Cato Taldinius's page

My group is running a high-level campaign at the moment. One of the fighters has a Rod of Rulership.

It's literally ruining the game. As you know, it works automatically on any creature with Intelligence less than 12.

Surprisingly, there are a lot of high-level creatures that get no save against this. We use a lot of random encounters, so all sorts of creature types are generated.

I've begun to give up on many. If they roll anything with an Intelligence less than 12, I simply don't play it out. I'm not wasting my time. They will use the rod, steal all the treasure, and run away. It's happened time and time again. Plus, 500 MINUTES- yes - MINUTES means the rod can be used over and over and over for just a few minutes at a time.

I actually computed it:

Opening Round
-doesn't matter who wins initiative, unless the monsters do and can incompacitate all the PCs (not going to happen) in the surprise round or round 1, the PCs will use the rod. So that's 1 ROUND (6 seconds) down.
-So then everyone's buddy buddy and have a one minute conversation in which nobody dies but the PCs get all the treasure and answers they want.

So the total use of the Rod in an encounter like this is literally 2 minutes at best!

That's 250 Encounters!

I know I could employ resource-using tactics for most thing, but trying to whittle down 250 use is a lost cause.

The 300 HD doesn't matter one iota, either, because to get to this level the PCs would need to be fighting an army or mob or creatures- which is a very rare occasion.

I hate to bump up all the creatures' Intelligence to that magical 12 score, but this rubs me the wrong way, too.

Anyone else experiencing the same difficulty?

My only answer to this boring playing style is to take the Rod away (which I'm loathe to do); have this be the last Rod ever and remove it from my game (still don't really like this and plus there is still the present issue); bump up all INT scores of enemies to 12 (loathe to do this as well); allow SR to count against Rods (messing with the rules again :(

The players happened upon the Rod fair and square and purchased it with their hard earned money, so taking it away at this point would be entirely unfair. I'm leaning the bump to INT 12.

The issue is, as well, that I am using multiple creatures at lower level in order to meet the CR of the encounter for the group. So if they are CR 16, then they'd preferably, for a fair fight, need to be against multiple enemies...so each enemy would need to be lower CR to make the CR correct.

*pulls out hair*

Just for thought.

A group with an APL of 16 is to encounter a group of CR 16 monsters.

Let's say the monsters are regular, basic Goblins.

Going by the encounter chart, a CR of 16 should have a budget of 76,800 XP.

Goblins being 135 XP, that would mean so far, for CR 16, there would be 568 Goblins, correct?

Now that math is correct but the formulas for getting to the correct number of monsters for CR 16 is incorrect, because the more monsters that are added will up the CR rating.

How in the world would I figure out what the true CR rating ends up being?

Another chart sort of explains this (CR Equivilencies) but it only goes to 16 monsters = CR +8.

This encounter would have far more than 16 Goblins.

My player and I are trying to get a grasp on high level encounter design vs. small, mob type creatures- trying to find out just what a APL 16 party's CR 16 encounter with Goblins would be.

If a spell says this for targeting:

"Targets one creature/level in a 20-ft.-radius burst centered on you"

does the caster, if they are 10th level, get to choose whether or not to have the effect on 10 creatures? Can the caster make the effect go on 3 creatures only?

hmmm....

Shush the Halfling Rogue

Shush hails from Egorian. His actual name is Drais Rakerrusk. His slave name was Bit. He now claims a home outside of Almas in Andoran, preferring the quiet countryside to living in a city.

Shush was born to Halfling parents in Egorian, living on the streets until caught stealing at a young age. He was then sent into slavery, owned by a middle-rank autocrat and his wife. He served them until the age of 22, at which point he quickly tired of that life.

Always curious and never satisfied, he began to realize the benefits of living under the foot of a slavemaster did not outweigh freedom. He engineered his escape and his masters’ demise, fleeing Cheliax and ending up in Almas. He took with him only a few objects, a small pile of gold, and the clothes on his back. He currently works for an Andoran bureaucrat, having good working knowledge of government administration. On the side, he makes money gambling and doing odd jobs.

Shush is a utility rogue that will fight when he needs to and stab an enemy in the back when he wants to.

Stats to come.

this just happened in our game 5 minutes ago

the issue of the sword's possession really wasn't answered above.

to double check- the sword that was stuck is no longer in possession of the fighter, correct?

For instance, the tarry fiend now wants to move away...

or the fighter wants to use a power of the sword since he is grasping it..,.

I find Hero Lab does an excellent job of keeping the "crunch" straight and fair, especially for the GM.

Shush the Halfling Rogue

Shush hails from Egorian. His actual name is Drais Rakerrusk. His slave name was Bit. He now claims a home outside of Almas in Andoran, preferring the quiet countryside to living in a city.

Shush was born to Halfling parents in Egorian, living on the streets until caught stealing at a young age. He was then sent into slavery, owned by a middle-rank autocrat and his wife. He served them until the age of 22, at which point he quickly tired of that life.

Always curious and never satisfied, he began to realize the benefits of living under the foot of a slavemaster did not outweigh freedom. He engineered his escape and his masters’ demise, fleeing Cheliax and ending up in Almas. He took with him only a few objects, a small pile of gold, and the clothes on his back. He currently works for an Andoran bureaucrat, having good working knowledge of government administration. On the side, he makes money gambling and doing odd jobs.

One object of note he took from his former master was a silver key. His master always wore this key around his neck, even when he slept. On the day of his independence, Shush took this key and tried every lock, every door, every chest, every secret nook and cranny in the home; he even snuck into the man’s office. He found no home for the key. Shush now wears this key around his neck as a symbol of his freedom.

Shush is a utility rogue that will fight when he needs to and stab an enemy in the back when he wants to.

If you've created your character knowing his rules, then you've not much ground to stand on. I use DR in my game; I'd rather this then have the characters carry around 12 different weapons.

It's always nice for players to realize the GM can do the same things PCs can do.

I would dearly love epic rules (for total character levels 21 and above.)

I'd also dearly hate to GM or even play that character more than once a year.

I GM a group of characters- one is level 21, the other level 18. It becomes very difficult to keep track of encounters and design them.

But at the same time, I know they enjoy this. I enjoy high-level play sometimes, too. I enjoy that colossal dragon encounter. The problem is, it becomes so easy for the player to negate all the GM's work without the GM metagaming the encounter.

For instance, the player may cast wish or teleport or other various spells with the use of items or class abilities. It is very very hard to design an encounter that neutralizes these (perhaps it's not even fair).

As much as I wish Paizo would, indeed, make epic level material, I think I'm ok with Mythic being that. I would rather Paizo focus on everything they have been than lose that focus on designing epic. Sometimes, it's just time to retire a character or work with the GM on ascending.

What I do urge Paizo to do is put this to rest and do something with ascension to godhood via the Starstone (not quite like Mythic). That could put the finishing touch on that level 20 guy.

This is highly annoying. Halfway through adventures, characters always think they can rest and regain everything. I often don't track food and other supplies like that, but when they suggest something like that, I wish I had.

Most prewritten adventures, if read carefully, contain mechanisms for disrupting rest periods. Anything at all that would disrupt a full 8 hours can be used.

My favorite incident was in a small dungeon. The players actually got through only the first room and expended a lot of resources. They wanted to rest the night in that room...in a dungeon that had only been explored in one room...they thought it was within their rights.

It became within my right to attack them once the fire was lit and food began cooking.

First, a "real-life fight" would not encompass the possibility of a combatant being healed or raised to keep fighting. And "real-life street fights" don't often end with death; otherwise, the killing blow could indeed be considered a Coup.

Second, Coup is a tactic often used if outnumbered, *especially* when the enemy has healing abilities or allies.

Third, Coup is exceedingly dangerous as it provokes and takes a full round. If you're in melee, you turn is more useful focused elsewhere in most circumstances.

Fourth, unless the creature knows the previous blow or spell didn't already kill, a Coup could be considered meta-gaming.

Just think of a Coup as the final blow...

It's your players' fault for optimizing for combat. Are they aware of your play style or campaign? Allow them to make a few tweaks and remind them the others in the group may not be so great in combat so they can make their hay there.

I'd be very hesitant to have a bad guy cast disjunction and destroy all of a group's magic items - at high levels, a lot of your power comes from magic, and that seems too mean to just destroy them all.

Other than that, not much is out of bounds to me. I wouldn't let a wish do more than I normally would, and by the time a villain can cast that they're mostly at GM-fiat levels of power anyway.

Other than that, I can't think of anything that I'd avoid. Maybe effects that prohibit resurrection, like a disintegrate that's likely to kill its target.

A player wouldn't hesitate to use this spell against their enemies... why should a GM not counter it or use the same spell?

Nothing “absurd…”

The skill point system- maybe expand abilities (like 2ed did by breaking each down into 2 i.e. Strength to Stamina/Muscle) or make sure the skills match the ability.

Racial bonuses/penalties to ability scores.

Resurrection rules. It seems too easy to raise a dead character and have no penalty for it whatsoever (since often the player has enough resources at high level to come back with no disadvantages).

The Charm spell.

The heavy reliance on the possession of certain magical items.

Take 20 on traps...I mean, if a thief is searching for a trap and doesn't find it, wouldn't it stand to reason they do "find" it and trigger it?

The surprise round is a bit janked... I usually only do a surprise round if there is truly a surprise occurring.

I haven’t really looked into this, but the awards for sticking to one class feels like they should be higher (only because I’m biased towards single-class characters!). I realize this may not be fair to those who want prestige or multi-class people, but I’ve admitted my bias!
I come from years and years of 2ed. PF rules are the best, no matter the technicalities.

Alignment only bothers me when the players forget what their character’s alignment actually is (sometimes intentionally). For a lot of people, it’s difficult to hold morals other than onesown, and it’s easy to fall into “playing yourself.”

I only wish "epic" levels weren't so epicly hard to parse out.

The rules on higher ground. I had a post on this issue. If a Halfling were facing a giant, both of whom are on the same footing/floor…neither would get a higher ground bonus. However, if the Halfling put down a footstep, stepped on it, raising himself up about a foot off the ground, by the rules he’d get the high ground bonus. This is dumb.

“Zahmahkibo wrote: Requiring +1 BAB to draw a weapon as part of a move action. That much more trivia for new players to learn, that much more annoyance for 1st level rogues, bards, and clerics.” I agree. Annoying.

XP: I’ve done XP the same as I did in 2ed. I award for not only monsters, but other things done by the players…skill checks, good RPing, even a good joke. I’m always afraid of characters leveling too fast this way, but so far in our RotRL campaign this has not been the case at all. If it were, I’d simply switch to Slow Advancement. Players love this, as they can earn XP in all sorts of ways and helps my immersion.
The weakness of an arcane caster in early levels has always bothered me…but then again so do their power at higher levels. And I’m a fan of arcane casters! Wizards really suck at low levels unless in a balanced group. At high levels they are god.

In my opinion, encumbrance is analogous to speeding tickets. Keep it less than 10 over, everyone's happy. Start putting lives in danger, you get stopped.

The character picks up a new bag of coins? No problem. The character straps four suits of plate armor to his back to carry back home and sell? He gets pulled over.

Agreed. Same thing with a characters picking up every single weapon he finds. Eventually, logically, he'll run out of places to put everything. if they insist on carrying everything they find (I once had a character put a giant bag of dragon crap in his backpack *for %hits and giggles*).

Luckily, we use a software program that keeps track of items carried and their weight. It's always funny when they argue with me the software is wrong and then I point out to them their list of crap they are carrying.

The question is- do players play non-core races for their bonuses, or do they play them for their uniqueness?

That begs another question- if the PCs and GM is ok with any of it, who cares?

Observation: If the one of the priorities of the GM is game balance, then the non-core races will likely upset this as I believe the devs create encounters with balance in mind.

I see, that is the point of contention, it would appear. My player is about to weigh in... it was a lot to unpack as he created him before play. I told him he could simply take away one level of summoner or diabolist and add a druid level for the actual animal companion feature.

The next question he raises is: can he add an actual class to his rhino? Like fighter or ranger?

Your statement was a little self-defeating there Cato. You said he gains the animal companion class feature through the summoner class and is therefore legal. This is incorrect. A summoner has the Eidolon class feature. If you meant he gains it though the Diabolist class and is therefore legal, you are also incorrect. Imp Companion is a class feature that works similar to the druid's animal companion, but does not count as the druid's animal companion. Since the Imp is not an "animal" companion, the player does not meet the prerequisites for Beast Rider. Unless of course you're houseruling it to be allowed. I'm assuming that since you're posting in the rules forum you want help rules-wise. If my assumption is correct, then all I'm doing is trying to help you. If you're not wanting to follow the rules, this is best posted in the "Advice" messageboards.

I did mean Diabolist, not Summoner. I was reading the information for Imp companion..which doesn’t seem all that clear and the player is arguing he can choose another companion besides the imp due to the Beast Rider feat, which has a prereq of companion.

That’s what I am trying to clarify…the whole beast rider animal companion thing. People keep telling me I’m house ruling and to switch forums which is why I’m getting defensive. I am not house ruling and trying to find a clear and concise ruling on this situation.
My player is arguing that the imp companion qualifies as the prereq for this.

I'm sorry there is no house rule... unless you consider letting someone start at level 10 a house rule.

He has summoner levels...summoners get a companion, correct?

He begins playing with a level 10 character...so as he builds his person, he doesn't select an imp companion. When he adds the Beast Rider feat, he then chooses a rhino as his companion.

The character:

6 summoner/ 4 diabolist
feat in question: beast rider

I just wanted to be sure that since the rhino's intelligence was moved from 2 to 3 that the character would not need to also have the leadership feat in order to have the "sentient" rhino.

Perhaps links to the relevant rules would be useful?

Diabolist Prestige Class does require two different skills with 5 ranks before you can start on it. So, you have to have 5 levels before getting it.

Beast Rider Feat requires Animal Companion or Mount class features, neither of which you have. So, it is not a legal feat for this character.

This is the rules forum. You need to go by the rules here. If your GM is going to allow house rules for this character to work, that is between the two of you, but raising those questions in this forum is misplaced.

I'm not house ruling first of all...I'm the GM and am basically auditing my player. He's created a strange concoction of feats and classes. I'm trying to get the rules correct.

Beast Rider does require an animal companion...and the character has this class feature through the summoner class and therefore legal.

A diabolist forms a close bond with a particular imp, similar to a druid's bond with an animal companion. The imp is loyal to the diabolist (though ultimately loyal to Hell). The imp companion's abilities, feats, Hit Dice, and skills advance as the diabolist advances in level (see sidebar). If the imp is slain or the diabolist release it from her service, she may gain a new one by performing a ceremony requiring a 24-hour ritual to conjure and bind the new imp to herself.

A player says he gets both bonuses from belt of giant strength +6 and ioun stone blue rhomboid (+2 STR) because belt gives "permanent bonus."

I say this is incorrect, as both bonuses are enhancement bonuses which do not stack.

The player should only be receiving the higher of the two scores, which is +6.

Yes he is fixing that.

He isn't using the Imp companion.

He will be Summoner 6 Diabolist 4.

No imp companion...just the rhino and eidelon. Rhino is from the Beast Rider feat.

So since the rhino has INT 3, will the leadsership feat be needed or not? Does INT 3 equal sentience equal intelligence (for leadership purposes?).

I see now... the character must be built beginning with level 1 first...i'm using character building software...so added all 10 levels first and therefore received no errors. The player didn't realize this and I never caught it until you guys pointed it out.

Should have at least 5 summoner levels before having any diabolist levels.

Sentient creatures are any creatures with INT 3 or higher...

"Sentient Companions: a sentient companion (a creature that can understand language and has an Intelligence score of at least 3) is considered your ally and obeys your suggestions and orders to the best of its ability. It won't necessarily blindly follow a suicidal order, but it has your interests at heart and does what it can to keep you alive. Paladin bonded mounts, familiars, and cohorts fall into this category, and are usually player-controlled companions."

Paizo FAQ says:

"The spell awaken changes much of this, however, since the spell is specifically designed to raise a creature up to sentience. GMs should feel free to loosen the above guidelines in the case of animals who have been the subject of this spell (since they become magical beasts), but should also note that awakened animals do not continue to serve as animal companions or familiars. Such creatures gain their own desires and feelings, and may seek to set out on their own to determine their own fate. They may not leave right away, but GMs should keep in mind that eventually any such creatures (or trees) may wish to leave to find their fortune."

Does a sentient animal = a magical beast?

For instance, if the rhino gets to INT 3, it is now sentient, correct?

If it is sentient, the FAQ above says "Sentience."... so does the Diabloist have to have the leadership feat for a rhino of INT 3?

My apologies if you know this, but I'd like to clear something up rules-wise.

1) Per the rules, you cannot be a summoner 1/Diabolist 9. The diabolist is a prestige class that require at least 5 ranks in knowledge (planes). On top of this you need have conjured a fiend with lesser planar calling, which is a lvl 5 spell for a summoner, or lvl 6 for a wizard. You can buy a scroll, if you got the funds, though.
The lvl requirement is the main thing, but if your GM allows you to disregard it, it is fine.

2) I don't think Beast Rider works with the diabolist Imp Companion. Imp companion is similar to an animal companion, but it does give you a list of options to choose from. As such, adding something to a non-existing list doesn't work.
That said, allowing you to get the rhino is unproblematic balancewise, so I would do it as a GM.

3) To answer the question: Armor proficiency is on the list of animal companion feats, so you are free to choose those for the rhino, using the feats it get for lvl advancement.

1) Yes, I am making the guy beginning at level 10...all the prereqs are fine.

Ok let me be clear. A PC is creating a new character...beginning with 10 levels. He will be 1 Summoner and 9 Diabolist. Starting with 10 levels...

He is adding a feat: BEAST RIDER.

This feat then allows the choice of rhino, which he will be taking. I know this may not make a lot of sense, but this is what the player wants to do.

If a rhino animal companion with an INT score of 2 is given a +1 to his INT score, making it 3 now, is this considered an "awakening?" The bonus to INT is coming from natural level increases.

If a magical item gave a bonus of +6 to INT, would this be considered awakened?

Awaken mentions the transformation into a magical beast...I'm assuming since the +1 level increase to INT or the +6 magical enhancement do not turn the rhino into a magical beast, then they are not "awakened..."

But what if a number of different bonuses give the rhino an INT of 25 total? Is awakened determined by set of numbers, say if an INT is 12-18 a creature is "Awakened?" Or is it simply a INT score above the base score plus its transformation into a magical beast the only "Awakened" type?

I'm asking because I'm trying to determine if a Diablist 9 Summoner 1 has to have the ledership feat (for intelligent animals) to have a rhino with an increased INT.

Ok, we are looking for armor proficiency now for mounts.

In the druid animal companion section, it lists a series of feats that animal companions can choose from. Some choices of mounts, such as a horse, appear to have light armor proficiency already. However, the rhino has no armor proficiency. This must then be chosen by the player, correct?

Because under cavalier's mount, it says:

A cavalier does not take an armor check penalty on Ride checks while riding his mount. The mount is always considered combat trained and begins play with Light Armor Proficiency as a bonus feat. A cavalier's mount does not gain the share spells special ability.

I am making a diabolist. The character begins with 10 levels.

He will be Summoner 1, Diabolist 9.

If I chose the Beast Rider feat, and selected a rhino as the creature, and then gave it +1 intelligence (making it INT 4), can a ranger class be chosen for the rhino?

Can animal companions have pc class levels?

I am making a diabolist. The character begins with 10 levels.

He will be Summoner 1, Diabolist 9.

If I chose the Beast Rider feat, and selected a rhino as the creature, and then gave it +1 intelligence (making it INT 4), can a ranger class be chosen for the rhino?

Can animal companions have pc class levels?

A crap!

A crap!

1d6 ⇒ 1

I will duck further back to the cave entrance but keep in bow shot of any mites.

Fire shortbow at nearest target: 1d20 + 4 ⇒ (10) + 4 = 14

I fire at the nearest target.

Shortbow 1d20 + 4 ⇒ (9) + 4 = 13

A player would like to have an Octopus animal companion, but we are having trouble figuring out how to allow the octo to function properly out of water.

Short of casting a 3rd level spell all the time (which the 1st level druid wouldn't have access to due to level and monetary constraints) or buying a currently (to our knowledge) non-existent magical item, there seems to be no easy way for a druid to have an octo as a companion.

Anyone else use one or Dm one?

I'll hold my fire and cast the Grease spell in front of the entrance.

Initiative= 1d20 + 2 ⇒ (6) + 2 = 8

I will cast Grease on the area in front of the cave, then I will draw an arrow and prepare to fire once the centipede rider comes into range.

Here's that roll should you need it:

Shortbow 1d20 + 4 ⇒ (6) + 4 = 10

Great post.

People that are not gamers have no idea what gaming is about. It's about the people we play with as much as the stories and experience we have while playing.

I'm not politically correct normally so I won't be on here. I don't look like the typical gamer. I'm a clean-cut male with a political job, I wear suits and shiny shoes every day. I'm very serious in my day job.

Please save the posts about what a "typical gamer" looks like, as we all know what the non-gaming world thinks gamers look like, and their perception is their reality (although we Gamers know the truth). When people hear I'm a gamer, their eyes usually widen and they are shocked, "You're a gamer?" "Do you dress up" "You don't seem to be a nerd" "What, do you go to pick up chicks or something?" "Isn't that for kids?" or even "Why would you want to hang out with those strange people."

Well folks, "those" people are some of the best damned people I have ever known. They are certainly more intelligent than your average run-of-the-mill Joe Blow walking down the road. We have a sense of humor and know how to have fun.

"You're a gamer?" Why yes I am. I have a serious face when I tell them this, and it's off-putting, as then they realize they may have been insulting. They then usually ask me if I play the shooter games, at which point I say no, that I role-play with Pathfinder (formerly Dungeons and Dragons).

"Do you dress up?" I don't dress up. It's not my thing. But the brave souls who do are courageous. A lot of "normal" people would jump at the chance to release their inhibitions and be who they are. More power to the people who dress up. If the people driving by point and make fun of someone dressed as a Stormtrooper or in the makeup of a anime character, then Freud would say they've got 3 fingers pointing back at them. They are cowards and ignorant.

"You don't seem to be a nerd" How do you define nerd? Does the professional women who goes home and views Desparate Housewives consider herself a nerd? I doubt it. What about those who watch soap operas, or WWE wrestling? Why are these hobbies any different than "gamers'"

"What, do you go to pick up chicks or something?" I'm married, thank you. Gamer chicks are hot, though ;-p

"Isn't that for kids?" Please show me in the Book of Life where it says adults cannot participate in entertainment activities, and please show me where the list is so I can see if "gaming" is included.

I'm a proud gamer. I have a very active imagination. Without it the world would be boring, pitiful, and lifeless. Yes, I enjoy other activities. I travel, I drink, I work, I play. It's all part of life. It's made even better by those we enjoy those things with.

So here's to all the gamers we've known and will meet in the future, whatever shape, color, or size they may be.

Cheers,

Adam Jones
Indiana

I move into the cave,readying an arrow. I look tot see what the mite at the entrance is doing.

I look for a place to tie the horses and wait. I watch to see if the mite goes inside as well.

Cato pretends to be bored so as not to alarm the Kobold or the blue creature.

The Cloak of the Bat states:

"By holding the edges of the garment, the wearer is able to fly as per the spell (including a +7 bonus on Fly skill checks)."

I just wanted to get clarification-

Does the person using it needs to grasps both edges with both hands? Can the player wearing it fly (hover) and attack? It would appear that the hands would be used holding the cloak and thus they cannot be used to do anything else.

I strain to recall anything about Kobolds in the area.

Knowledge Local 1d20 + 6 ⇒ (5) + 6 = 11

I mount my horse and try to remember a story concerning kobolds, but for some reason cannot bring it to mind.

I await Garr'ak's signal to move out.

2 Shadow Angels are using their howl ability:

Howl (Su)

Once per day, the shadow angel can produce a shriek of heart rending sorrow and soul chilling fear. All creatures within 100 feet of the shadow angel must succeed a DC 26 Fortitude save or be paralyzed with dread and sadness for 1d4 rounds. The save DC is Charisma-based.

Does one angel's howl effect the other?

There is a medium creature.

He has enlarge permanently cast on him. He is now large.

What happens if a race or class trait increases his base height, which is medium, to large.

So his base height goes from medium to large, but the enlarge spell is still in effect- would this mean the creature is now huge?

It is important to note the increase in growth is natural.

So Remy, would you agree that in order to convince an animal to do something a push roll needs to be made?

Well now the scenario is getting back to whether or not the animal will attack it's master...

Was Charm Monster intended to be able to get a master's animal ally to attack it? I don't think so.

If so, then the power of this first level spell has greatly risen; as I play a wizard in Pathfinder Society, I may go to all charm spells and augment them will metamagic, etc. I would be able to wreak havoc with a simple first level spell!

But somehow I doubt the GMs there would allow that.

There are two key questions in play here:

1. In the Charm and Compulsions RAW, below, which rule trumps the other? Two interfering sentences bolded[/]...

A charmed creature doesn't gain any magical ability to understand his new friend's language.
A charmed character retains his original alignment and allegiances, generally with the exception that he now regards the charming creature as a dear friend and will give great weight to his suggestions and directions.
[b]A charmed character fights his former allies only if they threaten his new friend, and even then he uses the least lethal means at his disposal as long as these tactics show any possibility of success (just as he would in a fight with an actual friend).
A charmed character is entitled to an opposed Charisma check against his master in order to resist instructions or commands that would make him do something he wouldn't normally do even for a close friend. If he succeeds, he decides not to go along with that order but remains charmed.
A charmed character never obeys a command that is obviously suicidal or grievously harmful to him.
If the charming creature commands his minion to do something that the influenced character would be violently opposed to, the subject may attempt a new saving throw to break free of the influence altogether.
A charmed character who is openly attacked by the creature who charmed him or by that creature's apparent allies is automatically freed of the spell or effect.
Compulsion is a different matter altogether. A compulsion overrides the subject's free will in some way or simply changes the way the subject's mind works. A charm makes the subject a friend of the caster; a compulsion makes the subject obey the caster."

Now the issue is whether or not the charmer is considered his new master...if so, can the charmer now charisma check the charmed beast to attack its master?

2. If the above is correct and the opposed charisma check can be made, doesn't the the charmer and beast have to be able to communicate effectively? In other words, what if the charmer is trying to convince the beast to do something that it simply doesn't even know how to do? Should a simple opposed charisma check need to be made, or does the charmer have to make a push check to get the animal to do something it doesn't know how to do in the first place, regardless of whether it is charmed or not?

To recap:

We would like to get everyone's take on these questions:

1. Can a charmed animal be convinced to attack his true master, or other allies for that matter, with a simple opposed charisma check?
2. Is this opposed charisma check on the creature itself or the creatures true master? For instance, if the charmer wanted to have the charmed animal attack its true master and opposed charisma rolls need to be made, will the charmer roll opposite of the animal or opposite of the true master? This may be where our group is muddling things up.
3. How to you get an animal to do what you want, or at least "convince" and animal to do what you would like?

I believe the answers are:

1. A charmed animal considers the charmer his ally now. It's loyalties would be torn between the charmer and its true master. It cannot be convinced nor forced to attack its true master or its original allies. However, should its original master or allies attack its new charmer ally, it may take corrective action on its own against its original master and allies with an opposed charisma check by the charmer.
2. I really have no idea who is doing the opposed rolling. It appears that the rolls may indeed be between the two allies now and not the charmed creature itself.
3. I think any interaction with an animal like a bear would need to be done via a rolled check, without a doubt. I believe, in this case, that if the animal were to be convinced that it needed to do something that it is not trained to do it needs to be pushed; I also believe that if the animal were charmed that the charmer can choose the better of his charisma check or handle animal check to push.