Animals and Their Tricks

How about no? There is no reason to bring a PC to the table that can solo these scenarios. That's the problem with the "don't be a jerk" clause. Being a jerk is subjective.

If 2/3 of the PCs at the table are rendered redundant and just along for the ride, they are essentially wasting their time being at that table. All sense of accomplishment and meaning are instantly lost. What's the point if broken build A and broken build B sitting at the table render every encounter a foregone conclusion?

I'm not trying to be insulting, I'm asking why would anyone want to sit at that table, and why would anyone want to GM it?

How about no? There is no reason to bring a PC to the table that can solo these scenarios. That's the problem with the "don't be a jerk" clause. Being a jerk is subjective.

If 2/3 of the PCs at the table are rendered redundant and just along for the ride, they are essentially wasting their time being at that table. All sense of accomplishment and meaning are instantly lost. What's the point if broken build A and broken build B sitting at the table render every encounter a foregone conclusion?

I'm not trying to be insulting, I'm asking why would anyone want to sit at that table, and why would anyone want to GM it?

That can of worms is not tied to animal companions, but the skill and optimization levels of the players. It can just as easily be the barbarian, magus, or fighter one-shot killing everything.

David Bowles wrote:

How about no? There is no reason to bring a PC to the table that can solo these scenarios. That's the problem with the "don't be a jerk" clause. Being a jerk is subjective.

If 2/3 of the PCs at the table are rendered redundant and just along for the ride, they are essentially wasting their time being at that table. All sense of accomplishment and meaning are instantly lost. What's the point if broken build A and broken build B sitting at the table render every encounter a foregone conclusion?

I'm not trying to be insulting, I'm asking why would anyone want to sit at that table, and why would anyone want to GM it?

That can of worms is not tied to animal companions, but the skill and optimization levels of the players. It can just as easily be the barbarian, magus, or fighter one-shot killing everything.

Admittedly, this is true. However, I assert that pet wielders, particularly druids, who are already 9 level spell casters with wild shape, are halfway to these kinds of abusive characters without even trying to optimize. When they do optimize, they easily fall into "one-man shows". Boring indeed without a "hardcore mode" in PFS.

Perhaps if druids were 6 level casters like summoners or had to give up wild shape to get the pet, things would be different. But these things are never happening. So the only thing I can see changing is stricter enforcement of handle animal. But even being "that guy" at every table to bring these rules up over and over will get tedious as well.

I'm not trying to be insulting, I'm asking why would anyone want to sit at that table, and why would anyone want to GM it?

Some people enjoy the role playing I've heard. In other campaigns whenever the combats were destroyed it simply left more of the slot time for role playing.

But face it, if you've come for the challenging combats, then PFS will be a challenge of a different sort for you. I've heard they've made some tougher, but the level that they force you to play at is one where people can build characters to far exceed.

For some they like building and playing the best that they can.

Personally, along these lines I think they should design the system so that you can play whichever tier you desire (with no monetary incentive, etc) and that way everyone can get the challenge that they desire.

-James

How about no?

Read the message board rules. No insults. That includes insults by a very thin veil of implication.

There is no reason to bring a PC to the table that can solo these scenarios.

There are several.

1) Some groups like to play up. If you want to be effective when you play up you need a beefier character.

2) Some scenarios fit your build and abilities like a glove and some seem to exist to shut you down. If you don't want to die in the latter you build to power through them. That means when the scenario actually fits you you can be too strong for it

3) You can be in a group of 7 with a perfect party composition playing down with the dice gods smilling at you or you can find yourself with a lopsided composition playing up when the dice gods are angry. Barely surviving the latter usually means roflcoptering the former.

In a home game I know what the players are capable of. I get to know their characters. I know where to set the bar. I know what line not to cross. But you not only want people to set their optimization levels at your characters level (without them ever getting to look at the sheet) but you want people to psychically know what level of optimization you have and enjoy before they even meet you.

You are treating your level of optimization as the one true objective truth. It patently does not work that way.

That's the problem with the "don't be a jerk" clause. Being a jerk is subjective.

Jerkiness implies malice towards other players. Making a character at a level you personally consider effective is not malicious in the least.

If 2/3 of the PCs at the table are rendered redundant and just along for the ride, they are essentially wasting their time being at that table. All sense of accomplishment and meaning are instantly lost. What's the point if broken build A and broken build B sitting at the table render every encounter a foregone conclusion?

Its SUPPOSED to be a forgone conclusion. You're supposed to kill the bad guy, recover the macguffin, kiss the girl , and bring your phat lootz back to the bar to buy a few rounds and thrill the patrons with tales of your heroic exploits.

What you're supposed to be enjoying is the RIDE, not the destination. The thrill of discovery, the witty banter between the pcs, the joy of beheading an orcs head over the goalpost.

I'm not trying to be insulting, I'm asking why would anyone want to sit at that table, and why would anyone want to GM it?

Role playing.

"Read the message board rules. No insults. That includes insults by a very thin veil of implication."

I don't think optimizers (and by extent, to a lesser degree, pet users) are *trying* to ruin anything. But PFS scenarios are not robust enough to support these tropes of PCs.

"You are treating your level of optimization as the one true objective truth. It patently does not work that way."

No, the level of optimization tolerated before breakage is being set by PFS authors, not myself.

"Its SUPPOSED to be a forgone conclusion. You're supposed to kill the bad guy, recover the macguffin, kiss the girl , and bring your phat lootz back to the bar to buy a few rounds and thrill the patrons with tales of your heroic exploits.

What you're supposed to be enjoying is the RIDE, not the destination. The thrill of discovery, the witty banter between the pcs, the joy of beheading an orcs head over the goalpost."

Now who is projecting their truth onto the discussion? I don't like foregone conclusions. I like the NPC battles to be hard-fought, with a real possibility of failure. Not for Fluffy the velociraptor to trivially eat the BBEG.

"Jerkiness implies malice towards other players. Making a character at a level you personally consider effective is not malicious in the least."

Agreed.

"Role playing."

It takes away from the roleplay if my martial character is constantly being rendered redundant by a druid's class feature.

David Bowles wrote:

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.

From the non-PFS games I've run... it has been far more likely that the PC with an animal companion orders it to take an AoO to get into a better position, than the opposite. The animal companion gets played as a bag of hit points that gives the PC some extra attacks and creates flanking. If it dies, ah well, they get another one...

No, really. :(

This was before AA came out, I'll still let them drive their companions but I will keep an eye on their Handle Animal rolls. Also, unless I missed something, it seems like giving an order that will obviously get it hit or killed should be more than a DC 10, regardless of tricks.

"My Lion jumps across the chasm..."

*GM looks at map, and AC's stat block, realizes it can't make the jump*

"Your Lion refuses to make the jump because it can't actually make it. You can roll a DC 25 Handle Animal check if you really want to kill your lion."

I wouldn't mind this at all if the druid themselves got left at home, and they just played the martial pet.

And many could see this as valid, as they see the animal companion as one of their PCs.

It is not. It is an NPC.

Now David, you might have issues with animal companions.. but honestly, they are not that bad. The problem you might be having is that people either build some characters poorly, or that the level of challenge that is put before you is not one that is giving your group the challenge that you desire.

Moreover, as people build differently their level might have very little ability to determine how capable they are of handling, demolishing, or being demolished by a given encounter.

-James

"But face it, if you've come for the challenging combats, then PFS will be a challenge of a different sort for you. I've heard they've made some tougher, but the level that they force you to play at is one where people can build characters to far exceed."

Yeah, I'm getting that feeling. It's frustrating because all they'd have to do in many cases is give NPC casters some mook bodyguards or have 6 guys to fight instead of just 2 or 3. Pets would have plenty to chew on and leave something for other PCs to do.

David Bowles wrote:

I wouldn't mind this at all if the druid themselves got left at home, and they just played the martial pet.

And many could see this as valid, as they see the animal companion as one of their PCs.

It is not. It is an NPC.

Now David, you might have issues with animal companions.. but honestly, they are not that bad. The problem you might be having is that people either build some characters poorly, or that the level of challenge that is put before you is not one that is giving your group the challenge that you desire.

Moreover, as people build differently their level might have very little ability to determine how capable they are of handling, demolishing, or being demolished by a given encounter.

-James

I've stated this on the rules forum, but its not pets in a vacuum. It's the pet + the druid vs a regular poor old PC class that doesn't get a second quasi-PC. This also applies to cleric w/ animal domain + boon companion + pet. The druids themselves are a potent force but then they get this pet on top of it, no strings attached, ressurectable for free, that does major damage. And can be a flank buddy. And can be buffed out the wazoo. And scales with level.

I have zero problems with pets in homebrew. Bring all you like. I can just send more enemies to compensate. No such luck in PFS.

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.

Try to start a war, I ask you to leave.

That simple.

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.)

Why would the flank trick have any bearing on this?

-James

Artanthos wrote:

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.)

Why would the flank trick have any bearing on this?

-James

I believe that he was trying to make the point that if the animal has the trick, and the character has the skill at that level, the check is trivial, because the character can Take 1 to have the animal do exactly that.

In other words, sarcasm.

DigitalMage wrote:

David Bowles wrote:

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.

From the non-PFS games I've run... it has been far more likely that the PC with an animal companion orders it to take an AoO to get into a better position, than the opposite. The animal companion gets played as a bag of hit points that gives the PC some extra attacks and creates flanking. If it dies, ah well, they get another one...

No, really. :(

This was before AA came out, I'll still let them drive their companions but I will keep an eye on their Handle Animal rolls. Also, unless I missed something, it seems like giving an order that will obviously get it hit or killed should be more than a DC 10, regardless of tricks.

"My Lion jumps across the chasm..."

*GM looks at map, and AC's stat block, realizes it can't make the jump*

"Your Lion refuses to make the jump because it can't actually make it. You can roll a DC 25 Handle Animal check if you really want to kill your lion."

A PFS NPC will likely just miss with their AOO anyway. :)

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".

You said the same thing earlier, and then admitted you didn't actually know the rules relating to AC death.

I pointed out that there were indeed rules, and somewhat punitive at that, so I am surprised to see you still taking this line and having another poster come and correct your misunderstanding.

If you are going to argue about a set of rules and their impact on gameplay I'd suggest your arguments would carry more weight if they displayed an understanding of the actual mechanics.

Having to retrain tricks? Just because I didn't know the specific rules at the time, does not make that "penalty" any less of a joke. Besides, how exactly are these scenarios, on average, going to kill these pets?

I don't think optimizers (and by extent, to a lesser degree, pet users) are *trying* to ruin anything.

Then they're not being jerks.

No, the level of optimization tolerated before breakage is being set by PFS authors, not myself.

Now who is projecting their truth onto the discussion?

I'm not projecting anything. The PCs are SUPPOSED to win. Thats the entire point of the encounter levels.

What the other players are blowing away is your martial character. Make better ones.

David Bowles wrote:

I don't think optimizers (and by extent, to a lesser degree, pet users) are *trying* to ruin anything.

Then they're not being jerks.

Quote:

No, the level of optimization tolerated before breakage is being set by PFS authors, not myself.

Now who is projecting their truth onto the discussion?

I'm not projecting anything. The PCs are SUPPOSED to win. Thats the entire point of the encounter levels.

What the other players are blowing away is your martial character. Make better ones.

I disagree; the scenarios should be more than which broken build wins initiative and gets to WTF own the hapless NPCs. There should be some threat of failure in every encounter to keep everyone interested and invested. The encounter levels need modified, desperately, I think.

I refuse to create scenario-breaking PCs. Flat out refuse. If that's what I have to do to compete with druids for the chance to contribute meaningfully, I think that says something right there.

I disagree; the scenarios should be more than which broken build wins initiative and gets to WTF own the hapless NPCs.
I refuse to create scenario-breaking PCs. Flat out refuse. If that's what I have to do to compete with druids for the chance to contribute meaningfully, I think that says something right there.

You're not just refusing to compete with the druid you're competing with half the characters out there. What you call broken most would call moderately optimized. A barbarian with 18 strength, power attack and a two handed weapon (which is kind of the base line for a first level martial) is a broken build by your definition.

A druid and pet have far more utility than an 18 STR barbarian with power attack. For more hps, spell support, more skills, built-in flanking, and far more chances to hit. If necessary, a druid can sacrifice the AC and get another next scenario for little penalty. If the barbarian tries that trick....... it's 16PP. I don't feel this is an apples to apples comparison.

And I specifically stated that the pet users start only halfway to broken. But it's much easier to put them over the top, imo. Double action efficiency will do that for you.

Ahem, not really bothering to keep up with the argument any more, but about the Flanking thing, it seems pretty simple to me: you either use the Flank trick, gamble with the Attack trick MAYBE Flanking, or you yourself go first and move into a position that will Flank with the square that is the closest/easiest for your animal to attack from with the Attack trick. Or do similarly via an ally moving to setup a Flank with the easiest square to attack from with the Attack trick.

Question: Companion classes can use Handle Animal as a Free Action. Should this be usable 'off your turn' like TALKING (also a Free Action) is? Per RAW, that isn't the case, but since this is just as much 'communication' as talking is, I don't see why it shouldn't work that way. Making it less of a pain in the ass to use Handle Animal may lessen the pain for those just now getting used to actually using it. (For Handle Animal without the Companion class feature, even Handling is a Move Action which seems inappropriate and unwieldy to try to enable 'off your turn'. If this becomes another signifigant advantage of Companion vs. other animals, I think that this is fine and reasonable)

Also related to that, the current Blog pretty much goes 99% of the way in describing how it works, but doesn't actually go ahead and directly state that it's 100% legit and advisable to simply not roll checks which are guaranteed to succeed (and which don't have variable effect based on how much they beat the DC by or the dice result). I think that starting out by stating that premise, and THEN giving example numbers of skill modifiers vs. DCs would better establish in readers' minds the context for those comparisons and how they relate to their own games. Personally, I would also put a note in there about the advisability of still 'declaring' what Tricks are being Commanded/Pushed (even when a roll isn't made).

Question: Companion classes can use Handle Animal as a Free Action. Should this be usable 'off your turn' like TALKING (also a Free Action) is? Per RAW, that isn't the case, but since this is just as much 'communication' as talking is, I don't see why it shouldn't work that way. Making it less of a pain in the ass to use Handle Animal may lessen the pain for those just now getting used to actually using it. (For Handle Animal without the Companion class feature, even Handling is a Move Action which seems inappropriate and unwieldy to try to enable 'off your turn'. If this becomes another signifigant advantage of Companion vs. other animals, I think that this is fine and reasonable)

Back on the first page mark moreland said you were supposed to have the animal delay for your initiative if it went first and if you went first you would have to give it a command on your turn and have the animal perform the action on its turn- which is pretty much a no to commanding it as a free action out of turn.

Given the problems with trying to give a command that can get invalidated, I'd think every druid would want to delay until just before the critters turn.

Yep the animal pretty much has to wait for your command, and so you want your turn and it's turn pretty much as close together as you can get them.

My experience so far in PFS as a Cav is that the GMs:
-Want to know what tricks your pet has (or that they have been documented).
-Ensure that the pet has its own initiative.
-That your Free action is done on your turn.
-And that your HA skill IS actually high enough to autopass (or start rolling).

When my companion acts I do always state what is being used (attack, defend, track, whatever)

I'm also mindful to get my turn done quickly.

One can be a conscientious AC buddy.

Clearly, the current RAW flat out doesn't allow for out-of-turn Handle Animal unlike normal Talking... I was suggesting a change to the rules, while the Blog and PFS' clarifications so far have focused on explaining the current RAW.

You still can't take any action while Flat-Footed (same for Talking), so you would be unable to Command your Companion until your turn has come up in combat (if the Companion is not surprised but you are, you simply can't Command it during a Surprise Round). The Free Action Handle is only for known Tricks, so if you DON'T Delay to align the turns ahead of time, when you do decide to Push the Companion you will have to Delay at that time, OR 'give a command that can get invalidated' between when you issue the order and when the animal can act upon the order...

Another question: Flank says the animal always tries to be adjacent and threatening to the designated foe... Isn't that kind of strange for animals with Reach? What purpose does being adjacent serve for them? Why doesn't it just specify 'threatening' only?

Another question: Flank says the animal always tries to be adjacent and threatening to the designated foe... Isn't that kind of strange for animals with Reach? What purpose does being adjacent serve for them? Why doesn't it just specify 'threatening' only?

Either the author assumed critters without reach, or thought it would be handy to have the ones with reach right up against the bad guy, so they can't 5 foot step to cast or withdraw. It might get them more AOOs (if they decide to get up close and personal with ogres) but is very handy against spellcasters.

So can you 'pre-command' an animal then?

"When the door opens, attack the nearest person in the room"
"Guard me, if an attacker appears, attack them immediately"
"If an armed stranger appears, attack"

All seem reasonable.

Hey look, they can even think for themselves in combat - works out the weapon disarm AND flanks.

Real animals must be much smarter than PF animals then, they seem to know more tricks.

So can you 'pre-command' an animal then?

RAW + what mark said if the door was opening on 12 and the animal was acting on 10 yes. Otherwise held actions for critters are technically up in the air.

And therein lies a problem too.

If it can't do anything 'proactively' do we have to assume taht the animals are dumber than zombies (who can at least engage/defend themselves) until 'told' to do something only AFTER a combat has started?

Perhaps if druids were 6 level casters like summoners or had to give up wild shape to get the pet, things would be different. But these things are never happening.

You seem to have a really big problem with animal companions, you perceive them as overpowered (especially for PFS play where the GM cannot change the scenarios). So you seem to either want them a) banned, or b) nerfed.

As you seem to have already ruled out option a) in this thread ("Never going to happen. So why even discuss it?") then I guess you should try to pursue option b) and try to convince Mike Brock of the need for a nerf.

So the only thing I can see changing is stricter enforcement of handle animal. But even being "that guy" at every table to bring these rules up over and over will get tedious as well.

I can't imagine that simply playing according to the Handle Animal rules (if people are not already) would significantly nerf an optimised animal companion and druid combo, or even a non-optimised combo.

Seriously, how do you see stricter enforcement of Handle Animal rules, significantly nerfing a druid with animal companion - animals that still have multiple attacks will still have them, they will still have significant hit points etc.

I think you may be better served starting a new thread to discuss why you feel animal companions should be nerfed and providing suggestions on how that could be done.

From the non-PFS games I've run... it has been far more likely that the PC with an animal companion orders it to take an AoO to get into a better position, than the opposite. The animal companion gets played as a bag of hit points that gives the PC some extra attacks and creates flanking. If it dies, ah well, they get another one...

No, really. :(

In PFS there is the penalty of having to retrain the Int based number of tricks, so there is some incentive not to get your ac killed (unless you have 6 ranks in Handle Animal or are happy to train for just a purpose and have a good Handle Animal modifier).

And therein lies a problem too.

If it can't do anything 'proactively' do we have to assume taht the animals are dumber than zombies (who can at least engage/defend themselves) until 'told' to do something only AFTER a combat has started?

As I have said before I don't consider animal companions automatons, if a foe attacks the animal companion and that animal gets to act before it is commanded I don't think it at all unreasonable that the animal would either attack back or withdraw.

This is easy; I've run into way more jerk players. ... tieflings with the ability to see in deeper darkness that drop it every fight and blind the rest of the party, etc.

Heh. I think I know those Tieflings. (Dex can do the same trick, but I've not had a chance to do it, nor would I do it to blind the party. It's more to a) allow me to see when others do that trick and b) to get away, akin to Talyn's use of smoke pellets.)

Plus it's just awesome to have an Inquisitor of Shiruzu "Deny you her blessing" and plunge the are into darkness. :-)

Artanthos wrote:

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.

Try to start a war, I ask you to leave.

That simple.

I won't be breaking any rules and I will be polite and smile while I'm doing it. I'll just giving the GM more of what he is asking for. More things to control.

To eject me from a PFS event you have to have a reason beyond disagreeing with my characters play style and build concepts.

Andrew Christian wrote:

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.

Does it? Have you ever seen me at the table? Have you seen the 93 scenarios I've run and the 50+ I've played? Have you seen the 16th level Druid I played in 3.0 with its awakened dire lion in a home campaign? Have you seen my 12th level Cavalier/Alchemist on an Axe Beak? Have you seen my 11th level Druid (saurian shaman) with a Pteranodon?

No?

Then don't judge me sight unseen. And just because you've seen one or two pounce kitty druids and deemed them overpowered, does not make it so.

David Bowles wrote:

Perhaps if druids were 6 level casters like summoners or had to give up wild shape to get the pet, things would be different. But these things are never happening.

You seem to have a really big problem with animal companions, you perceive them as overpowered (especially for PFS play where the GM cannot change the scenarios). So you seem to either want them a) banned, or b) nerfed.

As you seem to have already ruled out option a) in this thread ("Never going to happen. So why even discuss it?") then I guess you should try to pursue option b) and try to convince Mike Brock of the need for a nerf.

David Bowles wrote:

So the only thing I can see changing is stricter enforcement of handle animal. But even being "that guy" at every table to bring these rules up over and over will get tedious as well.

I can't imagine that simply playing according to the Handle Animal rules (if people are not already) would significantly nerf an optimised animal companion and druid combo, or even a non-optimised combo.

Seriously, how do you see stricter enforcement of Handle Animal rules, significantly nerfing a druid with animal companion - animals that still have multiple attacks will still have them, they will still have significant hit points etc.

I think you may be better served starting a new thread to discuss why you feel animal companions should be nerfed and providing suggestions on how that could be done.

I think the derail here is enough effort spent. It would be a nerf only in PFS, and that just seems incredibly unlikely. As has been pointed out here, I guess lots of people love just rofl stomping the scenarios as fast as they can. I'm completely willing to settle for eliminating the telepathic link. At least make druids contemplate not dumping CHA.

David Bowles wrote:

Andrew Christian wrote:

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.

Does it? Have you ever seen me at the table? Have you seen the 93 scenarios I've run and the 50+ I've played? Have you seen the 16th level Druid I played in 3.0 with its awakened dire lion in a home campaign? Have you seen my 12th level Cavalier/Alchemist on an Axe Beak? Have you seen my 11th level Druid (saurian shaman) with a Pteranodon?

No?

Then don't judge me sight unseen. And just because you've seen one or two pounce kitty druids and deemed them overpowered, does not make it so.

If you're using the AC chart from the core rulebook, I don't need to see you to know what's going on. As I have stated at least once, I don't care at all about ACs in homebrew. Sounds like you do like your pets. Sorry for stepping on your toes, but I think they are overpowered in PFS.

At the heart of it, it's the fact that a druid and their pet take up one slot at a PFS table, with no adjustments made for the pet. Maybe pet users should take up two slots at a table, but this would crowd out real people at events. No, the path of least resistance is just to let ACs eat scenarios and allow pet users to be unbalanced.

I really, really enjoy the PFS setup, but the number of conditions that exist that make a mockery of the scenarios is very tedious.

Unseelie wrote:

Artanthos wrote:

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.

Try to start a war, I ask you to leave.

That simple.

I won't be breaking any rules and I will be polite and smile while I'm doing it. I'll just giving the GM more of what he is asking for. More things to control.

To eject me from a PFS event you have to have a reason beyond disagreeing with my characters play style and build concepts.

I really don't think this is necessary. It's better to just allow scenarios to continue to be effortlessly rofl stomped by pet users than start "wars".

Unseelie wrote:

From the non-PFS games I've run... it has been far more likely that the PC with an animal companion orders it to take an AoO to get into a better position, than the opposite. The animal companion gets played as a bag of hit points that gives the PC some extra attacks and creates flanking. If it dies, ah well, they get another one...

No, really. :(

In PFS there is the penalty of having to retrain the Int based number of tricks, so there is some incentive not to get your ac killed (unless you have 6 ranks in Handle Animal or are happy to train for just a purpose and have a good Handle Animal modifier).

How many ACs have you actually seen die? I think I've seen one. Maybe. I don't remember if it hit neg con nor not.

Andrew Christian wrote:

David Bowles wrote:

Andrew Christian wrote:

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.

Does it? Have you ever seen me at the table? Have you seen the 93 scenarios I've run and the 50+ I've played? Have you seen the 16th level Druid I played in 3.0 with its awakened dire lion in a home campaign? Have you seen my 12th level Cavalier/Alchemist on an Axe Beak? Have you seen my 11th level Druid (saurian shaman) with a Pteranodon?

No?

Then don't judge me sight unseen. And just because you've seen one or two pounce kitty druids and deemed them overpowered, does not make it so.

If you're using the AC chart from the core rulebook, I don't need to see you to know what's going on. As I have stated at least once, I don't care at all about ACs in homebrew. Sounds like you do like your pets. Sorry for stepping on your toes, but I think they are overpowered in PFS.

At the heart of it, it's the fact that a druid and their pet take up one slot at a PFS table, with no adjustments made for the pet. Maybe pet users should take up two slots at a table, but this would crowd out real people at events. No, the path of least resistance is just to let ACs eat scenarios and allow pet users to be unbalanced.

I really, really enjoy the PFS setup, but the number of conditions that exist that make a mockery of the scenarios is...

Druids give up something to get their animal companion.

Do you know what it is?

In PFS there is the penalty of having to retrain the Int based number of tricks, so there is some incentive not to get your ac killed (unless you have 6 ranks in Handle Animal or are happy to train for just a purpose and have a good Handle Animal modifier).

I am not a good example to use, I don't play PFS nearly enough to have got a representative experience - I think I have only seen one druid played and that was mine, and his AC has not died (but then my druid gets him out of combat if he looks to be in danger).

DigitalMage wrote:

Unseelie wrote:

From the non-PFS games I've run... it has been far more likely that the PC with an animal companion orders it to take an AoO to get into a better position, than the opposite. The animal companion gets played as a bag of hit points that gives the PC some extra attacks and creates flanking. If it dies, ah well, they get another one...

No, really. :(

In PFS there is the penalty of having to retrain the Int based number of tricks, so there is some incentive not to get your ac killed (unless you have 6 ranks in Handle Animal or are happy to train for just a purpose and have a good Handle Animal modifier).

How many ACs have you actually seen die? I think I've seen one. Maybe. I don't remember if it hit neg con nor not.

I killed an Animal Companion and a Familiar in one attack at tier 13.2

As I have said before I don't consider animal companions automatons, if a foe attacks the animal companion and that animal gets to act before it is commanded I don't think it at all unreasonable that the animal would either attack back or withdraw.

And unlike a PC in that situation, they don't normally get to ask the rest of the group what they are going to do (flight or flight).. and there's not much time in any event to make that call.

Now you can certainly have commanded your companion to be guarding you, or another. In which case it will certainly do so even before your turn comes up. There are plenty of tricks that you can have had the companion performing outside of combat that are not forgotten or wiped clean simply because init is rolled.

Commands to the animal companion are simply changing it's normal behavior; the system does not change them from wild animals to domesticated ones. Tricks are a way for the druid (et al) to give the companion the information that they should give something a higher priority than normal.

If the party is attacked, perhaps the animal would go kill one of the enemies. If, however, it had been commanded to stay put.. it would do so.. at least until it suffered enough damage to question your orders.

It is silly to think that if the player's druid were dropped in a surprise round that the animal companion would delay indefinitely for orders, not even defending itself when attacked. Insanity even.

But this is a natural consequence of viewing the companion as merely an extension of the PC, rather than the NPC that it is.

-James

"Druids give up something to get their animal companion.

Do you know what it is?"

Well it's not spell levels, BAB, feats, skills, or other strong class features, so I guess I don't know what it is. I know the other choice for this class feature is a cleric domain, but seriously, I have never seen anyone choose that.

13.2? So you killed a seeker's AC? I would hope that by level 13, the NPCs could challenge an AC, but in PFS, you never know.

james maissen wrote:

Artanthos wrote:

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.)

Why would the flank trick have any bearing on this?

-James

I believe that he was trying to make the point that if the animal has the trick, and the character has the skill at that level, the check is trivial, because the character can Take 1 to have the animal do exactly that.

In other words, sarcasm.

Ah I must have missed it due to the medium.

But then I've seen people state that somehow without the trick that the animal could not flank, so perhaps that's understandable. And others complaining how these new options take away from what they were doing before they existed. So I guess I'm cynical about this.

-James

Clearly, the current RAW flat out doesn't allow for out-of-turn Handle Animal unlike normal Talking... I was suggesting a change to the rules, while the Blog and PFS' clarifications so far have focused on explaining the current RAW.

You still can't take any action while Flat-Footed (same for Talking), so you would be unable to Command your Companion until your turn has come up in combat (if the Companion is not surprised but you are, you simply can't Command it during a Surprise Round). The Free Action Handle is only for known Tricks, so if you DON'T Delay to align the turns ahead of time, when you do decide to Push the Companion you will have to Delay at that time, OR 'give a command that can get invalidated' between when you issue the order and when the animal can act upon the order...

I think the Defend command covers what the animal does while it delays awaiting command when it beats its master's initiative. The defend command indicates the animal is ready to defend you even if no command is given. So if something attacks it or its master, it will attack the attacker without command. I don't think this means it is readying an action so it can't interupt; it appears to mean it automatically comes out of delay after the attack occurs.

"Druids give up something to get their animal companion.

Do you know what it is?"

Well it's not spell levels, BAB, feats, skills, or other strong class features, so I guess I don't know what it is. I know the other choice for this class feature is a cleric domain, but seriously, I have never seen anyone choose that.

13.2? So you killed a seeker's AC? I would hope that by level 13, the NPCs could challenge an AC, but in PFS, you never know.

I've seen plenty of Druids take the Domain vs. the Animal Companion. A regional player, you may know him, goes by the name of Jiggy, chose a Menhir Savant archetype rather than take the AC. My wife chose the Weather Domain vs. taking an AC for her druid.

But you lose a spell for every spell level.

You lose a generic Domain power that you get at 1st level.

And you lose the 8th level domain power, which is often fairly significant.

In my case, my druid took the Animal Domain, got the AC at -3 Druid levels, and then took Boon Companion for a full powered AC.

"In my case, my druid took the Animal Domain, got the AC at -3 Druid levels, and then took Boon Companion for a full powered AC."

That's legal? Whatever. That's basically giving up a single feat for both the pet and the spells. You're making me hate this class in PFS even more.

To eject me from a PFS event you have to have a reason beyond disagreeing with my characters play style and build concepts.

Where on earth did you get that idea?!?

Artanthos, you've promised that if I treat your animal companion as an NPC, you will do your best to ruin the session.

I'll state right here: I don't want you at my table, playing that character or any other, so long as you think any player has the right to deliberately wreck a PFS session. I have five other players at the table, and I don't have time for your garbage.

I don't need a better reason than that.

Artanthos wrote:

To eject me from a PFS event you have to have a reason beyond disagreeing with my characters play style and build concepts.

Where on earth did you get that idea?!?

Artanthos, you've promised that if I treat your animal companion as an NPC, you will do your best to ruin the session.

I'll state right here: I don't want you at my table, playing that character or any other, so long as you think any player has the right to deliberately wreck a PFS session. I have five other players at the table, and I don't have time for your garbage.

I don't need a better reason than that.

I find it interesting that we have this threat being bandied about while I have voluntarily put my character on "perma-hold" because pet classes and power builds have had encounters handled. There was simply no legitimate action I could take that I could justify spending the table's time on. I'm willing to do this, but it does make me feel like I'm completely wasting my time. Note that pets' high movement rates makes this happen more than people might want to admit.

Artanthos wrote:

To eject me from a PFS event you have to have a reason beyond disagreeing with my characters play style and build concepts.

Where on earth did you get that idea?!?

Artanthos, you've promised that if I treat your animal companion as an NPC, you will do your best to ruin the session.

I'll state right here: I don't want you at my table, playing that character or any other, so long as you think any player has the right to deliberately wreck a PFS session. I have five other players at the table, and I don't have time for your garbage.

I don't need a better reason than that.

If I ever play with you as a GM at Con and you try to control my AC, we can have that discussion with the people running the event.

GM: "I want to evict this player for casting too many summoning spells."

Me: "I'm built to summon monsters, is there a rule I'm breaking?", pulls out additional resources list, "everything I'm using seems to be legal."

In PFS the rules are just as binding on the GM as the player. You many not like my build or my play style, but you cannot bar it or act against it.