Monkey See, Monkey Do? An FAQ on Intelligent Animals

Marc Radle wrote:

Now, what James says makes sense to me:
"Heavy War Horse: This simple template ... increase its natural armor bonus by +2. Increase all ability scores except Intelligence by +4. When you apply the Advanced Creature template to a heavy war horse, you shouldn't adjust their Intelligence scores."
However, this seems to contradict what Jason is saying above:
"There are many ways an animal can gain intelligence. It can gain hit dice and apply its ability score boost to Int. It can gain the advanced simple template."

So, my question is: does the simple template increase an animals INT score or not?

The advanced simple template does increase an animal's Intelligence. What James said doesn't contradict that.

What he's saying is that a heavy horse shouldn't have a higher Int score than a normal horse simply because its 'heavy'. The rules used "Horse + Template = Heavy Horse" for simplicity's sake, and that ended up having unintended consequences.

So James is suggesting we use a separate template to create heavy horses. One that doesn't increase Intelligence.

That doesn't mean you can't use the advanced template on a horse to make 'a really badass horse', in which case it would have a higher Int score. Ditto for any other animal you advance that way.

Is that what James was saying? I'm not sure - it did not seem like it.

Krome wrote:

Does that mean an average adult human can learn 30 tricks?

Humans are humanoids, not animals, remember? That means rules for animals don't automatically also apply to humans.

So, interesting bit of reversal. A human ranger can take Favored Enemy (Animals). Would it be fair for an awakened Wolf Ranger to take Favored Enemy (Humanoids) but have to take Favored Enemy (Felines) and Favored Enemy (Equines)? ;)

Please notice how James worded it, he added a new simple template and not an advanced simple template, thereby allowing it to not boost Int without contradicting any templates already in place in the game.

As for what a 3 Int is or isn't, is a 3 supposed to be equivalent to maybe a 2 year old human or a heavily mentally-handicapped person? Sure, they are sentient but not fully aware, and honestly, of those posting here who have a small child or a baby brother or sister, would you turn them loose in the way people are suggesting an animal with a 3 Int should be in this thread? They still have to be taught, they still have to be monitored and taken care of, they have to learn what is right and what is wrong. Sure, a wild animal has more self-reliance and instincts built-in than a human, but they should not just be automatically be able to do anything they want upon achieving 3 Int.

Benchak the Nightstalker wrote:

Marc Radle wrote:

Now, what James says makes sense to me:
"Heavy War Horse: This simple template ... increase its natural armor bonus by +2. Increase all ability scores except Intelligence by +4. When you apply the Advanced Creature template to a heavy war horse, you shouldn't adjust their Intelligence scores."
However, this seems to contradict what Jason is saying above:
"There are many ways an animal can gain intelligence. It can gain hit dice and apply its ability score boost to Int. It can gain the advanced simple template."

So, my question is: does the simple template increase an animals INT score or not?

The advanced simple template does increase an animal's Intelligence. What James said doesn't contradict that.

What he's saying is that a heavy horse shouldn't have a higher Int score than a normal horse simply because its 'heavy'. The rules used "Horse + Template = Heavy Horse" for simplicity's sake, and that ended up having unintended consequences.

So James is suggesting we use a separate template to create heavy horses. One that doesn't increase Intelligence.

That doesn't mean you can't use the advanced template on a horse to make 'a really badass horse', in which case it would have a higher Int score. Ditto for any other animal you advance that way.

Is that what James was saying? I'm not sure - it did not seem like it.

That's exactly what James was saying, actually.

One thing I hated in the 3.5 Monster Manual was the fact that it had so many identical stat blocks for horse variants. It was a waste of space, I thought. But we went a bit too far at simplifying things.

Actually, horses more than ANY other creature should be stats available to PCs. We probably should have just put some horse stat blocks in the equipment chapter of the Core Rulebook.

An even better solution, though, would have been to just nix the idea of a heavy horse entirely. Just do stats for a horse and be done with it.

James Jacobs wrote:

Krome wrote:

Does that mean an average adult human can learn 30 tricks?

Humans are humanoids, not animals, remember? That means rules for animals don't automatically also apply to humans.

So, interesting bit of reversal. A human ranger can take Favored Enemy (Animals). Would it be fair for an awakened Wolf Ranger to take Favored Enemy (Humanoids) but have to take Favored Enemy (Felines) and Favored Enemy (Equines)? ;)

No need for that at all, unless you're playing in a game world where animals are the most commonly encountered enemies, to an extent that allowing a ranger to take Favored Enemy (animal) is akin to just giving him a flat bonus to all attacks and damage.

That's exactly what James was saying, actually.

One thing I hated in the 3.5 Monster Manual was the fact that it had so many identical stat blocks for horse variants. It was a waste of space, I thought. But we went a bit too far at simplifying things.

Actually, horses more than ANY other creature should be stats available to PCs. We probably should have just put some horse stat blocks in the equipment chapter of the Core Rulebook.

An even better solution, though, would have been to just nix the idea of a heavy horse entirely. Just do stats for a horse and be done with it.

I actually think the middle ground would be better, as you originally suggested. A standard horse stat blocked, and then 4-5 very simple templates for each variant (Pony, light horse, horse, heavy horse, light war horse, heavy war horse).

Honestly, I think you could make some money with a book of mounts (about as thick as the Adventurer's Armory), horse and camel, templates for both, riding lizards, boar mounts for small creatures, riding gear, etc. Especially as there are so many mount/companion oriented classes.

mdt wrote:

James Jacobs wrote:

Krome wrote:

Does that mean an average adult human can learn 30 tricks?

Humans are humanoids, not animals, remember? That means rules for animals don't automatically also apply to humans.

So, interesting bit of reversal. A human ranger can take Favored Enemy (Animals). Would it be fair for an awakened Wolf Ranger to take Favored Enemy (Humanoids) but have to take Favored Enemy (Felines) and Favored Enemy (Equines)? ;)

No need for that at all, unless you're playing in a game world where animals are the most commonly encountered enemies, to an extent that allowing a ranger to take Favored Enemy (animal) is akin to just giving him a flat bonus to all attacks and damage.

I was thinking more of an NPC awakened wolf ranger. If he's primarily living in the wilderness, then Humanoids might be a rather lumpy group, but specific animal types would be what he'd run into normally. :)

Honestly, I think you could make some money with a book of mounts (about as thick as the Adventurer's Armory), horse and camel, templates for both, riding lizards, boar mounts for small creatures, riding gear, etc. Especially as there are so many mount/companion oriented classes.

Heck, yeah!

A book of just mounts, familiars and companions, as well as more standard pets, including some Alternate Class features or a Feat that allows a Barbarian, Monk, etc. to take advantage of one of these features, would be awesome.

Right now, Druids, Cavaliers, Paladins, Rangers, Sorcerers, Summoners, Witches and Wizards (and Animal Domain Clerics) all have some sort of mount/companion/familiar.

That's almost half the classes available that can benefit from sucha book, even before adding in a Homonculous-crafting feat for the Alchemist, or a Hunter's Bond alternate class feature replacing the Domain for an Inquisitor, or Nature's Ally type Feat for a Barbarian or Spirit Companion for a Monk or whatever (go all Mulan, and have a little talking magical dragon accompany your martial artist!).

Such a book could include new critter types for any or all of the above, perhaps a new Eidolon base form (small avian, since Druids can already start at 1st level with a flying pet), and some new Tricks and applications for Handle Animal for the occasional Rogue or Fighter who has no use for the fancy class features, but might still have a monkey trained to climb up a wall quietly and fasten the grappling hook, or a war dog that harries anyone attacking him (using a 'trick' to only attack to Aid Other, and attempt to flank and nip at the heels, and not to do damage).

Clerics could even have a sacred animal section, spending a Feat to have a sacred animal that functions as a familiar at class level -3 (for small sacred animals), or an animal companion at 1/2 class level (for larger sacred animals). A blast from the past, the old days of 1st and 2nd edition, when every diety write-up had favored colors and holy animals! Calistrian wasp familiars! Erastilian stag companions! Pharasman whipporwill familiars! Lamashtan hyena companions!

An 'index of useful rules' on the back cover could detail where to find important rules for companion creature-focused characters, such as the various optional Companions in Bestiary 2, the new familiar options in the Witch write up in the APG, or the Boon Companion feat (Seeker of Secrets, p 16), rather than bother reprinting them all (except, maybe, any that could use clarification or updating. The Boon Companions feat, for instance, could also apply to the Mount class feature for a multi-class Cavalier or Paladin, or the Eidolon class feature, for a multi-class Summoner, and the Witches Fox familiar could get an actual write-up, other than 'Dog, with the Young template').

Actually, horses more than ANY other creature should be stats available to PCs. We probably should have just put some horse stat blocks in the equipment chapter of the Core Rulebook.

An even better solution, though, would have been to just nix the idea of a heavy horse entirely. Just do stats for a horse and...

I like the idea of various stated horses. An idea would be to have the community or someone stat out the various horses, have Paizo review them then make the stat blocks available as a free download similar to the Bonus Beastary materials. And/Or just add them to the PRD.

-Swiftbrook
Just My Thoughts

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

Honestly, I think you could make some money with a book of mounts (about as thick as the Adventurer's Armory), horse and camel, templates for both, riding lizards, boar mounts for small creatures, riding gear, etc. Especially as there are so many mount/companion oriented classes.

I would definitely buy a copy of such a book. Having stat blocks for common "allied" animals (especially equines, and don't forget the mules please) would be mechanically handy.

Quite aside from that, having a familiar/animal companion/mount/generic pet can add a lot of fun role playing possibilities. It seems like a good fit for a 64-page book in either the Campaign Setting series or the Player Companion series.

In case anybody is remotely curious: allowing a Human Druid who uses the Eye For Talent Racial Trait to raise his companion's intelligence to 4 (or 3), and allowing said animal companion to put a skill rank into Linguistics to learn Druidic, and allowing that combination of things to completely bypass the trick system aspect of Handle Animal does not unbalance a game in any way. Please consider me to have playtested this extensively, and, if you are interested in a neat house rule, implement away!

I don't entirely understand the concept that a Druid's "loyal companion" that "accompanies the druid on her adventures" and for whom a 24-hour long ceremony must be performed (if the previous one should perish) is simply able to look at the Druid as if to say, "Nope, sorry, I don't feel like guarding the campsite tonight", and lay down and go to sleep, assuming they understand the request. I just don't see how that makes the game better or more fun. I also don't see how enabling it to successfully comply with the request 100% of the time that it understands what is being asked of it is unbalancing at all, or how it would make the game worse or less fun.

I see the animal companion as nature's reward to the druid (or ranger, whatever) for his servitude. A companion who wishes to live near the character, but will die serving the character if needed. No part of that view stacks up to "I don't feel like attacking the trollhound tonight, boss" as far as I can tell. Especially if you can talk to it in Common and it understands you. If it can't understand you, and you have to use a complex system of gestures, tone, whistles, Beefsnacksticks or whatever else, that I can understand. Sometimes it just might not understand you. But if it does, it does.

Lone Ranger: "Tonto, I want you to go to town."
Tonto: "No way, kimmosabe, How I Met Your Mother is on. Neil Patrick Harris is hilarious!!"

None of this is to take away from what Jason's saying - but that's not how I'll choose to play or run my games, and I wanted to let others know that I've tried the alternative, and it works just swell.

An even better solution, though, would have been to just nix the idea of a heavy horse entirely. Just do stats for a horse and...

So, a horse is a horse? Of course!

So it has been clarified that intelligence makes no difference in bypassing the trick system. Does the animal understanding Common do so, however?

Without the language, the only communication an animal understands are the tricks it was taught, so the above ruling makes sense, but does an animal knowing a language (or communicating with said animal via handle animal) allow one to bypass the Handle Animal skill check to get it to do something (perhaps being replaced with Diplomacy)?

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

Well, I won't be wasting time teaching Mr Bigsley to wave a sword about; he's far too busy practicing with his lockpicks and wands!

"Come on, now, Truffles; eat your vitamins, They'll make you big and strong."

<ping>
<+1 Int>

"I is ugglee!"

"I hate you Dada. I go to my room."

"I no play pushy game with squishy two-legs no more."

"Damn. Now how am I going to sacrifice these infidels?""

So it has been clarified that intelligence makes no difference in bypassing the trick system. Does the animal understanding Common do so, however?

Since gaining a language slot as a consequence of raising Intelligence was explicitly dealt with in the blog post itself and no such bypassing was mentioning, I'd say it pretty clearly does not, even if you don't like that fact.

BUT it's very easy to see how understanding an actual language gives greater flexibility in applying tricks already known... You can direct an animal to go back to an area out of sight and RETRIEVE the RED (or yellow, or blue) object, or CARRY the MOST WOUNDED person back to you, etc. (requiring problem solving on their part, outside of your direct command) This goes along with increasing INT, you still need to basically be using the Handle Animal system, but a more intelligent animal will be able to improvise better to accomplish the given task, and will more competently be able to deal with variations of those tasks.

Unless Paizo gives a more specific detailing of each INT score's capabilities, which I'm 99% sure they will not do (and I'm fine with that), there isn't solid mechanical guidelines for these different levels, but any GM can make reasonable calls about these things. Basically as a player, you expect to continue using the Trick system, but more or and more leeway can be expected with more intelligent animals whom you can communicate via a language.

Even when forced to admit our guidance is wrong, and shown how it came about (through careless cut and paste, careless confusion of similar legal terms) and shown the evidence that the correct way works better, they still drag their feet over any change to the guidance, preferring to 'clarify' the procedures (aka 'issue an FAQ') with a nod and a wink, and a secret handshake that leaves everyone more confused, especially new staff, who have to learn, then immediately unlearn everything in their induction.

Yeah.

Like you, I don't like the way the game is going like this, with some amount of Errata, more FAQs, some FAQs which are really stealth Errata, etc. I want a game where it can be played without FAQs, yet especially with the stealth Errata, they become necessary. I feel that I can't honestly recommend PRPG to people who are completely new to RPGing because the rules are such a mess... I mean, inherently it's rather complicated, but then to add onto that, I have to further explain 'this case works like this because the rules expect you to stringently apply this meaning of this word like this, but in this case you should ignore what the rules are suggesting since that's just an editing artifact, and in this case also you should do X instead of Y, there's a blog post explaining it'. It seems like if Paizo wants to grow or maintain the market for this game, they can't just let these pointless obscurantisms fester and persist because they actually impede game play, ESPECIALLY for new players.

Yeah.

I don't really see much willingness from Paizo to transparently discuss this problem, probably because alot of them are embarrassed at the situation themself and don't want to publicly acknowledge shortcomings.

So, before you go an make sweeping statements like this one, on a subject in which you are clearly just drawing on conjecture (and being a bit insulting in the exchange), let me just clear this up.

This system for handling animals is not ideal. It does not quite work the right way and some left over language from old editions is clearly to blame, along with my lack of catching it during the development process.

However..

I make it a rule not to change the game in the FAQ if I can help it. A GM should be able to go to the book, and its update, for all of the rules he needs. Anything outside that is in his purview. The FAQ is here for guidance in deciding that purview. I don't want to end up with a system, by which a GM (or PFS judge) has to be intimately familiar with every messageboard post and every FAQ blog post to run a game. We have to give leeway in this regard, so that is what we do.

It should be noted.. that I have flagged this particular issue for clarification in the next printing of the Core Rulebook, but that may take a bit to implement. Until then, this is the best we can do. Offer guidance and let GMs decide.

Jason Bulmahn
Lead Designer
Paizo Publishing

... You can direct an animal to go back to an area out of sight and RETRIEVE the RED (or yellow, or blue) object.....

And that is when you find out your wonderful animal companion is color blind! :)

Heavy War Horse: This simple template can be applied to a horse or a pony to make that horse or pony into a heavy war horse or heavy pony. Increase its natural armor bonus by +2. Increase all ability scores except Intelligence by +4.

Awesome James! now if you can also provide a post confirming that all horse animal companions, upon gaining the 4th level advancement stats, also get this template as a bonus... that would be great! :)

Right now, we have the following, which I think is not as awesomer as it should be:
===================
4th level advanced horse companion: STR 18, CON 17

Heavy Horse (combat trained) you buy from the Core book for 300gp: STR 20, CON 21
======================

Basically, the 4th level advancement note in the core rules point to "combat trained, bestiary". Essentially can we have "combat trained, as per PRPG; and Heavy War Horse template", as you described above?

In case anybody is remotely curious: allowing a Human Druid who uses the Eye For Talent Racial Trait to raise his companion's intelligence to 4 (or 3), and allowing said animal companion to put a skill rank into Linguistics to learn Druidic, and allowing that combination of things to completely bypass the trick system aspect of Handle Animal does not unbalance a game in any way. Please consider me to have playtested this extensively, and, if you are interested in a neat house rule, implement away!

I don't entirely understand the concept that a Druid's "loyal companion" that "accompanies the druid on her adventures" and for whom a 24-hour long ceremony must be performed (if the previous one should perish) is simply able to look at the Druid as if to say, "Nope, sorry, I don't feel like guarding the campsite tonight", and lay down and go to sleep, assuming they understand the request. I just don't see how that makes the game better or more fun. I also don't see how enabling it to successfully comply with the request 100% of the time that it understands what is being asked of it is unbalancing at all, or how it would make the game worse or less fun.

I see the animal companion as nature's reward to the druid (or ranger, whatever) for his servitude. A companion who wishes to live near the character, but will die serving the character if needed. No part of that view stacks up to "I don't feel like attacking the trollhound tonight, boss" as far as I can tell. Especially if you can talk to it in Common and it understands you. If it can't understand you, and you have to use a complex system of gestures, tone, whistles, Beefsnacksticks or whatever else, that I can understand. Sometimes it just might not understand you. But if it does, it does.

Lone Ranger: "Tonto, I want you to go to town."
Tonto: "No way, kimmosabe, How I Met Your Mother is on. Neil Patrick Harris is hilarious!!"

None of this is to take away from what Jason's saying - but that's not how I'll choose to play or run my...

I'm with you 100%. If I have an animal companion, wh0's an extension of my class ability (I.E. It's counted as one of my powers) and I can communicate clearly with it, having a GM tell me I can't control it is not only NOT fun, but potentially makes a class ability LESS useful. Especially when I can summon nature's ally and as long as we can communicate I can direct it. Why nerf the druid?

Regardless, there's now "animal" intelligence AND "sentient" intelligence. In the odd case where an animal rises to an 8 or 10 int, how are we supposed to treat that?

Clearly, I'll house rule it all away (it's what I do when I run, and I appreciate Paizo's stance in encouraging people to adjudicate their own games) but I'm not going to treat an animal with a high int score any different then anything else with a high int score.

(I'm not a big fan of smart animals. Nothing ruins a mediocre movie more than a talking animal.)

Except I think the Cheshire Cat, voiced by Stephen Fry, surely has to improve anything!

Marc Radle wrote:

This comment suprised me:

Note that while the monster guidelines talk about a maximum Int for an animal, this only applies to the creation process. Animals can grow to have an Int higher than 2 through a variety of means, but they should not, as a general rule, be created that way.

Compare that to the Animal Type:

Intelligence score of 1 or 2 (no creature with an Intelligence score of 3 or higher can be an animal)

These two statements would seem to contradict one another.

With the very specific example of animal companions and other similar animals gained as a class feature, the rules would seem to be pretty clear in saying NO animal can have an Intelligence score of 3 or higher.

They do and this is an intentional change we are making. The rules leave no room for an animal to gain intelligence without somehow transforming into a magical beast, which comes with a whole host of changes. There has to be room here for corner cases and exceptions, which this absolute rule does not allow.

Jason Bulmahn
Lead Designer
Paizo Publishing

I think this is the crux of the problem. I don't think this needs to change. You have "animals" and you have "magical beasts". One of the differences between magical beats and animals is intelligence. In fact this can at times be the only difference.

A creature with the Animal type can never have an intelligence above 2 via any means. If an animal does gain an intelligence of 3+ it immediately becomes a magical beast and is no longer an animal. This may even mean it can no longer be an animal companion. I think that's ok and in fact pretty cool. You want to awaken your lion animal companion? Fine, but it won't be your pet any longer and may go it's own way.

There has to be room here for corner cases and exceptions, which this absolute rule does not allow.

Simple question: Why? This change seems to create corner cases not eliminate them.

A creature with the Animal type can never have an intelligence above 2 via any means. If an animal does gain an intelligence of 3+ it immediately becomes a magical beast and is no longer an animal. This may even mean it can no longer be an animal companion.

I prefer rules to add options, not restrict them.

I *don't* want every intelligent talking diminutive bat to automatically have +2 HD, full BAB, darkvision, and d10s for HD, that come with the side-effects of the awaken spell and magical beast type. That might be fun, if I'm in a particularly puckish mood, to throw a 2 oz. animal with 3d10 hp, BAB +3 and no attack at all at someone, but, for the most part, it sounds silly, and I'd prefer, as a GM, the ability to weed out the stuff I want, and *just* have an intelligent talking animal, when I want one, and not be shoehorned into changing the animals' type or giving it some extra HD.

As for druids not being able to use awakened animals at their companions, that's *still* going to be in effect, since it's right there in the druid class description, requiring them to select the animal companions listed, and not templated, modified, augmented or exceptional specimens thereof.

(Although, in the vein of feats that allow them to take vermin or magical beast companions, in 3.X, I'd have no problem with allowing a druid to spend a feat on being able to bond with an awakened companion or a companion with a certain template, like Eberron's magebred template or, for a Druid of Erastil or Lamashtu, the celestial or fiendish templates.)

I don't want to end up with a system, by which a GM (or PFS judge) has to be intimately familiar with every messageboard post and every FAQ blog post to run a game.

I have not gotten the impression that this is succeeding terribly well.

Sigh...

I'm glad that this is being addressed in some way, though I don't particularly like the guidelines.

Overall my impressing concerning guidelines is:

In general when it regards animals, the GM should consider saying "No" more often than saying "Yes" to a player.

Rather than making animals this dynamic and interesting element to the game, it's more about making them a hassle.

I'd much rather a FAQ being hard coded extension of RAW. Why can't it just be like the 3.5 FAQ pdf? Just make it an ever expanding single document that gives both RAW rule clarifications and also RAI explanations. It'll get bigger and bigger, but it will have this one file that one can go to, get an answer and then move on. Plus it will be searchable.

A lot of the corner cases are actually common, because the rules are unfortunately too vague. Why not just fix it and lock it down, rather than have interpretive arguments crop up for the next decade?

Wait -- can someone explain to me why it's such a huge problem for an Advanced animal to have Int 6? Is it because:

I reject point #1 as nonsensical, if Pathfinder is supposedly a new game edition. Points 2 and 3 do not seem particularly game-breaking. Point 4 is open to debate. What am I missing?

You didn't number your bullet points, so I am paralyzed with an inability to divine your intent.

:)

You didn't number your bullet points, so I am paralyzed with an inability to divine your intent.

Let's see... with what we've learned in this thread so far, "sentient" (undefined) = Int 3 or higher; "ability to count" = Int 5 or higher; you must be a 4, and hence a Magical Beast with d10 HD? ;P

Awesome James! now if you can also provide a post confirming that all horse animal companions, upon gaining the 4th level advancement stats, also get this template as a bonus... that would be great! :)

Right now, we have the following, which I think is not as awesomer as it should be:
===================
4th level advanced horse companion: STR 18, CON 17

Heavy Horse (combat trained) you buy from the Core book for 300gp: STR 20, CON 21
======================

Basically, the 4th level advancement note in the core rules point to "combat trained, bestiary". Essentially can we have "combat trained, as per PRPG; and Heavy War Horse template", as you described above?

The rules for horse animal companions are different than those for horse monsters. Horse animal companions, like what a druid or other PC might get, use animal companion rules, not monster rules, and thus they don't gain templates at all.

"Combat trained" means only that the animal is combat trained, which means two things: 1) That it's got Combat Training (see page 98 of the Core Rules, under the Handle Animal skill). 2) That, if it's a horse, its attacks are now considered to be primary attacks (see Bestiary, page 177, under the horse's "Docile" special ability). Combat training has nothing to do with granting an animal templates at all.

Set wrote:

You didn't number your bullet points, so I am paralyzed with an inability to divine your intent.

Let's see... with what we've learned in this thread so far, "sentient" (undefined) = Int 3 or higher; "ability to count" = Int 5 or higher; you must be a 4, and hence a Magical Beast with d10 HD? ;P

Yeah, the darkvision comes in handy when I'm driving at night. :)

By the way, and in order to add more fuel to the fire...

My preference = Animals never have more than a 2 Intelligence.

If an animal has Int 1 to 2, build it as an animal.
If an animal has an Int of 3 or higher, build it as a magical beast.
If an animal has no Int score at all, build it as a vermin.

Animals are animals. When they start doing things like talking or using crossbows or pole arms, they're fantasy, and they should be treated as fantasy creatures. And druids should have very little interest in weird "he thinks he's people" since that's not natural at all.

That's me, though... so unless I'm your GM you don't have to worry about it. And if you're MY GM and you've got animals who thinks they're people and they're not magical beasts and they haven't been granted their people powers by magic like awaken or from being reincarnated, gorilla-king style, from something that CAN do this stuff... I'll probably bail on the campaign. Or make a ranger with favored enemy (talking animal). :-P

Druids hate Giant Eagles and Gryphons and Unicorns and Pegasi. Great.

Combat training has nothing to do with granting an animal templates at all.

Awww man... I was hoping a druid or cavalier animal companion horse would be tougher than the typical 300gp stock you can buy at your Friendly Local Gaming Stable. It might be a while before a STR 18 4th level advanced horse catches up with a STR 20 purchased warhorse... Hmm... a mounted combat build is then perhaps better achieved via fighter and figurine of wondrous power (which use heavy warhorse bestiary stats in many case) instead of cavalier and a mount...

Finally, how strict are the rules on cavalier mounts? if druids can have flying mounts (several of which as listed in Bestiary I and II), which is the cavalier restricted to horses? (he's the one who's most likely to make a mounted combat build, due to some of his class abilities...)

Addendum to last: instead of "fighter with mounted combat feats with a mount," at higher level it seems better to switch to "fighter with mounted combat feats with a carpet of flying and the Mounted Blade feat"

Mounted Blade [General]
You have learned to use the momentum of your mount to
carry your weapon through one foe and into another.
Prerequisite: Ride 3 ranks, Mounted Combat, Ride-By
Attack, base attack bonus +1, Qadira affinity
Benefit: When you use the Ride-By Attack feat, if your attack
hits, you may also make an attack against a target adjacent to
your original target. This additional attack has a –5 penalty to
the attack roll. You may use this feat whether riding a mount or
using a flying item such as a broom of flying or carpet of flying.

The above feat is in the Qadira companion, bold emphasis mine... it seems better to do away with the bloody horse/animals and skip to broom or carpet as soon as you can afford it... the mechanics to target worn magic items (sunder I think so necessitates CMB check) are harder to achieve than targeting a bloody horse...

By the way, and in order to add more fuel to the fire...

My preference = Animals never have more than a 2 Intelligence.

If an animal has Int 1 to 2, build it as an animal.
If an animal has an Int of 3 or higher, build it as a magical beast.
If an animal has no Int score at all, build it as a vermin.

ABSOLUTELY my way of thinking as well!

Druids hate Giant Eagles and Gryphons and Unicorns and Pegasi. Great.

Nobody said "hate", m'friend. James said that, in his campaign, druids are interested in the natural world, the dominion over which they act as guardians. Gryphons, along with nymphs and gnomes, aren't natural in the same way that eagles and badgers are. Druids don't hate gnomes, but they figure that gnomes can take care of themselves.

"Combat trained" means only that the animal is combat trained, which means two things: 1) That it's got Combat Training (see page 98 of the Core Rules, under the Handle Animal skill). 2) That, if it's a horse, its attacks are now considered to be primary attacks (see Bestiary, page 177, under the horse's "Docile" special ability). Combat training has nothing to do with granting an animal templates at all.

So if a druids animal companion has a number of tricks , and then becomes combat trained, do the combat training tricks replace or add to the tricks already known?

Cartigan wrote:

Druids hate Giant Eagles and Gryphons and Unicorns and Pegasi. Great.

Nobody said "hate", m'friend. James said that, in his campaign, druids are interested in the natural world, the dominion over which they act as guardians. Gryphons, along with nymphs and gnomes, aren't natural in the same way that eagles and badgers are. Druids don't hate gnomes, but they figure that gnomes can take care of themselves.

That's crazy talk. The first world is arguably the source of all that's WILD. Druids are the caretakers of the WILD.

Natural world? There's nothing natural about golarion.

I understand the viewpoint I just think it's hogwash, and poorly thought out.

Edit - just the viewpoint, not the people. You all rock of course, and I wanted to make sure I noted that after stating something negative.

Luvz U!

Quote:

"Combat trained" means only that the animal is combat trained, which means two things: 1) That it's got Combat Training (see page 98 of the Core Rules, under the Handle Animal skill). 2) That, if it's a horse, its attacks are now considered to be primary attacks (see Bestiary, page 177, under the horse's "Docile" special ability). Combat training has nothing to do with granting an animal templates at all.

So if a druids animal companion has a number of tricks , and then becomes combat trained, do the combat training tricks replace or add to the tricks already known?

Combat Training is a General Purpose suite of six tricks. The General Purpose counts against the AC's alloted tricks. It's reasonable that if the animal has the six tricks, that it's immaterial if this was trained one at a time, as a general purpose, or as the result of a class benefit, such as from cavalier. (IMHO, of course)

Druids hate Giant Eagles and Gryphons and Unicorns and Pegasi. Great.

Yup. That's exactly what I said.

(rolls eyes, tries to resist getting in a pointless argument just because Cartigan likes to argue...)

Jason Bulmahn wrote:

I don't want to end up with a system, by which a GM (or PFS judge) has to be intimately familiar with every messageboard post and every FAQ blog post to run a game.

I have not gotten the impression that this is succeeding terribly well.

With all due respect (this is a derailment) I think it's fair to say that the community is at fault for that. Rather then just making a call that works for the home game, we're forcing them to make dozens of calls for us. It's a side effect of how interconnected everything has become, as we're able to (as was never before possible) interact with the producers of the game.

I don't like the blog about animals at all, and while I'l disagree about it here, I never let it bug me too much because I know at the end of the day in MY game, at HOME, I'm able to house rule things. People are just OBSESSED about the RAW, people can't always go about letting the rules get in the way of the fun.

With all due respect (this is a derailment) I think it's fair to say that the community is at fault for that. Rather then just making a call that works for the home game, we're forcing them to make dozens of calls for us.

Surely it is the community's fault to expect a company in production and maintenance of a role-playing game that itself has a living world that must adhere to the rules to clarify confusing rules and address gaps in the rules that produce issues.

Need I identify the snark in that statement?

I cannot tell you how much I would like to bang my head on my desk until the pain goes away when I hear Paizo suggesting that DMs should adjudicate rules issues. What about Pathfinder Society?

I cannot tell you how much I would like to bang my head on my desk until the pain goes away when I hear Paizo suggesting that DMs should adjudicate rules issues. What about Pathfinder Society?

We do expect GMs to adjudicate rules issues for their home games. When it comes to PFS, Mark and I are the GMs and we adjudicate when needed.

Jason isn't the GM of PFS though, and what works for the game as a whole might not be allowed in PFS (Crafting Feats I'm looking at you). That doesn't mean Crafting feats should be removed from the game. Pathfinder is bigger than PFS and I'm ok with that.

I cannot tell you how much I would like to bang my head on my desk until the pain goes away when I hear Paizo suggesting that DMs should adjudicate rules issues. What about Pathfinder Society?

In certain cases, I will agree with you that clarifications from Paizo are nice. However, when I ask a question on a board and a suitable non-Paizo reply is made, I take it (I like to pretend that silence from Paizo means they're onboard with it! :) then I go eat a dill pickle).

As for your comment about the Society, I sincerely recommend that you go ask them (they have a section on these boards). Basically: if I get a ruling from the Path Society leaders about some thing, it's as good as a Paizo response to me.

That's crazy talk. The first world is arguably the source of all that's WILD. Druids are the caretakers of the WILD.

Natural world? There's nothing natural about golarion.

In Golarion (and D&D game worlds in general, all the way back to 1st edition), life-energy has been synonymous with positive energy, which comes from another dimension, and is, therefore, not inherently native to the 'prime material plane.' (Further demonstrated by the souls of said living entities travelling to other dimensions upon death, and it being even considered *unnatural* for them to not do so, and to linger in the dimension of their birth, to which, you'd think, they'd be native!) *Nothing* is 'natural,' in the sense of existing independent of extra-dimensional forces. Living creatures of any sort, from bunny rabbits to gibbering mouthers, are equally 'natural,' and undead, animated by a *different* kind of extradimensional energy, are no more or less 'natural' than trees or spiders or caribou.

A specific restriction on druids to only be able to bond with animals might be fine, mechanically and thematically, but the word 'natural' has no meaning, since if it was 'unnatural,' it wouldn't exist in the setting without somehow warping the laws of reality / physics / magic around it (like, perhaps, some Mythos-y critters like Hounds of Tindalos...).

Griffons don't warp the world around them. They're every bit as 'natural' to Golarion as platypi are to Earth.

.

Anywho, if a spell can make rocks talk to you, or grass wrap around your feet, or an arrows catch on fire, without the game falling into chaos because rocks are mindless / insensate and grass can't move under it's own volition and arrows explicitly cannot have the flaming property without being both masterwork and +1, then I think a spell can make an animal smarter than Int 2 without having to also make it no longer of the Animal Type, without causing the entropy death of the universe.

Magic is all about making the not-normal possible.

Personally, 2 is a little low. Dogs are smarter then cows. Crows are smarter then dogs. Anyone who knows nature knows this to be true. So going up to 4-5 seems reasonable.

I also don't like it because of the options it kills. For example, I have an idea of a arcane sorcerer w/int dump stat that has familar that is smarter then he and does the talking. I can still do this as a Sorcerer, but what if I want to do it as a Ranger, Nature Oracle, Druid, Paladin etc?

All those options are now killed or need GM permission.

Also, everyone should send James Jacobs their old copy of Princess Mononoke.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
And if you take that last comment seriously, I will take that as proof that some animals are smarter then people.

Wait -- can someone explain to me why it's such a huge problem for an Advanced animal to have Int 6? Is it because:

The rules say "2 is max!" and we must follow the rules no matter what?

They might learn too many tricks?

They might understand instructions without forcing a Handle Animal check?

It's too "unrealistic" to have some animals be smarter than cattle?

Some combination of these?

I reject point #1 as nonsensical, if Pathfinder is supposedly a new game edition. Points 2 and 3 do not seem particularly game-breaking. Point 4 is open to debate. What am I missing?

My preference = Animals never have more than a 2 Intelligence.

OK, so I guess I have the reason I asked for, then: pure designer preference.