Animal companion int 3


Rules Questions

1 to 50 of 113 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | next > last >>

Hey all, I have a inquisitor with the feather domain. I plan to move his int to 3 for the opening up of feats. But now I realized I should have points in handle animal (even though it is untrained) BUT if he has a Int of 3 do I really need the handle int? This is for a PFS character btw


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Yes, you must still use Handle Animal


1 person marked this as a favorite.
ekibus wrote:
Hey all, I have a inquisitor with the feather domain. I plan to move his int to 3 for the opening up of feats. But now I realized I should have points in handle animal (even though it is untrained) BUT if he has a Int of 3 do I really need the handle int? This is for a PFS character btw

Top right of the Paizo website is the help/FAQ button. Click that, then look at the sidebar on the right; one of the entries is "Pathfinder Society". Click that, then Ctrl-F for "Handle Animal".


That sucks, how important is handle animal for a companion..


1 person marked this as a favorite.
ekibus wrote:
That sucks, how important is handle animal for a companion..

Very.


It is a needed if you want to do anything reliably, even basic commands like attack.

If you want to make your Animal Companion attack (assuming it has been trained to do so) it requires a DC10 Handle Animal check.

Assuming you have not traded out Link (+4 bonus) that means you must roll at least a 6 on a D20 if your Charisma score is a 0. If the animal companion has taken any damage that DC goes up by 2.

If you want the Animal Companion to do anything that it isn't trained for the DC is 25.

In short, you need Handle Animal.


Gauss wrote:
Assuming you have not traded out Link (+4 bonus) that means you must roll at least a 6 on a D20 if your Charisma score is a 0. If the animal companion has taken any damage that DC goes up by 2.

So for a lot of people, a lot of the time, it is DC 10 (-2 for even the slightest damage, -2 because cha is a common dump stat).

So putting ranks into animal companion is important. But 1 class skill rank brings that back down to 6, and you can probably forgo the skill points after level 7 (+10 from class skill with 7 ranks, +4 for link- it makes basic commands auto succeed, and gives you more than 50/50 for untrained stuff)

But it is an important balance concern. Animal companions often appear on highly powerful melee classes with spells in the default game (I'm thinking of rangers and druids, mostly). And having another warm body on the field is pretty big in early levels. So putting in the extra expense for the more combat ready pet (as compared to most familiars, who are just wand monkeys at best) at the levels where having that is the most important... it is a basic balancing matter.

It isn't like the one class skill is too much of an expense anyway, so I find it a cheap expense.

Although I seem to remember that paladins don't have to deal with these problems according to ultimate campaign (they get thrown in with familiars).


If you're using background skills, this blow is lessened. You'll get free ranks for HA.


INT 3 gives extra tricks, and it could (potentially) learn a language...

but nothing published removes the need for tricks.

Put the stat increase into STR instead. :D

Or CON.


alexd1976 wrote:

INT 3 gives extra tricks, and it could (potentially) learn a language...

but nothing published removes the need for tricks.

Put the stat increase into STR instead. :D

Or CON.

PFS only it needs tricks. Outside of pfs its fine for an int 3 animal to have no need for tricks


CWheezy, that is a flat out incorrect statement. The Devs have stated that having an int of 3 does not remove the need for Handle Animal (tricks). That statement does not mention PFS and it is not about PFS.

Blog linked above wrote:
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.


Gauss wrote:

CWheezy, that is a flat out incorrect statement. The Devs have stated that having an int of 3 does not remove the need for Handle Animal (tricks). That statement does not mention PFS and it is not about PFS.

But the blog post is stupid and contradicts the core rules in multiple places (contradictions that have not been resolved in later printings), and smells like the old multiple weapon flurry debacle. The Ultimate Compaign rules about controlling companions postdate it by a lot and align better with the rest of the rules.


Don't the UC rules say you need handle animal checks in one place and then strongly imply somewhere else that they don't.


Another related topic. What all can someone do to add to its animal companions Int? I thought there was a trait they made your animal companion get an extra Int but now i cant find it.


Casual Viking, which contradictions?

The one where it says animals do not have an intelligence higher than 2?
Fine, then you cannot increase your animal's intelligence to 3 OR you can take the Devs word for it that if you do find a way to increase it to 3 it does not suddenly become a Magical Beast and it doesn't suddenly gain or lose any other properties it once had.

How about this section that actually reinforces that animals with a 2+ intelligence score can learn tricks:

CRB p98 wrote:
If the package includes more than three tricks, the animal must have an Intelligence score of 2 or higher.

Your feeling that it is stupid is not relevant. This is the rules forum where we discuss the rules, FAQs, and Blogs about the rules. Feelings are not relevant to that discussion.

Yes, the rules are confusing and incomplete, hence the Devs making the blog 4 years ago. Do you have something specific to point to in the rules which clearly contradicts the Blog? (Other than the point limiting Animal intelligence to 2 which they state is for the purposes of creation.)

BTW, your statement regarding Ultimate Campaign is not contradictory. The section on Sentient Companions does not remove the 2 Int maximum of animals. So the Devs still had to make an exception.
Either you toss the entire Blog as contradictory, or you must accept it as written which also includes that Int 3 animals are still treated as animals for the purpose of Handle Animal. There is nothing in Ultimate Campaign that overrides that.

For anyone still unclear about this, here it is from the head Dev himself:
JB wrote:

Hey there Everybody,

Couple of quick responses.

1. Animals work under the rules for Handle Animal. The only place where Int comes into this is using the skill for Magical Beasts (which must have an Int of 1 or 2 for the skill to be used on them) and the number of tricks an animal can learn. On the first issue, it is just easier to have the rules apply to all creatures of the animal type, regardless of Int. This does not necessarily create two different Int score tracks, it just places limitations on creatures of the animal type, which I think is perfectly reasonable. Similar limitations apply to plants, but PCs have fewer iterations with them as tools and allies, so the issue is far less common there. The rules are silent on the second issue, but I think a GM could safely assume that an animal can learn 3 extra tricks for each point of Int above 2 (following the pattern).

2. Because we are dealing with something that has a real world analog (animal intelligence), it is pretty easy to get into heated debate about what an animal can and cannot do. Remember that we are running a game here, not trying to simulate every exact possibility of reality. That means that in some situations, the rules might not be able to properly replicate every situation without opening up the system to easy abuse. Some GMs will certainly view the weapon wielding animal companions in this way, which is why we left it open for GM interpretation (such as in PFS). I am going to let Hyrum and Mark make the call on this situation for PFS, based on their experience and vision for the Org Play program.

Jason Bulmahn
Lead Designer
Paizo Publishing

Link

The point to all of this is you have the following creatures:
Regular animals and Animal Companions start out with an intelligence of 1-2 but can be increased to have.
They are still animals, they are still treated as animals.

Bonded Mounts which, while they are animals, they have special rules governing them.
Frankly, they should've been made magical beasts from the start rather than waiting until level 11, but that is another discussion.

Familiars, these are already magical beasts so are not part of the discussion.

There was a need for special rules to cover what happens in the case of animals that exceeded intelligence of 2. The Blog/FAQ covered this.

I really don't see the problem here.


Vahanian 89 wrote:
Another related topic. What all can someone do to add to its animal companions Int? I thought there was a trait they made your animal companion get an extra Int but now i cant find it.

Eye for talent, human alternate race trait


Gauss wrote:
Stuff
Quote:

Hi Guass, if you believe that animals with int higher than 2 still need to be handled like animals, then you believe that int score is 100% irrelevant to determining how smart a character is.

an 11 int axebeak is always dumber than a 5 int orc, because the orc can figure out that combat has started and he should attack bad guys, but the axebeak has to be told, like a robot

Liberty's Edge

I wish there was a "Handle the other PCs" skill


CWheezy, this is the rules forum, not the 'what would I believe' forum. If you want to discuss game design they have a forum for that.

Please desist in trying to make this personal.

The Devs made a Blog/FAQ on the topic thereby clarifying an element of the rules (can animals acquire an intelligence greater than 2 or are they permanently limited to 2). This necessitated some additional rulings and rules based on that.

The simple answer would have been no. But many people wanted an animal companion with an Int of 3 so they could take feats otherwise inaccessible to the AC.
Thus we have the result of: 'the animal can learn a language, take feats it couldn't have taken before, and may have a better ability to problem solve (reason) but nothing else changes'.
This is a relatively simple solution and one that doesn't require them to have to re-write everything since there is nothing in the rules that states that an Animal with an intelligence of 3 is exempt from handle animal.

Just because you do not like it does not make it a bad rule. People don't like at level 1, a 5'9" man weighing 175lbs, with a starting strength of 20, and with no magic, can swim while weighed down with 400lbs of lead, but he can.

The rules are not representative of reality, they were never meant to be. Please keep the discussion to how the rules work and how the Blogs/FAQs/Dev opinions apply to them.


Mostly, they get a stat boost every 4 hd. So at level 3 the druid tosses one into int.

Most animals can also wear a headband of int.


Gauss wrote:
CWheezy, that is a flat out incorrect statement. The Devs have stated that having an int of 3 does not remove the need for Handle Animal (tricks).

What your link actually says:

Quote:
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.

Nothing about this or any other relevant text implies that doing anything with an animal requires handle animal. Only certain things (rearing, training to do tricks, etc.) requires that skill.

IF you want to train your animal to perform guaranteed pre-determined actions where the success of getting it to do them is determined by pure dice roll and not by the animal's free will, then you need to use handle animal.
IF you don't wish to do that, then you have no need for handle animal, any more than you have a need for acrobatics checks if you choose not to jump or tumble or whatever.

Talking to an animal that knows a language (which you can train an INT 3 animal to know) does not fit the description of handle animal. The things you may ask of it would not be guaranteed, would not be "Trained" (the whole point of language is to be able to communicate new combinations of ideas that the listener has never heard before much less been trained on), would not be based on dice rolls, etc.

Thus, since you're doing something that simply doesn't fit the description of handle animal skill, handle animal skill is not required, simply because NO skill is EVER required to do things that don't fit the skill's description. You don't use handle animal to pick a lock, you don't use handle animal to identify a spell, you don't use handle animal to talk to a sentient animal to convince it to do things of its own free will. Because none of those three things fit the description under what handle animal is for.

It is still allowed to use it if you DO want to have guaranteed dice roll based simple actions to pull out of your hat, possibly against the animal's will, but not necessary to do that (and possibly unwise since the now-intelligent animal may resent being forced to do things... depending on storyline, personality, relationship, how much language it knows, how long its been intelligent and seen the world and opinions on things like this, etc.)


Crimeo, I am really not sure how you 'what the link actually says' is in any way a contradiction of what I said.

It is saying that you must still use Handle Animal to train your animal and to get him to perform tasks.

Perhaps you should re-read it?

Language does not change this fact, period, at all.

You want your pet to go steal a diamond? That is a handle animal check.
You want your pet to attack? That is a handle animal check.
The DC will vary based on whether or not it is a trained task.


Quote:


Crimeo, I am really not sure how you 'what the link actually says' is in any way a contradiction of what I said.

It is saying that you must still use Handle Animal to train your animal and to get him to perform tasks.

No, you're still changing the text. What it says is to "get him to perform THE APPROPRIATE tasks. I.e., the ones you (optionally) trained him to do. NOT to do "any tasks whatsoever" So it is applying to THOSE tasks, and not a general requirement for just anything ever.

If you have some other way to get a companion to do tasks other than via trained tricks, then it simply doesn't fall under the domain of handle animal skill, and is not included in "the appropriate [trained] tasks", and is thus dealt with entirely separately. And since nothing says you have to only achieve results via tricks, nothing stops you as long as you have some non-trick methods. There are many such methods:

* Dominating the animal magically.
* Physically forcing the result you want. "Move that way 5 feet" can be replaced with a bull rush for example. "Lie down" can be replaced with a trip maneuver. Or whatever other means beside handle animal, if the desired result is something you have another means of doing like this.
* And yes, talking to the animal, suggesting a course of action (that has not been trained), and it deciding to do so as being in its best interests and preferences, as per how language works. Not trained, not a trick, not guaranteed with any specific DC, etc., thus simply not relevant to handle animal one way or the other.

By your logic, the spell dominate animal wouldn't even do anything, because it's impossible to ever direct an animal to do any task at all without using handle animal. (And before you say "Specific > general" keep in mind that this also applies to LANGUAGE, since language speaking animals are a much more specific group than all animals... So go ahead and invoke specific>general, or don't, either way you run into a contradiction doing it your way. You don't run into a contradiction though if you read the text word by word and see that it's only referring to trained tasks, not all of them)

Also by the logic of "ALL tasks can only be performed by animals with handle animal" then all wild animals should starve to death, since they can't do tasks like finding food without somebody handling them. This is clearly not the case. Animals can initiate their own tasks and actions just fine. And if they can understand language, then they can necessarily decide to incorporate the information they gain from it, or not, into their own decisions about their own initiated tasks. Animals must be incorporating information into their decisions all the time normally: a fox must know a hen is in front of him to decide to dash after it and bite. A fox must know it is raining to seek shelter from the rain, etc. Language-gained information is no different. "You know mr. fox, foxes don't make as many friends with bad breath" <-- the intelligent language knowing fox now knows this information, and is quite likely to personally choose the task of gnawing on some roadside mint leaves of his own volition.


Gauss wrote:


The rules are not representative of reality, they were never meant to be. Please keep the discussion to how the rules work and how the Blogs/FAQs/Dev opinions apply to them.

Well this is how the rules work actually.

For example, under int in the rules, does it say int or int*

*this score is meaningless for animals beyond bonus skill points, they always act as if their int is 2


CWheezy wrote:
Vahanian 89 wrote:
Another related topic. What all can someone do to add to its animal companions Int? I thought there was a trait they made your animal companion get an extra Int but now i cant find it.
Eye for talent, human alternate race trait

Very nice choice if you make a Hunter. :D


Personally, if I had a player insisting that his AC with 4 INT didn't need to use tricks anymore, I'd probably just spitefully make it an NPC who takes Handle Animal attempts (which would auto-fail) as an insult.

Mildly OT anecdote spoilered:

I had a GM who interpreted the whole "Paladin horses have INT 6" thing literally and we worked together to create a personality for the horse, who had many misadventures all on his own while the party was in town (those horse thieves did not live to regret it). In combat, the 6 INT just meant Mandrab knew a lot of tricks and knew what to do on the 2 occasions my character was incapacitated. The one time I actually died he knocked over the cleric and sat on her until she agreed to res me (all under the GM's control).

Liberty's Edge

What would be the point of the Blog if animals with INT 3+ did not need tricks/Handle Animal to get them to do what the PC wants ?


The Raven Black wrote:
What would be the point of the Blog if animals with INT 3+ did not need tricks/Handle Animal to get them to do what the PC wants ?

The main point of the blog was suggesting that it should take months or years to learn a language, versus what would otherwise be the case purely by RAW: instantaneous language learning by being allowed to take a rank in linguistics skill.

Most of what it says in the blog derives from this different perspective. E.g. you would need animal handling of course while the animal was still learning language over those months and years, etc.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Crimeo, that is NOT the point of the blog. That was one small aspect of it. Have you even read all the discussion afterwards? The discussion where the Devs made extra clarifications?

The point of the blog was to cover multiple aspects of an animal with an intelligence that is higher than 2. Some of those aspects are:

1) Can an animal have an int of 3? Yes, the rule in the Bestiary regarding animals having a maximum of 2 is 'to start' and does not include buffs later. This was a clarification.

2) Does the animal learn a language? Yes, but this should take time.

3) Can the animal speak a language? No, it does not have the proper physical equipment to speak a language.

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.

In fact, it was discussed in the thread and the end result was, no, having a language does not change the need for Handle Animal. Some people did not like this and are house ruling it, that is their prerogative.

Now, we know you disagree with it, but this is what the Devs wrote. Take it or leave it, house rule it as you like. But this is the Devs FAQ/Blog and it clearly states that you have to continue using Handle Animal with your overly intelligent animals.


#1-3, no disagreement, also not relevant to animals understanding spoken instructions eventually without need for handle animal.

#4, your link does not support the conclusion you are reporting from it. The link merely says that handle animal skill applies to all animals. I don't disagree with that. But that still in no way makes it MANDATORY for the animal to do anything or to communicate with the animal in any way. Like all skills, handle animal is only relevant under the circumstances outlined under the handle animal rules for what it is used for. Taxes, by analogy, are always applicable, but if you don't make any money, you still don't pay them. A driver's license is needed by anyone to drive, but if you aren't driving, you don't need one. Etc. Handle animal is applicable to all animals, but if you aren't doing handle animal things that the skill covers, it still isn't relevant.

Handle animal is used for training tricks, forcing them to perform tricks, rearing animals, and forcing them to do non-trick things with dice rolls.

If you aren't doing one of those things, then the skill, even though it is still applied to any animal regardless of intelligence for those things, is still simply not relevant to that situation. Just like acrobatics, even though it always is applied to any character doing acrobatics stuff, is simply not needed or applicable if you don't want to leap or tumble right at the current moment.

So since talking to an animal and convincing it to make its own decision to do something does not involve training, tricks, forced actions, or rearing, it quite simply doesn't fall under the umbrella of handle animal. Simple as that. If/when you wish to do any of those things, you would still use handle animal, but when you aren't wishing to do those things, you don't. Just like you don't use acrobatics when you don't want to leap, and you don't use fly when not flying, even though they still apply and are valid for your character at all times.

Quote:
In fact, it was discussed in the thread and the end result was, no, having a language does not change the need for Handle Animal.

Agreed as well. Language does not replace the need for handle animal, if you wish to rear something, train tricks, force tricks to be performed, or force other actions by die roll. Whenever you want to do these things, you still need handle animal.

Whenever you want to do something other than those things, you don't need handle animal. Since asking (not forcing) an animal to do something novel doesn't fall under any of those things, it doesn't use handle animal, even though you would still handle animal if you wanted to compel the animal to do X against its will with a die roll.


Crimeo, Handle Animal is the means to get an animal to perform a task.

What changes?
Intelligence and Language, both of which have been established as not replacing the need for Handle Animal to get an animal to perform a task.

This is really quite clear..for whatever reason, the Devs have stated that increased intelligence (and all that comes with it) does not supplant Handle Animal.

Anyhow, it looks like neither is going to convince the other, but I have the Blog to reference whereas, I cannot see how you arrive at your conclusion when the Devs clearly state that you still need to use Handle Animal like always.


Quote:


Crimeo, Handle Animal is the means to get an animal to perform a task.

No, it's only to FORCE animals to perform tasks. Animals can easily already do tasks of their own volition without handle animal.

Are you suggesting that every wild animal on the planet just sits there staring blankly into space, starving to death, whenever a humanoid is not nearby actively giving it commands to eat and relieve itself and sleep? No? Well if not, then you have now agreed that handle animal is NOT necessary for an animal to perform a task.

And when you use language, you're not forcing it to do anything, you're giving it information (just like its own perception checks etc. could do before), and then it is choosing (or not) to act on its own, just like it always was able to based on information it knew.

The only way this would not be possible would be if animals LOSE free will or powers that they had before when they gain INT 3. Are you suggesting they go from being able to gather information and act on it (e.g. perceive rabbit, decide to chase after it), to no longer being able to do so, as a result of becoming more intelligent? If so why do you believe that, and what in the text remotely suggests this change?

Reference flowchart:

Do you wish to guarantee an animal does X with a die roll? Yes, must force action -> handle animal needed, regardless of INT. No, allow it to choose its own action -> handle animal not needed, regardless of INT.


Crimeo, you are firmly outside of the rules with your discussion regarding asking an animal to perform a task. It is purely GM fiat, which is akin to house rules.

Again, to have an animal attack, you need to use Handle Animal. It doesn't matter if it speaks a language or not.

Sure, you can "ask" it to attack, but that is no different than asking any random animal to attack using Speak with Animals. It will accomplish only what the GM wants it to accomplish.

In short, the game is not designed that way.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Quote:
Sure, you can "ask" it to attack

I'm glad we agree now.

Quote:
but that is no different than asking any random animal to attack using Speak with Animals.

If that "random animal" happens to be one who, just like my companion, is super friendly toward me, trusts me, has known me for years, has an empathic bond with me, and is aware that lots of food and treasure typically result from hanging out with me and cooperating with my party, then yes. No different than that.

edit: Wait, actually, still different from that, because being intelligent means it is now even better able to realize the logical connection between "cooperate with these guys ==> treasure and food and companionship" than a less intelligent animal would. But otherwise yes.

Quote:
It will accomplish only what the GM wants it to accomplish.

Agreed. If the GM typically has NPCs who are friendly toward you and who obviously stand to profit from voluntarily going along with your suggestions, and yet routinely decides to make those NPCs refuse to do so for no good reason whatsoever, then I would expect that GM to do exactly the same with an intelligent animal being spoken to as well.

Luckily, I've never met such a GM.


Crimeo, so your point is outside of the rules and thus does not belong in the rules forum. Got it.

Back to the rules: If you want the animal to attack or do anything you need Handle Animal even if the animal has an Int of 3+ and a language. Anything else is GM fiat or house rules.

If you want to discuss how to handle an animal companion with an Int of 3+ and a language without using Handle Animal then I suggest bringing it up in a forum more appropriate for that type of discussion.

Now that I understand you are not discussing the rules while I was always discussing the rules I will thank you for wasting my and everyone else's time with a non-rules debate in the rules forum. :)


Quote:
Crimeo, so your point is outside of the rules and thus does not belong in the rules forum.

Sorry, I don't understand. You JUST already agreed that I can ask an animal to do something in your last post. Are you going back on that now? Have you foudn some new rule in the last 5 minutes? If so, "outside" of what rule? Point me to the rule that disallows animals choosing to take their own actions in response to information they know, on turns when they are not being handled.

When/if you do so, I will agree that I'm outside of this hypothetical rule.

Quote:
If you want the animal to attack or do anything you need Handle Animal even if the animal has an Int of 3+ and a language.

So you ARE claiming then, that animals in the wild without any humanoids around, will stand there blankly staring into space until they starve to death? Yes or no, please.


Crimeo, The game called Pathfinder has rules. Anything not in those rules is GM fiat. This is the rules forum, not the GM fiat forum.

There are no rules that state what an animal eats, when it sleeps, or even that it takes a crap in the woods. So I make no claims to what they can or cannot do, it is GM fiat. Ask your GM or discuss it in the appropriate forum (discussions of aspects of the game not contained within the rules probably belong in the Pathfinder RPG forum or the House Rules forum).

Since I now understand you are arguing a non-rules GM fiat position I will not continue to debate this with you, it is pointless to debate rules with someone who is discussing GM fiat.


Quote:
There are no rules that state what an animal eats, when it sleeps, or even that it takes a crap in the woods.

Incorrect. There are MANY such rules. They are outlined throughout the core rulebook, over hundreds of pages of text that outline which actions CHARACTERS can take (which includes animals), and specific, detailed action economies for CHARACTERS.

Oodles and oodles and oodles of rules about this exist.

So since you obviously have no rules in mind stopping an animal from being able to exercise its own choices about its own action economy using any and all of the relevant CRB rules granting it tons of available actions, on its own time when not being handled, it defaults to being allowed to do ALL THE THINGS that the CRB says characters can do on their own by default.

Including performing any of those CRB allowed character actions in response to knowledge it gained from listening to other people say things, if it knows a language.


You are misunderstanding me, perhaps on purpose.

Lets do this again: there are no rules that states what an animal eats. Not does it eat.

There are no rules stating when an animal sleeps. Only that it does sleep. Does it sleep during the day? At night?

There are no rules stating that ANYONE in the game excretes waste matter let alone animals. If you can find one, please show me.

How, when, etc animals do this is up to the GM. IE, GM fiat. Not in the rules.

Please stop conflating the issue, please stop misquoting me. And please stick to the rules.

Rules: To have an animal perform a task you need handle animal.
Can animals perform actions on their own? Absolutely, but that is GM fiat, not under your control in any way shape or form. What you are saying, that you can ask an animal to do something and it does it, is outside of the rules.

In any case, you continue to argue GM fiat as if it is the rules and misquote me. If you would like to have a rules discussion please cite rules.


Gauss wrote:

Casual Viking, which contradictions?

The one where it says animals do not have an intelligence higher than 2?
Fine, then you cannot increase your animal's intelligence to 3 OR you can take the Devs word for it that if you do find a way to increase it to 3 it does not suddenly become a Magical Beast and it doesn't suddenly gain or lose any other properties it once had.

Which contradictions? Well, the blog post was clearly written by someone who had only looked up the Int restriction in the bestiary definition of Animal, and wasn't aware that the same restriction was also in the rules for the Intelligence ability score and the Handle Animal skill. Those are the contradictions I'm talking about.

Gauss wrote:


How about this section that actually reinforces that animals with a 2+ intelligence score can learn tricks:
CRB p98 wrote:
If the package includes more than three tricks, the animal must have an Intelligence score of 2 or higher.

And yet, in the same skill description, we have different rules (by omission) for higher-int animals: They can't learn separate tricks ("An animal with an Intelligence score of 1 can learn a maximum of three tricks, while an animal with an Intelligence score of 2 can

learn a maximum of six tricks" - not 2 or higher, but 2), but apparently can be taught purposes.

Gauss wrote:


Your feeling that it is stupid is not relevant. This is the rules forum where we discuss the rules, FAQs, and Blogs about the rules. Feelings are not relevant to that discussion.

When we have conflicting rules, it's relevant to point out that certain rules were clearly written from a poorly researched standpoint and create bad complications and contradictions. In short, stupid.

Quote:


BTW, your statement regarding Ultimate Campaign is not contradictory. The section on Sentient Companions does not remove the 2 Int maximum of animals. So the Devs still had to make an exception.
Either you toss the entire Blog as contradictory, or you must accept it as written which also includes that Int 3 animals are still treated as animals for the purpose of Handle Animal. There is nothing in Ultimate Campaign that overrides that.

In any case, specific trumps general, and the Animal Companion rules implicitly allow Int increases. So we would need rules for that - which we already have (Int 3+ creatures can learn languages and are not limited to instinctive and/or trained behaviour), and which are spelled out again in the Sentient Companions paragraph.

Ultimately, I think the point is moot. The devs have declared that tricks are needed. Instead of stating it as a rule based on preferences, they tried (and utterly failed) to make it an "interpretation" of existing rules. Because the rules, pre-blog post, are completely unambiguous, just somewhat scattered and emergent rather than explicit. The Sentient Companions paragraph supports the pre-blog rules. But it's clear that the shitty blog post is the intended official rules of the game, and it's time for me to accept that.


Crimeo wrote:


For the many-th time, no, not "to perform tasks" -- you are deleting inconvenient words that change your conclusion. It says "the appropriate tasks" (in the blog) I.e. tasks appropriate to trained tricks. When you leave that phrase out, as you keep doing, it completely changes the meaning to something that isn't what was written.

All other tasks besides ones appropriate to training and tricks are irrelevant to handle animal and were not commented on in the blog as related to handle animal. Thus, anything an animal can do outside of trained tricks, it can still do without handle animal. Which includes all of the many actions granted to characters in the CRB during any round of the game where somebody is not handling the animal, done of the animal's own decision using information it has, while not being handled.

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.


Crimeo, you are, either intentionally or through an amazing amount of ignorance, misunderstanding the Blog. I don't know which it is, but I will continue to point people to it and state what it means. Most people draw the correct conclusion from it. In fact, you seem to be firmly in the minority regarding the conclusions you draw from it.

Of course, whether people like those conclusions or whether they house rule them is another matter. But that is not relevant to this discussion.

Ultimately, if you want to get your animal companion to do something, use Handle Animal. It does not matter if it has an Int of 3 or a language, handle animal is still required. Anything else puts it in GM fiat territory. It does not matter if you are asking something in, or out of, handle animal territory. By making it a request the GM can do or say whatever he likes in response. You probably won't like the result. (You ask your int 3 pet to do something for you without using Handle Animal and I would treat it the same as asking a 3 year old. Good luck getting something accomplished there!)


What if it's a bear who understands English disguised as a human that I ask to pass the salt? Do I have to use Handle Animal on what I think is a human to get him to take part in social contracts?

1 to 50 of 113 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder First Edition / Rules Questions / Animal companion int 3 All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.