Animals and Their Tricks

"Sean K Reynolds wrote:
There's an 8-page section in Ultimate Campaign that talks about various companion creatures (hirelings, animal companions, cohorts, eidolons, special mounts, charmed creatures, and so on) and jurisdiction over who controls the creature."

Our 400 posts are in vain; this was posted in the rules section. We will all know the answer soon enough. /thread

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

James, I think you are simply getting diverted from the real subject here.

If I had a player obviously metagame in what I would argue is a bad way... 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.

But the 'Don't Be a Jerk Rule' is entirely PARALLEL to how the rules consider these other issues. Reducing cases of differing player/GM opinion of the PC's motivation/personality/internally coherent knowledge to an issue of 'being a Jerk' is silly, people can have differing opinions without being jerks, right? If the player isn't considered to be a JERK, but merely has a different opinion, then the GM DOESN'T have any grounds to over-ride the player's roleplaying of their character or kick them out of the game.

It's going to be settled now; that's all that matters. As I posted so many posts ago, I will accept whatever RAW ruling they decide.

James, I think you are simply getting diverted from the real subject here.

I'm not sure if you are saying that these specific things are not class features,
or that no class feature may ever amount to 'an NPC follows you around/is entered into the game'.

I'm saying that you don't get to play multiple PCs, but rather that you just get to play one.

People seem to confuse familiars, mounts, companions, and the like for a second PC for them to role play. That's not what you get.

You get an NPC that is loyal to you; perhaps even more strongly tied than that.. but it is still an NPC and nothing is changing that.

-James

Right, but that is totally tangential to claiming these things are not Class Features.
Arguing THAT subject is just going along with your opponents' logic that
whether or not something is a Class Feature correlates to whether or not it is an NPC or 'PC'.

Right, but that is totally tangential to claiming these things are not Class Features.

Arguing THAT subject is just going along with your opponents' logic that
whether or not something is a Class Feature correlates to whether or not it is an NPC or 'PC'.

I agree that the status of "class feature" really means nothing, but it's unclear as to whether that's even true. Regardless, they are going to rule on this.

If your Animal Companion has a feat, it knows how to use said feat.

my only question there is given there is no custom Tricks in PFS (although whether it is allowed to PUSH a 'custom Trick' is another question of mine), what happens when the Companion has it's INT boosted, and takes some far-out Feat that it physically can accomplish (or which is non-physical to begin with), but which doesn't correspond the goal of ANY published Trick? how do you DIRECT it to use that Feat, which it wouldn't have reason to use if you directed it to do any other Trick? should that case uniquely allow a custom Trick of 'use X Feat that doesn't correspond to any other Trick'? would that be trainable?

I've been asking this over and over and over.

If my AC has the Outflank FEAT, does it ALSO require the Flank TRICK?

Likewise the Mad Dog class has a flanking feature, does the AC need ADDITIONAL trick training to do what this class feature already infers?

There appears to be a problem here.

I think it would be more than fair if this were required. I think that a lot of pet users don't understand how POWERFUL ACs are as just a single "class feature". I think they are much more than a class feature, but that's me.

This is doubly true for PFS, because of the 20 point character build and lack of access to item crafting. But ACs still get their full stats and full feats. And boon companion is legal. Doesn't seem quite right.

I don't know about the Mad Dog thing, but Outflank isn't complicated.

PFS staff have already explicitly posted that using the Attack trick CAN sometimes mean the animal moves to a Flanking square and attacks from there, Outflank Feat works normally in that case. If a Flanking square is the closest square, that is a completely reasonable outcome. (a creature may attack from a square that isn't closest for some other reason, e.g. to avoid a hazard and fulfill it's order/Trick without harming itself, or possibly other reasons )

What the Flanking trick does is make the Companion SEEK OUT Flanking squares that it wouldn't otherwise do using just the Attack trick, i.e. take extra effort to do so. If you just use the Attack trick, you are not communicating to the companion that it's GOAL is to Flank whenever possible, thus, Flanking whenever possible ISN'T it's goal (primary goal always being = do what the Trick says). The Feat Outflank can apply to either Trick being used, although if you make the effort to invest in that Feat, it makes sense to invest in a Trick so the Feat can be used more often.

Of course, this comes to the issue of GM/Player control, if the player is in ultimate control then they can just say "well, he IS attacking like the Attack trick says, it's just that my companion's personality is such that he likes to do things in the FANCIEST manner possible, and moving some extra squares to this square that JUST HAPPENS to be a Flanking square seems fancy to him in this moment"... i.e. effectively reducing the difference between Attack and Flank tricks.

So what you guys are saying is that despite not only having to invest a stat point to raise the animal to 3 Int so it can buy a Feat, a Feat all about flanking, it should additionally have to purchase the trick as well?

Why wouldn't learning a Feat entirely built on flanking as a tactic outweigh a trick?

Pack Tactics (Ex): At 2nd level, a mad dog and her war

beast gain a +4 bonus on attack rolls while flanking the
same opponent (instead of the normal +2 bonus). This
ability replaces uncanny dodge.

Once again, the Class ability seems to infer that the training is already done, it would be odd that the 'trick' isn't assumed to already be known.

Why do you need to pay twice?

This is doubly true for PFS, because of the 20 point character build and lack of access to item crafting. But ACs still get their full stats and full feats. And boon companion is legal. Doesn't seem quite right.

What's crafting have to do with anything?

You should have to pay twice because ACs are already overpowered. It's called balance. All these "investments" you are talking about are stat increases and feat choices that other PC classes never even get to make. Do you not think a druid is quite formidable even without the AC? If you think not, you are wrong.

Equipment is something that would theoretically make a PC more powerful than an AC. But in PFS, characters get half as much equipment compared to a good homebrew group, because they can't get the "do it yourself" discount. Make sense?

Additionally, unlike homebrews, the DM can not beef up encounters to compensate for the pet. I personally find cleave to get a good NPC feat to keep the pets classes from running the show, but measures like this can not be taken in PFS.

As much as this game is supposed to be about fun, how is it fun to play a martial class in medium or heavy armor and watch as the pet with superior movement beats you to the punch every fight, rendering you unable to contribute effectively?

Sigh.....Can we put the Genie back in the bottle?

Seems like the saving grace that was supposed to answer all our AC needs has just drawn out all the confusing questions that GMs have been hand waving since the golden days.

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

.
if you are trying "to teach the jerk judge a lesson by being a jerk", there are two jerks at the table.

That kind of was my point.

Sometimes though, you have to be a jerk. There are very few ways a player at a random table can stand up for himself, passive/aggressive behavior is the option least likely to give a DM a valid reason for ejecting the protesting player.

It certainly beats engaging in a real life conflict with medieval weapons. (Resulting in a destroyed rubber tree, two hours hiding from police patrols and his wife refusing to speak to either of us for a week.)

You should have to pay twice because ACs are already overpowered. It's called balance.

The great equalizer is player skill. A skilled player can dominate a less experienced group regardless of class chosen.

Pets are fun, they make nice toys, the only time they are going to approach the power of an optimized PC is when compared to low level casters.

Of course, in a home game the dwarven druid would just be cranking out adamantium full plate and amulets of natural armor for his Ankylosaurus while the wizard pimped him out with belts and headbands: resulting in no difference.

nosig wrote:

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

.
if you are trying "to teach the jerk judge a lesson by being a jerk", there are two jerks at the table.

That kind of was my point.

Sometimes though, you have to be a jerk. There are very few ways a player at a random table can stand up for himself, passive/aggressive behavior is the option least likely to give a DM a valid reason for ejecting the protesting player.

It certainly beats engaging in a real life conflict with medieval weapons. (Resulting in a destroyed rubber tree, two hours hiding from police patrols and his wife refusing to speak to either of us for a week.)

Please do not engage in this when I am at the table. Please

I don't want you to ruin 5 hours of my game time, or that of my wife (who games with me often) or 1 or more of my friends. I can assure you that if you do intentionally ruin a game for us by engageing in these tactics, we will try to never sit with you again. And yes, we have gotten up and left a table due to someone we will not play with joining the game. If our only experience with you is you "train wrecking" a game just to "teach the judge a lesson", we are not likely to ever want to game with you again. We try very hard not to game with jerks.

Life is too short for Bad Gaming.

Pets are fun, they make nice toys, the only time they are going to approach the power of an optimized PC is when compared to low level casters.

I've seen critters come even with if not blow away full fledged characters a few times.

1) first level. The pets are very impressive.

2) Highly mobile fights: high movement and pounce critters can kill things before the fighter can get there over difficult terrain.

3) Rogues.

4) Sub optimal builds, like two weapon fighting or one handed fighting.

5) Damage dealing evokers

6) Chase scenes.

You should have to pay twice because ACs are already overpowered.

So you admit it is in fact paying twice.

Good.

You also admit that Crafters are actuall OP, because with the investment of a lousy Feat here and there they can DOUBLE the wealth of the WHOLE PARTY and equip them WAY BEYOND their correct WBL? Great, are you positioning to have that nerfed next? No didn't think so.

Now about martial classes in medium or heavy armour, why aren't the mediums in Mith and thus full move rates?

Now if you can ever put your blinding bias aside for a minute, I'd happily have a chat about Cat animal companions with their pounce/rake combos, personally I find these out of balance againstthe rest of the other AC options and would think toning these down would be in order.

DigitalMage wrote:

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?

Yes I agree, but I was more referring to not understanding the whole quote:

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.

I am still not seeing how the GM having the ability to override the player metagaming with his animal companion is any different than the GM having the ability to override the player metagaming with his character - both abilities exist (backed up by the don't be a jerk rule) so why would should there need to be a ruling that the GM by default plays animal companions?

I am going to ignore the comparison with rulings around re-skinning because I really can't see that they are similar.

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. [...]

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).

Agreed. If a GM feels my character's animal companion should have a personality different than the one I envision it having I would not throw a fit - I may however choose to have my character leave his animal companion back on his farm and not use it in the adventure though. I would rather see the animal not played than played completely differently than I envision him acting and in contradiction to how the animal companion has acted in all the previous scenarios.

Do people get upset when they move from a table where a player kept track of initiative to a table where the judge does?

Again I am not seeing how these are comparable - whether the GM or another player tracks initiative, as long as they do so according to the rules the result will be the same.

However whether the GM or the player controls the animal companion, even if both do so according to the rules, the results could be very different, especially in terms of roleplaying the personality of that animal companion.

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.

Again this is where my experiences differ, I see the animal companion as part of the game that is owned by the player - afterall the player chose to have an animal companion for his character, he chose to have a dog and not a velociraptor, the player chose what skills and feats it had, the player chose whether it grew in size when the character hit level 4, etc. So the player has a significant investment in that animal companion.

Because of that investment I genuinely feel a player should have more say over how that animal companion NPC is run, than an NPC that is purely part of the GM created world.

You obviously feel differently - to you any NPC should be by default fully under GM control, and players are only allowed to have a say in how they are run if the GM so chooses.

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.

Then again I would be happy with a ruling that players control animal companions but the GM has the right to over-rule any action he deems not appropriate.

If the player/GM have differing opinions of the ANIMAL COMPANION (or Summons, or Familiar) motivation/personality/internally coherent knowledge, the GM /DOES/ have grounds to over-ride the player's opinion, because nothing in the rules ever gave the player any reason to assume that they are in ultimate control of role-playing these NPCs like they are their own PC.

I think this is what this whole disagreement is about though, people don't agree that it is so clear that "nothing in the rules ever gave the player any reason to assume that they are in ultimate control of role-playing these NPCs", at least any more so than their own PC. The fact that the animal companion is a class feature of their character is to some people enough "rules" to imply the player does control the animal companion.

This is why some people are seeking an official ruling for PFS.

james maissen wrote:

I am still not seeing how the GM having the ability to override the player metagaming with his animal companion is any different than the GM having the ability to override the player metagaming with his character - both abilities exist (backed up by the don't be a jerk rule) so why would should there need to be a ruling that the GM by default plays animal companions?

I don't fully believe there needs to be a ruling because all NPCs are played by the DM by default. Increased awareness would be helpful.

What's the difference?

If someone tells you you can't have that cookie in your hand, then you resent it.

If someone has the cookie then if they happen not to offer it to you then you are less put out ... That is unless you were expecting to be entitled to that cookie.

Does that make any sense to you?

A DM would be under more social pressure to let you have the cookie in your hand, especially if you threaten to leave, pout, or purposefully ruin the game if you can't eat it!

The analogy I made with keeping track of initiative was done because players don't feel entitled to doing this for a DM. You might like doing it, you might do it better, and you might even offer to do so; but would it be strange for a DM to do so instead? No, so it doesn't cause an uproar when the DM does this part of their job.

James

This is being explained in Ultimate Campaign. This thread shows that there needs to be a ruling. The whole NPC/PC/class feature thing has made for chaos.

I don't fully believe there needs to be a ruling because all NPCs are played by the DM by default. Increased awareness would be helpful.

What's the difference?

If someone tells you you can't have that cookie in your hand, then you resent it.

If someone has the cookie then if they happen not to offer it to you then you are less put out ... That is unless you were expecting to be entitled to that cookie.

Does that make any sense to you?

It makes sense, but I believe players do understandably feel a sense of entitlement to play their animal companion as it is part of their character.

No matter what words you use to describe it, whether its the animal or the bond with the animal that is the class feature, the player chooses the animal type, the player chooses the skills, the player chooses the feats, the player chooses whether it gets larger at 4th level etc and so the animal companion is part of that character and as such there is the expectation that the player gets to play their character.

You may not agree with that, but that doesn't stop some people feeling entitled to play their animal companion. So whether a ruling is made that players should control the animal companion or not, the cookie is IMHO already in the player's hand.

Now if a ruling were made that in PFS animal companions are played by the GM and he may allow the player to play it with the provisio that he can assume control at any time, then at least by agreeing to play PFS you are upfront agreeing to have the cookie taken out of your hand with just the possibility that you may get it back for a nibble.

Me personally, I am hoping if a ruling is made it is that players get to control ACs but GM can override. If however the ruling is made that GMs control ACs but may allow PCs to play them then I won't be that bothered, I will simply ask before playing with each GM whether he will run my druid's ac or me, if its the GM I may choose to leave the AC out of the game. I can still have plenty of fun with the Druid by himself :)

It makes sense, but I believe players do understandably feel a sense of entitlement to play their animal companion as it is part of their character.

Does this change for you with summoned creatures?

With charmed NPCs?

With allied NPCs?

My point is that none of these are your character, in whole or in part.

Your animal companion is separate, is an NPC, and travels with you. It can be fun to role play between your two PCs.. but in reality you only have the one.

Moreover, I think this feeling of running the many headed hydra is what sours players at the table to the idea of companions. It also leads to ignoring/misunderstanding the handle animal rules (for example confusing the flank trick for whether or not an animal will flank.. which started this thread).

-James

My point is that none of these are your character, in whole or in part.

Your animal companion is separate, is an NPC, and travels with you.

-James

Incorrect. And I would thank you to stop posting this type of stuff as if it were fact, when in fact, it is just your own opinion.

DigitalMage wrote:

It makes sense, but I believe players do understandably feel a sense of entitlement to play their animal companion as it is part of their character.

Does this change for you with summoned creatures?

Yes, it does actually. I feel much less entitlement as (using the example of Summon Nature's Ally) the summoned creatures are temporary, theoretically expendable without the PC losing anything, and if one GM runs them differently than another it does not break credulity as it can be explained that you aren't summoning the exact same creatures each time.

With charmed NPCs?

Yep, again less entitlement as I as a player have less invested in that NPC, and that NPC started as something "belonging" to the GM.

With allied NPCs?

Again, yep! Unless they were gained using the Leadership feat and I had been involved in their creation and development, in which case my entitlement would be greater as my investment is greater.

My point is that none of these are your character, in whole or in part.

My point is that the animal companion is different in that the player has much more intellectually and possibly emotionally invested in the animal companion. It is part of the mechanical build of the PC and so provokes a different sense of entitlement.

It can be fun to role play between your two PCs.. but in reality you only have the one.

Simply playing an animal companion does not make it a full fledged PC - a good player will give it some personality, have it used effectively, but will have it remain a secondary focus to the true PC.

Moreover, I think this feeling of running the many headed hydra is what sours players at the table to the idea of companions.

The issue you seem to be talking about now is a different one entirely, if certain players are getting soured on the idea of having two many animal companions taking up too much game time - that will be the case whether run by the Player or GM, its another character in the initiative order that diminishes screen time for each player.

However, if that is the problem, the solution would be to ban companions completely. However Paizo have chosen to take a compromise and at least limit in combat the number of companion animals or other beings to one.

If anything, having the GM have to run every animal companion will likely make the animal companion's turn take even longer and cause other players to have even less game time than if the player ran the companion.

It also leads to ignoring/misunderstanding the handle animal rules (for example confusing the flank trick for whether or not an animal will flank.. which started this thread).

That doesn't come from the fact that the player is running the animal companion that comes from whoever is running the animal companion (be it player or GM) not knowing the rules.

In short, if the issue you have is animal companions causing less game time for other players, then the best thing to do is ensure players know the rules and are familiar with their animal companion's abilities and then have them run the companions. I believe getting the GM to run animal companions will in most cases take longer as the GM will not be familiar with the abilities of each specific companion.

james maissen wrote:

My point is that none of these are your character, in whole or in part.

Your animal companion is separate, is an NPC, and travels with you.

-James

Incorrect. And I would thank you to stop posting this type of stuff as if it were fact, when in fact, it is just your own opinion.

It is a fact.

You do not believe that the animal companion is an NPC?

Do you think that the animal companion is a PC then?

You do admit that the animal companion is a creature, right?

Andrew, it is a fact that animal companions, summoned creatures, cohorts, and the like are all NPCs.

-James

If anything, having the GM have to run every animal companion

The GM can delegate as they see fit, and as the table is able to handle.

However, the animal companion is an NPC. This means that the GM is the default person to run the creature, not anyone else.

In practice.. judges who let others keep track of initiative, will let others keep track of initiative. Those that let players run their associated NPCs will continue to do so.

However, the judge is not automatically a 'jerk' for electing to run an NPC. Despite what others would have you believe.

-James

That doesn't come from the fact that the player is running the animal companion that comes from whoever is running the animal companion (be it player or GM) not knowing the rules.

Witness this thread, where people are confusing the 'flank' trick with the ability of an animal companion to move into flanking position.

The flank trick is simply about directing the animal. When so ordered it understands that the importance is providing the flank over how it would normally behave in combat.

If most tables had the druid issuing handle animal checks to the animal in the form of rolling and telling the DM what the animal is asked to do, then everyone at the table would have a good idea of what each trick actually did as the DM would go about running the AC (as he would a charmed NPC, summoned creature, or random ally of the party).

What happens at tables, however, is that the druid player runs both creatures without likely mentioning any of this (as it's not needed) and it's like he's got multiple PCs. He knows he can make the easy DC 10 check without rolling, so it's not like he's cheating here or anything.

But what gets learned at the table? What gets reinforced? And what is lost on others witness to this?

In this game that's learned & reinforced at the table, rules are lost and misunderstood when they are not seen there.

-James

Andrew Christian wrote:

james maissen wrote:

My point is that none of these are your character, in whole or in part.

Your animal companion is separate, is an NPC, and travels with you.

-James

Incorrect. And I would thank you to stop posting this type of stuff as if it were fact, when in fact, it is just your own opinion.

It is a fact.

You do not believe that the animal companion is an NPC?

Do you think that the animal companion is a PC then?

You do admit that the animal companion is a creature, right?

Andrew, it is a fact that animal companions, summoned creatures, cohorts, and the like are all NPCs.

-James

Animal Companions are NOT NPCs.

They are also NOT PCs.

They are, however, a class-feature that is an extension of a PC and should be under PC control.

Stop talking like its a fact, when you don't know its a fact James. The fact is that the game hasn't decided definitively what they are called, and Sean K. Reynolds has indicated Ultimate Campaign will answer the question.

So for now, its table variance.

At my table, I'm correct, and at yours, you are. Should you ever decide to GM PFS.

DigitalMage wrote:

If anything, having the GM have to run every animal companion

The GM can delegate as they see fit, and as the table is able to handle.

However, the animal companion is an NPC. This means that the GM is the default person to run the creature, not anyone else.

In practice.. judges who let others keep track of initiative, will let others keep track of initiative. Those that let players run their associated NPCs will continue to do so.

However, the judge is not automatically a 'jerk' for electing to run an NPC. Despite what others would have you believe.

-James

actually,

Part of the point of this story is to show that the GM controls the creature before the PC aquires it/him. The PC recruits it to service - or hires/buys it or whatever. This is all done "off stage" in PFS.

And the guy most people seem to be having a problem with is the Table Judge, the guy who is only dealing with this AC (or whatever) for 5 hours. (that's why I can him a judge, not the GM. The GM has ultimit control of everything - and isn't at the table. If he walked up and says, "the AC does this" I would hope everyone would go, "sure thing Mike!" and just play on).

Now the player deals with the AC for LOTS LONGER and hopefully knows more about it and can run it better and faster than my judge. But if my judge says "Phydaux wont enter the room." I am not going to throw a fit and stomp off muttering about "who controls my character abilities". I'm going to go "huh? why not? Come on boy - here Phydaux!" and ask the Judge what's up.

Cause I like to play WITH my judge, not AGAINST. I have more fun that way.

If the Table Judge is going to be a jerk (and some are, I understand) - I am going to grit my teeth and try to get thru it (After all, maybe he knows something I don't.) and talk to him after the game. At worst I loose 5 hours game time. Perhaps I will need to avoid him forevermore. Maybe he had a bad experience with a player the game before I sat down, and just needs a few nice players to get him back to "a fun judge". (So I try to be extra nice).

In fact, if you get right down to it, the GM might take control of my PC... I've been dominated before. "you attack your friend there with your strongest attack!" What kind of a player would I be if I stomped off 'cause he wasn't letting me do what I want to?

get's off soap box and runs for the bunker - as I'm sure bombs will start falling any minute!

Nosig,

Part of the unspoken contract between player and GM (and you touched on it a bit when you said you prefer to play with and not against your GM) is that they work together. Players won’t abuse rules or the lack of total encyclopedic knowledge of the GM, and GM’s won’t overly exert their control over the table. GM’s agree to ultimately lose the encounter, and players agree not to be overly argumentative and what not. I could go on.

So that being said, if a player is not running their AC according to the rules, then the GM has to step in to correct the player. But having to so (even repeatedly), is not a reason to declare the AC an NPC.

After all, as a GM I have to correct players on charge, 5’ steps, drawing weapons, standard vs. free vs. full round actions, et. al. Just because they don’t know these rules either, do I take control of their character? No.

So why should it be different for the Animal Companion?

If Paizo wanted GM's to control Animal Companions then they would have put that into the rules like they did for Leadership and Intelligent Weapons.

Animal Companions are class features of a Player's character, as such they are under the player's control. Just like Spells, Channel Energy and the like.

Indeed Jeffrey, and that they made rules for those mechanics and not for the AC implies it is not like them.

An AC is neither a Player Character nor a Non-Player Character, the animal is not a character.

For those saying there is no rule explicitly stating it is in the players control well it explicitly states that on the same page where it says the PC is explicitly under the players control.

My initiative tracking is not an integral part of my class.

I do not know initiative tracking better than the DM

My initiative tracking doesn't get killed when it does something wrong

My initiative tracking is not walking around with half of my spells on it.

My initiative tracking does not have a personality to play out.

My initiative tracking is not a unique combination of species, build, selected abilities, and feats that Imade myself. Summoned critters, NPCs, and the like were all made by the designers, not me.

Option 1:

My cat charges the goblin with the longspear *moves mini*, your aoo misses, clatter of dice damage. Goblin dies. Yay!

Option 2.

Player: I tell Tony to attack that goblin.

Dm: this one?

Player: No that one. Third one on the left.

DM: You can tell it to attack the third one on the left?

Player: no, but i can specify a target.

Dm, Ok, roll handle animal

Player: well i have a +9 with Tony and the dc is 10 so i can't miss...

Dm: well whats the roll?

Player... rolls die "16"

DM: Look up the dc of the attack trick

Player: Those dc's are just for training. The dcs are 10 if the animal knows it, a 25 if it doesn't.

Dm: Ok, then its charging, the goblin with the longspear attacks, hits ac 20 so your animal takes...

Player: What about the mobility feat?

Dm: Your tiger has the mobility feat? *looks through pile of papers for tigers feats "ahh ok, so I guess that misses". Then the tiger does a bite...done.

Player: and pounce ? He gets to make a full attack when he charges.

Dm ahh.. ok, so then claw claw ...

Player: And the back claws, you rake on a pounce too.

Dm: ok, claw, and claw... finishes him off.

Now, we're going with option 2 because.... ?

Because you can't be trusted apparently, all the AC players cheat - according to the same people who profess not to actually know the rules.

it explicitly states that [the AC is in the player's control] on the same page where it says the PC is explicitly under the players control.

Um, quote for that explicitly stated rule, please?

I'm not seeing that in the intro to the game, defining PCs, NPCs and Monsters as being sub-types of 'creatures', with PCs being under control of the players. The PC is a specific character (sub-type of creature) which is under player control, player control is not extended outside this character even to things which may be the result of class features (which are never associated to player control themself, only the PC /character/ is). To claim that animals resulting from class features ARE the PC means that they are one creature (PC + animal) which would get rather weird for targetting purposes (never mind that AC's are detailed as distinct creatures, with own stats, space, saving throws, NOT as one unified creature/character with the PC).

The AC class feature simply means the PC has the ability to: attract the animal, and gets certain bonuses when using standard skills to handle it. That's it, those are the ABILITIES it grants, nothing more, nothing says this animal is part of the PC character. Not fundamentally different than every female PC having the racial ability to give birth to a child, the child is not then 'part of the PC, and inherently directed/role-played by the player in charge of that PC character'.

Now, most class features are ABILITIES granted to the PC character, and are usable at-will by that character (role-played by player) but that is dependent on the wording of each class ability itself, not any general rule. If the AC class feature is amounting to an ability to attract the companion and skill bonuses for handling it, nothing is extending player control to this attracted animal... No more than a Class Ability stating "All cats within 1 mile radius of you are attracted to move towards your person".

Speaking of 'explicitly states' is just making fabulous claims which make your position look ridiculous, IMHO.
If this was the basis of your position, why haven't you ever posted up quotes before?

I think you just missed the forest for the trees there Quandry...

You have seen the quote that says the PC is explicitly directly under the players control right?

The status of the AC is clearly arguable. Hence, my request for a clarification in the first place. There is no point to keep arguing about this and fostering ill will. An answer is coming down the pike.

"So that being said, if a player is not running their AC according to the rules, then the GM has to step in to correct the player. But having to so (even repeatedly), is not a reason to declare the AC an NPC."

Rules lawyers will argue that if the AC is not an NPC, the DM has no grounds to enforce any kind of rule regarding them, including the trick rules. Since PFS is a RAW society, if these rules lawyers are correct, then the trick system in invalidated in PFS. Remember that in PFS the DMs do not have the same sweeping powers as in homebrew. In fact, pets in homebrew are not any kind of issue for me, since as the DM, I can just make things harder based on the amount of pets in the group, allowing all the PCs to contribute again.

Thats not 'allowing them to contribute', that is simply undermining the tactical might and acumen of the party.

It's like saying because you can run 400 yards really well, I have now made it 600 yards arbitrarily to ensure you suffer properly. It's about as silly as ramping down the adventures because the party all came with wildly sub-par choices. You effectively ensure there is no reward whatsoever for rules mastery, strong charcter builds, nor smart cooperative mutually supporting agreed player roles within the party.

Way to go handicapping the party and dumbing down the game.

If the PC is metagaming then the DM steps in as well. If the int 7 wis 7 cha 5 dwarven barbarian with no knowledge arcana or social skills comes into a conversation with a polished accent saying "Indubitably my good chap, you are absolutely correct in your assesment of Foerems theorem of magical resonances." them the DM needs to either take a newspaper to the players head or enter "Dewyvision" mode where "thats what the dwarf looks like in his own head. This is what he looks like to everyone else" . Being a PC does NOT grant blanket immunity to do whatever you want.