Animals and Their Tricks

Critters can be better martials than martials for reasons that don't appear on a stat sheet: they break the move or damage dichotomy that most melee types are subject to. While a fighter can do more damage on paper, the critters ability to move and still make a full attack puts it ahead on the battlemat.

While a fighter can do more damage on paper, the critters ability to move and still make a full attack puts it ahead on the battlemat.

What ability allows a critter to move and do full attacks?

BigNorseWolf wrote:

While a fighter can do more damage on paper, the critters ability to move and still make a full attack puts it ahead on the battlemat.

What ability allows a critter to move and do full attacks?

Pounce.

Well, there are two AComs that have Pounce in the CRB. Both are 7th level advancement abilities. Plus, Pounce only works on a Charge, not on any move. Is there some other ability that allows an ACom to take a normal move and then full attack?

I've seen pounce taken as a feat. I guess that was incorrect?

I've seen pounce taken as a feat. I guess that was incorrect?

I've never seen pounce as a feat. It comes in the rage power Greater Beast Totem prd link and as we have seen in the Universal Monster Rules.

Edit: I guess there are some more:

Vulpine pounce srd link

Claw pounce srd link

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.

A lot of those same GMs roll one initiative for the bad guys, and they all go on the same init score.

David Bowles wrote:

I've seen pounce taken as a feat. I guess that was incorrect?

I've never seen pounce as a feat. It comes in the rage power Greater Beast Totem prd link and as we have seen in the Universal Monster Rules.

Edit: I guess there are some more:

Vulpine pounce srd link

Claw pounce srd link

None of those are eligible for animal companions. So still only two with pounce?

In a game this week (low level), we had a caster cast summon monster I to get an eagle I think. When he put out a dice for the eagle beside the badguys, and started to roll 3 sets of attack dice, the judge (and several players) pointed out that it was a short range spell. He was about 70 or 80 feet from the bad guys (and up a 3 story building) when he cast it. He got kind of miffed about it, and so decided to switch spells (to magic missile)(as a 5th level caster, he was the highest level PC at the table). The target was around a corner out of sight. We assured him that the Eagle was a fine choice, it would just get one attack... but plainly he was not satisfied. I'm sure this was the first time someone pointed out the limitations of the spell to him... (and even then we didn't point out it was a full round to cast, so he wouldn't have gotten it off till the start of his next turn anyway...).

I'm feel sure that this guy has been summoning eagles because they get 3 attacks - not realizing that they only get one on the round they close.

Perhaps there's alot of that going around...

I've seen pounce taken as a feat. I guess that was incorrect?

This is starting to come up as a bit of a theme by now don't you think?

You know, if you don't know the rules, and the players seem to ignore the rules (or don't know them either) then I'm going to put it to you straight that the problem isn't AC's.

DesolateHarmony wrote:

David Bowles wrote:

I've seen pounce taken as a feat. I guess that was incorrect?

I've never seen pounce as a feat. It comes in the rage power Greater Beast Totem prd link and as we have seen in the Universal Monster Rules.

Edit: I guess there are some more:

Vulpine pounce srd link

Claw pounce srd link

None of those are eligible for animal companions. So still only two with pounce?

Cat, Big (Lion, Tiger)

Starting Statistics: Size Medium; Speed 40 ft.; AC +1 natural armor; Attack bite (1d6), 2 claws (1d4); Ability Scores Str 13, Dex 17, Con 13, Int 2, Wis 15, Cha 10; Special Attacks rake (1d4); Special Qualities low-light vision, scent.

7th-Level Advancement: Size Large; AC +2 natural armor; Attack bite (1d8), 2 claws (1d6); Ability Scores Str +8, Dex –2, Con +4; Special Attacks grab, pounce, rake (1d6) .

Dinosaur (Deinonychus, Velociraptor)

Starting Statistics: Size Small; Speed 60 ft.; AC +1 natural armor; Attack 2 talons (1d6), bite (1d4); Ability Scores Str 11, Dex 17, Con 17, Int 2, Wis 12, Cha 14; Special Qualities low-light vision, scent.

7th-Level Advancement: Size Medium; AC +2 natural armor; Attack 2 talons (1d8), bite (1d6), 2 claws (1d4) Ability Scores Str +4, Dex –2, Con +2; Special Attacks pounce.

Some critters come with pounce build in.

Congratulations, you found the two Animal Companions with pounce?

I think what Curaigh was suggesting was that the two with it built in are the only ways to getting it.

Congratulations, you found the two Animal Companions with pounce?

Also add the allosaurus.

That ability alone is enough to make those pets ubiquitous.

David Bowles wrote:

I've seen pounce taken as a feat. I guess that was incorrect?

This is starting to come up as a bit of a theme by now don't you think?

You know, if you don't know the rules, and the players seem to ignore the rules (or don't know them either) then I'm going to put it to you straight that the problem isn't AC's.

If you say so. I still think they get too much armor class and too many stats. And scenario writer still write too many encounters that serve themselves up to be cut to pieces by these things.

I really do try not to disrupt every game I'm in demanding to know how players are doing what they're doing. That's the GMs' jobs, but evidently they don't know pounce isn't a feat either.

Also, there's little reason for me to have system mastery over a mechanic I hate. My ranger took an archetype that gives up hunter's bond. Although it looks like I'm going to have to learn it by heart so I can effectively GM players with ACs.

Also, I might be inclined to believe you more if I ever see an AC actually die with my own two eyes. Seen plenty of PCs and eidolons die, but never an AC.

Shifty wrote:

David Bowles wrote:

I've seen pounce taken as a feat. I guess that was incorrect?

This is starting to come up as a bit of a theme by now don't you think?

You know, if you don't know the rules, and the players seem to ignore the rules (or don't know them either) then I'm going to put it to you straight that the problem isn't AC's.

If you say so. I still think they get too much armor class and too many stats. And scenario writer still write too many encounters that serve themselves up to be cut to pieces by these things.

I really do try not to disrupt every game I'm in demanding to know how players are doing what they're doing. That's the GMs' jobs, but evidently they don't know pounce isn't a feat either.

Also, there's little reason for me to have system mastery over a mechanic I hate. My ranger took an archetype that gives up hunter's bond. Although it looks like I'm going to have to learn it by heart so I can effectively GM players with ACs.

Sometimes I get the feeling that the amount of natural armor given to the companions was designed and developed with the basic assumption that most companions would not wear manufactured armor, when, in fact, I have never seen a companion past level 2 or so that wasn't.

If you say so. I still think they get too much armor class and too many stats. And scenario writer still write too many encounters that serve themselves up to be cut to pieces by these things.

I think this is a big part of the problem.

David Bowles wrote:

If you say so. I still think they get too much armor class and too many stats. And scenario writer still write too many encounters that serve themselves up to be cut to pieces by these things.

I think this is a big part of the problem.

I can butcher ACs all day long and twice on Sundays in my homebrew, but this never seems to happen in PFS, even if the GM is rolling hot.

David Bowles wrote:

Shifty wrote:

David Bowles wrote:

I've seen pounce taken as a feat. I guess that was incorrect?

This is starting to come up as a bit of a theme by now don't you think?

You know, if you don't know the rules, and the players seem to ignore the rules (or don't know them either) then I'm going to put it to you straight that the problem isn't AC's.

If you say so. I still think they get too much armor class and too many stats. And scenario writer still write too many encounters that serve themselves up to be cut to pieces by these things.

I really do try not to disrupt every game I'm in demanding to know how players are doing what they're doing. That's the GMs' jobs, but evidently they don't know pounce isn't a feat either.

Also, there's little reason for me to have system mastery over a mechanic I hate. My ranger took an archetype that gives up hunter's bond. Although it looks like I'm going to have to learn it by heart so I can effectively GM players with ACs.

Sometimes I get the feeling that the amount of natural armor given to the companions was designed and developed with the basic assumption that most companions would not wear manufactured armor, when, in fact, I have never seen a companion past level 2 or so that wasn't.

They were wrong. Horribly, horribly, wrong.

Rogue Eidolon wrote:

David Bowles wrote:

Shifty wrote:

David Bowles wrote:

I've seen pounce taken as a feat. I guess that was incorrect?

This is starting to come up as a bit of a theme by now don't you think?

You know, if you don't know the rules, and the players seem to ignore the rules (or don't know them either) then I'm going to put it to you straight that the problem isn't AC's.

If you say so. I still think they get too much armor class and too many stats. And scenario writer still write too many encounters that serve themselves up to be cut to pieces by these things.

I really do try not to disrupt every game I'm in demanding to know how players are doing what they're doing. That's the GMs' jobs, but evidently they don't know pounce isn't a feat either.

Also, there's little reason for me to have system mastery over a mechanic I hate. My ranger took an archetype that gives up hunter's bond. Although it looks like I'm going to have to learn it by heart so I can effectively GM players with ACs.

Sometimes I get the feeling that the amount of natural armor given to the companions was designed and developed with the basic assumption that most companions would not wear manufactured armor, when, in fact, I have never seen a companion past level 2 or so that wasn't.

They were wrong. Horribly, horribly, wrong.

Mind you, I can't really be sure. No one has come out and said this. But I've run some numbers, and Animal Companion AC seems to me like it was balanced in that way.

Also, there's little reason for me to have system mastery over a mechanic I hate. My ranger took an archetype that gives up hunter's bond. Although it looks like I'm going to have to learn it by heart so I can effectively GM players with ACs.

I disagree.

You populate post after post with your point of view and make all sorts of assertions about how AC's affect the game. Yet over and over when the actual mechanics of what you are claiming get questioned, you either post up completely non-RAW examples (the Earthshaker thingamy) or blow off lack of knowledge as acceptable based on 'hating' AC's.

If you want to have your argument taken seriously, you need to be able to actually build the case, you need to provide RAW.

At best you provide a highly subjective opinion, which includes an opinion that dishing out 25 damage at level 7 is 'high', whereas I am fairly sure most people would find that ordinary.

We get it, you hate AC's, you want them banned, you will do what you can to stitch up AC's at tables you GM at because they don't gel with your worldview and tendency to have sub-optimal builds.

Usually when I run, the bad guys swing at the cat in their face once, realize they can't hit it and move on. So there is no actual attempt to do anything to them, because that would be poor GMing. I'm stuck just like the GMs who hate heavens oracles or whatever are stuck.

My contention is that 25 is high for just one class feature of any class. You also have to add in whatever the druid his/herself is also doing.

I freely admit that I have sat at several tables with animal companions blissfully unaware of the mechanics. I don't know why so many GMs have been able to even put a dent in these things before the NPCs are cut to pieces. I'm hoping that maybe someone who uses animals a lot might know exactly how this is happening at levels 3-7. I don't need to know the mechanics to see that they are never getting hit when swung at.

I'm not sure I even care if you or anyone else takes my argument seriously. Nothing is going to happen. ACs are core, barding is core, and stacking rules aren't going to change. There appears to be a major discrepancy in the anecdotal evidence concerning this issue. Some posters seem to have seen some of the things I've seen and others don't believe it at all.

I don't even want ACs banned. I just want their math changed, which isn't happening either, by the way. Quit reading into my posts to see you want to see.

I'm curious, for those of you playing at Gen Con, how are GM's running initiative for Animal Companions and Eidolons?

I really have to say - I do not see a problem here. If there were, people would be running these things. And lots of people would be complaining about them.

The only person reporting a problem with over powered ACs with any regularity is David... and frankly, it seems to be a blind spot for him. I think if he played a game with my friend who runs a Ranger Archer - David would "see" his AC as being why the Ranger kills all the Mooks, rather than the heeps of damage he throws out with his bow. (We call his cat Speedbump for a reason).

Highly unlikely nosig. Does the archer ranger even have a feat to spare for boon companion? And while I consider their damage high for a "class feature", it's primarily their armor class and STR I object to from a mathematical standpoint.

well then, i guess people arent fans of a mount/animal companion with a 3 int, combat reflexes, additional traits (adopted, helpful) body guard and agile frame?

with the +5 benevolent barding it has it grants 9 ac against 3 melee attacks made with against anyone adjacent (like a rider) it a round

what about the rider having indomidable mount to make a ride check instead of a saving throw as an immediate action?

Dont hate my wolf

The thing is that all Boon Companion does is beef your AC up to your level, which is pretty much mandatory. An unbumped AC will just get slammed in seconds.

The AC's can be hit just like anyone else, why the GM's (including yourself apparently, David) bypass the AC's is a bit beyond me. They aren't that hard to dent and damage - and only having 4.5HP per die means that any dents are significant - they don't have parity with PC's HD and the little bit 'extra' at the start gets negated anyway.
Anything area based is going to cause problems, anything targeting will saves, large+ creatures get stuck by obstacles, wow there's so many things to consider.

I suppose if wvery fight took place in a featureless area, like a football field, the AC's would have a perfect storm area to play in, but really when does THAT happen?

25 damage isn't all that amazing, especially with an iffy bab. It just isn't.

They get bypassed because needing a "19" or "20" to hit is not the path to victory for the NPCs. They are at least a round of wasted attacks for the NPCs and at most excellent tanks for enemies that aren't smart enough to move on to something they can hit. Animal hps don't matter if they don't get hit.

Animal companions have evasion and most PFS NPC spell casters have pedestrian DCs on their area spells. Do the math on that one.

My hopefully final comment on this is this. It's a bit nuts to me that we even have to discuss this. Because above and beyond the 25 damage you don't find amazing is the *actual PC*. I hate the mathematics of the animal companion because the druid itself is a power in their own right. How do your comparisons stack up if we compare animal companion AND druid to whatever class you want to trot out?

The druid is not the summoner. The druid is a nine level caster, not six. The druid is not built around the animal companion the way the summoner is the eidolon. Yet, the animal companion is often comparable to, and in some cases, superior to the eidolon. That doesn't seem remotely balanced to me.

Maybe *everyone* is power gaming more than I am. I guess that's possible, but find it statistically unlikely. For people building balanced characters, I don't see how they can help but notice animal companions. To me, the answer of "they're fair if you power game" is not very satisfying. But, as it has been pointed out, no one else is complaining. So I guess I'll stop.

They get bypassed because needing a "19" or "20" to hit is not the path to victory for the NPCs. They are at least a round of wasted attacks for the NPCs and at most excellent tanks for enemies that aren't smart enough to move on to something they can hit. Animal hps don't matter if they don't get hit.

Animal companions have evasion and most PFS NPC spell casters have pedestrian DCs on their area spells. Do the math on that one.

My hopefully final comment on this is this. It's a bit nuts to me that we even have to discuss this. Because above and beyond the 25 damage you don't find amazing is the *actual PC*. I hate the mathematics of the animal companion because the druid itself is a power in their own right. How do your comparisons stack up if we compare animal companion AND druid to whatever class you want to trot out?

The druid is not the summoner. The druid is a nine level caster, not six. The druid is not built around the animal companion the way the summoner is the eidolon. Yet, the animal companion is often comparable to, and in some cases, superior to the eidolon. That doesn't seem remotely balanced to me.

Maybe *everyone* is power gaming more than I am. I guess that's possible, but find it statistically unlikely. For people building balanced characters, I don't see how they can help but notice animal companions. To me, the answer of "they're fair if you power game" is not very satisfying. But, as it has been pointed out, no one else is complaining. So I guess I'll stop.

Okay Dude. I don't powergame. I have played next to ACs and they have never, in my experience, overshadowed the other PCs. My characters that I use ACs with tend to hold the AC back because I am afraid the AC is going to die. So seriously I don't know what you are talking about anymore.

You have been told repeatedly that the ACs you describe are almost certainly breaking rules. The one AC you showed a build for broke at least one rule. If the rules aren't being followed then the problem is not the rules. The problem is that they are not being followed.

What are you trying to accomplish here? If it was to insult people who aren't even arguing with you, then congratulations. I take being called a power gamer as an insult.

David, I think that you unwillingness to learn the AC rules is hurting you. It sounds like the AC's you are describing are breaking them, but they look kosher to you because you haven't bothered to learn the rules, so you feel the rules must be overpowered.

Also, it has been pointed out to you that a lot of the reason the AC's you are describing can handle the entire scenario on their own is because the low level scenarios are written such that any one strong PC could pretty much handle it on their own.

I happen to think AC's a pretty nice, and can be used to do some nifty stuff. But I don't think it makes them overpowered, any more than a magus's bond weapon (which is also nice and lets them do a lot of damage) or a barbarian's rage (ditto) or insert class feature of your choice.

Yeah, I'm pretty much dropping this. I'm not trying to insult anyone. And it appears that's all I'm doing, so I'm done with this.

If an animal companion or mount was allowed by the GM to ready simple actions, what would the check be to do so?

In the case I am considering:
Move (guide with knees) DC 5
then:
Ready an action that will be a move (guide with knees) DC 5

Would the ready DC be the same as the action to be performed?

+S

Its a mount. It generally goes where you want it to when you want it to with a DC 5 ride check. You should be ok.

Its a mount. It generally goes where you want it to when you want it to with a DC 5 ride check. You should be ok.

Ride with you knees just let's you fight with both hands you still need handle animal to get it to move

I have seen the super ac animal companion but in that game the critter was wearing plate withouth the proficiency feat (and not figured in to hit) plus it was a large quadruped and the person paid nowhere near the right cost (I believe it is x4) for the armor. It was wearing a strength item and maybe a cloak as well And it had max hit points for 1st level. Rules breaking for sure.

Plenty of falconers have non-broken companions, and but I have not seen many Druids in play and those recently have had dinosaurs and small cats. Saurian shaman seem popular.

I think the extra traits feat should be banned for animal companions and eidolons and any critter that doesn't get traits in the first place. Suddenly discovering your animal was raised by halflings makes no sense as when it was raised by halflings it did not have the 3+ int needed to take advantage.

Also on bodyguard animals, I think they give up evasion to get it, don't they? Perhaps I read that wrong.

BigNorseWolf wrote:

Its a mount. It generally goes where you want it to when you want it to with a DC 5 ride check. You should be ok.

Ride with you knees just let's you fight with both hands you still need handle animal to get it to move

Your mount acts on your initiative count as you direct it. You move at its speed, but the mount uses its action to move.

The mount going where you tell it to go is part of the advantage of being a mount. Otherwise non pet classes wouldn't be able to ride mounts at all, they'd be using their move action to tell the mount to do something.

Ride with you knees just let's you fight with both hands you still need handle animal to get it to move

I have seen the super ac animal companion but in that game the critter was wearing plate withouth the proficiency feat (and not figured in to hit) plus it was a large quadruped and the person paid nowhere near the right cost (I believe it is x4) for the armor. It was wearing a strength item and maybe a cloak as well And it had max hit points for 1st level. Rules breaking for sure.

Plenty of falconers have non-broken companions, and but I have not seen many Druids in play and those recently have had dinosaurs and small cats. Saurian shaman seem popular.

I think the extra traits feat should be banned for animal companions and eidolons and any critter that doesn't get traits in the first place. Suddenly discovering your animal was raised by halflings makes no sense as when it was raised by halflings it did not have the 3+ int needed to take advantage.

Also on bodyguard animals, I think they give up evasion to get it, don't they? Perhaps I read that wrong.

Handle Animal is required if you want your mount to attack, but not if you want it to move.

As for feats like Additional Traits, you could say the same for NPCs, who also do not have access to traits by default. Why couldn't an animal be raised by halflings and have a helpful disposition? It certainly CAN make sense; whether or not it's too powerful may be another matter.

I think the extra traits feat should be banned for animal companions and eidolons and any critter that doesn't get traits in the first place. Suddenly discovering your animal was raised by halflings makes no sense as when it was raised by halflings it did not have the 3+ int needed to take advantage.

Also on bodyguard animals, I think they give up evasion to get it, don't they? Perhaps I read that wrong.

any 3 int character can take additional traits whenever.

a level 11 halfling can suddenly grow teeth (adopted, toothy or whatever one gives a bite from orcs of golorian), or become an armor expert, or grow a birthmark

also if you ARE a halfling, it actually makes some sense that the AC could become adopted by halflings. think of it as awesome training

The Animal Archive is weird in that id adjusts the rules that animal companions follow.

So something like the APG adds new options but adding icy doom glowing ball to the wizard spell list does not effect how wizards without the book cast fireball.

The problem with the Animal Archive is it does change what animals can do and creates a bunch of weird situations where a player who doesn't have it plays with a GM that doesn't have it and maybe their animal flanks maybe it doesn't (up to GM) but then that player plays with a GM that does have the book and then their companion never flanks.

This seems like as good a place as any to try to get clarification of something:

One of my GMs and many of the blog contributors seem to insist that flanking has something to do with the awareness of the creature being flanked.

According to the Core Rulebook:

"When making a melee attack, you get a +2 flanking bonus if your opponent is threatened by another enemy character or creature on its opposite border or opposite corner. When in doubt about whether two characters flank an opponent in the middle, trace an imaginary line between the two attackers’ centers. If the line passes through opposite borders of the opponent’s space (including corners of those borders), then the opponent is flanked.
Only a creature or character that threatens the defender can help an attacker get a flanking bonus."

Nothing in the description of flanking has anything to do with awareness, only with being threatened.

The rules governing attacks of opportunity seem to provide the best definition of a square being threatened:

"Threatened Squares: You threaten all squares into which you can make a melee attack, even when it is not your turn. Generally, that means everything in all squares adjacent to your space (including diagonally). An enemy that takes certain actions while in a threatened square provokes an attack of opportunity from you. If you’re unarmed, you don’t normally threaten any squares and thus can’t make attacks of opportunity."

It seems to me that any creature that is in a square that is threatened on two opposite sides is flanked, and any enemy character or creature in one of those flanking positions that attacks the character or creature in the flanked square enjoys the flanking bonus as long as the ally in the opposing square actually threatens - isn't unarmed or casting or something making a melee attack impossible.

What can the awareness or lack of awareness of the flanked character or creature possibly have to do with its flanked condition?

You would be better off asking in the rules forum rather than a PFS thread that's been dormant for nearly a year.

To answer your question, flanking has nothing to do with awareness. Maybe your GM is getting confused around the necessary situation for a sneak attack, or something similar.

In fact, the description of sneak attack in the CRB makes it very clear that flanking and awareness are two different things:

The rogue's attack deals extra damage anytime her target would be denied a Dexterity bonus to AC (whether the target actually has a Dexterity bonus or not), or when the rogue flanks her target.

If you could only flank when the target wasn't aware (and therefore denied their dex bonus) then the last part of that sentence wouldn't be needed.

Perhaps I do need to take the question somewhere else. I asked it here because if first came up for me in the context of companions and flanking and this is the only thread that was specifically started on that topic by Mike Brock, the person I would like to get the answer from.

I was realizing this morning that the same dispute seems to go on around whether or not one of the flankers is aware of the other, for instance due to invisibility.

It seems to me that, as the definitions of flanking and threatened are written, the only person who needs to be aware that a creature is flanked, for that creature to be flanked and for the flankers to get their flanking bonus, is the GM. This should be just as true for a PC that is flanked by one or more invisible enemies, that it absolutely does not know about as it is for an enemy creature that is flanked by one or more invisible PCs that the other PC shouldn't know about but does.

Trogwolf:

While Mike Brock is a great source of knowledge, he is responsible for the Pathfinder Society Organized Play. Your question isn't about PFSOP, but about the rules, generally. That's why Paz was suggesting you post in the rules form, instead of the PFS forum.

Mike's original posting is about how this applies in PFSOP, not in Pathfinder games generally.

Of course, you and your home group are free to use those rulings as authoritative, as opposed to advisory. For PFS, Mike's rulings are authoritative - that is, they govern, and aren't just matters of opinion.

Mark, I am only interested in the rule for PFSOP and I just posted this in the Rules Forum, once I finally found it. The reason I want to get Mike Brock's ruling is because I assume that it would be authoritative for PFSOP and not just some player's opinion. I am not sure that I understand the purpose of your post.

It wasn't clear to me that you were looking for rulings for society play - I thought you were looking for a ruling as relates to Pathfinder, generally. There wasn't anything in your post that indicated that you were looking for something specific to organized play, so that's why I suggested you post elsewhere.

No worries, though!

Here is the answer that I was looking for, from a Stealth Playtest discussion on Sep 20, 2011, 11:48 AM:

tjlatta wrote:

How about an explicit interaction with flanking?

When GMing, I've always ruled that you don't provide flank if you're invisible or stealthed because the flanking rules are predicated on the target being "threatened."
If I'm totally unaware of something's existence, it isn't going to be very threatening to me.

A creature threatens under certain circumstances (see page 180 of the Core Rulebook). It may not seem threatening to you, but that's not how threatened squares work in the rules. An invisible or hidden creature still threatens, because it could and might make and attack in a creature within those squares.