Proposal: remove trained animals from the list of legal options


Pathfinder Society

1 to 50 of 148 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | next > last >>
4/5 *

3 people marked this as FAQ candidate. 10 people marked this as a favorite.

Given the unbalancing nature of combat-trained animals in PFS, be it resolved that no combat animals should be allowed in PFS unless they are class features. PFS should be about individual heroics, and the more animals at the table, the less each PC contributes to the group's success. This is especially true at low levels, when out-of-tier animals are available for very little money.

This would mean that animal companions, familiars, and bonded mounts are allowed, but no character could buy a combat animal other than a horse, riding dog, camel, (perhaps other typical mounts?)

Sczarni 5/5 5/55/5 ***

What list would you propose to remain legal?

Just everything from the CRB?

Scarab Sages 5/5 5/55/55/5

8 people marked this as a favorite.

The exact wording needs a little work. A mounted paladin for example needs to buy a horse before they hit level 4.

Otherwise signed. These poor creatures shouldn't be sent to their deaths for people who's only qualification is a bag of coins.

4/5 *

I would suggest horses, camels, riding dogs, and beasts of burden that don't get to attack (donkeys, etc.). Maybe there are others that make sense.

Ideally, we could treat non-class feature pets as vanities - they are there but don't get attacked or get to attack. Or perhaps the way to do it is to only allow one "combat pet" for classes that have a class feature pet; everyone else only gets the non-combat animals.

Sczarni 5/5 5/55/5 ***

2 people marked this as a favorite.

While we're at it, the "one combat critter per PC" rule needs an updated clarification as well.

I can't recall exactly what the opposing side argues, but there's enough confusion surrounding the way it's worded now that people still debate what is and isn't allowed on the map.

2/5

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Are there really pets other than the Combat-Trained Tiger that are unbalancing enough to propose banning the entire assortment? I enjoy buying odd animals for my PCs to ride around on in PFS. I'd be pretty sad if I couldn't have fun riding my giant lizards around just because people are tired of tigers overrunning scenarios.

Sczarni 5/5 5/55/5 ***

1 person marked this as a favorite.

There's the Bison, as well. It can trample.

5/5 RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32

3 people marked this as a favorite.

I generally enjoy buying large numbers of animals, but mostly for the extra encumbrance out of combat. I have yet to see the combat animals act as a problem at a table, although I'm not arguing that it's possible that they could. I would rather they not be removed from the list, though. This seems like the sort of issue that can be solved without banning the purchases altogether. One combat pet per player character seems to have been enough restriction locally.

2/5

2 people marked this as a favorite.

I play in a fairly "competitive" PFS area. I've seen every broken character imaginable, and a lot of incredibly creative (but still dang broken) builds. And I have never seen someone bring a team of combat-trained Bisons into a scenario.

I'm not saying it doesn't happen elsewhere, but this REALLY sounds like something that can be solved through talking with the people in question rather than trying to get all options banned.

This isn't like telling a druid he can't bring his animal companion because you don't like it. That's his class feature. This is telling the sixth guy at the table "Hey, I know you like Fluffy the Death Tiger, but Steve over there is excited to play his Fighter and we've got this adventure covered. Please leave Fluffy behind tonight."

It just seems like good gaming etiquette. If players are belligerent about it but are in the minority, well, it should be talked out like anything else (like if people are annoyed by a profusion of summoners and Eidolons, say).

Silver Crusade 5/5 5/55/5 **** Venture-Captain, Germany—Bavaria

1 person marked this as a favorite.

I would prefer a solution that does not marginalize melee characters, with combat trained animals, animal companions (I am playing a hunter, and more often than not the other melee characters like having it there, if only to soak a couple of hits) and summoned monsters.

So yeah, I haven't seen this as a problem yet, so I am a bit on the fence if we really need a ruling on this. Of course those animals offer some interesting information when it comes to PVP and don't be a jerk.
Like a wizard fireballing the enemies and having to target the animals since they aren't clever enough to avoid it, and the user doesn't bother to spend the action to order them to retreat.

Also there is at least one scenario with enemy spellcasters with dominate animal.. fun for everybody^^

EDIT: I really would like a large tiger as a mount, but that doesn't seem to be an option outside of having an animal companion.

Grand Lodge 1/5

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Having read through the Battle Cattle thread and others like it, I really don't feel that this ruling needs made. There are very few animal companions that are what I would call game-breaking, and those are only game-breaking for a few levels. It seems to me that this problem is easily solved: ask the players. If the rest of the table finds it unfun and game-breaking, then ask the "problem" player to tone it down. People want to have fun, even the duder bringing the bison. I'm sure if bison-dude is made aware that he is causing a problem, he'll be at the very least sympathetic.

Spoiler:

It's become a running joke around my area that I kill animal companions. I've only killed two, and that's because the samurai was buying regular dogs with 6 HP and sending them ahead into combat. Of course they were dying. All in good fun, though.

The Exchange 5/5

8 people marked this as a favorite.

ok - I've been trying to stay out of this discussion because I really don't have a horse/dog/cat/bison/wambat in it... but I guess I just finally missed my save and got sucked in again.

This is a re-post of mine from a different thread... but I think it fits here too.

this thread is a real downer....

starting rant now - feel free to skip the following if you want

I have played a lot of PFS games, in a lot of different places, with a lot of different people. the strangest creature I have seen at the table was a PC. (There was that one PLAYER, but I'm pretty sure he was human...). The strangest animal was an animal companion. I have seen people with Ax beaks that were not ACs... oh, and dogs. But I guess we are in a fantasy setting right? I mean, I've never seen someone in real life ride an Axbeak - but I have seen someone ride a bison. With a saddle.

Would it be fun to encounter someone with a Bison riding animal? You bet! I even own 12 or 15 old Bisonrider figures - so if I know someone was running a guy with a bison I'd plunk out a figure for it. Mounted and dis-mounted. Lots of fun. I might be so impressed I'd give him the figure! Heck, I even own a couple Rino Rider figures (old Ral Parth figs)

Do the current rules allow this? It seems like it.

So why in the world would someone express the opinion that they want a player to "try that at my table" so they "can teach him a lesson"? (I've seen that on the other thread) Guys, this is not Judge vs. Players. This is a game that we are playing together, isn't it? All of us trying to have fun, right? If you think it would be Kewl to have a dancing buffalo - you teach him the tricks, I'll bring the drum. Let's play.

As to the player bringing something that can kill all the monsters in the scenario? Heck, have you seen some of the barbarians people play now?! And I'm expected to sit at the table with this "walking bomb"? waiting for someone to hit him with a confusion effect? (the answer to that is yes by the way). Goodness! what happens when we sit at a table with a judge that wants to "teach a lesson" about having fighters with low Will saves, let alone someone who doesn't want unusual animals in his fantasy setting?

If your PC brings an exotic animal to the table, my PC is likely to check to see if it's house broke (like I would for the Barbarian above), and ask if I can pet it (see barbarian above). And be a bit impressed about the exotic feel of the adventure. If I'm the judge, NPCs are likely to check to see if it's house boke (same for the Barbarian above), and some little kid is going to try to pet it "It's so cute!". I'm likely to check if your PC has the skills to use it - but I'm sure that will come up in play. So, as to "teaching the player a lesson"? I guess I might. We'll play the rules, and if the player doesn't know the Handle Animal rules, TOGETHER we are going to work thru them. Because that's the way I play, both as a player and as a judge.

If the big combat creature eats the combat - then we have more time for the RP - the social interaction. The talking, the puzzles, the rest of the game that we often have to gloss over because "we only have 4 hours and we have 3 more combats to get thru here! Can't we just resolve this with a Diplomacy roll and get on with the game?"

Did the player build a starting PC to use animals? This means he built a PC with a good Charasma (how many times have I read people complain that players are "dumping CHA"), invested skill points in Handle animal, and likely used a Trait or Feat to get his HA Skill to something like 9, so he can make those in combat DC10s... and then a skeleton rounds the corner and his big money investment sits and watches while he tries to roll a 15 to make the DC 25 to get it to attack a CR 1/2 monster.

IF a player pumped up CHA, burned a trait, and used up 25-50% of his skill points to improve his chances in combat - shouldn't we let him get some return on his investment?

I like to play WITH people, not AGAINST them.

Or should we move to ban two handed weapons? You know what a Power Attacking, High Strength PC does with a Great Sword at Tier 1-2? Kills the monsters with one blow - right thru DR. And all it takes is a High Strength and one feat!

sorry about the rant - sometimes the boards just get me down and I need to vent

Anyway - I haven't see this as an Issue (perhaps I am leading a sheltered gaming life). The only PC I have seen with a Combat Animal that wasn't a Mount or AC was a fighter with a Riding Dog - run by someone who had played LG alot before coming to PFS. And even then the dog handler spent several rounds of combat trying to dog to attack - and rolling < 5. (she had a CHA of 12, one rank, and it was a class skill). Next game she came in with a Fighter rewritten to be an Archer (STR 16, DEX 20, 2PP to get the Long Composit Assult Rifle) and just shot the monsters... She did keep the dog till she hit 2nd level - though she never had it attack again. Just had it on Defend.

Edit to correct some spelling errors and to say - the threads mood mellowed some as I was posting (long thread) - so I was sort of Ninja'd some... THanks!

5/5 5/55/55/5

2 people marked this as a favorite.

Well, what exactly is being added to the game by purchasable cannon fodder?

It might be rare and localized, but the argument for it seems to be almost non existent.

Grand Lodge 1/5

BigNorseWolf wrote:

Well, what exactly is being added to the game by purchasable cannon fodder?

It might be rare and localized, but the argument for it seems to be almost non existent.

Nothing is being added to the game. Nothing needs to be added. Things are not banned for "not adding things to the game". You don't see melee weapons on casters banned, or pet gerbils.

The question for whether or not we ban something is not "what is it adding?" The question is "What is it hurting?" and the answer here is not much.

5/5 5/55/55/5

eternallamppost wrote:


The question for whether or not we ban something is not "what is it adding?" The question is "What is it hurting?" and the answer here is not much.

Its a two parter. What does it add to the game VS what does it hurt.

In this case its hurting the low level play in some areas where the trend catches on. As it seems to add nothing to the game even that localized damaged to the game seems to call for a ban.

Grand Lodge 1/5

BigNorseWolf wrote:

Its a two parter. What does it add to the game VS what does it hurt.

In this case its hurting the low level play in some areas where the trend catches on. As it seems to add nothing to the game even that localized damaged to the game seems to call for a ban.

I disagree. A few easily solved problems with a few players does not, in my opinion, necessitate a ban.

The Exchange 5/5

2 people marked this as a favorite.
BigNorseWolf wrote:

Well, what exactly is being added to the game by purchasable cannon fodder?

It might be rare and localized, but the argument for it seems to be almost non existent.

You are able to run an animal trainer that is not a Druid at low level.

You may run a ranger with a trained animal ... friend... that is not an AC, and can do it from first level.

And why do you assume that they are "Cannon Fodder"?

I can see running a Sholanti Barbarian with a Totam animal (that just happens to be a purchassed animal) - and having him tell the Cleric in the group.

"This my wand of curing. Use it on Tiger before me... it not got a lot of healing in it, and more important to keep my friend up."

OR (Sarcasm alert - skip the next line to avoid it!)

I guess we can ban it. It's just some silly PC concepts - and heck, those people wanting this option are clearly playing the game wrong.

3/5

Buffalo buffalo buffalo.

3/5

I know a person that has 8 characters all of them have acombat trained tiger.

4/5 *

3 people marked this as a favorite.

My reasoning in support of banning purchased combat pets are the following:

1. The game is about the PCs. Purchased animals are not PCs. (See below for PC concepts that depend on an animal, though.)

2. The current animal rules allow PCs to triple or quadruple their "effective APL" for a small amount of gold, without it being accounted for in APL calculations.

3. They also allow additional combatants on the party side, in scenarios where a standard 6-person party already has a 2-to-1 action advantage (or more) over most encounters. Adding a single tiger increases a standard 1st-level party's attacks by 50%. Adding a tiger per player (an extreme case, but identified as an issue by people in the other thread) increases the party's attacks by 300%, and the effective APL by up to 400%, all with no change in the opposition faced.

4. Animals available at level 1 can solo the encounters in a subtier 1-2 scenario, and do a pretty good job at 4-5 as well. They aren't "cannon fodder", really, since they are the most powerful creature on the board in the tiers where they are a problem.

I submit that if your character concept is "you guys sit and watch my animal play the game for us", then it may not be a suitable character concept for an Organized Play campaign, no matter how interesting it is to you.

Given that we have 5-6 bases classes with an animal class feature (more if you count domains), *plus* feats where any other class can get one, I think most of the animal concepts should be achievable using class-based or feat-based mechanics, without allowing people to just buy animals. If it's an important part of your character concept, then it should be part of your character's mechanics, not an add-on you get for essentially nothing but the cost of half a wand.

Grand Lodge 1/5

1 person marked this as a favorite.
GM Lamplighter wrote:

a buncha stuff

I disagree with a few points.

1) Pathfinder is first and foremost a roleplaying game. If your animal has an amount of personality, (and it should, as most pets do) it's a character. If you're controlling it, it's a Playable Character. (EDIT: this point is kind of semantic. I see what you mean, but disagree.)

2. Only at level one or two, and most people aren't going to be bringing multiple purchased animals to a table.

3. Isn't the end goal of the scenario that the players win? The scenario you are describing is no different from a player bringing an animal companion with multiple attacks.

4. A large amount of optimized PC can solo most 1-2 encounters.

I agree that if your character concept is "you guys sit and watch", you should reconsider. I fundamentally agree with that statement. I also believe that this problem is solved by simple player communication. You can't technically disallow it at your table, but if you are straight with a player that their behavior is destructive to the community, they will almost definitely consider it. (Note: this is only my experience. Others probably have severe problem players.)

I think that having an amount of classes with many animal companions makes the ruling near irrelevant, since the power levels are comparable, and a purchased animal companion is guaranteed to be outclassed.

4/5

3 people marked this as a favorite.
BigNorseWolf wrote:
eternallamppost wrote:


The question for whether or not we ban something is not "what is it adding?" The question is "What is it hurting?" and the answer here is not much.

Its a two parter. What does it add to the game VS what does it hurt.

In this case its hurting the low level play in some areas where the trend catches on. As it seems to add nothing to the game even that localized damaged to the game seems to call for a ban.

Disruptive characters are a player problem, not a mechanics problem. How many people spending two PP on combat trained tigers would not have some other disruptive character if the tiger was banned? Banning these isn't going to prevent a player from rolling up a Heaven's Oracle or 20 Str 7 Int/Cha Barbarian in response. (Dumped mental stats for troll value more than resource allocation.)

Furthermore, banning an option instead of talking to players about it directly is sort of passive aggressive and catches those players who don't abuse the options as well. I don't even want to troll, but every time something I want to use gets banned because people don't like it, I just want to go out and make a character that takes the fun out of the game for the naysayers using just CRB options.

Again, disruptive characters are a player problem, not a rules problem. Banning one option won't prevent these players from being disruptive, heck, banning everything but the CRB won't even do that.

My vote is to leave things as they are. Keep these options available.

4/5 *

I still haven't heard a compelling reason why a level 1-3 PC should be able to buy a creature more powerful than themselves, and use it in combat, to the detriment of scenario balance and participation levels of the other players.

As for class features: at least if the tiger is my animal companion, I had to give up full BAB and martial weapons to get it by being a druid (or whatever other compromises other class features give up). By buying an animal, I give up nothing significant - maybe my +1 weapon comes a scenario or two later and I have two less skill points in Perception, but that's about it.

4/5 *

Zach - I agree with much of what you've said above - but a player problem is still a problem. Many GMs are loathe to kick someone out of the table (their only option, in most cases) when the player is not breaking any actual rules, cheating, or so on. Yes, such people will find other ways to be disruptive.

None of this convinces me that cheap animal companions should be available to everyone.

Grand Lodge 1/5

GM Lamplighter wrote:

I still haven't heard a compelling reason why a level 1-3 PC should be able to buy a creature more powerful than themselves, and use it in combat, to the detriment of scenario balance and participation levels of the other players.

As for class features: at least if the tiger is my animal companion, I had to give up full BAB and martial weapons to get it by being a druid (or whatever other compromises other class features give up). By buying an animal, I give up nothing significant - maybe my +1 weapon comes a scenario or two later and I have two less skill points in Perception, but that's about it.

You give up gold/prestige. You likely give up a trait or feat to get it in the first place. You definitely give up a bunch of skill points poured into Handle Animal. You give up being the only person to be able to command your animal. You give up animal feats, and level progression, and the size bonus.

Grand Lodge 4/5

2 people marked this as a favorite.
BigNorseWolf wrote:
eternallamppost wrote:


The question for whether or not we ban something is not "what is it adding?" The question is "What is it hurting?" and the answer here is not much.

Its a two parter. What does it add to the game VS what does it hurt.

In this case its hurting the low level play in some areas where the trend catches on. As it seems to add nothing to the game even that localized damaged to the game seems to call for a ban.

Is it hurting low level play, so much, in increasing the chances of those first level PCs to survive the weaknesses inherent in first level play?

All it takes to kill a first level PC, likely past negative Con, is a crit, especially if they aren't high-Con Barbarians with Toughness and the Tribal Scars feat.

And, honestly, as the PCs themselves gain survivability, the bought creature loses viability at the same rate.

And there are plenty of PC builds that can do as much or more damage without a purchased animal.

Would it be better or worse to have a couple of people with half-orc PCs, barbarians, with the half-orc feat/trait that gives them a boost to their Rage so they get +8 to Str and Con instead of +4?

How about a perfectly legal table of 7 Druid PCs, all with ACs? This ban request won't affect that group.

And, equally, hitting bought animals with the banhammer would just change the build, so you get either the Rapid Shot burst of arrows, or the Raging Barbarian with the graetsword.

Silver Crusade 5/5 5/55/5 **** Venture-Captain, Germany—Bavaria

eternallamppost wrote:
GM Lamplighter wrote:

a buncha stuff

I disagree with a few points.

1) Pathfinder is first and foremost a roleplaying game. If your animal has an amount of personality, (and it should, as most pets do) it's a character. If you're controlling it, it's a Playable Character. (EDIT: this point is kind of semantic. I see what you mean, but disagree.)

2. Only at level one or two, and most people aren't going to be bringing multiple purchased animals to a table.

3. Isn't the end goal of the scenario that the players win? The scenario you are describing is no different from a player bringing an animal companion with multiple attacks.

4. A large amount of optimized PC can solo most 1-2 encounters.

I agree that if your character concept is "you guys sit and watch", you should reconsider. I fundamentally agree with that statement. I also believe that this problem is solved by simple player communication. You can't technically disallow it at your table, but if you are straight with a player that their behavior is destructive to the community, they will almost definitely consider it. (Note: this is only my experience. Others probably have severe problem players.)

I think that having an amount of classes with many animal companions makes the ruling near irrelevant, since the power levels are comparable, and a purchased animal companion is guaranteed to be outclassed.

Two points, animals - including animal companions and eidolons - are NPCs, GMs usually allow players to control their animals to a large extend, but they are always limits.

Also quite a number of GMs aren't familiar with the handle animal rules, and action economy becomes a factor at some point.

As written, with a lousy level 1 spell you can train an untrained creature for hours, so that point really does not matter.

I think using animals for combat, other than mounts is really not required, maybe there is a middle ground here.

Grand Lodge 1/5

Sebastian Hirsch wrote:
eternallamppost wrote:
GM Lamplighter wrote:

a buncha stuff

a bunch more stuff

even more

I was unaware that animal companions were technically NPCs. Still, how many GMs are actually going to control them? I wouldn't.

And sure, using animals for combat isn't required, but we don't ban things for not being required.

Grand Lodge 4/5

Sebastian Hirsch wrote:
Two points, animals - including animal companions and eidolons - are NPCs, GMs usually allow players to control their animals to a large extend, but they are always limits.

Not 100% right on the eidolons, actually. From Ultimate Campaign:

Quote:
An eidolon is normally a player-controlled companion, but the GM can have the eidolon refuse extreme orders that would cause it to suffer needlessly.

Grand Lodge 1/5

Another suggestion:
The only problem here seems to be things with above average damage, like tigers or bison. The easier solution to me seems to be to just ban bison and tigers. We don't need blanket rulings for fringe cases.

Silver Crusade 5/5 5/55/5 **** Venture-Captain, Germany—Bavaria

eternallamppost wrote:
Sebastian Hirsch wrote:
eternallamppost wrote:
GM Lamplighter wrote:

a buncha stuff

a bunch more stuff

even more

I was unaware that animal companions were technically NPCs. Still, how many GMs are actually going to control them? I wouldn't.

And sure, using animals for combat isn't required, but we don't ban things for not being required.

I think most GMs just like the option to control them, when to player is asking for something too clever, it helps that we have the "flank" trick these days.

Jeff Merola wrote:
Sebastian Hirsch wrote:
Two points, animals - including animal companions and eidolons - are NPCs, GMs usually allow players to control their animals to a large extend, but they are always limits.

Not 100% right on the eidolons, actually. From Ultimate Campaign:

Quote:
An eidolon is normally a player-controlled companion, but the GM can have the eidolon refuse extreme orders that would cause it to suffer needlessly.

It has been some time since I read the source in question, but you are correct, and I think that one clause is only in there to prevent some, well lets just lump it all together under the umbrella "hentai" or worse.

Considering some options like the deific obedience of Asmodeus.. yeah.

Silver Crusade 5/5 5/55/5 **** Venture-Captain, Germany—Bavaria

eternallamppost wrote:

Another suggestion:

The only problem here seems to be things with above average damage, like tigers or bison. The easier solution to me seems to be to just ban bison and tigers. We don't need blanket rulings for fringe cases.

Something like "in PFS purchasable animals come without the "trample" and "pounce" abilities, this does not involve animal companions".

Grand Lodge 1/5

Sebastian Hirsch wrote:
eternallamppost wrote:

Another suggestion:

The only problem here seems to be things with above average damage, like tigers or bison. The easier solution to me seems to be to just ban bison and tigers. We don't need blanket rulings for fringe cases.
Something like "in PFS purchasable animals come without the "trample" and "pounce" abilities, this does not involve animal companions".

Perfect! That way you get your tiger and bison, without unbalancing the game.

Liberty's Edge 2/5

1 person marked this as a favorite.

There is a campaign rule that an animal companion cannot have Hit Dice greater than the master's level +1, how can you justify a non class animal purchasable by anyone, having hit dice in excess of what a class ability can grant?

At the very least the hit dice should not be allowed to exceed the character level, and animals shouldn't be able to have stats greater than an equivalent level animal companion of the same type.

But if people do not see a problem with someone being able to purchase a class feature at a higher level than the feature itself is limited to, then I don't know what to tell you.

I think that purchasable combat animals can not only trivialize encounters, but they directly take away from classes who have class abilities that specifically grant combat companions. For that reason alone they should not be allowed. When the questioned is asked so flippantly, "Well who does it hurt?", the clear answer would be, aside from the players who aren't fond of a purchased NPC overshadowing their efforts and essentially removing their purpose in an adventure, it specifically hurts those players who chose a class to gain a companion... only to have their companion completely trivialized because someone decided to spend a few hundred gold to acquire an asset beyond the legal capabilities of anything they can do.

There are ways to get combat pets in the game and they involve character choices, they should not involve purchased allies. If not, why not allow players to simply use hirelings then? Why buy a tiger when you can hire a level 5 mercenary to just do all your fighting for you? It is exactly the same thing, only without pretending it is some form of pet to justify it.

The Exchange 3/5

Like many of things before it I'm in favor of leaving this content legal and letting people decide for themselves if they would like to use said content.

If there is a problem try talking to the player. (If you are the problem and their character needs it to function try being understanding. Some concepts do need animals to function or contribute before 'coming online'.)

As always I really do believe people can decide for themselves what is fun without other people making that decision for them.

Sovereign Court 1/5

Signing up to ban!

A thought: let's also not forget the, "Oh! I can just send my animal ahead to set off ALL the traps! It's okay, it only cost me ~$Pocket-change gp~. It's not like I have to do a ritual, or retrain a new animal companion. I can buy another fully-combat-trained aminal if this one gets all roasty from random fireball trap!"

There is little to no risk in sending a non-class-feature animal ahead to scout aside from failing a Handle animal check (Whoop-de-doo!)

My suggestion is to create a legal list of animals purchasable by classes that do not automatically grant them, and specify that only animals granted by class features can be trained for combat.

Silver Crusade 4/5 5/55/55/5 RPG Superstar 2013 Top 8

Brigg wrote:

Signing up to ban!

A thought: let's also not forget the, "Oh! I can just send my animal ahead to set off ALL the traps! It's okay, it only cost me ~$Pocket-change gp~. It's not like I have to do a ritual, or retrain a new animal companion. I can buy another fully-combat-trained aminal if this one gets all roasty from random fireball trap!"

There is little to no risk in sending a non-class-feature animal ahead to scout aside from failing a Handle animal check (Whoop-de-doo!)

A 750gp wand of mount serves much the same purpose.

Sovereign Court 1/5

Michael Eshleman wrote:
Brigg wrote:

Signing up to ban!

A thought: let's also not forget the, "Oh! I can just send my animal ahead to set off ALL the traps! It's okay, it only cost me ~$Pocket-change gp~. It's not like I have to do a ritual, or retrain a new animal companion. I can buy another fully-combat-trained aminal if this one gets all roasty from random fireball trap!"

There is little to no risk in sending a non-class-feature animal ahead to scout aside from failing a Handle animal check (Whoop-de-doo!)

A 750gp wand of mount serves much the same purpose.

To avoid accidental threadjack, I will reply with a simple "Sweet cuppin' cakes that's wacky!" And allow the conversation to resume. The counterpoints I could think of could derail the conversation.

[/potential threadjack]

5/5 RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32

Brigg wrote:

Signing up to ban!

A thought: let's also not forget the, "Oh! I can just send my animal ahead to set off ALL the traps! It's okay, it only cost me ~$Pocket-change gp~. It's not like I have to do a ritual, or retrain a new animal companion. I can buy another fully-combat-trained aminal if this one gets all roasty from random fireball trap!"

There is little to no risk in sending a non-class-feature animal ahead to scout aside from failing a Handle animal check (Whoop-de-doo!)

My suggestion is to create a legal list of animals purchasable by classes that do not automatically grant them, and specify that only animals granted by class features can be trained for combat.

That will help little, though. It only takes a single cast of Wartrain Mount at the beginning of the scenario and the critter will be just as useful as it was before. Granted. I'm still not convinced that this is ban worthy. I've yet to see this at a table, and it doesn't seem like a blanket ban is reasonable to me. If specific creatures are problematic for purchase, we should ban those, but not all of them. I've been buying dogs, giant geckos, giant frogs and crocodiles for ages without being problematic. People are having issues with a select few underpriced creatures, therefore, we should look at those creatures as the problem, not purchasable creatures on the whole. A blanket ban is not necessary.

Brigg wrote:
Michael Eshleman wrote:
Brigg wrote:
*snip*
A 750gp wand of mount serves much the same purpose.

To avoid accidental threadjack, I will reply with a simple "Sweet cuppin' cakes that's wacky!" And allow the conversation to resume. The counterpoints I could think of could derail the conversation.

[/potential threadjack]

I know of several people who regularly refer to them as "Wand of Trigger Traps". It's quite effective, actually. Some of them prefer to use Summon Monster I to summon Fiendish Ponies so they don't have to feel guilty when they inevitably explode. They only last a round, so it's less useful, but slightly more amusing.

Sovereign Court 1/5

Angry Wiggles wrote:
People are having issues with a select few underpriced creatures, therefore, we should look at those creatures as the problem, not purchasable creatures on the whole. A blanket ban is not necessary.

That's the suggestion I was gunning for. You worded it a bit more understandably. ^.^

Pick out the problematic ones, and ban those ones. Maybe my part of the suggestion where I said "only class-granted animals can be trained for combat" was a bit too much. <.<

5/5 RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32

Brigg wrote:
Angry Wiggles wrote:
People are having issues with a select few underpriced creatures, therefore, we should look at those creatures as the problem, not purchasable creatures on the whole. A blanket ban is not necessary.

That's the suggestion I was gunning for. You worded it a bit more understandably. ^.^

Pick out the problematic ones, and ban those ones. Maybe my part of the suggestion where I said "only class-granted animals can be trained for combat" was a bit too much. <.<

At least we're on the same page now, that's all that truly matters. I may have been a little overzealous in my reaction, as well. If so, I fully apologize.

I've always been a bit of an open book game master, though. I tend to believe that moderation is best handled on a player by player basis rather than with total banning. I genuinely believe that if they are told that they are costing everyone else the opportunity for fun, people will tone it down. Granted, moderating that is more difficult with something like PFS and I will admit that readily. I'm not sure that I'm the best arbitrator here, though, I'm just looking for something that will leave the most people with a solution that they can enjoy. Moderation in all things, and all that jazz.

if I'm recalling correctly the only thing I've ever put a blanket ban on in a pathfinder game was siege engines, and that was for story reasons. The ban was even removed several sessions later when the reason for it was no longer relevant.

Sovereign Court 1/5

Angry Wiggles wrote:
At least we're on the same page now, that's all that truly matters. I may have been a little overzealous in my reaction, as well. If so, I fully apologize.

Nah, man. You're cool. These forums have been very lively with both this topic and the whole Spell-Like Ability/Prestige Class hubbub. A lot of people have their way of expressing their viewpoints on the issues.

The community is just out to make the game better and more fun for both players and GM's while simultaneously making sure people can't step in with all of the super-broken, spotlight-stealing, scenario-trivializing bananas stuff.

I like helping make communities better and more fun! And I can safely say that if I ever had to GM against "Battle Cattle" and the like, I would probably leave the session unsatisfied and frustrated. That's not fun! \( >.<')/

SOMETIMES blanket-banning is necessary. But more than likely not in this case. They can ban the specific animals in the same way they ban specific items.

Reminds me of the call to ban the Cape of Feinting when that came out. "Hurf hurf, I stunlock bosses look how good I am lol!" Spotlight-stealing, no fun, no challenge, GM frustrated, etc. Someone pointed all this out, and within a week or so, it showed up in AR as banned.

4/5 *

I'm sure there's a way to go through the list of animals to decide which ones should be "in" or "out", but I'm trying to look bigger picture here. Every NPC on the board takes away from the actions of a PC, which represents a real person around the table. Real people trump made-up piles of stats any day, especially when you are running a world-wide organized play campaign.

I'm sure there are character concepts that people can't play in PFS that depend on trebuchets or evil alignments or synthesist summoners, too. For the greater good of the campaign, those overpowered or disruptive or spotlight-stealing options have been removed as legal options. Powerful animal combatants are in that same category, whether you have seen it at your table yet or not.

This change won't deal with kinevon's table-of-seven-druids (frankly, nothing in PFS could deal with that!)It will stop a single CR4 paper tiger from destroying a dozen scenarios for up to 75 other real people at the table, though. That's a win for the campaign pretty much any way you look at it. And the player with the tiger? They can still realize their vision of their PC, by using the dozen or so legal class options that have an animal.

Grand Lodge 5/5

Pathfinder Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Society Subscriber

I think I'm liking the no bought animal can have more than 1 HD more than your character, just like druidic animal companion.

This leaves horses safe (2 HD), riding dogs (2 HD), ponies (2 HD, and thus also pack mules, which are based on ponies) for level 1 characters.

Shadow Lodge 4/5

I would be sad if the reaction to a few bad players is to remove options for everyone. I have a fighter who owns a ranch and trains horses and hunting dogs, she's level 9 so they don't do much good in combat anymore. I started a core ranger who has a pet dog until she gets high enough to make it a class feature. Allowing nobody to ride horses because some players abuse the 500g tiger seems an extreme reaction.
This should be something you clear up as people, not by campaign rules changes. I personally haven't run in to players trying to beat the system as it were. Most people play the game cause they enjoy it, not to cause others grief. Talk it out.

A few things to remember. One, it takes a move action to command a trained animal and a DC10 handle animal check, 25 to make it attack an unnatural foe. Two, make the player show you his copy of animal archive and the additional resources printout saying it's legal to use, and their copy of the bestiary. If they don't have all 3 of those things then you aren't supposed to let them use it per the campaign rules.

Sovereign Court 4/5 5/5 ** Venture-Lieutenant, Netherlands—Leiden

1 person marked this as a favorite.

I had no idea that this was a problem. Is there really something bad going on?

Scarab Sages 5/5

Brigg wrote:

Signing up to ban!

There is little to no risk in sending a non-class-feature animal ahead to scout aside from failing a Handle animal check (Whoop-de-doo!)

More often than not I have seen this tactic with things like donkeys or sheep - something cheap and not combat trained. You don't need combat training to "go over there."

Grand Lodge 5/5

Pathfinder Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Society Subscriber

There's apparantly a location where one player is infecting the others to start buying tigers for use in tier 1-2 and thus trivialize any combat.

As far as I'm aware the only animals that get bought locally are either used for extra carrying capacity (mules mostly, and I have a bison pulling a heavy wagon) and I've seen one player use a riding dog for his halfling bard.

Paizo Employee 4/5 Developer

22 people marked this as a favorite.

I've read the thread, and I'm familiar with the issue. I'm not yet convinced that we need a new rule, but I'm going to float an idea and see if it has any merit:

Numerous sources allow a PC to purchase an animal to serve as a mount, companion, or combatant; however, a PC can only purchase an animal if its Challenge Rating is lower than that character's level (minimum CR 1).

What would this do? It would allow any PC to buy a horse, a camel, or a riding dog at 1st level (CR 1). Pets and pack animals with fractional CRs are likewise unaffected. It also would mean that a PC could not buy a bison or tiger—combat trained or otherwise—until level 5 (CR 4). Of course, these creatures would still be available through the animal companion class feature. The only gap I see is the heavy horse, which is CR 2 (minimum character level 3), yet a combat-trained light horse is still available right out of the gate.

1 to 50 of 148 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Organized Play / Pathfinder Society / Proposal: remove trained animals from the list of legal options All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.