Animals and Their Tricks

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.

Incorrect. Pushing an animal to do a custom trick was never a spelled out option. (One i'd usually use to set up a future flank for another party member)

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).

And following your logic for why a tiger will use pounce can very easily net you that answer. Following the logic that the animal only does exactly what its commanded= no pounce.

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.

You mean because people decided to have animals act like animals, who by and large, know enough to not walk into the mooses antlers when they're trying to eat it?

I mean if pathfinders aren't being that bright hey, thats why there are 754 Kyra clones down in the vault...

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.

Its a compromise, one that wasn't available, at all, before, and one I'm happy with. You can have the animal flank around, you just need a trick.

Andrew Christian wrote:

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.

Incorrect. Pushing an animal to do a custom trick was never a spelled out option. (One i'd usually use to set up a future flank for another party member)

Quote:

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).

And following your logic for why a tiger will use pounce can very easily net you that answer. Following the logic that the animal only does exactly what its commanded= no pounce.

Quote:

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.

You mean because people decided to have animals act like animals, who by and large, know enough to not walk into the mooses antlers when they're trying to eat it?

I mean if pathfinders aren't being that bright hey, thats why there are 754 Kyra clones down in the vault...

Quote:

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.

Its a compromise, one that wasn't available, at all, before, and one I'm happy with. You can have the animal flank around, you just need a trick.

Look. If you want to interpret the rules to be uber-restrictive, be my guest.

I’m giving very valid interpretations of the rules that allow players and GM’s to work together to actually have fun together with the animal companion.

But if you want to interpret the left-over ambiguity as so restrictive to make animal companions no longer fun to have around, then nothing I say will change your mind.

The current set of rules, by no means, makes things as restrictive as you and Shifty seem to think they do.

The word of the day should be “Common Sense”.

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.

No.

Animals will actively choose to flank other creatures. Wolves especially will do so.

The flank trick does not empower the animal to be able to flank. Unintelligent skeletons benefit from flanking, they just don't seek it out.

The trick changes the animal's priorities in combat from what they normally would be.

Read the flank trick. Read it carefully.

The animal following the dictates of the flank trick does far more than merely choose between two squares one giving flanking and the other not.

This is getting missed by people, and the tricks are getting misunderstood.

A large wolf animal companion enlarged via animal growth to size huge in ordered:

Situation A: To attack enemy A.
Situation B: To flank enemy B.

In case A, the wolf will go up to A, possibly charging to attack them. He's likely 10ft away (his natural reach) while making this attack. On a successful hit, the wolf's trip ability activates and he tries to trip. If he has choice of squares, he will choose not to provoke AOOs to get to A, and will choose to attack from a square that gives his attack flanking.

If he would normally decide to attack and enemy A is the enemy he would have then decided to attack, then nothing has changed from issuing no orders. The attack order is to ensure that these decisions (to attack, to attack enemy A) were made.

In case B, the wolf will go to be adjacent to A. Always move to a flanking square when another is fighting A. Always save his AOO in case that enemy A provokes.

This is nothing like case A in that the wolf will provoke AOOs to achieve position. He will give up a full attack action in order to provide flanking (and receive it). He will be adjacent to the enemy rather than simply threaten them (so he could not charge even if he had wanted to do so). He won't let others 'fool' or 'distract' him away from his target.

This is not merely accepting flanking, or easily shifting to a square for flanking.

This is akin to the party cleric provoking multiple AOOs to give a flank for the party rogue. It's certainly not the movement/action that the cleric would take without understanding that the rogue needs this flank and that it is worth it for him to do so. The animal wolf is worse off than the party cleric in this regard. Fortunately he can be told via handle animal that this otherwise 'stupid' action on his part is what he needs to do for his companions/pack.

-James

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).

Maybe it's me but shouldn't tactics on the battlefield have some grounding in Wisdom as well? And most animals are very wise compared to average humans in the game system. Int's a great measure of how much it can learn, but it's a poor measurement for how much common sense and basic tactics a creature should have.

In the end I think the flank trick bothers me just because of that. All creatures that aren't mindless should be able to flank. They should be able to use common sense and realize that it's hard to defend against attacks from two sides. Animals are wise enough to do this in real life.

What the flank trick should have done is been the trick to override the animals sense of self preservation and forced it to flank even if they would trigger AoO to do it. That way animals without the trick wouldn't try to trigger AoO to get into a flank and would merely move 5 feet at a time if threatened.

So much missed potential with this book.

Look. If you want to interpret the rules to be uber-restrictive, be my guest.

... what conversation are you reading?

I’m giving very valid interpretations of the rules that allow players and GM’s to work together to actually have fun together with the animal companion.[/quoite]

And you're deriding equally valid past interpretations that enabled flanking, that you still use to justify pouncing.

I am not REMOTELY saying that the animal doesn't pounce. What I'm saying is that not only are you supposed to let the animal act like an animal, the raw pretty much requires it for the animal to do anything. The rules about what an animal does are still very loose where they haven't been restricted by specific tricks.

Quote:

The word of the day should be “Common Sense”.

Common sense said that critters flank and guard dogs bark. Its not the pancea to get you to the "interpretation you've had all along" that you think it is.

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.

This is the part I'm going to respond to because I think this touches on the core problem with AC' and the scope of their actions.

First, I have to agree with Quandary. There is a distinct difference between Guard and Watch. Guard is about defending a location. Watch is about alerting others based on the approach of a creature based on a limited set of parameters e.g. "sizable or dangerous" creatures. Huge difference between these two tricks. That means a dryad or pixie entering a camp is not going to trigger the animal to alert others. If the same animal were ordered to Guard, it would attack such creatures.

Another way to illustrate the difference is remember not all AC's are combat animals. Watch allows a ranger to benefit from being alerted without fear that his/her animal is going to faceplant before he wakes up to call it off. In addition, a person may want a wolf to guard a doorway in an alley, the animal is not going to bark at every person that passes by within 10ft.

Now, some of the others may be more problematic. Heel and Come are very similar but distinct. Animal told to Heel--"the animal follows you closely, even to places where it normally wouldn’t go."--does nothing if you remain in the area. The animal only come to a person as they leave the area. If you're in a battle and issue Heel with the animal across the room, it will not move through combat to join you until you leave. The Come command will cause the animal to cross the room, but that does not mean it will stay within 5' of you as you leave. It will follow you eventually, but may go to investigate something on its own, or walk all over the place sniffing stuff or flying to different trees. Most importantly, it will not be within 5' of you without you,as you travel, without having issued Heel.

The underlying point for many of us in these discussions is that these distinction are hand-waived. Owners are generally getting free passes on these things and the players usually unwilling to observe any distinctions that put them at a disadvantage. BNW, you're a prime example of attempting lawyer away the distinction between these tricks. Attempting to obfuscate the clear difference between Guard and Watch appears disingenuous given the plain English of how these things are worded. Rather than being objective and attempting to give meaning to the words, you're trying to undermine them.

Common sense said that critters flank and guard dogs bark. Its not the pancea to get you to the "interpretation you've had all along" that you think it is.

I disagree, and I've argued it for a long, long time on the boards.

Common Sense does not have critters flanking and what not. Common sense says they act like animals and do what they are told as most directly as they can, while also using their feats and abilities.

This interpretation hasn't changed with the new book.

Owners are generally getting free passes on these things and the players usually unwilling to observe any distinctions that put them at a disadvantage. BNW, you're a prime example of attempting lawyer away the distinction between these tricks. Attempting to obfuscate the clear difference between Guard and Watch appears disingenuous given the plain English of how these things are worded

You're going to try THAT as an attack on my honesty? Really?

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

Oh, i MUST have been hatching some decades long devious, dastardly plot pretending not to see the plain and clear intent here. I mean just because it doesn't specify other I pretended to assume it means things big enough to be a threat, rather than Fido chasing mice out of the camp. Just because it doesn't specify a mechanism for prevention I pretended to think that fido would try to scare things off by barking at them. Just because for years it was the only trick a watch dog had/needed I have been pretending all this time that it actually let your guard dog act as a guard dog All.. ALL FOR THE DAY WHEN I COULD UNDERMINE A TRICK THAT HADN"T BEEN WRITTEN YET! MUAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH!!!!!

But now you've ruined my plans!!!! I would have gotten away with it if it weren't for that medling kid... I will have to settle for removing the tags from mattresses. *twirls snidely whiplash mustache and vanishes in a puff of smoke*

Watch (DC 15): The animal can be commanded to keep watch over a particular area, such as a campsite, and raise an alarm if it notices any sizable or dangerous creature entering the area. This trick is often included in the Guarding purpose

Common Sense does not have critters flanking and what not. Common sense says they act like animals and do what they are told as most directly as they can, while also using their feats and abilities.

This interpretation hasn't changed with the new book.

emphasis mine

I think this is the key. The animals are taught to perform an action in response to a stimulus. In the case of 'attack' you're teaching him to attack the big scary thing (whether that be an Ulfen with an axe, a dragon, or a chicken legged dancing hut). If you're teaching the animal to take a long route to get behind someone, you're teaching it the flank trick. IF you've taught it to 'attack' and go for something in a straight line, then it's not suddenly going to take a long circular route to attack the target, any more than my Chihuahua will suddenly play dead if I tell him to 'sit'.

Common Sense does not have critters flanking and what not. Common sense says they act like animals

And since animals do flank (both irl and according to their notes in the bestiaries) therefore they flank.

and do what they are told as most directly as they can, while also using their feats and abilities.

This interpretation hasn't changed with the new book.

And either will the animals actions: the critters are still going to be using the advanced tactics that people complain about, now they just have even more justification for it.

It's not a question of "honesty." Mind the straw men. It's a questions of good faith discussion. You've consistently refused to concede anything as a compromise. You're intentionally ignoring that the way AC's are handled (no pun intended) lessens the enjoyment of the game for some. Many of us (even those with rangers, like myself), acknowledge that the system has issues as is. You, on the other hand, refuse to acknowledge any problems whatsoever. Instead, you want to pretend that every single Druid's AC has 4 int and they all have +15 HA by level 3.

By contrast, Quandary, James, myself, and even David, acknowledge that there some middle ground between the DM controlling and the player controlling it. Most of us agree that it many cases it makes more sense for the player to control it.

I'm looking for a better system, one that acknowledges some restraints on the animal, but does not make it tedious to play or deal with.

I pretended to think that fido would try to scare things off by barking at them....

Not every animal can bark or vocalizes threats. But you're unwilling to even acknowledge that.

I'm looking for a better system, one that acknowledges some restraints on the animal, but does not make it tedious to play or deal with.

I believe my argument does this.

Not every animal can bark or vocalizes threats. But you're unwilling to even acknowledge that.

That's why you have to take every situation in context with the animal, the circumstances, and the command given.

I'm willing to give a player leeway dependent on what (my version of) common sense says for all of those things.

I also expect any other GM to give me leeway dependent on what (their version of) common sense says for all of those things.

What I will not tolerate though, is a player dictating to me something blatantly against the rules or something that doesn't follow common sense. I'll listen to an argument for a short while, but that's it.

I also won't tolerate a GM being so uber restrictive, that my character is basically nerfed beyond all comprehension and becomes like playing Robot Rally instead of Pathfinder.

and do what they are told as most directly as they can, while also using their feats and abilities.

This interpretation hasn't changed with the new book.

vs

Now Jiggy can probably find the link, but James Jacobs indicated that because animal companions are special class features, that allowing them to use advanced tactics (flanking) should be part of their combat training.

So that's how I'm running animal companions now. As both a player and a GM.

-linky

So you went (based on context of the second quote) From no fancy stuff, changed your mind to the fancy stuff is ok, and now back to no fancy stuff without the flank trick. (which is where i also find myself)

It would seem to me that the new book did bring that change in view.

No, I never changed my mind.

I never view James Jacobs as a rules guy.

But I decided to just err on the side of avoiding conflict at the table and run things the way James Jacobs would at his home game.

But the new book actually confirms my arguments from yesteryear before James Jacobs comments came to light.

In the end I think the flank trick bothers me just because of that. All creatures that aren't mindless should be able to flank. They should be able to use common sense and realize that it's hard to defend against attacks from two sides. Animals are wise enough to do this in real life.

Actually even mindless benefit from flanking, so there is no teaching how to flank.

What the flank trick should have done is been the trick to override the animals sense of self preservation and forced it to flank even if they would trigger AoO to do it. That way animals without the trick wouldn't try to trigger AoO to get into a flank and would merely move 5 feet at a time if threatened.

Jeffrey.. that's what it does read the trick.

I'm not sure how this is confusing (or perhaps your post was sarcasm that is missed over the internet) but it's fairly clear that the trick is doing exactly what you want it to do.

-James

Jeffrey Fox wrote:

What the flank trick should have done is been the trick to override the animals sense of self preservation and forced it to flank even if they would trigger AoO to do it. That way animals without the trick wouldn't try to trigger AoO to get into a flank and would merely move 5 feet at a time if threatened.

Jeffrey.. that's what it does read the trick.

I'm not sure how this is confusing (or perhaps your post was sarcasm that is missed over the internet) but it's fairly clear that the trick is doing exactly what you want it to do.

-James

I've read the trick, I also read the blog. I'll explain why the flank trick doesn't do all of what I think it should, because what it does now is limit what pets without it can't do.

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 your companion doesn't know one of these tricks, pushing your companion with a successful DC 25 Handle Animal check is also an option.

By default pets don't know how to do what the flank trick allows. So let's look at what the flank trick does. Let me break the trick up into it's separate parts, because it does a few different things.

Flank (DC 20): You can instruct an animal to attack a foe you point to and always attempt to be adjacent to (and threatening) that foe. If you or an ally is also threatening the foe, the animal attempts to flank the foe, if possible.

Ok, so this is the part that means the pet will flank and try to stay in a flank if possible. So yes they should be willing to take AoO (unless a GM overrules a player because nothing says specifically that they would be willing to provoke an AoO.)

So without the flank trick and animal will by default, not try to do these things. The flank trick + blog means that animals can't flank without the trick by default. Even safely.

It always takes attacks of opportunity.

I hate this clause. I hate this with a passion, apparently if your pet can't flank it won't take AoO. I guess pets are so lacking in common sense that they won't take a free bite at an enemy when the opportunity presents itself.

The animal must know the attack trick before it can learn this trick.

I'm just posting the end of it for completeness.

What the flank trick does now, because of the blog, is prevent pet's from being able to flank and make AoO by default. The fact that you have to take the flank trick, and order your pet to do it to get it to make an AoO is insane.

Who seriously thought before this book that pets wouldn't take a free AoO at an enemy?

That's why I said what I did, the Flank trick should just have been about allow the pet to flank when flanking would be dangerous and to follow the opponent around.

Mike Brock wrote:

...If you want your companion to always flank, you now need the Flank trick.

By default pets don't know how to do what the flank trick allows.

Emphasis added.

You're either intentionally ignoring or overlooking a crucial word in Mike's quote: "always"

The use of always is important because it suggests that the creature may flank, but will not "always" flank. If you want the animal to "always" flank, then and only then do you need to use the Flank trick. You're erroneously reading that as: The creature will never flank with out the flank trick.

Where this gets tricky is if the direct route is not a flank, but a 5' step the next round would be a flank. Per the rules, the creature will not take the 5' step without being ordered to flank or to at attack from the flanking square (a trick we don't seem to have).

So yes they should be willing to take AoO (unless a GM overrules a player because nothing says specifically that they would be willing to provoke an AoO.)

The rule doesn't need to say that, just like it doesn't need to say the creature would jump over a 5' ditch to flank. If its "possible" to flank the creature does. The possibility of an AoO doesn't make flanking impossible.

Quote:

It always takes attacks of opportunity.

I hate this clause. I hate this with a passion, apparently if your pet can't flank it won't take AoO. I guess pets are so lacking in common sense that they won't take a free bite at an enemy when the opportunity presents itself.

Once again, you're confusing the use of "always" with the concept of "never." The Flank rule is simply stating that this rule requires the animal to take an AoO when presented with it. You do know that no creature has to take an AoO just because one exists?

Why is that in the Flank rule? Because if the creature were Guarding or Defending or Aiding, it would probablly NOT take an AoO on a fleeing target. If the creature were simply ordered to Attack, then yes, it would most likely take AoO on its fleeing target as there's nothing in the rule that says it won't.

N N 959 wrote:

Not every animal can bark or vocalizes threats. But you're unwilling to even acknowledge that.

That's why you have to take every situation in context with the animal, the circumstances, and the command given.

In a home brew game, sure. In an Organized Play environment, this is ill-advised and should not be used. The first and show-stopping problem with your approach is that some animals would not be able to perform tricks at all. How would a snake warn an entire sleeping party? What about a dinosaur? You know for a fact they can roar or bark?

No, what PFS has to do is ignore the specifics of the animal and treat them all as being able to perform all the tricks that don't specifically require something like flight or hands. All animals can raise an alarm. All animals can perform or entertain, etc.

The last thing PFS wants to do is ask every single GM to make discretionary judgments on whether a badger or an axebeak can raise an alarm. That's setting your GM up for failure and your players for resentment.

It's much easier to simpler say all animals can Watch and Guard and no specific animal gets to do two for the price of one.

So I have a couple of questions.

1) Is Chosing the archetype the same as a PC? Like they can get it as long as their lvl has not went past the first change of the archetype.

Where levels are referenced in archetype descriptions, they refer to the class level of the PC master in whichever class grants the companion or familiar as a class feature.

that was said on the first paragraph, last sentence on pg 20.

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

Mike has promulgated the information though, and it now bears his stamp as being 'the way things are', hence it doesn't matter who originally wrote it.

Obama doesn't write all his speeches either, but once he speaks the words they are his.

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

And now we have even less consistency because of rules that are specific in some areas and vague in others. You keep saying 'context', but at the end of the day that means we won't get consistency between GM's, and that's what this whole affair was supposed to address. We don't want 'context per GM fancy', and we don't want GM's to speculate on what an animals 'natural behaviour or habit' might be for that GM might have only have a pet goldfish and mightn't have a single clue on the habits of the Axebeak or the Idontthinkhesaurus.

We want hard black and whites so we don't have to be unfairly subject to adverse GM's with a gruge against pets, or fellow players who dont want to be 'outshone'.

Jeffrey Fox wrote:

Mike Brock wrote:

...If you want your companion to always flank, you now need the Flank trick.

By default pets don't know how to do what the flank trick allows.

Emphasis added.

You're either intentionally ignoring or overlooking a crucial word in Mike's quote: "always"

The use of always is important because it suggests that the creature may flank, but will not "always" flank. If you want the animal to "always" flank, then and only then do you need to use the Flank trick. You're erroneously reading that as: The creature will never flank with out the flank trick.

Actually the use of "always" isn't that important. Because pets can be pushed. A pet without flank trick can't flank by default, unless you push it. If you want it to always flank you must teach it the flank trick.

So no I'm not confusing "Always" with "never" I'm not ignoring the rules in the game as clarified by the blog. The blog post is pretty clear if used in context of the handle animals rules, and they say what I think they say.

That might not be the intent, but that's what they say right now.

I do think the 'always' is important.

Example: Critter told to attack, attacks the target. After he runs in (and eats the AoO if appropriate) Rodger Rogue moves around and is not behind the target. IF the target moves (say a 5' step) and Critter can also take a 5' step to adjust, he will. If he has a choice of steps and one puts him in a better (flanking position) he will.

Example 2: Freddie Fighter is facing an ogre. Donny Druid tells Wally Wolf to attack. Wally's straight line puts him in the 5' square beside Freddie. He moves there and attacks. On ogre's turn he overruns Freddie and charges Donny. Ogre ends his move diagonal to Donnie, but the closest square for Wally is *not* a flanking square. He runs there and attacks.

Example 3: Freddie and the Ogre above. Wally Wolf is told to flank. He moves around the ogre and flanks for Freddie. When the ogre overruns and charges Donny, Wally's move will be to flank the ogre, since he's still on the flank trick.

At my table, if Wally is 'pushed' to flank on that initial attack, he won't automatically keep flanking.

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.)

<bolding by me>

Yet that is exactly what some GMs will now claim they have the grounds and authority to forbid.
And not just inexperienced GMs, who are new to the rules, or don't yet have the confidence to make a commonsense ruling and keep the game moving.

There's a three-star PFS GM, who's specifically said he'd forbid an animal (without the Flank trick) from moving to a flanking square, a square safer than its current square, after the first round of combat, using a 5' step, incurring no AoO.
He later allowed that he might allow the animal to do so, but only if movement into all other non-flanking squares had been denied.

That's happening in this very thread. (see the various exchanges in 'The Dog, the Goblin, and the Hobgoblin' scenario, previously posted.).
You can't say that BNW is over-reacting to a problem that has yet to exist.
Three-star GMs are specifically saying "I will not let any animal take a 5' step, to get into a more advantageous position, unless they are taught a specific trick.".
A trick which has nothing to do with fighting, but is actually about setting up the pre-fight conditions.

I do think the 'always' is important.

Example: Critter told to attack, attacks the target. After he runs in (and eats the AoO if appropriate) Rodger Rogue moves around and is not behind the target. IF the target moves (say a 5' step) and Critter can also take a 5' step to adjust, he will. If he has a choice of steps and one puts him in a better (flanking position) he will.

Example 2: Freddie Fighter is facing an ogre. Donny Druid tells Wally Wolf to attack. Wally's straight line puts him in the 5' square beside Freddie. He moves there and attacks. On ogre's turn he overruns Freddie and charges Donny. Ogre ends his move diagonal to Donnie, but the closest square for Wally is *not* a flanking square. He runs there and attacks.

Example 3: Freddie and the Ogre above. Wally Wolf is told to flank. He moves around the ogre and flanks for Freddie. When the ogre overruns and charges Donny, Wally's move will be to flank the ogre, since he's still on the flank trick.

The problem with your first example is that we know, because of the blog, that pet's can't flank by default without out the flank trick. Just like pet's don't attack by default without the attack trick. You need to push them to do it.

Your example one has what should happen, that's how animals should be run since they do have a high wisdom.

The problem is that if you get a GM who read the blog and knows that pet's can't flank by default without the trick, you as a player may get overruled if you try to flank. Which would suck.

At my table, if Wally is 'pushed' to flank on that initial attack, he won't automatically keep flanking.

This seems harsh, but yeah pushing and handling says it's for the next action. SO it is an every round thing. Which is why pushing an animal to flank is such a drain on the action economy.

Of course that is probably the intention.

I've read the trick, I also read the blog. I'll explain why the flank trick doesn't do all of what I think it should, because what it does now is limit what pets without it can't do.

The problem that I see is that you are improperly negating a statement.

If the statement is A and B and C, the negation is not not A and not B and not C.

The negation is not A or not B or not C.

And that is assuming your premise, which I do not. I'm just commenting here that your logic is fundamentally flawed.

The flank trick has an animal move adjacent to the target, have it make priority one to flanking the target, and saves it's AOOs for the target.

All of these need not happen should the animal simply attack normally.

1. An animal with reach might not go adjacent to attack. If it would have to provoke AOOs to become adjacent, it would be stupid to do so.

2. An animal would not normally give up a full attack action in order to move into a flanking position. Likewise it would not provoke AOOs to do so.. that would truly be stupid for the animal to do.

3. The animal would certainly take an attack of opportunity against another foe that provokes.. it's pack is fighting their pack! Why would anyone NOT do so? Ludicrous!

All of these in my mind are normal for a 'typical' animal. Were I judging a group of animals attacking a party I certainly would not have them go against any of 1, 2, or 3. Would you?

Now with the flank trick an animal will go against all 3.

None of this is saying or even implying that an animal given the choices between attacking from a square with flanking and a square without flanking would chose the worse square!

-James

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.

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.

James, there are posters, within this very thread, who disagree with you.

Pleas for GMs to do exactly what you are suggesting, to take into account animal's normal behavior ("Of course wolves will try to attack via a flank square. Have you never heard of 'wolf-pack tactics'?") have been flatly refused, and denounced as gaming the system, cheating, trying to get free tricks for no cost.

There is a sizable group of posters, on this thread (some of them GMs, some of them players, who feel outclassed by other PCs' pets), who insist that all animals who become companions to a PC have been stripped of all natural instincts (if adopted as adults), or never learned them in the first place (if raised from birth).

That's why there was an earlier exchange, in which one poster stated that a dog would not bark, if a stranger entered the master's room.
Anyone who's raised dogs, knows that you actually have to train dogs not to bark at strangers. That you actually have to teach them who is a friend of the family, and is free to come and go without being barked at.

Yet, since allowing a dog to bark at an intruder might give the owning PC a benefit he has not specifically paid for, that simply would not do.
So the dog simply sits there, mute.
And since it can't be allowed to attack, unless given specific orders, it can't defend itself either.
So if the master isn't present and awake, an intruder can break into the PCs' home and kick the dog to death, without it reacting, or making a sound.
Apparently.

So, surely the solution is just 'give the dog the Guard trick', right?
Not really.
Since the Guard trick doesn't actually say that the dog barks, any declaration that the dog might do so is unsupported, and thus, shows the player is trying to get something for nothing.
Since the Guard trick also doesn't say the animal will fight an intruder, it isn't allowed to fight either. Even in self-defence.

In fact, the Guard trick doesn't specifically allow much of anything, only that 'The animal stays in place and prevents others from approaching'.

The owning player isn't allowed to declare how the animal carries out that instruction, since that would be 'a player trying to play two PCs', so he has to, at best, make a suggestion, and get GM approval.

The GM declares that 'If any action is covered by another trick, it obviously can't be considered part of the Guard trick'.
'Fighting is quite clearly covered by the Attack trick, therefore cannot be included in the Guard trick.'.
An animal can't be given two commands at once, so if it's on Guard, it can't be on Attack orders.
Therefore, animals acting on the Guard command cannot use force, to prevent intruders approaching.
Therefore, they have to sit still, stay quiet, and let the intruder past.

And even if you did allow Guard commands to include the ability to bark, and/or bite an intruder, it's useless for giving orders to a guard animal, since the Handle Animal rules state that the command is only good for the animal's next action.

So if you leave the dog guarding your house, the intruder just has to spook it once, walk away, come back six seconds later, and rob you blind, while the dog sits there, motionless.

This isn't a strawman argument.
This is what the people on this thread are actually saying.

The problem with your first example is that we know, because of the blog, that pet's can't flank by default without out the flank trick. Just like pet's don't attack by default without the attack trick. You need to push them to do it.

This is the fault I find with your premise.

Here is how I understand the rules (YMMV):

1. Handle animal is about training (which we are not talking about), and about commanding ("get them to follow your simple commands"). We are talking about the later.

1A. This is not about teaching an animal something it does not know, but rather telling them to do something they might not do on their next turn. You want them to do this thing, so you command them to do so.

2. An animal without the attack trick certainly still knows how to attack.

2A. What they don't know is when you want them to attack, and who you want them to attack.

3. Any creature making a melee attack into another square can benefit from flanking. There is no knowledge needed. Mindless oozes, skeletons, and constructs can flank. Saying that an animal with an INT score that could exceed party members doesn't know how to flank is silly and wrong.

3A. What the animal does NOT know is that you expressly WANT them to flank. That getting that flank is more important than them avoiding getting hit, more important than them getting a full attack sequence, and more important than attacking any other enemy that is a 'more dangerous' threat.

I think people misunderstand the handle animal skill. This is reinforced by the way that animals are played at the table. Many don't even think to consider that the creature with it's own initiative score should be rolling initiative! There is a lot of unlearning that needs to be done here.

-James

This isn't a strawman argument.

This is what the people on this thread are actually saying.

This is why it is important to understand that the animal companion is an NPC, and not a mere extension of the druid's psyche.

Having the default be that the DM runs them, as he runs all NPCs will help underscore this.

In practice I suspect that many, many tables will have players running all allied NPCs. But if it is starting with the premise that they are under the control of the DM and are NPCs in their own right, then these silly situations that you have to be worried sound like strawmen won't actually be put up at the table (or put up with at the table!).

-James
PS: As to the watch command... it would depend on the creature's nature. A stealthy hunter (like a cat) might not announce it's presence normally. It would think it would be stupid to do so. When an enemy approaches you look to ambush them! Making lots of noise tells THEM where YOU are! Insanity!

The handle animal skill is all about changing the default/normal behavior. That's it's raison d'etre.

None of this is saying or even implying that an animal given the choices between attacking from a square with flanking and a square without flanking would chose the worse square!

-James

Yet that's exactly what multi-starred PFS GMs, posting on this thread, have declared they would force the animal to do.

Yet that's exactly what PFS players, claiming to have been constantly made redundant by animals, are exhorting GMs to do, and asking the PFS VCs to instruct GMs to do.

I think people misunderstand the handle animal skill. This is reinforced by the way that animals are played at the table.

-James

I certainly think people are misinterpreting the intent of the Flank trick, and using the sudden appearance of that new trick, as an excuse to apply backdated restrictions to the standard Attack tricks, which aren't intended.

Flank is there for convincing the animal to stay in a flanking position, no matter if that isn't the safest place to be (such as when they get counter-flanked).

It's not meant as proof, that an animal without Flank should lose all ability to recognise when an enemy is distracted, and can be more easily brought down by an attack to their exposed rear.
It's not there, to give pet-hating GMs carte blanche, to put PC's animal companions in the worst possible position every round.
"You're not allowed in flanking squares! What have I told you? Get out! Go to your basket!"

Here is how I understand the rules (YMMV):

1. Handle animal is about training (which we are not talking about), and about commanding ("get them to follow your simple commands"). We are talking about the later.

1A. This is not about teaching an animal something it does not know, but rather telling them to do something they might not do on their next turn. You want them to do this thing, so you command them to do so.

And before the blog I would have assumed it meant the same.

The problem boils down to the use of the word default. Which used in this context generally means automatically. So basically the blog says an pet won't flank automatically without the flank trick. Since it won't do it automatically it needs outside input to do it.

This is why wording in game rules is important. Because some people are going to read the words for what they say rather than what the author meant to say. A strict reading leads to my problems with the blog's rulings.

It might not be the intent, but enough people out there hate pets that they will read the most strict reading in order to cut into a pet's power. And it leads to more table variance which this blog was suppose to cut down on.

This is why it is important to understand that the animal companion is an NPC, and not a mere extension of the druid's psyche.

It's a class feature, not an NPC. If they wanted it to be a NPC they would have said it, just like they did for Leadership and Intelligent Item. No where in the rules does it say an AC is a NPC.

But yes, it's not an extension of the druid's psyche which is why Handle Animal is used in order to make it do things.

Andrew Christian wrote:

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

Mike has promulgated the information though, and it now bears his stamp as being 'the way things are', hence it doesn't matter who originally wrote it.

Obama doesn't write all his speeches either, but once he speaks the words they are his.

Andrew Christian wrote:

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

And now we have even less consistency because of rules that are specific in some areas and vague in others. You keep saying 'context', but at the end of the day that means we won't get consistency between GM's, and that's what this whole affair was supposed to address. We don't want 'context per GM fancy', and we don't want GM's to speculate on what an animals 'natural behaviour or habit' might be for that GM might have only have a pet goldfish and mightn't have a single clue on the habits of the Axebeak or the Idontthinkhesaurus.

We want hard black and whites so we don't have to be unfairly subject to adverse GM's with a gruge against pets, or fellow players who dont want to be 'outshone'.

Well you could certainly continue to rant, or you could wait and see if the campaign decides to answer and clarify a lot of these questions.

Meanwhile, you could choose to trust your GM's to be fair.

Many don't even think to consider that the creature with it's own initiative score should be rolling initiative! There is a lot of unlearning that needs to be done here.

-James

I've always pushed for individual initiative, in every edition of D&D, since I started on Moldvay B/X in 1980. And we used a prototype 2nd Edition-style (d10+weapon speed-Dex bonus) method, in 1st Ed, from 1984 on.

The old-school 'party initiative' is a relic of the past, that I never want to see again.
And that nonsense about having an official party 'caller', who passes everyone's actions to the DM (often garbled in translation) is just an abomination.
Combat is slow enough, without holding an AGM between every round.

For those who insist on master and pet using the same surprise or initiative roll, who ask 'Why does it matter, since the animal just has to wait for an order?';
It matters a lot.

It's the difference between being caught flat-footed, being subject to sneak damage, being able to use an immediate protective action, being able to bark a warning (or speak, for familiars).
And animals shouldn't always need to wait for an order, when danger threatens them. Some enemies should be open season.
Individual initiative allows them to attack obvious enemies, like ones who've hurt them in the past and got away.
They can take an AoO, against enemies running past, or attempting untrained CMB maneuvers.

And finally, why shouldn't they have their own initiative?
Most animals have better Dex than their masters, can't buy most feats, (so why not have Improved Initiative?), and have precious few abilities except their physical stats, so they should get the benefit of those stats.

If Monty Mongoose has Dex 20 and Improved Initiative, he should be going on Initiative (d20+9). He doesn't drop to to an unmodified Dex 3 just because he was befriended by (Dex 3) Fat Freddie Fivebellies.

And I run NPCs with individual initiative, unless there's lots of them, in which case I might break them into groups. Mindless creatures with simple attacks (zombie slam!) get bundled together. Any creature with tactical savvy, or a special attack that could affect the available choices of the others, gets their own slot.

AC's or Eidolons that are separate from their master require their own initiative score.

Per the rules on mounted combat, Mounts use their rider's initiative score regardless if theirs is better or worse than the riders.

Mounts are a special case, true.
They can hardly go running off, leaving the rider sitting in midair.
And feats like Ride-By Attack can't work, if the mount runs past the enemy, then the rider starts his turn out of reach.

I'd still say that's a case of the mount having separate initiative, and choosing to delay, based on its mounted combat training.

Most of the time it doesn't matter, but in an ambush situation, if Horse rolls 20, Rider rolls 10, and Bandit rolls 15, when it comes time for the Bandit to try bringing down the Rider by shooting the Horse, I'd give the Horse the benefit of the doubt, by ruling it not being subject to Sneak damage from being flatfooted.
Horse is aware of its surroundings, looking for a safe route, and able to duck away from the worst of the damage, even if Rider hasn't yet applied the spurs.

Mounts are a special case, true.

They can hardly go running off, leaving the rider sitting in midair.
And feats like Ride-By Attack can't work, if the mount runs past the enemy, then the rider starts his turn out of reach.

I'd still say that's a case of the mount having separate initiative, and choosing to delay, based on its mounted combat training.

Most of the time it doesn't matter, but in an ambush situation, if Horse rolls 20, Rider rolls 10, and Bandit rolls 15, when it comes time for the Bandit to try bringing down the Rider by shooting the Horse, I'd give the Horse the benefit of the doubt, by ruling it not being subject to Sneak damage from being flatfooted.
Horse is aware of its surroundings, looking for a safe route, and able to duck away from the worst of the damage, even if Rider hasn't yet applied the spurs.

No, it isn't the mount delaying.

The rules on Mounted Combat in the Core Rulebook specifically state that the mount goes on the rider's initiative.

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.

To me, that situation is exactly what the Flank trick was for.

Or a command to Defend that position over there? (Rather than the spot the animal currently occupies).

Defend or Guard could easily be used to position your animal to a specific spot.

It's a class feature, not an NPC. If they wanted it to be a NPC they would have said it, just like they did for Leadership and Intelligent Item. No where in the rules does it say an AC is a NPC.

What's the definition of NPC?

And how does the animal companion not satisfy this?

What about a class feature no longer makes it an animal, or a wizard's bonded item and item, etc? I have no idea how this is meant as a retort to 'it's an NPC', yet people have been doing so here.

The rules have reminder text in some locations. Their lack in others does not constitute the negation.

As to blog entries.. when they contradict the rules as written, ask for clarification because of it. People are people and not robots. They might mean one thing, but it reads another to some people. Or they could simply be mistaken. Things like this happen.

Rather than leap to conclusions, apply some common sense and ask for common sense to be applied. Its amazing how far that can go.

-James

What's the definition of NPC?

And how does the animal companion not satisfy this?

Nonplayer Character (NPC): These are characters controlled by the GM.

An AC isn't a NPC because its a class feature and players control their class features unless rules text says otherwise. Unless your willing to have GMs control your spell lists for you.

Taking control of a Class feature from a player is the only way to make an AC a by RAW NPC. Which is a houserule.

As to blog entries.. when they contradict the rules as written, ask for clarification because of it. People are people and not robots. They might mean one thing, but it reads another to some people. Or they could simply be mistaken. Things like this happen.

Rather than leap to conclusions, apply some common sense and ask for common sense to be applied. Its amazing how far that can go.

Common sense isn't a substitute for clear rules because common sense is subjective.

To be clear, the tone of your text seems a bit insulting, is that your intent?

This is getting painful.

Some things have to be either true or false here.

If it is true that all characters are either NPCs or PCs, then the claim that ACs are not NPCs means that they are, in fact, PCs.

However, if the claim is that ACs are neither PCs nor NPCs, then what are they? "Class feature" is not a type of character in PFS to my knowledge. Should it be?

Frankly, I don't understand how being involved in a "class feature" affects their status as PC or NPC.

Hopefully, the new book clarifies this issue.

Actually the use of "always" isn't that important. Because pets can be pushed. A pet without flank trick can't flank by default, unless you push it.

Mike does not say that. I'm going to quote what you quoted

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.

Mike did not say that pets can't Flank. Mike's statement is saying that if you order the animal to attack, it does not automatically go and flank as a default. As James points out repeatedly, even a 0 INT ooze can benefit from being in a Flank position.

Your interpretation seems to read as if Mike said this,

"If you ever want the animal benefit from a flank, it must know this trick."

Which is not what Mike is saying. While I disagree that an animal will always choose a flank position over a non-flank position, there's nothing in the blogs or new rules that says an animal in a position which grants a flank bonus does not get one.

Jeffrey Fox wrote:

Actually the use of "always" isn't that important. Because pets can be pushed. A pet without flank trick can't flank by default, unless you push it.

Mike does not say that. I'm going to quote what you quoted

Quote:

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.

Mike did not say that pets can't Flank. Mike's statement is saying that if you order the animal to attack, it does not automatically go and flank as a default. As James points out repeatedly, even a 0 INT ooze can benefit from being in a Flank position.

Your interpretation seems to read as if Mike said this,

"If you ever want the animal benefit from a flank, it must know this trick."

Which is not what Mike is saying. While I disagree that an animal will always choose a flank position over a non-flank position, there's nothing in the blogs or new rules that says an animal in a position which grants a flank bonus does not get one.

I never said animals can't benefit from a flank. I said the blog clarification means an animal won't flank without the trick. That means it won't safely move around an opponent to get a flank, even though as high wisdom creatures they should.

Because by default they won't maneuver themselves into a flank position.

So my position is that Animals should try to flank by default since they have a high wisdom, but they should do it safely. The flank trick should force them to put themselves at risk to flank.

However, if the claim is that ACs are neither PCs nor NPCs, then what are they? "Class feature" is not a type of character in PFS to my knowledge. Should it be?

They aren't characters, they're class features. In fact they would be called "Animal Companions".

Not everything has to be a PC or a NPC, because I'd have a hard time figuring out what a sword is.

David Bowles wrote:

However, if the claim is that ACs are neither PCs nor NPCs, then what are they? "Class feature" is not a type of character in PFS to my knowledge. Should it be?

They aren't characters, they're class features. In fact they would be called "Animal Companions".

Not everything has to be a PC or a NPC, because I'd have a hard time figuring out what a sword is.

Swords don't have stat lines and skills and feats. That's not an appropriate comparison. ACs have stat lines just like characters. I have a hard time not calling them some kind of character.

So your proposed place for ACs is outside the nomenclature of PC/NPC. That doesn't seem like a legitimate categorization to me, but I suppose at this point it's all speculation.

I never said animals can't benefit from a flank. I said the blog clarification means an animal won't flank without the trick. That means it won't safely move around an opponent to get a flank, even though as high wisdom creatures they should.

Because by default they won't maneuver themselves into a flank position.

So my position is that Animals should try to flank by default since they have a high wisdom, but they should do it safely. The flank trick should force them to put themselves at risk to flank.

Okay, it looks like I misunderstood your original position. I have to agree that animals will not seek out a flank position if a direct route safely leads them to a non-flank position. I also reject the assertion made by others that an animal will evaluate two positions and will consistently choose a flank option over a non-flank option.

Why? Because the rules absolutely cannot require the GM to make discretionary rulings on whether an axebeak or a gorilla would hunt in packs and routinely flank. Some animals are solo hunters so some of them would have no concept of flanking. And with imaginary creatures, there's no way to determine what is SOP for some animals versus others. Ergo, the rules must treat all animals the same. This goes back to my issue with "common sense" when determine if a Guarding dog would also raise an alarm by default.

Players cannot be disadvantaged or benefited based on some wholly discretionary ruling by a GM when it comes to AC's and their tricks. The game must strive to provide consistency given the same set of facts. A rule system where an animal barks under one GM and does not bark under another is untenable when that decision leads to a substantive difference in the outcome of the encounter.

Allowing GM's or even requiring GM's to have to determine whether it's "common sense" for a boar, badger, bear, ape, or alligator to flank in any given situation is a recipe for failure. One rule needs to apply to all animals given the same set of facts, regardless of what type of animal it is.

Jeffrey,

Your reasoning is that an animal companion is a class feature, and thus cannot, by definition, be under the control of the GM.

Correct?

First, here's another core rule book quote for you:

Aside from the players, every other person encountered in the game world is a nonplayer character (NPC). These characters are designed and controlled by the GM...

So you would conclude that the animal companion is a player?

james maissen wrote:

What's the definition of NPC?

And how does the animal companion not satisfy this?

CRB wrote:

Nonplayer Character (NPC): These are characters controlled by the GM.

An AC isn't a NPC because its a class feature and players control their class features unless rules text says otherwise. Unless your willing to have GMs control your spell lists for you.

Taking control of a Class feature from a player is the only way to make an AC a by RAW NPC. Which is a houserule.

Now we all know that cohorts are NPCs. And thus we know that they are controlled by the GM.

However, the leadership feat grants cohorts. And it can be expressly a class feature.

So your argument that no class features can ever be NPCs, is false.

The dichotomy that you present has demonstrable over lap.

Do you have any further reasons why an animal companion could not be an NPC? Certainly it is a creature, and it is also certainly not a player character. This leaves it being an NPC.

IF your sword became intelligent, or was animated then it, too, would be considered an NPC, as much as an awakened tree, etc.

To be clear, the tone of your text seems a bit insulting, is that your intent?

I'm sorry if you were a bit insulted. It was not my intent to be rude. I do find it somewhat frustrating that given the dichotomy between PC and NPC that people are trying to invent other avenues in something that is fairly simple: characters are either Player characters or they are not (i.e. Non-Player characters).

It's not a hard conclusion to make, nor is it really an unpalatable one quite frankly.

In practice players run many NPCs for the DM.. summons, allies, cohorts, etc. Why should animals that have less communication (and reasoning) abilities than other NPCs be randomly exempt?

Are you suggesting that someone should treat a wizard's summons as NPCs, but not a Summoner's? Should a player be entitled to run an NPC that their PC has charmed by spell? What about by class feature?

Why would class feature automatically trump other definitions? Again, we can see that it does not change something from being an NPC into a PC, which is the only other option baring inanimate object.

-James

Jeffrey Fox wrote:

David Bowles wrote:

However, if the claim is that ACs are neither PCs nor NPCs, then what are they? "Class feature" is not a type of character in PFS to my knowledge. Should it be?

They aren't characters, they're class features. In fact they would be called "Animal Companions".

Not everything has to be a PC or a NPC, because I'd have a hard time figuring out what a sword is.

Swords don't have stat lines and skills and feats.

My sword has a stat line and skills.

Do you want to argue with me over it being a class feature?

Leadership has an exception built into it that allows it to be controlled by the GM. They actually did spell that out clearly.

Let's get away from that for a second.

Thanks for the CRB quote, it led me to a couple quotes in the CRB that really murks this issue up completely.

So your quote is from pg 448 it seems. Which is about making NPC's, which makes sense.

But if we turn all the way back to the Common Terms section where they define these things we will find out a few common terms that expand this discussion.

Creature: A creature is an active participant in the story or world. This includes PCs, NPCs, and monsters.

Doh! I forgot that Monsters were a third category separate from PC's and NPC's.

Monster: Monsters are creatures that rely on racial Hit Dice instead of class levels for their powers and abilities (although some possess class levels as well). PCs are usually not monsters.

So AC's by this definition are Monsters.

Also if you check page 11 of the CRB under the section on how to use this book for Chapter 14 it says "In addition to characters and monsters the world is populated by countless NPC's"

So PC's, NPC's, and Monsters are separate entities. Though due to the rules on creating PC's and NPC's monsters can fall into either group. What we are missing though is a ruling that says who controls monsters.

So yes AC's aren't PC's and yes they aren't NPC's... because they are player created monsters.

Now since they are player created I still think they should be player controlled, but as they are officially monsters... I'm not as convinced that I'm actually right. And yes I don't believe in controlling people's summons either as long as they follow the rules of the spell.

As for the rude thing I just got a bad vibe from reading the "apply some common sense" line. Usually when someone says a line implying you should use common sense it strikes me more as an insult. Since you didn't mean it to be insulting then, no harm no foul, and I owe you an apology for reading the tone of the post wrong. Sorry about that.