Animals and Their Tricks

Andrew Christian wrote:

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. :)

Perhaps, and they can also be used to explain why you do need tricks like Flank and Sneak.

The reason is, because I would say most GM's just hand-wave AC stuff, and Players take advantage of it. Therefore, the majority of tables run as though the AC's are organic extensions of the characters mind and body.

As such these tricks are required to keep everyone honest.

And to argue about what some animal may or may not do in nature doesn't really apply to animal companions, because the intent is that they are raised from young to full adult (thus why at 1st level they start out very weak and grow into all their animal abilities) and thus don't learn natural attack patterns of their pack/pride/gaggle/flock/school-mates. Sure, some verisimilitude is lost when you replace an animal companion (for whatever reason) with a new one, and the new one is the full HD version because you happen to be 9th level or whatever.

But there you go.

The reason is, because I would say most GM's just hand-wave AC stuff, and Players take advantage of it. Therefore, the majority of tables run as though the AC's are organic extensions of the characters mind and body.

I guess my experience of PFS play is limited, I can't remember GMing for a Druid character (though I can for a Summoner, and as I wasn't familiar with the class I simply said I will trust you to play the character and Eidolon by the appropriate rules).

I also don't think I have seen a Druid player whilst playing, though I myself play a Druid and I do follow the core rulebook Handle Animal rules but my character is at such a level now that he can command the dog to perform tricks without needing a dice roll (even if the Dog is injured), and out of combat he can push the dog to do any trick by simply Taking 10. So if you were a player you may see me as a player not making Handle Animal rolls, but be assured the rules are being followed. Also when a roll is still required (e.g. pushing my animal in combat where I can't Take 10) even if the GM doesn't call for it I will usually roll, but only if I fail what to the other players may appear an uncalled for dice roll would I mention it.

I won't be buying Animal Archive and so will have to trust GMs to now ask me when I need to push my dog to perform what is now a new Trick, e.g. previously when my Druid sent his dog off to track I would assume the dog would use his Stealth skill that he was trained in, in combat I assumed Barrow (the dog) would 5' step into a flanking position if it made sense (see my example up thread about moving away from a hobgoblin).

<EDIT>
Basically I will continue to play my character and animal companion as I always did, using my judgement of what a dog would be able to do, and will now wait to be told if that requires any of the new Tricks to be performed - assuming the GM is aware of them.
</EDIT>

And to argue about what some animal may or may not do in nature doesn't really apply to animal companions, because the intent is that they are raised from young to full adult (thus why at 1st level they start out very weak and grow into all their animal abilities)

Really? Is there some flavour text in the core rulebook that indicates Animal Cmpanions are raised from birth? A 1st level PC is considered to have grown to adulthood and had some experience, equally, ACs at 1st level aren't cubs/puppies/hatchlings but adults. The back story for my Druid was that he found this mangy mutt (certainly not a puppy) sniffing around the entrance way to a barrow, and hence why he was named Barrow.

Andrew Christian wrote:

The reason is, because I would say most GM's just hand-wave AC stuff, and Players take advantage of it. Therefore, the majority of tables run as though the AC's are organic extensions of the characters mind and body.

I guess my experience of PFS play is limited, I can't remember GMing for a Druid character (though I can for a Summoner, and as I wasn't familiar with the class I simply said I will trust you to play the character and Eidolon by the appropriate rules).

I also don't think I have seen a Druid player whilst playing, though I myself play a Druid and I do follow the core rulebook Handle Animal rules but my character is at such a level now that he can command the dog to perform tricks without needing a dice roll (even if the Dog is injured), and out of combat he can push the dog to do any trick by simply Taking 10. So if you were a player you may see me as a player not making Handle Animal rolls, but be assured the rules are being followed. Also when a roll is still required (e.g. pushing my animal in combat where I can't Take 10) even if the GM doesn't call for it I will usually roll, but only if I fail what to the other players may appear an uncalled for dice roll would I mention it.

I won't be buying Animal Archive and so will have to trust GMs to now ask me when I need to push my dog to perform what is now a new Trick, e.g. previously when my Druid sent his dog off to track I would assume the dog would use his Stealth skill that he was trained in, in combat I assumed Barrow (the dog) would 5' step into a flanking position if it made sense (see my example up thread about moving away from a hobgoblin).

<EDIT>
Basically I will continue to play my character and animal companion as I always did, using my judgement of what a dog would be able to do, and will now wait to be told if that requires any of the new Tricks to be performed - assuming the GM is aware of them.
</EDIT>

Look, I don't want to come down hard on you here, so lets wait and see what the FAQ says before we make any kind of statements like this.

If the FAQ lists out what the new tricks are, and that the apply to all animal companions despite whether you own the Animal Archive or not, then you'd be cheating if you choose to have your animal companion do things that are now covered by a new trick. And it would be even worse if you took advantage of a GM who wasn't aware of the new tricks and/or FAQ.

Andrew Christian wrote:

And to argue about what some animal may or may not do in nature doesn't really apply to animal companions, because the intent is that they are raised from young to full adult (thus why at 1st level they start out very weak and grow into all their animal abilities)

.

Really? Is there some flavour text in the core rulebook that indicates Animal Cmpanions are raised from birth? A 1st level PC is considered to have grown to adulthood and had some experience, equally, ACs at 1st level aren't cubs/puppies/hatchlings but adults. The back story for my Druid was that he found this mangy mutt (certainly not a puppy) sniffing around the entrance way to a barrow, and hence why he was named Barrow.

The fact that at 1st level, an animal companion essentially has worse than the Young Template based on the stats it has?

Unfortunately, I don't believe you can use the new tricks without owning some version of the animal archive for PFS. Unless as mentioned above, the FAQ allows you to do this. But as it stands now, druids without the animal archive can not teach or issue the flank command.

And I'm going to make sure that the DM at each table I play is at least aware of the current state of how ACs are supposed to work. If they choose, to ignore the RAW, then I'll likely just let it drop, as that's what I've been doing for two years now. Just putting up with it.

And again, it's not the rolls I'm concerned about so much as the finite number of tricks known. Too many players just act like their AC has every trick, and then tricks that don't exist, like readying actions, etc.

I have at times, been tempted to select out ACs from channels with my cleric, but I have always taken the high road at not done that. The situation with this particular mechanic is just very frustrating to play with and DM for.

Look, I don't want to come down hard on you here, so lets wait and see what the FAQ says before we make any kind of statements like this.

If the FAQ lists out what the new tricks are, and that the apply to all animal companions despite whether you own the Animal Archive or not

Oh, so although the new Tricks are legal according to the Additional Resources page, GM's shouldn't be enforcing them until it is in the FAQ? Is that correct? I got the impression that these rules were effectively to be used in PFS now.

then you'd be cheating if you choose to have your animal companion do things that are now covered by a new trick. And it would be even worse if you took advantage of a GM who wasn't aware of the new tricks and/or FAQ.

I disagree, and this is where it all comes back to context.

If my Druid's Dog was attacking a foe as directed and then was attacked from the side, if I moved the dog using a 5' step to get away from that second threat whilst still remaining adjacent to its original target and that happened to put the dog in a flanking position (either of the foe its attacking or another foe) then I do not believe I should require the Flank trick for that as the primary intent of the movement is to move away from the threat. That is not cheating IMHO, but I can imagine some GMs being stringent in their rulings and thus would await/anticipate the GM interrupting to ask if my dog has the flank trick.

Equally, if my dog who is trained for the purpose of hunting, who has ranks in Stealth and has the Stealthy feat, is tasked with tracking some prey then I would assume he would be being stealthy. However, again I would await a stringent GM demanding I push my dog to use the Stealth trick in which case I would comply. IMHO though, that would make the Hunting Purpose unfit for purpose and the core rulebook should be errated to add in the Stealth trick, possibly at the expense of another trick.

Also in terms of my comment of relying on the GM to employ the Animal Archive rules if they are aware of them, I was not suggesting taking advantage of such a GM, but that I as a player who would not own the book, am not sufficiently aware of the rules to employ them.

Unless Paizo officially publish the rules for free, either via the PRD or a PFS download or in the FAQ, I cannot guarantee I as player or PFS GM would employ the rules correctly. At present I am using d20pfsrd.com to gain a list of tricks, however that source has been proven wrong before, and I am still uncertain whether Charge is a Trick or not (some posters implied it was but d20pfsrd.com does not list it).

Equally I don't know what pages the new tricks are on in the Animal Archive and so I cannot be certain that the Additional Resources statement of "Tricks: All tricks on pages 8–9 are legal" excludes any of the new tricks.

So yes, I will have to rely on the GM to employ the rules correctly assuming they are aware of them, because whilst I am trying to make myself aware of them, I cannot be certain of them - I would hate to never have my Druid's dog never charge when given the Attack command because I mistakenly think Charge is now a Trick.

The fact that at 1st level, an animal companion essentially has worse than the Young Template based on the stats it has?

It would seem then that this may be down to my lack of experience with animal companions, my Druid's AC is a dog and the 1st level Animal Companion stats for a dog seem to be better in every way than the Bestiary Dog entry (without the Young Template), better abilities, better natural armour, better hit dice, better BAB etc.

So is the dog the only exception? Can we therefore use the rationalisation that maybe the dog has indeed grown up in a wild dog pack, or as part of a pack of stray dogs at least,and may have learnt some behaviour from that experience?

With regards to the

He's not cheating. Sneak is only needed if its a circumstance where the animal wouldn't normally stealth: ie, if you're being attacked or something small and tasty runs over his foot. Mmmm... raat.

I don't find AC's hard to GM for at all. You just have to be firm with the players that the AC's work a particular way.

And yeah, if you don't own Animal Archive, you can't teach or command your animal to do said trick. Although as a GM I'd certainly allow you to push your animal to do many of those things (pushing is rather ambiguous and allows you to get your animal to do all sorts of things).

But the rules in Animal Archive must still be followed (which is why Mike suggested a new FAQ was going to be created) regardless of whether you own the book or not.

I don't find AC's hard to GM for at all. You just have to be firm with the players that the AC's work a particular way.

And yeah, if you don't own Animal Archive, you can't teach or command your animal to do said trick. Although as a GM I'd certainly allow you to push your animal to do many of those things (pushing is rather ambiguous and allows you to get your animal to do all sorts of things).

But the rules in Animal Archive must still be followed (which is why Mike suggested a new FAQ was going to be created) regardless of whether you own the book or not.

If you don't own the animal archive, you may not be aware of what new tricks where added that were previously covered by existing tricks.

How can I follow the rules for a book I don't own? Are those rules to be published in a public forum or am I just supposed to guess?

And again, it's not the rolls I'm concerned about so much as the finite number of tricks known.

Moving the critters int up to 3 is almost standard operating druid protocol, giving you 9 tricks based on int and 2 bonus=11 tricks.Pre animal archive there were only 12 tricks, and two of them (work and perform) don't see much use in combat. So it wasn't so much "infinite tricks" as "every trick in the book"

Too many players just act like their AC has every trick, and then tricks that don't exist, like readying actions, etc.

Animals are not by raw limited only to things there are tricks for. They do, for example, eat and drink. Whether an animal can ready an action is subject to legitimate DM interpretation, and I'm inclined to say yes because i've seen them doing it. They can certainly delay (see what happens if they beat their owners initiative on the first page) Or at the very least the druid can issue no command and delay his action to give the animal one.

Unfortunately, I find BigNorseWolf's assertions pretty compelling. This renders the trick angle of limitations for ACs pretty moot, imo. I wasn't aware of the int 3 trick specifically, so it seems that with 11 tricks, any combat actions can pretty trivially be covered. So we are back to the original sin of the stat blocks for these things being too beefy for balance in PFS play.

With regards to the Sneak Trick

[...]
He's not cheating. Sneak is only needed if its a circumstance where the animal wouldn't normally stealth: ie, if you're being attacked or something small and tasty runs over his foot. Mmmm... raat.

Thanks! And it is that knowledge of the rules that I would have to rely on the GM providing unless Paizo make the rules available freely (either via PRD, FAQ or a download).

It seemed like one of the arguments for having all these new Tricks is to take away the ambiguity that allowed some actions to be considered okay for some animals without pushing them, but not for others, based on what their natural instincts were e.g. wolves should be able to flank naturally but not crocodiles. I.e. take away the variance of GM/player judgement and replace it with one set of rules for all.

So I find it funny that these new tricks use phrases like "...its natural instincts would normally cause it to..." that rely on GM/Player judgement as to what its natural instincts are! :)

Let me try to be more clear, because all three of us are basically saying the same thing:

1) Animal Archive is part of PFS as it’s in the Additional Resources. However, you can’t behold a GM or Player to know about something for which they don’t own the information and the information is not available publicly. Which is why it’s ultimately necessary for an FAQ to let those GM’s and Players who don’t own the resource know how to correctly adjudicate animal companions in regards to tricks.
2) Note: I did say that GM’s need to apply common sense as well. Whether an animal moves away from a 2nd attacker or not, while attacking an NPC, should be the player’s choice. The movement away from the 2nd attacker should be directly away (as long as that allows them to still fulfill their command to attack). If the only square they can move into to both get away from the 2nd attacker and continue attacking the NPC, moves the animal companion into a flank. That’s fine. No trick (nor handle animal check) should be necessary for that. But while giving some leeway to a player on this, I should note that if they have two squares they could move into to get away from the 2nd attacker, as a GM I will force them to choose the one that moves the animal directly away from the 2nd attacker (whether that moves the animal companion into a flank or not) rather than allow the player to choose the most optimal. This I feel is within the spirit of them being, well, an animal (they aren’t tactical geniuses). But I won’t deny a movement into flank if there is some mitigating circumstance (i.e. 2nd attacker) that would cause the animal to want to move from its current location. Barring a mitigating circumstance, the master would need to make a handle animal checks to negotiate the animal around on the battle field. The difficulty of said checks will be dependent on whether they have a trick or not for said particular movement.
3) The only thing I was indicating that would be cheating, is if you continue to do specifically your old way of doing things that ignores the new tricks despite knowing you should be using the new rules. And if you take advantage of a GM who doesn’t know the new tricks (really, a GM should be keeping up on the FAQ and such, but I do realize some don’t check online very often) just so you can do things the way you want/are used to doing, is really the worst kind of cheating. If this isn’t want you were referring to doing, then ignore my comment about cheating, it doesn’t apply to you.

Unfortunately, I find BigNorseWolf's assertions pretty compelling. This renders the trick angle of limitations for ACs pretty moot, imo. I wasn't aware of the int 3 trick specifically, so it seems that with 11 tricks, any combat actions can pretty trivially be covered. So we are back to the original sin of the stat blocks for these things being too beefy for balance in PFS play.

Well, at least you now have a good possibility that your players are just cheese eating munchkins rather than cheaters :)

Moving the critters int up to 3 is almost standard operating druid protocol, giving you 9 tricks based on int

Is there a reference in the core rulebook or perhaps bestiary that states increasing Intelligence to 3 allows an animal to learn an extra 3 tricks?

If not, is it a new rule added in Animal Archive? If so then is that legal for PFS as it doesn't seem to be made explicit in the Additional Resources? Even if it is, those of us without the book presumably cannot use that rule and would be limited to 6+ bonus tricks even with an animal intelligence of 3.

David Bowles wrote:

And again, it's not the rolls I'm concerned about so much as the finite number of tricks known.

Moving the critters int up to 3 is almost standard operating druid protocol, giving you 9 tricks based on int and 2 bonus=11 tricks.Pre animal archive there were only 12 tricks, and two of them (work and perform) don't see much use in combat. So it wasn't so much "infinite tricks" as "every trick in the book"

Quote:

Too many players just act like their AC has every trick, and then tricks that don't exist, like readying actions, etc.

Animals are not by raw limited only to things there are tricks for. They do, for example, eat and drink. Whether an animal can ready an action is subject to legitimate DM interpretation, and I'm inclined to say yes because i've seen them doing it. They can certainly delay (see what happens if they beat their owners initiative on the first page) Or at the very least the druid can issue no command and delay his action to give the animal one.

I would say that without a Push, an animal companion will not ready an action unless it was very simple.

Master has set animal to defend, so animal readies to attack any enemy that comes near its target of defense.

But readying to attack the spell caster when he starts to cast a spell? No way. Animals aren't intelligent enough to figure that out.

BigNorseWolf wrote:

Moving the critters int up to 3 is almost standard operating druid protocol, giving you 9 tricks based on int

Is there a reference in the core rulebook or perhaps bestiary that states increasing Intelligence to 3 allows an animal to learn an extra 3 tricks?

If not, is it a new rule added in Animal Archive? If so then is that legal for PFS as it doesn't seem to be made explicit in the Additional Resources? Even if it is, those of us without the book presumably cannot use that rule and would be limited to 6+ bonus tricks even with an animal intelligence of 3.

Its an extrapolation of the 1 int= 3 tricks, 2 int= 6 tricks.

Jason Buhlman confirmed it in the discussion for the monkey see monkey do blog.

For PFS its specifically in the PFS FAQ (mind you, kinda hidden in a different question)

BigNorseWolf wrote:

Moving the critters int up to 3 is almost standard operating druid protocol, giving you 9 tricks based on int

Is there a reference in the core rulebook or perhaps bestiary that states increasing Intelligence to 3 allows an animal to learn an extra 3 tricks?

If not, is it a new rule added in Animal Archive? If so then is that legal for PFS as it doesn't seem to be made explicit in the Additional Resources? Even if it is, those of us without the book presumably cannot use that rule and would be limited to 6+ bonus tricks even with an animal intelligence of 3.

It's in the FAQ for training animals tricks.

BigNorseWolf wrote:

With regards to the Sneak Trick

[...]
He's not cheating. Sneak is only needed if its a circumstance where the animal wouldn't normally stealth: ie, if you're being attacked or something small and tasty runs over his foot. Mmmm... raat.

Thanks! And it is that knowledge of the rules that I would have to rely on the GM providing unless Paizo make the rules available freely (either via PRD, FAQ or a download).

It seemed like one of the arguments for having all these new Tricks is to take away the ambiguity that allowed some actions to be considered okay for some animals without pushing them, but not for others, based on what their natural instincts were e.g. wolves should be able to flank naturally but not crocodiles. I.e. take away the variance of GM/player judgement and replace it with one set of rules for all.

So I find it funny that these new tricks use phrases like "...its natural instincts would normally cause it to..." that rely on GM/Player judgement as to what its natural instincts are! :)

The entire text of the tricks is probably not going to be made public. At best you'll get a list of the names of the tricks.

As such, it behooves you as an AC character to own Animal Archive. If you refuse to buy it for whatever reasons (e.g. finances, principle, whatever), then you'll just have to abide by however a GM wants to adjudicate it based on their understanding and common sense. There will be more table variation if nobody owns the book at the table, IMHO.

But readying to attack the spell caster when he starts to cast a spell? No way. Animals aren't intelligent enough to figure that out.

Agreed. Most players set it to "i whack him the second he says something i don't understand" (Which can be hilarious when the barbarian thinks "icapitulate!" is a verbal component) But the animal can't tell spellcastiing from speech, and i don't see any way to reasonably finagle the rules for a druid to use a held action to get the animal to attack fast enough to interrupt spell casting (barring some really weird corner cases)

Andrew Christian wrote:

I don't find AC's hard to GM for at all. You just have to be firm with the players that the AC's work a particular way.

And yeah, if you don't own Animal Archive, you can't teach or command your animal to do said trick. Although as a GM I'd certainly allow you to push your animal to do many of those things (pushing is rather ambiguous and allows you to get your animal to do all sorts of things).

But the rules in Animal Archive must still be followed (which is why Mike suggested a new FAQ was going to be created) regardless of whether you own the book or not.

If you don't own the animal archive, you may not be aware of what new tricks where added that were previously covered by existing tricks.

How can I follow the rules for a book I don't own? Are those rules to be published in a public forum or am I just supposed to guess?

Mike has already indicated that there will be an FAQ on this pending potential incorporation of pet info in the guide v5.0 that comes out this summer.

He has John Compton and Mark Moreland looking into it, since he will be out of town for 3-1/2 weeks doing convention and trade show appearances.

My guess is, that the FAQ will have at least the names of all tricks, and my guess is that it most certainly will not include the full text of all the tricks.

Let me try to be more clear, because all three of us are basically saying the same thing:

I think we are to some extent at least

If the only square they can move into to both get away from the 2nd attacker and continue attacking the NPC, moves the animal companion into a flank. That’s fine. No trick (nor handle animal check) should be necessary for that. But while giving some leeway to a player on this, I should note that if they have two squares they could move into to get away from the 2nd attacker, as a GM I will force them to choose the one that moves the animal directly away from the 2nd attacker (whether that moves the animal companion into a flank or not) rather than allow the player to choose the most optimal.

If there are two squares, both equally distant from the second attacker, both that only require a 5' step, but only one of which allows for a flanking position, would you give the player the discretion to choose which one to use, or would you demand the player choose the one that doesn't provide Flanking if they don't use the Flank trick (pushed or not)? I.e. would you make the call like CRobledo here?

3) The only thing I was indicating that would be cheating, is if you continue to do specifically your old way of doing things that ignores the new tricks despite knowing you should be using the new rules.

Assuming I had an official source available to me that would allow me to learn and reference the new rules, then yes I would acknowledge them and not go obviously against them, but should there be a corner case (like above where two equally optimum moves make sense for my animal companion but one puts him in flank) then I may choose the option that gives the extra benefit e.g. flanking.

On a slight tangent I am sorry to see Aid Another as a trick now, to the gamer, yes its a different mechanic, but in the game it would look very similar to attacking, just that the animal's attacks wouldn't be very effective other than being a distraction (I can totally see a dog grabbing the trouser leg of a foe and tugging like in the cartoons) :)

Andrew Christian wrote:

Let me try to be more clear, because all three of us are basically saying the same thing:

I think we are to some extent at least

Andrew Christian wrote:

If the only square they can move into to both get away from the 2nd attacker and continue attacking the NPC, moves the animal companion into a flank. That’s fine. No trick (nor handle animal check) should be necessary for that. But while giving some leeway to a player on this, I should note that if they have two squares they could move into to get away from the 2nd attacker, as a GM I will force them to choose the one that moves the animal directly away from the 2nd attacker (whether that moves the animal companion into a flank or not) rather than allow the player to choose the most optimal.

If there are two squares, both equally distant from the second attacker, both that only require a 5' step, but only one of which allows for a flanking position, would you give the player the discretion to choose which one to use, or would you demand the player choose the one that doesn't provide Flanking if they don't use the Flank trick (pushed or not)? I.e. would you make the call like CRobledo here?

Sequence 1: T=Target, A=Animal, 2 = 2nd Attacker, F = Flank, D = directly Away

00000
00TF0
02AD0

Animal could move to D in the above Diagram.

Sequence 2:

00000
00TF0
00A00
02000

Animal could move to F in the above Diagram.

Even though directly away from the 2nd attacker moves them into a Flank, that is their only option as it is directly away from the attack.

For PFS its specifically in the PFS FAQ (mind you, kinda hidden in a different question)

Thanks for the reference! I wouldn't have thought to look there.

The entire text of the tricks is probably not going to be made public. At best you'll get a list of the names of the tricks.

As such, it behooves you as an AC character to own Animal Archive. If you refuse to buy it for whatever reasons (e.g. finances, principle, whatever), then you'll just have to abide by however a GM wants to adjudicate it based on their understanding and common sense. There will be more table variation if nobody owns the book at the table, IMHO.

I doubt I will be buying the book, I just don't play PFs often enough to warrant it; in 2012 I only played 2 scenarios neither with my Druid and I GMed 3 none of which I remember there being a Druid in. This year has been better with 4 games played so far, 2 with my Druid, and 2 games GMed again with no Druids).

With the above in mind, and if we don't get the full text otherwise, it will be as I said - I will play as normal and await correction from the GM.

Sequence 1: T=Target, A=Animal, 2 = 2nd Attacker, F = Flank, D = directly Away

00000
00TF0
02AD0

Animal could move to D in the above Diagram.

You see this is where I would allow a player the discretion, both D and F are only a 5' step and both put the animal 10' away from the attacker so I would say both are a direct move away. Its just the nature of the square grid that makes D seem more direct.

If anything the F position provides the AC with a bit of cover should the 2nd attacker have a reach weapon and attempt to use it from his current position. And no I don't think this is too tactical thinking for an Animal Companion it is simply seeking to interpose the foe it is attacking between it and another foe.

My original example was as below where G was the Goblin target of the Dog, D was the Dog and H was a Hobgoblin who moved in and attacked the Dog with a reach weapon, whilst F was a fighter ally of the Dog.

Having the Dog move North East from this...
OOOO
OFGO
HODO
HODO

...to this...
OOOO
OFGD
HOOO

...makes as much sense, if not more, than moving to...

OOOO
OFGO
HOOD

Andrew Christian wrote:

Sequence 1: T=Target, A=Animal, 2 = 2nd Attacker, F = Flank, D = directly Away

00000
00TF0
02AD0

Animal could move to D in the above Diagram.

You see this is where I would allow a player the discretion, both D and F are only a 5' step and both put the animal 10' away from the attacker so I would say both are a direct move away. Its just the nature of the square grid that makes D seem more direct.

If anything the F position provides the AC with a bit of cover should the 2nd attacker have a reach weapon and attempt to use it from his current position. And no I don't think this is too tactical thinking for an Animal Companion it is simply seeking to interpose the foe it is attacking between it and another foe.

My original example was as below where G was the Goblin target of the Dog, D was the Dog and H was a Hobgoblin who moved in and attacked the Dog with a reach weapon, whilst F was a fighter ally of the Dog.

Having the Dog move North East from this...
OOOO
OFGO
HODO
HODO

...to this...
OOOO
OFGD
HOOO

...makes as much sense, if not more, than moving to...

OOOO
OFGO
HOOD

Well that's where Table Variation is going to come in, and you can't get around that.

FYI, it isn't because you'd move into a flank that I'd restrict you to moving directly away. Rather its because in my mind, that's what makes most sense to me for an unintelligent animal to do.

Is this thread still going? Cripes, I think if I ever want a pet I'll just make a Summoner.

Did this question ever get answered? I guess it's more of a Rules Question than PFS specific,
but I haven't seen many Rules Questions officially answered in a LOOONG time, and this thread seems active...

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...???

I wasn't aware...

Are we seeing a trend here?

Seriously, if you are going to complain about a rules set it really helps if you take time to do your homework and build a solid understanding. I don't think you have really done that, but seem quick to suggest others are cheating.

On a side note. It's like you missed the 'loss of AC' drawback in PFS too, you wont be getting a new AC back during the session, and your AC returns largely UNTRAINED, and only knows a couple of tricks. You can teach how many tricks between sessions? You now have up to 11 tricks to go and re-fill. Thats going to take ages to get the thing back up to speed.

Now you said why play a Summoner? Does a Summoner have to do that?
Newp.

Losing AC's is a bit of a drama.

Did this question ever get answered? I guess it's more of a Rules Question than PFS specific,

but I haven't seen many Rules Questions officially answered in a LOOONG time, and this thread seems active...

That's a very interesting question actually.

It also starts building the case that 'Tricks' are no longer just 'tricks', but actually an entirely new style of Feat tree.

They have been written as though they are just a list, but that can't be the case because some MUSt have requisite/qualifying tricks.

It's now a Trick Tree!

If my AC has 'Outflank' the teamwork Feat, does it require the flank trick to be able to use its feat? That hasn't been answered either.

What about Defend? Will it be able to Defend me if it doesn't have the Attack trick?

Flank does explicitly require HAVING the Attack trick.
It just isn't clear if using using Flank is somehow still using the Attack trick,
and subject to the same limitations (beyond those explicitly addressed by the Flank trick description).

Yeah which is why the tricks are starting to resemble feats in that they are branched, and then there's the added complexity of the skill system under that, and how the trick tree interrelates with the feat tree.

FYI, it isn't because you'd move into a flank that I'd restrict you to moving directly away. Rather its because in my mind, that's what makes most sense to me for an unintelligent animal to do.

This is something that I hope that the FAQ highlights.

Lack of the flank trick certainly does not mean the animal will not flank. Heck that's not even what the flank trick does.

The flank trick, like the stealth trick, give the animal a higher priority than normal. Much like defend, protect, down, and heel do, in fact.

These tricks are all about tell the animal companion that this tactic is to be done regardless of what they would otherwise want to do.

Now, that I've agreed with you.. I have to ask: if you were DMing a group of pack animals (i.e. wolves) attacking a group, you would not have them try to flank and the like? That seems out of character for such animals.

-James

if you were DMing a group of pack animals (i.e. wolves) attacking a group, you would not have them try to flank and the like? That seems out of character for such animals.

but these rules don't have any relevance for how animals fight on their own initiative (not Init) without tricks or a 'handler'. the act of using handle animal just sets up a different dynamic than when it is not being used: the animals's primary goal becomes following orders: that is what training is/does. if you want the animal to both be a better/more flexible combatant WHILE being totally obedient to your commands, then you need to train the animal in more tricks (or be a very good animal handler to reliably push them).

David Bowles wrote:

I wasn't aware...

Are we seeing a trend here?

Seriously, if you are going to complain about a rules set it really helps if you take time to do your homework and build a solid understanding. I don't think you have really done that, but seem quick to suggest others are cheating.

On a side note. It's like you missed the 'loss of AC' drawback in PFS too, you wont be getting a new AC back during the session, and your AC returns largely UNTRAINED, and only knows a couple of tricks. You can teach how many tricks between sessions? You now have up to 11 tricks to go and re-fill. Thats going to take ages to get the thing back up to speed.

Now you said why play a Summoner? Does a Summoner have to do that?
Newp.

Losing AC's is a bit of a drama.

I already conceded to BigNorseWolf that people are not cheating. Before berating me for lack of knowledge for rules that *I fully admit to not have 100% understanding of*, maybe you should read the thread. I don't know the rules for pets, because I never intend to use one on a non-summoner.

What I do have 100% understanding of is how pets are abused in PFS, and many PFS modules and scenarios are weak sauce in terms of challenge. This combination lead to the pets' lives never threatened in the first place. So again, why bother with a summoner, when I can have a druid pet that is never in any danger? And I get wild shape, and I get 9 levels of spells, not 6.

I've played many season 4 scenarios now, and pets are still quite capable of putting the hurt on NPCs far beyond nearly any other "class features". Ie, if a party has pets, even season 4 is still not hard enough.

Now, that I've agreed with you.. I have to ask: if you were DMing a group of pack animals (i.e. wolves) attacking a group, you would not have them try to flank and the like? That seems out of character for such animals.

-James

Why not also have them flee from humans like they would generally do in the wild? Or if they were really hungry would they make off with the innkeepers kids?

The point is that ACs no longer behave like wild animals. We can't cherry pick which instincts we want to keep when an animal goes from wild to "magically domesticated". Well actually we can: by training them "tricks".

Not to mention the silliness that ensues when people start arguing that their AC can do X because of its instincts (of course my crow steals his ioun stone- he has an instinct to fly off with shiny things).

Before berating me for lack of knowledge for rules that *I fully admit to not have 100% understanding of* - I don't know the rules for pets, because I never intend to use one on a non-summoner.

What I do have 100% understanding of is how pets are abused in PFS, and many PFS modules and scenarios are weak sauce in terms of challenge.

How can you on one hand admit you don't know the rules, and then on the other hand suggest the pets are being abused?

If yuo don't know the mechanics, how can you confirm the mechanics are being abused?

This just can't line up.

You *may* have a grudge that PFS scenarios are too easy, and as that is rather subjective I could only provide a subjective answer in response.

Rules on the other hand are objective, and as such you have to know them to debate them.

I know they are being abused, because I never hear the issue of tricks or issuing commands ever come up at a table. People just move their ACs around like a 2nd PC and everyone is cool with it. I may not know the exact rules on training for PFS, etc, but I DO know that that situation is not correct.

I agree that difficulty issue is very subjective. But every table I've been at with pet(s) has been easy mode. They simply are too beefy for the amount of damage that PFS authors shell out in a given encounter. This gets magnified when they run around and go on hold to interrupt casters and such.

David Bowles

I know they are being abused, because I never hear the issue of tricks or issuing commands ever come up at a table.

Done right with the least bit of optimization and a few stupid druid tricks, this is how it should be. the druid theoretically has to roll handle animal to hit a dc 10 as a free action. Oh look he rolled a 1, he succeeds anyway. The animal does what he wants.

Rules abuse and rules use look pretty much indistinguishable unless you're auditing their characters and really know the handle animal rules.

[jedi hand wave]this is not the nerf you're looking for [/jedi hand wave]

Right, that was a poor choice of words. I know they can get handle animal down to a gimmme pretty easily. Maybe it shouldn't be so easy; I don't know. I'm just tired of pets making things automatically easy mode.

Now lets have a talk about easy mode.

If it was just the pets making things easy, then just about every player at the table would have one, yet my observation is that the pet classes are a minority.

I suspect that more broadly, the problem (for you and some others for sure) is that the PFS scenarios are designed to be fairly general, in that they are able to be played by a bunch of random strangers, across a range of levels, who have a range of classes - and everything that might entail. You could find yourself with five wizards and no other class or some other crazy combo.

In order to be able to facilitate this (the unoptimized party) the PFS scenarios are a bit forgiving, and if you play them with a decent party, let alone one running as a well oiled machine with optimised characters and set party roles, well the PFS mods tend to be pretty cruisy - hence I play 'up' as often as I can.

Some scenarios, however, are real meat grinders and on the hard end of the curve. Maybe it is worth you identifying which those ones are and picking those scenarios where possible.

It may have been easy at a table with pets, though I suspect you find the same without them. Correlation =/= causation.

Yes, I have experienced many easy tables without pets as well. It is hard to deconvolute exactly what the issue is.

I think part of my issue with the whole situation is that pets' stat blocks are too beefy and they scale too well in a game with 20-point build characters and no create item feats available.

I think there's a good argument for introducing a PFS 'Hardcore mode' range of scenarios personally. Ones designed more in line with the modules, or APL+1 or something.

if a roll is auto-pass, then obviously you don't need to make the actual roll (the blog alludes to that), but you DO need to specify what is actually being done, which means which specific trick you are commanding the animal companion to do. obviously, if it is a trick that the animal doesn't know, then the DC for push is 15 higher and thus very rarely autopass. even if all tricks are known, or if push is autopass, then the commands or 'communication' being limited to the specific list of all tricks (in PFS, where you can't just invent a new trick with GM approval) is still a limitation vs. the companion being used as if under telepathic control or if it were a PC in it's own right.

i just noticed that this Blog didn't even cover the fact that the rules DON'T allow for player control at all, the animal companion is just as much under GM control as any animal or NPC, and handle animal communicating when to use tricks is just that, communication to let the GM (and companion) know what the PC is commanding the animal companion to do. that is the core paradigm here, that any details of what the animal does are decided by the animal with the goal in mind of following the specific tricks it has been commanded to do.

honestly, that this is being addressed as a PFS issue just makes me cringe: it should be a real Rules Blog, which we have seen precious few of, even though they are supposed to be a regular feature AFAIK. what the hell happened to 'paizo is now treating rules/errata/faq in a better way'?

Okay, just for the sake of argument: Is there a place in the rules that specifies who is supposed to actually control the AC? That is a matter of some debate I guess.

I agree that PFS desperately needs a "hardcore" mode.

no, because there is no change vs. other NPCs. companions are not PCs, therefore they are akin to NPCs/monsters. same goes for if you summon a creature, you are limited to what the spell allows you to do, and if you can communicate and 'convince' the creature to do what you communicate. the companion class feature lets you issue commands. (well, better than is normal for handle animal) that's it. you don't need to issue commands to entities which are under your total psychic control like automatons. nothing exempts companions from having their own init, etc, and issuing a command is issuing that one specific command, nothing else.

this does kind of have implications for some of the feats you can take with a higher INT, if they do something that doesn't correspond to a trick. some could plausibly be compatable with some tricks even if the trick isn't specific to using that ability, but some simply aren't. of course, in home games it is fine to 'create' a new trick to use such abilities. such a rule seems simple enough to implement for PFS as well: if a feat (or aspect of it) is not usable via any trick, you can learn a trick to use that specific feat.

it really is a rules issue that paizo's rules team should deal with head on. pathfinder supposedly outsells D&D. i don't see why they can't do something as extensive as sage advice, etc. not to mention errata, but that is (kind of mostly) tied to re-prints. there really just is so many hanging issues, it's kind of sad that they dropped the ball after promising a new productive approach.

Okay, just for the sake of argument: Is there a place in the rules that specifies who is supposed to actually control the AC? That is a matter of some debate I guess.

I agree that PFS desperately needs a "hardcore" mode.

My opinion is that it is not the GM's job to control an animal companion. It is part of the character, and so the player should be able to control the animal companion, within the limits the rules allow.

There shouldn't need to be a rule for who gets to control the animal companion. You wouldn't tell a wizard that you are going to control his spells right?

I agree with you in principle, but most of my play group would never agree to this change for ACs. It's simply not worth fighting over. In a homebrew, I can just up the difficulty to make up for ACs. In PFS, I just accept it as a penalty for society play. I still snicker a bit when ACs get fragged though.

if you want the animal to both be a better/more flexible combatant WHILE being totally obedient to your commands, then you need to train the animal in more tricks (or be a very good animal handler to reliably push them).

Tricks are all about getting an animal to do something it would normally not do.

The flank trick is not to enable the animal to flank.. many times an animal in combat would flank.

The flank trick tells the animal that flanking is a high priority, and that the animal is to flank regardless of what it would otherwise do.. whether this is attack another creature attacking it (while the one it's flanking might not be attacking anyone even), provoking AOOs to get into flank, etc.

The attack trick gets the animal to attack when it otherwise wouldn't, or attack a specific creature when it otherwise wouldn't.

The lack of the attack trick, for example, would not render a dangerous animal incapable of making attacks... but without it you could not communicate that you wanted it to attack when it would want to flee, or that you need it to attack that guy in the robes rather than closer targets in armor...

Not sure what's the problem with this.

but these rules don't have any relevance for how animals fight on their own initiative (not Init) without tricks or a 'handler'.

You were missing what I was responding to in this Quandary.. another poster (the one I quoted in my post) said that he would not have the animal do so, because that's not what they would naturally do.

And I wholeheartedly agree with the sentiment there (which it seems you do not), but I did disagree with pack animals not attempting to flank while in combat.

I'm sorry if that confused you, I thought that I had made it clear,

James

My opinion is that it is not the GM's job to control an animal companion. It is part of the character, and so the player should be able to control the animal companion, within the limits the rules allow.

It's an NPC, and as such it falls under the DM to control it.

Now the DM can (and frequently) does pass this job off. Many DMs pass off the job of keeping track of initiative, but that doesn't mean it's not in their purview.

Summons, directed creatures, and friendly NPCs are under the auspices of the DM.

One complaint I've heard on these forums is one player controlling too many NPCs. It seems as if your position comes with inherent problems. Meanwhile many suggest the 'solution' be that other players run some of these NPCs.

Personally if you have the default be that the DM runs all of them, then it's not a player giving to another player, but rather it is the DM asking the table to handle some of his/her judging burden.

-James

" You wouldn't tell a wizard that you are going to control his spells right?"

Spells don't have separate stats lines and separate nervous systems and separate physical bodies. So I don't really consider that an apples to apples comparison.

That being said, most PFS DMs do NOT need the extra burden.

It seems the consensus about ACs is that there is no consensus. Thanks, Paizo. If you're going to give PC classes "mini-me's" please at least provide some clear rules for them.