Kayas's page

You're talking about two completely different things, tricks and natural defenses.

Teaching a bird a trick like grabbing a rock flying high and dropping it is something reasonable that a bird could do on it's own. Just like the dog retrieving a beer from the fridge.

They're not going to use it as an attack if they're defending themselves. Teaching a bird how to do a roundhouse kick instead of pecking/clawing out someone's eyes is what we're talking about here, not teaching it to fetch.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tKH2oLjQIAA

Bear with IUS. Your argument is invalid :)

I'm on the side of the fence with Andrew Christian on this one.

Certain animals have the abilities like grab, pounce, etc because that's what comes naturally to them. Just like an animal will run away when it sees or smells something unnatural. It's in their nature.

Trying to change their natural attack/defense instincts by enhancing their intelligence doesn't really make sense. An ape is always going to slam something with it's fists and bite it. It can hold a sword or club sure, but training it to wield it as a weapon like a humanoid is a stretch. They might be able to mimic the movement but instinctively they'll go back to the slam and bite method.

Enhanced combat maneuvers are not just generic enhanced versions of grab, trip or the like, they're specific martial arts maneuvers. It would be like trying to teach a snake how to fly. It's not in their nature.

The armor argument is also bad example. Horses and other pack animals don't naturally wear saddles or tacking but they're trained to let it be strapped around them. The same could be said for armor with enough practice and time. It's not the same as changing their nature, it's more of a comfort level of allowing it to be strapped onto them.

I have consulted with him and he asked me to see how other pathfinder society groups are handling this. We're basically looking for a third party society based ruling.

I posted the in the normal rules forum but my society gm recommended I try this question here also.

Has there been any rulings on this mechanic?

Whenever the samurai defeats the target of his challenge, he regains one daily use of his resolve, up to his maximum number of uses per day. Defeating the target of his challenge usually involves reducing the target to 0 hit points or fewer, but the GM might rule that an enemy who surrenders or flees the battle is also defeated.

My local GMs are also struggling with the interpretation of this statement. It's vague as to what it really means by the word "defeat". There are other classes with a similar mechanic that the wording is very clear.

For example, Gunslinger is very specific about regaining Grit when it says, "When the gunslinger reduces a creature to 0 or fewer hit points with a firearm attack while in the heat of combat, she regains 1 grit point." This explanation is very specific to how it's done and that's "with a firearm attack".

Samurai resolve is very ambiguous because it says "defeat". Then it explains what "defeat" usually is, but not that it has to be done specifically by the samurai, just that it has to be done. However, the statement that follows, "but the GM might rule that an enemy who surrenders or flees the battle is also defeated", seems to refer to a party situation. A samurai wouldn't typically force a surrender or flee on his own as he would be amongst his party most of the time.

If it's ruled to work like Gunslinger Grit, then that's fine. I would find it very limiting though as this is the only way to recover Resolve and it requires the use of a second skill, both of which are limited by character level. Grit points can be increased by other means besides level and regained by other means besides reducing an enemy to 0 hp.

Is there any official ruling on this mechanic?

Whenever the samurai defeats the target of his challenge, he regains one daily use of his resolve, up to his maximum number of uses per day. Defeating the target of his challenge usually involves reducing the target to 0 hit points or fewer, but the GM might rule that an enemy who surrenders or flees the battle is also defeated.

My local GMs are also struggling with the interpretation of this statement. It's vague as to what it really means by the word "defeat". There are other classes with a similar mechanic that the wording is very clear.

For example, Gunslinger is very specific about regaining Grit when it says, "When the gunslinger reduces a creature to 0 or fewer hit points with a firearm attack while in the heat of combat, she regains 1 grit point." This explanation is very specific to how it's done and that's "with a firearm attack".

Samurai resolve is very ambiguous because it says "defeat". Then it explains what "defeat" usually is, but not that it has to be done specifically by the samurai, just that it has to be done. However, the statement that follows, "but the GM might rule that an enemy who surrenders or flees the battle is also defeated", seems to refer to a party situation. A samurai wouldn't typically force a surrender or flee on his own as he would be amongst his party most of the time.

If it's ruled to work like Gunslinger Grit, then that's fine. I would find it very limiting though as this is the only way to recover Resolve and it requires the use of a second skill, both of which are limited by character level. Grit points can be increased by other means besides level and regained by other means besides reducing an enemy to 0 hp.

Think about trained police dogs as an example.

They are trained to learn single word commands in German. That would be similar to the "tricks" you could teach an AC. I bet you could teach it in "dwarven" or another language instead of common just like police dogs are trained in German.

My friend's dad growing up was a K-9 unit and had a police dog. My friend could command him with simple commands like "Sit", "Lay down", "Stay" and the command to go to his bed, things like that. As he became more comfortable with me and my brother we could also give him those commands and he would follow. But the Dad, who was the leader, could make him do more complex things and he would always follow him over anyone else.

Animals are definitely capable of discerning who they trust and who they don't. After traveling with your companions for a while a certain trust would likely occur and those simple commands of "Attack", "Down" and "Come" would be no problem. You couldn't direct it to not power attack, or move to a flanking position, take 5 foot steps or anything complex obviously. But pointing and saying "attack" wouldn't be out of the question I don't think.

The way I'd propose this to work is this.

Animal Companions have "Bonus Tricks" which do not require a HA check. If your AC knows common, any friendly companion could use the common command words for those tricks without an HA check. For example, I could have Attack, Come and Down as "Bonus Tricks" for my companions to help guide my companion simply. It would do default attacks prescribed by the attack command obviously.

Any other trick the AC knows which does require an HA check still requires the DC 10 check as long as it's not being pushed to do so. For example, you couldn't use Guard or Defend tricks without a DC 10 AC check.