the Pathfinder resources showing that a hunters bond is in any way one of friendship or love or any kind of caring relationship.
D. And yet that is exactly how Charisma has been used, both examples I gave were 100% charisma without the benefit of magic. Now add magic to it and imagine how much further those users would have pushed they're target.
As for the Dominate/Charm Monster, well Dominate is a much stronger spell removing the need for language while granting you significantly more control over the target as well as letting you use it's senses. Heck it even makes your target ignore everything that's not a requirement for day to day life (breathing, eating, etc).
Charm a Tiger and tell it to kill a target it'll do it however it chooses and can run away from the fight if it thinks it's going to lose/get hurt, Dominate it and it tries to kill it exactly as you tell it to (kill it but don't use your teeth and dance a jig while your at it is perfectly legal) and won't give up till it's dead or it's target is. HUGE difference.
E. Magic beats EX abilities in the sense that EX can sometimes defy the laws of physics while Magic bends those laws over and spanks them like a 5 year old who gets caught stealing candy. My statement was too vague and wasn't meant as such.
F. AC's are weaker as a rule and I quoted you the rule straight from the Campaign book. They are non moral creatures who are only as loyal to their handlers as any trained creature you go to the store and buy.
As for walking away that is entirely your right but just because you don't like a rule doesn't mean it's not how the rule was intended to be used. All real world examples are exactly the same, I can't tell you the number of pet dogs, cats, horses, Wolves (yes real Wolves) I have simply issued commands to in front of their owners/trainers and watched them obey. That's one of the reasons many professionally trained working beasts are trained in different languages to avoid someone else taking control of them.
Pathfinder has abstracted this into requiring more work from the opponent then the owner (Move vs. Free action)
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
As for walking away that is entirely your right but just because you don't like a rule doesn't mean it's not how the rule was intended to be used.
I think the derail has gone far enough. Your argument is too riddled with errors to dissect them all, but this one needs addressing.
It is not the rule. It is your interpretation of the rule. One so far removed from both the text and intent as to be indistinguishable from something you made up out of whole cloth.
I am not cheating, breaking campaign rules, or refusing to run as written by not allowing or refusing to participate in blatant, disingenuous cheese weaseling of the rules that lets you tell a wild lion that doesn't know you from adam to attack its cubs with a simple full round action, or that lets charm person completely dominate dominate person in terms of strength and usefulness. The intent of the rules is clearly established in your precious raw, and what you're saying you see simply is not there.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
<snip> Fair enough, but this would be the case whether he found the animal in the wild or purchased it.
That's what we were talking about. A lot of animals can be bought combattrained, as long as they are large or smaller. Which means you aren't spending a few scenarios at low level to teach it those six tricks.
A base mammoth is huge, so it can't be bought and I have to train it from clean up.
Also as for the discussion about the charming of the animal, two words:
Exclusive (DC 20): The animal takes directions only from the handler who taught it this trick. If an animal has both the exclusive and serve tricks, it takes directions only from the handler that taught it the exclusive trick and those creatures indicated by the trainer's serve command. An animal with the exclusive trick does not take trick commands from others even if it is friendly or helpful toward them (such as through the result of a charm animal spell), though this does not prevent it from being controlled by other enchantment spells (such as dominate animal), and the animal still otherwise acts as a friendly or helpful creature when applicable.
|
|
I find giving my animal companion the exclusive trick to be fairly important against charm spells and opposed people with handle animal skills.
I would even go as far and make a case that the exclusive trick makes the charm animal only prevent the animal from attacking the person who casted the charm animal. It'll not accept any commands except from its handler and thus the handler can just have it attack other targets that it's not friendly to.
Venture-Lieutenant, Netherlands—Leiden
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Serve (DC 15): An animal with this trick willingly takes orders from a creature you designate. If the creature you tell the animal to serve knows what tricks the animal has, it can instruct the animal to perform these tricks using your Handle Animal bonus on the check instead of its own. The animal treats the designated ally as friendly. An animal can unlearn this trick with 1 week of training. This trick can be taught to an animal multiple times. Each time it is taught, the animal can serve an additional creature you designate.
This implies that without this trick, others can't readily order around your animals. Coupled with the text in Exclusive about the animal not even taking orders if Friendly or Helpful, I see an implication that it might be possible to handle animals that like you or that consider you their boss. It's not indisputable though.
The CRB Handle Animal skill description doesn't actually consider the question of ownership. If you read it enthusiastically, you could certainly use it on other people's companions. Even more, you could use it on wild animals. It's only a DC 25 "push" check to chase away a rabbit, whale or t-rex.
I'm just gonna put it out there that that's not RAI. I think the skill was written assuming that the animal you're trying to handle is "yours". Although just how that works when buying trained animals is a bit vague. In the end we should remember the skill was also written with word count constraints in mind, and hoping for sane GM and players.
|
Venture-Captain, Minnesota
|
Okay, so when we pick up Linguistics, we also pick up the "Exclusive" trick. Thanks Damanta! Good to know in case I get another GM that is not fond of Animal Companions.
By the way, David, in the PFS session that I played, Pumpkin did fail a reflex save against a whirlwind and went down to zero hit points. (He rolled a 1, sadly.) So Animal Companions can occasionally get hit with pretty scary stuff at low tier games. I must admit that I freaked out in fear of losing my buddy, but my cleric friend healed Pumpkin up just fine.
Hmm
|
|
<snip> Fair enough, but this would be the case whether he found the animal in the wild or purchased it.That's what we were talking about. A lot of animals can be bought combattrained, as long as they are large or smaller. Which means you aren't spending a few scenarios at low level to teach it those six tricks.
A base mammoth is huge, so it can't be bought and I have to train it from clean up.
Also as for the discussion about the charming of the animal, two words:
** spoiler omitted **
Aww, I was saving that point for when the conversation got heated and I could point to it as part of my over-arching reasoning. You stole my thunder.
Ha, but you're right and glad someone else actually looked for the rules as written.
Kudos Damanta!!
|
|
Okay, so when we pick up Linguistics, we also pick up the "Exclusive" trick. Thanks Damanta! Good to know in case I get another GM that is not fond of Animal Companions.
By the way, David, in the PFS session that I played, Pumpkin did fail a reflex save against a whirlwind and went down to zero hit points. (He rolled a 1, sadly.) So Animal Companions can occasionally get hit with pretty scary stuff at low tier games. I must admit that I freaked out in fear of losing my buddy, but my cleric friend healed Pumpkin up just fine.
Hmm
Yeah, but I've seen too many animal companions that completely outstrip actual PCs. And that doesn't even take into account the PC that owns the animal companion.
|
Venture-Lieutenant, Minnesota—Minneapolis
|
Yeah, but I've seen too many animal companions that completely outstrip actual PCs. And that doesn't even take into account the PC that owns the animal companion.
How many of those had animals with an IQ of 4 rather than putting the Eye for Talent bonus into Strength or Dexterity?
Please, don't assume that every animal companion is about damage per round or action efficiency. There are other reasons for taking an animal companion.
|
Venture-Lieutenant, Netherlands—Leiden
|
Yeah, but I've seen too many animal companions that completely outstrip actual PCs. And that doesn't even take into account the PC that owns the animal companion.Okay, so when we pick up Linguistics, we also pick up the "Exclusive" trick. Thanks Damanta! Good to know in case I get another GM that is not fond of Animal Companions.
By the way, David, in the PFS session that I played, Pumpkin did fail a reflex save against a whirlwind and went down to zero hit points. (He rolled a 1, sadly.) So Animal Companions can occasionally get hit with pretty scary stuff at low tier games. I must admit that I freaked out in fear of losing my buddy, but my cleric friend healed Pumpkin up just fine.
Hmm
Maybe there's a good design niche for animal "companions" or eidolons as PCs, without a humanoid "PC" dangling at the end of it.
I mean, I don't mind the other player also being cool in combat, or being better in some parts of it. I get a bit annoyed when it's just one of his "extras" doing that. In the case of the summoner, the actual humanoid feels rather incidental compared to the eidolon. Making the eidolon directly playable might be a fix on that.
|
|
Serve (DC 15): An animal with this trick willingly takes orders from a creature you designate. If the creature you tell the animal to serve knows what tricks the animal has, it can instruct the animal to perform these tricks using your Handle Animal bonus on the check instead of its own. The animal treats the designated ally as friendly. An animal can unlearn this trick with 1 week of training. This trick can be taught to an animal multiple times. Each time it is taught, the animal can serve an additional creature you designate.
This implies that without this trick, others can't readily order around your animals. Coupled with the text in Exclusive about the animal not even taking orders if Friendly or Helpful, I see an implication that it might be possible to handle animals that like you or that consider you their boss. It's not indisputable though.
The CRB Handle Animal skill description doesn't actually consider the question of ownership. If you read it enthusiastically, you could certainly use it on other people's companions. Even more, you could use it on wild animals. It's only a DC 25 "push" check to chase away a rabbit, whale or t-rex.
I'm just gonna put it out there that that's not RAI. I think the skill was written assuming that the animal you're trying to handle is "yours". Although just how that works when buying trained animals is a bit vague. In the end we should remember the skill was also written with word count constraints in mind, and hoping for sane GM and players.
Actually Serve states that anyone you designated uses your handle animal bonus for the check and treats the designated creature as friendly.
RAW, with a DC 25 full round action you can try to get a wild animal to stop attacking (down trick). Keep in mind though that if the animal took damage in any way it'll go up to DC 27.
If you follow the rule of minimum that I see constantly being advised people will have between +9 and +11 in their handle animal check for their animal companion, so between +3 and +5 for other creatures (animal companion +4 and training harness +2 that won't count). Suddenly makes that DC 25-27 handle animal a bit more difficult no?
In my personal opinion it's a nice way to reward players for actually investing a bit more into that skill. However it could probably use some modifiers for trained animals that are hostile - unfriendly - indifferent.
|
Venture-Captain, Germany—Bavaria
|
The silly part is that the DC is completely independent of HD/CR. It's just as hard to push-down a t-rex as a rabbit.
Ever had rabits as pets? I had and apparently I failed every handle animal check, they aren't that easy to teach.
Now a T-rex should be easier to train, just give it a tasty goat whenever it does something right^^|
Venture-Captain, Minnesota
|
I had a rabbit who was litter box trained, walked on a leash, and was ridiculously good at undoing the locks on his cage. I think that I must have taken "Eye for Talent" and put it into his intelligence in real life.
My former rabbit pet was actually somewhat smarter than the cats I have now.
Hmm
Fluffy, if you could clarify my understanding of something I would greatly appreciate it. My understanding with the general purposes under the Handle Animal skill is that they simply allow a PC to attempt a single HA check in order to teach their AC all the listed tricks in the purpose. This would be opposed to teaching them all the tricks individually. Is there anything else I am missing there?
|
|
My understanding with the general purposes under the Handle Animal skill is that they simply allow a PC to attempt a single HA check in order to teach their AC all the listed tricks in the purpose. This would be opposed to teaching them all the tricks individually. Is there anything else I am missing there?
You are correct.
Training an animal for a purpose requires fewer checks than teaching individual tricks does, but no less time."
Less checks, but the same time.
|
|
Since we went a bit away from the animal companio log a little and though I thought I had seen a thread or post with various ways to obtain an animal companion but can't find it anymore, I made my own list.
I didn't check it fully for PFS legality yet, so if you spot something that's not allowed, point it out :).
Animal companion (full list)
Barbarian, mad dog archetype
Cleric, Animal domain
Druid, nature bond animal companion
Ranger, beast master archetype
Sorcerer, Wild Blooded archetype, Sylvan bloodline
Inquisitor, sacred huntsman archetype
Hunter
Animal companion (partial list)
Barbarian, mounted fury archetype
Paladin, divine bond mount
Ranger, hunter's bond animal companion
Ranger, dungeon rover archetype, dungeon ally
Ranger, falconer archetype (bird of prey only)
Ranger, horse lord archetype (horse only)
Ranger, sable company marine archetype (hippogriff only)
Cavalier
Oracle, nature mystery: bonded mount
Samurai
Feat tree, Nature Soul => Animal Ally
Expanding list options
Feat, Beast Rider (half-orc or orc only)
Feat, Monstrous Mount
Feat tree, Ooze whisperer => Ooze Companion (requires wild empathy class feature)
Prestige class, Mammoth rider
A certain chronicle gives you the option to reskin a bear animal companion into an owlbear companion.
