Animals and Their Tricks

Supposedly Ultimate Campaign should help settle this. I'd prefer they just make the AC progression chart less beefy, but I guess that ship has sailed.

Supposedly Ultimate Campaign should help settle this. I'd prefer they just make the AC progression chart less beefy, but I guess that ship has sailed.

It should help. And the problems I think you're seeing with animal companions is because the their chart is pretty front loaded, probably to increase survivability. Replacing an animal companion, particularly at low level in PFS, can be a real pain.

AC's stay pretty viable until the campaign passes 10th level. There they tend to start lagging behind, unless you're willing to invest a lot of your personal wealth in gear for the animal and cast several daily spells for buffs. Unfortunately, PFS ceases convention play shortly thereafter...

As I have stated before, I don't care about ACs in homebrew at all. But in PFS, I find that they are usually almost as good as another PC, because many PFS NPCs just aren't very effective. I don't consider it remotely fair that druids are 9-level casters and get a 2nd PC on top of it. I thought that was the summoner's trick, but to me, they often play like a weaker druid.

So did Ultimate Campaign clear any of this up?

I find that they are usually almost as good as another PC, because many PFS NPCs just aren't very effective.

Then that's not a fault of the Druid, thats a fault of the NPC's.

Also, if the pet is 'amost as good' as the PC's people need to design better PC's.

So did Ultimate Campaign clear any of this up?

Yes, GM has the final say.

So did Ultimate Campaign clear any of this up?

Animal companions, cavalier mounts, and purchased creatures, in general, are GM-controlled companions.

Paladin bonded mounts, familiars, and cohorts are usually player-controlled companions.

An eidolon is normally a player-controlled companion, but the GM can have the eidolon refuse extreme orders that would cause it to suffer needlessly.

Also re-printed here:

Link

N N 959 wrote:

So did Ultimate Campaign clear any of this up?

Animal companions, cavalier mounts, and purchased creatures, in general, are GM-controlled companions.

Paladin bonded mounts, familiars, and cohorts are usually player-controlled companions.

An eidolon is normally a player-controlled companion, but the GM can have the eidolon refuse extreme orders that would cause it to suffer needlessly.

And the next paragraph says that if you have a sentient critter with a language, it goes back to the player.

More incentive to work on Kitty's brain than brawn...

Yep. 3 INT becomes mandatory.

Yep. 3 INT becomes mandatory.

That's pretty much the case anyway if you want to train your companion to be fully effective in combat; now that flank, etc., are separate tricks, you probably want more than the six that an INT 2 creature can learn.

And the next paragraph says that if you have a sentient critter with a language, it goes back to the player.

Would you mind quoting that paragraph? I'd like to see the language they use as this seems to conflict with an existing FAQ which says giving an animal a 3 INT does not make it sentient.

Hmmm, I think I will go with my initial stance. At the start of a PFS game I will ask the GM if I can control my animal companion, and if not I will try to judge whether I trust the GM to run my character's animal companion appropriately - if not I will elect to have my character leave his dog back on the farm.

As for increasing my character's animal companion's Intelligence to 3, I will have to think about it, I am not sure that fits my concept for the "mostly loyal but sometimes distracted mutt".

NN959.

From Ulti Campaign:

Sentient Companions: a sentient companion (a creature that can understand language and has an Intelligence score of at least 3) is considered your ally and obeys your suggestions and orders to the best of its ability. It won't necessarily blindly follow a suicidal order, but it has your interests at heart and does what it can to keep you alive. Paladin bonded mounts, familiars, and cohorts fall into this category, and are usually player-controlled companions.

I believe the new material supercedes the FAQ.

Looking at the blog entry, I'd imagine that logically a wolf would automatically go for a flank position even without the trick.

Isn't that how wolves IRL hunt prey? Don't they first surround the target and then lunge at it?

I am asking this both as a DM and as a player.

UCamp :

"Sentient Companions: A sentient companion (a creature that can understand language and has an Intelligence score of at least 3) is considered your ally and obeys your suggestions and orders to the best of its ability.(...)Paladin bonded mounts, familiars, and cohorts fall into this category, and are usually player-controlled companions."

On intelligent animals : "Increasing an animal’s Intelligence to 3 or higher means it is smart enough to understand a language. However, unless an awaken spell is used, the animal doesn’t automatically and instantly learn a language, any more than a human child does. The animal must be taught a language, usually over the course of months".

So an animal with INT 3 is not a sentient companion until you teach it a language. (Not sure that this will be allowed in PFS).

In the first case, it is usually controlled by the GM and subject to the Handle Animal skill. Once it learns a language, it is usually controlled by the player and obeys the PC to the best of its ability.

EDIT : Ninja'ed by a Ninja

NN959.

From Ulti Campaign:

Sentient Companions: a sentient companion (a creature that can understand language and has an Intelligence score of at least 3) is considered your ally and obeys your suggestions and orders to the best of its ability. It won't necessarily blindly follow a suicidal order, but it has your interests at heart and does what it can to keep you alive. Paladin bonded mounts, familiars, and cohorts fall into this category, and are usually player-controlled companions.

I believe the new material supercedes the FAQ. [/QUOTE

Sadly it seems to leave animal companions off the lust

I believe the new material supercedes the FAQ.

Sure, when the new material becomes PFS sanctioned, we can talk.

Looking at the blog entry, I'd imagine that logically a wolf would automatically go for a flank position even without the trick.

Isn't that how wolves IRL hunt prey? Don't they first surround the target and then lunge at it?

I am asking this both as a DM and as a player.

The name of tricks should not obfuscate what they do and what they do not do.

An animal without the attack trick can still attack. The handler simply cannot direct the animal to attack, nor specify whom they want the animal to attack. The animal is still capable of attacking without the trick. The level of communication on the PC's desires is what would be missing without it. As a DM, you would want to make certain that the player doesn't obviate the need for this communication by having his PC and the animal have a (non-game) mental link.

Likewise if you read the flank trick, it is not implying by any means that an animal will not flank without this trick.

The trick allows the handler to instruct the animal to stay adjacent to the target, evening provoking AOOs to do so. It also tells the animal to flank with an ally should one be adjacent already, again even if it has to provoke AOOs to do so.

Just as without the attack trick the handler could not specify a target for the animal to attack, without the flank trick the animal might seek to attack from reach (if it has it), not provoke AOOs in order to flank, and not leave threats it could attack unoccupied to chase down a target via a double move.

The flank trick informs the animal that its number one priority is to remain adjacent to the target to provide flanking. While many pack animals when fighting in a pack will seek flanks, and even have such coordination.. it is a matter of the animal understanding what is important, especially when this might go against their instincts.

For example, would a pack animal leave a non-melee combatant undefended
and wide open in order to walk up to a rear rank enemy?

Sometimes the animal handler would wish just this, while other times this would be the last thing in the world that they would want the animal to do! How is the poor animal supposed to know how it's crazy comrades are going to want him to do?

-James

From the blog,

Once a creature's Int reaches 3, it also gains a language

Huh.. i always thought you needed to spend a point on the language. I guesse my raptor speaks 2 languages now..

I don't think that's what the FAQ says. I'm pretty sure it says you can get a language with a skill rank in Linguistics.

EDIT:

Can I improve my companion’s Intelligence to 3 or higher and give it weapon feats?

No. An Intelligence of 3 does not grant animals sentience, the ability to use weapons or tools, speak a language (though they may understand one with a rank in Linguistics; this does not grant literacy), or activate magic devices. Also note that raising an animal companion’s Intelligence to 3 or higher does not eliminate the need to make Handle Animal checks to direct its actions; even semi-intelligent animals still act like animals unless trained not to. An animal with Intelligence of 3 or higher remains a creature of the animal type unless its type is specifically changed by another ability. An animal may learn 3 additional tricks per point of Intelligence above 2.

Yup, requires a rank in Linguistics.

So an animal with INT 3 is not a sentient companion until you teach it a language. (Not sure that this will be allowed in PFS).

I don't think teaching a language makes it sentient. The existing FAQ says Acoms cannot become sentient, irrespective of INT, without an Awaken (at which point you lose them as Acoms, IIRC)

It seems people are connecting dots that are technically not connected. Acoms, per the FAQ are not sentient and do not become sentient with a 3 INT. That seems to be a specific exception carved out by the FAQ. Specific supersedes the general.

So based on what's official for Paizo, it reads such that Acoms never come under player control. As someone pointed out, the list sentient creatures does not include stat bump Acoms. Perhaps that is an oversight the UCa errata will address this?

EDIT:

No. An Intelligence of 3 does not grant animals sentience...An animal with Intelligence of 3 or higher remains a creature of the animal type unless its type is specifically changed by another ability.

Yeah, I'm not seeing a stat bump Acom falling under player control unless Paizo clarifies.

Dammit, he's now down to 1 language then. Must be one of those American raptors...

Sentient Companions: a sentient companion (a creature that can understand language and has an Intelligence score of at least 3) is considered your ally and obeys your suggestions and orders to the best of its ability. It won't necessarily blindly follow a suicidal order, but it has your interests at heart and does what it can to keep you alive. Paladin bonded mounts, familiars, and cohorts fall into this category, and are usually player-controlled companions.

As an aside, from a roleplay perpsective, it would seem that it makes more sense for sentient creatures to be GM controlled and Acoms to be player controlled. I can see a wizard getting into a debate with its familiar about searching a burning building for a spellbook. An Acom would just be Handled to do it or not. The former seems more in need of GM control than the second. *shrug*

Ever since I saw a Gunslinger/Summoner with +12 initiative who had an Eidolon with +1 initiative but never had to roll it at the +1 because other GMs were having them go on the same turn, I've been even more entrenched in my position that they roll separately.

Truer words have never been spoken, down with cheese! lol You complete me Rogue Eidolon! :P

Sure, when the new material becomes PFS sanctioned, we can talk.

Hey I was just providing a reference to another posters question of another posters statement :p

That said, I AM curious about where an AC sits (control-wise) when it has a 3 Int, an understood language, and is now Magical Creature templated.

Ever since I saw a Gunslinger/Summoner with +12 initiative who had an Eidolon with +1 initiative but never had to roll it at the +1 because other GMs were having them go on the same turn, I've been even more entrenched in my position that they roll separately.

This is circular logic. The eidolon doesn't have a +1 initiative unless you take for granted that it's acting on a separate initiative than its master. Your position is self-informing.

I think what he meant is the GM had the Player role one die for initiative and used the PC's init bonus, then had the Eidolon go simultaneous with the PC. Effectively ignoring the Eidolon's weak initiative in favor of the far superior PC's. This is the situation he disagreed with and which also reinforced his deep-seated belief that they are two separate entities and as such should roll two separate initiative dice and add their respective initiative scores to said dice.

Rogue Eidolon can of course correct me if I'm wrong in my assumption. :P

No, that's the same way I'm reading the statement. But the eidolon only has a "weak initiative" if you've already accepted that it's a separate entity and should be rolling initiative separately. If the rules of the game were definitively "companions use their masters' initiatives" then there would be no such thing as an eidolon with a weak initiative (or any initiative, for that matter). Eidolons would simply follow whatever initiative their master rolled, regardless of their own Dexterity. To say "the wide margin between X and Y" is to accept that X doesn't equal Y. If that's the premise, it can't be the conclusion.

PRD for Combat (here):

Initiative
"At the start of a battle, each combatant makes an initiative check. An initiative check is a Dexterity check. Each character applies his or her Dexterity modifier to the roll, as well as other modifiers from feats, spells, and other effects. Characters act in order, counting down from the highest result to the lowest. In every round that follows, the characters act in the same order (unless a character takes an action that results in his or her initiative changing; see Special Initiative Actions)."

The PC is a combatant, it's follower is a combatant. You're not the same thing, although if you were a synthesist I guess you might be. :P

Mounts in Combat (same link):
"These rules cover being mounted on a horse in combat but can also be applied to more unusual steeds, such as a griffon or dragon.

Your mount acts on your initiative count as you direct it."

I threw the mount part in because that specifically calls out you and your mount going simultaneously, while mounted. Granted that's a very necessary statement for Paizo to make, but that's what you would expect to see if that was the same for animal companions, eidolons, etc.

Everything in the game screams separate initiatives, just because something is omitted (such as a statement saying in each section [Animal Companion, Familiar, Eidolon, etc] that they go on separate initiatives) doesn't mean that it isn't that way. It's basically like making up a new rule up to make things easier (which I agree it does), but that doesn't make it right by the rules.

Every time I see something where it's a question as to what initiative something goes on Paizo has made a clear distinct statement on how it works. Mounts, Summoned Monsters (in combat) they call out "This goes on your turn". That's done because it's fundamentally different than how combat works normally (initiative wise).

Didn't Ultimate Campaign make it clear that pets get separate initiatives?

Seriously, how much effort is it for Fluffy the velociraptor to go on their own number? The answer is not much effort.

Didn't Ultimate Campaign make it clear that pets get separate initiatives?

Seriously, how much effort is it for Fluffy the velociraptor to go on their own number? The answer is not much effort.

It does add time to the encounter. I usually ask what each modifiers are. If they're close, I just see if the player wants to use the higher one and go on the same init. Simpler and less confusing that way. More time spent doing fun things like drinking players' tears.

Its also true that a lot of GM's nerf Fluffy's high Init down the other way too.

"Because it isn't your turn, the animal couldn't do anything because you haven't ordered it to yet"

So which is it?

Fluffy always gets the worst of the two?

Fluffy is still not flat footed. That's something. And, yes, Fluffy doesn't do anything until Fluffy gets orders. I think that's pretty clear from the rules as well, since it has been expliticity stated that animal companions must follow the handle animal rules. Since the PC can't issue their free action orders until their turn, yeah, the animal companion doesn't act until ordered on the PCs initiative.

Eidolons should have *some* advantage over mere animal companions, and that's one of them, I'd say. As it stands right now, the summoner is a gimp compared to the druid.

Of course, in practice, GMs just do whatever the hell they want with Eidolons/pets.

Its also true that a lot of GM's nerf Fluffy's high Init down the other way too.

"Because it isn't your turn, the animal couldn't do anything because you haven't ordered it to yet"

So which is it?

Fluffy always gets the worst of the two?

That's what it sounds like.

Didn't Ultimate Campaign make it clear that pets get separate initiatives?

Seriously, how much effort is it for Fluffy the velociraptor to go on their own number? The answer is not much effort.

I suspect until the-powers-that-be state something like "Animal Companions\Eidolons\Familiars are separate combatants therefore must roll their own initiative by rolling a d20 and adding THEIR initiative modifier." that they will continue to willfully ignore all logic to the contrary and still have them go on the PC's initiative. If it wasn't PFS I'd say whatever, but given that's it PFS I think MB or someone needs to say in plain English how it works.

I thought that it was clarified in Ultimate Campaign. I mean pets have their own calculated init modifiers. Why would that even exist if they weren't supposed to go on their own initiative?

That being said, it's often not worth it at all to argue with GMs over their pet house rules. Just deal with it, kill the NPCs as quickly as possible, collect your chronicle, and file the experience away for future reference.

Believe me I agree 110%, but there are people out there who have been GMing\Playing for years and they run it by the PC making their d20 initiative roll and adding the PC's initiative modifier, that then is when both the PC AND the AC\Eidolon\Familiar go. I think initially this was done to make things easier on the GM, so they've gotten used to it and maybe made characters revolving around this premise. Therefore they refuse to believe it works otherwise until it is definitively stated to them by someone like MB. I have no control over what my local PFS group believes and does, it would be up to the VL or PFS leadership to set the record straight with them. Also yes I know that every possible time you see an AC listed in a scenario, book, etc. that they have their own initiative modifier. Believe me there is a mountain of evidence pointing to how we know it works, yet it is not enough. lol Yeah I've kinda given up convincing them otherwise, when I GM I'll run it my way, and when they GM they'll run it theirs. :P

This particular idiosyncrasy is annoying, but it doesn't really fix the underlying issue that animal companions bring too much hit point and armor class bloat to a PFS table.

I was glad that Ultimate Campaign addressed the issue of control (it doesn't seem to address init directly), but, again, that doesn't address the fact that the animal companion is a huge pile of hit points and armor class that the author of the scenario didn't plan for with the CRs of their encounters.

Eidolon's imho are worse, I've seen them entirely decimate a scenario by themselves. On the off-chance that one actually gets killed it's not a big deal to the Summoner since they can just bring them back the next day. Honestly I've seen PC's almost cheer for the death of the Eidolon so they can actually do something. lol Theoretically an AC\Familiar dying has much more impact, both in-game as well as emotionally to the character.

I've said it before, my guess as to why they never address the "issue" of init is because it's obvious how it works and they don't feel the need to state something that obvious. Unfortunately it's not obvious to everyone! :P

Eidolons are demonstrably not worse to me because the summoner is a gimp compared to the druid. Plus, the druid can continue to flood the combat map with summons because they don't have the restrictions the summoner does when the summoner has the eidolon out.

I've seen more animal companions decimate scenarios than eidolons as well. The animal companion templates provide a lot more free natural armor than the eidolon progression table. Looking at it mathematically, animal companions are nauseating.

No, that's the same way I'm reading the statement. But the eidolon only has a "weak initiative" if you've already accepted that it's a separate entity and should be rolling initiative separately. If the rules of the game were definitively "companions use their masters' initiatives" then there would be no such thing as an eidolon with a weak initiative (or any initiative, for that matter). Eidolons would simply follow whatever initiative their master rolled, regardless of their own Dexterity. To say "the wide margin between X and Y" is to accept that X doesn't equal Y. If that's the premise, it can't be the conclusion.

Let me explain--I believe that it is clear and undeniable that the rules directly require the companion to roll its own initiative (Felix quoted it, the exception is when mounted). However, some GMs shortcut to save time and just use one initiative roll, knowing that it isn't exact but allowing this as a time-saving technique. And then players under those GMs become entitled to this ruling and cheese out characters like the one I mentioned. And when I say that entrenches me, I mean it entrenches me in my position that I'm not willing to use that simplification--that it's a simplification and not in the rules is, I believe, not in question here. Kyle probably takes the best of both worlds by only allowing single init when the modifiers are close.

I own an init tracker board so I never have to compromise on this. I don't do this just like I don't roll a single init for all the NPCs. Because that can be VERY bad sometimes.

I own an init tracker board so I never have to compromise on this. I don't do this just like I don't roll a single init for all the NPCs. Because that can be VERY bad sometimes.

I also don't roll batch init for enemies, but many GMs do. One that I saw that was pretty bad was a (quite experienced, multi-star) GM who not only rolled a single initiative for all the enemies, even those with very different init modifiers, he also did not allow them to be broken up, ever. By which I mean, I tried to delay to go in between some of the enemies, saying "I think we don't want to let them all go together and possibly drop us with burst damage, so I'll delay to go after the first one" and the GM disallowed it without telling me (once the first guy was done, I tried to come out of delay and he made me wait til they all went, essentially losing a whole turn).

I'm not sure the GM is within their rights in PFS to disallow a legal maneuver. But that goes back to rules vs game flow arguments.

I'm not sure the GM is within their rights in PFS to disallow a legal maneuver. But that goes back to rules vs game flow arguments.

True, but since I declared my intent to break up the block, they could at least have told me right then that they would disallow it, rather than force me to (effectively, compared to the enemies) skip a turn.

To be fair, I later readied an action that triggered on the last enemy's turn and got to go before the whole bunch on the next turn, so it wasn't a case of going against the players.

This particular idiosyncrasy is annoying, but it doesn't really fix the underlying issue that animal companions bring too much hit point and armor class bloat to a PFS table.

So does an extra player in a 4-person scenario, even more so! are you also agitating for fixed 4 head caps?

No. I'd just like the have the AC progression chart toned down a bit, as well as their free armor bonuses and stat boosts. Never going to happen, I know, but ACs are far too PC-like for me.

It's also come to my attention that most other folks don't seem to experience this. So I don't know if my play group is building our PCs wrong or what. I've seen ACs that are more powerful than any of my PCs adjusted for level. At the same time, my PCs seem to be effective in scenarios. I don't know what that means.

Yeah I have been at a fair few tables now, and am just not seeing the AC's dominate at PFS play. The only time I saw them being 'too good' was a low WBL campaign where they just owned... in PFS they just haven't made the impact.

What do you mean by "ACs that are more powerful than any of my PCs adjusted for level", what do you mean by 'adjusted for level' or 'effective'? I haven't seen any of our tanks being outshone by an AC. I'd be a bit upset if it actually happened.

There is one factor that MAY explain the different experiences. Many players with pets deliberately under play them most of the time in order to not dominate the table too much either in raw power or by just taking up too much time.

I know that my druid rarely unleashes the full power of her kitty. She is kept mostly in reserve for those times when the situation is hearing South.

If played totally optimally ACs can be very overpowered.

There is one factor that MAY explain the different experiences. Many players with pets deliberately under play them most of the time in order to not dominate the table too much either in raw power or by just taking up too much time.

I know that my druid rarely unleashes the full power of her kitty. She is kept mostly in reserve for those times when the situation is hearing South.

If played totally optimally ACs can be very overpowered.

I have heard the same thing from players playing many types of PCs. Ranger Archers, Grapple Monks, Spellcasters... if you are running an Optimized PC (and the AC is part of the PC), then it is common - it's NICE to hold back some and let everyone get in some table time. "For those times when the situation is heading South..." is the time everyone pulls out the stops, and even the mildest build can surprise you.