Crimeo |
I suppose the blog post could be read that way, if the author decided to answer questions that no-one has ever asked, instead of the questions that he states explicitly in the intro that he intends to answer.
What is your alternative explanation for "the appropriate tasks" if not it referring to trained trick tasks specifically? (Which is the default status quo for what handle animal covers)
It does not matter if it has an Int of 3 or a language, handle animal is still required.
Which you have not established with actual text. Only by appealing to popular vote of some (unspecified) horde of people, which isn't how pathfinder rules work anyway.
It does not matter if you are asking something in, or out of, handle animal territory.
Handle animal, like ALL skills, only applies to things it is described as applying to. And the blog doesn't change this, because it says only appropriate tasks are included. Which is completely consistent with the way skills normally work -- they apply to exactly what they say they apply to no more no less.
So if something is in the territory of the skill, that skill applies. If something is not in the territory, that skill does not apply. In other words, high INT doesn't REMOVE handle animal's relevance, but it also doesn't ENHANCE or expand it. It has the same scope it always did with highly intelligent animals. Nothing about the blog changes this, as it still goes out of its way to specify only actions appropriate to the skill.
Again, that's just the status quo. It suddenly applying to ALL actions would be a bizarre change in the scope of the rules to make handle animal far more invasive for high int animals in particular, which is not only not supported by the actual written words, but would be very strange intention-wise.
wraithstrike |
Quote:I suppose the blog post could be read that way, if the author decided to answer questions that no-one has ever asked, instead of the questions that he states explicitly in the intro that he intends to answer.What is your alternative explanation for "the appropriate tasks" if not it referring to trained trick tasks specifically? (Which is the default status quo for what handle animal covers)
Quote:It does not matter if it has an Int of 3 or a language, handle animal is still required.Which you have not established with actual text. Only by appealing to popular vote of some (unspecified) horde of people, which isn't how pathfinder rules work anyway.
Quote:It does not matter if you are asking something in, or out of, handle animal territory.Handle animal, like ALL skills, only applies to things it is described as applying to. And the blog doesn't change this, because it says only appropriate tasks are included. Which is completely consistent with the way skills normally work -- they apply to exactly what they say they apply to no more no less.
So if something is in the territory of the skill, that skill applies. If something is not in the territory, that skill does not apply. In other words, high INT doesn't REMOVE handle animal's relevance, but it also doesn't ENHANCE or expand it. It has the same scope it always did with highly intelligent animals. Nothing about the blog changes this, as it still goes out of its way to specify only actions appropriate to the skill.
Again, that's just the status quo. It suddenly applying to ALL actions would be a bizarre change in the scope of the rules to make handle animal far more invasive for high int animals in particular, which is not only not supported by the actual written words, but would be very strange intention-wise.
You are wrong. If you want an animal to perform a task the handle animal skill is required. Do I like it? No. What anyone likes has no bearing on what the rule is.
The handle animal skill is not just for tricks, but for making the animal do any task.
The Handle Animal skill functions similarly no matter how intelligent an animal becomes. A character must still make Handle Animal checks to train his animal and get him to perform the appropriate tasks....
Yes that even applies to task there is not a specific handle animal skill for. That is covered in general rules in the handle animal section.
“Push” an Animal: To push an animal means to get it to perform a task or trick that it doesn't know but is physically capable of performing
Anything you want to the animal to do is a task. Unknown(untrained) task fall under "pushing the animal" section of the handle animal skill.
The problem here is that you seem to think that things not covered by the default tricks get to ignore the handle animal skill because of an increased intelligence. That would not make sense because if an animal can't even become trained to do them, there is no reason why they should be easier to get the animal to do them.
Crimeo |
The Handle Animal skill functions similarly no matter how intelligent an animal becomes.
Bold the other part of the sentence...
It functions similarly. I.e. only stuff normally related to handle animal, things you want to force them to do as a handler, NOT ALL ACTIONS, not ones they voluntarily do while not being handled. It did not have that broad of a scope before, and similarly, it still does not, no matter how intelligent the animal becomes.
A character must still make Handle Animal checks to train his animal and get him to perform the appropriate tasks....
Yes, you MUST still use handle animal to do the same tasks appropriate to the skill as normal. Not all tasks. I.e., when you want to guarantee success despite will of the animal and training with a die roll.
Anything you want to the animal to do is a task.
If you want to force it to do so, yes. I am not wanting to do that.
Push animal rolls a die which FORCES the animal to do X. Speaking to it gives it information which it can then act on VOLUNTARILY like any other action or voluntary action it can do any other time, and which animals do the 99.999% of the time during their lives while not being handled by humanoids. Are you suggesting that a hawk cannot, on its own, perceive a mouse in a field and proceed to attack it for dinner? Without being handled by some humanoid?
The problem here is that you seem to think that things not covered by the default tricks get to ignore the handle animal skill because of an increased intelligence.
When not forcing them and guaranteeing success, yes. If wishing to force them and guarantee success, no -- in that case you would need handle animal.
Gauss |
1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Crimeo, I think the key element you are missing is that you are ALWAYS forcing an animal into doing things for you when you are the one asking it to do something. There is nothing voluntary about it.
You tell it to go feed itself, that is something it would do on its own...but on its own timetable. You are telling it to do it NOW. That is why handle animal is required regardless of language abilities.
Tell a 3 year old to do something. If the 3 year old is not ready to do it you have to convince the child to do it. It doesn't matter if the child likes you or not, it doesn't matter if it understands you or not.
Handle Animal covers ALL circumstances of getting the animal to do something on your timetable. Even if you had speak with animals you need Handle Animal.
Int 2 animal: Handle Animal is required
Int 2 animal with a language: Handle Animal is required
Int 3 animal: Handle Animal is required
Int 3 animal with a language: Handle Animal is required
The Blog states that handle animal is still required, you choose to parse this and ignore elements of it because you don't like it. Fine, but that is what it says and no matter how you protest it it will continue to say it.
Can you ask an animal who is friendly to you to do something? Sure, but itll do it on it's own time in its own way IF it bothers to do it at all. Like any 3 year old, the results are doubtful, might as well shake a magic 8ball to determine if itll follow through.
gustavo iglesias |
4) Do you still need Handle Animal to get an animal to perform tasks? Yes, it does not matter how intelligent an animal is, as long as it is still an animal Handle Animal is required. There is no language anywhere in that blog that states that just because an animal has a language it negates the need for Handle Animal.
If you need Handle Animal, time spent training, and a trick, to make an animal do something, that makes Speak with Animals pretty much a useless spell.
I agree with Crimeo. Handle Animal makes you to get guaranteed task if you make the roll. Talking to an animal that understand you (either because you have Speak with Animals, or because the animal understand your language), doesn 't get any guaranteed result. It's no better than asking any other NPC who can understand you, to do something: unless he's under magical compulsion, he'll do what he feels better.
So, if you make your "Attack" trick roll, your dog will go and attack that nasty dragon, lich or demon. It doesn't matter if your dog is scared, or likes it, he's trained to do so, and he obeys. If you ask politely to go and attack, without the trick, your dog may, or may not, go and attack that nasty dragon, lich or demon (and in most cases, that means he won't do it).
Int 3 doesn't remove the need for Handle Animal for the tasks that Handle Animal are for. But Handle Animal doesn't remove the usefulness of Speak with Animals (or your animal ability to understand you, if he speaks a language). And you can interact with any NPC that can understand you, regardless of your ability to convince him, which is a separated issue
gustavo iglesias |
Handle Animal covers ALL circumstances of getting the animal to do something on your timetable. Even if you had speak with animals you need Handle Animal.
Not true.
The spell itself says:You can ask questions of and receive answers from animals, but the spell doesn't make them any more friendly than normal. Wary and cunning animals are likely to be terse and evasive, while the more stupid ones make inane comments. If an animal is friendly toward you, it may do some favor or service for you.
Giving a mouse a big wheel of cheese, and offering more if he goes into a building and then tells you what there's inside, can make him friendly to you, even if you are not an expert mouse tamer. That's the adventage of communicating with him.
It would work the same, if it's the mouse the one who casts Speak with Humans. Or knows a language. Then, of course, he might not want to do it, at all, if he's scared of the cat that lives in the house, or happens to be a mouse that doesn't like cheese, or whatever. Just like any other NPC: you could pay a vagabond child to go to an alley and tell you what there's there, but he might, or mmight not, choose to go, depending on the payment, how affraid he is about that alley, or his actual schedule.
alexd1976 |
Crimeo is correct in his assertion that animals can be asked to perform tasks without using Handle Animal.
If this animal has an INT of 3, and has a language, it may even perform this task.
What Crimeo isn't aware of is that animals are not controlled by the character.
The exception to this is Handle Animal.
So do you need to use Handle Animal to get an animal to do something? No, you don't. If the GM (the one controlling the animal) decides the animal is feeling cooperative, then it is.
If you want to force the issue, you use Tricks/Handle Animal.
That's it. That's how it works.
The animal isn't obligated to follow your instructions unless you use its Tricks.
Gauss |
1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Gustavo Iglesias, it may absolutely do some favor or service for you, at the level of it's abilities (int 1-2 for normal animals).
Yes, you give a mouse a big wheel of cheese, offers it more if he goes int and tells you what is inside. He tells you of the various kinds of food he likes and that there are 'big creatures'. He does not understand more than that. It is like asking a 3 year old for information.
Crimeo |
Crimeo, I think the key element you are missing is that you are ALWAYS forcing an animal into doing things for you when you are the one asking it to do something. There is nothing voluntary about it.
Citation, please?
Your onlny justification for this seems to be that if I ask it to do something, it might change the timetable for when it does it.
That is not the same thing as "forcing" it to do anything. It doesn't HAVE to do what I ask. It doesn't HAVE to do it now, in 10 minutes, or in an hour from now, or ever, if it doesn't want to. Thus, it's not forced. There is no guaranteed outcome, no die roll, so it's not the same thing as handle animal.
Unless there's some text somewhere saying otherwise, which you have not provided, the animal voluntarily choosing to do something earlier or differently than it normally would is no different than a shopkeeper handing over a sword in exchange for money because you asked him to, when he otherwise wouldn't have done so at that moment in time without you asking.
Is that "forcing" the shopkeeper to pick up a sword and hand it over? No. Is that "handling" the shopkeeper? No. Does buying a sword require any rolls (ignore appraise, let's say it has a clear price tag and you are willing to pay marked price)? No.
So just like I can use language and end up getting a shopkeeper to voluntarily change his timetable without any rolls, I can do that for an animal too. Handle animal doesn't cover that for animals, just like diplomacy doesn't cover that for humans. If you want to have numerically forced/guaranteed success on interactions you have to roll, because those skills cover those situations. If not, you don't.
Tell a 3 year old to do something. If the 3 year old is not ready to do it you have to convince the child to do it.
Agreed completely. You have to CONVINCE the animal to do whatever you're asking. Absolutely. But if you succeed in that, no check is required. And convincing your best loyal friend to do totally easy and reasonable things is very very easy to do.
Handle Animal covers ALL circumstances of getting the animal to do something on your timetable.
No it doesn't, you have no text to back that up.
The Blog states that handle animal is still required
Yes it is still required for the things it normally would be required for, which is only a limited subset of things. Namely, stuff you want to guarantee will succeed with a die roll despite the animal's own voluntary opinions and choices. It only reads the other way when you go in and remove inconvenient words from the sentences, as you have been doing, and have as yet not explained why.
Can you ask an animal who is friendly to you to do something? Sure, but itll do it on it's own time in its own way IF it bothers to do it at all.
OH HEY LOOK WE AGREE.
Yes, it will do it on its own time table if it wants to. Which if it is your best friend and undyingly loyal to you, will almost always be yes, and as soon as possible for any reasonable request.
Like any 3 year old, the results are doubtful
No, nothing about this high int animals in the text says anything about it acting like a 3 year old, you are adding this/making this up. An int 10 animal is as intelligent as an INT 10 adult human. And equally as reliable to count on acting logically and in its interests, etc.
What Crimeo isn't aware of is that animals are not controlled by the character.
No, I agreed with this earlier. The GM controls it. But the GM should be expected to treat the INT X animal as acting just as logically and just as intelligently as an INT X humanoid if you were to similarly request actions from them and if they were similarly friendly and loyal. If the GM categorically and consistently treats these two situations differently, the GM is building in distinctions that are not in RAW. Which is his right to do so, but would be house rule territory, which isn't what the rules forum is about.
Crimeo |
He tells you of the various kinds of food he likes and that there are 'big creatures'. He does not understand more than that. It is like asking a 3 year old for information.
Part of learning a language is learning vocabulary. Anything a normal commoner can be expected to know the name of, an animal who has learned language will know the name of. An ADULT commoner of equal intelligence to the animal. Not a 3 year old who does not actually completely know a language yet, that's outside the parameters of the scenario, because our animal DOES fully know language in this scenario.
So an obscure creature it might not know by name, but it could just as well describe it as a commoner could, for example, "I saw several creatures that were big, scaly, with ridges along their back, webbed feet, greenish tint, powerful jaws, and leg joints arranged like a dog not like a human." or whatever. And then once the name was provided once, the animal could use it in the future, just like a commmoner. See one goblin, it can now identify goblins. And so on.
The animal should also be allowed knowledge rolls for creature identification and names just like any player would with the same DCs once it knows a language, up to DC 10 untrained for relevant knowledge checks. For common creatures, I believe it's DC 5+CR IIRC, so it could identify up to CR5 creatures potentially without knowledge ranks.
Gauss |
Crimeo, you are applying too much of 'human intelligence' to how you would run a stupid animal. Even a 3 intelligence is far far below human intelligence unless that human has developmentally delayed or has brain damage.
In any case, we are far outside the rules. Any GM with any level of understanding of what a 3 intelligence means would realize that what you are asking an animal companion with a 3 int to do is beyond them.
Crimeo |
Crimeo, you are applying too much of 'human intelligence' to how you would run a stupid animal
Intelligence is described by your INT score. Being an animal doesn't make you "dumb" only your INT score determines intelligence. Being a human likewise doesn't make you smart, only your INT score denotes that.
Yes an INT 3 animal will not be very clever, but that is not the point of the thread. The question was whether you needed handle animal. The answer is NO you do not, if you do not need guaranteed forced success on an action. You can instead speak to it and request things just like with an INT 3 human commoner, and it will be as successful as with a human INT 3 commoner.
The INT 3 aspect of it is completely beside the point of the question that was asked, other than with respect to the rules that allow various things starting at INT 3, such as knowing language.
Beyond that, it's simply an issue of how simply you have to word the sentence and the requests, etc. But that's up to the roleplaying. Sure it may act like a very dumb person, and that may make things strategically difficult. But the mere fact that you can MECHANICALLY ask questions for voluntary responses without handle animal though is just as easily established for INT 3 as for INT 27, as the rules distinguish nothing between the two in terms of allowed actions or rolls needed. Only roleplaying degree of complexity differs between 3 and 27 INT when a language is known and that language is being used to make verbal requests, not anything rules-defined or dice roll based.
In any case, we are far outside the rules.
Rules say creatures can do many different actions (half the CRB outlines them).
Rules say creatures can act contingently on information they have (the whole point of the perception skill amongst many other places).Rules say when creatures can choose to do actions and that they can choose them in certain combinations (action economy CRB).
Rules outline when and how you can learn languages.
Rules only restrict languages in certain circumstances (diplomacy, intimidate, charm magic) that normally don't apply for basic voluntary requests.
We have all the rules we need, therefore. The animal can learn a language, gain information by it just like with perception, and can then do any of the many actions allowed to it using the action economy allowed to it, without rolls, as long as guaranteed/forced success is not demanded. The whole situation is covered by and within existing rules.
What do you think is missing such that you believe we are "outside the rules" here?
Gauss |
Crimeo, your position is that you do not need Handle Animal because it is now intelligent and thus will understand and comply with anything asked of it.
The problem with that is it fails to factor in how different intelligences behave. That is where it is outside the rules, it is ALL dependent upon the GM and how the GM interprets intelligence. If you are the GM you will be extra-ordinarily favorable.
However, most GMs will probably treat a 3 Int creature like such a creature deserves, barely intelligent. If a humanoid had a 3 intelligence it would be barely capable of rational thought and asking it to do what you asked in your example would be only slightly more useful than asking a rock.
The only guaranteed method is going to be Handle Animal. Expect table variation if you want to try to use language to get it to do something.
Kifaru |
You can absolutely ask an intelligent creature to do a favor for you. This is well within the rules as gustavo pointed out.
But taking the time to explain the action to an Int 3 animal would take much longer than the free action it takes to get an AC to perform a trick. It would be the Make Request action, which is a diplomacy check. These checks take a minimum of one round and can take more, as determined by the GM. In addition, there would be no guarantee that the animal would perform the task.
Using Crimeo's logic, the AC would probably stop paying attention to it's handler with the crappy Handle Animal skill, and would go hang out with the high charisma bard.
Crimeo |
The problem with that is it fails to factor in how different intelligences behave. That is where it is outside the rules, it is ALL dependent upon the GM and how the GM interprets intelligence.
How different INTs behave, yes, is purely GM dependent.
However, making a distinction between a human and an animal, both of the same INT (whatever that INT may be), with regard to speech and requests, like this, would be a house rule. Treat INT 3, INT 5, INT 8, etc. however you like, but the rules I think clearly dictate that you should treat any given INT the same between animals and humans.
It would be the Make Request action, which is a diplomacy check
It's not a diplomacy check, because it says that once an attitude toward you is at least helpful (which a loyal companion's is), you succeed without a check.
But I think it would still take "1 or more rounds of interaction, depending upon the complexity of the request." Note that it's dependent on the complexity of the request, not the intelligence of the listener. You are restricted probably to low complexity requests for dumb characters, but it doesn't take any longer to make those requests, and the lowest complexity ones take 1 round by RAW.
Using Crimeo's logic, the AC would probably stop paying attention to it's handler with the crappy Handle Animal skill, and would go hang out with the high charisma bard.
Nothing in the rules say it is super loyal to the bard. The rules DO say a companion is super loyal to its associated player it came with. Nor will the bard ever have the empathic bond with it, etc. Nor does a crappy handle animal skill matter if handle animal is not being used. Nor does a high CHA usually make characters like you more automatically without any actions or checks.
So there are several rules to suggest the opposite of this and none I can think of to suggest this would happen.
The bard may be able to attempt various proactive things to win over the companion and steal it intentionally, I suppose, but that's getting into PVP, and the druid may be within his rights to react in ways similar to if the bard tried to physically steal the companion in a cage, etc.
Kifaru |
As per tradition, either unintentionally or by design, you have misread and incompletely quoted the rule. The rule states
"Once a creature’s attitude has shifted to helpful, the creature gives in to most requests without a check, unless the request is against its nature or puts it in serious peril. Some requests automatically fail if the request goes against the creature’s values or its nature, subject to GM discretion."
As just about everything you would have an animal do goes against it's nature, you would need to make a diplomacy check most of the time. Attacking a zombie is not in an animals nature. Carrying stuff for you is not in it's nature. Heck, hanging around instead of running wild and free is probably not in it's nature.
Crimeo |
As just about everything you would have an animal do goes against it's nature
That is not RAW, that is your opinion, as "nature" is not defined or explained. I for one interpreted it to pretty much just refer to alignment. Possibly personality.
Not to mention that even if you DO interpret it as "wild behaviors" then please list for me what the wild behaviors of humans are?
I can guarantee you that "heating up rocks in a crucible and then meticulously hammering them into shapes over a bed of carbonized wood with forced bellowed air while sprinkling chemicals on them and then handing them to other humans in exchange for a precise quantity of other differently shaped bits of metal" is most certainly NOT "in our nature" in any sort of wild or evolutionary sense, so if you go by your interpretation, you would need to roll diplomacy to even be allowed to buy a sword from a shopkeeper who sells swords at a listed price. You would also need to roll diplomacy to ask somebody to please hold the door for you, or pretty much anything else.
Do you require that in game? If not, you are being inconsistent in your interpretations.
Crimeo |
You didn't answer my question. Do you or do you not require diplomacy checks every time a human ever attempts to buy any item from a shopkeeper, asks on-staff workers/maids to complete a simple task like attending to a customer or cleaning a room, asks somebody their name, attempts to tell somebody about a quest, asks somebody to hold the door for them, etc.?
If not, then animals not innately speaking languages is irrelevant, because if you don't require diplomacy checks for those things I listed, then you're obviously already interpreting "natural" as something OTHER THAN "innate" (just like I am) since none of those human actions are innate and yet you didn't require diplomacy checks for them.
Or if you do interpret "natural" as "innate", then you're breaking RAW by not requiring diplomacy checks for all those things, by your interpretation.
So which is it? Do you:
1) Require diplomacy checks every 5 seconds in game?
2) Not interpret natural as = innate after all, making this a moot point?
3) Break the rules constantly?
RuyanVe |
*wheezes*
I've read the hole thread and still do not understand the ongoing discussion.
Whether you look it up in the CRB, the blog post or UC everywhere it says:
Even if an animal's Intelligence increases to 3 or higher, you must still use the Handle Animal skill to direct the animal, as it is a smart animal rather than a low-intelligence person (using awaken is an exception—an awakened animal takes orders like a person).
Not finding any tricks equaling a task under Handle animal you want an animal companion to perform doesn't matter either as new tricks can be designed and brought to the game (see the PF Player Companion Animal Archive for setting a precedent).
And here its called directing--not tasks, tricks, all actions are included here.
So what it comes down to is really: how much control do you as GM allow your player to exert on the AC and do you give the AC its own agenda and let it act on its own volition--but again this discussion is also foreclosed in UC in the Companion section.
Issues of Control
The GM should keep in mind several factors when it comes to companions, whether handling them as suggested above or altering the balance to give you more or less control.
Ease of Play: [...]
Game Balance: [...]
Sharing Information: [...]
And further down again:
The GM should take the animal's Intelligence into account when determining its response to commands or its behavior when it doesn't have specific instructions. For example, an intelligent wolf companion can pick the weakest-looking target if directed to do so, and that same wolf trapped in a burning building might push open a door or window without being told.
And yes, depending on the surrounding and set-up I might ask my PCs to perform Diplomacy or similar skill checks for every single interaction with other humanoids or I skip it and enjoy the game moving with the roleplaying flow.
Ruyan.
Mighty Squash |
Where in the books is the information on what counts as sentient as far as creatures go? And what limitations are related to this. The animal companion rules are pretty vague on what raising INT does and does not do, and I can't find anything in the more general or bestiary rules about it.
I get that the blog is saying animals are animals and all, but what actual rules is that clarifying?
(I ask in part as played in a PFS group with an animal companion who has the same INT as the bloodrager and it left me very curious as to what rule I was failing to locate that explained the massive difference in how they are treated.)
Casual Viking |
Where in the books is the information on what counts as sentient as far as creatures go? And what limitations are related to this. The animal companion rules are pretty vague on what raising INT does and does not do, and I can't find anything in the more general or bestiary rules about it.
A hodgepodge of the Intelligence ability score, the Linguistics and Handle Animal skills, the Bestiary information on the Animal type, and probably something in Animal Companions and starting languages as well.
Also, the rules of the game, in total contradiction of everything mentioned above, the blog post under discussion, as repeated in UltCamp p. 143 and the PFS house rules for Animal Companions.
I get that the blog is saying animals are animals and all, but what actual rules is that clarifying?
"Clarifying" is not my first choice of words. But it decrees that animals always require handling with Handle Animal regardless of Int scores.
(I ask in part as played in a PFS group with an animal companion who has the same INT as the bloodrager and it left me very curious as to what rule I was failing to locate that explained the massive difference in how they are treated.)
I'll explain it for you: "Jason hates reading his own rule system before sitting down at the keyboard".
alexd1976 |
It gets really messed up when you have an Animal Companion with an INT of 10 (obtainable at level 1, btw, with magic items/eye for talent-at least in theory if you have a rich patron).
Throw a custom magic item that allows it to talk into the mix and you have one WEIRD animal companion.
Still requires tricks though. :D
Crimeo |
You didn't reference a single rule in that last post. Please recall that this is the rules forum. Try to keep the discussion within the actual rules existing within the game.
You want me to cite the entire CRB? CRB says you can run. CRB says you can do backflips. CRB says you can look over an area carefully. CRB says you can move up to your move speed. CRB then says you can do two such actions a move and a move or a move and a standard, etc. per round.
All this applies to animals, since they are characters. There are literally hundreds of pages of these rules. If you want examples, open the CRB and flip to a random page and you have like a 2/3 chance of landing on one.
Unless something actively takes those abilities away, they can do all that stuff at will of their own volition, like every other character, by merit of the hundreds of pages of rules saying that they can and how they can. And nothing DOES take that ability away.
And here its called directing--not tasks, tricks, all actions are included here.
For sake of argument, let's say that this totally undefined, vague term does indeed mean the strictest most umbrella thing it could possibly mean and that any request or command of any sort is "directing".
This would still be really trivially easy to get around even then. Let's say I want my giant bat AC to move some logs from point A to point B. I announce to my entire party publicly "Anybody who moves those logs, will win a reward of this pile of dead insects right here."
Have I directed anybody or made any commands? Nope. I haven't even said anybody needs to do it. Just a fact if anyone does, this is what happens. Yet I'm still 99% certain that the giant bat in particular will, of it's own volition, do the thing I want on its own time, by its own choice.
Or another example, I can make an offhanded comment that people with bad breath tend not to make many friends, while walking along the trail in earshot of my party. Possibly fully expecting that my AC will hear it, come to its own conclusions, and nibble on some mint leaves by the side of the road coming up. An action which I didn't even mention, much less direct it to do.
You want to nitpick obscure single word choices for possible meanings that might vaguely imply something like what you want to conclude? Fine, I can just as easily nitpick ways of getting what I want that get around your obscure single word choices.
Or we can just talk about what the actual, clear, substantial rules say or don't say and not waste each others' time. And there is a massive body of clear, substantial rules saying characters can do millions of things on their own. And nothing substantial saying animals are excepted from this in general.
how much control do you as GM allow your player to exert on the AC and do you give the AC its own agenda and let it act on its own volition
The rules section you posted on degree of control is only about which human being at the game table is controlling the character. It has nothing to do with animals having their own agendas or being able to do actions on their own: they do, no matter who is controlling them, because half the CRB says they do, and no other rules take that away.
If the GM is controlling an AC and not abiding by that, then the GM is not playing by RAW. If the pC is controlling an AC and not abiding by that, then the PC is not playing by RAW... since I never made any claim about whether the PC or GM controls the AC's game token, nor did the OP ask that, I don't see how this is relevant.
RuyanVe |
All this applies to animals, since they are characters.
And this is where you got it wrong. An animal is an animal is an animal. It's been quoted all over that no matter how high an Int score an animal (even an animal companion which mechanically is not an animal as from the Bestiary) has it stays an animal.
An animal is mechanically not a character; except when awakened --also quoted by me from Ultimate Campaign.So it does finally boil down to who controls the AC as it's all about how the rules are interpreted.
And it's again the GM as final arbiter of the rules deciding one way or the other.
Ruyan.
Crimeo |
An animal is an animal is an animal.
Yes, which is a type of character...
Suggesting that animals are not characters is absurd. Why would animals have listed movement speeds, hit dice, etc. if none of these things had any meaning due to them not being characters and thus not having any established rules for hitpoints, movement, action economy, etc. in the first place (since those are all based on characters)?
Plus, if it's not a character, then animals effectively would have no rules at all covering their action economy, and would be paralyzed unless handled with "Push" to do anything whatsoever. So why does the bestiary list example encounters that are composed of nothing but animals, and say the CR is anything but zero? Surely, any number of totally paralyzed animals (due to having no handler and no rules covering their actions if not characters) would always be CR 0 no matter what? And furthermore, even when pushing, how do you have any idea what an animal is physically capable of, if it has no rules at all covering what it is physically capable of?
Hell, how do you even kill an animal? Death is defined purely in terms of characters, so if you don't think they are characters, are you saying they are immortal, since only characters have a defined death state? CRB: "The character's hit points are reduced to a negative amount equal to his Constitution score, his Constitution drops to 0, or he is killed outright by a spell or effect. The character's soul leaves his body."
This leads to tons and tons of nonsense. They are obviously characters. Non-player characters, but still characters. And thus, they are granted many types of actions they can do on their own agenda, as per RAW.
gustavo iglesias |
Gustavo Iglesias, it may absolutely do some favor or service for you, at the level of it's abilities (int 1-2 for normal animals).
Yes, you give a mouse a big wheel of cheese, offers it more if he goes int and tells you what is inside. He tells you of the various kinds of food he likes and that there are 'big creatures'. He does not understand more than that. It is like asking a 3 year old for information.
So, in your games, the spell "Speak with Animals" is totally and utterly useless then.
I think animals are smart enough to know the difference between types of creatures, instead of grouping them in "big creatures" and "small creatures" or whatever. That's why a mouse will hide from a cat, and won't hide from a rabbit. And that's why animals ussually don't fear cows, but fear tigers. And that's also why the animals that have interacted with hunters, run from humans. Because they know the difference between humans and, say, deers. Yeah, they are not going to solve algebra. But "this spell is pointless, because animals are all of them stupid and actually wouldn't survive alone in the wild because they don't know the difference between types of creatures, or plants, and would end being eaten or poisoned" is not my cup of tea.
Crimeo |
Crimeo, it's pretty heavily implied that RuyanVe means player characters.
Well if so, he's missing the point, because nearly all those rules in the core rulebook apply to ALL characters. Whenever it just says "character" it means PCs and NPCs both. So an animal not being a PC, but instead being an NPC is irrelevant -- it is still granted all those possible actions it can take and is granted an action economy, perception it can use to gather information to act on, etc. etc.
CampinCarl9127 |
Quote:Crimeo, it's pretty heavily implied that RuyanVe means player characters.Well if so, he's missing the point, because nearly all those rules in the core rulebook apply to ALL characters. Whenever it just says "character" it means PCs and NPCs both. So an animal not being a PC, but instead being an NPC is irrelevant -- it is still granted all those possible actions it can take and is granted an action economy, perception it can use to gather information to act on, etc. etc.
Except for the fact that player characters are controlled by characters, while non-player characters are played by the GM. Animal companions fall into the latter category, and it is therefore up to GM discretion on how to run them. Ergo, talk to your GM before making the decision to have an intelligent animal companion. I didn't think that would be a controversial point. When is it not a good idea to talk to your GM about a ruling?
Crimeo |
Except for the fact that player characters are controlled by characters, while non-player characters are played by the GM.
This has been brought up about half a dozen times, I've never disagreed with it, and it it has never been relevant.
Yes, the GM controls animal companions. And the GM, if playing by RAW, is obligated to treat them as understanding and potentially acting upon the content of spoken communications if they are high INT and know a language.
Just because the GM controls something doesn't mean it is RAW for the GM to just add or remove any number of powers or abilities the rules say it has or doesn't have, without constraint. There are explicit rules for animal companions and their stats and when they can take feats and blah blah. GM just ignoring those things or adding unstated other things is not RAW, but house rule. Just like it wouldn't be RAW for a player to add 5,000hp to his own PC even though he controls that PC.
A GM could make a goblin with 5,000hp and just say "oih this is a super goblin, whatever, different species." But he can't do that kind of stuff with AC's by RAW, because ACs are strictly defined within parameters, just like PCs are, and are not off-the-cuff situational NPCs with no constraints.
So a GM robbing an intelligent, language speaking animal of its ability to intelligently understand language is not RAW / would be house ruling.
CampinCarl9127 |
And the GM, if playing by RAW, is obligated to treat them as understanding and potentially acting upon the content of spoken communications if they are high INT and know a language.
Yes, they will potentially act in a way the GM sees fit. That's the entire point. The GM could very well say, within RAW, "The companion is taking too much time to comprehend your request" or "The companion decides not to". The point is that with handle animal you can just handwave this and have the animal act instead of jumping through the hoops.
Of course they don't add or remove abilities. But it is controlled by the GM (incredibly relevant) and they will play the companion as they see fit. If you don't want the GM to take control of your companion in a way that you don't want them to, train handle animal. It's a lot simpler.
Nothing stated here is a house rule. We are both claiming the exact same rules. You just seem to be under the impression that understanding common means that the companion will fully function at your requests as if you were giving commands to it, while in fact it will not. Once again, it is up to GM discretion to decide if and how the animal acts when given a request that is not within the bounds of handle animal. And that can be very dangerous.
Crimeo |
The GM could very well say, within RAW, "The companion is taking too much time to comprehend your request" or "The companion decides not to".
None of which would matter for the question in the OP of this thread. The answer would still be to that question "No you don't need handle animal because yes, they can understand and act on language."
The GM repeatedly having them coincidentally run into complications does not make them not able in general by RAW to understand and act on language. Any more than a series of locked doors every 2 inches in a particular game means I am not actually able to walk forward by RAW.
Gauss |
Crimeo, the correct answer to the OP is:
If you want to assure that your Animal Companion will perform the tasks you designate then you need Handle Animal.
If you want to subject yourself to GM whim then do not use Handle Animal and instead ask your Animal Companion to do something. However, for this option I suggest either discussing it with the GM beforehand or be prepared for a disruption in your game as you and the GM argue over what your animal companion is capable of at increased levels of intelligence. (Heck, there are plenty of arguments regarding AC capabilities without increased intelligence, why would that suddenly get better when the intelligence gets increased? If anything it'll get worse.)
One will be productive, the other might be productive. In short, Handle Animal is still needed despite your statements to the contrary.
Crimeo |
orrect, you no longer need handle animal because the animal companion understands common. You can also dig a hole with a plastic spoon instead of a shovel, but it's not recommended.
Cool, we agree then. It is a good day when Campincarl and crimeo agree!
Gauss: Yes, I also agree with everything you wrote except your last sentence, "In short, Handle Animal is still needed despite your statements to the contrary." which contradicts the rest of the post. It is not "NEEDED", it is being ADVISED by you for pragmatic purposes and your assumption that any appreciable number of GMs might be a$%*%!!s and come up with convenient excuses every 5 seconds for why an animal happens to have an ear infection or gets distracted at just the right moment, blah blah, to always squirm out of verbal commands.
Advise specific strategies as much as you like, I take no issue with that, but we all seem to have agreed on the actual RAW mechanical requirements, which is all the thread needs in the rules forum for an answer.
(Though FWIW, my personal advice would be if you have GMs that act like that, to find a new GM rather than try to play around them. But *shrug* just my advice and also not the main point of the rules forum or in any conflict that needs to be resolved with your advice.)
CampinCarl9127 |
Yes. That is the entire point. When people ask for rules clarifications, it is much more helpful to answer their question as well as provide context and advice for how those rules would manifest in game. If somebody asked "Can I play a wisdom-focused frontline wizard?" the answer would be yes, but it's a lot more helpful to also tell them that it's much more advisable to focus int instead if wisdom and to avoid the frontline whenever possible. It's that "information only matters in the context of humanity" point.
Gauss |
No Crimeo, we have not agreed on the RAW mechanics and the fact that you cannot understand that appears to show that you are failing to understand the difference between RAW and GM fiat.
There is NOTHING in the rules that dictates how a creature behaves from moment to moment. That is ALL in the realm of GM fiat. Yes, you ask the AC to do something, then it is up to the GM to determine if that is an appropriate request and within the realm of the creatures capabilities.
That is not RAW, that is GM fiat. You continue to ignore this fact.
Jodokai |
Raising an animal's INT does not cause it to Awaken. Even if the animal has a 33 INT, it still has an animal's understanding and can't solve complex math problems. If you want to have intelligent meaningful conversations with your animal companion, you're going to have to cast the Awaken spell, otherwise, you're dealing with an animal.
Some posters are subscribing an HUGE amount of human feelings and emotions on animals that just don't have them.
Now I realize this may not belong in the Rules Forum, but since it was brought up, Jason's ruling makes absolute sense to me. It made sense for players to be able to increase the INT allowing more tricks, and access to more feats, but he didn't want to change the dynamic and give the animal companion a HUGE jump in power.
BigNorseWolf |
Raising an animal's INT does not cause it to Awaken. Even if the animal has a 33 INT, it still has an animal's understanding and can't solve complex math problems.
This is not a rule. In fact, you can by raw give an int 3 animal ranks in knowledge: architecture and engineering and have them soh cah toa their way through problems.
The Handle Animal skill functions similarly no matter how intelligent an animal becomes. A character must still make Handle Animal checks to train his animal and get him to perform the appropriate tasks. A GM should, however, make exceptions in the case of how such an intelligent animal might react in absence of instructions. It might not know to unlock a door to escape a burning building—as that's a fact that's learned over time and experience—but a smart animal might have a better chance of finding a way out.
Casual Viking |
Raising an animal's INT does not cause it to Awaken. Even if the animal has a 33 INT, it still has an animal's understanding and can't solve complex math problems.
Yes, it does. The Bestiary and Core Rulebook agree. It might not be able to solve complex math problems, because, you know, it's as much dumber than a Fighter as a Fighter is dumber than a dirt farmer. Literally, -4 modifier compared to the fighter's -2. But it is capable of understanding actual language and making non-instinctive decisions.
Except for that blog post, that is.
Now I realize this may not belong in the Rules Forum, but since it was brought up, Jason's ruling makes absolute sense to me. It made sense for players to be able to increase the INT allowing more tricks, and access to more feats, but he didn't want to change the dynamic and give the animal companion a HUGE jump in power.
Jason's ruling is the rules of the game, and it makes sense from a game perspective. But it is a very inelegant ruling that directly contradicts existing rules, creates a weird distinction between Int 3, Animal Int 3, and animals that magically have Int 3, instead of just having Int 3 be Int 3.