Animals and Their Tricks

Is the Flank trick supposed to not be subject to the normal enemy-type restriction (no undead, aberrations, etc) of (single trick) Attack, albeit Flank requires focusing on one enemy (aside from AoOs) while Attack is more open ended and could allow simultaneously attacking multiple enemies, for example...??? Or is Flank's "instruct[ing] an animal to attack a foe you point to..." supposed to mean you are actually also using the Attack trick (subject to that trick's limitations unless specifically changed)? AFAIK, Defend doesn't invoke the Attack trick in any way, so not being subject to Attack's limitations, it will defend against undead and aberrations just fine, but Flank says "instruct an animal to attack" which could be referring to A) the trick B) the game mechanic "attack" C) just plain english for attack...???

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.

But are the players? I don't usually have the ac loop all the way around just because he probably wouldn't. I can't be the only one.

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.

the player not being good with tactics is hardly unique to the druid.

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,

without an express flank trick this is what a lot of folks were doing.

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.

This is, again, not unique to the druid. If someone has a melee druid or has a pimped out AC they have just as much right to the real estate as the melee barbarian. Just because you think the class is supposed to hang back and cast from a distance doesn't mean that that's how people have to play the class or else they're being jerks. If someone's build can be marginalized by an animal companion amd that bothers them, then the onus is on them to rethink their drink.

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.

3.5 did allow it: when the critter got 4hd they got a stat boost and there was no limit as to what stat it went onto. I also can't find a restriction on what feats they could take. 3.5 also let you put a magical item on every slot of the critter (including a snake wearing a boot and two rings)

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...

Thats a cultural thing, not a rules thing. I know i'd be pretty miffed if the had a bunch of goblins set vs charge and then had my AC charge right into it to get him killed.

I personally feel that the animal companion "class feature" is far too strong for a *9th level spell caster* that already has a very powerful class feature in *wild shape*.

I don't want DMs to have to control ACs, but I do wish they didn't have access to multiple attacks at first level, or be able to outshine reasonably built actual melee PCs under any circumstances. They can be compensated for in homebrews, but in PFS, no such luck.

N N 959 wrote:

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.

But are the players? I don't usually have the ac loop all the way around just because he probably wouldn't. I can't be the only one.

So you admit an animal wouldn't loop around and the rules are saying the animal won't loop around. What's the problem?

Quote:

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,

without an express flank trick this is what a lot of folks were doing.

Ah...no. Off the top of my head, I can recall two scenarios I played with a druid and their melee bear. Not once did either even contemplate a flank with their AC. Every single time, the bear went straight in. A very very small subset of players actually pay attention to positioning, ime.

This is, again, not unique to the druid. If someone has a melee druid or has a pimped out AC they have just as much right to the real estate as the melee barbarian.

Once again, you're marching out straw men. No low level AC, no matter how pimped out they are, is coming anywhere close to an 18 STR two-handing barbarian with Rage and PA. That's +12 on damage for a standard build. The divide between real martial combatants and AC's gets worse as you go up in level.

When I say "marginalize" I mean acts which prevent real frontliners from doing their job, like blocking a fighter from having access to a target.

Pretending every party is filled with nothing but short sword wielding 8 STR bards is hurting your credibility in this discussion. If you tell me you've been in scenarios where your AC had the highest attack and expected damage. I'm sure it happens. But I'm talking about observed default behavior which seems to be independent of the party composition.

Just because you think the class is supposed to hang back and cast from a distance doesn't mean that that's how people have to play the class or else they're being jerks. If someone's build can be marginalized by an animal companion amd that bothers them, then the onus is on them to rethink their drink.

You are absolutely crushing those straw man. I haven't seen anyone in this thread say druids are supposed to hang back and casts spells. And I have yet to see an AC who marginalized any frontliner build given the same build intelligence on both ends.

3.5 did allow it: when the critter got 4hd they got a stat boost and there was no limit as to what stat it went onto.

I'm looking at P 36 of the PHB and I'm not seeing it. There are STR/DEX adjustment, but there is no generic stat adjustment. I've looked through the Rules Compendium and read the Rules of Games archives on Animals and absolutely no where does it talk about 3 int animals learning new tricks. I have no idea where you are seeing what you claim you see.

Let's step back and refocus. AC's have been given carte blanche, ime. But now, the difference between enforcing the rules and not has become greater. Micro-managing people's AC's is not something I want to do as DM and I'm betting most DM's feel the same way.

I would love to watch a couple of games where Druids and their AC's were managed per RAW.

So you admit an animal wouldn't loop around and the rules are saying the animal won't loop around. What's the problem?

The problem is that you say

A) the animal won't loop around and
B) That damn bear is in the barbarians charge lane.

Allowing the bear loop around would solve a lot of your issues.

Whether I had the animal loop around pre animal archive had always depended on whether or not someone was there first. IMHO, recognizing an existing opportunity to flank is well within an animals ability, recognizing the possibility of a future flank is a bit iffier: mind you I've seen crows pull off some team tactics that would put the blue angels to shame.

The divide between real martial combatants and AC's gets worse as you go up in level.

I can make an argument for the critter, but what you're expecting is that someone with the worse character steps aside for someone with the better character, which is a little rare in organized play. There's a number of reasons for this: i don't always remember that the funny looking guy in glasses across from me IS playing a barbarian, or how good they are, don't want to give up my chance for someone else, huh, barbarian? What barbar...ooo shiney!... but all those reasons are independent of the animal companion itself.

When I say "marginalize" I mean acts which prevent real frontliners from doing their job, like blocking a fighter from having access to a target.

And did you consider the possibility that i misunderstood you rather than, for some reason, needed to twist your point?

Also: the bear is the 8 strength bard of animal companions.

'm looking at P 36 of the PHB and I'm not seeing it. There are STR/DEX adjustment, but there is no generic stat adjustment. I've looked through the Rules Compendium and read the Rules of Games archives on Animals and absolutely no where does it talk about 3 int animals learning new tricks. I have no idea where you are seeing what you claim you see.

They got increased hit dice. Increased hit dice= a free stat boost at 4 8 12 hit dice, just like with any other monster. The floating stat boost isn't a pathfinder addition, its been an inherent part of the rules that have been there since 3.0. Pathfinder added it to the chart because a lot of people missed it otherwise: look where the stat boosts come from in relation to the HD.

You are absolutely crushing those straw man. I haven't seen anyone in this thread say druids are supposed to hang back and casts spells.

Ok, so if you have a melee druid and/or ac and there's only one slot open in front of the enemy they should... ?

I would love to watch a couple of games where Druids and their AC's were managed per RAW.

You're kind of out of luck because raw on the matter isn't nearly as specific as you think it is.

The problem is that you say

A) the animal won't loop around and
B) That damn bear is in the barbarians charge lane.

Allowing the bear loop around would solve a lot of your issues.

And ime (which I admit is a very small sample size) players who are given the latitude to loop around don't because it often involves missing an attack round or perhaps forgoing a full round action...or worse...actually stopping to consider another party member exists.

I think we both agree that on some occasion an animal would loop around and/or avoid danger when pathing. I am also of the opinion that any pack hunters would naturally flank.

I can make an argument for the critter...

I suspect that argument involves a fighter with feats like Fast learner and Alertness

but what you're expecting is that someone with the worse character steps aside for someone with the better character, which is a little rare in organized play.

Bingo! But seriously, what I am expecting is people to have a modicum of self-awareness about who on their team is good at what.

That being said, I can see how that doesn't happen if nobody bothers to share their character sheets. I'm often appalled at the lack of other players willingness to learn about each other's strengths and weaknesses.

...but all those reasons are independent of the animal companion itself.

The reasons are independent, but the problem is manifests because of the existence of the animal companion. It's usually not a wizard's Toad familar refusing to take a 5' step each round so the rest of the party can get in on the fight.

And did you consider the possibility that i misunderstood you rather than, for some reason, needed to twist your point?

Was that not obvious when I explained what I meant by "marginalized?"

Also: the bear is the 8 strength bard of animal companions.

lol. You realize that only increases the insult of the situation I'm describing right? :)

They got increased hit dice. Increased hit dice= a free stat boost at 4 8 12 hit dice, just like with any other monster.

That's not what the rules state. Here is a direct quote form the PHB p 36

An animal companion gains additional skill points and feats for bonus HD as normal for advancing a monster’s Hit Dice (see the Monster Manual).

That's it. The only thing they get are the feats and skills. Nowhere on the animal companion description does it say they get the ability score adjustment of monsters. AC's have their own advancement table which includes ability adjustments but does not automatically include everything from the normal animal advancement. In addition, no advanced animal is allowed to raise it's Int to 3 because that would violate the type restrictions.

There's a four article series in the Rules of the Game archive on AC's and nowhere does it talk about an ability score adjustment every four HD. Why? Because they don't get it. Either Paizo incorrectly assumed they did or they simply chose to add it.

Ok, so if you have a melee druid and/or ac and there's only one slot open in front of the enemy they should... ?

Come on man, give those straw men a rest. You've been marching them out all week.

You're kind of out of luck because raw on the matter isn't nearly as specific as you think it is.

Raw is very specific on a lot of things regarding AC's. None of which have I seen enforced. Tell me with a straight face you haven't seen DM's let AC's get manipulated like they were PC's?

I suspect that argument involves a fighter with feats like Fast learner and Alertness

Animal companion walks around. It looses up to 4 attacks (because it otherwise could have charged/pounced) .

Barbarian walks around and takes a whack: he looses pretty much just the +2 from the charge.

Bingo! But seriously, what I am expecting is people to have a modicum of self-awareness about who on their team is good at what.

Which is very problematic in society play because you probably don't know the other characters as well.

The reasons are independent, but the problem is manifests because of the existence of the animal companion. It's usually not a wizard's Toad familar refusing to take a 5' step each round so the rest of the party can get in on the fight.

Its usually another player. AC or not doesn't change that.

Was that not obvious when I explained what I meant by "marginalized?"

No, because you started lambasting me as if that wasn't what happened.

Also: the bear is the 8 strength bard of animal companions.

And you're trying to apply that situation to every animal companion.

Ok, so if you have a melee druid and/or ac and there's only one slot open in front of the enemy they should... ?

Quote:

Come on man, give those straw men a rest. You've been marching them out all week.

You keep using that word. I don not think it means what you think it means.

I asked you a question to find out what your position is. How on earth is that attacking a weaker position than the one you hold?

Raw is very specific on a lot of things regarding AC's. None of which have I seen enforced. Tell me with a straight face you haven't seen DM's let AC's get manipulated like they were PC's?

Given your proclivity for assuming that all of my answers are a disingenuous attempt at attacking a position you don't hold, I'm going to have to ask you to be more specific.

You keep using that word. I don not think it means what you think it means.

A straw man argument arises when you attempt to argue something that's not being debated or disagreed with. In essence you're marching out a faux army and defeating it to look like you've succeeded at some argument. Except you're arguing against something you've invented.

I asked you a question to find out what your position is. How on earth is that attacking a weaker position than the one you hold?

Sorry, I thought it was a rhetorical question because it is so lacking in any specifics, I can't possibly answer it.

No, because you started lambasting me as if that wasn't what happened.

I'm lambasting you for throwing out the 1d6-1 bard and pretending that's who I'm concerned about.

Given your proclivity for assuming that all of my answers are a disingenuous attempt at attacking a position you don't hold, I'm going to have to ask you to be more specific.

It's a figure of speech, not an indictment.

I get the sense you and I are probably a lot closer in mindset than our exchange might indicate. I think we have both gotten sidetracked into trying to defend something that isn't really in need of defending.

Bottom line, I think the AC rules are a mess. They were a mess before Paizo took them from WotC and now they are more of a mess. I think the concept of how AC's should work is fine. The fundamental problem is the inherent need for the DM to micro-manage a class feature that is crucial to the viability of the class. It's an unwieldy set of mechanics made worse by the nature of the PFS environment (multiple DMs with time limit scenarios). I would like to see PFS come up with a system that improves the consistency with which this stuff is managed across DM's.

That's where I have to disagree. Druids are pretty damn good if they cash out the AC for the domain spells. ACs are not crucial to the viability of druids. They are like super gravy that I always seen allowed to be used as another PC.

I think we both agree that on some occasion an animal would loop around and/or avoid danger when pathing. I am also of the opinion that any pack hunters would naturally flank.

The presence of the 'flank' trick shouldn't be taken that animals don't flank without it. If I saw a table where a pack of wolves were attacking the PCs and the DM didn't have the wolves flank, then I'd speak to them about it after the slot.

Here's my reading of the two tricks:

Attack (pointed to singular foe):
Animal goes to attack foe if readily possible, does not provoke AOOs to do so, and can be distracted by a new significant threat away from pointed target. Animal flanks in order to aid their own attacks when reasonable.

Flank:
Animal goes to attack foe even if not readily possible, would provoke AOOs to do so, and won't be distracted away from target by a new threat. Animal flanks in order to give flanking for others, even when not reasonable to do so (putting them more in harm's way, etc).

There doesn't seem to be *any* conflict here.. the *sole* problem is that it seems that in some places some druids are running Animal Companions with a hive mind for the player. DMs, if they see an issue, should handle this directly.

One easy way to do so is for the DM to run all NPCs from the start. The druid issues the commands to the animal companion and the DM runs them, any summons, as well as the bad guys.

If the DM chooses they can then let someone else run some of the party's NPCs as it best suits the table. Just as the DM could have another player keeping track of initiatives, etc.

This way you head off at the pass the following:

1. Pet masters metagaming.
2. Other players at tables with Pet masters feeling like the Pet master gets too much to run compared to them.

etc..

-James

The fundamental problem is the inherent need for the DM to micro-manage a class feature that is crucial to the viability of the class.

I don't see an inherent need for this, or what you want to accomplish by it.

Its not RAW that the DM has to run/micromanage the critter (its open to interpretation)Once you hit +9 handle animal (easy at first level with 1 rank +3 class +4 link +2 training harness and -1 charisma ) the animal is pretty much under your control by the rules for 99% of the things you'd want it to do. With the right selection of tricks (combat training package +attack a second time) It attacks who you want, will follow you where you want, will attack things that attack you without being told to, and guard the camp: its already ahead of most pathfinders :)

I don't see it as metagaming for an animal to use good tactics, so there's no purpose in trying to stop them from doing so.
In my opinion an animal acting of its own volition would probably use better tactics than many pcs. This doesn't mean that the animal is smarter than a the players, just that its easier to see a flank on an ogre when you're looking at an ogres back than when you see a mini on a mat.

You let the player run the critter by and large(especially once they've got a +9 handle animal) and every once in a while question its actions: the same way you do with players every once in a while. (No Bob, your int 6 barbarian with no ranks in craft alchemy is NOT building a uranium centrifuge..) You'd probably get better results by encouraging people to role play the animal as a second character than by trying to reduce it to mechanics or an npc. The rules aren't a mess they're just subjective, and they kind of have to be. You can't make rules for something as diverse as animal behavior.

Issues with people taking up "someone elses" real estate probably belong in a separate thread.

A hah, knew i found a replacement trick somewhere.

You can upgrade from riding to combat

Riding:come, heel, and stay

Combat Training: attack, come, defend, down, guard, and heel.

You may also “upgrade” an animal trained for riding to one trained for combat by spending 3 weeks and making a successful DC 20 Handle Animal check. The new general purpose and tricks completely replace the animal's previous purpose and any tricks it once knew

You can read that as setting a precedent for replacing tricks.

Even if you read that as the exception rather than the rule, by a strict reading of it you can replace ALL of the tricks your animal knows with combat training, rendering the extra tricks blank, which you can fill in with the new tricks.

That's where I have to disagree. Druids are pretty damn good if they cash out the AC for the domain spells. ACs are not crucial to the viability of druids. They are like super gravy that I always seen allowed to be used as another PC.

You're reading into my statement, something that wasn't said. If you have an AC, if a Druid has an AC, it is crucial to the class.

That is not the same as saying a druid who opts out of the AC is not viable.

N N 959 wrote:

The fundamental problem is the inherent need for the DM to micro-manage a class feature that is crucial to the viability of the class.

I don't see an inherent need for this, or what you want to accomplish by it.

Because the animal is an animal, not a sentient PC. It should always behave like an animal of its type. A hawk doesn't go around attacking dragons on sight. It would behave like an animal, not like a robot, regardless of what your HA skills.

But at a table, I am not motivated to monitor every action taken by an AC and decide whether that is typical for the animal. I don't want to get into a game stalling discussion about what is natural for a bear vs a boar vs a badger. I'm more motivated to just hand-waive the whole thing. And that's exactly what I've seen other DM's do.

...the animal is pretty much under your control by the rules for 99% of the things you'd want it to do.

No, the animal is not under the control of the PC. It is a separate being. HA limits you to a few tricks, not carte blanche mind control.

I don't see it as metagaming for an animal to use good tactics, so there's no purpose in trying to stop them from doing so.

There's a difference between good tactics and tactics I don't see 85% of the the players using.

In my opinion an animal acting of its own volition would probably use better tactics than many pcs.

No they wouldn't. Animals have no idea who/what a spell casters is or that someone wearing scale mail would be harder to hit than someone wearing a t-shirt. Come'on dude, now you are being disingenuous.

The rules aren't a mess they're just subjective

Which is what makes them a mess. Good rules are easily implemented and provide a consistent outcome given the exact same set of facts. Bad rules lead to wildly different outcomes given the same set of conditions. One of the tenants of our legal system is that laws are ambiguous (and thus unconstitutional) if rational minds can disagree about how they should be applied given the same fact pattern. And that's what we have hear. Rational minds disagreeing about how rules should work given the same exact fact pattern = Bad rules for an organized play system.

You can't make rules for something as diverse as animal behavior.

That's just completely false. You can easily make rules for animal behavior. We've got rules for imaginary alignments.

At this point, you're unwilling to concede anything damaging to your desired outcome and resorting to unfounded assertions. You're not interested in a solution, you're motivated to defend as much territory as you can.

Because the animal is an animal, not a sentient PC. It should always behave like an animal of its type. A hawk doesn't go around attacking dragons on sight. It would behave like an animal, not like a robot, regardless of what your HA skills.

Ok, I've completely lost track of what your point is now. What are you objecting to here?

Every animal companion AC i've ever heard of has had the attack trick. . The Druid rolls handle animal, gets a 10, the hawk attacks the dragon. Most DM's forgo the roll because most druids have handle animal at +9 and they literally can't fail the roll. Leafytree says "sic'em", the Orvile the hawk attacks. By the raw, strait forward, and clear as crystal.

Are you saying that the handle animal skill shouldn't do that?

No, the animal is not under the control of the PC. It is a separate being. HA limits you to a few tricks, not carte blanche mind control.

Some VERY versatile tricks. What do you need the Critter to do that you can't get them to do with the basic combat + attack x2 package? They cover most of combat.

There's a difference between good tactics and tactics I don't see 85% of the the players using.

I disagree. Ive seen a lot of unaware players and a lot of smart critters.

No they wouldn't. Animals have no idea who/what a spell casters is or that someone wearing scale mail would be harder to hit than someone wearing a t-shirt. Come'on dude, now you are being disingenuous.

I agree with you on spellcasters, but again, "attack the spellcaster... erm.. that one there! *point*" is a neigh automatic handle animal check.

Animals don't like to attack weird things that they're not familiar with. Metal sounds, smells, and looks funny leading to a preference of other targets.

Which is what makes them a mess. Good rules are easily implemented. Bad rules lead to wildly different outcomes given the same set of conditions.

Its always a trade off for complexity vs. usability.

That's just completely false. You can easily make rules for animal behavior. We've got rules for imaginary alignments.

And everyone is on the same page about how those work?

At this point, you're unwilling to concede anything damaging to your desired outcome and resorting to unfounded assertions. You're not interested in a solution, you're motivated to defend as much territory as you can.

I've about had it with your aspersions on my character and intellectual honesty. Honestly your words are not nearly as clear in their intent as you think they are.

Ok, I've completely lost track of what your point is now. What are you objecting to here?

Animals being used like PC's, providing info like they are a PC, performing complex actions like they are PCs.

I disagree. Ive seen a lot of unaware players and a lot of smart critters.

This crosses the fuzzy line between the player vs the character and is not a profitable discussion for the issue at hand, imo.

Animals don't like to attack weird things that they're not familiar with. Metal sounds, smells, and looks funny leading to a preference of other targets.

That's actually not always true. They've shown in a several studies that sharks were far more likely to attack manikins in bright orange life vests than those without. The theory is that the sharks were drawn to the color and testing it as a food source.

Not really important to the discussion, but an FYI.

Quote:

Which is what makes them a mess. Good rules are easily implemented. Bad rules lead to wildly different outcomes given the same set of conditions.

Its always a trade off for complexity vs. usability.

But we aren't getting usability, ime. That's my main issue. The rules are largely ignored and when they are used, there's little consensus on how it should work other than repeating what a dev might have said. What's worse, is that the way the rules are supposed to be played (from my understanding), it is not fun for the player or the DM. Instead of adding an element of depth, it becomes an exercise in tedium and minutia. As a DM, I don't want to deal with a druid taking 2 minutes to get her animal to do all the things she doesn't have as a learned trick.

Look, I've only played so many games in PFS with druids and their AC's. So maybe my experiences are unique. But from the posts I've seen here, it doesn't sound like my experiences are uncommon. It's also clear that there are different problems at different levels. I'm not familiar with high level druid play in PFS.

Animals being used like PC's

Specifically?

providing info like they are a PC

Is the DM's prerogative, and IMHO something they SHOULD do so the player can at least be given the opportunity to decide how the animal companion reacts. For example my Velociraptor would gleefully charge three goblins while my upcoming anklysaurus would just move in between the druid and the threat. In a home game my DM would probably know the difference in their personalities. In Organized play... not so much.

A good player will have the animal companion act like an animal. Yes, it runs the risk of metagaming, but so does telling the scout when he's gone ahead of the party. It also runs into the somewhat vague awareness/surprise rules.

performing complex actions like they are PCs.

The game rules for flanking and other complex actions can be difficult to understand from a rules perspective, but they are incredibly easy and instinctive to DO.

There's now a flank trick, so thats pretty much solved for me. I had extra slots, took the trick, no argument, no muss no fuss, my critters don't flunk flank.

This crosses the fuzzy line between the player vs the character and is not a profitable discussion for the issue at hand, imo.

If someone isn't having their character act as smart as a wolf and is bothered by that the onus is on them to up their game. Ask the more tactical players what to look out for, run a few off the books combats for practice, play with a few different groups so you can pick up tips and tricks from a wide variety of people etc.

But we aren't getting usability, ime. That's my main issue. The rules are largely ignored

I think you're thinking that there are rules for things that there aren't rules for, or you don't see how you could get the animal to do things that you see them doing by raw.

What's worse, is that the way the rules are supposed to be played (from my understanding), it is not fun for the player or the DM. Instead of adding an element of depth, it becomes an exercise in tedium and minutia. As a DM, I don't want to deal with a druid taking 2 minutes to get her animal to do all the things she doesn't have as a learned trick.

What are folks doing at your tables that the critter doesn't have a trick for? Running the critters by the rules has been a breeze since level 3 (even if explaining it would take a little bit)

Look, I've only played so many games in PFS with druids and their AC's. So maybe my experiences are unique.

It looks to me like you've got issues with a number of things in the game (player cooporation/coordination/poorly designed critters and metagaming) and you're wrapping them up in a big timey whimey ball with the handle animal rules.

I didn't mean to read into your statement. I assert that druids are viable without ACs or the domain spell. They have that many tricks.

I didn't mean to read into your statement. I assert that druids are viable without ACs or the domain spell. They have that many tricks.

And I'm sure some people would argue their sorcerer is viable without spells. I think we are playing semantics with what it means to be viable.

This is not a discussion about the usefulness of a druid given a, b, or c. It's a discussion about how animals are handled and, ime, the lack of enforcement. The AC is a major component of the druid's who have them and I've never seen a DM impose RAW on them.

Every animal companion AC i've ever heard of has had the attack trick. . The Druid rolls handle animal, gets a 10, the hawk attacks the dragon. Most DM's forgo the roll because most druids have handle animal at +9 and they literally can't fail the roll. Leafytree says "sic'em", the Orvile the hawk attacks. By the raw, strait forward, and clear as crystal.

Precisely so!

It seems to be a doomed if you do, doomed if you don't bit of logic here.

If the GM saves playtime by simply knowing it will be an auto-pass and the animal will carry out the command, why waste valueable time rolling and making checks?

"BUT NOW THE ANIMAL IS JUST ACTING LIKE A ROBOT!!!" comes the cry of the disgruntled.

"I hear you dear player, it ruins your game, we shall institute dice rolls and checks, to assist you suspend your disbelief and make it appear more like the way yuo want... ROLL ON dead Druid, ROLL ON"

"BUT NOW YOU ARE WASTING VALUABLE GAME TIME WITH AC'S AND IT TAKES THE DRUID LONGER TO HAVE HIS TURN!!!" comes the cry of the disgruntled.

/TL;DR

The more granular and micro you insist the rules-set is for running the AC, the longer his turn will take.

EVEN IF he played that AC as an extension of his character and the Wolf had the tactical accumen of Clauswitz, Napoleon, and Sun-Tzu rolled into one, what would it matter?

What matters is quick and simple execution of a rulesset so that the player can have his turn done pronto and the game clicks on and continues at a good pace.

David Bowles wrote:

I didn't mean to read into your statement. I assert that druids are viable without ACs or the domain spell. They have that many tricks.

And I'm sure some people would argue their sorcerer is viable without spells. I think we are playing semantics with what it means to be viable.

This is not a discussion about the usefulness of a druid given a, b, or c. It's a discussion about how animals are handled and, ime, the lack of enforcement. The AC is a major component of the druid's who have them and I've never seen a DM impose RAW on them.

I agree with that. I would also say that the AC is *too* major of a component for too many players. The bottom line is that when I bring up AC rules at tables, DMs either a) give in to the whining from the player with the AC or b) cite table time limits and just let the players with the ACs do whatever they like.

I also assert that this issue is hard to separate from the issue of the ACs being too good in the first place. If they weren't capable of ruining a fighter PCs experience by effectively replacing them, it wouldn't be a big deal.

BigNorseWolf wrote:

Every animal companion AC i've ever heard of has had the attack trick. . The Druid rolls handle animal, gets a 10, the hawk attacks the dragon. Most DM's forgo the roll because most druids have handle animal at +9 and they literally can't fail the roll. Leafytree says "sic'em", the Orvile the hawk attacks. By the raw, strait forward, and clear as crystal.

Precisely so!

It seems to be a doomed if you do, doomed if you don't bit of logic here.

If the GM saves playtime by simply knowing it will be an auto-pass and the animal will carry out the command, why waste valueable time rolling and making checks?

"BUT NOW THE ANIMAL IS JUST ACTING LIKE A ROBOT!!!" comes the cry of the disgruntled.

"I hear you dear player, it ruins your game, we shall institute dice rolls and checks, to assist you suspend your disbelief and make it appear more like the way yuo want... ROLL ON dead Druid, ROLL ON"

"BUT NOW YOU ARE WASTING VALUABLE GAME TIME WITH AC'S AND IT TAKES THE DRUID LONGER TO HAVE HIS TURN!!!" comes the cry of the disgruntled.

/TL;DR

The more granular and micro you insist the rules-set is for running the AC, the longer his turn will take.

EVEN IF he played that AC as an extension of his character and the Wolf had the tactical accumen of Clauswitz, Napoleon, and Sun-Tzu rolled into one, what would it matter?

What matters is quick and simple execution of a rulesset so that the player can have his turn done pronto and the game clicks on and continues at a good pace.

I don't care about simple attacks as much as complex combat maneuvering and the whole "I see everything my animal sees" schtick. And players never rolling to push for tricks their ACs don't know, because they never bothered to define which tricks they have because DMs never asked them to use a pet command.

It matters how ACs get to be implemented, because I have both played in and ran games where they made PC melee characters redundant and because PFS is still kind of weak sauce on the challenge department, the ACs just rofl stomp their way through scenarios.

So you are saying the problem with players with AC's is that they deliberately cheat by not defining the AC's tricks?

Making PC's redundant is neither here nor there and meaningless in conversation. I've been at tables where a blind chipmunk could outdo the PC's because their characters were built terribly, and played even worse, so thats not the chimpmunks fault, that's just bad players.

A good player will come with a good build and hold their own, weak players have get the redundancy they bring on themselves.

I am more interested in the outright cheating by omission you are observing, and curious why you don't bring it up at the time. We'd all expect a player to designate their feats and skill points, why is this different?

The problems you are describing as 'AC issues' actually appear to be honesty and integrity issues, which is another conversation entirely.

I agree with that. ***The bottom line is that when I bring up AC rules at tables, DMs either a) give in to the whining from the player with the AC or b) cite table time limits and just let the players with the ACs do whatever they like.

Amen. At least someone is willing to affirm my experiences are not unique.

a fighter PCs experience by effectively replacing them, it wouldn't be a big deal.

The only time I see something like that is if the druid is level +3 with tweak feats and the fighter is a non-human trying to TWF. Or the "fighter" is some BAB = 0 at level 1 class and built for RP.

I don't care about simple attacks as much as complex combat maneuvering and the whole "I see everything my animal sees" schtick. And players never rolling to push for tricks their ACs don't know, because they never bothered to define which tricks they have because DMs never asked them to use a pet command.

I swear you must have played a scenario next to me. This is EXACTLY what I experienced through the last two scenarios of QFP. The 1st level druid never filled out their tricks despite my telling them that they got all seven at start up. IIRC, the DM did not ask for a single HA skill through two scenarios. Nevermind that the AC fought until faceplant.

The problem is that not only do they effectively have every trick on animals of 1 int, but when brought up, everyone wants to sweep it under the rug. This seems to get a pass because it has always seemed to have gotten a pass in Ohio.

"The only time I see something like that is if the druid is level +3 with tweak feats and the fighter is a non-human trying to TWF. Or the "fighter" is some BAB = 0 at level 1 class and built for RP"

Tight spaced fights where the AC moves faster and has better init than the actual party fighter. The cat moves in and does all the work, while fighter hangs out and languishes.

For ACs not to be an issue, PFS needs to be a lot more dangerous. A lot more enemies that can shell out the melee damage to actually threaten an AC in a meaningful way after all the druid buffs go on. NPCs templated with barbarian and fighter that have intelligent feat selections would be good for this, but PFS seems to like the inflict damage through explosion type traps and goober NPCs wielding wands. Wands have terrible DCs and ACs have evasion. Yet another way they make the rank and file fighter look stupid.

I refuse to separate this issue, because if ACs weren't OP, then this thread would be a lot less important.

Outright cheating and abuse of a rules set is not the same as 'AC = OP'.

You guys say its the AC and rules, but then describe a lot of poorly run sessions and outright dishonesty and blatant cheating by players.

Just tell them your fighters dagger does D20 damage, like I mean if just making up rules and hadwaving stuff is cool, they'll be cool with you handwaving the rulles too yeah?

I agree with you, but it's more fun and less disruptive to just let them do it than be shouted down by the table for "wasting time". I can't give you a good reason why we in Ohio give ACs a free ride.

I still maintain the ACs are, from a mathematical standpoint, too potent for just a "class feature". This whole issue of people hand waving these AC rules away magnifies this potency to the point of absurdity when you then factor in what the druid himself or herself can do. Why be a summoner, when there are druids with ACs that function like eidolons?

Because a Summoner is better than a Druid, has better party utility than said druid, and the penalties for a dead Eidolon aren't as bad as for a dead AC?

The druid is a far more potent caster than a summoner. There are no penalties for dead ACs in PFS as far as I know.

Except you have to get a new one (not happening in session!), and start teaching tricks all over again etc?

They just get a new one for free between sessions. Besides, when do ACs actually die in PFS? Tier 7-11 maybe, by which time the druid can turn into a bear and summon a small army of disposable bears?

I don't know the rules for teaching tricks to ACs between sessions, because *no one ever acknowledges that they need tricks to make these things work*.

I still maintain the ACs are, from a mathematical standpoint, too potent for just a "class feature". This whole issue of people hand waving these AC rules away magnifies this potency to the point of absurdity when you then factor in what the druid himself or herself can do.

Enforcing the rules won't diminish the AC to a noticeable degree. They can, by and large, be run as competent combatants on an auto succeed handle animal check out of the box.

Ah, then this is not any kind of true fix or nerf, then. I've been hoping for pet nerfs for a long time now in PFS. I think they are simply far too powerful, especially in a system where the PCs don't get access to item creation feats.

A few ways to increase your handle animal skill, for all you dwarven druids out there.

Training harness from the ARG: Human section or Ultimate equipment. Functionally a masterwork tool for handle animal for one type of animal. Gives you a +2 to handle animal with the animal wearing it for the low low price of 10gp and the significantly higher price of para countess jokes.

Beast scent from seeker of secrets: at 75 gp per shot, this alchemical item that gives +2 to handle animal, wild empathy, and disguises your scent but is itself easy to track, probably isn't a long term solution, but lets face it, if your cha is that low it's probably improving your scent anyway.

Pink and Green Cracked Sphere Ioun stone from seeker of secrets: 200 gp for a sphere that will increase one of your cha based skills by +1.

Turquoise sphere from seeker of secrets This stone grants a +5 competence bonus to Ride checks. Price: 5,000 gp. The resonance on it however is a +2 to handle animal. Probably only worth it for mounted druids.

Circlet of persuasion for 4,500 GP. +3 on all cha based checks.

Ring of sacred mistletoe: 6k for +2 on handle animal and a few other goodies.

collar of obedience: provides a +4, but only to push or train. Even more para countess jokes than the harness. 5k

Definitely a case of diminishing returns.

The magic items are all competence bonuses (which won't stack with each other), so pick one in your price range and stick with it.

I don't know the rules for teaching tricks to ACs between sessions, because *no one ever acknowledges that they need tricks to make these things work*.

See this is the point where it becomes clear that your opinions may not be well grounded, nor factually accurate.

No one? not one person? Not ONE person in all of PFS land acknowledges this? Thats funny, my Cavalier mount has all its tricks listed. The last Druid I was at the table with read out HIS tricks... there was another guy mounted on a dog, it had its tricks too..

*I don't know the rules*

I've been teaching the handle animal rules to players sense 3.0 days, so I know there are a lot of players out there using them. I still do so, when I judge or when I play more than one time with someone with an AC. (if I'm only going to see the player once - I push them into writing down a list of tricks and sticking with it. Next time I see them I'll ask what they settled on for Tricks).
.
an earlier post said every AC had the Attack trick - which is not true. I played a Halfling Druid in LG for a number of years with a Dog AC, and never gave him the Attack trick. I did have to give him two Defend tricks, due to one judge saying he would not defend me from a Ghoul (as he did not have "Attack Unnatural Creatures").

Wow, what an annoying GM.

Wow, what an annoying GM.

LOL! - are you refering to me Shifty?

I find people are a lot less resistant to doing/learning the AC rules (Tricks, etc.) than they are the Take 10 rules. But maybe that's just the players I've encountered.

Are you saying you would find it "annoying" if the judge at your table insisted you play by the rules?

No, the 'defend' incident :)

The defend trick is not tied to the attack trick, so that GM was...umm...wrong.

David Bowles wrote:

I don't know the rules for teaching tricks to ACs between sessions, because *no one ever acknowledges that they need tricks to make these things work*.

See this is the point where it becomes clear that your opinions may not be well grounded, nor factually accurate.

No one? not one person? Not ONE person in all of PFS land acknowledges this? Thats funny, my Cavalier mount has all its tricks listed. The last Druid I was at the table with read out HIS tricks... there was another guy mounted on a dog, it had its tricks too..

David Bowles wrote:

*I don't know the rules*

Sorry, meant no one I play with on any regular basis.

Sorry, meant no one I play with on any regular basis.

Fair comment, but then isn't that a case of:

Ensuring you yourself are actually across the rules-set,
Engaging in conversation with those not following the rules?

The rules are fairly robust and not terribly complex - heck they are now overly granular imo, but it seems to me based on what I am reading that your frustration comes from a perception that the other people aren't running 'by the rules', but exacerbated by a gap in your rules knowledge.

You can't rightly say people aren't doing things on one hand, and then say you aren't sure of the rules on the other.

No, no. The only rules that aren't clear to me are the ones for trick teaching for a new AC between PFS sessions. I've never looked it up, for a few reasons. But based off people's lack of concern for their ACs, I imagine they are pretty lenient.

No, no. The only rules that aren't clear to me are the ones for trick teaching for a new AC between PFS sessions. I've never looked it up, for a few reasons. But based off people's lack of concern for their ACs, I imagine they are pretty lenient.

The rules are in the FAQ.

You can train up to your ranks in Handle Animal in number of tricks between scenarios and new Animal Companions always start with their bonus tricks for being an animal companion. You can take 10 on the check. You can also train one general purpose between scenarios as long as your ranks cover all the number of tricks within that general purpose.

No, no. The only rules that aren't clear to me are the ones for trick teaching for a new AC between PFS sessions. I've never looked it up, for a few reasons. But based off people's lack of concern for their ACs, I imagine they are pretty lenient.

Interestingly the PFS rules on training animals seems to have disappeared from v4.x of the Guide to Organised Play.

In 3.0.3 there was this section on page 19:
How can I teach tricks to an animal using Handle Animal?
You can teach any animal a trick so long as you follow the rules for Handle Animal on pages 97–98 of the Pathfinder RPG Core Rulebook. For the unique purposes of Pathfinder Society, you may attempt to train one animal to do one trick per scenario. A GM must observe your roll—failing this roll means you have to wait until the next scenario to try again. If you succeed on this roll, you must note that your animal gained a trick on the “Conditions Gained” section of that scenario’s chronicle sheet. This means you cannot train an animal until after you’ve completed your first scenario (some classes’ animal companions have exceptions to this rule).

However all that I can find in v4.3 is under Step 8 of filling out a Chronicle Sheet on page 38:
Sometimes a player must have you witness a roll to verify he successfully scribed a scroll into his spellbook or trained an animal companion to do a new trick. Write your initials next to any such entries in these sections to show that you witnessed the roll and that the PC was successful in the attempt.

So I am no longer clear whether you could train multiple tricks after each scenario, even if they are not part of the same purpose. E.g. could I train an animal Perform, Attack and Flank all after one scenario with a succession of Handle Animal rolls?

The rules are in the FAQ.

Thanks, it took me a while to find the link to the PFS FAQ but now I found it yes its there.

Though I cannot understand why it was removed from the PFS Guide to Organised Play, that seems more like the place for it as it is a specific PFS rule. I mean if that goes in the FAQ its not a stretch to put the alternate feats gained in lieu of crafting feats in the FAQ as well, or how many Hit Points you get each level. Odd!

I suspected it was something like that. So in PFS there is no penalty whatsoever for getting an AC killed. That's the way everyone in my area acted anyway, so this doesn't surprise me at all.

I haven't read all the back-n-forth between BNW, Shifty and David Bowles, so I don't know if there was a general resolution with your differences of opinion.

But...

I know I disagree with Shifty that there is too much granularity with the new tricks.

And yes, I do have a "dog" in this fight. I have a 12th level Cavalier/Alchemist with an Axebeak mount, and I have an 11th level Druid (saurian shaman) with a Pteranodon AC/Mount.

It just takes common sense on the side of the GM. As long as the GM doesn't treat Animal Companions as Robo Rally robots with hard coded programs that end up falling off the board or into a pit or bonking off a wall if the fluctuating combat grid changes at all.

It also takes common sense on the side of the player. As long as the player doesn't treat Animal Companions as an organic extension of both their mind and body, then it should work out ok.

It just takes common sense on the side of the GM. As long as the GM doesn't treat Animal Companions as Robo Rally robots with hard coded programs that end up falling off the board or into a pit or bonking off a wall if the fluctuating combat grid changes at all.

And now I want a gnome with a Roborally AC ... :D

I know I disagree with Shifty that there is too much granularity with the new tricks.

And yes, I do have a "dog" in this fight. I have a 12th level Cavalier/Alchemist with an Axebeak mount, and I have an 11th level Druid (saurian shaman) with a Pteranodon AC/Mount.

It just takes common sense on the side of the GM. As long as the GM doesn't treat Animal Companions as Robo Rally robots with hard coded programs that end up falling off the board or into a pit or bonking off a wall if the fluctuating combat grid changes at all.

It also takes common sense on the side of the player. As long as the player doesn't treat Animal Companions as an organic extension of both their mind and body, then it should work out ok.

Its funny, but those last two paragraphs could be used to explain why you don't need the extra granularity of Tricks like Flank and Sneak. :)