Animals and Their Tricks

Animals can use all their Feats, sure, however the problem is tha the Animal cannot do so unless you have the appropriate Trick. An example is Improved Drag, the animal cannot carry this out unless commanded.

The list I provided above are EX abilities, they are not Feats, and as such there is no command available under the new Trick system to get them to carry out any of those actions.

Ex abilities are NOT Feats. There are no tricks to order the animal to use it's EX abilities.

The Blog above suggests that the animal can go from A to B and attack. It does not say what method of travel it can choose, thus players like David Bowles could reasonably ask where it says the animal is entitled to carry out a charge or pounce as it is not explicitly stated that it has that choice.

When you say 'the animal decides' and then suggests it is not the players choice, and if it isn't the GM's choice then who is actually deciding here? There's only two parties at the table - Player or GM, so which is it?

Sorry, but if you want granular you can't then claim you are happy with abstraction.

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.

Good! Now use that exact same logic and apply it to the guard command.

The animal has to look for things (because it can't stop them from entering if it doesn't know they're there)

It has to be willing to move. It has to be willing to attack. And I think you could reasonably expect, from a guard dog, a "WOOF". The trick requires reasonable interpretation and extrapolation of what the animal is and what the animal would do because thats really all the trick gave you as a guide line.

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 paradigm hasn't shifted, just the number of tricks required.

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.

They're the ENTIRE expectation established by the command: that your guard dog that was told to guard is guarding.

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.

Right, so if the player says that rover is building a barricade the DM whaps the player on the head with a newspaper (unless rover's a beaver. Do they have beaver animal companions? Maybe a familiar with a +3 bonus to knowledge engineering?) . If the player says "Rover barks" he's probably right.

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

I have a small issue with some of the tricks being redundant with other tricks, basically requiring both to avoid the "thats not the guard trick thats the watch trick no thats not the watch trick thats the guard trick"

I have a larger issue with the idea that the animal ONLY does exactly what the trick says: as you've seen yourself there are a lot of required secondary actions an animal needs to take to fulfill the tricks.

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.

When the raw specifically relies on reasonable judgement of how an animal acts to do anything at all, undercutting that judgement by dividing the action into smaller and smaller commands stops the original command from doing anything.

If it stops at a flank trick to flank, no problem. Sifu Conan has 15 tricks to play with. But now people are reading this as needing a trick to do anything, which stops tricks from working.

Heres a way too look at it.

Required secondary powers , but I suppose in this case its required secondary actions.

Basically, super-strength comes with some measure of super invulnerability. Otherwise you rip your ribs apart when you sneeze.

If the trick is to guard it means the animal can guard. Since "guard" is not a specific game term, the animal does anything you could reasonably expect from a guarding animal: Stay, look, raise an alarm, fight the intruder.

If you require all the secondary abilities to be bought separately, you use up all your points just getting it to do the first trick. Worse, in pfs since you CAN"T get a trick that's on the list, if someone decides that a secondary ability doesn't exist you can't do it , then you stop the primary trick from working at all.

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:

[...]

Just to be clear, it was David Bowles you are quoting, not myself :)

Animals can use all their Feats, sure, however the problem is tha the Animal cannot do so unless you have the appropriate Trick. An example is Improved Drag, the animal cannot carry this out unless commanded.

Fetch! ? :) I've used that one , mostly on people we were trying to save though.

@BNW: If we want, we can establish a continuum of specificity of commands between:
Exist > Do Something (anything at all, or do anything BUT XYZ) > Do This (Attack, Guard) > Do specific actions in specific order.
The Handle Animal tricks usually correspond to the 'Do This' level of specificity.
They are goals that often can be accomplished via a range of specific action choices leading to that goal.
This is more specific than lower levels of specificity, but less specific than how a player specifies all of their own actions.
This level of specificity allows for distinction between commands, although sometimes (Attack/Flank) the result can be similar (Flank trick is really akin to "do Attack trick in this specific way").
It is a sufficient level of specificity to allow the handler to forsee that the animal WON'T take certain actions (if they don't in any way further the goal of the command), but some commands can be fulfilled by a range of different actions, and which one of those the animal uses can't necessarily be foreseen...
Although the animal trying to do it's job to the best of it's ability can be trusted to choose the best option from it's perspective, the only goals it understands are based on the trick itself and it would not understand other desires of the Handler outside the scope of the specific command (the difference between Attack/Flank tricks). Although there may not be Tricks for every possible distinct action, so we cannot command to do each specific action vs. other approaches to the Trick, all the distinct actions MAY be taken by the animal in furtherance of the commanded trick, simply depending on the circumstances making each specific action the preferable course of action to accomplish the trick.

This is like if somebody gives you an order "Clean that pile of crap up".
The giver of the command isn't specifying whether you use a broom, a vacuum, or your hands.
If the giver of the command doesn't know the words 'broom', 'vacuum', etc, but can only repeat the phrase "Clean that pile of crap up", then they simply don't have a means to specify HOW you fulfill that command. But if we consider that those three options are the only way to fulfill that command, we can say that you will do one of those three things, and not other things which don't help, such as pouring paint on top of the pile of crap. Being an obedient servant, you will choose the BEST and EASIEST/SAFEST of the means at your disposal to fulfill the command. The giver of the command may have knowledge that cleaning it up in the most silent manner possible is really preferable, so would prefer that you DON'T use the vacuum cleaner, but that isn't conveyable in the given command, so you are left to fulfill the goal to the best of your ability based on your own knowledge and capabilities, even if that means you decide to use the vacuum cleaner. But depending on the cirumstances, you may choose to use any of the three means to accomplish the command, always choosing the 'best' option from your perspective.

Likewise, if efficiency in fulfilling the commanded goal is the prime concern, an animal probably won't SEEK OUT flanking situations that are more difficult or dangerous than necessary with just the Attack command, but the Flank trick DOES convey that additional goal, which the animal will pursue how it chooses to (walking, flying, burrowing, tumbling thru the enemy). But the Attack trick never conveyed that Flanking was especially attractive, and possibly sucking up an AoO or moving thru an unknown square that is possibly dangerous is something that could prevent completing the command, so attacking in the most direct means possible would be how the Attack command is implemented, although that MAY end up being a Flank just because that's what the situation allowed for (and it's reasonable for animals to recognize Flanking situations, and since the bonus to attack helps further the goal of Attack, they would probably choose to Flank if doing so doesn't require any further actions and there is no distinguishing difference of danger, e.g. both Flanking and non-Flanking square are the same distance and threatened by the same enemies, etc.)

@BNW: If we want, we can establish a continuum of specificity of commands between:

Exist > Do Something (anything at all, or do anything BUT XYZ) > Do This (Attack, Guard) > Do specific actions in specific order.

You cannot. The handle animal rules are not that specific nor are they that consistent. Your insistence that the animal archives changed nothing comes across as "we have always been at war with east asia"

Although the animal trying to do it's job to the best of it's ability can be trusted to choose the best option from it's perspective

That's the sort of thing you criticized, and the exact kind of thinking that lead to flanking critters prior to the existence of the flank trick.

the only goals it understands are based on the trick itself and it would not understand other desires of the Handler outside the scope of the specific command

My turn, raw citation? Because that's not how animals act at all. They know when they've done something they shouldnt. (my cat even rats out the dog when she does something she shouldnt)

This is like if somebody gives you an order "Clean that pile of crap up".

The giver of the command isn't specifying whether you use a broom, a vacuum, or your hands.

The animal has a vacuum. (the animal has a feat)

1) There is a trick for it
2) the animal can choose to use the feat of its own free will, or
3)you can tell it to use the feat.

There's no other way to actually meet the rule that it can use the feat. If there's no trick for it, it defaults to either 2 or 3.

Saying that the animal can do it of its own free will runs into the problems of who's controlling it: the player who made it and knows its feats and personality or the DM who may not even remember its name.

The downside to that is that some feel it gives free tricks or tricks not intended. I would counter that since things the animal knows how to do are neigh auto successes anyway thats not a big deal.

So the only way forward is to have another player play the AC and do so exclusively?

Because now we are talking about animals beng neither under control of the player OR gm and having their own free will, so who's running the thing?

So the only way forward is to have another player play the AC and do so exclusively?

Because now we are talking about animals beng neither under control of the player OR gm and having their own free will, so who's running the thing?

I prefer player control with DM veto power.

Shifty wrote:

So the only way forward is to have another player play the AC and do so exclusively?

Because now we are talking about animals beng neither under control of the player OR gm and having their own free will, so who's running the thing?

I prefer player control with DM veto power.

So do I, but I think the fear is that you're going to get players/GMs who can't agree on the veto.

For example.
Player: I tell my bear to attack. Can he charge?
Me: If you want him to. How fast do you want him to get there.
vs.
Player: I tell my wolf to attack! (goes to move wolf in a circular route around the target.)
Me: So you're telling him to flank. Do you have the flank trick?
Player: What? He's a wolf! They flank naturally! Haven't you heard of 'wolf pack' tactics?
Me: And I'm not aware of them naturally flanking on command. Flank trick or Push?

That's a lot more corner case than "I have the fetch trick. I tell him to go to the library and fetch the spell book on the shelf." That gets the CRB to the back of the head. :-)

Aside, I fell into this trap saturday myself. I sent Rex into the air to scout, forgetting that at 3rd level, my familiar couldn't tell me what he saw.

Your insistence that the animal archives changed nothing comes across as "we have always been at war with east asia"

Hey, I'm still waiting for a quote of the exact part of the Core Tricks that no longer applies.

Quandary wrote:

Although the animal trying to do it's job to the best of it's ability can be trusted to choose the best option from it's perspective

That's the sort of thing you criticized, and the exact kind of thinking that lead to flanking critters prior to the existence of the flank trick.

Please, quote my post criticizing the concept that animals use their will to choose an implementation of the commands given to them. I have written about issues of Player control/portrayal of those animal choices vs. GM control/portrayal of those animal choices, but both of those are SUPPOSED to be portraying animal choices. Frankly, players who promote their own portrayal/control of animal, while being unable to distinguish between animal choice and what Handle Animal does, are not helping the cause of player-control advocacy, because you CAN'T be implementing the rules AND fluff for a creature if you don't accurately understand the rules to begin with.

Quandary wrote:

the only goals it understands are based on the trick itself and it would not understand other desires of the Handler outside the scope of the specific command

My turn, raw citation?

The rules don't tell you all the things you can't do, they tell you what you can do. Nothing unique to Handle Animal there.

In a home game, it's realistic to allow custom Tricks. PFS doesn't allow custom tricks but that doesn't mean the standard tricks morph into the custom tricks you would prefer, it means you deal with the PFS rules. (or as I have done, request clarification if custom tricks or the equivalent MAY be usable for some purposes/in some circumstances)

Saying that the animal can do it of its own free will runs into the problems of who's controlling it

Sure, but so what? You can't avoid that problem, it still exists when the animal is sitting around with nobody nearby and no commands. Subjugating your entire interpretation of the Handle Animal rules to this issue just doesn't seem sustainable, players or GMs can do good or bad jobs portraying the animal's choices, but good or bad portrayal isn't really a rules issue. Either way there should still be animal choice of details of action in pursuance of it's given commands (or in absense of commands, it's own instincts).

The downside to that is that some feel it gives free tricks or tricks not intended. I would counter that since things the animal knows how to do are neigh auto successes anyway thats not a big deal.

That is a pretty bizarre argument to me. A free trick (that isn't intended) is a trick that the animal isn't supposed to know, and thus wouldn't be auto-success by intent. So blurring the lines of the rules so that they effectively do benefit from that free trick is indeed going against the intent of what is auto-success and what is not.

but there hasn't been any change to how the old Tricks work per RAW,

A single instance of the attack trick has only 1/2 the effectiveness.

Re: attacking 'un-natural' creatures? That's in the Core trick AFAIK.

So the only way forward is to have another player play the AC and do so exclusively?

Because now we are talking about animals beng neither under control of the player OR gm and having their own free will, so who's running the thing?

It's an NPC. The DM runs NPCs, or designates someone else to do so. This could be the player of the druid (et al), another player at the table, or a friend that's watching the game. But it is the DM's call, as it is an NPC. Its actually fairly simple.

As to the flank trick.. read what it actually says and does. There is nothing here that says that the animal would not naturally try to flank without this trick being activated. People are trying to make this statement and they are in error.

Now, with the flank trick active the animal will do these things (which is more than just flanking) on a priority above what it would normally do.

For example, with just the attack tricks, would you have an animal provoke an AOO to remain/become adjacent to the target? I have a bit of trouble seeing that happen 'naturally' even though the party as a hive mind might want that to happen 'tactically'. Certainly a creature with reach wouldn't provoke an AOO to attack from adjacent, right? Even if the party might like it to do so? That's a level of hive mind that doesn't exist in the game, and shouldn't exist at the table.

To BNW: The tricks actually do a reasonable job if you think of them as informing the animal how it should deviate from it's normal behavior. The trick activated gives him a different priority. (Though I admit Entertain is an advanced Perform trick and should be spelled out more that way beyond a higher DC to train it).

If the party were asleep, and the animal noticed what it saw as something dangerous coming into camp; something that at this point has yet to notice it. What would the animal do? Certainly it would not roll over and go to sleep, nor would it delay indefinitely calmly awaiting orders.

Now the animal might noisily attack the creature, it might stealthily try to ambush the creature as it approached, or it might noisily alert the party and the 'enemy' creature as it interposes itself between the party and the creature (but not attacking).

If it happens to naturally wish to alert everyone, what happens if the party is still sound asleep after all the noise it makes as a free action? Does it attack the creature, warn the creature not to approach (still trying to wake people by sound), or does it actively go to wake someone?

This would depend upon the nature of the animal, and what the animal was coached (via handle animal activating a trick) into doing as a priority.

The player might want his stealthy animal in this situation to not be stealthy. He might want his aggressive animal to not be aggressive. He might want his animal to act against its nature in a myriad of ways. He would want to have a trick that would let his druid (et al) inform the NPC animal of his desire so that the DM would have the animal actually do what he wants, rather than what it would otherwise naturally do.

-James

Quandary wrote:

but there hasn't been any change to how the old Tricks work per RAW,

A single instance of the attack trick has only 1/2 the effectiveness.

Re: attacking 'un-natural' creatures? That's in the Core trick AFAIK.

Perhaps it is because with the player running the animal, the animal ordered to attack had been able to have the animal unnaturally move into flanks, try to grapple when the player desired, etc.

In other words, the player was running a second PC and the two of them had a telepathic bond active (without the spell).

Thus some see these new options as removing options that they had included in the mere 'attack so and so' command.

-James

Re: attacking 'un-natural' creatures? That's in the Core trick AFAIK.

It was.

It no long is. You are now required to take a second instance of the attack trick before you can order your AC to attack all opponents.

If an existing AC has no tricks available to learn a second instance of attack, there are now opponents he will no longer be legal to attack.

Now, with the flank trick active the animal will do these things (which is more than just flanking) on a priority above what it would normally do.

To BNW: The tricks actually do a reasonable job if you think of them as informing the animal how it should deviate from it's normal behavior.

If the party were asleep, and the animal noticed what it saw as something dangerous coming into camp; something that at this point has yet to notice it. What would the animal do?

So James, just what is this normal behaviour/what it would normally do, because the point of tricks (or the absence thereof) suggests the AC can do nothing, and has no 'normal' mode.

What is the 'normal' behaviour of my Trex pet? What about a wolf or a snake? what rules can we consult on normal behaviour so that Mr Bowles can be satisfied we aren't 'cheating' by having the animal respond a certain way?

Quandary wrote:

Re: attacking 'un-natural' creatures? That's in the Core trick AFAIK.

It was.

It no long is. You are now required to take a second instance of the attack trick before you can order your AC to attack all opponents.

How is this a change?

-James

You can read the Attack trick at the PRD, it has the 1 trick/2 trick distinction, no difference there.
It doesn't have any new stuff like Flank, Paizo only updates the PRD with actual Errata.
I don't know if that ever was an Errata in the past, Artanthos could be familiar with an older printing if that was the case...?
But the current PRD version, without any Animal Archive or PFS modifications, has the 2 Attack trick distinction.

That one always took 2 tricks, Attack>Attack Un-natural.

No changes there.

BigNorseWolf wrote:

Shifty wrote:

So the only way forward is to have another player play the AC and do so exclusively?

Because now we are talking about animals beng neither under control of the player OR gm and having their own free will, so who's running the thing?

I prefer player control with DM veto power.

So do I, but I think the fear is that you're going to get players/GMs who can't agree on the veto.

For example.
Player: I tell my bear to attack. Can he charge?
Me: If you want him to. How fast do you want him to get there.
vs.
Player: I tell my wolf to attack! (goes to move wolf in a circular route around the target.)
Me: So you're telling him to flank. Do you have the flank trick?
Player: What? He's a wolf! They flank naturally! Haven't you heard of 'wolf pack' tactics?
Me: And I'm not aware of them naturally flanking on command. Flank trick or Push?

That's a lot more corner case than "I have the fetch trick. I tell him to go to the library and fetch the spell book on the shelf." That gets the CRB to the back of the head. :-)

This.

james maissen wrote:

Now, with the flank trick active the animal will do these things (which is more than just flanking) on a priority above what it would normally do.

To BNW: The tricks actually do a reasonable job if you think of them as informing the animal how it should deviate from it's normal behavior.

If the party were asleep, and the animal noticed what it saw as something dangerous coming into camp; something that at this point has yet to notice it. What would the animal do?

So James, just what is this normal behaviour/what it would normally do, because the point of tricks (or the absence thereof) suggests the AC can do nothing, and has no 'normal' mode.

What is the 'normal' behaviour of my Trex pet? What about a wolf or a snake? what rules can we consult on normal behaviour so that Mr Bowles can be satisfied we aren't 'cheating' by having the animal respond a certain way?

The longer this thread goes on, the more I'm convinced this is not the right way to go about resolving my issues with ACs. Since ultimately the problems I've seen are a of mathematical/resource nature, the true "fix" would be fewer hps, less dpr, and less feats for ACs. Ie, make them less PC-like. Ie, put them more in line with other "class features". This is obviously not happening.

Since the PFS authors still don't have a mechanism for taking pets into account for scenario difficulty level, I don't see the point in trying to punish the table in arguing over these tricks and fighting over what Fluffy the velociraptor can and can't do. So I'll just continue to go grab lunch when the pet beats me to the NPC, making my PC redundant. Supposedly, 4th season has improved on this, but I really haven't been able to tell the difference.

Furthermore, most other posters do not seem to have as many experiences with pets just white washing entire scenarios. I'm not sure what this means: either most PC builds are further down the munchkin path, or perhaps there is more pet hyper-optimization going on in Ohio than I realize. I really don't know.

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.

Be that as it may, precedent is that just because new material becomes available does not mean a rebuild is allowed.

Secondly, it doesn’t change the mechanics of animal companions. It merely reinforces what they always were. Just because most GM’s and players didn’t follow those rules doesn’t mean anything, frankly.

james maissen wrote:

Artanthos wrote:

Quandary wrote:

Re: attacking 'un-natural' creatures? That's in the Core trick AFAIK.

It was.

[It no long is. You are now required to take a second instance of the attack trick before you can order your AC to attack all opponents.

How is this a change?

-James

I emphasized the change for you.

I think you will need to spell out exactly what you think has changed from the core rulebook, because we aren't understanding.

Attack (DC 20): The animal attacks apparent enemies. You may point to a particular creature that you wish the animal to attack, and it will comply if able. Normally, an animal will attack only humanoids, monstrous humanoids, or other animals. Teaching an animal to attack all creatures (including such unnatural creatures as undead and aberrations) counts as two tricks.

Emphasis mine. And I checked by PDF of the 2nd printing and that is the same (not sure of 1st printing but the wording is exactly the same in D&D 3.5 so I can't believe it has been any different in Pathfinder).

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.

That’s ridiculous and its hyperbole. If an animal has an ability, it can use its ability. You don’t need a trick to tell it how to do what it knows how to do.

Animals with Pounce will pounce given the opportunity. Animals with trip or grab special abilities tacked onto their attack, will attempt those if they succeed at an attack.

There is no super granularity as you are so keen on saying.

But sans an ability or feat, you need a trick to command your animal to do something without pushing them to do so.

But otherwise, your animal will do what it knows how to do within the context of the commands given.

This requires common sense and maturity on both the GM and Player’s side of the equation.

How do you come to that conclusion?

These are new abilities which

"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".

The addition of a Flank trick and an Aid trick means that pets do not, by default, know how to perform these.

It was the fact that the 'addition of' rendered the old system obsolete that gives rise for a retcon argument.

Had he said animals couldn't do this in the past then fair enough, but the 'addition of' suggests this is a change away from 'by default, know(ing) how to perform these'.

So who decides whether the animal pounces, or uses its EX ability then?
If I didn't command it to, then are we accepting it can act on its own decisions? Who then, is representing the animal?

The problem is now that we are moving to 'tricks for everything', I'd prefer not to be called a cheat by some of the posters here because my AC took the most fortuitous and tactically sound action based on its range of abilities where I couldn't show I had a trick to tell it to.

Mr Bowles would be within his rights to ask why I had the AC decide to use it's exceptional power rather than a straightforward attack, and how could I prove to him I was entitled to do so?

My Mad Dog Barbarian AC has the 'Improved Drag' maneuver as a Class Ability, says as a Swift action I can command it to use the ability - but that would clash with the Trick entry that suggests I need a trick to make it do it, yet the class ability suggests no such thing. Which is correct? I don't want to have acusations of cheating levelled against me. Do I need a Trick for each EX ability I want the animal to use?

Quandary wrote:

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.

Just because that's what was written in the blog, doesn't mean that's how the rules worked. It means that the campaign recognized how most people were doing things and commented accordingly.

Just because most people weren't following the rules, doesn't make it ok. Now we just have it in writing exactly how the rules are supposed to work.

Animals with Pounce will pounce given the opportunity. Animals with trip or grab special abilities tacked onto their attack, will attempt those if they succeed at an attack.

Just curious your thought on them *not* doing those special abilities.

Frex, the LBEG has a head start, and won't survive a pounce attack. Can a druid/ranger order Tony Tiger to attack and *not* pounce? OR will he always end a charge in a pounce?

I think a push might allow them to, say, only bite on a charge.

Edit: Re 'addition of' It could be read as "They never could, though this was unclear, with the addition of the tricks, now it's clear."

Think of how often we read the questions along the lines of "If I get proficiency Bastard sword, is that one handed or two?" Or "If I have EWP Bastard Sword, can I use it two handed w/o penalty?" (I've seen both.) When the developer says "You get the EWP, there's no Martial" then it's saying "With the addition of this clarification, it's clear."

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."

If they add new Tricks, those Tricks are not known by default, just as new Feats are not known by default.

Now, *Flanking* MAY (sometimes) happen by the same old Attack trick, without the Flank *trick*, but that is different from 'knowing how to perform [the Flank trick]'. Knowing or not knowing the Flank TRICK is not synonymous with 'flanking', but with 'attacking the target, always seeking to flank from an adjacent square'. That is the new command, which didn't exist via just the Attack trick, but does exist via the Flank trick.

I have no idea what previous trick you think should have been used to command Aiding Another (plausibly, Defend could allow for Aiding Another to AC, but that isn't an inherent outcome of the Defend command since the animal could decide to defend you by fighting the threatening enemy).

All that the Blog quote is saying is that with the addition of the new tricks, the new TRICKS themselves are not known for free... If the new tricks overlap in function with any old tricks, the old tricks now AND before may result in similar outcomes as the new ones, but the animal needs to be tought the new tricks to actually perform those COMMANDS.
There is no change from before and now to what animals with only the Core tricks know how to do, only adding options.

There was never any suggestion in the rules that there was any parallel mechanism to convey the master's desires other than the Trick mechanism, so 'tricks for everything' has always been what the rules have said. What animals do outside of being commanded to do a trick is left unspecified, now and then, but if the PC or player wants to command the animal's action they need to use Handle Animal.

Just because that's what was written in the blog, doesn't mean that's how the rules worked. It means that the campaign recognized how most people were doing things and commented accordingly.

That's not what he said though.

Him > You.

He said it has changed, which imples 'is now different'. He did not say 'hey you slackers are munchkining and heres clarification'.

If they add new Tricks, those Tricks are not known by default, just as new Feats are not known by default.

But this isn't about new tricks, this is about a change of mechanics... 'the addition of' means the AC's do not know by default how to do these. Thus it is inferred that they previously DID know by default.

So I'll just continue to go grab lunch when the pet beats me to the NPC, making my PC redundant. Supposedly, 4th season has improved on this, but I really haven't been able to tell the difference.

I am not a combat optimiser, I just don't know the material well enough to be one.

But I too want moments in the spotlight, times when my character can surprise the players and GM just like when a barbarian suddenly deals huge amounts of damage due to some weird combination of abilities. So what I do is choose options that people wouldn't expect the stereotypical race/class combination to have - be they combat related or non-combat related abilities. I also try to optimise in a particular non-combat skill that most people don't try to optimise in.

For example I recently played the Blakros Matrimony using Grelow my 5th level Half-Orc Druid. When playing we were discussing which ship to go to the island on - the one with the staff and supplies, or the one with the guests - people were looking in my direction thinking how the stereotypical "grubby half-orc druid" could commit an etiquette faux pas.

It was at that point I spoke in character proving Grelow is in fact quite knowledgeable of etiquette and is more than able to be diplomatic. Out of character I reveal he has a Charisma of 13 and a Diplomacy modifier of +10 gained from +1 Cha, 5 ranks in Diplomacy and the Ease of Faith trait giving a further +1 and making it a class skill for a further +3 (he also has the Patient Optimist trait and so against Unfriendly & Hostile characters he gets another +1 and is able to retry).

Equally, in other scenarios where we have had to divest ourselves of weapons or have them peacebonded the GM has had a foe move past Grelow and I have interrupted saying "Attack of Opportunity" to which I got quizzical looks from everyone and the GM saying "you're not armed so you don't threaten". Being able to reply "Grelow has the Improved Unarmed feat" brought a smile to my face and those of the other players too!

Ditto for when I elected to have Grelow grapple a foe and GM declared "Okay he takes an attack of opportunity" to which I got to reply "Improved Grappled" :)

So if you too want your moment of surprise and spotlight I suggest you also try to find a niche that you can make your own, maybe that way you won't be too bothered when the optimised characters do most of the work in combat.

So James, just what is this normal behaviour/what it would normally do, because the point of tricks (or the absence thereof) suggests the AC can do nothing, and has no 'normal' mode.

You are merely reading into it to get this.

The animal companion is a companion that is an animal.

This sounds silly, but it actually is telling you. It is still an animal, and it is not you; rather it is a companion to your PC. It is always on 'normal' mode unless it is instructed not to be. Why wouldn't it? You haven't told it that anything is special, so it sees the squirrel and ...

Tricks suggest no such thing. The idea of handle animal is conveying to the animal that your desires out weigh it's 'normal' mode and should be followed.

Take for example the attack trick. The absence of this trick (or the second instance of it) does not mean that the animal does not know how to use it's own claws. Rather, it doesn't know when you want it to attack, when it thinks doing something else is the course of action.

It is saying that activating the attack trick can convince the animal to attack a specific target, even if it would normally do something else. The animal facing a huge T-Rex, for example, might think that only an idiot wouldn't flee from such a thing. I mean there are only 5 of us.. we can all fit into its belly (not just that slow and stinky dwarf we have around)!

So to get it to attack the T-Rex, you direct it to attack (rather than say the running away and hiding it was thinking that everyone else was about to do). It is your friend, and it understands (via handle animal) what you want it to do.. however crazy that might sound ("attack? really? But it's 30 feet tall, I'd need a set of stairs just to reach it's neck.. and I hate stairs!")

But what is 'normal' behavior? That's the DM's call.. it's an NPC. He runs the NPCs. If the party is attacked by wild animals, who gets to decide how they attack? The DM.

The problem becomes that people are used to running the animal companion as a second PC. They think that they sit down at the table with multiple PCs rather than just one. Confusions like this are bound to happen as a result.

-James

OK great, so what mechanics or wrotten material is teh GM basing the response on?

Can I, like Mr Bowles, accuse the GM of cheating if he can't substantiate his position with anything other than "I think so" and the GM appears to be running the AC's sub optimally?

Are we saying that AC's are now just simply subject to whim and fiat? That if certain GM's don't like AC's they are now entitled to tell us our AC sits outside the dungeon and picks at fleas instead?

The rules state that GMs control NPCs and monsters and all the elements of the story and world that the players explore. There isn't really further decisive rules for NPC decision-making, just as there generally isn't for decisions you make for your PC, we just follow the rules that DO exist which define what are the possible actions any creature can choose from. This is the role-playing aspect of the game, as opposed to the rules-robot aspect of the game.
If you do have a complaint about a PFS GM, whether it is rules-based or not, you can pass it up to PFS or just not play with them.

Animals can use all their Feats, sure, however the problem is tha the Animal cannot do so unless you have the appropriate Trick. An example is Improved Drag, the animal cannot carry this out unless commanded.

Incorrect. The animal can and will use the feat in context with the command given. If, for example, you command your pet to “fetch” a person, it is conceivable they would use the Improved Drag feat to try and bring the person back to you.

The list I provided above are EX abilities, they are not Feats, and as such there is no command available under the new Trick system to get them to carry out any of those actions.

Don’t need specific tricks for every ability or feat. That would be ridiculous. You just have to use common sense as Quandary has said, to determine if use of that ability or feat makes sense in the context of the circumstances and the specific command given.

Ex abilities are NOT Feats. There are no tricks to order the animal to use it's EX abilities.

So. If you command a cat with pounce to attack, and there is a charge lane, it will most likely pounce to complete your attack command. It is silly to think you need a “pounce” trick to command your cat to pounce. Adding Flank, Aid, and Maneuver tricks do not automatically mean you need a separate trick for everything an animal already knows how to do. Animals will try to use their abilities within context of the circumstances and the command given.

The Blog above suggests that the animal can go from A to B and attack. It does not say what method of travel it can choose, thus players like David Bowles could reasonably ask where it says the animal is entitled to carry out a charge or pounce as it is not explicitly stated that it has that choice.

David Bowles would be wrong. Just because a player or GM can choose to read between the lines and interpret things with a ridiculous level of restriction, doesn’t make it right. Animals will try to use their abilities and feats within the context of the circumstances and the command given.

When you say 'the animal decides' and then suggests it is not the players choice, and if it isn't the GM's choice then who is actually deciding here? There's only two parties at the table - Player or GM, so which is it?

Sorry, but if you want granular you can't then claim you are happy with abstraction.

You are the only one saying its granular. It isn’t. Just because you don’t have carte blanche with your pet to make them flank, aid, or do a maneuver anymore, doesn’t make it a supra-granular system that allows for no abstraction.

I’ll repeat in bold in case you missed it. Animals will try to use their abilities and feats within the context of the circumstances and the command given.

Quandary wrote:

but there hasn't been any change to how the old Tricks work per RAW,

A single instance of the attack trick has only 1/2 the effectiveness.

That's always been part of the core rules.

I must admit the blog entry isn't clear on its intent in regards to the following sentences:

"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 first sentence could be read as either:
"The addition of a Flank trick and an Aid trick means that pets do not, by default, know how to perform these tricks"
or it could be read as
"The addition of a Flank trick and an Aid trick means that pets do not, by default, know how to perform these actions"
The former I would agree with, the latter I would not necessarily agree with - a wolf could know how to flank (and could thus get a flanking bonus if in the position and possibly choose to flank of its own accord) but it would have to be pushed to perform the Flank trick if the Druid wanted it to always seek a flanking position and stay adjacent to a particular foe.

I actually think the third sentence means the former interpretation is correct but I could see how some GMs may read that as "Without the Flank trick an animal companion will never ever seek out a flanking position unless pushed to do so".

The second sentence does worry me though "If you command your companion to attack, it will take the most direct route" - really? Even if that means moving within a few feet of several sword and fire wielding goblins? An animal companion wouldn't circle around those foes to reach its specified target? What if the animal's direct route meant leaping across a lava filled pit? Would it always risk failing the jump, or might it actually think to circle around?

What is worse is that there is no new trick to get an animal companion to move in a specific route, so theoretically animals never circumvent possible hazards if they don't physically stop their movement.

* * *

Overall my worry with the new tricks is that some (possibly overzealous) GMs will assume that if an animal is not trained in one of the new tricks it will never, ever, take that action of its own accord in order to accomplish another Trick.

For example, I fear a GM may rule that a dog successfully given the Defend command could not attempt to perform the Drag combat manoeuvre to drag a foe off from the person it is guarding because it hasn't been given the Manoeuvre (Drag) trick.

Or that a dog successfully given the Track command will never use its Stealth skill when doing so because it has not also been given the Sneak trick even if Track was taught as part of the Hunting purpose where the idea is to track and sneak up on prey.

Or that a dog told to Guard whilst the party sleep in camp will always do so in absolute silence, never barking to warn off any intruders, because such barking would also likely wake the party - and raising an alarm is part of the new Watch trick.

Hopefully GMs will be able to recognise the difference between:
a) the animal wanting to act in a certain way and being able to do so
...and...
b) the character wanting his animal to act in a certain way and being unable to command them to do so

Quandary wrote:

Re: attacking 'un-natural' creatures? That's in the Core trick AFAIK.

It was.

It no long is. You are now required to take a second instance of the attack trick before you can order your AC to attack all opponents.

If an existing AC has no tricks available to learn a second instance of attack, there are now opponents he will no longer be legal to attack.

This has always been in the core rule book. The Animal Archive did not change this.

The second sentence does worry me though "If you command your companion to attack, it will take the most direct route" - really? Even if that means moving within a few feet of several sword and fire wielding goblins? An animal companion wouldn't circle around those foes to reach its specified target? What if the animal's direct route meant leaping across a lava filled pit? Would it always risk failing the jump, or might it actually think to circle around?

What is worse is that there is no new trick to get an animal companion to move in a specific route, so theoretically animals never circumvent possible hazards if they don't physically stop their movement.

I am not taking the 'direct route' wording to be literal scripture, as much as describing the common typical scenario. The animal is trying to accomplish the given goal(s) of the command trick to the best of it's ability. If something were to happen to the animal before it can complete the trick, then it fails at the trick, so it would seek to avoid that from happening. Choosing to travel thru extra squares, provoke extra AoOs, or anything else that isn't necessary to accomplish to goal would all be potentially dangerous things that could endanger it's chance of success, so it would usually avoid them. Generally speaking, taking the most direct route is going to be the most effective way to accomplish the goal, but if that route is threatened or occupied by enemies, obstacles, or difficult terrain, then a more indirect route 'as the crow flies' may end being the best means to accomplish the trick with least danger of interruption and least extraneous effort. Further, if it's trying to accomplish the trick, choosing to do things which are just extraneous to that don't make sense for it to do, it's focused on the task given to it. So, the Blog wording on 'direct route' makes sense as a common scenario, but isn't necessarily 'written in stone'. Hopefully that's clarified in the future.

Overall my worry with the new tricks is that some (possibly overzealous) GMs will assume that if an animal is not trained in one of the new tricks it will never, ever, take that action of its own accord in order to accomplish another Trick.

Well, fortunately PFS has already given counter examples to that premise, with the Attack/Flank tricks stated to both be POSSIBLE to result in a flanking attack, it's just that the Attack trick doesn't command the animal to 'go out of it's way' or endanger itself to make the flank, while flanking does become a direct goal of the animal when commanded to perform the Flank trick. Perhaps Andrew Christian's example of Drag/Fetch could be an additional example, but even without it, that basic premise has already been shot down by the Attack/Flank example.

But what is 'normal' behavior? That's the DM's call.. it's an NPC. He runs the NPCs. If the party is attacked by wild animals, who gets to decide how they attack? The DM.

However in PFS where a player and thus the animal companion may get a different GM every scenario, leaving it all up to the GM leads to inconsistent behaviour and a player not knowing what the hell his animal companion is likely to do

Player: "Nah, I never taught Fluffy the Heel Trick as my first few GMs ran Fluffy as never wanting to be away from my side - I mean its for that reason I had to teach him the Stay command"
GM: "Well Fluffy doesn't seem to want to follow you into the house, she's more used to be outdoors, you will need to push her to do the Heel Trick"
Player: "Really, when my last GM was happy to have Fluffy accompany me into the sewers? Okay I guess" <rolls to push, fails> "Okay Fluffy if you don't want to come in, Stay!"

The problem becomes that people are used to running the animal companion as a second PC. They think that they sit down at the table with multiple PCs rather than just one. Confusions like this are bound to happen as a result.

Not necessarily!!! Some players are actually capable of seeing the animal as its own being with its own motives and personality and are able to decide what its "normal" behaviour is even if that is different from how the player's character would want it to behave. And because they are always the player in a game with that animal companion, the companion's normal behaviour will at least be consistent.

For example I decided that my Druid's dog tends to sneakily steal food if it can, even though that isn't how my druid would want him to act.

I mean I GM as well as play PFS, I don't suddenly lose an ability to play an animal as an animal when I move from being GM to player.

IMHO we should not be encouraging GMs to run Animal Companions, we should be encouraging those players who maybe do metagame (which certainly isn't al players) to see their character's animal companion as a separate being and play that accordingly, even if it isn't necessarily the way their character would want it to act. GMs can certainly help provide that distinction by vetoing some player decisions, but ultimately they should be doing so with a view to teaching the player to not metagame.

Andrew Christian wrote:

Animals with Pounce will pounce given the opportunity. Animals with trip or grab special abilities tacked onto their attack, will attempt those if they succeed at an attack.

Just curious your thought on them *not* doing those special abilities.

Frex, the LBEG has a head start, and won't survive a pounce attack. Can a druid/ranger order Tony Tiger to attack and *not* pounce? OR will he always end a charge in a pounce?

I think a push might allow them to, say, only bite on a charge.

Edit: Re 'addition of' It could be read as "They never could, though this was unclear, with the addition of the tricks, now it's clear."

Think of how often we read the questions along the lines of "If I get proficiency Bastard sword, is that one handed or two?" Or "If I have EWP Bastard Sword, can I use it two handed w/o penalty?" (I've seen both.) When the developer says "You get the EWP, there's no Martial" then it's saying "With the addition of this clarification, it's clear."

This is where circumstances and common sense come into play.

Animals have "animal intelligence" and act like animals even when the intelligence is raised above 2.

But for the most part, they are not stupid. If performing their signature move would be extremely ill advised, the animal probably knows that. If they have Spring Attack, they may choose to do that rather than pounce, depending on the circumstances. I’d let the player make that call depending on the circumstances, as long as their call makes sense given the circumstances.

A single bad guy standing in an empty hallway? Yeah, spring attack without a push when pounce makes more sense, isn’t going to happen. But likewise, 5 dragons standing down the hall ready to breathe on the first thing that approaches, might make the animal pause and choose the spring attack over the pounce. Indeed, a push might be necessary for the pounce rather than the spring attack in that situation.

If they don’t have spring attack, then they might actually need a push to make them attack at all, or they will choose to delay until allies have caught up, and then carry out the attack command.

If the player wants to be obstinate, that they can make their animal be a meat shield and they have no sympathy for common sense for circumstances or what their animal may think of the situation, then I might call into question their alignment or whether they can be a druid or not.

Andrew Christian wrote:

Just because that's what was written in the blog, doesn't mean that's how the rules worked. It means that the campaign recognized how most people were doing things and commented accordingly.

That's not what he said though.

Him > You.

He said it has changed, which imples 'is now different'. He did not say 'hey you slackers are munchkining and heres clarification'.

Quandary wrote:

If they add new Tricks, those Tricks are not known by default, just as new Feats are not known by default.

But this isn't about new tricks, this is about a change of mechanics... 'the addition of' means the AC's do not know by default how to do these. Thus it is inferred that they previously DID know by default.

Did you miss the part where Mike said that Adam Mogyordi, the Ontario V-C actually wrote the blog?

And speaking of "the way it was before" can be inferred many ways.

If you want to choose to infer what was written as, "this was in the rules before but isn't now" go ahead. It obviously is an interpretation that leads to you being upset. Or you can infer from what was written, that "this was how everyone was doing it before," it leads you to see that these things were never part of the rules to begin with, and so GM's and Players had to come to an agreement on how it would work. Now they don't. Now its part of the rules.

Depending on what table you sat at in the past, some GM's wouldn't let you flank with your AC, others might.

OK great, so what mechanics or wrotten material is teh GM basing the response on?

Can I, like Mr Bowles, accuse the GM of cheating if he can't substantiate his position with anything other than "I think so" and the GM appears to be running the AC's sub optimally?

Are we saying that AC's are now just simply subject to whim and fiat? That if certain GM's don't like AC's they are now entitled to tell us our AC sits outside the dungeon and picks at fleas instead?

You can stop bringing me into this, as I have abandoned my position of this debate having any consequence. No amount squabbling over tricks will reduce ACs hps, AC, dpr, or feat count.

Many PFS tables have trouble coming in on time as it is, and so trying interject the trick issue onto a DM who is either uneducated about this topic or unwilling to deal with it is a just a colossal waste of the table's time. It's just better to let the pets do their thing.

Andrew's suggestion of Pushing to use a specific attack or not made me think of whether one 'Custom' Trick should specially be allowed (either trainable, or ONLY Pushable), to specify attacking with or using a specific ability which may otherwise not inherently be the chosen method to perform a trick... Similar to the question of if a Feat/ability couldn't possibly be used to perform any published Trick, whether a similar 'Custom' Trick should be specially allowed (trained or Push-only) in order to command usage of that ability. It does seem possible for PFS to issue a few of it's own 'Custom' tricks to enable specific functions like these, while barring ad hoc Custom tricks.

Plenty of people have always played consistently with the latest 'clarifications'

Really, so you had silent guard dogs before the animal archive?

and you think that not only were they playing against RAW but that by mere coincidence their violations of RAW happen to match PFS' latest clarification/'change'?

They didn't match, since you weren't allowing a flank trick.

Please, quote my post criticizing the concept that animals use their will to choose an implementation of the commands given to them.

Here

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, 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.
____

A guard dog guarding to the best of its ability + the guard trick= the watch trick.

A wolf attacking to the best of its ability + the attack trick= the flank trick.

I have written about issues of Player control/portrayal of those animal choices vs. GM control/portrayal of those animal choices, but both of those are SUPPOSED to be portraying animal choices. Frankly, players who promote their own portrayal/control of animal, while being unable to distinguish between animal choice and what Handle Animal does, are not helping the cause of player-control advocacy, because you CAN'T be implementing the rules AND fluff for a creature if you don't accurately understand the rules to begin with.

And as I've pointed out, the players reaching conclusions you don't like are following your own logic of having the animal perform its job to the best of its ability.

When your logic supports their conclusions pre animal archive but not after then yes, something has changed.

Shifty wrote:

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.

Be that as it may, precedent is that just because new material becomes available does not mean a rebuild is allowed.

Tricks aren't listed as a permanent choice, and there's precedent with combat training for replacing an animals existing tricks.

Secondly, it doesn’t change the mechanics of animal companions. It merely reinforces what they always were. Just because most GM’s and players didn’t follow those rules doesn’t mean anything, frankly.

Yeah, no. There's an enormous difference between "you can't flank" and "you can flank just take a trick".

nobody said you can't flank (except for perhaps some very strict GMs).

It was always, you can't have your animal use awesome tactics to avoid AoO's and specifically run around the badguy to position themselves for a flank without pushing.

Some players felt that simply telling the animal to attack, the animal would then proceed to act like another 10+ Int character and act in a way that was most beneficial on the battlefield (tactical genius).

Just because some GM's allowed players to get away with tactical genius with their AC's doesn't mean that's how the rules worked.

The language in the blog just re-emphasizes that the way things were done before are now codified to not be allowed in written text.

You go from a general understand of an ambiguous rule set, to a less ambiguous rule set.

That isn't a change, that's a clarification of the rule set.

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.

Yep. It would perhaps have been slightly better if he'd said

"If you want your companion to intentionally flank, ..."

My wolf doesn't always flank, but it could occasionally do so. Now, though, it's going to require an additional trick to be able to do that.

More troublesome, to me, is the apparent absence from the list of any command to tell my wolf to go to a particular spot. so I can no longer have it take up a position on the far side of the battlefield to cut off an escape route. As anyone who has seen sheepdogs at work (or a group of big cats stalking a herd) knows, strategic positioning is not a foreign concept to an animal.

More troublesome, to me, is the apparent absence from the list of any command to tell my wolf to go to a particular spot

You might confuse your pet a bit, but you can jury rig the seek command to do that.