Animals and Their Tricks

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.

So in pfs, the dm who has NO idea how often the critter usually bullrushes, why the critter bullrushes, may never have even seen the critter, probably doesn't remember the critters name, is a better judge of what he does than the player?

And as you've seen in this thread, dm's come with conflicts of interests too.

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.

Sounds fair enough for a pseduo-PC that comes from a "class feature". Especially for a class that's a 9 level caster and gets wild shape to boot.

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.

No.

Before you had no way to order/make your companion use the combat maneuver rather than a normal attack routine.

Now you do.

Of course, if before you had a psychic link between your animal and your PC so that you automatically conveyed this knowledge to the NPC.. well then, yes you are now more limited in this ability that your PC does not have.

So in pfs, the dm who has NO idea how often the critter usually bullrushes, why the critter bullrushes, may never have even seen the critter, probably doesn't remember the critters name, is a better judge of what he does than the player?

And as you've seen in this thread, dm's come with conflicts of interests too.

The DM should run the NPCs... and the DM should be impartial.

The NPC might learn things that the players have not, as just one example.

And if your DM has problems, then you will always have problems with the table.

You can easily give your new judge an outline of your faithful NPC, and then they can decide how much of that they will use. If you don't trust the judge with an NPC, then simply don't sit at the table.

-James

Before you had no way to order/make your companion use the combat maneuver rather than a normal attack routine.

Yes you did. The critter knew how to use its feats.

The DM should run the NPCs... and the DM should be impartial.

The player should be in control of his class feature, and the player should remember its its own separate character.

Having the DM run it puts unilateral control over something intrinsic to the character in the hands of the dm. Having the PC control it with a DM veto/ occasional input fits something that isn't quite an npc and isn't quite a pc.

You can easily give your new judge an outline of your faithful NPC, and then they can decide how much of that they will use.

Come on, how often does that much characterization ever get applied to the PCS, much less to the critters?

If you don't trust the judge with an NPC, then simply don't sit at the table.

If you don't trust a player with their animal companion don't let them sit at your table.

Yes you did. The critter knew how to use its feats.

It still does, just your PC doesn't have a psychic link to telepathically impart to it when to use it.

The trick just lets your PC order the companion to use the maneuver.

If you are feeling like you are now restricted, then somehow you were imparting that knowledge between your PC and the animal without such a trick before.. right?

The player should be in control of his class feature, and the player should remember its its own separate character.

The NPC isn't the class feature, the bond is. It alters and changes the NPC in many ways, but it doesn't make the NPC into a PC. You don't get two PCs, just the one... though people seem to confuse that fact.

Likewise the summoned creatures are not the class feature for the Summoner, the spell-like ability to summon is.

Having the DM run it puts unilateral control over something intrinsic to the character in the hands of the dm. Having the PC control it with a DM veto/ occasional input fits something that isn't quite an npc and isn't quite a pc.

It is exactly an NPC.

Just as much as a cohort from the leadership feat is an NPC, a wizard's familiar, an ally, and everything that is a character but not a player character.

-James

Sounds fair enough for a pseduo-PC that comes from a "class feature". Especially for a class that's a 9 level caster and gets wild shape to boot.

Like a Cavalier, a Ranger, a Barbarian, a Rogue, a Paladin?

Or were you referring to Clerics with the animal domain?

And as you've seen in this thread, dm's come with conflicts of interests too.

No, I'd trust these dudes 100% that they could separate their declared hatred aside and DMPC that AC to the best of its ability.

David Bowles wrote:

Sounds fair enough for a pseduo-PC that comes from a "class feature". Especially for a class that's a 9 level caster and gets wild shape to boot.

Like a Cavalier, a Ranger, a Barbarian, a Rogue, a Paladin?

Or were you referring to Clerics with the animal domain?

BNW wrote:

And as you've seen in this thread, dm's come with conflicts of interests too.

No, I'd trust these dudes 100% that they could separate their declared hatred aside and DMPC that AC to the best of its ability.

If I was forced to NPC a players AC, I would probably have it sit outside the dungeon and lick itself.

Seriously. If you bring an AC, Eidolon, Mount, or what have you, and as a player you can't run it, I'm certainly not going to.

And that right there is a valid point.
The player should be running it, and if they can't (because they dont know the rules etc) they shouldn't be bringing it.

It still does, just your PC doesn't have a psychic link to telepathically impart to it when to use it.

The animal can use the feat but you can't tell it when to use the feat so the animal doesn't use the feat is functionally the same as the animal not being able to use the feat. Its a back door ban on the critter using its feats and skills.

The NPC isn't the class feature, the bond is.

First off, the bond is WITH that one particular critter. You can't have the critter without the bond.

Secondly ex druids "loses all spells and druid abilities (including her animal companion) "

not just the bond with the companion, the animal companion. Stop being a druid and you loose the entire critter, not just your bond with it.

It alters and changes the NPC in many ways, but it doesn't make the NPC into a PC. You don't get two PCs, just the one... though people seem to confuse that fact.

Disagreeing with you is not a sign of confusion.

It is exactly an NPC.

Who decided it would be in the scenario? The player.

Even if you were to control it all the time its still the creation of the player. Its theirs. Thats as far from just another NPC as you can get.

Thats as far from just another NPC as you can get.

You mean like a cohort from the leadership feat, right?

As to the animal using its feats.. if you run the animal companion as your second PC, then you don't need any of those tricks as the animal will just 'happen' to elect to grapple (provoking or not) when 'it' wants to... right?

I mean that is what you are arguing, isn't it?

Before these tricks the animal companion would happen to want to use a combat maneuver one round, but not on another. And of course the player would be the one 'deciding' for the animal (rather than the PC, or the DM).

It's metagaming, and betraying the faith that the DM put in you when he let you run the NPC animal.

It's up there with a party acting as if they have a (Rary's) telepathic bond active when they do not. One player has his PC act on the knowledge that the PC doesn't have but the player does. They coordinate silently and not through the medium of the game.

That level of communication does not exist, but a heightened one does between the master and the companion. However the master still has to use handle animal in order to communicate his/her desires. Unless, of course, there is some in-game means that the PC has to circumvent that, rather than out of game.

Before these new tricks the master could not have communicated the 'grapple him now', or 'provoke to move into that flank', 'aid other', etc via the handle animal skill, right?

Now perhaps some had their animal decide to do this when their PC wanted the animal to do this. But they did so before via metagaming, just as a party without a telepathic bond could have the PCs 'elect' to do things that just 'happened' to coordinate..

Isn't that the complaint of how these extra options are 'restricting'?

-James

If I was forced to NPC a players AC, I would probably have it sit outside the dungeon and lick itself.

Seriously. If you bring an AC, Eidolon, Mount, or what have you, and as a player you can't run it, I'm certainly not going to.

Hey, you're not forced to run any NPC that you are incapable of doing/ unwilling to do.

You can hand over the bad guys to the players to run during combat if you need to do so.

But they are all NPCs, and as such they are under the control of the DM. If the DM is so incapable of running them that they seek to distort the game and pout about it, then that's a good sign that they are not up to DMing in the first place. You likely are better off finding someone else to run the scenario for you.

-James

There's no reason to continue to debate this. A method for handling this issue is coming out, and it will be binding.

You mean like a cohort from the leadership feat, right?

No, because a Cohort is specifically called out as an NPC.

james maissen wrote:

You mean like a cohort from the leadership feat, right?

No, because a Cohort is specifically called out as an NPC.

But it has all of those properties that he says make it "as far away from an NPC as one could get."

So having those features is demonstrably not far from an NPC, but rather it shares those same attributes (modulo the direct via handle animal) with something that is spelled out as expressly being an NPC!

-James

Cohort - Specifically stated as being an NPC.
AC - No such statement.

Cohort comes knowing all it's tricks and doesn't require handle animal. Cohort with an Int of 3 can still choose to use all it's Feats at it's discretion and doesn't require actions to be pushed to do things it doesn't know how to do...

BigNorseWolf wrote:

Thats as far from just another NPC as you can get. You mean like a cohort from the leadership feat, right?

You were conclusively shown that the animal companion itself is a class feature. With that block to your argument, it goes nowhere.

As to the animal using its feats.. if you run the animal companion as your second PC, then you don't need any of those tricks as the animal will just 'happen' to elect to grapple (provoking or not) when 'it' wants to... right?

I mean that is what you are arguing, isn't it?

Yes.

Because the tactical acumen allowed in pathfinder is simple enough that animals really shouldn't have any problem with it. I also do remember to have the critter act like a critter and not just another PC sometimes.

Its not a problem for me. Eye for talent is one of my favorite things to do at first level. 4 int critter right out of the box, i have tricks to spare.

It's metagaming, and betraying the faith that the DM put in you when he let you run the NPC animal.

It is not remotely metagaming for a combat trained killing machine to actually know how to do its job. It is not meta-gaming for an animal to know to avoid the long pokey metal thing because animals actually do understand the concept of things that are threats to them. It is not metagaming to run the critter like a flesh and blood animal instead of a computer program that only knows 12 functions.

It's up there with a party acting as if they have a (Rary's) telepathic bond active when they do not. One player has his PC act on the knowledge that the PC doesn't have but the player does. They coordinate silently and not through the medium of the game.

Its an emotional bond rather than a telepathic one. You've never had your dog show up, shoot you a look, and you know what they want?

Before these new tricks the master could not have communicated the 'grapple him now', or 'provoke to move into that flank', 'aid other', etc via the handle animal skill, right?

Again, before the new tricks it was implied that you could tell them to do that, or that that would do that when they thought was a good idea

The problem (as you see it) still exists for a lot of feats and skills, like bodyguard or climb. There's no tricks for the critter to do these things, so by your logic the critter doesn't do them.

Okay, I'm out.

james maissen wrote:

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

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.

An animal also needs to have hands in order to release the ioun stone and set it spinning.

(One of my PCs used to carry a "+2 Con" ioun stone to use on unconscious allies, until a GM pointed out that the item needs to be set by the recipient. I can start an ioun stone orbiting my own head, but not another's. So now the PC carries a spare wayfinder, too.)

An animal also needs to have hands in order to release the ioun stone and set it spinning.

Citation? They could just pick it up in their mouth and spit it out, or let it go out of their claws. Hands is kind of specific.

You may be right. "When a character first acquires a stone, she must hold it and then release it, whereupon it takes up a circling orbit 1d3 feet from her head. Thereafter, a stone must be grasped or netted to separate it from its owner. The owner may voluntarily seize and stow a stone (to keep it safe while she is sleeping, for example), but she loses the benefits of the stone during that time." So a highly intelligent horse might be able to set an opalescent white prism ioun stone in motion, but would never be able to voluntarily stop it from spinning.

Not even by catching it in its teeth?
Is the 1d3 from the crown or the nose?
Does the same rule apply to Gnomes and Halflings? If they roll a 3 their arms aren't long enough.

:p

I now have the image of a cat, spinning its head around crazily and batting wildly at the ioun stone trying to get it to stop.

Shifty, the way we measure the distance from one thing to another is taking the distance from the nearest point of each object. The stone remains at least one foot away from the nearest point of the horse's head.

Matt, that's a delightful image.

Even if animals had to eat AOOs, it's still NPC resources going to damage entities that basically don't matter.

Entities that basically don't matter? Is that how you see animal companions? I know damn well that my Druid's animal companion Barrow matters a whole lot to Grelow, and having that animal companion die would be a downer for me as a player too.

So yes, having a GM run an animal companion in a manner that forces it to "eat AoOs" when the player doesn't think that is how the animal would act can be a big deal, almost as bad as the GM running the PC to take those AoOs. You talk about it being like the player has two PCs, and yeah, it is a bit like that - the animal companion means something to the player and that is why they want to run it.

There's no reason to continue to debate this. A method for handling this issue is coming out, and it will be binding.

It will only be binding if Mike makes it so. Just because it comes out in a book doesn't mean the rule will be included in PFS.

I suppose that's true, but Ultimate Campaign will be a core book, so I can't image that it won't be included in some fashion.

DigitalMage: The ACs don't matter in that it takes 0 PP to get a new one. The penalty for AC death is basically non-existent in PFS. This doesn't seem remotely fair for such a strong "class feature".

DigitalMage: The ACs don't matter in that it takes 0 PP to get a new one. The penalty for AC death is basically non-existent in PFS. This doesn't seem remotely fair for such a strong "class feature".

On a purely mechanical level you are almost correct (but not completely, see below) however in terms of the roleplaying experience for those players who see their character's animal companion as more than just a mechanical game piece, but as a character with personality, the penalty is significant. And it is for that same emotional & intellectual investment in their PC's animal companion that players want to be able to run their animal companions.

Penalty of gaining a new animal companion
Whilst the first animal companion comes knowing the maximum number of tricks as dictated by the animal companion's Intelligence and the character's effective druid level, any replacements come only with tricks granted based on the PC's effective druid level.

The player must train the animal companion new tricks, with a maximum of one trick or purpose trained per Handle Animal rank per scenario. So any replacement will cause the player to run at least one scenario with the animal companion knowing only the couple of bonus tricks.

If the PC has only a few ranks in Handle Animal, e.g. a Level 2 Druid can only have 2 ranks, they may need to take another 3 scenarios to train their animal companion up to the full six tricks (Int 2) assuming that a purpose is too difficult to teach or doesn't quite match the list of skills desired (more likely now that Animal Archive adds new Tricks) and assuming that each training roll is successful.

You talk about it being like the player has two PCs, and yeah, it is a bit like that - the animal companion means something to the player and that is why they want to run it.

And that's a problem, because they only have one PC.

This is a problem that's been around longer than the editions of this game. It's the many-headed hydra. Imho, it lessens the game. I've done it, as has I suspect most everyone.. but it's not as great a game when you do. It's one reason why you don't play this game with 2 people (DM and 'party').

Even if it comes down that Paizo reaffirms the core rules that the characters that are not player characters are all NPCs, and all NPCs are run by the DM; this will likely not change much in practice at the table.

The default, however, will be that the DM can control the NPC, but the practice will likely be that a player does so. It will be akin to when a DM hands an allied NPC to the players to run for them. Should he/she take the NPC back, there is not a hue and cry of "foul!" that you've witnessed on these threads. People threatening to wreck such games out of spite can be seen acting out for what they are doing, rather than hiding behind a thin veneer of righteous indignation.

If you have (legitimately or not) so little faith in your local judge pool, then I suggest that you work with them! The best gaming groups in organized campaigns are the ones that work on these facets as a group. This also tends to add a level of consistency lowering unwanted table variation.

-James

This is a problem that's been around longer than the editions of this game. It's the many-headed hydra. Imho, it lessens the game. I've done it, as has I suspect most everyone.. but it's not as great a game when you do. It's one reason why you don't play this game with 2 people (DM and 'party').

I agree to a certain extent, but its not quite the extreme of one player playing an entire party.

Personally, in my experience, if there is to be an extra NPC member of the party (e.g. because the GM insists the party needs a cleric) invariably the GM forgets to roleplay the GMPC and they literally get forgotten about by the players then as well until their mechanical shtick is needed.

However, I have found a player controlling an extra NPC party member seems to work better as the player relishes getting a bit more game time and so is less likely to forget about the NPC.

If you have (legitimately or not) so little faith in your local judge pool, then I suggest that you work with them! The best gaming groups in organized campaigns are the ones that work on these facets as a group. This also tends to add a level of consistency lowering unwanted table variation.

I agree but it also goes both ways - If you have (legitimately or not) so little faith in your player pool then you need to work with them - teach them the rules and then let them get used to them by using those rules themselves.

I guess it comes down to who do you think is more likely to be a jerk - a player or a GM, and if they are a jerk who can more severely impact the game.

Personally I like to assume neither are jerks but that the player know their animal companion build and personality better than any GM and so they are likely better placed to run it, but that the GM reserves the right to intervene / over-rule should they feel it necessary.

DigitalMage - This line of yours is what appears to be the problem, "...the GM reserves the right to intervene / over-rule should they feel it necessary", with some players going to far as to say the judge has no right to do this, and if he does they will start tactics to wreck the game to teach the judge a lesson.

DigitalMage - This line of yours is what appears to be the problem, "...the GM reserves the right to intervene / over-rule should they feel it necessary", with some players going to far as to say the judge has no right to do this, and if he does they will start tactics to wreck the game to teach the judge a lesson.

If players aren't willing to accept that a GM can intervene and override the player if she feels that he is not playing his animal companion in accordance with the rules and/or metagaming in a way that breaks credulity then I guess I would side with the ruling of "GM controls Animal Companions" over "Player controls Animal Companions with no resort to GM over-ride" despite how I may personally dislike that choice.

However if players aren't willing to accept GM intervention in that respect, I wonder whether those players would also be unwilling to accept that a GM can intervene and override the player if she feels that he is not playing his character in accordance with the rules and/or metagaming in a way that breaks credulity. If that is the case, I simply would not want such players in PFS organised play at all.

I agree but it also goes both ways - If you have (legitimately or not) so little faith in your player pool then you need to work with them - teach them the rules and then let them get used to them by using those rules themselves.

This is one reason that I post of these boards.

Animal companions, bonded mounts, familiars, summoned/called creatures, enemies, allies, charmed/dominated creatures, and cohorts are all NPCs.

Sometimes this is expressly reinforced in the rules, while other times the definitions must suffice. Yet the experience at the table can go against this. You see your animal companion as a second character of yours rather than a loyal NPC that the DM should roleplay as a trusted companion to you (rather than by you).

When you find yourself with a GM that you trust (you do have good GMs as well as the bad ones you mention, right?), I would suggest that you get with him, see if they would be willing to run your beloved companion. Discuss with them how they act, and see if your fun being part of this dynamic duo might actually be increased by interaction with others.

As to other GMs that are not up to handling an allied NPC in the party, then certainly they should delegate it. But I will suggest that you consider it being delegated to someone else. This time I suggest that you find a good and willing player that would be willing to roleplay your NPC companion as well as their own PC. Again I'd invite you to see if this might be a better/equal experience when this roleplay is not just between characters that you control.

With these experiences, I'll posit that the other occasions where you happen to run your PC and your NPC companion, you will find that they are more individualized and less the hydra.

-James

nosig wrote:

DigitalMage - This line of yours is what appears to be the problem, "...the GM reserves the right to intervene / over-rule should they feel it necessary", with some players going to far as to say the judge has no right to do this, and if he does they will start tactics to wreck the game to teach the judge a lesson.

If players aren't willing to accept that a GM can intervene and override the player if she feels that he is not playing his animal companion in accordance with the rules and/or metagaming in a way that breaks credulity then I guess I would side with the ruling of "GM controls Animal Companions" over "Player controls Animal Companions with no resort to GM over-ride" despite how I may personally dislike that choice.

However if players aren't willing to accept GM intervention in that respect, I wonder whether those players would also be unwilling to accept that a GM can intervene and override the player if she feels that he is not playing his character in accordance with the rules and/or metagaming in a way that breaks credulity. If that is the case, I simply would not want such players in PFS organised play at all.

This.

GM's have the right to adjudicate their table based on the rules as they understand them. If, as a GM, I feel you aren't following the rules of
Animal Companions, I will educate you, then ask you to make a new choice. I'll even give you your options.

If, as a player, you start making choices to ruin the game, then I will ask you to leave the table. I have 5 other people to help have fun, and I won't let one jerk ruin it.

When you find yourself with a GM that you trust (you do have good GMs as well as the bad ones you mention, right?), I would suggest that you get with him, see if they would be willing to run your beloved companion. Discuss with them how they act, and see if your fun being part of this dynamic duo might actually be increased by interaction with others.

If I get to play PFS outside of a convention 4 hour slot I may see about doing this, but in the meantime I don't want to do anything that will cause the game to run slower.

With these experiences, I'll posit that the other occasions where you happen to run your PC and your NPC companion, you will find that they are more individualized and less the hydra.

Perhaps, but then I don't tend to run my druid and his dog with a single mind, but as different personalities, with clashes sometimes (the dog stealing food mostly :)

Funny animal story.
.
Party is looking at a long dark tunnel that they know leads to a den of thieves. Surely there are traps, and they don't really have anyone to find them, let along disable them. But then one of the PCs says "Hay! I've got a Bag of Tricks!" So he pulls a random animal and (dice rattle) it's a cat (house cat). "Search Phlahphie!" and what do you know - it get's 10 feet in and SPLAT! so they draw another. (This was in 3.5 days, so you could draw creatures 5 times.) Rattle dice and it's another cat. 10 MORE feet and splat. Again, and ANOTHER cat. "Search Phlahphie!" and you guessed it - it get's 10 more feet in and SPLAT! The dice rattle and guess what?, another cat. Which the judge points out stops and looks real accusingly at the player. "It looks like the same cat." Guess what the player did? yeah, sent it down the hall. "It's got nine lives!"

DigitalMage - This line of yours is what appears to be the problem, "...the GM reserves the right to intervene / over-rule should they feel it necessary", with some players going to far as to say the judge has no right to do this, and if he does they will start tactics to wreck the game to teach the judge a lesson.

Don't try to take control of my character, everybody is happy.

Try to start a war, I can play that game too.

That simple.

nosig wrote:

DigitalMage - This line of yours is what appears to be the problem, "...the GM reserves the right to intervene / over-rule should they feel it necessary", with some players going to far as to say the judge has no right to do this, and if he does they will start tactics to wreck the game to teach the judge a lesson.

Don't try to take control of my character, everybody is happy.

Try to start a war, I can play that game too.

That simple.

Exactly.

When the session breaks up, my animal companion comes home with me.
If I next play at a different table, he'll be there alongside my PC.

Over time, the companion develops a personality. I'm just not going to let a GM whose never seen the animal before decide what it is going to do. Adjudicate my choices and correct me if I try and do something not permitted by the rules, sure. But I'd expect the GM to do that if my PC stepped over the line, too - that's part of what a GM is there for.

Basically, by default, I expect the GM to be 'eyes on, hands off' with my AC (or a mount, or a familiar, or a summoned creature, ...).

Don't try to take control of my character, everybody is happy.

Try to start a war, I can play that game too.

That simple.

If you were playing in a PFS game and one player was obviously metagaming, having his character take actions based on information he as a player knows but that his character couldn't possibly know, perhaps because he has already read the scenario, would you want the GM to step in? Or would you prefer the GM did nothing to stop this bad metagaming?

I am curious, because that is the sort of GM intervention I am talking about - basically the GM stepping in when the player is either breaking the rules or metagaming in a way that gives his PC or animal companion an unfair advantage.

Reminder: please leave personal jabs out of the conversation.

I've been scanning through the thread, and I still haven't found the answer for a brand-new, level 1 Druid who's showing up for Session Number One at a PFS table.

How many tricks does their animal companion -already know-, before the player makes any training rolls?

One? Zero? Only the 'bonus tricks' amount? Their maximum number, because the druid's already been working alongside the companion long before this adventure started? None, because they just met?

Help!

Even if it comes down that Paizo reaffirms the core rules that the characters that are not player characters are all NPCs, and all NPCs are run by the DM; this will likely not change much in practice at the table.

Can you please quote a RAW source for this?

I can find no such statement in the rulebook. All I've found for the definition of NPC is "character run by a GM" and not "all non-PC characters".

I ask because the Animal Companion by the rules is a class feature and unlike intelligent item and leadership feat has no reference to the fact it is suppose to be controlled by the GM.

And since AC's are a class feature of the PC, they are part of the character just as spellcasting and hit points are. It seems odd that a character would have a class feature meant to be controlled by the GM and have no-note whatsoever that it's not suppose to be controlled by the player.

I've been scanning through the thread, and I still haven't found the answer for a brand-new, level 1 Druid who's showing up for Session Number One at a PFS table.

How many tricks does their animal companion -already know-, before the player makes any training rolls?

One? Zero? Only the 'bonus tricks' amount? Their maximum number, because the druid's already been working alongside the companion long before this adventure started? None, because they just met?

Help!

Check here http://paizo.com/paizo/faq/v5748nruor1fq#v5748eaic9osb

But to save time here is the relevant section.

The first time a character with levels in druid, ranger, or any other class that grants an animal companion gains an animal companion, the animal enters play knowing its maximum number of tricks as dictated by the animal companion's Intelligence and the character's effective druid level.

Check here http://paizo.com/paizo/faq/v5748nruor1fq#v5748eaic9osb

But to save time here is the relevant section.

FAQ wrote:

The first time a character with levels in druid, ranger, or any other class that grants an animal companion gains an animal companion, the animal enters play knowing its maximum number of tricks as dictated by the animal companion's Intelligence and the character's

effective druid level.

Bless you! This is a huge help.

Artanthos wrote:

Don't try to take control of my character, everybody is happy.

Try to start a war, I can play that game too.

That simple.

If you were playing in a PFS game and one player was obviously metagaming, having his character take actions based on information he as a player knows but that his character couldn't possibly know, perhaps because he has already read the scenario, would you want the GM to step in? Or would you prefer the GM did nothing to stop this bad metagaming?

Adjudicating metagaming I have no issues with.

DM control of class features I do.

If the 7 intelligence barbarian suddenly starts quoting monster stats, spell knowledge and tactics, I would clamp down on him.

Given the new rules, I would also question an AC circling behind opponents instead of taking a straight line. (Flank trick and a 9+ handle animal? Have fun.)

In neither case am I assuming control.

So any replacement will cause the player to run at least one scenario with the animal companion knowing only the couple of bonus tricks.

-You can train an animal in your ranks worth of tricks once per scenario: it can be the beginning of the scenario, it doesn't have to be the end.

"Personally I like to assume neither are jerks but that the player know their animal companion build and personality better than any GM and so they are likely better placed to run it, but that the GM reserves the right to intervene / over-rule should they feel it necessary."

I guess at this point my primary question is whether its a jerk move to do the martial classes' jobs for them with your pet. This, for me, has been as big of a problem as power builds ruining scenarios.

"I guess it comes down to who do you think is more likely to be a jerk - a player or a GM, and if they are a jerk who can more severely impact the game."

This is easy; I've run into way more jerk players. I've seen all kinds of stuff: fighter archers that kill most of the opponents before the rest of the party can even close, tieflings with the ability to see in deeper darkness that drop it every fight and blind the rest of the party, etc. I see pet users as a lesser version of these kinds of scenario-breaking PCs. Except the pet users don't even really have to try. They just show up and send in Fluffy, the velociraptor. This issue also tied into how PFS scenarios still err on the weak side for combats, even in season 4. I've seen season 4 scenarios that were reported to be hard neutered totally by a couple of pet users, because the scenario just can't cope with the bodies.

I guess at this point my primary question is whether its a jerk move to do the martial classes' jobs for them with your pet. This, for me, has been as big of a problem as power builds ruining scenarios.

I don't understand this comment.

If your build is as a Druid who decks out their AC, then you are essentially building a martial character. And it is not a jerk move to play the character you've built, to do what you built it to do.

David Bowles wrote:

I guess at this point my primary question is whether its a jerk move to do the martial classes' jobs for them with your pet. This, for me, has been as big of a problem as power builds ruining scenarios.

I don't understand this comment.

If your build is as a Druid who decks out their AC, then you are essentially building a martial character. And it is not a jerk move to play the character you've built, to do what you built it to do.

I wouldn't mind this at all if the druid themselves got left at home, and they just played the martial pet. The fact that you don't even comprehend my problem with the pet situation speaks volumes.

Stop using "Don't be a jerk" as a passive aggressive way of insulting people for violating your highly subjective personal tastes on what the right level of optimization is.