Animals and Their Tricks

Assuming you can make that change, yes.

Or just set your animal free and get a new one with the tricks you want.

This book is a headache.

All of these new questions and grey areas really have me wondering why.

Seems like this book was in the works for quite a while. Wasn't it even delayed a few months? Why are there so many problems associated with this new splat book?

Would love to hear from the authors on this subject.

I've scanned the CRB and the Archive for trick retraining rules, and I've come up empty. Is anyone aware of another area a rule for that might be located?

I think it would be reasonable to allow an animal to learn a new trick in place of an old one, but given no rules for it, the only solution right now may be to increase intelligence or get a new pet.

This book is a headache.

All of these new questions and grey areas really have me wondering why.

To be fair, some of the grey is because some of us are debating it without having fully read or digested the rules (see my misreading of Flank up thread).

I think the tricks are fine, as long as people realise that just because your animal companion doesn't have the Flank trick (or isn't pushed) it doesn't mean it cannot flank if its natural movement would put it into a flanking position (or another PC moves into a position so the animal gets flanking).

there aren't problems with it.

The only problems with it stem from the fact that many players feel that the rules allowed them to use their animal companion directly as an extension of themselves.

The rules did not support this attitude.

For years players and GM's have wanted to clarification on how animal companions worked. GM's didn't want Apes with Hammers and didn't want animals to be tactical geniuses. Players wanted animals to read their minds and be able to act like another character, instead of a feature of a class that happens to be an unintelligent animal.

Now the clarifications are here. The intent of the developers is here.

As with all rules, there will be gray areas.

The gray areas can easily be handled by a liberal dose of common sense.

GM's need to be liberal in their interpretation how these new tricks affect overall combat (denying a dog to move just because it would move into a flank is ridiculous if you would otherwise let the dog move)

Players need to be willing to understand that the rules haven't changed. Just your interpretation of the rules is no longer correct.

Seems like this book was in the works for quite a while. Wasn't it even delayed a few months? Why are there so many problems associated with this new splat book?

Would love to hear from the authors on this subject.

These and other questions like it are most likely better addressed at the product page's discussion thread. They are more geared at Paizo in general, and not PFS gameplay.

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.

It was my understanding that custom tricks were not allowed in PFS. Is my understanding in error?? Perhaps, through the joys of electronic communication, I have missed a humorous intent here.

Zandari wrote:

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.

It was my understanding that custom tricks were not allowed in PFS. Is my understanding in error?? Perhaps, through the joys of electronic communication, I have missed a humorous intent here.

Custom tricks are not allowed in PFS.

Possible solutions to some of the issues raised in the thread:

1. My animal companion (AC) beat me in initiative. First, ensure your AC has the heel and defend tricks known. Inform your GM at the beginning of the scenerio that your AC is under a standing heel command, meaning it will stay at your side unless commanded otherwise, effectively causing it to delay awaiting your command. If something attacks your or the AC before your turn, the defend command will allow the AC to respond automatically, effectively setting its initiative after the attack.

2. My animal doesn't know the flank command and I want it to flank. Nothing is stopping you from giving it the attack command, and then maneuvering yourself into a flanking position. A more complex solution would be to (assuming your AC knows heel) maneuver the AC to the appropriate spot while it follows you. Issue it an attack command, and then maneuver yourself where you need to be. Remember, commanding an AC is a free action, meaning you can issue it multiple commands in a round (as long as it knows the tricks, pushing is a move action).

Just some thoughts...

Zandari wrote:

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.

It was my understanding that custom tricks were not allowed in PFS. Is my understanding in error?? Perhaps, through the joys of electronic communication, I have missed a humorous intent here.

While custom tricks are not allowed, what Zandari is describing is within RAW tricks.

Find Truffle = Track or maybe Detect - Let the pig smell a truffle and then tell him to track more truffles

Oink at the gnome = Perform or Entertain

graywulfe wrote:

Zandari wrote:

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.

It was my understanding that custom tricks were not allowed in PFS. Is my understanding in error?? Perhaps, through the joys of electronic communication, I have missed a humorous intent here.

While custom tricks are not allowed, what Zandari is describing is within RAW tricks.

Find Truffle = Track or maybe Detect - Let the pig smell a truffle and then tell him to track more truffles

Oink at the gnome = Perform or Entertain

Fair enough. I wasn't trying to point out someone doing something wrong so much as get clarification for my own understanding.

Let me pose a question regarding Speak with Animals and animal non-companions.

If a Druid uses Wild Empathy to improve the attitude of a wild rat to "friendly," can she make a request of it based on the Diplomacy rules and not have to invoke the Handle Animal skill?

I understand there is a need to require HA on AC's that trumps workarounds. However, with non-AC animals, anyone with Wild Empathy and Speak with Animals should be able to interact with animals as they would people. Wild Empathy is Diplomacy for animals. Please confirm whether one needs to use HA to interact with non-AC's via Wild Empathy and Speak with Animals when asking a favor of a non-AC animal.

If you do require a HA even when you've beaten the Diplomacy DC's using Wild Empathy, then what is the point of the statement in the Speak with Animals spell that says that a friendly animal will do a favor or service?

I would submit that WE+SwA on non-AC's should not require the HA skill and should instead follow the Diplomacy chart. If you ask a random animal to do something dangerous, you're getting -10 on the Wild Empathy check.

If a Druid uses Wild Empathy to improve the attitude of a wild rat to "friendly," can she make a request of it based on the Diplomacy rules and not have to invoke the Handle Animal skill?

It really depends on what the request is, if it requires something the animal normally can't do because it does not know how or something against it's nature then no Wild Empathy will not help.

I will give you an example with a squirrel

Speak with Animals will allow you to ask the squirrel about his nuts

Wild Empathy with Speak with Animals will help you convince the squirrel to give you or some of his nuts

Handle Animal can push the squirrel to protect your 'nuts'

N N 959 wrote:

If a Druid uses Wild Empathy to improve the attitude of a wild rat to "friendly," can she make a request of it based on the Diplomacy rules and not have to invoke the Handle Animal skill?

It really depends on what the request is, if it requires something the animal normally can't do because it does not know how or something against it's nature then no Wild Empathy will not help.

I will give you an example with a squirrel

Speak with Animals will allow you to ask the squirrel about his nuts

Wild Empathy with Speak with Animals will help you convince the squirrel to give you or some of his nuts

Handle Animal can push the squirrel to protect your 'nuts'

For example. :)

My question is this: is this an actual, codified nerf for those players with ACs who are trying to use them as extensions of their main PC? Because frankly, the way most DMs allow druids to run, I hate that class with a purple passion.

Dragnmoon wrote:

N N 959 wrote:

If a Druid uses Wild Empathy to improve the attitude of a wild rat to "friendly," can she make a request of it based on the Diplomacy rules and not have to invoke the Handle Animal skill?

It really depends on what the request is, if it requires something the animal normally can't do because it does not know how or something against it's nature then no Wild Empathy will not help.

I will give you an example with a squirrel

Speak with Animals will allow you to ask the squirrel about his nuts

Wild Empathy with Speak with Animals will help you convince the squirrel to give you or some of his nuts

Handle Animal can push the squirrel to protect your 'nuts'

For example. :)

No touchy!

My question is this: is this an actual, codified nerf for those players with ACs who are trying to use them as extensions of their main PC? Because frankly, the way most DMs allow druids to run, I hate that class with a purple passion.

The term "nerf" is generally applied when a rules change is made specifically to reduce the power/effectiveness of legally-applied but perceived-OP rules. This is more a case of helping to clarify why some of that OP play wasn't actually legal to begin with, and also providing explicit options that weren't previously available, which led to some of that OP play (by virtue of not being explicit before).

N N 959 wrote:

If a Druid uses Wild Empathy to improve the attitude of a wild rat to "friendly," can she make a request of it based on the Diplomacy rules and not have to invoke the Handle Animal skill?

It really depends on what the request is, if it requires something the animal normally can't do because it does not know how or something against it's nature then no Wild Empathy will not help.

I will give you an example with a squirrel

Speak with Animals will allow you to ask the squirrel about his nuts

Wild Empathy with Speak with Animals will help you convince the squirrel to give you or some of his nuts

Handle Animal can push the squirrel to protect your 'nuts'

I'm going to disagree with that. I know this was Mark Moreland's take awhile back, but this actually trivializes the challenge. If you say it's a HA check, then you don't even need SwA.

What's more, HA can be tried again and only takes a full round action. So you're essentially allowing anyone with a +5 modifier to, whether they can SwA or not, to push any animal to do any trick..you just Take 20 and two minutes later some dog on the street is acting as your blood hound.

Doesn't seem right does it?

If you keep this a Wild Empathy check, then you can only try once every 24 hours with any specific request, you can't Take 20. You've also filtered down the number of characters who can even attempt such a thing as only Wild Empathy or a straight charisma check will work. Diplomacy skill modifiers would not apply.

IMHO, you should not be able to "push" an untrained wild animal. Using HA doesn't even have a consequence for failure, so why even use Wild Empathy to begin with?

I think there needs to be a long hard look at how they do this and they should really limit the Animal Companion concerns to Animal Companions and not use fixes needed there as blanket policy for non-ac animals.

N N 959 I have no clue what you are trying to say here...

Speak with Animals will allow you to speak with them, if you use Wild Empathy it will allow you to ask them to perform a favor, this takes at least a minute.

A Favor or Task does not go into the realm of Handle animals, which allows to get an animal to perform task or trick they know as a move action or to push them to do things they don't know how to do but can do as a full round action, which Wild Empathy won't let you do.

Just because you made an animal friendly with Wild Empathy it does not mean they will do favors they normally have no clue how to do or even get an animal to risk their life for you. That falls into the realm of Handle Animal.

Handle Animals is for all Animals, not just Animal Companions.

My question is this: is this an actual, codified nerf for those players with ACs who are trying to use them as extensions of their main PC? Because frankly, the way most DMs allow druids to run, I hate that class with a purple passion.

It isn't a nerf of any kind.

GM's have just been adjudicating the rules incorrectly for quite some time for whatever their reasons were.

Now the rules are much more clear.

It is likely to be a perceived nerf then. Because unenforced rules are just like rules that don't exist at all in the perceptions of many people. I can hear the griping from the dr00ds already. No sympathy here, at all.

N N 959 I have no clue what you are trying to say here...

Speak with Animals will allow you to speak with them, if you use Wild Empathy it will allow you to ask them to perform a favor, this takes at least a minute.

A Favor or Task does not go into the realm of Handle animals, which allows to get an animal to perform task or trick they know as a move action or to push them to do things they don't know how to do but can do as a full round action, which Wild Empathy won't let you do.

Just because you made an animal friendly with Wild Empathy it does not mean they will do favors they normally have no clue how to do or even get an animal to risk their life for you. That falls into the realm of Handle Animal.

Handle Animals is for all Animals, not just Animal Companions.

I think you're missing the overpowering consequence of allowing HA to even function in this situation.

What do I need SwA for if I can push any animal to perform any trick within two minutes of using HA?

And FYI, there's nothing in RAW that states asking an animal to do a favor when using SwA requires a HA check. That is something thrown out on the forums to prevent an end-around on HA checks for AC's.

N N 959 I have no clue what you are trying to say here...

Speak with Animals will allow you to speak with them, if you use Wild Empathy it will allow you to ask them to perform a favor, this takes at least a minute.

A Favor or Task does not go into the realm of Handle animals, which allows to get an animal to perform task or trick they know as a move action or to push them to do things they don't know how to do but can do as a full round action, which Wild Empathy won't let you do.

Just because you made an animal friendly with Wild Empathy it does not mean they will do favors they normally have no clue how to do or even get an animal to risk their life for you. That falls into the realm of Handle Animal.

Handle Animals is for all Animals, not just Animal Companions.

I think I see what he's getting at Dragnmoon (maybe). Let me hazard a guess.

If you W.E. a 'gator, you can get him to be friendly. Then you SwA to ask him to go bite the guy across the lake. This is not a HA check, just a W.E. check? and maybe a Diplomacy check? In any case, it can only be attempted once a day.

But if we put it in as a H.A. check, then it goes like this...
You W.E. the 'gator, to make him friendly. Now you take 20 pushing him with H.A. to go attack the guy across the lake. This takes 2 minutes after the H.A. check, and is an auto success if you have at least +5 on H.A. and doesn't require a SwA spell.

Is this correct N N 959?

Yup. Except that Diplomacy skill doesn't work, it has to be WE or a straight Charisma check.

What's more, HA doesn't require that the gator has to be friendly.

EDIT:
Actually, I don't think you can substitute Charisma checks for W.E. So if you don't have W.E. then you have to use Charm Animal.

wow... this would mean with a good Wild Empathy and a +5 Handle Animal, I could keep sending animals to attack, just random animals in the forrest.

"dang it, that's the third racoon in the past 10 minutes! added to the ducks and the two deer and that darn bear!"

LOL!

Why do you even need W.E.?

I always thought Handle Animal was for domestic animals. Dogs, Horses, Hawks that sort of thing. (Cats? nah, cats aren't tamed, people don't keep cats, cats keep people).

Why do you even need W.E.?

you'd need the W.E. to get them to sit still long enough to give them the the command 20 times. Otherwise they just run off.

edit: Though maybe you could use a cage. And this is getting really silly....

yeah, I don't think that's in the rules anywhere.

It seems like there is still a lot going on here that's 100% DM dependent. That means YMMV when it comes to these situations.

I always thought Handle Animal was for domestic animals. Dogs, Horses, Hawks that sort of thing. (Cats? nah, cats aren't tamed, people don't keep cats, cats keep people).

That is only for teaching them tricks, not getting to perform tasks.

Though in general for a animal you just met in the wild you would need to perform a Wild Empathy check to get them to listen to you or come near you to perform you Handle Animal check because their first reaction is going to either run away or attack depending on the beast.

A little food will keep most wild animals nearby.

nosig wrote:

I always thought Handle Animal was for domestic animals. Dogs, Horses, Hawks that sort of thing. (Cats? nah, cats aren't tamed, people don't keep cats, cats keep people).

That is only for teaching them tricks, not getting to perform tasks.

Though in general for a animal you just met in the wild you would need to perform a Wild Empathy check to get them to listen to you or come near you to perform you Handle Animal check because their first reaction is going to either run away or attack depending on the beast.

Dragnmoon, if it "... is only for teaching them tricks, not getting to perform tasks." why do we roll a Handle Animal check to get them to do a trick (such as "Attack" or "Defend")? And it can be done untrained - but only to get an animal to do a task (and then it is a basic CHA check), and not to train a animal. Getting a horse to pull a load is the "work" trick, right? The command "giddy-up" is a Handle Animal check - even if you just do it un-trained.

A little food will keep most wild animals nearby.

I would give you a Bonus to your Wild Empathy check.

David Bowles wrote:

My question is this: is this an actual, codified nerf for those players with ACs who are trying to use them as extensions of their main PC?

It is an extension of your main pc. Its a huge class feature and a large part of their character.

The complaints about being run like tactical geniuses don't take into account the differences between what the players and characters see. There is little room for tactical genius in pathfinder. If some players, while looking at the abstraction of the battlemat, routinely forget to flank, walk around attacks of opportunity or 5 foot step then the onus is on them to up their game to the level of something you see on wild kingdom. What the animal (the character) sees is blatantly obvious to them: an exposed back, a pole arm being thrust in their face that they have to be careful of, or an enemy too tough to take in a frontal assault.

Because frankly, the way most DMs allow druids to run, I hate that class with a purple passion.

It is in a lot of ways.

Pre anomal archive the rules were that an animal knew how to use its feats and skills: that would include improved trip, grab etc. Now you need to spend a trick on it. The odd thing is that this still applies for something like body guard, which is far more complicated and less natural for a wolf than improved trip. Some people are going to interpret the new stealth trick as needing the trick to use the skill etc.

GM's have just been adjudicating the rules incorrectly for quite some time for whatever their reasons were.

Now the rules are much more clear.

Its raising at least as many questions as it answers.

N N 959 wrote:

A little food will keep most wild animals nearby.

I would give you a Bonus to your Wild Empathy check.

My druid keeps a (dead) pig in his bag of holding and purify food/drink on his spell list to buy enough time to get to know the local carnivores.

Pre anomal archive the rules were that an animal knew how to use its feats and skills: that would include improved trip, grab etc. Now you need to spend a trick on it. The odd thing is that this still applies for something like body guard, which is far more complicated and less natural for a wolf than improved trip. Some people are going to interpret the new stealth trick as needing the trick to use the skill etc.

Not so. If you take Improved Trip, your animal doesn't need the Maneuver trick to use its feat. The Maneuver trick is for if your animal doesn't have a feat. The Animal Archive was written without considering 3+ Int animals taking all these wacky feats.

Quote:

GM's have just been adjudicating the rules incorrectly for quite some time for whatever their reasons were.

Now the rules are much more clear.

Its raising at least as many questions as it answers.

The only questions that seem to be raised, or how this works for PFS (which when an FAQ is forthcoming, that will be answered) and why is this nerfing my animal.

Dragnmoon, if it "... is only for teaching them tricks, not getting to perform tasks." why do we roll a Handle Animal check to get them to do a trick (such as "Attack" or "Defend")? And it can be done untrained - but only to get an animal to do a task (and then it is a basic CHA check), and not to train a animal. Getting a horse to pull a load is the "work" trick, right? The command "giddy-up" is a Handle Animal check - even if you just do it un-trained.

Actually I was wrong, it does not require domestication to teach an animal a trick, though I can imagine that it would make it easier to keep them around.

Of course for PFS it does not really matter since you can't do this with a random animal you found since the time frame will go longer then a normal scenario.

Here is the skill in it entirety (Minus Trick descriptions), to me it is fairly self-explanatory. Notice no where in the skil does it state it needs domestication.

Pre anomal archive the rules were that an animal knew how to use its feats and skills: that would include improved trip, grab etc. Now you need to spend a trick on it. The odd thing is that this still applies for something like body guard, which is far more complicated and less natural for a wolf than improved trip. Some people are going to interpret the new stealth trick as needing the trick to use the skill etc.

I hear what you're saying. But I would submit that the DM can still allow an animal to use/do things that are natural to it. A Rhino should be able to charge into combat. A cat with spring attack should be able to attack and jump back.

I think you would need to a trick to get a gorilla to sneak through a grocery store and not eat the bananas.

Its raising at least as many questions as it answers.

I think the problem is one that is inherent in RPG's. We're trying to apply logic to things that get to ignore logic by their very existence. I also see that illogical restrictions are often needed to keep the game fair. But these cause more problems when they are applied to things they were not mean to address e.g. SwA involving non-AC's.

More rules/tricks means more inconsistencies will arise.

If the AC is high enough level to get the special abilities (in this case the Cat getting Pounce or the Wolf getting Trip) then they can use those special abilities with the attack command.

The Maneuver trick is to get the animal to perform a maneuver it doesn't do naturally (actually have a written ability in its stat block).

Not so. If you take Improved Trip, your animal doesn't need the Maneuver trick to use its feat.

Thats a lot more open to interpretation now, and dms that don't like animal companions are more apt to say no.

GM's have just been adjudicating the rules incorrectly for quite some time for whatever their reasons were.

It was the right call for the info that we had. The rules changed.

The only questions that seem to be raised, or how this works for PFS (which when an FAQ is forthcoming, that will be answered) and why is this nerfing my animal.

1) The whole initiative thing, what happens when the animal acting on its own initiative can't complete the command (at least we know it delays if it goes first, otherwise you can't command the thing at all)

2) Can you swap out an animals tricks, now that you know you need a flank command? Mechanically changing out the entire animal is a piece of cake, it just feels wrong.

3) Do you still need a trick if an animal has a skill/feat to perform a combat maneuver or use a skill? Do you need the sneak trick to get the animal to stealth at all? Hunt seems to be "make the animal use its survival skill" which it should be able to do by virtue of having the survival skill.

4) The "guard" and "watch" commands are almost identical, as are "Detect" and "seek".

I think a bigger problem is the enforcement of these rules. There is so much hand-waiving of AC and druids. D&D 3.5 designed the rules to limit the effectiveness of AC's. But as others have observed, every druid I've seen gets to play their AC like another PC.

A particularly problematic area is AC's and Perception checks. Technically, a Druid/Ranger has no way to know what the animal sees or hears, but DM's frequently act as if there is telepathic/clairvoyant link between them.

"Your animal sees three goblins hiding in the dark."

So just to clarify, Feat > Trick?

If my Cavaliers Mount (with 3 Int) has the Outflank teamwork feat, it doesn't ALSO need to purchase the flank 'trick'? or does it actually now have to purchase both?

I think a bigger problem is the enforcement of these rules. There is so much hand-waiving of AC and druids. D&D 3.5 designed the rules to limit the effectiveness of AC's.

Its not much of a limit. Having the animal act without any tactical acumen is usually going to hurt other players more than the animal when the pet charges to block a charge or a bowshot for example.

But as others have observed, every druid I've seen gets to play their AC like another PC.

once you hit +11 handle animal and a 3 int you pretty much could, by having every trick in the book.

A particularly problematic area is AC's and Perception checks. Technically, a Druid/Ranger has no way to know what the animal sees or hears, but DM's frequently act as if there is telepathic/clairvoyant link between them.

The dog barks, points, raises its hackles, gives a quiet wuff, or just stares intently... it probably can't say "Goblin" but its owner can easily interpret "something worth pulling my sword out for".

N N 959 wrote:

I think a bigger problem is the enforcement of these rules. There is so much hand-waiving of AC and druids. D&D 3.5 designed the rules to limit the effectiveness of AC's.

Its not much of a limit. Having the animal act without any tactical acumen is usually going to hurt other players more than the animal when the pet charges to block a charge or a bowshot for example.

lol. PC's already to that to one another. Unfortunately, the druids I've teamed with are even worse. They have no compunction about sending their pet in to block out other PC's or provide soft cover for the bad guys.

once you hit +11 handle animal and a 3 int you pretty much could, by having every trick in the book.

You have me at a disadvantage here. The Animal Type says no creature with a 3 Int can be an animal. So I'm not really sure I understand how PF or PFS is allowing Druids/Rangers with 3 int animals to retain them as AC's.

If you're referring to Paladin Mounts, PF just messed this up. The whole AC and Tricks and what not that Paizo took from WotC treated Paladin Mounts as magical beast from the get go. A paladin's mount has an empathic link in 3.5 and I've not seen HA used to cotnrol them.

When Paizo turned a Paladin's mount into an AC and made it use the AC's rules, Paizo forced a round peg to fit into square hole. So I'm not going to try and make sense of it.

Quote:

A particularly problematic area is AC's and Perception checks. Technically, a Druid/Ranger has no way to know what the animal sees or hears, but DM's frequently act as if there is telepathic/clairvoyant link between them.

The dog barks, points, raises its hackles, gives a quiet wuff, or just stares intently... it probably can't say "Goblin" but its owner can easily interpret "something worth pulling my sword out for".

And if that's what DM's did in my experience, I wouldn't be talking about this with you.

Funny you point this out, I haven't had a GM give my AC a roll for Perception, then again I never asked either.

lol. PC's already to that to one another. Unfortunately, the druids I've teamed with are even worse. They have no compunction about sending their pet in to block out other PC's or provide soft cover for the bad guys.

You really can't complain that the pet can only realistically attack in a straightforward manner and then blame the druid for having the pet attack in a straightforward manner.

If its a matter between a charging pounce from an AC and the party bard walking up and hitting something for 1d6-1 points of damage.. yeah I'm sending kitty in.

You have me at a disadvantage here. The Animal Type says no creature with a 3 Int can be an animal.

Thats for monsters being designed from the ground up. The core rule book specifically references your ability to up their int to 3. Usually thats done by raising their int at 4 hd, but you can also send their int to 4 with the human alternate ability "eye for talent".

They remain creatures of the animal type for purposes of determining which spells can affect them.

Animal companions with an Intelligence of 3 or higher can put ranks into any skill.

The monkey see monkey do Blog clarified that the above trumps the line in the bestiary.

And if that's what DM's did in my experience, I wouldn't be talking about this with you.

Or the dm is trying to put the onus on the Druids player to decide how the animal would react, based on its personality.

You really can't complain that the pet can only realistically attack in a straightforward manner and then blame the druid for having the pet attack in a straightforward manner.

Let's try and keep the facts straight. I personally haven't seen DM's make any effort to control the manner in which AC's operate. So we're talking about players failing to exhibit any tactical savvy when they are given nearly complete autonomy over their pet, but hope springs eternal.

Telling me that these new rules force animals to attack in a straight forward manner wouldn't have had any effect in the games I've played,

If its a matter between a charging pounce from an AC and the party bard walking up and hitting something for 1d6-1 points of damage.. yeah I'm sending kitty in.

Vintage straw man argument. I'm talking about situations where you have 18 STR barbarians or rangers using Rapid Shot, Gravity Bow and getting Bit of Luck from a Witch.

It's been my experience that people who play druids want to try and prove they are the big guns in melee and aren't too concerned about who that marginalizes, but I'm hoping that I'm just a victim of a small sample size.

Thats for monsters being designed from the ground up. The core rule book specifically references your ability to up their int to 3.

This reaffirms something I just posted. D&D 3.5 never allowed this. So Paizo has taken a system designed with one set of rules in mind and then altered some of the core assumptions without revamping all the dependent rules. Of course it's going result in problems and nonsensical outcomes.

Or the dm is trying to put the onus on the Druids player to decide how the animal would react, based on its personality.

The problem is many DM's don't want to have take precious minutes out of the game to finesse an AC. In 3.5, the DM is suppose to control the animal, not the player. The player interacts with their AC like an NPC. I've never seen that done in PFS, have you?

GM's have just been adjudicating the rules incorrectly for quite some time for whatever their reasons were.

You see, I disagree with this idea that people were "doing it wrong" before. Before Animal Archive there were no rules one way or the other about whether a trick was needed for an animal to flank or use stealth, some players just had different ideas on hoe it should be, likely having the type of animal influencing this (wolves flanking based in the 3.5 MM description, cats being stealthy pretty much all the time etc).

These new rules are okay, but imho shouldn't become a straitjacket that prevents an animal using its skills and feats (e.g. use Stealth while performing Track trip, use Escape Artist to chew through a tether to reach its master who just used the Come command).

These new rules are okay, but imho shouldn't become a straitjacket that prevents an animal using its skills and feats (e.g. use Stealth while performing Track trip, use Escape Artist to chew through a tether to reach its master who just used the Come command).

Well in all honesty the DM should be running all of the NPCs, and this includes animal companions and summoned monsters.

As to whether or not they should or shouldn't flank.. if you were running a pack of wolves attacking the party, would they try to flank the PCs? If so, then you'd want the AC wolf to have a trick to stop him from wanting to do that rather than requiring him to have the trick to do what's natural.

Tricks should be about communicating your desires to the Animal Companion, and getting them to do things that they wouldn't naturally do. If anyone thinks that wolves don't naturally try to flank, then I'm curious what they think flanking means..

-James