Animals and Their Tricks

I don't think it's necessary to make it Core Assumption. It could probably be handled by just a simple FAQ.

Andrew Christian wrote:

you can push your animal to do just about anything within GM discretion.

I'd imagine you could push them to flank.

I think the question being asked is one of what is allowed in Pathfinder Society Organised Play.

If a player does not own Animal Archive I assume he cannot have a character of theirs teach an animal companion the Flank Trick (or any other Trick from Animal Archive).

However could a player character push their animal to perform a Trick from the Animal Archive if again they do not own that book? Does it come down to whether the GM is aware of the new Tricks in Animal Archive? In which case is there now an assumption that every PFS GM should read up (possibly via the PFSRD) on new rules such as the new Tricks in Animal Archive?

A similar situation is the Steal Combat Manoeuvre in Advanced Players Guide, if you don't have the book your character can't take the Improved Steal Feat, but could they still attempt the Steal Combat Manoeuvre? What if the GM is not familiar with the APG material either?

I’m pretty sure my answer above answers your question as well, but let’s try again.

If the animal has a feat that lets it perform something, then the feat trumps whether it has the trick or not. An animal can always use its feats. But if you wanted it to do something that is not explicitly a trick it knows, you will have to push it. And barring information owned from the Animal Archive, the adjudication of that would be by GM discretion.

Of course this all changes if Mike makes Animal Archive a core assum

New suggestion:

Maybe what we need is a new section in the Guide to Organized Play geared on animal companions/familiars/eidolons.

We already have quite a few FAQs for them, we could incorporate them into the guide and clean up the FAQ some. We could add the new AA tricks (which are really the crux of making AA part of the core assumption) into the Guide, which would automatically make them legal, and part of core assumption. We could have which familiars can use items or be selected with improved familiar. We could elaborate more about the limit on number of battle companions.

I think that ACs are a large enough part of the game where a 1/4 to 1/2 a page in the guide may be the easiest and best solution, and worth making the Guide slightly longer.

Andrew Christian wrote:

Stephen Ross wrote:

Andrew Christian wrote:

Since there are tricks for Aid and Flank now, you can't have your animal companion do those things without having those tricks.

but if you don't have the books they can?

As far as I'm aware, no.

Herein lies a bit of a rub, and, if I am not mistaken, the subject of Mike Brock's recent missive that I just saw on Facebook.

If Animal Archive isn't part of the Core Assumption, there are going to be legions of folks out there using their Animals the same way they always have. We shouldn't be forcing our players to buy books just so they can use their Animal Companion, should we? On the other hand, if it is part of the Core Assumption, then it is the GM's duty to have it on hand so he can show the players the error of their old-skool ways.

Of course, this is going to lead to quite a lot of table time being spent convincing grognards like myself that their animal just underwent a bit of a change. Does this mean we need to give folks a little bit of reworking on their AC's tricks so that they can actually do the things we always assumed they could as part of, say, Attack or Defend?

I know I have a WARPIG! that is going to need to pick up a couple of new tricks soon in order to continue operating as usual. If I had known I was going to need all these new tricks, I probably wouldn't have blown all his bonus tricks on Find Truffle and Oink-Like-Mad-at-the-Gnomes-in-the-Party.

I'm sure an FAQ could cover necessary information. As for a rebuild, that would be up to Mike.

If players and GM’s are unaware of the Animal Archive and all its implications, then things proceed as they always did. Since nobody knows the difference, this really doesn’t matter. Can’t expect them to just “know” something. Although it is a GM’s duty to be aware of the FAQ and Additional Resources.

If this gets FAQ’d or added to the core assumption, the rules for animal companions hasn’t changed, just the prevailing dynamic. The rules were always up for table variation. Now the “how” of it has been codified. It shouldn’t take long to hash it out though.

I'm okay with this being part of the Core Assumption. (As my list of subscriptions show, I've gulped down the Paizo kool-aid.) If it's added to the PRD, then the burden becomes even less.

I'm now having to adjust play with ACs. As Mike noted, I see them a lot, each of my 3 campaigns has at least 1 in them. Regardless of the RAW or RAI, I have a comfortable and reasonable solution for the AC going before the PC: If it's a free action (no push) you can give it the command. If you have to push, then the AC defaults to it's last command until you can give it one.

Re the Core Assumption question...

The current Core Assumption per v4.3 of the Guide to PFS Organised Play states:
"Pathfinder Society Organized Play assumes that every player has the following resources.
• Pathfinder RPG Core Rulebook
• Pathfinder Campaign Setting: Pathfinder Society Field Guide
• Guide to Pathfinder Society Organized Play (this document)"

That to me basically reads as "To play in PFS you need to own the following books", indeed I have previously bought Seekers of Secrets and the Field Guide purely because they were stated to be part of the Core Assumption even though I didn't actually use any material from them. [Edit: Indeed I have learnt my lesson and at present don't plan to buy the Pathfinder Society Primer]

I would be very wary of adding extra books to the core assumption as it may put off potential new players joining PFS organised play ("I have to buy how many books? Animal Archive? My character doesn't have an animal, why am I required to buy that book????")

If you add Animal Companion to the core assumption, you should really add the APG as well for the new Combat Manoeuvres.

Personally, my suggestion is to split the Core Assumption into a Player Assumption and a GM Assumption. Players should only be assumed to own the core rulebook (IMHO) but GMs should perhaps be assumed to be familiar with the following material:
- Core rulebook
- Bestiary
- APG
- Field Guide (or its upcoming replacement)
- Animal Archive

The good thing about this is that the GMs can be encouraged to get that familiarity via the PFSRD. Maybe even make the core assumption for GMs have specific sections of books and give a PFSRD alternative, e.g.

- APG Combat Manoeuvres page 320-322 (http://paizo.com/pathfinderRPG/prd/advanced/advancedNewRules.html#_combat- maneuvers)

The good thing about this is that the GMs can be encouraged to get that familiarity via the PFSRD. Maybe even make the core assumption for GMs have specific sections of books and give a PFSRD alternative, e.g.

- APG Combat Manoeuvres page 320-322 (http://paizo.com/pathfinderRPG/prd/advanced/advancedNewRules.html#_combat- maneuvers)

PRD, not PFSRD.

My impression is that Animal Archive and the various PFS Player Companion / Setting books are so full of Product Identity that they don't really qualify for the PRD....

I agree with adding it to the guide to OP. Like Mr. Marsh above, I have the subscriptions. My only concern is this:

Player goes to event 1, GM does not have AA
Player: "I want to make Wally Wolverine attack from the side, flanking."
GM: "Ok, make your handle animal check, he has the attack tricks, right?"

Player comes to Columbus for some reason sits at my table.
Player: "I want to make Wally Wolverine attack from the side, flanking."
Me: "Do you have the flank trick?"
Player: "Huh? What flank trick?"
ME: "Animal Archive shows that ordering to flank is a seperate trick. It's trick or push."
Player: "What the <various profanities>? I can't push, my charisma sucks!"

Now on the honour system, if he goes back to event 1, should he not use his attack trick to flank anymore? In good faith, yes.

Personally, my suggestion is to split the Core Assumption into a Player Assumption and a GM Assumption.

Actually:

Pathfinder Society Organized Play assumes that every player has the following resources.

• Pathfinder RPG Core Rulebook
• Pathfinder Campaign Setting: Pathfinder Society Field Guide
• Guide to Pathfinder Society Organized Play (this document)
Additionally, a GM should have access to all books in the Pathfinder Roleplaying Game line of hardcover rulebooks, whether a physical or electronic copy.

If the Animal Archive is added to the PRD so that GM's can access it for reference, I see no problem with making it part of the GM core assumption, and just requiring that players whose animal companions are trained in the new tricks own the book as part of the Additional Resources requirement.

Personally, my suggestion is to split the Core Assumption into a Player Assumption and a GM Assumption.

this actually already exists. The GM assumption is same as player's plus APG, UM, UC, Bestiary 1-3. Basically everything in the PRD.

DigitalMage wrote:

The good thing about this is that the GMs can be encouraged to get that familiarity via the PFSRD. Maybe even make the core assumption for GMs have specific sections of books and give a PFSRD alternative, e.g.

- APG Combat Manoeuvres page 320-322 (http://paizo.com/pathfinderRPG/prd/advanced/advancedNewRules.html#_combat- maneuvers)

PRD, not PFSRD.

My impression is that Animal Archive and the various PFS Player Companion / Setting books are so full of Product Identity that they don't really qualify for the PRD....

Perhaps then the bits that are actually pertinent (i.e. the new tricks) could be made available somewhere PRD or a downloadable PDF or something.

Basically, I wouldn't want to dissuade people from playing or GMing PFS games because they don't want to, or can't afford to, buy another book.

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.

Instead of adding the whole book to the assumption maybe we can just print the tricks in a PFS blog, so we get consistency. Alternatively we could get a little tricks pfd like the additional traits pdf (although this is probably way too much work)

DigitalMage wrote:

Personally, my suggestion is to split the Core Assumption into a Player Assumption and a GM Assumption.

this actually already exists. The GM assumption is same as player's plus APG, UM, UC, Bestiary 1-3. Basically everything in the PRD.

Isn't that on an Adventure by Adventure basis though? E.g. Rise of the Goblin Guild makes use of:

This is fine as long as everything needed is in the PRD, it meant I was able to run that scenario despite not owning Bestiary 2, ARG or GMG.

I was suggesting an over-arching GM Core Assumption that would be in the PFS Guide, and leaving the Player Core Assumption as the smaller list.

These are my thoughts on this.

If the new tricks are to be assumed to be Core assumption, then either:
a: Make a blog/faq or the alike with them.
b: Include them in the next Guide to Pathfinder Society Organized Play
c: Include them in the PRD
d: Do not make them legal options.

Anything else will just make things confusing and/or turn people away since you now more or less need to have Animal Archive if someone has a companion.

the Diviner

So, I would like to hear thoughts on whether you think it should be made a Core Assumption or not. Thanks in advance for any input.

It seems like the Core Assumptions comprise either the minimum rules needed to play the game, and Pathfinder Society specific rules. As others have mentioned, simply because other books add rules, I'm looking at you APG, doesn't qualify them as core assumption.

I've only leafed through the Animal Archive so far, but it looks like it has tricks, some new feats, spells, equipment, archetypes, magic item slots, and some new animal companions. While the tricks do/can affect basic play, the rest of the book is definitely not the kind of material that would normally be part of the Core Assumptions.

Keeping in mind how the core rulebook treats the handle animal skill, I think this would be much better treated through the FAQ or the next version of the guide:

Teach an Animal a Trick: You can teach an animal a specific trick with 1 week of work and a successful Handle Animal check against the indicated DC. An animal with an Intelligence score of 1 can learn a maximum of three tricks, while an animal with an Intelligence score of 2 can learn a maximum of six tricks. Possible tricks (and their associated DCs) include, but are not necessarily limited to, the following.

Bolding mine.

I think that the rules from Animal Archive on tricks should be treated as PFS's codification of what "not necessarily limited to" means. _If the license permits,_ list those tricks in the FAQ and/or the next version of the Guide to Organized play. That will be the least disruptive option: It won't force people to buy books they won't use, it won't add random archetypes that have nothing to do with PFS (to the point of having a class featured changed to make it playable under PFS rules,) it won't muddy the water about what magic item slots animal companions can use, but it will still be able to add some clarity to how animals work for everyone.

I'd personally prefer to see the extra tricks disallowed and continue on muddling through what animal companions can and cannot do to seeing Animal Archives become a Core Assumption. It brings along too much baggage, which I think probably outweighs the benefits of the new tricks.

If our only option is to add it to the core assumption or not I am all for adding it to the Core Assumption.

Adding it to the core assumption would stop wide variation on ruling that could affect PC builds.

Though a Better option if possible since this is basically an update to a skill (Handle Animal) is to have the Development Team write a blog on the new Tricks and then in the next update of the core book add the tricks to Handle Animal skill. That would be a great option, I just don't know the feasibility of it.

I'm seriously considering making this a core assumption in the next Guide update because it affects so many characters and GMs will experience something from this book at nearly every table they GM. At $10.99 print or $7.99 PDF, I don't think it is adding too much stress or burden to GMs to add it. But, I would like feedback before expanding the core assumption.

So, I would like to hear thoughts on whether you think it should be made a Core Assumption or not. Thanks in advance for any input.

I don't think it needs to be in the core assumptions. The vast majority of the comments associated with this are with respect to tricks that are specific forms of attack, such as flank or aid attack. A FAQ entry would be sufficient with respect to some guidelines on what attack itself covers, with a reference to the additional tricks for those who want more precise control over their critter. Example text:

What does the Attack trick allow my animal companion or purchased pet do?

Controlling animals is an area that many people are used to addressing in a wide variety of ways, often in a manner that is less detailed than is provided for in the rules. The Attack trick directs an animal to attack a specified creature by the most expedient manner making use of its primary natural attack, if it has one, including any special attacks that are a natural follow up to that attack, such as a wolf's trip. Other trick options for more detailed attack instructions, such as actively seeking a flank position or aiding an attack, are detailed in the option rules source, Animal Archive. If your animal is not trained in a detailed attack tactic, you may use the Push option for controlling the animal to engage in such tactics. To enjoy a variety of tactical options in a reliable manner, use if Animal Archive is highly recommended."

Fold, spindle, and rewrite as needed.

I really think that the core assumption needs to be kept as brief as possible to keep the barrier to entry low and to avoid encouraging a culture of players not having the rules resource available and expect the GM to be booked up on supplemental material.

I don't think Animal Archive belongs in the core assumption - a lot of players won't need it for anything, while the rest of the core assumption is relevant for every player.
I estimate somewhere between 20 and 30 % of my players have an animal companion. For the rest of them, Animal Companion in the core assumption would just be an unnessesary expense that they could have used on another book relevant for their characters.

Is it possible it could be added to the PRD? The book is great and it would be very nice if GMs had an opportunity to familiarize themselves with the rules.

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.

Instead of adding the whole book to the assumption maybe we can just print the tricks in a PFS blog, so we get consistency. Alternatively we could get a little tricks pfd like the additional traits pdf (although this is probably way too much work)

Actually it doesn't change or adjust the rules that animal companions follow.

It clarifies what the developers initially intended.

If you were using your animal to flank and what not, you weren't following the rules (you weren't not following them either), rather you were finding a way with your GM to exist within a state of ambiguity on how animal companions should be used.

After reading posts here and on the VC board, I agree it doesn't belong in the Core Assumption. As I am out of the office for 3.5 weeks, I've emailed Mark and John and asked them to put together an FAQ for this topic.

We will evaluate whether we need a new section in the Guide 5.0 to cover this new FAQ, as well as the other questions on animals, familiars, etc...

After reading posts here and on the VC board, I agree it doesn't belong in the Core Assumption. As I am out of the office for 3.5 weeks, I've emailed Mark and John and asked them to put together an FAQ for this topic.

We will evaluate whether we need a new section in the Guide 5.0 to cover this new FAQ, as well as the other questions on animals, familiars, etc...

I whole-heartedly agree that AA shouldn't be part of the Core Assumption, but the book (particularly the new tricks) needs to get added to the PRD so that GMs can look them up without needing to purchase the book.

Heck, it might even make sense to make an exception to the "must own the book" rule for the tricks themselves, just to make sure everyone's on the same page, so to speak. There IS the question of whether or not you want to set that kind of precedent, though...

I will repost what I had said on facebook as an idea.

I think the best solution to adding tricks from the animal archive would be to create a inclusive list of the tricks an animal can learn as a seperate file and have it available to download similar to how traits are available seperate from the apg and included in the core assumption.

I will repost what I had said on facebook as an idea.

I think the best solution to adding tricks from the animal archive would be to create a inclusive list of the tricks an animal can learn as a seperate file and have it available to download similar to how traits are available seperate from the apg and included in the core assumption.

+1 this.

The new tricks are nice and all, but are really a minor thing that people were already house-ruling in home games; having them available separately for free really won't take much of the usefulness away from the Animal Archive, but would be of IMMENSE value to PFS.

I think we are going to be entering into an odd area in the next few weeks when GMs and Players start to use the rules of the AA in their games. I havent had the chance yet, but certainly will be in the future.

I did that a couple of weeks ago. My AC (Spot the Snow Leopard) used to know "Flank", but now that's at DM discretion (as this isn't a PFS game). Fortunately Spot gets an attribute increase at the next level, so things will sort themselves out eventually.

Edit: I've just noticed that this thread is in a PFS forum. I got here by following a link from a Blog posting, which is why I mention a non-PFS game. Sorry about that.

FYI - for those who keep clamoring for animal archive to be posted to the srd, I'm sure they'll get to it when they have time. If you want to take a look at the new tricks immediately, check the d20pfsrd. Look under Skills, Handle Animal. The new tricks have been incorporated there for viewing.

I think the decision to keep the core assumption down to the absolute minimum is the right one, however I am concerned that the new tricks in the Animal Archive have diminished the utility of an animal companion realtive to how it used to work before and the only option now is to pay for the book to regain the options that used to be assumed from the core rules. This is really the first time that this kind of thing has happened on such a large scale in PFS.

I think that the changes to Handle Animal and the new tricks as an absolute minimum need to be added to the Guide during the next revision. Because the situation of having to buy a new book to regain use of the things that you had before is not really fair. (Although you should buy the Animal Archive if you can because it is one of the best of the Player Companion books so far.)

Because the situation of having to buy a new book to regain use of the things that you had before is not really fair. (Although you should buy the Animal Archive if you can because it is one of the best of the Player Companion books so far.)

Its not just a matter of buying the book to regain use of the things that you had before though, if your animal companion is already at the limit on the number of Tricks known* you could not train your animal Flank.

I worry that adding extra tricks may mean some players will start leaving out basic tricks like Heel and Come; which GMs should then play up the consequences of (e.g. the animal not following the character into a dungeon) but more than likely will be hand waved because such a consequence is a diversion from the story and unnecessarily adding to the length of time it takes to play a PFS scenario. I can see a lot of Take 20 to push an animal companion to Heel and Come going on :)

*E.g. A 5th level Druid's Intelligence 2 animal companion would have 8 tricks, my PFS character's dog is trained for Hunting (Attack, Down, Fetch, Heel, Seek, Track) and has been taught the bonus tricks of Come & Perform.

I am not a fan of the Animal Archive for a couple of reasons.

The additional tricks are very granular, and with no offset in expanding the maximum tricks known (they are at 2nd Ed granularity where a Paladins Horse could know a dozen or more). Why does a Wolf, an instinctive pack hunter that uses Flank in the wild need to relearn it as a trick?

THERE ARE STILL NO LARGE BEARS

No large bears is my HUGEST gripe.

Oh and a late 3rd - if my companion has the Teamwork Feat 'Outflank', does it need to learn the Flank trick too? That seems punitive.

*E.g. A 5th level Druid's Intelligence 2 animal companion would have 8 tricks, my PFS character's dog is trained for Hunting (Attack, Down, Fetch, Heel, Seek, Track) and has been taught the bonus tricks of Come & Perform.

I think you can retrain an animal, swapping out tricks on a 1 per 1 basis. I'll look around for something more concrete later.

PFS lets you train critters. It doesn't say when you can do it but before the session starts or after it ends (since both are effectively "down time" ) are reasonable interpretations.

Worse comes to worse you can just release Fluffy the terrible and re acquire fluffy the terrible and start is training over (with the bonus tricks +1 trick per handle animal)

I think you can retrain an animal, swapping out tricks on a 1 per 1 basis. I'll look around for something more concrete later.

However that requires giving up a trick, so my point still stands - its not just a matter of buying the book to regain use of the things that you had before.

What worries me is whether these new tricks will change how a GM adjudicates Animal Companion movement in melee and how much leeway I get as a player to move my animal companion.

For example, say I direct my animal companion Dog (D) to attack a Goblin (G). Empty squares are shown by O. Dog moves in from the South and attacks Goblin using most direct route.

OOOO
OOGO
OODO

Now a Hobgoblin (H) approaches from the West with a Reach weapon and attacks Dog

OOOO
OOGO
HODO

On the Dog's turn I have him make a 5' Step North East to continue to attack the Goblin but get away from the Hobgoblin.

OOOO
OOGD
HOOO

Now, I think that is reasonable and I hope a GM would see that the 5' Step is based on survival instinct of the Dog.

However, what if another PC Fighter (F) was already in combat with the Goblin when the Dog moves in from the South to attack?

OOOO
OFGO
OODO

And for some reason the Hobgoblin still moves in and attacks the dog...

OOOO
OFGO
HODO

If I the player then have the Dog 5' Step North East, would a GM disallow it saying that I was moving the Dog into a flanking position and it would need to be Pushed to do that (as the Dog is not trained in the Flank trick)?

OOOO
OFGD
HOOO

Does anyone else share my concerns?

Does Attack now mean, attack and never move except to pursue the target?

Another fine point.

Apparently you forgot to also buy the new 'basic survival instinct' trick... :p

Now, I think that is reasonable and I hope a GM would see that the 5' Step is based on survival instinct of the Dog

I would not agree with that. The whole premise of training animals IS to break their natural instincts. Is it a dog's instinct to sit when you tell it to? Or to stop attacking something it already is hostile to it (tell that to myriad of dog attack victims).

If you have a TRAINED attack dog, once it is attacking something it will probably not back down because another person is approaching it.

Mike Brock can probably attest to that from the K-9 units. I have seen K-9 in action as well, and they do NOT back down just because another perp is coming to help his buddy.

Yet dogs simply attacking things for attacking their master when untrained is a no-no. Yet dogs happily attack things on city streets with alarming regularity.

If you have a TRAINED attack dog, once it is attacking something it will probably not back down because another person is approaching it.

But in my example the Dog didn't back down, it stayed adjacent to the Goblin that it was tasked with attacking, it just also moved away from the Hobgoblin that was attacking it with the long pointy stick!

Right on both counts. But trying to apply real-world dog psychology to a fantasy game system MAY get a little convoluted. So the rules we got are the rules we got ;)

CRobledo wrote:

If you have a TRAINED attack dog, once it is attacking something it will probably not back down because another person is approaching it.

But in my example the Dog didn't back down, it stayed adjacent to the Goblin that it was tasked with attacking, it just also moved away from the Hobgoblin that was attacking it with the long pointy stick!

As it was before AA, this is a matter of YMMV.

It's judge dependant, just like it was before AA.

If your dog is attacking the Goblin, and you feel (whatever reason) that it should move to a different space:
(Pre-AA Judge #1): "Dogs remain in the same space while attacking. No movement."
(Pre-AA Judge #2): "Dogs always move to the best spot to attack from. It moves to there."

(Post-AA Judge #1): "Dogs remain in the same space while attacking. No movement."
(Post-AA Judge #2): "Dogs always move to the best spot to attack from. It moves to there."

only now we also have
(Post-AA Judge #3): "With the AA, we have a trick for Flanking, so unless you have this trick, you can move the dog - just not into a flank."

Hay, can I teach the "Flank" trick to the BDF in our group? he seems to think that attacking means to never move in Melee, even when a 5' step would give him a flank. (yeah, I've played with people who just have NO tactical abilities...)
edit - this is ment as humor - sort of

BigNorseWolf wrote:

I think you can retrain an animal, swapping out tricks on a 1 per 1 basis. I'll look around for something more concrete later.

However that requires giving up a trick, so my point still stands - its not just a matter of buying the book to regain use of the things that you had before.

What worries me is whether these new tricks will change how a GM adjudicates Animal Companion movement in melee and how much leeway I get as a player to move my animal companion.

For example, say I direct my animal companion Dog (D) to attack a Goblin (G). Empty squares are shown by O. Dog moves in from the South and attacks Goblin using most direct route.

OOOO
OOGO
OODO

Now a Hobgoblin (H) approaches from the West with a Reach weapon and attacks Dog

OOOO
OOGO
HODO

On the Dog's turn I have him make a 5' Step North East to continue to attack the Goblin but get away from the Hobgoblin.

OOOO
OOGD
HOOO

Now, I think that is reasonable and I hope a GM would see that the 5' Step is based on survival instinct of the Dog.

However, what if another PC Fighter (F) was already in combat with the Goblin when the Dog moves in from the South to attack?

OOOO
OFGO
OODO

And for some reason the Hobgoblin still moves in and attacks the dog...

OOOO
OFGO
HODO

If I the player then have the Dog 5' Step North East, would a GM disallow it saying that I was moving the Dog into a flanking position and it would need to be Pushed to do that (as the Dog is not trained in the Flank trick)?

OOOO
OFGD
HOOO

Does anyone else share my concerns?

Does Attack now mean, attack and never move except to pursue the target?

Common Sense should still apply.

In this case, it makes sense that the dog wouldn't want to get hit, and if the closest available square to not get hit just happens to move him into flanking... then sure, he can do that.

The point of the Flank trick, is that your dog from point zero (moving into attack the goblin) isn't going to move around behind the goblin to help provide a flank without the trick.

Right on both counts.

Sorry, I am unclear what is right on both counts?

But trying to apply real-world dog psychology to a fantasy game system MAY get a little convoluted. So the rules we got are the rules we got ;)

Unfortunately we don't have any rules on that situation (unless there is a Take a 5 foot step trick in Animal Archive) and defaulting to what seems reasonable is IMHO always a good tactic in GMing; it may not be consistent but in lack of anything else its the best there is.

TBH I wasn't really expecting the first part of my example to be controversial!

only now we also have

(Post-AA Judge #3): "With the AA, we have a trick for Flanking, so unless you have this trick, you can move the dog - just not into a flank."

And this is the position I was trying to highlight using my example as something I am afraid of; a GM disallowing animal movement purely on the basis that it would put it into a flanking position even if the intent of the movement had nothing to do with getting into a flanking position.

There is a difference between commanding your animal to move into a flanking position and tasking it to do something, or have it move on its own accord, that coincidentally puts it into a flanking position.

Common Sense should still apply.

In this case, it makes sense that the dog wouldn't want to get hit, and if the closest available square to not get hit just happens to move him into flanking... then sure, he can do that.

And that is the view I hope most GMs would take.

But I worry that with all the hoo-ha about the Flank trick that some GMs may take the view that without the Trick you cannot have an animal companion move into a flanking position (no matter the reasoning) unless they are commanded to use the Flank trick or are Pushed to do so.

Trained animals will do what there trained to do. This brakes there natural instincts , and replaces it with learned behavior. Just as in combat training for people. You brake your natural instincts to perform what your trained to do. This is done because when fighting instincts are more often then not the wrong thing to follow. Attack dogs just as people working with a group. Do not move from there post or attack position just because some one shows up. They keep doing what there trained to and count on there team to take care of the new threat. Animals are not the only mammals that train for combat.

DigitalMage wrote:

CRobledo wrote:

If you have a TRAINED attack dog, once it is attacking something it will probably not back down because another person is approaching it.

But in my example the Dog didn't back down, it stayed adjacent to the Goblin that it was tasked with attacking, it just also moved away from the Hobgoblin that was attacking it with the long pointy stick!

As it was before AA, this is a matter of YMMV.

It's judge dependant, just like it was before AA.

If your dog is attacking the Goblin, and you feel (whatever reason) that it should move to a different space:
(Pre-AA Judge #1): "Dogs remain in the same space while attacking. No movement."
(Pre-AA Judge #2): "Dogs always move to the best spot to attack from. It moves to there."

(Post-AA Judge #1): "Dogs remain in the same space while attacking. No movement."
(Post-AA Judge #2): "Dogs always move to the best spot to attack from. It moves to there."

only now we also have
(Post-AA Judge #3): "With the AA, we have a trick for Flanking, so unless you have this trick, you can move the dog - just not into a flank."

(Post-AA Judge #4): "If you don't have the Flank Trick, your dog moves most directly to attack. If circumstances make sense (like dog is getting attacked) dog can move away from attack. If it happens to move into a flank in the first square it could move into to not get attacked, that's fine."

Having a trick for flank doesn't mean the animal will never move into flank. What it means, is the animal will not purposefully choose to flank over a direct attack in most circumstances.

BigNorseWolf wrote:

I think you can retrain an animal, swapping out tricks on a 1 per 1 basis. I'll look around for something more concrete later.

However that requires giving up a trick, so my point still stands - its not just a matter of buying the book to regain use of the things that you had before.

Actually, you have my apologies BigNorseWolf!

I have just re-read the Flank trick on d20pfsrd and it reads:
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. It always takes attacks of opportunity. The animal must know the attack trick before it can learn this trick.

So it seems that Flank seems to be the Attack trick plus flanking, i.e. if you have Flank you don't seem to need to teach your animal the Attack trick. At first I thought maybe the training difficulty is higher, but no Attack and Flank are both DC 20.

So presumably I could replace the Attack trick with the Flank trick and not lose any utility, correct?

However this does bring up a bit of an issue, Flank doesn't have the text about needing to take the Trick twice to attack Undead and Aberrations.

So questions:

Does Flank effectively replace Attack?

If so, does the Flank trick allow you to command your animal to attack unnatural creatures?

If not, do you need to be train the animal in the Attack trick as well (i.e. is Flank + Attack = Attack + Attack)?

[EDIT: Actually the Attack trick does still have some benefit in that it can be used to command an animal companion to "attack apparent enemies" rather than just one specific target, useful if your dog has Combat Reflexes and a few enemies try to get by it.]

Trained animals will do what there trained to do. This brakes there natural instincts , and replaces it with learned behavior. Just as in combat training for people. You brake your natural instincts to perform what your trained to do. This is done because when fighting instincts are more often then not the wrong thing to follow. Attack dogs just as people working with a group. Do not move from there post or attack position just because some one shows up. They keep doing what there trained to and count on there team to take care of the new threat. Animals are not the only mammals that train for combat.

Yeah, but as a GM, it would be kinda a jerk move to say that the animal couldn't move away from someone attacking it.

Lets not get pedantic and silly about the new tricks and what they mean.

DigitalMage wrote:

BigNorseWolf wrote:

I think you can retrain an animal, swapping out tricks on a 1 per 1 basis. I'll look around for something more concrete later.

However that requires giving up a trick, so my point still stands - its not just a matter of buying the book to regain use of the things that you had before.

Actually, you have my apologies BigNorseWolf!

I have just re-read the Flank trick on d20pfsrd and it reads:
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. It always takes attacks of opportunity. The animal must know the attack trick before it can learn this trick.

So it seems that Flank seems to be the Attack trick plus flanking, i.e. if you have Flank you don't seem to need to teach your animal the Attack trick. At first I thought maybe the training difficulty is higher, but no Attack and Flank are both DC 20.

So presumably I could replace the Attack trick with the Flank trick and not lose any utility, correct?

However this does bring up a bit of an issue, Flank doesn't have the text about needing to take the Trick twice to attack Undead and Aberrations.

So questions:

Does Flank effectively replace Attack?

If so, does the Flank trick allow you to command your animal to attack unnatural creatures?

If not, do you need to be train the animal in the Attack trick as well (i.e. is Flank + Attack = Attack + Attack)?

No. Just like feats, you Attack is a prerequisite for Flank, and as such, if you remove the prerequisite, you cannot use the new trick/feat.

So questions:

Does Flank effectively replace Attack?

If so, does the Flank trick allow you to command your animal to attack unnatural creatures?

If not, do you need to be train the animal in the Attack trick as well (i.e. is Flank + Attack = Attack + Attack)?

I think you missed the line in the Flank Trick where you must already know Attack to be able to learn Flank ;)

ninja by andrew

Now a Hobgoblin (H) approaches from the West with a Reach weapon and attacks Dog

OOOO
OOGO
HODO

On the Dog's turn I have him make a 5' Step North East to continue to attack the Goblin but get away from the Hobgoblin.

Honestly, I missed the part where the hobgoblin had a reach weapon and was attacking the dog, I thought it just walked up.

in that case, I would argue the dog itself (I dont think you'd need to command it to do so) would indeed 5' over to the next available square outside range, but I would think it's the below diagram instead.

OOOO
OOGO
HOOD

Like Andrew said, if this happened to provide a flank, then bonus.

No. Just like feats, you Attack is a prerequisite for Flank, and as such, if you remove the prerequisite, you cannot use the new trick/feat.

Doh! That will teach me to skim read! Despite actually quoting the text I didn't register the text "The animal must know the attack trick before it can learn this trick." :(

Sorry.

So okay, this does then mean some people may need to give up existing Tricks if they want their animal companion to learn Flank.

Honestly, I missed the part where the hobgoblin had a reach weapon and was attacking the dog, I thought it just walked up.

No worries, I just amply demonstrated that I miss things as well (see Attack being reuqired to teach Flank) :)

in that case, I would argue the dog itself (I dont think you'd need to command it to do so)

Yes, I meant that the animal moved of its own accord without being commanded.

would indeed 5' over to the next available square outside range, but I would think it's the below diagram instead.

OOOO
OOGO
HOOD

Like Andrew said, if this happened to provide a flank, then bonus.

I personally would leave the actual positioning (moving East or North East) to the player of the character whose animal companion it is. I wouldn't begrudge the player moving the Dog North East and giving a flank to the Fighter (even if they didn't have the Flank trick).