Animals and Their Tricks

Animal Companions are not NPC's. They are a class feature just like any other class feature.

Again, where does it say this? Because plenty of folks are saying that they are NPCs. ACs certainly aren't PCs, so doesn't that make them NPCs?

It doesn't have to say they aren't NPCs.

They are a class feature of a PC class. As such, treat them as part of the character with a certain subset of rules on how the ability interacts with the world.

I don't know. It's an incredibly powerful class feature, and, in a perfect world, this sounds like a good way to put some kind of limit on this class feature. But the time constraints in PFS make it a no-go to me. And it's already not necessary in homebrews, as I'm willing to be a ridiculous as the PCs want to be.

Again, where does it say this? Because plenty of folks are saying that they are NPCs. ACs certainly aren't PCs, so doesn't that make them NPCs?

You can apply exactly that logic to mounts, or to familiars.

I will, as a GM, step in to provide guidance on how an AC will interpret a command if the player is crossing The Line.

The Line is subjective.

The Line has moved closer to well defined with the advent of Animal Archive. I'm not yet sure how much I like where The Line currently lies.

I will, as a GM, step in to provide guidance on how an AC will interpret a command if the player is crossing The Line.

The Line is subjective.

The Line has moved closer to well defined with the advent of Animal Archive. I'm not yet sure how much I like where The Line currently lies.

agreed.

" 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.

So summon spells SHOULD be GM controlled then?

David Bowles wrote:

" 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.

So summon spells SHOULD be GM controlled then?

You mean they aren't??!!

Animal Companions are not NPC's. They are a class feature just like any other class feature.

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

WEEELLLL... Summons/Called creatures ARE by default controlled by GMs, the spells pretty much explicitly say you need to communicate with the creature to convince it of other actions (besides the default allowed by summon spells, attacking one initial target), so NOBODY should be under the impression that the spell grants total control.

For Companions, think how the rules tell you to control them: Handle Animal... the exact same fundamental mechanic as NON CLASS FEATURE BESTIARY ANIMALS would be directed by. The Class Features is just giving some skill bonuss and changing the action requirement. Nothing fundamental vs. non-class feature animals.

Familiars are also NPCs, and a GM should indeed feel free to control a Familiar when they feel like doing so, certainly with several Improved Familiars having an antagonistic agenda of their own per their descriptions, the GM really should do that from time to time, for Familiars with similar alignments to their master and no antagonistic agenda the contrast isn't as much, but can still add flavor, character and humor to the situation. A player roleplaying communications between his PC and an NPC rather than treat the NPC as a sock-puppet brings role-playing depth to the Familiar, which treating the Familiar as a sock-puppet is simply not conducive to.

Obviously, in both cases, the GM may decide that he's OK with player controlling them to a certain extent, because that also lightens the GM's load: But just like for 'autopass' dice rolls, the end result needs to correspond to exactly how it would work if the GM had been controlling every aspect. This is why you need to specify what exact commands are being issued, etc... In other words, the GM is mostly just outsourcing actual dice-rolls and tracking of HPs and other book-keeping, and isn't completely releasing control of the companion NPC.

Otherwise, if the player really was TRULY controlling the animal companion (and the GM wasn't in ULTIMATE control of it), then there should be no limitation on the companion doing any action it is physically capable of, issues of motivation are irrelevant (in-game) if you are 'controlling' a character (as you control a PC).

But since this subject obviously has a good amount of controversy/ different understandings, I think it's obviously prime material to be addressed in a future blog/faq/guide. It could be addressed by Paizo in a Rules Blog or FAQ not via PFS, but since it isn't really any in-game mechanical effect, but simply 'how the game is run', I think it's also reasonable that is just be put out under the PFS banner... That said, consulting with the Rules team seems like a good idea here.

I don't know. It's an incredibly powerful class feature, and, in a perfect world, this sounds like a good way to put some kind of limit on this class feature. But the time constraints in PFS make it a no-go to me. And it's already not necessary in homebrews, as I'm willing to be a ridiculous as the PCs want to be.

Every class has something that can cause it to overpower things. I’ve run 93 scenarios in PFS now, and played over 40. I’ve been playing and GM’ing Pathfinder itself since 2010 or so, and I’ve been roleplaying (GM’ing and playing) since I was 14, which equals 28 years now.

I also have several writing credits to my name.

I think I have a background that gives me some credibility to speak on this specific issue.

Barbarians with their movement and Rage and everything else you can tack on top, can dish out huge minimum damages and charge over everything in their way.

Fighters with their 22 feats by 20th level can be outright sick.

Trip or Grapple Monks can be virtually impossible to hit and largely never fail to succeed at their maneuver. I’ve seen a Grapple Monk (who specifically can flurry with grapple checks), grapple & Pin in round 1, and then tie up in round 2. Rinse and repeat until all the badguys are tied up. When he gets high enough level to get 3 attacks in a round, he won’t need the 2nd round to tie someone up.

I’ve seen a Ranger archer do 137 points of damage during a Chase scene to the object of the chase on his turn, thus ending the chase. I’ve seen another Ranger archer kill the BBEG on round 1 before we all had a chance to even know what we were facing.

I’ve seen a Barbarian build be virtually impossible to kill with the die hard chain of feats and their ability to heal while raging and what not.

I’ve seen a mounted cavalier who got dragon style for his mount and can charge over difficult terrain and through his allies (and now has wheeling charge so now isn’t limited to a straight line).

I’ve seen a wizard with an azata familiar that just dominates the table, and now he can cast shadow projection on the Azata, which makes the Azata a killing machine that can hardly be damaged.

Animal companions are hardly broken, or hardly the only extremely powerful thing for a build. If adjudicated correctly, you mitigate a lot of the over-poweredness you’ve been seeing.

If GM’s aren’t adjudicating animal companions correctly, that doesn’t make it a problem of the class feature, it makes it a problem of the GM’s.

This is of significant importance to PFS, since PFS tries to limit DM judgment calls, and tries to got with RAW in all cases.

"I will, as a GM, step in to provide guidance on how an AC will interpret a command if the player is crossing The Line."

That sounds fine to me, but is this actually allowed in PFS, since it must be done by RAW? So we are back to who ultimately has bottom line control of an AC as per the RAW?

This is of significant importance to PFS, since PFS tries to limit DM judgment calls, and tries to got with RAW in all cases.

"I will, as a GM, step in to provide guidance on how an AC will interpret a command if the player is crossing The Line."

That sounds fine to me, but is this actually allowed in PFS, since it must be done by RAW? So we are back to who ultimately has bottom line control of an AC as per the RAW?

You want a specific RAW comment on who controls the animal companion?

You won't find a statement that specifically says one way or another. It doesn't exist.

But I'd be hard pressed to think if the developers intent was anything but the Players control their own class features.

But as David said, that runs into the limits (in RAW and FAQ) on what the animal companion can do.
If the companion is ultimately 'under the control of the player', then there are no limits on what it 'chooses' to do, any more so than there is on what a PC chooses to do (for which there are no restrictions AFAIK, the PC can do anything they are capable of, and this isn't questioned, if the player is playing them erratically then perhaps the PC is insane, but the buck stops there).
Obviously, the RAW doesn't directly speak to this, although as I wrote, animal companions as a class feature don't have anything fundamentally distiguishing them from non-class feature animals (just skill bonuses and action changes for handle animal).
That doesn't mean that in it's role as unifier for GM calls, PFS can't clarify exactly this issue central to gameplay for these issues (animals, companion or not, and familiars and summoned creatures), and since this basic paradigm speaks exactly to all the specific details/limitations expounded by the handle animal rules, it seems like a good idea to mention this so people understand the context of those rules.
Obviously, in actual game-play, conventional practice IS for some delegation to occur (letting player usually handle certain aspects, even if GM may 'step in' from time to time), and it's probably a good idea to acknowledge this, as well as the limitations for this, perhaps even codifying what is OK for PFS GMs to delegate to players and what is not OK (or what is always 'reserved' for the GM to over-rule on the spot, no questions asked).

Thanks Andrew, I too find it funny that somehow people complain about Animal Companions, and yet all the examples you have just raised are just a small sample of the excesses available to any class.

AC's just aren't the big time destructobots people keep claiming, and yes, they are a class feature.

I have posted this question in the rules forum. I feel PFS needs this answered more than any other subgroup of Pathfinder. Hopefully they'll buy my reasoning and give us a ruling.

@Andrew

I'm not contending that there aren't builds that break scenarios better than just bringing a pet. But many of these builds require non-trivial knowledge of the rules.

The pet, just by existing, gives those classes double the action efficiency of non-pet classes. The special mounts of cavaliers and paladins usually have so many hit points that its not even worth the DMs time trying to attack them. That just seems far too unassailable to me, especially given that no optimization is even required for this. To me, pets are essentially a zero-effort power build.

Your list of broken builds does indeed include things I haven't seen or thought of before. I do, however, have you trumped on the ranger listing, because I saw a fighter archer do 175 in one round :)This whole parade of craziness just further convinces me that PFS needs a epic or hardcore mode for scenarios. "Playing up" simply doesn't cut it when these kinds of PCs are involved.

In my experience, adjudication can't help the fact that many or even most PFS scenarios simply don't shell out the damage quickly enough to threaten a party with the hp bloat of a pet or two or three. It also doesn't help that authors love their explosions to whittle down the PCs, but pets just evade it.

I understand your point about the power builds, but at least those are specific combinations of feats. It's not brokenness codified into the CRB.

"But I'd be hard pressed to think if the developers intent was anything but the Players control their own class features."

Unfortunately, developer intent is not an acceptable criterion for RAW rulings. Therefore, either interpretation is still possibly legitimate. Even under DM control, it won't help the hp bloat issue that pets bring to a scenario.

An obvious argument against the PC controlling the AC is that fact that druids and rangers still have to use the handle animal mechanics for the ACs and there are specifically bonuses from being an AC. Perhaps that the only level of control intended by the devs. I don't know the answer to this, but given the havoc pets can cause on PFS scenarios, it needs to be clarified.

David, barring any RAW saying animal companions are NPCs and run by the GM, the GM would be hard pressed to justify doing so should I sit down at his table to play my AC characters.

Frankly, I'd probably get up and walk away.

As a GM, I have way too much to do to sit there and also run the pets of the characters.

I doubt you are going to get a RAW clarification from anyone on this.

in my 28 years of GM'ing and playing, I've NEVER seen a GM control an animal companion. Never.

Those who do are micromanaging the table, and I believe ultimately restricting fun.

Animal Companions are a class feature, and there is not another class feature (that isn't a pet) that the GM controls on a combat-by-combat basis (the Magus blade-bound archetype intelligent black blade is probably the closest you'll find).

The time thing is the big limiting factor, I agree. But there is still a big difference between the AC being under DM control and being delegated to the PC for sake of time and actually being under direct PC control. As I said, the fact that the handle animal rules specifically apply to ACs implies, to me, that they should get limited special consideration.

There is only one justification in PFS: RAW. Either the DM is supposed to be running the ACs and then chooses to delegate, or it is always the purview of the PC and the DM does not have that option in PFS. There really is no middle ground in RAW society play. Which is why they need to rule on this.

nobody thinks any GM wants to, or does, continually run every aspect of animal companions, delegation is clearly the norm, bringing up strawmen is just not constructive to resolving the issue. the gm being in ultimate control of the companions/familiars does not conflict in any way with choosing to delegate some 'work' to players.

if players are ultimately controlling the companions, none of these restrictions on commands actually matter, the player says 'i'm letting the animal companion do whatever it wants', and OMG, it just happens to 'want' to ultra-optimizingly attack the exact opponents the PC would want it to. if the GM is conscious of their ultimate control over the animal companion, then there is the grounds for players to NEED to use the trick system to convert their wishes into the companion's actual actions (even if the trick system doesn't let them do that 100% efficiently).

I'm going to go out on a limb and say they won't rule on this.

Table variation WILL happen in organized play. There is no possible way for them to cover every possible ambiguity, and we shouldn't expect it.

But this being the case, I doubt you will find any GMs (maybe 1%) who actually run the ACs.

Regardless the GM reasons (delegation or no right to control), the control falls to the players.

"in my 28 years of GM'ing and playing, I've NEVER seen a GM control an animal companion. Never."

Anecdotal evidence, easily countered by myself having seen this done many times in home brew games. It really cuts back on AC abuses.

I don't see any reason they shouldn't rule on this. But they might not. So then we are in a YMMV situation from table to table.

Other class features are not sentient (semi-sentient) beings. I'm afraid that argument is not good enough, at least for me. And it is certainly not a RAW argument.

The fun restriction argument is interesting. Is it not possible that one player getting to run two PC-equivalents might be restriction the fun of the other players who only get one PC-equivalent? This is why fun restriction arguments don't work here, either. Only a RAW ruling.

"Regardless the GM reasons (delegation or no right to control), the control falls to the players."

But these two situation are quite different.

Table variation WILL happen in organized play. There is no possible way for them to cover every possible ambiguity, and we shouldn't expect it.

Except acknowledging ultimate GM control, and mentioning the option of delegation (which can vary in extent, and doesn't need to be consistent thru time) already allows for table variation. How many straw-men need to be brought up here?

But this being the case, I doubt you will find any GMs (maybe 1%) who actually run the ACs.

Who has mentioned GMs who run companions 100% of the time? Nobody, AFAIK.

Simply put, that the starting point is GM control over companions, and 'delegation' should always conform to what GM control over an 'independent' animal would look like, is exactly what makes sense of the 'limitations' of the trick system. If people don't understand this, that their 'delegated' control over the companion is under implicit limits (which the GM should feel free to step in to maintain) NOT corresponding to how they would control a sock-puppet, then the trick system just doesn't make any sense... As seen by the reactions to the clarification of the trick system.

nobody thinks any GM wants to, or does, controls/runs every aspect of animal companions, delegation is clearly the norm, bringing up strawmen is just not constructive to resolving the issue. the gm being in ultimate control of the companions/familiars does not conflict in any way with choosing to delegate some 'work' to players.

if players are ultimately controlling the companions, none of these restrictions on commands actually matter, the player says 'i'm letting the animal companion do whatever it wants', and OMG, it just happens to 'want' to ultra-optimizingly attack the exact opponents the PC would want it to. if the GM is conscious of their ultimate control over the animal companion, then there is the grounds for players to NEED to use the trick system to convey their wishes into the companion's actual actions.

That makes no sense.

A player can’t just make their spells hit or make the saves impossible to succeed. They still have to roll the dice to hit touch AC, and the rules dictate what their spell save DCs are.

The same, animal companions have a set of rules by which they work.

Players roleplay or rollplay their characters, but still have to use the rule set and roll the dice on occasion.

Same with ACs, they still have the follow the rules by how they choose the actions the animal is going to do. Those rules include Handle Animal checks and making sure the animal knows certain tricks.

This isn’t rocket science and shouldn’t be treated as such.

The GM adjudicating the handle animal rolls and/or disallowing the player from having the animal do things outside the rule set doesn’t equate to the GM running an NPC. Its no different than telling the Barbarian he can’t charge because the animal companion is in the way.

I don’t understand your statement.

So if you are willing to accept table variation on this, why are you so vehemently set against ACs being considered NPCs by some judges? You even stated that you'd get up and walk away. That doesn't sound like accepting table variation to me. It sounds like you want a RAW ruling in that direction. If so, so be it. But we need that ruling.

It doesn't seem fair that for an issue with no RAW interpretation as you have stated, that it be run 95%+ in the favor of the pet classes.

Extremely experienced DMs may not have time constraints for running ACs themselves. It sounds like you would find that objectionable, but with no real RAW basis for this.

Andrew Christian wrote:

Table variation WILL happen in organized play. There is no possible way for them to cover every possible ambiguity, and we shouldn't expect it.

Except acknowledging ultimate GM control, and mentioning the option of delegation (which can vary in extent, and doesn't need to be consistent thru time) already allows for table variation. How many straw-men need to be brought up here?

Quote:

But this being the case, I doubt you will find any GMs (maybe 1%) who actually run the ACs.

Who has mentioned GMs who run companions 100% of the time? Nobody, AFAIK.

The norm is delegation, but that can include GMs 'stepping in'.
But if there isn't an understanding of the basis for that, that can be an upsetting thing for players.

Again, if you as a GM decide to control my AC. I walk from your table.

It is not the GM's right to control my character's class feature.

So you will not accept table variation on this. That's fine, but for your position to be legitimized, you need a RAW ruling. Otherwise, we are back to YMMV.

The GM adjudicating the handle animal rolls and/or disallowing the player from having the animal do things outside the rule set doesn’t equate to the GM running an NPC.

Yes, it does... specifically adjudicating handle animal rolls is superfluous if a player is actually in control of the animal, and can thus dictate what the animal's own self directed actions are. Remember, animal companions are using the same fundamental handle animal rules as non-companion animals, which as NPC/monsters can pursue self-motivated actions if nothing else (successful handle animal check, or diplomacy for non-animals, ordering another action) conflicts with that. Handle Animal, ignoring it's particular limitations re: tricks, is not fundamentally different here than using Diplomacy on a Humanoid NPC to ask them to do something.

Consider this as well. It might actually save DMs time to just run the AC rather than have to police every command its given by a cheeseball player. This point does not eliminate the need for a RAW ruling, but it is just something to think about.

Again, if you as a GM decide to control my AC. I walk from your table.

It is not the GM's right to control my character's class feature.

Well, you can walk from my table because I smell bad or take in-character accents to a ridiculous extreme, that isn't a rules issue.

A player can’t just make their spells hit or make the saves impossible to succeed. They still have to roll the dice to hit touch AC, and the rules dictate what their spell save DCs are.

The same, animal companions have a set of rules by which they work.
Players roleplay or rollplay their characters, but still have to use the rule set and roll the dice on occasion.
Same with ACs, they still have the follow the rules by how they choose the actions the animal is going to do. Those rules include Handle Animal checks and making sure the animal knows certain tricks.

But if players are in ultimate control of animal companions/familiars/summons, they don't need to worry about handle animal or diplomacy/CHA checks to enforce/convey their will to these other creatures, they just say "the creature really wants to X" without needing to depend on any form of in-game communication (i.e. silence/darkness doesn't matter, even if it would impede handle animal or diplomacy).

The rules for Handle Animal/Tricks apply to using Handle Animal to COMMAND the animal, they don't magically become a limitation on what the animal's own self-directed desires are (as alluded to by people bringing up wild packs of wolves using Flanking tactics), which would apply when the animal companion is left alone with no commands and encounters some other NPC/monster - the rules don't tell us that in such a scenario the animal companion would simply take no actions (if it doesn't have any commands). Thus, Handle Animal/Tricks are not actually a limitation on the animal companion NPC themself, but are a restriction on the PC's use of a skill to control the companion. Confusion stems from succesful use of the skill means you succesfully force the animal to perform the trick. It isn't the same thing, and it doesn't change that Handle Animal Tricks/Diplomacy just have no use if the player is in ultimate control of said animal/NPC.

"If players are in ultimate control of animal companions/familiars/summons, they don't need to worry about handle animal or diplomacy/CHA checks to enforce/convey their will to these other creatures, they just say "the creature really wants to X" without needing to depend on any form of in-game communication (i.e. silence/darkness doesn't matter, even if it would impede handle animal or diplomacy)."

This is how everyone plays it anyway, which is why I hate ACs and epic mounts. The pets mystically know everything their master wants done regardless of circumstance.

And while its fine to get up and walk from a table, (I myself will do it if someone is playing a character from the list you posted above) the DM is not allowed to ban pets from the table or add extra content to compensate for the presence of pets. Those ARE RAW conditions we know to be true.

Andrew Christian wrote:

The GM adjudicating the handle animal rolls and/or disallowing the player from having the animal do things outside the rule set doesn’t equate to the GM running an NPC.

Yes, it does... specifically adjudicating handle animal rolls is superfluous if a player is actually in control of the animal, and can thus dictate what the animal's own self directed actions are. Remember, animal companions are using the same fundamental handle animal rules as non-companion animals, which as NPC/monsters can pursue self-motivated actions if nothing else (successful handle animal check, or diplomacy for non-animals, ordering another action) conflicts with that. Handle Animal, ignoring it's particular limitations re: tricks, is not fundamentally different here than using Diplomacy on a Humanoid NPC to ask them to do something.

I don't want to sit here and have a yahuh, nahuh, argument with you.

But your stance makes no sense to me.

How is adjudicating what a player can have their character do based on the rolls they make per the rules of the game, equate to an animal companion being an NPC?

If that's the case, then there are no PC's, everything is an NPC, because I can tell you your character can't do something based on the rule set we are playing by.

Consider this as well. It might actually save DMs time to just run the AC rather than have to police every command its given by a cheeseball player. This point does not eliminate the need for a RAW ruling, but it is just something to think about.

The reason I'm having trouble with your argument is because one of the sacrosanct rules of roleplaying games in general is that Players play their characters and GM's control everything else.

While playing the Pathfinder RPG, the Game master describes the events that occur in the game world, and the players take turns describing what their characters do in response to those events.

It is explicit here, and implicit just in general roleplaying game theory, that players are in control of their characters unless some specific in-game effect (i.e. confusion or dominate) says otherwise.

Animal Companions don't exist without the characters that spawn them. They are explicitly listed as a class feature of the classes that have them. Not as a tag-along-NPC, but a class feature. They are part of the character, not a separate character.

In my mind RAW already says that animal companions are controlled by the players, but RAW doesn't explicitly say, "Animal companions are run by the players." And I don't think it needs to. Why? Because its already part of the game that as a player I control my character, and part of my character may or may not be an animal companion class feature.

They just happen to need to follow the rules laid out for Animal Companions and the Handle Animal skill. The choices a player makes for their animal must be informed by these rule sets.

So no, I reject Table Variation in this instance, because I feel RAW already covers it both explicitly and implicitly.

To ask the Developers to clarify this or make an official ruling on this...

Well lets just say, the look on their face will probably be akin to... "Well Duh! Why is this a question again?"

In PFS we create our characters. Aside from all the mechanics we create their idiosyncrasies, personalities, histories, pet peeves, et. al. We also create the same for a character's animal companion. Is the wolf skittish, aggressive, lovable, loner? Do they like treats? Do they lick themselves clean or expect a bath? What languages do they understand, if any?

So why would a class feature suddenly become GM controlled?

In a home game, a GM is more than welcome to decide that all pets are GM controlled and have GM created personalities. That might actually be interesting for everyone to have an animal companion that they don't know what they are going to do next. Could be fun and hilarious. A ton of work for the GM, but could be fun.

But this isn't a home game. As much as you can't tell the Barbarian whether he can, or cannot rage (unless the rules explicitly say otherwise, like when he's fatigued or otherwise restricted from taking a Free Action), you can't control my animal companion outside of the rules set forth for how they interact with the world.

If as a GM I see a player taking questionable actions for their animal companion, I'm well within my rights to ask them to make a Handle Animal check or restrict a particular action based on my understanding of the rules.

But this doesn't make the creature an NPC. It just means that the rules restrict what actions the animal can take based on certain circumstances, skills, tricks, and rolls.

"If players are in ultimate control of animal companions/familiars/summons, they don't need to worry about handle animal or diplomacy/CHA checks to enforce/convey their will to these other creatures, they just say "the creature really wants to X" without needing to depend on any form of in-game communication (i.e. silence/darkness doesn't matter, even if it would impede handle animal or diplomacy)."

This is a function of a GM not adjudicating things properly, not a function of whether an animal companion should be GM controlled or not.

In most cases, a well-built AC class character is going to have enough Handle Animal to basically make the DC 10 Handle Animal check automatically. Remember, 1's are not failures on most skill checks, and handle animal checks are not a failure on a 1.

But yeah, if the animal can't see and/or hear their master, then they will either carry out the last command given, or will retreat away from danger. And I expect a player to make those choices correctly based on the environment and circumstances. If a player tries to make choices as though its an organic and psychic part of their body and mind, then I will have to ask them to pick another action. I will give them their options I feel are appropriate given the circumstances.

But this is no different than a fighter who wants to charge across difficult terrain. I have to say, sorry, its difficult terrain, you'll have to pick a different action. If you want to move forward, your choices are... XYZ.

If as a GM I see a player taking questionable actions for their animal companion, I'm well within my rights to ask them to make a Handle Animal check or restrict a particular action based on my understanding of the rules.

But this doesn't make the creature an NPC. It just means that the rules restrict what actions the animal can take based on certain circumstances, skills, tricks, and rolls.

But the Handle Animal/Trick rules only apply to what that skill does, it doesn't say anything about what the animal's own desires or impulses are. (unless you think that wild wolves indeed cannot use tactics to routinely Flank)

So what is stopping a player from never issuing any Handle Animal Commands, and just saying "at this moment in time in the universe, Fluffy's innate desire is to move between exactly these squares [most optimally] position themselves perfectly for when another PC will arrive at a certain square, and take this sort of special attack which only makes sense based on metagame knowledge, or knowledge only the PC has and not the animal"?

to have an animal companion that they don't know what they are going to do next.

The point is that there is a game mechanic for ensuring that you know (more or less) what the animal companion will do: handle animal tricks. More or Less, because as generally useful tricks, they aren't always as specific as might be optimal in a given combat situation. But if the player is announcing those tricks to the GM, they don't have any big doubt about what the animal will do. That doesn't change anything about the fact that the only player control is thru the stated effects of using a skill, just like they can succesfully use Diplomacy or Intimidate to convince (uncontroversially classed) NPCs to do what they want.

Fixating on 'class feature' (as if a class feature could never be 'an NPC follows you around') just isn't productive IMHO. Certainly the literal definition of character (that the player controls) does not extend to "NPCs that follow you around because of the result of special training/experience you have as a character". Spells are also a class feature, and Summons are definitely not under the full control of characters, likewise with Called creatures you need to make CHA checks for, etc. If they were under control, players could just never even bother to communicate (again, barring all other issues, this is minimally subject to things like light and sound conditions allowing for communication), they can just decide that they know what the creature's OWN desires are at that moment. Fail a CHA check vs. an outsider? That's OK, because that outsider just decided (like Seinfeld's George Castanza) to do the opposite of it what it normally would (disobey your request) because that just feels interesting and novel to it in the moment.

But yeah, if the animal can't see and/or hear their master, then they will either carry out the last command given, or will retreat away from danger.

wait, so every animal in the world (remember, handle animal works mostly the same for companions as non-companion animals) is just continually 'retreating away from danger' in every moment that they are not subject to a handle animal command? if the player is in control of the personality of the companion, why can't they say "this companion DOESN'T retreat from danger in this situation, but it does XYZ instead"? if the player is in control of the animal, all you as the GM can do is adjudicate the actual skill/actions used, not the motivations (personality) of the companion.

i have no problem with the player detailing the companion's basic personality, because hey, if they didn't like one companion's personality, they could replace it with another until they found one acceptable. but having some general personality traits written down for the companion (which the GM can take account of) is very far for real-time control of a character responding to every detail on a round-by-round basis.

So what is stopping a player from never issuing any Handle Animal Commands, and just saying "at this moment in time in the universe, Fluffy's innate desire is to move between exactly these squares [most optimally] position themselves perfectly for when another PC will arrive at a certain square, and take this sort of special attack which only makes sense based on metagame knowledge, or knowledge only the PC has and not the animal"?

The rules. An animal will not attack if you don't issue it the attack command. An animal will not actively attempt to flank unless you issue it the flank command.

You can argue all you want about whether this makes them an NPC or not.

But the fact of the matter is, the rules still need to be followed in regards to Animal Companions. The rules explicitly state they need the Handle Animal skill to command their animals to do stuff. And if they don't command their animal to do stuff, the animal will do nothing (or at best default to defend or heel).

If as a player you want to start playing word games with me to try and bypass the rules, I'll take that as an invitation to dis-invite you from the table.

But this in no way means I'm controlling the animal, or that it is an NPC.

I just expect the player to use the rules. And the rules do cover what happens if they choose not to issue a command. The rules cover it by omission. The animal basically does nothing if you don't issue it a command.

Just like a Barbarian won't spontaneously rage if they don't choose to rage or a Wizard won't spontaneously cast a spell unless they choose to do so.

An animal will not spontaneously choose to do something unless it is issued a command by the character.

That's how the rules work. I won't argue this point with you anymore, because now you are just choosing to play word games.

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.

Actually, it's not up for debate despite it being debated. The animal is a separate being and technically under the control of the DM. The "it's a class feature" argument is irrelevant. It's like saying because these two things are red, they must both be balloons. There is nothing in RAW that says a class feature is exempt from DM control.

The fact, and it is a fact, is that a majority of DM's don't want to waste time micro-managing AC's and players don't want their AC's micro-managed. Not in home games, and certainly not in games where there is as an official time limit.

So the default behavior is as we both observed, player gets to do whatever they want and only in rare occasions does a DM actually do something.

But the "who controls it discussion" is without merit and nothing more than a red herring.

David Bowles wrote:

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.

Actually, it's not up for debate despite it being debated. The animal is a separate being and technically under the control of the DM. The "it's a class feature" argument is irrelevant. It's like saying because these two things are red, they must both be balloons. There is nothing in RAW that says a class feature is exempt from DM control.

The fact, and it is a fact, is that a majority of DM's don't want to waste time micro-managing AC's and players don't want their AC's micro-managed. Not in home games, and certainly not in games where there is as an official time limit.

So the default behavior is as we both observed, player gets to do whatever they want and only in rare occasions does a DM actually do something.

But the "who controls it discussion" is without merit and nothing more than a red herring.

This is not a fact and is not supported by any rules in Pathfinder.

I do agree that it is not up for debate.

The player is always in control of their Animal Companion.

i was actually just repeating topics already mentioned by others, namely the implications of the Flanking trick for wolves acting naturalistically (not under any commands) and whether they can indeed actively pursue Flanking (as the Flank trick normally does). the rules for commanding animals have no more provenance for what the animal would otherwise do, than the rules for diplomacy have for what humanoids would otherwise do, animal companions as animals (never mind that handle animal is mostly the same, companion or not) are never 'un-NPC'ified' by the rules, they just have a unique stat-block.

anyhow, the conceptual background for animal (companion) actions in the game seems reasonable to cover in a future FAQ, however PFS management wants to officially rule on it. if in the interest of PFS dynamics, they want to rule that the GM never has any control over the AC, but that the player can be kicked out of the game if they roleplay the AC in a way outside what is allowed by handle animal commands, or simply enforce that AC's do absolutely no action besides retreat from danger (barring commands to the contrary) that is one approach to bring clarity to things.

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.

BNW's assertion is only valid if those are the actual circumstances. Did you look at the sheets in question and verify that the AC's had 3 Int and had listed all the tricks that were being hand-waived? Did you verify the Druid had +15 on HA? Did the Druid have all the modifiers mapped out? Were any of these ignored HA checks taken during combat where you cannot Take 10 or Take 20?

At the level where I've observed total hand-waiving of AC's, none of them had the things BNW references. And yet, total hand-waiving. No wait...the player might have thrown in a token roll on performing one of the two tricks they did write down.

As I've stated before, the whole AC thing is a mess. I have yet to see it handled properly and if it was, I would probably not want to see it again. Maybe at level 10, this is moot, but at level 2, I'm sorry, it's bogus.

right, and even if your companion knows all published tricks, that is still a lesser level of flexibility than actually being able to do anything and everything, psychically following the most specific of your wishes. i have always seen it played that you can consider any specific wish (not reflected by any published trick) as it's own trick (EDIT: although this can't be trained in PFS, where only published tricks can be trained), which you can try the Push DC to implement, but the Push DC is pretty damn high.

right, and even if your companion knows all published tricks, that is still a lesser level of flexibility than actually being able to do anything and everything, psychically following the most specific of your wishes. i have always seen it played that you can consider any specific wish (not reflected by any published trick) as it's own trick, which you can try the Push DC to implement, but the Push DC is pretty damn high.

Pushing does allow a much higher level of complexity and flexibility for what you command your animal companion to do.

And consequently the check is really high (DC 25, or 27 if your animal companion is injured).

anyhow, the conceptual background for animal (companion) actions in the game seems reasonable to cover in a future FAQ, however PFS management wants to officially rule on it. if in the interest of PFS dynamics, they want to rule that the GM never has any control over the AC, but that the player can be kicked out of the game if they roleplay the AC in a way outside what is allowed by handle animal commands, or simply enforce that AC's do absolutely no action besides retreat from danger (barring commands to the contrary) that is one approach to bring clarity to things.

There doesn't need to be further clarification by PFS staff.

The players just need to follow the rules and not abuse the situation where the rules don't 100% cover it.

There will be table variation based on a GM's understanding of animals as to what an animal can do sans commands. The player can ask what their options are (just like they can ask what their options are given the circumstances if they are a fighter).

Player: so Bitey is done killing this guy I commanded him to attack, but now my druid is unconscious, what can I have the animal do?

GM: You can have him continue to attack enemies, as your last command was attack, or you can give him a perception check to notice your druid is unconscious and choose to retreat to defend if you want.

This doesn't make the animal an NPC. It just has a different set of rules and more intense player/GM interaction than most PC options.

AC = Class Feature = Players bag, not the GM's.

AC = Class Feature = Players bag, not the GM's.

This!

Just the rules for AC's and Handle Animal often require a more intense interaction between Player and GM as to what options the player has with the Animal Companion.