Animals and Their Tricks

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

Actually, the animal companion itself is not a class feature. This is a mistake.

The class feature is the bond between them.

Likewise outside of PFS, a character with leadership does not have a cohort as a class feature (say by getting leadership from a domain, etc) but rather they have a loyal NPC by virtue of the feat or class feature.

Certainly the animal companion is an NPC. It is a non-player character. And it, like any other ally, or a summoned creature is run by the DM despite being on the side 'of the angels'.

The player of the druid character has a loyal NPC animal that is devoted to them and will act in their best interest. But that loyal NPC animal is run by the DM.

Now in practice is this done? No, possibly never. Should it? Certainly in some cases; and it would certainly make it easier to teach people how the handle animal skill worked if so. But most importantly, it needs to be understood that this is actually the default, even if custom has it otherwise.

-James

The rules for Handle Animal apply more or less the same, minus action costs and skill bonuses, for Animal Companions and non-class feature animals which may be encountered in any adventure. Just because it is a 'class feature', I don't see why the baseline would change (for failing a Handle Animal check, or not making one in the first place) for animal companions vs. other animals. If the baseline hasn't changed at all, then ACs and other animals are functionally identical in terms of ability of players to control their actions. Outside of Handle Animal checks which apply equally to NPC animals, and are thus dice-mediated 'communication' from PC to NPC... if PCs don't have any way to control an AC outside of this means, then they obviously DON'T really control the AC in any special way vs. any NPC animal... So I don't see the basis for distinguishing between NPC animal/ companion animal, or any such distinction is simply meaningless.

Anyhow, I'm not debating this anymore, but I look forward to future clarifications that have been intimated...

The thing about custom tricks (not allowed to train, but if you can 'Push' to do them) seems good to specifically address.
Allowing Pushing Custom Tricks seems reasonable to me, but could be construed as barred by the actual rules.
(if Custom Tricks simply don't exist in any fashion in PFS, then you can't Push them to do a non-existent Trick)
I think allowing this would really give some positive feedback that emphasizes the true paradigm,
that the animal is only following specific commands given to it, and if you go outside the known commands (which cannot be custom commands) then you have the heavier DC/action requirements of Push to deal with. If they can deal with those, then players can indeed think outside the box, which Custom Tricks seem compatable with.

About whether or not the Animal Archive goes in the Core Assumption, that really solely depends on whether or not all other material there is desired to be Core Assumption or not. But simply saying it is Core Assumption doesn't get these rules into people's hands... So republishing them somewhere they ARE in everybody's hands (such as the Guide) seems the way to go there.

It could also be clarified in an official document/FAQ the rule for increasing INT/bonus tricks, extrapolating the tricks a 1/2 INT animal knows to a general rule scalable for every INT increase is NOT justified by the RAW anywhere, but is just an extrapolation/inferrence, that would be good to have in the actual Guide. (really, that should be Errata for the Core Game as well, but until that happens PFS can clarify it)

Actually, the animal companion itself is not a class feature. This is a mistake.

The class feature is the bond between them.

Thats like saying that a Clerics spells aren't a class feature, the feature is the bond between him and god.

james maissen wrote:

Actually, the animal companion itself is not a class feature. This is a mistake.

The class feature is the bond between them.

Thats like saying that a Clerics spells aren't a class feature, the feature is the bond between him and god.

No, it would be like saying that you can't steal a wizard's spell book because it's a class feature..

The druid class feature is, indeed, the bond.. but it does not make it an extension of the PC, nor does it give the player of the druid a second character that they *must* run.

Rather it gives an NPC animal that is devoted to the character and DMs typically let the player run for them,

James

No, the book isn't, but the bonded object or familiar is.
You can kill a familiar, you can kill an AC, slay a paladins mount etc.

My line was accurate, the bond is between the Cleric and God, so from now on the GM should select all the Clerics spells.

I can't see the acceptance of having a GM run an AC.

As a protest, Id be getting all the players in the group to roll Druids, and then at teh start of the session hand the GM six totally different sets of AC stats. See how he goes running the Zoo.

The ONLY reason people seupport a GM running the AC's is that deep down they know/hope that the GM will be unfamiliar with the stats and abilitites of the AC and run it in a sub-par manner. Simply put, they are wanting the GM's unfamiliarity to be the cause of a Nerf.

Pretty cheap and tawdry.

David Bowles wrote:

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.

Core Rule Book, page 8, Playing the Game wrote:

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...

That may be; in fact, this whole time I have acknowledged the fact that your interpretation may be correct. But I'd like to hear it from them. Not you.

Just because you don't think there needs to be a RAW ruling on this doesn't mean anything. The posts from the thread are evidence enough that this will never be settled without a RAW ruling from the devs. Otherwise, we are looking at YMMV situations and people stomping off from tables.

I might also add that the majority of the people chiming in on the rules thread support the NPC model for the AC. However, this means nothing in PFS. Only an official RAW ruling can clarify this.

No, the book isn't, but the bonded object or familiar is.

You can kill a familiar, you can kill an AC, slay a paladins mount etc.

My line was accurate, the bond is between the Cleric and God, so from now on the GM should select all the Clerics spells.

I can't see the acceptance of having a GM run an AC.

As a protest, Id be getting all the players in the group to roll Druids, and then at teh start of the session hand the GM six totally different sets of AC stats. See how he goes running the Zoo.

The ONLY reason people seupport a GM running the AC's is that deep down they know/hope that the GM will be unfamiliar with the stats and abilitites of the AC and run it in a sub-par manner. Simply put, they are wanting the GM's unfamiliarity to be the cause of a Nerf.

Pretty cheap and tawdry.

Actually, I'm to the point where I'd prefer to have pets banned. But I know this is never going to happen, so I'll settle for a RAW clarification about how to run these things in a fair and consistent manner.

I support this mainly because players have a tendency to cheese out with their pets, adding on to their already substantial action-efficiency advantage. With the DM in charge, they'd still have the action advantage, but it would be less optimized for sure.

As a protest, Id be getting all the players in the group to roll Druids, and then at teh start of the session hand the GM six totally different sets of AC stats. See how he goes running the Zoo.

wow. truly a mature response there to a rule you don't like.

The ONLY reason people seupport a GM running the AC's is that deep down they know/hope that the GM will be unfamiliar with the stats and abilitites of the AC and run it in a sub-par manner. Simply put, they are wanting the GM's unfamiliarity to be the cause of a Nerf.

Pretty cheap and tawdry.

yeah.

This is not about 'balance' or 'nerfing', but about how the rules work.
A player is not forced to use the Handle Animal skill every round.
They CAN, and it works more or less the same for uncontroversially NPC animals, and 'class feature' animals.
If they don't use Handle Animal, they don't have control over either = no difference in player control.
Saying the player does control the animal companion, unlike non-class feature animals, requires that they can control it without Handle Animal, i.e. with no limiting rules beyond the normal game mechanical limits (move speed, attack rolls, etc) which clearly conflicts with the entire concept of using Handle Animal to control the class feature animal.

OK, fine, i said I wasn't debating any more 8-p

I'll be frank with you here, people set on cheezing will find a way to cheeze, pets or no pets.

You wont settle for RAW, because at the end of the day your argument isn't really about RAW, its about a percieved power imbalance, and no RAW is going to fix that.

At this stage you are hunting about for a way to build a case that the GM should effectively be in charge of class features to ensure they aren't 'abused', and indeed relying on the GM to be doing his primary job (running the adventure/adversaries) to be able to effectively do this new secondary job with any real degree of efficiency.

Your issue really comes down to:

You play with munchkins
hen aren't happy your game is ruined - PFS was designed with non-munchkins in mind.

"If you have other questions not addressed here, please feel free to reply in the comments below. Adam and I will do our best to try to answer those in a timely manner."

Please, Mr. Brock, just put this whole issue to rest for us.

Again, you're just reducing the argument of anybody who disagrees with you to bad intentioned motives.
I don't believe that any of my posts here have even mentioned issues of balance or nerfing as justifying this issue.
Why is so hard to simply engage in a discussion of a topic irrespective of imputing motives to the other side?

I can build a totally weak animal companion that is just not combat effective, no nerfing/balance issues whatsoever.
But the same rules apply:
No player control of companion outside of the Handle Animal mechanic /which works the same for 100%-legit NPC animals/.

If you want to demonstrate how the animal companion is not an NPC, you need to show some difference in how a player can control one but not the other... Yet the only difference is in actions to use Handle Animal and a bonus to the skill check (a Feat could easily do the same for Handle Animal vs. ALL NPC Animals, that wouldn't make them no longer NPCs).

If you are alleging some player control BEYOND that allowed for NPC animals, then that requires Handle Animal to be bypassed,
and direct player control of the animal companion's own self-directed actions.
Besides being absurd on it's own, that clashes with the fact that PFS management has specifically clarified the limits on Handle Animal re: animal companions, precisely to preclude the idea of player control of animal companions outside of the limits of Handle Animal (which applies functionally the same to non-class feature animals).

I'll be frank with you here, people set on cheezing will find a way to cheeze, pets or no pets.

You wont settle for RAW, because at the end of the day your argument isn't really about RAW, its about a percieved power imbalance, and no RAW is going to fix that.

At this stage you are hunting about for a way to build a case that the GM should effectively be in charge of class features to ensure they aren't 'abused', and indeed relying on the GM to be doing his primary job (running the adventure/adversaries) to be able to effectively do this new secondary job with any real degree of efficiency.

Your issue really comes down to:

You play with munchkins
hen aren't happy your game is ruined - PFS was designed with non-munchkins in mind.

I will accept whatever ruling the devs make and enforce said rules when I DM and make said rules known to the DM when I play. I think pets are big blocks of Wisconsin cheddar, but I would never unfairly target a druid while running a game. So, yes, I will settle for RAW. I have already acknowledged that there are many other builds that break scenarios, but pets do it on auto-pilot in my experience.

I will accept whatever ruling the devs make and enforce said rules when I DM and make said rules known to the DM when I play.

Congratulations, because that is an infinitely more mature response to a rule you may not like than Shifty's announced plans to sabotage the enjoyment of others if forced to play by rules he doesn't like.

No Quandry, not rules I 'dont like', but rather the employment of fiat and houserule to take away a portion of a class with no basis or justification. You seem to champion the idea of sabotaging the enjoyment of others (the AC classes), why is it so upsetting to hear those others might in return sabotage yours? U mad bro?

The Handle Animal/Feats etc give you a mechanic by which you can employ your AC, nothing more, nothing less, and that is no different from having a set of mechanics by which a caster uses a spell, a summoner uses his Eidolon etc. The AC is not an automaton, there are rules that apply to training it and employing it.

It's a class feature, it's under the class, therefore its the Druids.

If it was a charmed/tamed animal, it's the GM's baby.
If it was a summoned animal, it's the GM's baby.
If it is a follower/cohort, it's the GM's baby.
The GM can feel free to foster his babies back to the players, but he/she is not entitled to take theirs.

RAW does NOT stand for Reality As Wanted. You want the animal companion to be nerfed, therefore the rules well and truly can't possibly let people do what they're doing with the animal companion.

Given a reasonable working knowledge of the tricks the difference between what the animal will do if controlled directly by the player and what the animal will do if controlled by a by the DM with the player feeding them step by step instructions is negligible. The difference in enjoyment between the two on the other hand is astronomical. I want to picture my velociraptor leaping into combat, landing talons first in the bad guy before chewing off his face: NOT waste 5 minutes handing out stereo assembly instructions or programming iraptor to figure out how the critter moves.

If you're going so far as to spend 10 bucks on a PDF for a book devoted to a class feature you yourself won't use JUST so you can tell the other players "you're doing it wrong" you may want to re evaluate your priorities in the game. Buy everyone a pizza instead, it will be a lot more enjoyable.

The Animal companion is a class feature just as the Animal Comapnion Bond is a class feature. The AC Bond can be moidifed a higher levels by the Strong bond Class Feature. Several people pointed out to me in my thread on Bears that there are Animal Companions and Animals and that they were indeed diffrent as AC's are weaker than animals of the same type. You can buy an animal but not use it as a companion that makes it an NPC where as an AC is a Class Feature of Druids and Rangers just as spell casting and Shape Shifting is for Druids.

James Your argument on a wizard loosing hiis spell book holds no water as a Spell Book is just a book where in a mages spells are writed down in. Most smart wizards have a traveling copy of thier spell books as well as a grimore with all there spells writen down at home. Why does PF have the blessed book except for a mage to use as a traveling spell book. Spell casting is a Class Feature not spell books, Spell books are just items like magic swords.

Shifty and BIg Norse Wolf have the right idea on this and Mr. Bowles doees not. Mr. Bowles just does not like our fury buddies and wnats them nerfed. Mr. BOwles is intitled to his oppion just as Shifty, The Big Norse wolf and I are intitled to our oppion but since we are three and Mr. Bowles is one mabye 1.5 with Quandry but I am not sure with him we win.

Don't mention bears.

Why are there no LARGE BEAR animal companions, even JJ doesn't know.

The Animal companion is a class feature just as the Animal Comapnion Bond is a class feature.

And (outside of PFS) is a cohort not an NPC, but a class feature?

What does it mean for you (and others) for the Animal Companion to be a 'class feature'?

And how does this alter the fact that the companion is an NPC?

There is a difference between the PC controlling something and the player of the PC controlling something.

-James

"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.

Not everyone.

I play my Druid's dog very much as a dog, still with a bit of hesitation to enter combat (not so much now he had buffed up at level 4) still likely to charge straight at a foe even if that foe has a reach weapon, and never able to identify magic users specifically unless commanded to attack them specifically.

I also have Barrow (the dog) attempt to steal food from tables when my Druid is not looking, to hate having a bath or being brushed much, and always being reticent to stay somewhere rather than follow his master (hence why he isn't trained to Stay).

If a GM were to control my character's animal companion rather than me, I doubt any of those behaviours would be displayed, and possibly even the dogs temperament and behaviour would be erratic changing with each GM I play under unless I give them a full description of how I envision Barrow acting.

This is why I am for the player controlling the animal and just having the GM step in if and when a player starts taking the mickey (taking liberties) and has the animal companion do stuff that stretches or breaks credulity.

This issue isn't solely about how the animal is played in combat, but in every other scene of the game as well, be it social, investigation or exploration.

But the same rules apply:

No player control of companion outside of the Handle Animal mechanic /which works the same for 100%-legit NPC animals/.

Change that to "No character control of companion outside of the Handle Animal mechanic" and I would agree with you.

I feel that those pushing for GM control of animal companions believe players cannot be trusted not to metagame and play their character's animal companion and the character as if they shared the same knowledge, motivation and tactical ability.

Unfortunately, whilst having GMs controlling animal companions may solve the problem for those players who do metagame, it could severely spoil the fun of those of us who don't metagame and can play the animal companions in a manner that can and does sometimes conflict with the wishes of the character.

Seriously, if I turned up to PFS games and the GMs insisted on playing my character's animal companion and this resulted in erratic behaviour for the AC (e.g. portrayed as a cowardly but cute mutt by one GM and as a snarling unapproachable dog by another GM) then I would likely choose to have my animal companion stay back on the character's farm and play without him.

Don't mention bears.

Why are there no LARGE BEAR animal companions, even JJ doesn't know.

The bear comments stopped being cute days ago. Bears aren't the only companion that doesn't grow to its adult size. Why are there no gargantuan rocs, hm?

Drumlord if you even have to ask why there are no gargantuan rocs you must have never looked at the rules a gargantuan roc has a CMB of 25 and a CMD of 37 + fly compared to a large bear with a much more pedrestian CMB of +9 an a CMD of 20 [+4 vs grapel and trip quadreped]
Large Bears have 3 feats and gargantuan rocs have 8 feats so in no way can you compare the two.

Lets compare apples to aples a large tiger has a CMB of 11 and a cmd of 23 with 3 feats and 2 spiecial attack pounce and rake roughly equal to a large bear and yet no large bears but large pounce puddy cats.

I blame hyper active rules lawyers for whining so hard that the devs removed Large bears and kept other large animals.

"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 had a DM once that tried to tell me he was running creatures that should have been under my control.

I flooded the game with so many low level summons there was no way he could run them all himself and still have time to keep the game moving.

After a few sessions, he relented and we returned to normal play.

Don't make me build another Conjurer.

David Bowles wrote:

"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 had a DM once that tried to tell me he was running creatures that should have been under my control.

I flooded the game with so many low level summons there was no way he could run them all himself and still have time to keep the game moving.

After a few sessions, he relented and we returned to normal play.

Don't make me build another Conjurer.

In a home game I have run 450 goblins sieging a tower that had 5 PCs in it. Not quite 100 to 1 odds, but we did great. it was lots of fun too! the players still have fond memories of that game. (Best lines from the game - first half hour "we are so dead...", and half an hour later... "so, with 2 quivers of 20 arrows each, we only have 200 arrows... we need more arrows..."

I had a DM once that tried to tell me he was running creatures that should have been under my control.

You only have your own PC directly under your control.

Summons are, indeed, run by the DM. You can give them orders (if you can speak to them), but they are certainly run by the DM.

Now there's nothing wrong with that DM letting other players roll the dice and even run some of those NPCs, but it is not required from the DM.

Build your conjurers, but don't be a jerk at heart.

-James

the dogs temperament and behaviour would be erratic changing with each GM I play under unless I give them a full description of how I envision Barrow acting.

Sounds like a great idea if you play with many GMs.

This is why I am for the player controlling the animal and just having the GM step in if and when a player starts taking the mickey (taking liberties) and has the animal companion do stuff that stretches or breaks credulity.

Well that means the GM does have ultimate control over the animal, and is just farming out control of it as a convenience (if the player can do so responsibly, and is more motivated to, etc.) If the player is in ultimate control, then the GM doesn't have any rules grounds to EVER step in, outside of basic combat rules like move speed, etc. If those aren't being violated, then there is no RULE for the GM to enforce.

Quandary wrote:

No player control of companion outside of the Handle Animal mechanic /which works the same for 100%-legit NPC animals/.

Change that to "No character control of companion outside of the Handle Animal mechanic" and I would agree with you.

It comes down to the rules never suggest these class feature loyal animals which follow you around are role-played by the player, nor that the player even has free choice to choose any and all personality traits of these animals. The GM can allow that, sure. But the GM saying 'this ornery mutt shows up, and keeps following you around', with the mutt's personality outside of the player's control, THAT ALSO FULFILLS THE RAW OF THE ABILITY. The GM choosing to let the player co-create the animal companion's personality is just GM fiat outside of the rules. Just like Leadership NPCs, basically.

Now, you may have extra-legal understandings with your GMs on certain things, and you can indeed prefer GMs who are compatable with such understandings: no problem, just like a GM can prefer players who have the understanding that they bring the beer. But outside of all these personal preferences and conventions, we have what the actual rules say, and it doesn't matter if it is a 'class feature', there is no reason why something being a class feature (which is equivalent to Leadership Feat gained with level, Spells Summoning Animals/Mosnters, etc) is in conflict with that class feature saying that an NPC loyally follows the PC around.

I blame hyper active rules lawyers for whining so hard that the devs removed Large bears and kept other large animals.

Is there ONE post EVER complaining about Large bears? I'd like a link.

DigitalMage wrote:

the dogs temperament and behaviour would be erratic changing with each GM I play under unless I give them a full description of how I envision Barrow acting.

Sounds like a great idea if you play with many GMs.

Yeah, if it comes to it I will do that and hope the GM takes the time to read it and remembers to play it that way - still it would be easier if I just played my animal companion.

DigitalMage wrote:

This is why I am for the player controlling the animal and just having the GM step in if and when a player starts taking the mickey (taking liberties) and has the animal companion do stuff that stretches or breaks credulity.

Well that means the GM does have ultimate control over the animal, and is just farming out control of it as a convenience

If that is what you mean by ultimate control then as I said on the other thread I think we are in agreement, but I still don't see that as any different than how a GM has ultimate control over a player's character - if a player uses metagame knowledge his character simply wouldn't know the GM can step in and say No!

So do we actually need a ruling from Paizo that says "Players control their characters' animal companions but the GM always has ultimate say in how they act or interpret commands."?

It comes down to the rules never suggest these class feature loyal animals which follow you around are role-played by the player, nor that the player even has free choice to choose any and all personality traits of these animals. The GM can allow that, sure.

If the GM would't allow me to choose my animal companion's personality traits then I simply wouldn't choose to play a character with an animal companion.

"So do we actually need a ruling from Paizo that says "Players control their characters' animal companions but the GM always has ultimate say in how they act or interpret commands."?"

Yes, because PFS is a RAW society, and this is not explicitly stated anywhere. And people are constantly abusing the mechanics of the AC.

To my knowledge, a DM can not actually stop a PC from using metagame knowledge. At least, I've never seen it stopped at a PFS table. It's simply tolerated in order to get the table done and over with. I'd much rather scenarios stake out a larger block of time and allow DMs to properly adjudicate, rather than hand wave everything for the sake of time.

but I still don't see that as any different than how a GM has ultimate control over a player's character

The threshold and the supposition.

How many threads have you read where people complain that 'Paladins don't do this' or 'he's not playing his alignment'?

Witness how some people on this thread react to the idea that you communicate with your companion and the DM adjudicates it.

That presupposition that the animal companion is your character is the root of these feelings. Rather that being one of the characters you get to play, it is a companion to the character that you DO play.

As to your issue with your companion's personality, I'm sure that most judges won't have an issue with it. But it should filter through the judge. Recall the issues people had with 'reskinning'? This is little different in my mind. It's easily handled at the table, but the position really needs to be that things should filter through the judge.

In practice, I wouldn't see much changing on the surface as DMs will have players run allied NPCs, and possibly keep track of initiative, etc. However, when issues do arise you won't see the shock and horror of 'the DM won't let me play my (second) character!' and that is, indeed, worthwhile.

Lastly, could you get a bad judge and suffer by this?

My response: when you get a bad judge, you always suffer. The more warning signs, the earlier you can react to it.

-James

"So do we actually need a ruling from Paizo that says "Players control their characters' animal companions but the GM always has ultimate say in how they act or interpret commands."?"

Yes, because PFS is a RAW society, and this is not explicitly stated anywhere. And people are constantly abusing the mechanics of the AC.

Sorry, I think my statement may have had the perceived emphasis on the wrong point, I wasn't meaning to ask

"So do we actually need a ruling"?

But rather to ask do we actually want the ruling to be:
"Players control their characters' animal companions but the GM always has ultimate say in how they act or interpret commands."
rather than
"GMs control a character's animal companions"

I would happily accept the former, I wouldn't be so happy with the latter.

"So do we actually need a ruling from Paizo that says "Players control their characters' animal companions but the GM always has ultimate say in how they act or interpret commands."?"

Yes, because PFS is a RAW society, and this is not explicitly stated anywhere. And people are constantly abusing the mechanics of the AC.

To my knowledge, a DM can not actually stop a PC from using metagame knowledge. At least, I've never seen it stopped at a PFS table. It's simply tolerated in order to get the table done and over with. I'd much rather scenarios stake out a larger block of time and allow DMs to properly adjudicate, rather than hand wave everything for the sake of time.

My bet is that if this issue keeps going, and you do get a response from John, Mark, or Mike, it's going to sound a lot like this:

"PCs are free to control the actions of their animal companions or summoned creatures provided they do it within reason. If a GM feels the need to step in and control them for the PC, then this is likely a temporary fix of a larger issue. And the GM should really have a talk with the player about what they should be expecting out of their minions."

Heck, you might not even get that. It might be more like:

"PCs control their minions, provided they don't step outside the bounds of reasonable expectation."

At least that's my guess.

You're not going to get this:

"GMs control the dice rolls, personality, and actions of all ACs and summoned creatures."

Because frankly, GMs have enough to do in a given session and don't need the headache of dealing with your class features (or whatever term you want to use to describe them) in addition to everything else that's going on.

I am not going to look up how your spells work for you, or your feats. And I am not going to control your summons.

David Bowles wrote:

"So do we actually need a ruling from Paizo that says "Players control their characters' animal companions but the GM always has ultimate say in how they act or interpret commands."?"

Yes, because PFS is a RAW society, and this is not explicitly stated anywhere. And people are constantly abusing the mechanics of the AC.

To my knowledge, a DM can not actually stop a PC from using metagame knowledge. At least, I've never seen it stopped at a PFS table. It's simply tolerated in order to get the table done and over with. I'd much rather scenarios stake out a larger block of time and allow DMs to properly adjudicate, rather than hand wave everything for the sake of time.

My bet is that if this issue keeps going, and you do get a response from John, Mark, or Mike, it's going to sound a lot like this:

"PCs are free to control the actions of their animal companions or summoned creatures provided they do it within reason. If a GM feels the need to step in and control them for the PC, then this is likely a temporary fix of a larger issue. And the GM should really have a talk with the player about what they should be expecting out of their minions."

Heck, you might not even get that. It might be more like:

"PCs control their minions, provided they don't step outside the bounds of reasonable expectation."

At least that's my guess.

You're not going to get this:

"GMs control the dice rolls, personality, and actions of all ACs and summoned creatures."

Because frankly, GMs have enough to do in a given session and don't need the headache of dealing with your class features (or whatever term you want to use to describe them) in addition to everything else that's going on.

I am not going to look up how your spells work for you, or your feats. And I am not going to control your summons.

This.

And whether it's called an NPC that is delegated to PCs to control, or a class feature really is a moot point.

Players should control their animal companions barring not following the rules of animal companions.

DigitalMage wrote:

but I still don't see that as any different than how a GM has ultimate control over a player's character

The threshold and the supposition.

How many threads have you read where people complain that 'Paladins don't do this' or 'he's not playing his alignment'?

Witness how some people on this thread react to the idea that you communicate with your companion and the DM adjudicates it.

Apologies if I am appearing obtuse here but can you explain what you mean by this?

As to your issue with your companion's personality, I'm sure that most judges won't have an issue with it. But it should filter through the judge. Recall the issues people had with 'reskinning'? This is little different in my mind.

I honestly can't see how it is similar to reskinning - that was dealing with using mechanics to represent things that those mechanics did not by RAW represent. This is merely expressing how an animal behaves as the animal they are meant to be.

In practice, I wouldn't see much changing on the surface as DMs will have players run allied NPCs, and possibly keep track of initiative, etc. However, when issues do arise you won't see the shock and horror of 'the DM won't let me play my (second) character!' and that is, indeed, worthwhile.

Does this - GMs having to take control of a PC's animal companion, and the player then being shocked by it - seriously happen that often? Maybe I am lucky with the players and GMs I have played with to never have seen that happen (but then I don't play PFS much compared to many).

Build your conjurers, but don't be a jerk at heart.

-James

This goes both directions. DM's taking control of class features is a jerk maneuver to begin with.

In a normal game I would never flood the table with more than I could control in a timely manner. The issue occurs when the DM decides I don't have control over something I built my character for.

The issue occurs when the DM decides to use rules interpretations to destroy fun. I won't argue rules at the table. I will make the ruling impractical to enforce, hopefully returning the game to the state is was before said ruling.

Being a rules lawyer works both directions. By RAW I can't oppose a DM taking control of my creatures. By RAW the DM can't stop me from summoning dozens of them for him to control.

To my knowledge, a DM can not actually stop a PC from using metagame knowledge. At least, I've never seen it stopped at a PFS table. It's simply tolerated in order to get the table done and over with.

If I had a player obviously metagame in what I would argue is a bad way (not all metagaming is bad, for example where it avoids PvP and don't be a jerk behaviour) then I as GM would ask the player to have their character act in a different manner, if they declined I would be tempted to enforce the "Don't be a jerk" rule and ask them to leave and / or report the player to the VC or organiser.

David Bowles wrote:

"So do we actually need a ruling from Paizo that says "Players control their characters' animal companions but the GM always has ultimate say in how they act or interpret commands."?"

Yes, because PFS is a RAW society, and this is not explicitly stated anywhere. And people are constantly abusing the mechanics of the AC.

To my knowledge, a DM can not actually stop a PC from using metagame knowledge. At least, I've never seen it stopped at a PFS table. It's simply tolerated in order to get the table done and over with. I'd much rather scenarios stake out a larger block of time and allow DMs to properly adjudicate, rather than hand wave everything for the sake of time.

My bet is that if this issue keeps going, and you do get a response from John, Mark, or Mike, it's going to sound a lot like this:

"PCs are free to control the actions of their animal companions or summoned creatures provided they do it within reason. If a GM feels the need to step in and control them for the PC, then this is likely a temporary fix of a larger issue. And the GM should really have a talk with the player about what they should be expecting out of their minions."

Heck, you might not even get that. It might be more like:

"PCs control their minions, provided they don't step outside the bounds of reasonable expectation."

At least that's my guess.

You're not going to get this:

"GMs control the dice rolls, personality, and actions of all ACs and summoned creatures."

Because frankly, GMs have enough to do in a given session and don't need the headache of dealing with your class features (or whatever term you want to use to describe them) in addition to everything else that's going on.

I am not going to look up how your spells work for you, or your feats. And I am not going to control your summons.

I really don't care what the ruling is. We just need one to determine how this is supposed to be handled. Either DMs can choose to intervene on ACs or not. If they can intervene, then that is a permutation of the "DM has farmed out control" scheme.

David Bowles wrote:

To my knowledge, a DM can not actually stop a PC from using metagame knowledge. At least, I've never seen it stopped at a PFS table. It's simply tolerated in order to get the table done and over with.

If I had a player obviously metagame in what I would argue is a bad way (not all metagaming is bad, for example where it avoids PvP and don't be a jerk behaviour) then I as GM would ask the player to have their character act in a different manner, if they declined I would be tempted to enforce the "Don't be a jerk" rule and ask them to leave and / or report the player to the VC or organiser.

I don't think DMs can enforce player behaviour. That's the difference we need clarified between ACs and PCs.

james maissen wrote:

Build your conjurers, but don't be a jerk at heart.

-James

This goes both directions. DM's taking control of class features is a jerk maneuver to begin with.

In a normal game I would never flood the table with more than I could control in a timely manner. The issue occurs when the DM decides I don't have control over something I built my character for.

The issue occurs when the DM decides to use rules interpretations to destroy fun. I won't argue rules at the table. I will make the ruling impractical to enforce, hopefully returning the game to the state is was before said ruling.

Being a rules lawyer works both directions. By RAW I can't oppose a DM taking control of my creatures. By RAW the DM can't stop me from summoning dozens of them for him to control.

I'd advise: Don't fight with the judge. He's got bigger guns than you. he might just say, "rock fall, PC dies" - or even just "these last summoned creatures all move over there with the others and sit down to watch the fun." If you be a jerk, and he be's a jerk, the ones to suffer are the rest of us at the table. This is Lose-Lose.

Re: Large bears. This came up last night, new(ish) player playing her druid for the first time.
Me: Well maybe the thought of large bears in PAthfinder was unbearable.
*gets looks from the group*
Me: Ok, that was a grizzly pun.

Re: Control. I'm more than happy to let the druid control their critter, until it starts being unreasonable. Examples I've had so far:

I don't think DMs can enforce player behaviour. That's the difference we need clarified between ACs and PCs.

They can though, if necessary they use the threat of having them leave the game.

For example say a player starts having their character use tactics against a monster that obviously exploits a little known weakness of a rare monster, the GM may call for a Knowledge check and when that fails the GM may indicate that actually the character wouldn't know that weakness to exploit even though the player does. If that player then persisted on having his character act on that metagame knowledge I think a GM would be within rights to say they are breaking the "Don't be a jerk" rule.

The PFS Guide even comes right out and says about asking a player to leave if they use their knowledge of a scenario to spoil the fun when replaying scenarios:

If you spoil the plot for the table, the GM has the right to ask you to leave the table and is under no obligation to award you a Chronicle sheet. Be very careful about character knowledge versus player knowledge.

For me its not a stretch to apply that to other metagaming as well, whether it be with their character or their character's animal companion.

Druid who couldn't 'push' his wolf to go down the ladder.

In Sewer Dragons of Absalom my druid had a similar problem, luckily I had prepared Spider Climb and cast it on the dog and the took 10 to push him to "walk" down the almost vertical tunnel/chute. :)

I'd advise: Don't fight with the judge. He's got bigger guns than you. he might just say, "rock fall, PC dies" - or even just "these last summoned creatures all move over there with the others and sit down to watch the fun." If you be a jerk, and he be's a jerk, the ones to suffer are the rest of us at the table. This is Lose-Lose.

Not an option in PFS, which is where the ruling is causing issues. The actions of summoned creatures are specified, the debate is only who determines the implementation.

It attacks your opponents to the best of its ability.

I agree this leads to a lose-lose scenario. But then, allowing players control of their class features generally leads to a win-win scenario.

nosig wrote:

I'd advise: Don't fight with the judge. He's got bigger guns than you. he might just say, "rock fall, PC dies" - or even just "these last summoned creatures all move over there with the others and sit down to watch the fun." If you be a jerk, and he be's a jerk, the ones to suffer are the rest of us at the table. This is Lose-Lose.

Not an option in PFS, which is where the ruling is causing issues.

I agree this leads to a lose-lose scenario. But then, allowing players control of their class features generally leads to a win-win scenario.

actually both are still an option, you'll just have to report the jerk, and then call the organizer, and... all while the rest of us sit around and wonder why we sat at a table with you two.

Or you bump into someone like me, who happily runs every animal you summon (yes, even if they are different creatures) - maybe even "farming control" of them off to other PCs ("Eric, you handle these 4 dogs - Artanthos pass him the write-up for them ok? what do you mean you don't have a write up for something you summoned? shesh! ok, Eric, pull it up on your phone ok?"). Or I just get peeved with you and boot you from my table ("Organizer! Got a troll for you!").

Like I said, the judge has bigger guns than you. BUT IT DOESN'T MATTER - cause the people suffering are the other players, not the judge. (or you). We get to sit around and watch you (and the judge) have your little drama - during our valuable gameing time. While you "teach the jerk a lesson". (and fail to learn it yourself). Everyone looses in this case. And the lose was caused by two people, only one of them the judge. Next game slot, the other players will be careful not to get that judge (maybe), and just as careful not to sit with you. Lose-lose for everyone.

nosig wrote:

I'd advise: Don't fight with the judge. He's got bigger guns than you. he might just say, "rock fall, PC dies" - or even just "these last summoned creatures all move over there with the others and sit down to watch the fun." If you be a jerk, and he be's a jerk, the ones to suffer are the rest of us at the table. This is Lose-Lose.

Not an option in PFS, which is where the ruling is causing issues. The actions of summoned creatures are specified, the debate is only who determines the implementation.

Quote:

It attacks your opponents to the best of its ability.

I agree this leads to a lose-lose scenario. But then, allowing players control of their class features generally leads to a win-win scenario.

there are 8 spaces around the badguy. less when he moves to a corner. the extra summoned creatures in the opinion of the judge can't get to the monster, so they move off to the side and wait to be able to attack. judge: "this is 'the best of its ability' - it knows it can't do anything so it just sits here."

This goes both directions. DM's taking control of class features is a jerk maneuver to begin with.

First, it's not a class feature.. neither are summoned creatures, charmed/dominated NPCs, or cohorts (the last of course outside of PFS play).

Second, don't be a jerk is followed by a period. It is not a 'wait to be a jerk'.

-James

Artanthos pass him the write-up for them ok? what do you mean you don't have a write up for something you summoned? shesh! ok, Eric, pull it up on your phone ok?"). Or I just get peeved with you and boot you from my table ("Organizer! Got a troll for you!").

Oh, I bring write-ups. I store them as nice neat PDF's on my tablet. I also bring copies of all relevant faqs, errata, resources, and source material, including my copy of the beastiary. I got burned 1 time by not having a copy of a FAQ on me, it won't happen again. Of course, I won't be handing you my tablet, I need that for my other resources. I assume you have a copy of the beastiary with you since it is a core assumption for DM's.

It would be very interesting watching you boot a player from a table due to a legal character design and implementation that you disagreed with. Very interesting indeed, as I can guarantee I will be very polite while playing.

First, it's not a class feature.. neither are summoned creatures, charmed/dominated NPCs, or cohorts (the last of course outside of PFS play).

Since Summoner's Charm certainly does not make the summoning of monsters a class feature.

Neither does Summon Monster or Abyssal Bloodline or any number of other options that focus on the summoning and control of creatures.

Second, don't be a jerk is followed by a period. It is not a 'wait to be a jerk'.

-James

Not being a jerk goes both directions. It applies equally to the GM.

nosig wrote:

Artanthos pass him the write-up for them ok? what do you mean you don't have a write up for something you summoned? shesh! ok, Eric, pull it up on your phone ok?"). Or I just get peeved with you and boot you from my table ("Organizer! Got a troll for you!").

Oh, I bring write-ups. I store them as nice neat PDF's on my tablet. I also bring copies of all relevant faqs, errata, resources, and source material, including my copy of the beastiary. I got burned 1 time by not having a copy of a FAQ on me, it won't happen again. Of course, I won't be handing you my tablet, I need that for my other resources. I assume you have a copy of the beastiary with you since it is a core assumption for DM's.

It would be very interesting watching you boot a player from a table due to a legal character design and implementation that you disagreed with. Very interesting indeed, as I can guarantee I will be very polite while playing.

sigh. you still don't seem to see the point I am trying to make.

1 judge, 6 players, 5 hours. If you must use our time for your issues, try to keep it brief, and resolve it quickly. I'll try to do the same for my issues ("no, you can't Take 10 on Knowlegde Local, as it takes 10 times as long and you would be doing this all day"). If you can't solve it out of the game, move on at the end of the table - and never play with her again. Her lose right? She never get's to play with your wonderful self again. The worst that happens is you loose 5 hours gameing time. Doing it your way there are seven of us loosing 5 hours of fun. You (and the judge) were responsible for 35 hours of bad gaming... that's 17.5 hours that's your part. And 2.5 hours of that is my (limited) gaming time. That I value highly!

OH! and just think how much (due to your "lesson") the rest of the players are going to ENJOY playing with characters that summon creatures. Or have animal companions. "Oh, god, we've got another one of THOSE GUYS at our table!"

Just think. Please. (I want my time at a table with you to be fun).

Edit: almost missed this:
"It would be very interesting watching you boot a player from a table due to a legal character design and implementation that you disagreed with."
I do not enjoy booting someone from my table. I have only had to do it a few times, and a few of those I did not boot someone I should have. Trolls ruin everyones fun (I do not understand how they can enjoy ruining everyones day). If I see someone booted from a table - it makes me very sad. Most upsetting. I do not know how you would find it interesting - unless it's like a train wreck is interesting. I game to have fun, not to have "interesting times".

james maissen wrote:

Witness how some people on this thread react to the idea that you communicate with your companion and the DM adjudicates it.

Apologies if I am appearing obtuse here but can you explain what you mean by this?

At the mention of it some have stated that they would get up a leave the table, others would purposefully try to destroy the game, etc.

These are, shall we say, fairly strong reactions?

james maissen wrote:

As to your issue with your companion's personality, I'm sure that most judges won't have an issue with it. But it should filter through the judge. Recall the issues people had with 'reskinning'? This is little different in my mind.

I honestly can't see how it is similar to reskinning - that was dealing with using mechanics to represent things that those mechanics did not by RAW represent. This is merely expressing how an animal behaves as the animal they are meant to be.

Someone wants their riding dog to be a 'war pig', and it makes them happy to call it as such.. and they don't seek any mechanical advantage out of it. That's reskinning. Maybe it means different things to different people.

The idea of the 'war pig' is something that makes it fun for them. Now should they be bent out of shape if a DM doesn't like this? No. They certainly should accept that this won't fly with everyone.

Should they be able to get mechanical advantage from it? Certainly not. And in an organized campaign, I can understand a blanket disallowing of such. However, if brought forward with the understanding that one judge to the next could easily disallow such it wouldn't be as much of an issue. It's all about expectations here, and whether it is a 'may I' rather than a default until countermanded.

The latter brings forth these strong reactions, and in some cases it seems people purposefully deciding to be jerks.

Now, you want your companion to have a certain personality. This may be innocuous, or it may cross a line. Both of these are possible. Just like the idea of 'reskinning' something can do. Should you gain a mechanical advantage from this? Certainly not, nor do I imagine that you would look for one.

Will judges have a problem with it? Unlikely, but if they do then you respect that rather than throwing a fit (as we are adults here). As to how often will it happen? I don't think many DMs will object to the party running party allied NPCs, but I do see an advantage to having it be known that the DM doing so is the default.

Do people get upset when they move from a table where a player kept track of initiative to a table where the judge does? Do they impose upon the judge that someone else (perhaps a specific someone) should be doing so? Or is it understood that while the judge can delegate this he/she does not need to do so, let alone to a specific person at the table.

However, witnessed by the comments here.. I think that many people would elect to 'act out' if the DM were to be the one moving the allied NPC, making choices for the NPC based on what they were given, etc.

The animal companion is an animal NPC that is bonded to the PC. The player does not get to run two PCs, but rather they run their PC and their PC can in-game direct their PC's companion just as much as they can direct an allied NPC.

If your PC charmed/dominated an NPC would you be upset when your PC orders the NPC that the DM is still running the NPC? What if the charm or dominate ability were a class feature rather than a spell? Would this change things?

I frankly don't see it. In fact I hear the opposite on how people see issues with summoners (small s) as the summoner's player is controlling too many creatures. The house rule in PFS limiting a PC to one fighting companion seems to have its basis here. Otherwise I would think that it wouldn't be much of an issue and one simply left for each judge to decide what they would care to handle (in case someone tries to be purposefully disruptive, which until this thread I wouldn't have believed).

But then again, this could be another issue of what the default is perceived to be. If the default is 'as many as the player likes' then the judge saying no can be seen 'as being a jerk'. Meanwhile if the default is 1, but could be higher if the judge can handle it.. then when the judge says '1' it is not 'being a jerk'. The black-and-white outcome doesn't change, but the ripple-effects certainly do.

-James