Animals and Their Tricks

Chris Mortika wrote:

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."

You really are not helping your case. In fact, you are likely getting worked up for nothing, as I'm pretty sure that Ultimate Campaign will clear this matter up. Ever further, I have a feeling ACs are going to be player controlled, DM policed. Not that I would want that job either, with you at the table from the sounds of it.

Chris Mortika wrote:

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.

David, how much actual PFS experience do you have, or is all your talk about how overpowered AC's are is theoretical?

Seriously. I have LOTS of PFS experience both as a nearly 4-star GM, and having played 50+ scenarios too boot.

I have not seen the problem you are stating from AC's. I just haven't.

Nearly 4 stars?

Can I claim to be nearly 5 stars?

:D

Well. I have a level 8, level 6, two level 3's and a level one. I played to epic levels in 3.0 and 3.5. I guess I've ran about 10 scenarios now, give or take.

So you're telling me that you are a 4 star GM and you have never seen ACs and eidolons make mockeries of the scenarios? Not even season 0 or 1? Or never seen them render martial classes redundant? Not even movement 20' races?

Granted, it's never as bad as the fighter archer that shoots everything to death in 2 rounds or your own party dropping deeper darkness. But that is why I assert that pets are only halfway to broken by default. It's very easy to push pet classes into the "one-man army" regime.

Perhaps my best evidence was at Origins last year. I was playing a cleric, and was the primary source of party healing. I got a very bad stomach ache and had to leave the table for ~2 hours. No one ran my character, but the party had two ACs and was not adversely affected by my absence in the least. I don't remember the specific scenario, but it had to have been season 3. The ACs served to overload the scenarios ability to deal out and receive damage, making my support role moot.

Nearly 4 stars?

Can I claim to be nearly 5 stars?

:D

As you can see, I am 3 stars, and I'm at 93 scenarios, so only need to GM 7 more to get my 4th. But thanks for your snark.

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.

Here's what I hear you saying:

A. I want the combats in the scenario to challenge the party that I am traveling in.

B. Many times this is not the case, and I find fault that this is occurring.

C. I specifically blame players that have companion creatures for this.

I disagree with you.

I don't think it's your fault for wanting combats to be challenging, but expecting the campaign that's elected to write at only one difficulty level to pick the level that you want to play at, and to insist that everyone play at that level... well that seems to be asking a bit much.

Everyone likes this game for different reasons, and likes to play at a different level of challenge. The table should have more control over the level of challenge that is faced by the party, as they are the best suited to judge their desires and ability.

But this is a separate issue from companions and how they are not run correctly,

-James

Well. I have a level 8, level 6, two level 3's and a level one. I played to epic levels in 3.0 and 3.5. I guess I've ran about 10 scenarios now, give or take.

So you're telling me that you are a 4 star GM and you have never seen ACs and eidolons make mockeries of the scenarios? Not even season 0 or 1? Or never seen them render martial classes redundant? Not even movement 20' races?

Granted, it's never as bad as the fighter archer that shoots everything to death in 2 rounds or your own party dropping deeper darkness. But that is why I assert that pets are only halfway to broken by default. It's very easy to push pet classes into the "one-man army" regime.

Perhaps my best evidence was at Origins last year. I was playing a cleric, and was the primary source of party healing. I got a very bad stomach ache and had to leave the table for ~2 hours. No one ran my character, but the party had two ACs and was not adversely affected by my absence in the least. I don't remember the specific scenario, but it had to have been season 3. The ACs served to overload the scenarios ability to deal out and receive damage, making my support role moot.

Never is a strong word.

I would say that I haven't seen a pet class overpower a scenario more than any other class has.

You seem to think pet classes are overpowered by default. If that's the case, then you'd see more iterations of them overpowering scenarios than any other class.

And you don't. So I'm not understanding your bias.

David Bowles wrote:

Well. I have a level 8, level 6, two level 3's and a level one. I played to epic levels in 3.0 and 3.5. I guess I've ran about 10 scenarios now, give or take.

So you're telling me that you are a 4 star GM and you have never seen ACs and eidolons make mockeries of the scenarios? Not even season 0 or 1? Or never seen them render martial classes redundant? Not even movement 20' races?

Granted, it's never as bad as the fighter archer that shoots everything to death in 2 rounds or your own party dropping deeper darkness. But that is why I assert that pets are only halfway to broken by default. It's very easy to push pet classes into the "one-man army" regime.

Perhaps my best evidence was at Origins last year. I was playing a cleric, and was the primary source of party healing. I got a very bad stomach ache and had to leave the table for ~2 hours. No one ran my character, but the party had two ACs and was not adversely affected by my absence in the least. I don't remember the specific scenario, but it had to have been season 3. The ACs served to overload the scenarios ability to deal out and receive damage, making my support role moot.

Never is a strong word.

I would say that I haven't seen a pet class overpower a scenario more than any other class has.

You seem to think pet classes are overpowered by default. If that's the case, then you'd see more iterations of them overpowering scenarios than any other class.

And you don't. So I'm not understanding your bias.

This is my bias: the fighter archer must be built that way. The deeper darkness tiefling scheme must be built that way. The monk with crazy AC and grapple check must be built that way. Pet owners just come out of the box with a double action advantage. They can dominate a scenario with no special effort or optimization, particularly when handle animal is hand waived away.

So you're telling me that you are a 4 star GM and you have never seen ACs and eidolons make mockeries of the scenarios?

I've seen this at tables that had no pets.

I've even had a single character I was playing render the rest of the group pointless. He did not have an AC. I played a secondary character for the next scenario that day so that rest of the group could contribute more. The secondary character was a summoner, she was, and remains, much less effective.

David Bowles wrote:

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.

Here's what I hear you saying:

A. I want the combats in the scenario to challenge the party that I am traveling in.

B. Many times this is not the case, and I find fault that this is occurring.

C. I specifically blame players that have companion creatures for this.

I disagree with you.

I don't think it's your fault for wanting combats to be challenging, but expecting the campaign that's elected to write at only one difficulty level to pick the level that you want to play at, and to insist that everyone play at that level... well that seems to be asking a bit much.

Everyone likes this game for different reasons, and likes to play at a different level of challenge. The table should have more control over the level of challenge that is faced by the party, as they are the best suited to judge their desires and ability.

But this is a separate issue from companions and how they are not run correctly,

-James

I understand what you are saying. And I admit there is no real good solution for this. But as I posted above, it's the ease with which ACs put these scenarios on "mind numbing easy mode". If I'm not mistaken, earlier seasons are balanced for four players. But tables usually have six. And then on top of the six, you can get pets. That's literally spamming bodies at the scenarios that they just can't handle. The telepathic mind link is a contributor to this effect, but I'm not sure how much of one. That's how little I've seen the handle animal rules enforced. In fact, for a long time, I thought that ACs had provisions to exempt them from these rules. That tells you how they've been run at the tables I've been at.

Chris Mortika wrote:

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.

I don't think you'll get that far.

If I'm the con cordinator and one of my judges says "this guy is being a jerk, I can't run with him at the table". No matter what the player says, I'm going to realize that I have a problem and need to separate the two of you. There are 5 other players at the table (who are not complaining - unless you have started the train wreck, then they are likely supporting the judge in this), so if I pull the Judge I make 5 OTHER people upset. If I pull you the game goes on. Which am I going to pick?

Nearly 4 stars?

Can I claim to be nearly 5 stars?

:D

(looks at name and sees no starts. nearly 5 would be at least 4?)

ah, that would be a no.

"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"

This is why I wanted the enforcement of handle animal. It's the only RAW restriction on ACs, and even that is arguable under the "it's a class feature" argument. Although most people seem willing to abide by the handle animal system.

Another reminder: we'd really rather not lock a blog thread, so please leave the personal jabs and snark out of the conversation.

in an attempt to lighten the mood - a story of a game with an AC in it.

In fact, with the Thrown Weapon specialist (150 hp damage in a round), the Mobil Tank Cleric (40' move and an AC of 32+), spells from the Sorcerer ("Dominate Person DC26 baby! Persist that!")... the druid and her pet contributed best by being comic releaf.

I have played a lot. (there are only three more scenarios I have not played - two more will be released soon though!) And judged some (15 more to make my 3rd star!), and played for ... a long time (longer than some of my players parents have been alive). So what I say should be only my opinion... but it's an informed opinion.

IMHO - Classes with Animal Companions are no more over powered than any other class. And can get "played over" just as much as any other class.

I just want to make it clear that I'm not trying to be personal in anyway. I myself have played druids and summoners, but only in home brew. After about 15 scenarios, I realized that these classes would

It's not the fault of any given player or DM that the PFS scenarios can not address pet count. It also seems to be the case that most other posters don't seem to have encountered this issue.

This is my bias: the fighter archer must be built that way. The deeper darkness tiefling scheme must be built that way. The monk with crazy AC and grapple check must be built that way. Pet owners just come out of the box with a double action advantage. They can dominate a scenario with no special effort or optimization, particularly when handle animal is hand waived away.

I call you out on overuse of Hyperbole. Can an AC be built to dominate? Yes.

Can an average built AC and Master Druid just be like any other party member?

Absolutely. I have 2 characters that prove it. My Druid is built very well (some may even say cheese since I finagled both a domain and the AC) and has yet to dominate anything, except for a couple final encounters where I baleful polymorph the BBEG and he failed his save. The AC hasn't done anything to dominate anything, but the character is very effective.

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 don't run PFS. I run in my home. I ask problem players to leave and not come back. Someone who's not willing to compromise with me is most of the way there. I don't have to run a game, and I don't have to invite people I don't like into my home.

David Bowles wrote:

This is my bias: the fighter archer must be built that way. The deeper darkness tiefling scheme must be built that way. The monk with crazy AC and grapple check must be built that way. Pet owners just come out of the box with a double action advantage. They can dominate a scenario with no special effort or optimization, particularly when handle animal is hand waived away.

I call you out on overuse of Hyperbole. Can an AC be built to dominate? Yes.

Can an average built AC and Master Druid just be like any other party member?

Absolutely. I have 2 characters that prove it. My Druid is built very well (some may even say cheese since I finagled both a domain and the AC) and has yet to dominate anything, except for a couple final encounters where I baleful polymorph the BBEG and he failed his save. The AC hasn't done anything to dominate anything, but the character is very effective.

Maybe. The lack of other substantiating stories certainly doesn't help my assertion. It could be that perhaps the average PC in PFS is more effective than the ones I have been playing in groups with. Perhaps the DMs are setting up their NPCs in places where they are getting overwhelmed easily.

At the end of it though, it still seems like a terribly strong class feature for a 9 level spell caster.

Another amusing animal companion story.

T-rex AC, misses with its bite, player thinks it's a raptor and can make claw attacks. "Crap, I forgot, he's a T-rex, no claw attacks!"

Me "I have a big head, and little arms. I'm just not sure how well this plan was thought through. Master?"

Another amusing animal companion story.

T-rex AC, misses with its bite, player thinks it's a raptor and can make claw attacks. "Crap, I forgot, he's a T-rex, no claw attacks!"

Me "I have a big head, and little arms. I'm just not sure how well this plan was thought through. Master?"

LOL

Best blog comment section ever. If you can mine through the fluff there is so much good information in here. Just think what the next 13 pages of comments will bring to the table.

Different classes can trivialize encounters in different ways; it's hard for a scenario to adequately challenge all possible combinations of players, especially older scenarios designed before some character classes even existed.

At low levels (especially at level 1) I've seen barbarians solo encounters that have come close to wiping out entire parties on other occasions (on either side: First Steps 1 has several reports of TPKs or near-TPKs if a particular barbarian gets a good roll or two).

At slightly higher levels a magus can on occasion be devastating. But from the GM's side of the screen I've had more problems from a well-played witch or oracle; a misfortune hex (or equivalent) at just the wrong time can completely ruin a BBEG's day.

We do have a couple of players around here with particularly effective ACs; one with a giant ape, and one wild-shaping druid with a T-Rex (and 'Summon Monster', just to make things even worse). But most of the time we're happy to let them own the role of party tank in the combat encounters, especially if we're short-handed that evening because the regular front-liner hadn't signed up that week.

"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"

This is why I wanted the enforcement of handle animal. It's the only RAW restriction on ACs, and even that is arguable under the "it's a class feature" argument. Although most people seem willing to abide by the handle animal system.

As stands the handle animal system is RAW. I may disagree with it, but I will abide by it.

I suppose the reverse consequence of classes with ACs is that they make short-handed tables viable.

Save or suck/die is another well-discussed issue. Admittedly, these can really make scenarios anti-climactic as well.

I don't run PFS. I run in my home. I ask problem players to leave and not come back. Someone who's not willing to compromise with me is most of the way there. I don't have to run a game, and I don't have to invite people I don't like into my home.

None of the issues raised here really apply to home games. GM's are free to implement house rules, table variance is a non-issue, etc.

If the GM in a home game was going to implement rules I strongly disagreed with I would play a character unaffected by those rules.

The one time this has become a personal issue for me, the house rule was implemented mid-campaign. There were many, many other conflicts relating to inconsistent rules in that group as well.

Unseelie wrote:

I don't run PFS. I run in my home. I ask problem players to leave and not come back. Someone who's not willing to compromise with me is most of the way there. I don't have to run a game, and I don't have to invite people I don't like into my home.

None of the issues raised here really apply to home games. GM's are free to implement house rules, table variance is a non-issue, etc.

If the GM in a home game was going to implement rules I strongly disagreed with I would play a character unaffected by those rules.

The one time this has become a personal issue for me, the house rule was implemented mid-campaign. There were many, many other conflicts relating to inconsistent rules in that group as well.

Yeah, that's pretty much unacceptable to me as well. And for my home games, I usually have more NPCs to run per fight than is typical for PFS, so there's no way I'd want AC control in a home game. At the same time, I can also completely tailor the difficulty level at home as well.

I also find that templated NPCs also provide challenge for even the most pet-heavy or munchkin-ridden home groups.

Yeah, that's pretty much unacceptable to me as well. And for my home games, I usually have more NPCs to run per fight than is typical for PFS, so there's no way I'd want AC control in a home game.

The DM can always farm out controlling some NPCs to the players at the table, likewise keeping track of initiative, spell duration, etc. It's a cooperative game, after all.

-James

They can dominate a scenario with no special effort or optimization, particularly when handle animal is hand waived away.

You have already been shown, repeatedly, that the handle animal is NOT being hand waived away, that it is in fact being played by the rules. You keep insisting or implying that this isn't the case, despite knowing that you're wrong.

By the rules, it is incredibly easy to do.

By the rules, you auto succeed on 99% of what you want a creature to do in combat.

By the rules, you can dump charisma like a bad habit and still have a 95% chance of success at first level ( 1 rank +3 trained +4 link -2 cha +2 training harness)

Your complaints about the tactical acumen of the animal companions is at best a disagreement with a legitimate call by the DM.

This is not the solution to your complaints about pets and their overpowered druid companions. You would need to cheat to use DM control to drop their combat effectiveness by any noticeable degree. The difficulty setting of PFS is also a seperate issue. They're contentious enough already without wrapping it up in the timey whimey ball with the handle animal and "what does my critter do when i'm not micromanaging it"

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.

Here's an anecdote for you: I have a level 9 druid, here's a list of times when his animal companion died:

lvl 2: Blood at Dralkard Manor
lvl 3: Mists of Mwangi
lvl 5: Rebel's Ransom
lvl 6: Heresey of Man 1
lvl 6: Heresey of Man 2
lvl 6: Heresey of Man 3
lvl 9: Feast of Sigils

David Bowles wrote:

They can dominate a scenario with no special effort or optimization, particularly when handle animal is hand waived away.

You have already been shown, repeatedly, that the handle animal is NOT being hand waived away, that it is in fact being played by the rules. You keep insisting or implying that this isn't the case, despite knowing that you're wrong.

By the rules, it is incredibly easy to do.

By the rules, you auto succeed on 99% of what you want a creature to do in combat.

By the rules, you can dump charisma like a bad habit and still have a 95% chance of success at first level ( 1 rank +3 trained +4 link -2 cha +2 training harness)

Your complaints about the tactical acumen of the animal companions is at best a disagreement with a legitimate call by the DM.

This is not the solution to your complaints about pets and their overpowered druid companions. You would need to cheat to use DM control to drop their combat effectiveness by any noticeable degree. The difficulty setting of PFS is also a seperate issue. They're contentious enough already without wrapping it up in the timey whimey ball with the handle animal and "what does my critter do when i'm not micromanaging it"

I've pretty much already conceded this. The hand waving of pushing is at most a minor advantage in terms of dpr. It's still annoying. Hopefully it won't be a problem very often going forward.

Here's an anecdote for you: I have a level 9 druid, here's a list of times when his animal companion died:

lvl 2: Blood at Dralkard Manor
lvl 3: Mists of Mwangi
lvl 5: Rebel's Ransom
lvl 6: Heresey of Man 1
lvl 6: Heresey of Man 2
lvl 6: Heresey of Man 3
lvl 9: Feast of Sigils

... i think druids local 704 needs to have a word with you.

Have you bought that poor thing barding?

DigitalMage wrote:

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.

Here's an anecdote for you: I have a level 9 druid, here's a list of times when his animal companion died:

lvl 2: Blood at Dralkard Manor
lvl 3: Mists of Mwangi
lvl 5: Rebel's Ransom
lvl 6: Heresey of Man 1
lvl 6: Heresey of Man 2
lvl 6: Heresey of Man 3
lvl 9: Feast of Sigils

"Hi I'm your new animal companion. My name is Bo-"

David Bowles wrote:

They can dominate a scenario with no special effort or optimization, particularly when handle animal is hand waived away.

You have already been shown, repeatedly, that the handle animal is NOT being hand waived away, that it is in fact being played by the rules. By the rules, you auto succeed on 99% of what you want a creature to do in combat.

By the rules, you can dump charisma like a bad habit and still have a 95% chance of success at first level ( 1 rank +3 trained +4 link -2 cha +2 training harness)

This argument is only dealing with the skill check to use Handle Animal.

No, the book isn't, but the bonded object or familiar is.

You can kill a familiar, you can kill an AC, slay a paladins mount etc.

My line was accurate, the bond is between the Cleric and God, so from now on the GM should select all the Clerics spells.

If you played 1st/2nd Edition, with a DM who'd absorbed the advice of the DMG, that's exactly what could happen.

Choosing spells wasn't a done deal, handwaved between waking, and eating breakfast; it was supposed to be a roleplayed negotiation between the cleric, and a succession of increasingly powerful divine emissaries, all of whom had the power to veto the cleric's choices, and make 'suggestions' of their own.

I very rarely saw it implemented, but it was there.

That is really not the controversial aspect, even if PFS felt it necessary to underline how that aspect worked.

I suppose its good to remind the players of pet classes that didn't know the rules why the folks that did know the rules weren't bothering with dice. Some people don't seem happy with it though.

It isn't dealing with the fact that all succesful results of Handle Animal are still inherently limited as to what they do, depending on the specific Trick. This area of how the animal implements each specific trick is indeed prone to hand-waving of differences between tricks

Some of it is going to be have some table variance ie, how far an animal will go to flank with a regular attack or with the trick. I don't think it will be a big deal. Your non mount combat pets will have

The difference between some of the similar tricks gets a little blurry because some of them are incredibly similar.

Heel and come (especially if you have a free action auto succeed come)
Perform and Entertain
Seek and Detect
Guard and watch.- I would have to try to rules lawyer to find a difference here.
Defend Mimics guard/watch unless you're leaving the animal behind.
Flee seems like an advanced/better down.

Thats before you try to finagle defend into both attack tricks.

we have posters in this thread who are advocating against needing to use a specific Trick that does exactly what they want, for example. Control over how the animal implements a given trick is indeed crucial for maintaining the distinction between, and limitations of tricks, and ensuring that the rules are being followed for that.

I don't think it will be a big deal once folks get a strait forward ok to retrain the critters.

The new cookie cutter setup for a first level critter will be

Attack, attack, Defend, Down, Flank, Come +1 more (possibly aid, or maybe a maneuver)

That covers just about everything a critter needs to do in combat, and defend will have the critter help you guard camp if thats where you are.

Pretty much BNW.

I too echo the concern that there has been no permission given to 'retrain' whilst at the same time new mechanics have come into play that could have significant impacts.

I'm not opposed to letting people retrain Tricks at this point (or after future clarifications), but there hasn't been any change to how the old Tricks work per RAW, so the new Tricks are just akin to new Feat options being released, which isn't cause for a re-build. The old Tricks just didn't let you command animals to do as specific things as the new ones do, anybody playing otherwise was not basing that assumption on the actual rules.

I'm not opposed to letting people retrain Tricks at this point (or after future clarifications), but there hasn't been any change to how the old Tricks work per RAW, so the new Tricks are just akin to new Feat options being released, which isn't cause for a re-build. The old Tricks just didn't let you command animals to do as specific things as the new ones do anybody playing otherwise was not basing that assumption on the actual rules.

Ok, so if someone had a guard dog set with the "Guard" trick on their campsite and the DM had the animal bark in alert was that/is that not playing by the rules because that's technically what the watch trick does?

Actually I would argue that the new rules replace the old rules.

Under the old 'Attack trick' you could order your animal to attack, and there was no limit placed on what kind of attack you could have it perform within its limits, you could get it to attack with its feats, you could get it to carry out combat maneuvers etc.

Now these things are no longer covered, and the rules pertaining to such actions are now broken down into granular detail.

This is as least as, of not incredibly more gamechanging, as the Heirloom Weapon Trait which when it was changed allowed for a retcon.

The Guard and Watch tricks are certainly a problem.

The new tricks are new options for the Handle Animal rules. No other rules are effected by them.
PFS has clarified that Handle Animal is the only normal way PCs can control animals, but there was never any rules argument to the contrary.
The Core tricks haven't changed what they do, they were and are commands which the animal tries to fulfill.
There was no other way to 'get the animal to carry out' special variations on those tricks,
the tricks were and are exactly what they say they are, nothing more.
The animal COULD potentially fulfill the command in different ways, but there was never any way to command that.

If players have issues beyond that function of Handle Animal, e.g. the control of the animal's own actions either with or without any commanded Tricks or 'how it chooses to fulfill the command', then that is outside the scope of Handle Animal itself, which just covers the 'command'/communication part of things, and which is all that the new tricks are expanding upon/changing.

Quandary, try to answer my question and you'll see that what you're saying isn't quite the case.

Well, it doesn't seem like you're responding to the actual points I'm raising, but here goes:
I would say the Guard trick is most similar to the Defend trick, but for places and not creatures.
It prevents other creatures from approaching, and presumably would defend itself if they push the issue,
since not defending itself wouldn't help prevent the creature from approaching.
If you want to posit that the animal might bark when doing so, great, but THAT'S OUTSIDE THE SCOPE OF THE COMMAND.

Nothing in the Guard command indicates that barking or alerting others is a goal communicated by a command to Guard, so EXPECTING the animal to let off an alarm call doesn't seem a reasonable expectation from issuing the command itself.
Watch is also explicitly taking extra care to notice what's going on in a particular area, which doesn't even have to be in the area adjacent to the animal but could be outside a window, etc, while Guard is about creatures trying to enter/pass thru the area the animal is in).
I'm not claiming that certain Tricks may end up being implemented similarly in certain situations, that's already been specifically acknowledged and addressed by PFS staff re: Attack/Flank.

As you wrote, "if someone had a guard dog set with the "Guard" trick on their campsite and the DM had the animal bark in alert" the issue is outside the scope of how Handle Animal and the Guard trick works, maybe some animal is extra vocal, just as some animal could piss in fear, but WHAT THE GUARD TRICK DOES hasn't changed at all. 'Raising an alarm' (as per the Watch trick) is also plausibly rather different than the sort of barks or growls an animal may use vs. an intruder (focusing on it's own 1v1 confrontation).

But again, the difference is what is specifically being commanded, even if in some circumstances there may be similarities in how the commands are fulfilled. This is based on the difference between the COMMAND (Trick) itself and what the animal does in response to that command, which depends on a distinction between the PCs wishes/direction of the animal, and the animal's own independent implementation of that command. It's clear from alot of posters to this and the other thread, that alot of players certainly aren't used to making that distinction.

But nothing about the RAW of older tricks has changed, nothing PFS has said is over-ruling that RAW, so nothing has changed for them.
GMs arbitrating the rules still have exactly the same RAW to apply to the Guard command or other Core Tricks.
We can remove all the Animal Archive Tricks from play completely, and the Core Tricks still function the same.
Now, just the Core Tricks (without the new Animal Archive Tricks) may have been so limited that many people decided it was better to not follow the rules so rigorously, or otherwise allowed what was possible via Animal Archive Tricks without using those actual tricks, but that has no bearing on what was actually allowed by the RAW, which hasn't changed.

The new tricks are new options for the Handle Animal rules. No other rules are effected by them.

PFS has clarified that Handle Animal is the only normal way PCs can control animals, but there was never any rules argument to the contrary.
The Core tricks haven't changed what they do, they were and are commands which the animal tries to fulfill.
There was no other way to 'get the animal to carry out' special variations on those tricks,
the tricks were and are exactly what they say they are, nothing more.
The animal COULD potentially fulfill the command in different ways, but there was never any way to command that.

If players have issues beyond that function of Handle Animal, e.g. the control of the animal's own actions either with or without any commanded Tricks or 'how it chooses to fulfill the command', then that is outside the scope of Handle Animal itself, which just covers the 'command'/communication part of things, and which is all that the new tricks are expanding upon/changing.

I contend that they are not merely 'new options' but rather a granular system by which their combat employment (the primary concern) has been signifcantly and substantially altered.

Previously, when using the 'Attack' command you could nominate what attacks, of what type, what maneuvers, and what positioning you wanted the animal to adopt based upon the Attack command. There was no set limitation to the use of the animals full range of offensive, or even defensive options. The Animal could even 'Charge' or 'Pounce'.

This has been significantly altered in that now all the attack command does is have the animal run in a straight line and only execute an attack or full attack option. Curiously, can the Animal charge or pounce? This seems contra to the Attack command, and isn't a maneuver, whats the standing here?

That we now have new tricks that materially change the limits of the attack command, which even Mike Brock admits is the case in the Blog, suggests that retraining is in order to be able to still do what you previously did.

It's a retrospective and significant change.

It prevents other creatures from approaching, and presumably would defend itself if they push the issue,
since not defending itself wouldn't help prevent the creature from approaching.
If you want to posit that the animal might bark when doing so, great, but THAT'S OUTSIDE THE SCOPE OF THE COMMAND.

It most certainly is not. It DEFINITELY was not before they went and made a separate watch trick.

The tricks are deliberately vague. Your assertion that the animals only do exactly what the trick says is false. If it were true you couldn't tell animals to charge, pounce, or even attack someone they weren't already standing next to (since there's no move trick)

The command is to prevent others from approaching. It doesn't say how. You conclude that that means self defense. Without the existance of the watch trick that would also be making noise to scare someone away (even with the existance of the watch trick thats a real possibility) There's no "self defense" trick.

edit- let me try to be clearer. Because its late and i'm more than a little buzzed.

Guard (DC 20): The animal stays in place and prevents others from approaching.

HOW does it do that? There are no mechanics by which the animal can stay somewhere and keep others from moving there. Any actions it takes in order to achieve its goals are , according to you, outside the scope scope of the trick.

'Raising an alarm' (as per the Watch trick) is also plausibly rather different than the sort of barks or growls an animal may use vs. an intruder (focusing on it's own 1v1 confrontation).

Its not exactly mutually exclusive. Barking is a free action.

We can remove all the Animal Archive Tricks from play completely, and the Core Tricks still function the same.

You would have no argument for a non barking guard dog without the watch trick. Likewise there's no argument for a non flanking wolf without the flank trick. You also have no argument for a non pouncing cat until someone puts in a charge trick.

Can you quote the rule that let you "nominate what attacks, of what type, what maneuvers, and what positioning you wanted the animal to adopt" in the Core rule Attack trick? What aspect of the RAW for these old tricks is any of these clarifications over-ruling? Nothing about the RAW of Attack has changed, so why should a GM applying the RAW rule any differently about it now? Nothing in the Attack command ever let you 'nominate' that the animal use a charge or pounce, the choice to do so is and was up to the animal... Charge/Pounce are compatable with fulfilling the command, as are other types of attacks, the Attack trick isn't dictating any of that, it is what it is and nothing more.

No Quandary, the new rules leave nothing in the hands of the Animal any more. As you say, it could previously 'decide' to Charge etc, but the player was the defacto decision maker. Now the animal no longer has this choice, it simply moves from A to B and attacks, not utilising anything other than its stock attack routine - no maneuvers, no Feats, no nothing. It also isn't entitled to charge or pounce, ever, in PFS because those actions are not covered by any of the new 'granular' tricks.
You can't claim on one hand that Charge/Pounce fulfil the command, yet the decsion to run around behind the bad guy (or anywhere else) and flank does not. The animal has free will orit doesn't.

If we are saying the animal can ONLy do precisely what is defined in the trick, then it can't do an awful lot of things anymore.

Custom tricks are NOT allowable in PFS play, so the animal is no longer entitled to Pounce/Charge/Rake/Constrict/use the Stun (ex) ability/trample/sudden charge/Sprint/tongue/death roll/hold breath/powerful charge/clobbering charge/ink cloud. None of these are available to the Trick list.

None of the Animals EX abilities are able to be used because they can't do them of their own volition any longer, and there is no Trick to allow them.

Thats what happens when you get granular and don't go all the way.

Rather than clean up the handling of AC's, all they have done is made a mess.

If it were true you couldn't tell animals to charge, pounce, or even attack someone they weren't already standing next to (since there's no move trick)

If an animal isn't threatening the indicated target, then moving towards the target is the only way to fulfill the command, which is what the animal tries to do to the best of it's ability. Likewise, if it was lying prone when you gave the command, it would stand up if that furthers the goal of the command. The command is not identical to the action(s) taken to fulfill the command, it merely sets the parameters for the goal of any action(s) taken to fulfill the command. Players who mistook Handle Animal commands for a codification of direct sock-puppet control over every detail of an animal's actions probably find that paradigm new and confusing.

The command is to prevent others from approaching. It doesn't say how.

Exactly. Same for pretty much every trick, they don't usually specify the details.

You conclude that that means self defense.

Yeah, that's one reasonable implementation. It could also decide to go Full Defense for some reason and just block a hallway. These details are outside the expectations established by issuing the command/trick. Their INT is going to affect how creative animals will get in fulfilling the command, but they have their full capabilities at their disposal to do so.

Without the existance of the watch trick that would also be making noise to scare someone away (even with the existance of the watch trick thats a real possibility)

So what is the issue then? That tricks may sometimes overlap in functional result is not a problem.

Please, just quote me which part of the Attack, or Guard, or any other trick is being over-ridden.
I understand that your expectations may be upset by the update, but I don't see how those expectations were grounded in RAW.

Please, just quote me which part of the Attack, or Guard, or any other trick is being over-ridden.
I understand that your expectations may be upset by the update, but I don't see how those expectations were grounded in RAW.

Mike Brock doesn't seem to agree with you:

"But while you now have much more freedom in what your pet can know how to do (my personal favorite new one is Bombard), there is also a side to this that some players may find displeasing. The addition of a Flank trick and an Aid trick means that pets do not, by default, know how to perform these, even if they know the Attack trick. If you command your companion to attack, it will take the most direct route. If you want your companion to always flank, you now need the Flank trick."

The ADDITION OF = You NOW need, this means you didn't BEFORE.

Game = changed.

Shifty, your posts are just getting silly, you're specifically contradicting what PFS has said on this: that animals can use all their Feats. And you're still conflating the command with what the animal does to fulfill that command. A pounce/charge IS an attack against the enemy, so it IS a valid fulfillment of that command. If an ape has an axe in a scabbard, then drawing the axe is compatible with fulfilling an Attack command (PFS-specific rules on animals with weapons not withstanding). The command itself isn't dictating that, but since that is within the capabilities of the animal, and it tries to do it's job as best it can, it probably will do so if able to. Nothing in this clarification is taking away choice from the animal, it is emphasizing the animal's choice which always existed by the rules, which never invoked player control over the animal decision making (beyond the not-super-specific commands/Tricks).

EDIT: 'Sometimes happening to Flank' is not identical to the Flank trick 'Always trying to Flank'.
The Attack trick never conveyed the goal of seeking out Flanks, while the Flank trick does.
When a new trick is added, animals do not by default know that trick. Strangely enough, Feats work the same.
When Flank trick is added, you don't know Flank trick by default. If you want the animal to 'always try to Flank', you need the Flank trick.
Before the Flank trick, there was no Trick that had that goal. (even if Attack sometimes might Flank)
The RAW for the Core Tricks hasn't changed.

If a Feat may be used to fulfill the goal of a commanded Trick to the best of the animal's ability, nothing in this clarification is preventing that. I have already posted asking for clarification on Feats (or racial abilities, hypothetically) which could not plausibly be used in furtherance of any published Trick. For most combat type Feats though, they are valid abilities to use in furtherance of Attack/Flank/etc Tricks, and can be used by the animal's own self defense. If PFS wants to issue a further rule that allows commanding whether the animal uses/doesn't use any Feat/ability in furtherance of a commanded Trick, they can do that, but currently that isn't within the scope of Handle Animal.

I've already posted extensively on the GM control issue, but I thought it might be possible to discuss the Handle Animal rules specifically without judgement as to who is 'running' the animal itself ('target' of the Handle Animal commands) since whoever is running the animal shouldn't affect how the Handle Animal rules themself work. The type of game play which maintains no hard distinction between those seems to be exactly what this PFS movement to clarification is intended to deal with.