Chrysophylax's page

It rarely comes up, but occasionally a vertical chasm, or underwater entrance etc. has an obstacle that makes it difficult for an Animal Companion to deal with.

Sometimes the problem is the animal companion just doesn't like the idea of going down a particularly smelly hole or fighting undead/aberrations.

In any case if the animal companion has to use an unfamiliar skill such as Acrobatics, Climb or Swim then the first thing you'll need to do is use the "Push" Handle Animal task on the animal. It's a DC 25 to do so.

When successful the animal will attempt the unfamiliar skill - remember some animals have limitations that others don't. A horse can not Climb a rope, but could conceivably Climb a steep and narrow path. Make the skill check as normal and play the consequences.

As the GM you're within your right to cause the animal to become uncooperative if there are two many failures (increasing the DC of the "Push" task by 2 points for each failed check) as the animal becomes discouraged and eventually refuses to follow its master. In which case it will likely wait for it's master patiently at the dungeon entrance.

Druids and Cavaliers have Animal Companions as but ONE aspect of their class. It's a powerful ability and as such comes with some limitations and role playing consequences (just as a Paladin's code does, just as a Cleric's alignment does).

In any case I hope you found the above helpful. It was all extrapolated from the Handle Animal skill. :)

In general, this seems excellent advice.

I'm willing to wave some things by, but a black bear (or similar comparatively small ursine) isn't one of them. Yes, it gives advantages -- but at a price. If I, as GM, am successful, that "price" will occasionally frustrate the player, but it will also give them opportunities to do their thing. It's also an "opportunity for roleplay," as we used to say, although that's about as comforting as saying, "This will be a great learning experience!"

One other thought, re: animal companions:

If the bear can't come in the dungeon, that's reasonable -- but make sure that you give the druid's player some particular way to shine, such as a wilderness encounter before the dungeon where the bear can be quite useful. It helps lessen the sting, while still presenting the gentle suggestion that forethought is a Good Idea when talking about a large, toothy animal.

An interesting thread, particularly since I'm returning to the hobby after more than a decade away. But I started -- and thus started DMing -- in 1979. I don't think I ever ran a "module" after I was 15 years old. I'm now 42 (and I'm not fat, have all my hair and then some...but I do have a basement lair, so I guess I'll just have to hang with my contemporaries.)

As a consequence, I look at the PF rules with the eyes of someone who hasn't played AD&D since it was AD&D. I am utterly ignorant of 3e, and it seems I'm happy to be so, based on the descriptions I've read/heard. It's clearly been infected by the MUD/MMPORG disease of statting everything and reducing RPGs to "stat blocks" and "adventure paths" and "leveling up" to the detriment of "character concept" or "background" or "roleplaying." That's unavoidable, I suppose; adjudication only works with good judges, and those are, simply stated, rare. Most judges are middling to poor, and most people -- player or GM -- don't have much imagination. They just want to play a game; telling a story is a secondary consideration at best.

Given that most GMs aren't so great, it's nice to have rules that keep them from being utter berks. Yet, at the same time, there are tremendous constraints on both players & DMs. Want to play a battle-mage? Don't bother -- the rules aren't set up for that. A spell-caster's job is now battlefield control, rather than creating wonders. Don't like maps & minis? Prepare for arguments about AoO and so on. I find this depressing and constraining...but not impossibly so.

I'm having a blast DMing. My players, so far, are really into it, as well.

But when I initially told my players they could only play humans, and they were all starting in a single, small town squeezed between Orcs to the north & Ur-men (don't bother looking it up in the Bestiary) to the south, they balked. I would if someone proposed such a campaign to me. I acknowledged that ... and asked them to trust me. And they did.

Among other things, I ignored any background info from the race descriptions and completely re-designed them to be familiar ... but unexpected. I suppose I could have given the players handouts and they could choose from a bunch of unfamiliar concepts in an unfamiliar setting, but I know all too well how that works out. Hell, *I* don't like playing in games like that, and I read the appendices for LOTR twice for every time I read the trilogy when I was young and obsessed, so I'm hardly averse to "fluff." But frontloading with information, whether in a game, novel, movie, whatever, is almost always a poor gambit.

Instead, they get the joy of discovering a new setting, and they can grow into it without being overwhelmed. Furthermore (and ever-so-cunningly) I now don't have to design absolutely everything ahead of time -- based on what the players show interest in, I can form & refine my ideas in ways that make it fun, and interesting, for all.

That's just how I roll. No book or player is going to change that. I never had any interest in tournament play, and I still don't, no matter how it's been repackaged. Bully for those who do ... but I'd rather have something unique and surprising than just garnering another notch on the gaming book.