Animals and Their Tricks

If the PC is metagaming then the DM steps in as well. If the int 7 wis 7 cha 5 dwarven barbarian with no knowledge arcana or social skills comes into a conversation with a polished accent saying "Indubitably my good chap, you are absolutely correct in your assesment of Foerems theorem of magical resonances." them the DM needs to either take a newspaper to the players head or enter "Dewyvision" mode where "thats what the dwarf looks like in his own head. This is what he looks like to everyone else" . Being a PC does NOT grant blanket immunity to do whatever you want.

Someone needs to tell the DMs I play with this. I have seen several "jackpot" characters, ie those with 3 "7" stats suffer no ill game effects at all. 7 int characters are all to contribute complex strategies all the time in PFS.

Thats not 'allowing them to contribute', that is simply undermining the tactical might and acumen of the party.

It's like saying because you can run 400 yards really well, I have now made it 600 yards arbitrarily to ensure you suffer properly. It's about as silly as ramping down the adventures because the party all came with wildly sub-par choices. You effectively ensure there is no reward whatsoever for rules mastery, strong charcter builds, nor smart cooperative mutually supporting agreed player roles within the party.

Way to go handicapping the party and dumbing down the game.

It's homebrew. I advertise and deliver challenging encounters that are fair to the power level chosen by the PCs by whatever means necessary. That's the freedom of the homebrew DM over the PFS DM.

It also means that if two players munchkin out, and three don't, they better talk about it, because I *will* send encounters to challenge the munchkins.

Oh, and there is a reward for all those things you listed off: survival.

How is the reward 'survival' when if they collaborate they are no better off if they don't because the challenge will adapt to them. Its a zero sum game.

If people waltz in with sub-par characters at level one, I give them a few levels to get with the program. Then I assume competence and send encounters accordingly. Rather mercilessly. My orc rangers on wyverns TPKed one such home brew group who were completely unprepared for medium-strength fliers at a level when they should have been. Their new group was much more effective. The situation is complex in the free flow of home brew. I use the CR system very, very loosely in homebrew because many of the creatures are underrated or overrated. And furthermore, templates applied to some critters amplify more than others. For example, an ogre templated with 3 levels of barbarian is more a threat than one templated with 3 levels of wizard, because their stats compliment it better. People usually get the idea after their first few encounters with templated foes. I love templates; it's a way to turn a single bestiary entry into many different foes.

The goal is for the PCs to always have the feeling that any given encounter can be dangerous. For this to be true, there must always be scaling and adaptation. I avoid "gimme" fights at all costs, because I feel those are a waste of everyone's time. If pets or PC builds are causing "gimme" fights, the fights get harder, period. Regardless of what the CR system says.

It also helps that its justifiable for an intelligent big bad in a homebrew to adapt to the PCs schemes, whereas in PFS the same strong scheme will break scenario after scenario.

Animal Companions are NOT NPCs.

They are also NOT PCs.

They are, however, a class-feature that is an extension of a PC and should be under PC control.

Andrew,

First, rather than PC control, I think you mean player control.. right? I don't think anyone here has said that the druid (or whomever) is not in control of his/her animal companion. It is just what the manner of that control exactly is.

(Outside of PFS) Is the cohort of a cleric with the nobility domain an NPC? Or is it some 'class-feature' that is an extension of the PC and should be under the player's control?

What about a creature summoned by a class ability? Are they, also, not NPCs?

What actually is an NPC, to you? And is the reasoning circular here, or is their a delineation that doesn't suppose your conclusion?

-James

A cohort is managed differently and is subject to a different rules set than an AC.

One is a Feat, one is a Class feature.

One is subject to a range of variables, such as the Leadership score, the other isn't.

The rules on Cohorts refer to the NPC table (ie wealth), the other doesn't.

A cohort is managed differently and is subject to a different rules set than an AC.

One is a Feat, one is a Class feature.

So feats aren't class features... even if a class feature grants them (like in my example)???

And I'm sorry but a cohort is not a feat, it's a person.. the leadership feat gives the character with it a loyal NPC, and a set of rules about him.. but the feat is not the cohort (nor vice versa).

That's the semantics problem we're having here.

A class feature grants a relationship with an NPC. It has rules, and potential abilities.. but it is not the creature itself.

The cleric nobility domain's second power is an example of this. It is certainly a class feature. Why is the cohort still an NPC, if being granted by a class feature removes this?

-James

Out of curiosity, in what geographical areas is the question of who controls an AC something other than a theoretical problem?

Because the Cohort is goverened by the mechanics of the Leadership Feat which specifically cites the Cohort being an NPC.

General < Specific.

You'll note no such dialogue in the AC descriptors.

Out of curiosity, in what geographical areas is the question of who controls an AC something other than a theoretical problem?

Certainly its NOT anywhere I've ever played.

Wherever I've played, players run their ACs. They try to run them by the rules but sometimes fail. They try to be reasonable about what an animal can do and sometimes fail.

The GM mostly lets them do their thing. Sometimes the GM will point out that the player is doing something wrong. Sometimes the player and GM will disagree about what is reasonable and a short discussion will follow. This discussion often results in a meeting of minds. Very rarely it doesn't and the GM tells the player they can't do something. The player accepts the GMs ruling, sometimes reserving the right to discuss it further AFTER THE GAME.

I certainly hope (and really DO expect) that the above describes the experience of nearly everybody, both GMs and players.

Howie23 wrote:

Out of curiosity, in what geographical areas is the question of who controls an AC something other than a theoretical problem?

Certainly its NOT anywhere I've ever played.

Wherever I've played, players run their ACs. They try to run them by the rules but sometimes fail. They try to be reasonable about what an animal can do and sometimes fail.

The GM mostly lets them do their thing. Sometimes the GM will point out that the player is doing something wrong. Sometimes the player and GM will disagree about what is reasonable and a short discussion will follow. This discussion often results in a meeting of minds. Very rarely it doesn't and the GM tells the player they can't do something. The player accepts the GMs ruling, sometimes reserving the right to discuss it further AFTER THE GAME.

I certainly hope (and really DO expect) that the above describes the experience of nearly everybody, both GMs and players.

yeap, sounds correct to me.

Though I remember in a home game (mine) the GM running the PCs familiar (my daughters wizards Psydo-Dragon), and discussing her instructions to the p-drag. a spirited RP insued in which she told the p-drag to fly "upstairs" and peek in the window. The dragon looked at the stairs where a fight was going on and disagreed, saying it was unsafe. She said to fly outside - "well, do you want me to fly outside or up the stairs?!" - "Oh! you Bozo!" thus was named her familiar. Fun RP, and yes the judge (me) stole control of her little dragon. Who in later adventures had a habbit of nibbling on her bronze armor - and eating coins. Lots of fun.

Would I do this in PFS? Goodness - I don't know what the Familiar is like, I'm just the Judge, I'm only going to see him 5 hours. If I'm familiar with the AC, and I've seen you play him, and I watched some spiders beat him badly - maybe I'll RP him a bit concerned when you encounter webs. Not enough to have an effect, just some little concern. Glance back over the shoulder when you have him check out the webs. What ever.

But if I say "he looks a back at you to be sure you want him to scout the web filled room" and the Player flys into a rage because I'm not in control of his AC! I don't decide what it does or doesn't do!... this is not going to be a fun game, I can tell. Guy, trust me. I'm just here to give us all a fun time. It's not a power trip for me, I'm working hard to make it fun.

I have a question on the new maneuver trick from the animal archive. Does this trick keep the animal from provoking when performing the maneuver (as an improved feat would) or just teach the animal to do the maneuver? I'm guessing it's the latter- ie, an AC with the trick maneuver (grapple) would still provoke when initiating the grapple, but this wasn't addressed within the text of the trick itself. Thanks.

I believe the trick itself does nothing for the AoO

Okay, I know this thread has likely run its course, but as I wasn't online over the weekend I just wanted to address a few responses to my previous posts.

DigitalMage wrote:

If anything, having the GM have to run every animal companion

The GM can delegate as they see fit, and as the table is able to handle.

However, the animal companion is an NPC. This means that the GM is the default person to run the creature, not anyone else.

In practice.. judges who let others keep track of initiative, will let others keep track of initiative. Those that let players run their associated NPCs will continue to do so.

However, the judge is not automatically a 'jerk' for electing to run an NPC. Despite what others would have you believe.

Neither is a player automatically a 'jerk' for wanting to run an NPC that is de facto part of their character build.

Anyway, as long as neither GM or player are jerks I think having either run the animal companion would be okay to me, however I do feel that the player would likely play the animal companion more efficiently due to greater familiarity with the build of the companion, possibly better knowledge of the Handle Animal rules, and also as they aren't having to run several other NPCs.

If a ruling does come down that GMs by default control animal companions I just hope all the GMs I play under either delegate to me, or know the rules very well and are happy to take suggestions from me on how to play the companion's personality.

I'm still waiting to hear whether an animal with a Feat (ie Improved Trip) ALSO requires a 'Trick' to be able to use it, or does the Feat alone allow its use?

Does:

Trick > Feat

or

Feat > Trick?

DigitalMage wrote:

That doesn't come from the fact that the player is running the animal companion that comes from whoever is running the animal companion (be it player or GM) not knowing the rules.

Witness this thread, where people are confusing the 'flank' trick with the ability of an animal companion to move into flanking position.

The flank trick is simply about directing the animal. When so ordered it understands that the importance is providing the flank over how it would normally behave in combat.

If most tables had the druid issuing handle animal checks to the animal in the form of rolling and telling the DM what the animal is asked to do, then everyone at the table would have a good idea of what each trick actually did as the DM would go about running the AC (as he would a charmed NPC, summoned creature, or random ally of the party).

What happens at tables, however, is that the druid player runs both creatures without likely mentioning any of this (as it's not needed) and it's like he's got multiple PCs. He knows he can make the easy DC 10 check without rolling, so it's not like he's cheating here or anything.

But what gets learned at the table? What gets reinforced? And what is lost on others witness to this?

In this game that's learned & reinforced at the table, rules are lost and misunderstood when they are not seen there.

Not being funny but I don't play my Druid character to teach other players at the table how to run an animal companion, and I don't expect players with Gunslinger and Summoner characters to explain to me exactly how all their character abilities work - if I want to play a Gunslinger I will look up and read the rules myself.

So if a player is running his animal companion according to the rules, but is saving time by not rolling dice when there is no need to and not explaining exactly what trick is being used, as long as the GM is okay with that I don't see the other players should have any criticism (unless they would prefer that the druid player takes longer to have his turn).

And as for the player effectively having multiple PCs (in combat PFS restricts you to one combat companion, so its like two PCs) what is the big deal? If players are annoyed that another player is getting extra "screen time" well, if the GM plays the animal companion, that player still gets no extra screen time for their character, its now the GM who gets the extra screen time. If that is really an issue then people should push for a complete ban on animal companions, familiars, eidolons etc.

So if a player is running his animal companion according to the rules, but is saving time by not rolling dice when there is no need to and not explaining exactly what trick is being used, as long as the GM is okay with that I don't see the other players should have any criticism (unless they would prefer that the druid player takes longer to have his turn).

And thats a good point too.

On one hand we see a lot of complaints "He isn't talking about the rules, he must be cheating!", then when the Druid takes the time to say aloud everything he is doing the complaint it "Ermagerd, his turn took so long".

Take your full turn and explain everything out and they hate you for time wasting.

Truncate it down, dont bother rolling for auto-passes and simply move like a piece on a chessboard and they hate you for 'suspected cheating and handwaving'.

Of course, there's this nebulous 'ACs are better than PC's' claim, but I suspect its more a case of poorly designed PC's perhaps. Its easy for a dim bulb to outshine you when all you are using is a match.

It's not AC > PC, it's AC + PC >>>> PC. For every bit of design that someone can do for a PC, the pet user can do that on the druid and still be up an AC.

The druid already basically gets two turns, so I don't see how a little explanation once or twice hurts anything. I don't think the fights will actually take longer, because the little time lost with a quick explanation is made up by pets shredding weak sauce PFS NPCs.

"Of course, there's this nebulous 'ACs are better than PC's' claim, but I suspect its more a case of poorly designed PC's perhaps. Its easy for a dim bulb to outshine you when all you are using is a match."

Also, please tell me how to design a PC to get three primary attacks at level one? I'd really love to know. Oh, wait. Four primary attacks, because the druid gets an attack as well.

"So if a player is running his animal companion according to the rules, but is saving time by not rolling dice when there is no need to and not explaining exactly what trick is being used, as long as the GM is okay with that I don't see the other players should have any criticism (unless they would prefer that the druid player takes longer to have his turn)."

I think at this juncture, only the "special" tricks need to be called. That is, after the DM checks for attack X 2 if the pet is going to attack a spectre or something. But then there is the matter of what paths the AC is allowed to take moving into combat.

"If that is really an issue then people should push for a complete ban on animal companions, familiars, eidolons etc."

Never going to happen. So why even discuss it?

I'm still waiting to hear whether an animal with a Feat (ie Improved Trip) ALSO requires a 'Trick' to be able to use it, or does the Feat alone allow its use?

Does:

Trick > Feat

or

Feat > Trick?

This question has been answered many times Shifty.

I believe its in the board clarification compilation post that's stickied up above.

But Mike said that animals know how to use the feats they have.

In this case the feat would trump the trick.

As for expenditure of resources, the trick is way less expensive than the feat.

DigitalMage wrote:

So if a player is running his animal companion according to the rules, but is saving time by not rolling dice when there is no need to and not explaining exactly what trick is being used, as long as the GM is okay with that I don't see the other players should have any criticism (unless they would prefer that the druid player takes longer to have his turn).

And thats a good point too.

On one hand we see a lot of complaints "He isn't talking about the rules, he must be cheating!", then when the Druid takes the time to say aloud everything he is doing the complaint it "Ermagerd, his turn took so long".

Take your full turn and explain everything out and they hate you for time wasting.

Truncate it down, dont bother rolling for auto-passes and simply move like a piece on a chessboard and they hate you for 'suspected cheating and handwaving'.

Of course, there's this nebulous 'ACs are better than PC's' claim, but I suspect its more a case of poorly designed PC's perhaps. Its easy for a dim bulb to outshine you when all you are using is a match.

I usually defeat this by bragging about how good my character is at handle animal before the session even starts. Then during the session, there are typically no complaints that I'm not running my animal companion correctly.

With the new list of tricks available, it's now more of a matter of when you have to make the push rolls. I don't think anyone is questioning whether pet owners can make the DC 10 checks for tricks known.

I'm still waiting to hear whether an animal with a Feat (ie Improved Trip) ALSO requires a 'Trick' to be able to use it, or does the Feat alone allow its use?

Does:

Trick > Feat

or

Feat > Trick?

What Trick and Feat are so associated?

I've seen you reference a feat giving a bonus to flank, but that would not relate to the flank trick, so if you could perhaps give a specific example?

Thanks,

James

Hmm, been thinking about this...

For Shifty's question, it seems clear that if the animal doesn't have the trip trick, but does have trip feat, it will use it normally. (hmm, should we have a 'don't trip' trick?) If the critter doesn't normally have a trip feat, then the trip trick would cause it to try to trip, provoking the AoO normally. It would be like saying that a tiger needs a 'pounce trick' to pounce.

Re 'Attack' vs 'Flank'. When you tell Wally Wolf to 'Attack' using the 'attack trick' you are designating a target to attack. It's not automatically in the wolf's nature to charge straight in on command. Thus... trick. It's not going to automatically run around to attack in the read (without the flank trick) because it's been trained to attack. The flank trick trains it to run around and attack from a different direction on command. Since it's on command... trick.

Now that said, if Wally attacks Hobgoblin A and gets knifed in the back from Hobgoblin B, when it finishes off with Hobgoblin A, I don't expect it to sit there patiently for another attack, I assume Wally will attack Hobgoblin B, working for the flank as fits its nature. unless ordered to attack then he will take the most direct route to the critter, because agian, trick trumps nature.

Removed some back and forth posts. Please keep personal insults out of the discussion.

Shifty wrote:

I'm still waiting to hear whether an animal with a Feat (ie Improved Trip) ALSO requires a 'Trick' to be able to use it, or does the Feat alone allow its use?

Does:

Trick > Feat

or

Feat > Trick?

What Trick and Feat are so associated?

I've seen you reference a feat giving a bonus to flank, but that would not relate to the flank trick, so if you could perhaps give a specific example?

Thanks,

James

Trip & The Maneuver Trick.

Trip & The Maneuver Trick.

Trip isn't a feat, so I'm not sure what you mean by that one.

Checking back in the thread he seems to mention the feat: Outflank, but from what I'm reading I think he's confused on what the flank trick does and doesn't do.

An animal companion knows how to flank without the flank trick. They just won't exclusively seek that out when other options are better for them in the animal's opinion.

The flank trick (when used by the handler) tells the animal that you want them to re-prioritize their role in the combat. You are telling them that staying adjacent to and flanking with this one target is of the utmost importance, even if they would normal do something else in the combat based on what it perceives.

The presence or absence of the flank trick does not alter whether or not the animal can/will flank a target, or knows how to flank a target (mindless creatures benefit and supply flanking). A feat that alters the bonus from flanking doesn't alter this either. The animal can seek to flank, but will not do so with the priority that one following the 'flank' command would.

An animal commanded to 'flank' a target would follow the target through danger (AOOs), etc.. as it was 'told' by you that stay adjacent to the target was job #1, that flanking it with an ally is job #2, and that taking AOOs against the target is job #3.

But I am concerned that it seems a number of people are possibly misreading the flank trick (and possibly others). I see some people whose posts seem to indicate that an animal would refuse to flank without the trick for some reason!

-James

Sounds good to me. But people on here have been fighting james tooth and nail, so we'll still have to wait for the book.

Andrew Christian wrote:

Trip & The Maneuver Trick.

Trip isn't a feat, so I'm not sure what you mean by that one.

Checking back in the thread he seems to mention the feat: Outflank, but from what I'm reading I think he's confused on what the flank trick does and doesn't do.

An animal companion knows how to flank without the flank trick. They just won't exclusively seek that out when other options are better for them in the animal's opinion.

The flank trick (when used by the handler) tells the animal that you want them to re-prioritize their role in the combat. You are telling them that staying adjacent to and flanking with this one target is of the utmost importance, even if they would normal do something else in the combat based on what it perceives.

The presence or absence of the flank trick does not alter whether or not the animal can/will flank a target, or knows how to flank a target (mindless creatures benefit and supply flanking). A feat that alters the bonus from flanking doesn't alter this either. The animal can seek to flank, but will not do so with the priority that one following the 'flank' command would.

An animal commanded to 'flank' a target would follow the target through danger (AOOs), etc.. as it was 'told' by you that stay adjacent to the target was job #1, that flanking it with an ally is job #2, and that taking AOOs against the target is job #3.

But I am concerned that it seems a number of people are possibly misreading the flank trick (and possibly others). I see some people whose posts seem to indicate that an animal would refuse to flank without the trick for some reason!

-James

I think you are specifically being obtuse, or you just haven't played enough to know that I meant Improved Trip.

I think you are specifically being obtuse, or you just haven't played enough to know that I meant Improved Trip.

I wasn't being obtuse Andrew.

I just don't know how an animal companion can get the 13 INT requirement for that feat, so I really didn't assume you meant improved trip.

-James

But then there is the matter of what paths the AC is allowed to take moving into combat.

There is no raw that says animals are too stupid to avoid aoos. At best, thats the DM's call and the DM's have been calling it how you don't like.

An animal is fully capable of understanding that a human with a stick is more dangerous than one without it: the coyotes around here get a little nervous when i pick up my hiking staff for instance. They can probably understand that a human with a big stick like a pole arm is even more dangerous still.

David Bowles wrote:

But then there is the matter of what paths the AC is allowed to take moving into combat.

There is no raw that says animals are too stupid to avoid aoos. At best, thats the DM's call and the DM's have been calling it how you don't like.

An animal is fully capable of understanding that a human with a stick is more dangerous than one without it: the coyotes around here get a little nervous when i pick up my hiking staff for instance. They can probably understand that a human with a big stick like a pole arm is even more dangerous still.

Maybe. I guess we'll find out whose call it is. Even if animals had to eat AOOs, it's still NPC resources going to damage entities that basically don't matter.

Even with a few more restrictions on movement, PCs with ACs are still essentially two characters in one, and will still be overpowered. That's not changing no matter what Ultimate Campaign says. However, at this point, I'll take any kind of nerf I can get on ACs. Too bad there's no way to nerf power builds, too.

Yes, I think some bad examples were picked due to overlooking pre-reqs.
Regardless, the issue stands, let's say the AC has Power Attack and Improved Bullrush.
As I see it, PFS saying that your animal knows how to USE Feats doesn't resolve the Trick issue, or how you COMMAND them to use it.
Tricks are about COMMANDING to AC to do a specific thing.
It doesn't matter if I know how to do a Hungarian Folk dance, if the only 'vocabulary' we have to communicate isn't anything that would indicate that Hungarian Folk dance is a primary goal, I'm not going to do a Hungarian Folk dance.

If the AC only knows the Attack trick, I'm not sure why it would choose to do an (Improved) Bullrush in response to that command. Now, in that case (maneuver), "a maneuver is an attack" so it plausibly QUALIFIES, but there is still nothing in the COMMAND to distinguish between doing a normal attack and any other kind... Presumably you still want to be able to do normal attacks alot of the time, and not have ALL Attack commands use Improved Bullrush. Yet if simply the Attack trick command is being issued in all those cases, there is no difference in the conveyed goal the AC should have. (people keep discussing AC here, but the same Handle Animal/Trick rules apply for non-AC animals, AC class feature just gives a bonus to the Handle Animal check and 'quickens' the action for that check)

In this case, I think the Maneuver trick IS the reasonable implementation, although it's a bit 'stricter' than the Flank example in that the Attack trick WILL sometimes Flank (since that is something situational that occurs when doing the exact same basic thing, attacking), but doing a Bullrush is just inherently different than doing a normal attack... You CHOOSE to do one or the other, and Tricks/Commands are about directing the AC's CHOICE of actions. Things like Wolf Trip work easily because they happen for free on top of normal attacks, the Wolf doesn't need to choose a different course of action, like it would to Bullrush.

That said, it seems plausible that although the Attack command can't actually direct the animal to use Bullrush vs. any other Attack (as far as we know), if the target is standing next to a gaping chasm, and since the animal does know how to use it's Feats AND a Bullrush IS 'an attack', the animal on it's own accord could realise that Bullrush is the strongest attack it has to use in that situation, and choose to Bullrush. It otherwise seems reasonable that animals can choose to use their strongest normal Natural Attack (for damage) for a given situation to fulfill the Attack command, so this isn't fundamentally different. But this does then become within the realm of the animal's own thought process, and outside of 'what can be commanded' (which is the trick).

For maneuvers, like Bullrush, 'there is a Trick for that'. As per my earlier question, I DON'T know how (especially in PFS, where custom tricks aren't allowed) to command an animal to use a Feat that /in no possible way/ corresponds to the published Tricks. I'm not thinking of a specific Feat here, but it certainly seems plausible that some Feat they could legally gain doesn't correspond to a Trick. Likewise, Skills seem similar to Feats, is there any Skills (or applications of Skills) which simply don't correspond to any Trick, yet which are plausible for an animal to take?

I have a question on the new maneuver trick from the animal archive. Does this trick keep the animal from provoking when performing the maneuver (as an improved feat would) or just teach the animal to do the maneuver? I'm guessing it's the latter- ie, an AC with the trick maneuver (grapple) would still provoke when initiating the grapple, but this wasn't addressed within the text of the trick itself. Thanks.

I made a separate post about this. I agree, giving training for the trick but not having the appropriate feat would result in a provoke. The case that stood out for me was the Burglar package, which grants Steal... but unless you've also taken the Pilferer animal archetype, it's unlikely to have Improved Steal.

Andrew Christian wrote:

I think you are specifically being obtuse, or you just haven't played enough to know that I meant Improved Trip.

I wasn't being obtuse Andrew.

I just don't know how an animal companion can get the 13 INT requirement for that feat, so I really didn't assume you meant improved trip.

-James

2 start human +2 eye for talent ability , 3 ability boosts into int, +6 int ioun stone ?

Shifty wrote:

I'm still waiting to hear whether an animal with a Feat (ie Improved Trip) ALSO requires a 'Trick' to be able to use it, or does the Feat alone allow its use?

Does:

Trick > Feat

or

Feat > Trick?

This question has been answered many times Shifty.

I believe its in the board clarification compilation post that's stickied up above.

But Mike said that animals know how to use the feats they have.

In this case the feat would trump the trick.

As for expenditure of resources, the trick is way less expensive than the feat.

For things like Trip, most animals don't have the feat per se, they have the ability. For example, Wolves. Wolves don't have Improved Trip, they get the ability to trip with their bite. I don't think you'd need to teach the Trip trick for something like that.

However, let's say I have a Rat familiar... I can train it with the Burglar package, which after I add Attack (as that was not included in the package), it is now trained with the Trick: Steal... but it does not have Improved Steal.

However, the Pilferer archetype DOES have Improved Steal. My assumption is that if I want my archetype to steal something in combat I would a) need to have trained the animal to do so, and b) they better have Improved Steal if I don't want a dead familiar. This actually seems reasonable to me, especially as how this is not necessarily a natural behavior (again, unlike a wolf's trip).

With the new list of tricks available, it's now more of a matter of when you have to make the push rolls. I don't think anyone is questioning whether pet owners can make the DC 10 checks for tricks known.

Unless the character has used CHA as a dump stat, and/or does not actually have Handle Animal trained...

My distaste for pet classes does not extend to the point where I assume they are all jelloheads. Although, I guess it is possible that that detail does get overlooked from time to time.

I think you are specifically being obtuse, or you just haven't played enough to know that I meant Improved Trip.

Wolves do not have the Improved Trip feat, but they do have the natural ability to trip as part of their attack. They would be able to trip, and would not provoke as it's a natural ability.

That said, as straight RAW, the trainer would not be allowed to order the animal to trip. It may or may not do so on it's own, much like the discussion on flanking, but they would have to have the trick for the trainer to order it to do so... or push.

If trip is built into the attack, I'd say that the attack command has that covered. It might be a push to get it to NOT trip, however.

My distaste for pet classes does not extend to the point where I assume they are all jelloheads. Although, I guess it is possible that that detail does get overlooked from time to time.

Agreed, though I think it's something that should at least be spotchecked... especially for PFS play. Assuming I was running, I'd take a quick glance at someone's character if they have some sort of animal companion or pet and make sure that they have appropriate stats & skills to a point where DC 10 isn't terribly difficult and then not worry about it much past that.

That said, there are situations where it *could* matter... environmental penalties, etc. but those are on a case by case basis.

If trip is built into the attack, I'd say that the attack command has that covered. It might be a push to get it to NOT trip, however.

Ya know, I meant to say that and left it off... yes, I'd handle it the same way.

2 start human +2 eye for talent ability , 3 ability boosts into int, +6 int ioun stone ?

Nah, I think at a minimum it would have to be 2 ability boosts into INT, 3 of the stacking ioun stones, and a wish/miracle for a +1 inherent bonus.

Otherwise you would have to wait until 16th level for it to have the feat available to pick up combat expertise, and 18th for improved trip.

With the modified, it would be at 13th level, assuming that before 10th level you could afford that 100k or so worth of gear/spells...

...of course we're outside the realm of PFS with all of this.

-James
PS: But speaking of PFS, can animals use ioun stones? I seem to recall it being denied.. in which case..

Fine, replace earlier example with:

Improved Overrun or Improved Bullrush rather than Imp Trip.

Do they now still need the to purchase ther Trick in order to get them to use their Feat?

Otherwise you need to 'Push' them to carry out the maneuver because apparently they don't know it, even though they have an improved version of move though the Feat.

Those are very direct and rather explicit, even moreso than the Teamwork Feats, and they are available to all Animal Companions (because Int shouldn't/doesn't come into it apparently).

PS: But speaking of PFS, can animals use ioun stones? I seem to recall it being denied.. in which case..

Yes, that was overturned as long as the critter had a 3+ int.

From the faq

An animal or familiar has to have an intelligence of 3+ to activate an ioun stone. If the animal or familiar has less than a 3 intelligence, they may not activate an ioun stone.

Fine, replace earlier example with:

Improved Overrun or Improved Bullrush rather than Imp Trip.

Do they now still need the to purchase ther Trick in order to get them to use their Feat?

Otherwise you need to 'Push' them to carry out the maneuver because apparently they don't know it, even though they have an improved version of move though the Feat.

When you order the animal to 'attack', how often would they normally elect to 'overrun' or 'bullrush' instead of attack with their normal routine? (Certainly more often with the feat than without)

That's the real question, and one not to be confused with how often would you the player or your PC want them to do so and NOT do so.. but when would they?

This is why it's important for the DM to run the animal companion (and other such NPCs) rather than the player, who will immediately have a conflict of interest.

Now if you want your PC to order the companion to do the maneuver, then you'll need the trick for the animal or push them.

It's not that the animal doesn't know how to do the maneuver, it's that they might not be doing it when you'd like them to do so. In fact, the companion need not have the improved feats.. and could still perform the maneuver. It's not likely that they would consider doing so when just attacking, but if your PC directs them to do so (via handle animal) then they will do it for you.

These new tricks don't limit PCs, but rather expand what they can train and push their animals to do.

-James

On the contrary, the granularity of the Trick system actually creates additional limits on both the player AND the animal by virtue of having to alloacte extra 'tricks' to account for the greater granularity of the system, and at the same time work within the constraint of the Feat system.

It was bad enough having to pay 2 tricks just to get it to attack, now you also end up in the position of having to use extra tricks just to get it to use Feats it knows.