Tindalen's page

Pat, yes. This is an absurdity that is often over looked. I have looked at my own inventory and chuckled in the past, so I actually do try to be realistic in what I am carrying. Or at the bare minimum try and lean away from the absurdity. One two-handed weapon, and as much as I can imagine putting in or on a ruck sack and utility belt.

No need to add the new books, frustration out of delayed updates to the additional resources page for PFS has lead to this. I will simply decide if a resource is needed once they finally make items legal.

Please cancel all subscriptions tied to this account.

I think it's funny people want this to not work. I honestly feel like it's the same crowd that didn't want pummeling lances, spirited charge barbarians, Sacred fists in full plate, or any other of things they considered "Over powered" because they weren't RAI.

In this case it's clearly RAI that EFS protects the caster and bounces an effect but because GM's hate it they are performing mental gymnastics to try and negate it. Please continue to FAQ this so that they can make EFS hilariously solid so that no one can attempt to say "You can't actually use that because I hate it so I'm going to claim it doesn't work how it clearly works".

Well, I was actually part of the table that initiated this entire thing. I have 4 wizards who all used EFS and up until I took a good look at the rules involved, I thought that immediate actions could interrupt. Once I had analysed the rules and talked through it with the person who used EFS to interrupt a spell, we have come to the conclusion that we were using the spell incorrectly and that immediate actions do not, by default, allow you to interrupt other actions.

Except that time does not flow in Pathfinder combat like it does in the real world. Though people are assuming it does.

Tindalen wrote:

My interpretation is assuming that, because abilities that can interrupt explicitly state they can interrupt, if an ability does not say it can interrupt then it can not.

And what if the rules assume the undefined "any time" should be self evident that it doesn't need an explicit statement? You bring in an assumption that interrupts MUST be allowed but is there a explicit statement of that? As there isn't one that I know of, why do you need an explicit statement for Immediate actions and not an explicit statement that interrupts need one?

The bottom line is that your 'rule' lacks the explicit statement you're asking us for to disprove your 'rule'. It's a catch 22.

So we have two interpretations right now.

1: "Any Time", this interpretation says, as long as you are not flat footed, you are capable of using an immediate action. This is based on an exclusive interpretation of the PFS rules set. Unless it says you can't, you can.

2: "Can Not Interrupt", this interpretation says, you can use an immediate action during the same times you can use a swift action and on other peoples turns, as long as you are not flat footed. This is based on an inclusive interpretation of the PFS rules set. Unless it says you can, you can't.

I see both interpretations as reasonable interpretations with one primary question. Can immediate actions interrupt other actions?

So... I use contingency to cast dimension door on myself to move me 30 feet to my left if I am ever subject to a fireball.

Valid, yes?

But what's being bandied about here is that I should burn before being relocated because all the decisions about a spell blah blah.

Sorry, but the purpose of contingency is to react in a helpful manner. Proactively, not just after-the-fact. "If I'm killed by something, cast cure light wounds on me."

Well, immediate actions are the same. They're there to be helpful. Any time remains any time. I won't say immediate actions "interrupt" anything... they just get resolved first if they're declared first.

Contingency is not a good example for a couple reasons. First, contingency bringing in the affect of the second spell is not an action. So we are not discussing the same thing. Second, you write the rules for when the second spell will be triggered, you are writing your own timing rules in this case.

Tindalen wrote:

The opposite is the case. You have restrictive timing on immediate actions, and a bunch of abilities that are less restrictive as they are granted exceptions to the restrictions of immediate actions.

You misunderstand the definition of true. The only rule we have is "any time" and there is no rule saying your position. You must insert words into the interpretation to get there. You are free to do so, and call your interpretation RAW. But there is another RAW. Mine. That allows you to EFS after being targeted and before effected to negate the target. And you can't show a rules text to refute my interpretation.

I don't care about EFS, that is another one that keeps bring brought up that is muddying the discussion.

I am not adding rules, I am interpreting the lack of a rule in the general and the inclusion of a rule in the specific to mean that the general is excluding the rule.

Immediate action(general): Does not say it interrupts.
Dented Helm(feat example): Specifically says when the ability can be used that includes an interrupt of an action.
Attacks of Opportunity: Explicitly state they interrupt.
Readied actions: Explicitly state they can interrupt.

My interpretation is assuming that, because abilities that can interrupt explicitly state they can interrupt, if an ability does not say it can interrupt then it can not.

Tindalen wrote:

The opposite is the case. You have restrictive timing on immediate actions, and a bunch of abilities that are less restrictive as they are granted exceptions to the restrictions of immediate actions.

"Any time" is more restrictive that what exactly? If another ability can do it, wouldn't that too be included in "any time"? What exactly are these "limitations" on immediate actions you speak of?

The ability to interrupt is the specific exception that is being discussed. People keep quoting "any time" but the phrase is not defined by PFS and in no way states that you can interrupt an action. The spells and abilities that allow you to interrupt explicitly state that you can interrupt. There is no rule that allows immediate actions the default ability to interrupt other actions.

You have a turn based system, 1 round is 6 seconds, not 1 players turn. If you have 6 players and 5 enemies, a round is not all of a sudden 66 seconds long. Stop trying to wedge real world concepts into small portions of rules while ignoring larger portions that simple do not fit.

Immediate actions can by used at any point during the round but can not interrupt other actions because it does not explicitly state that it can.

KujakuDM wrote:

Wizard casts spell, decides target, target uses immediate action, resolve if applicable.

I've never had an issue.

+1

Neither has Pathfinder had an issue with this as there are literally countless examples of that post in this thread already.

The complain comes from an ability that has no timing restrictions is some how more restrictive than all the abilities with more explicit timing restrictions.

That doesn't make any sense at all.

The opposite is the case. You have restrictive timing on immediate actions, and a bunch of abilities that are less restrictive as they are granted exceptions to the restrictions of immediate actions.

I am going to try and clarify my understanding of the immediate action limitations one more time.

I have already posted the immediate action entry from the PRD so I will not do it again.

Immediate actions can not interrupt an action in progress. If someone declares a standard action of casting a spell, an immediate action can not be taken until that standard action spell has fully resolved.

If someone declares a full round attack, you can use an immediate action. Once they start their first attack action, you can not use an immediate action until that attack action is complete. But you can take an immediate action in between each individual attack action.

*All of this has the standard disclaimer "Unless an ability says otherwise".

I think the swashbuckler deed dodging panache is important here. It is an immediate action which interrupts an attack in progress to gain a dodge bonus to ac. The attack cannot be adjusted or adjusted or retargeted, the deed happens during the attack action. Immediates are capable of interupting an attack.

Dodging Panache is very specific and designates exactly when you can use it. This actually fits with the interpretation that immediate actions do not interrupt, those that do specifically explain when they can.

At 1st level, when an opponent attempts a melee attack against the swashbuckler, the swashbuckler can as an immediate action spend 1 panache point to move 5 feet;

This does not appear to be an actual rules question, but an advice question and/or house rules suggestion.

Spell targeting, and spell effect are one and the same thing. If one is occurring, the other is also occurring. I would not allow casting of EFS (or any other immediate action that doesn't provide explicit rules to allow it) to take place between the two. Just like I would not allow an immediate action between being hit by a weapon and taking damage from said weapon without a specific rule allowing it.

This is a rules question and was put here by request of John Compton to discuss the interaction of immediate affect abilities.

At any time means at any time.

How is there any ambiguity here?

Both readied actions and opportunity actions are capable of interrupting, I'm failing to see how Immediates are any different other than, "because I don't like it and don't think they should."

There is no ambiguity, and I am not making up rules, please remove the vitriol and insinuations on intention. I am looking at the rules in place. Now, the difference between readied actions, attacks of opportunity, and immediate actions. I have spoilered to make the quotes from the PRD easier to read.

Readied actions and Attacks of Opportunity explicitly state that they can interrupt actions, as you will see in these quotes from the PRD.

Immediate action and the swift actions it is based on do not state that they can interrupt actions.

this also applies to counterspelling and when a readied action relies on using a skill to trigger, such as spellcraft. They are all essentially interrupts that (can) target spellcasting as the spell is being cast. Either can also trigger on "spellcasting" which is an act and much more general and would also trigger falsely if the target bluffs successfully.

With Spellcraft being used that clearly implies during the casting before targets and spell specifics are chosen. It's an unusually fine level of detail for DnD.

Readied actions are defined as being able to interrupt actions.

Immediate actions are as swift actions, and neither are defined as being able to interrupt. All immediate actions/spells/abilities that can interupt have explicitly defined when the immediate action can be taken. Specific > General.

Ragoz wrote:

Serisan wrote:

My objection to EFS is really two-sided:

• As it is ruled around here, it's a consequence-free escape.
• It's effectively a no-save-allowed Daze for the NPC.

I think most people are on board with being able to choose targets of spells when the effect happens and not allowing something else to happen during the effect.

The consequence could be endangering others around you while limiting your own action economy after using the spell because you are trapped in a bubble.

I don't think it is quite the same as dazing the enemy. If they were attacking they can still potentially move and if they were casting a spell they choose a legal target they have line of effect to.

+1 to this.

I would like to see a ruling that there is not enough time between spell completion and effect for an immediate action. Immediate actions could still be used during spell casting, but the choice would have to be made before targeting.

Readied actions could still be used for the cool effects described above, only immediate actions would be affected.

As I posted above, immediate actions do not give the right to interrupt others actions. Once someone starts casting, it is too late to use your immediate action, unless the text of the spell/feat explicitly states otherwise. Emergency Force Sphere does not give you the ability to interrupt casting, only to cast it on someone else's turn.

After a discussion with another player, I am seeing a slight flaw in most peoples assumption of RAI specifically regarding immediate actions.

At no time does the definition of immediate action, or the swift action rules it references, indicate that you can use an immediate action to interrupt another characters action. You can use it at any time, even someone else's turn, but not during another players action. Searching through other feats, actions, and spells that are 'immediate', they either explicitly state they can interrupt, or they are not intended to interrupt.

I think the clarification that is needed, that would leave the spell legal and quell most or all of the dislike, emergency force shield can not be cast after an enemy has declared it's action. Are you targeted with a spell or full round attack? Too late to use EFS. Did an enemy just move up to you and looks really mad? You can EFS before they start their attack.

Subscription order still pending.
Next volume:
Pathfinder Player Companion: Armor Master's Handbook (PFRPG) (Pending)

My card was declined because the bank issued a new one with a new expiration date. I unfortunately failed to update the card information in time. It was updated immediately after I received the notification on 4/07/2016, however the entire subscription order is still in a pending state. Can this be nudged along?

(Why are we spoilering in the GM Discussion -- not needed)

If they are actually able to kill Kurshu, I'd think the resurrection would be the best way to go. Don't go for any sort of summons, because then he might as well recall SMIX (which isn't a bad idea).

Another idea, which might be even nastier... if he gets a PC in the same room as him, separated from everyone else, would be to wish for Greater Possession. He could then attack with impunity from the shell of a PC.

As for the binding, perhaps a Nemisis Devil would be better. It has Harm and Heal (each 3X/day), with greater invis, wall of stone, and other stuff. Its claws cause 2d6 Bleed, and it hits HARD.

Though, I will say that your Apostate Devil looks decent. Oh, and note, if you do it, since they are called, and not summoned, they keep their summon and teleport abilities!

Getting in 1d6 Bone Devils, or a Horned Devil (depending on which one you choose) wouldn't hurt, either.

Greater Possession is definitely an option. I was liking the Apostate devil for the CL 18 blasphemy which, if everyone makes their save, will do 2d6/2 strength damage for 2d4 rounds, and paralyze everyone for one round. The 1d6 wisdom drain on a +28 with a 19-20 crit and boundless reach is pretty nasty as well. Though 1d6 ice wall creatures would be fun to split the group up.

** spoiler omitted **

Tindalen wrote:

I have been prepping it for a couple weeks now. I have some surprises in store for them I think should be entertaining if they work.

** spoiler omitted **

** spoiler omitted **

** spoiler omitted **

Spoiler conversations. YAY!

I have been prepping it for a couple weeks now. I have some surprises in store for them I think should be entertaining if they work.

I have spent the last month GMing the series leading up to waking rune. I have been prepping for the finale since the start. I will be running hard mode 10-11 on Saturday and have come across some discrepancies that have not been called out elsewhere.

Hard mode has you replace a quickened summon monster five for a summoned monster nine. This would lead to a break in the Thessalonian specialist and where I noticed the discrepency. Rune lord krune follows the archetype except for spell level 7 and eight. And spell level 9 on hard mode.

I know I should play as written, but this scenario is hard enough without the discrepancies. It's also why I am limiting myself to hard covers and rune lord specific material for the npc tactics.

Any thoughts beyond the three year old GM prep post?

The rules may not be as clear as some would prefer. But given what we have available to us and the general intent of rules to not allow loopholes for free resources, I would rule it as a shield with shield spikes. The shield rules being the closest comparison.

MW Heavy Steal Shield: 170gp
MW Steal Spikes: 350gp
Either can be enchanted on their own.

MW Full plate: 1650gp
MW Gauntlets: 302gp300gp (cost of gauntlet is included in the suit)
Either can be enchanted on their own.

If you do not pay 320gp, the gauntlets come with the armor and bestow upon you no more benefit then explicitly stated, your unarmed attacks now count as lethal damage and do not provoke attacks of opportunity. The gauntlets that come with your armor are made in the same style/material as the rest of your armor, but gains no additional benefits beyond what is listed as the benefits with the armor as a material.

My reasoning for the limitation of armor gauntlets vs weapon gauntlets (I understand there is no explicitly difference, I am using the terms for ease of my own description.) is that in the absence of explicit rules, the general rules apply. The general rules are that you have to expend resources, money, in order to receive benefits, a weapon in this case.

edit: correct the price of the gauntlets so you are not paying for the base twice.

"All who are willing combatants against me do so at a forfeiture of their life."

Most of my characters have a stance that if you are willing to use lethal force, then you have given up your right to blind mercy. If you are forced against your will or do your best effort not to cause undo harm, then the same respect will be shown to you.

I say most because I also have a rogue that does not kill anyone that he does not have to. Devout follower of Serenrae and a firm believer in redemption. I also have a character who will likely be draining the life force of any living yet unconscious enemy he can find. One who probably forgets about the enemies as soon as they are no longer a threat and thus cares little for them or the morality of her party members.

Remember, banning is not always a case of power. Sometimes it is a case of unnecessary confusion. It is possible they just felt their would be more arguments about implied "extradimensional spaces" than was warranted.

Arcane pocket is also a level 1 spell that creates an extradimensional space.

Fair enough, make the rewards a bit more accessible so it does not seem 5 months away so why bother. If it is 2 gm credits for the reward, but it's on 5 characters, that is 10 tables GMed. While 5 tables for 5 characters seems insurmountable.

I could agree with these points, as long as I understand them correctly.

I did a check at my local game store for GMs over the past 6 months.
Out of 86 tables, 6 people GMed 60 of the tables. I have also been listening to people proudly state that they have completed all of their faction rewards save for the GM faction rewards, but those do not count.

Given that, is your desire to split this because you want the rewards for GMing without having to GM as much? Or is it simply because your characters and GMed tables tend to not match up thus spreading the GM credit too thin across all of your characters?

My response would be dependent on your response. If it's the first, then simply GM more and help take the pressure off your fellow GMs.

If it's the second, would this benefit the goal of the GM faction goals as a whole by getting more people to GM? Or is this simply a corner case that you unfortunately fit into?

apbrake wrote:

Personally, the only hardback I carry is the Players Handbook

You're talking about Pathfinder, right?

I still don't understand why I can have digital rules but I have to have a physical character sheet.

You are not required to carry a physical character sheet. And the reason was, if the GM needs to see your character sheet, they did not want the responsibility of your tablet in someone else's hands.

New ruling is available here: http://paizo.com/threads/rzs2t9az&page=11?Will-I-be-allowed-to-use-a-di gital-character#531

I am looking for examples of

Multiple Similar Abilities wrote:

For items with multiple similar abilities that don't take up space on a character's body, use the following formula: Calculate the price of the single most costly ability, then add 75% of the value of the next most costly ability, plus 1/2 the value of any other abilities.

Ring of protection combined with Cloak of Resistance uses rules for

Multiple Different Abilities wrote:

Abilities such as an attack roll bonus or saving throw bonus and a spell-like function are not similar, and their values are simply added together to determine the cost. For items that take up a space on a character's body, each additional power not only has no discount but instead has a 50% increase in price.

There is a part you missed:

3 An item that does not take up one of the spaces on a body costs double.

So a single slotless item with 5 magical affects each costing as you described would be

(1×(9000) + 0,75×(4000) + 0,5×(4000+1000+1000) ) x2 = 30 000 gp

EDIT: Best example I can see would be the "two spells of different levels 6th or below" pearl of power.
It is calculated as though the one item had every pearl of power from 1-6 in the same item.

36000+25000*0.75+16000*0.5+9000*0.5+4000*0.5+1000*0.5==69,750

Then rounded up to 70,000 for simplicity.

Barring explicit call outs on rules, implied official sources should do.

I believe Ascalaphus was absolutely correct in sighting the twigjack.

Space 2-1/2 ft.; Reach 0 ft. (5 ft. with spear)

Unless there is a ruling elsewhere, you must assume that the twigjack is not breaking the rules.

metamagic: persistent, quicken, extend
spell perfection, (Greater)Spell Penetration, (Greater)Spell focus
Staff of the master or 5

If you want a new body, use polymorph any object on a Diplodocus to turn it into... anything you want really. Then use extended greater possession and enjoy your 200+ hitpoints and 40 strength. Just refresh the greater possession every morning.

The initial Will save to disbelieve a (shadow) effect is not a mind-affecting effect, though, right? I mean, I get that, for example, an undead creature would be immune to any spell you could mimic via Shadow Enchantment, since all enchantment effects are mind-affecting by definition, but the same undead wouldn't automatically succeed on its Will save to disbelieve a shadow-conjured Create Pit, I assume?

Objects automatically succeed on their Will saves against this spell.

Only objects automatically succeed, undead are creatures. Yet objects can still be affected by shadow spells, percentage of the damage or percentage chance of being affected.

Edit: Let me fix my reasoning a bit. Shadow spells are not mind affecting thus are not by default stopped by immunity to mind affecting. Shadow Enchantment specifically states that

Objects, mindless creatures, and creatures immune to mind-affecting effects automatically succeed at their Will saves against this spell.

Undead have no special immunity to shadow evocation, conjuration, or transmutation.

Only the first, your class ability modifies the actual spell you are casting which is Shadow Evocation (same thing with metamagic).

Its like having a robot in a box. You can make the box as shiny or as big as you want but the robot will still do whatever it was programmed to do when you open the box.

The spell DC for all saves on all of the shadow spells are equal to the save DC of the shadow spell, if you raise the DC of shadow evocation, you are raising the will save to disbelieve as well as the reflex save to resist fireball. Persistent, greater spell focus illusion, even overpowering mind, affects all aspects of the spell. Greater spell focus evocation as the spell is not an evocation spell.

Simple reasoning for this, the spell descriptions specifically say the emulated spell uses the shadow spell level for its DCs and no where specifies that other modifications to the shadow spell do not.

I was just making sure, frequent visits to the forum can taint your view, as there is no mention of GMs being allowed to apply high level scenarios to first level characters, I wanted to ask for a consensus.

So the guide says, 'If the player is playing a non-1st-level pregenerated character, he may choose instead to apply this Chronicle sheet to a 1st-level character by reducing this value to 500 gp (or 250 gp for the slow advancement track). "

I am in the process of GMing all 5 of the waking rune arc, can I apply them, all slow tracked, to a first level character? I understand the unique boons would not be available until 7. I would rather bypass 1st level than 7th.

Not really a fan of Cons, just don't like the large crowds. Why exactly does PFS only seem to enable the other races for the Convention players?

I am also not a fan of cons, but if I were to guess at the reasons that the race boons are only available at cons, there would be a few.

1: Control the release of special con boons to maintain their value. If you are a slot 1 GM giving up your soul for 4 days and your reward was a race boon you could get for showing up at your local we be goblins game, there would be little value to it. Which leads to...

2: Get people to volunteer to GM at cons. There are many more only players than there are GMs, this problem is multiplied at cons. They give out boons for GMing to tempt more people into GMing.

3: To tempt new players into the game. The large cons of more non-PFS players that can be tempted and swayed by special unique to this con rewards for trying out a new game they may get hooked on.

Steven Schopmeyer wrote:

TheFlyingPhoton wrote:

Would you have expected me to be charged?

According to the Pathfinder rules? Yes, if you consider that two drinks. No, if it was one.

The employee of the bar performed the act of filling a glass of beer twice to give to me.

The employee of the spellcasting service performed the act of casting a spell with no material components on your PC twice for the remove curse to take.

As I said, I always roll it out. Yes I can see arguments where either way will work, and probably would hand waive it depending on the specific circumstances.

But as a counter argument to your pay twice...
The spell caster has a limited amount of spell casting to do in a day. If he gives away his services for free to you than that is a casting he can not charge someone else for later. How will he ever pay to put his kids through wizard college? WON'T SOMEONE THINK OF THE CHILDREN?!?!

Besides, if he gives his services away for free then the Aspis win.

I see no reason why the spell would change because you are paying for the service instead of casting it yourself. This past weekend at Con of the North I had to role for remove curse. Got it on my first try. My fellow party member was not so lucky, he had to pay for 6 castings of remove curse.

Shyka... apparently all of that time manipulation made her quite mad indeed. There is even at least one scenario where you run into a follower of hers who is also quite insane. Something about messing with time since you created it cause the brain to misfire.

Man, these forums will start a flame war over ANYTHING.

Tindalen, NPCs are not bound by the Additional Resources list. That list is specifically character creation rules for PCs. That's it. So NPCs can use any game rules, even if they're not in the Additional Resources, or violate the Guild Guide rules for character creation. For instance, NPCs can be evil, and PCs can't.

Similarly, NPCs can summon lightning elementals, and PCs can't. That's GM discretion if the adventure's tactics don't specifically say what they use their summon spell for.

I agree completely, that's what I was saying. If a scenario breaks the rules by explicitly saying so, then it is allowed. If the scenario does not say you can do it, then you can't.

It is pointedly apparent that I am not allowing enough spellcasters to summon gibbering mouthers. I should fix that.

A corrupt fey who summons gibbering mouthers and Pugwampi's would be awesome!

I have already said it twice...

You can only use the core rule book for summon monsters unless explicitly stated elsewhere. Stat blocks in scenarios that EXPLICITLY say you can summon gibbering mouthers, allow you to summon gibbering mouthers.

If the stat block does not EXPLICITLY say you can summon gibbering mouthers, then you can not summon them. GM status means nothing here.

Would be nice to see the additional elementals get added in as legal options for Summon Monster, but it's not like casters need the help.

On a side note: can an aether kineticist actually use Spark of Life to summon an aether elemental from Bestiary 5?

** spoiler omitted **

As of now, no. Note the "unless explicitly said otherwise" part.

This happens fairly frequently, pathfinder scenarios do not have their stat blocks or tactics restricted by Pathfinder Society legality. Whether or not the GM was right summoning gibberish mouthers, I have no way to tell without knowing the scenario and the specifics about that encounters stats. But it does not bypass what I said, only explicit;y said otherwise, you are limited to the core rule book for summons. That encounter may have said otherwise.

Summon monster is core rule book only unless something explicitly states otherwise.

A quick glance did not find the ruling, but I will edit if/when I do find it.

Edit: and shortly after, I found this from Mark Moreland

I think I tend away from multiclassing, though I do occasionally dip.

-1 fighter 10, cleric 1. Pure thematic choice, the dwarven fighter got drunk and became an accidental cleric of an accidental God.
-2 wizard 12/Diabolist 1. Again, thematic. He met someone that convinced him that becoming lawful would grant him more power at the cost of an atonement and his soul.
-3 was a fighter'rogue, retrained to all rogue after unchained.
-4 wizard 11
-5 was a 1 arcanist/1 wizard/ 1 cleric/ 1 mystic theuerge that I retrained into 5 cleric because, while effective, the complications annoyed me.
-6 fighter 1/wizard 5/Eldritch knight 5. This is my arcane archer.
-7 fighter 4, monk 2, horizon walker 3, stalwart defender 2. I had planned to take him to 18 through modules which is the only reason I multi-classed so much, but party changes had me swap in my -2 seeker.
-8 8 kineticist.

So looking at my builds, knowing the 11 level limit has led me to the opposite outcome the op has observed.

Effective Druid level 15 would give you a 12 HD animal companion, that is within the level +1 limit stated by Mr. Compton. The feat states that your effective druid level = character level -1. Not class levels that do not grant an animal companion.

Yes, this would work. Just like it does for the diabolist's imp companion.

Human Animal Speaker Bard
Feats - Animal Affinity, Skill Focus(Handle Animal)
Trait - Beast Bond
Masterwork Tools - Beast-scent

Total
+4 (Cha)
+2 (Racial)
+3 (Skill Focus)
+2 (Animal Affinity)
+1 (Rank)
+3 (Class Skill)
+1 (Trait)
+4 (Animal Friend, class ability)
+2 (Beast-scent, 75gp, Circumstance)
+2 (Training harness, 10gp, Untyped)
+5 (Training sleeve, 100gp, Competence)
+2 (Spell: Tap Inner Beauty, Insight)
Total = +31

Full bonus only apply's to training the kind of animal chosen with Animal Speaker.
-5 if not training
-4 if not chosen animal

Taenia wrote:

Yes, consider mitten or locked gauntlet like hands or even ones with limited differentiation that only allow a simply grip.

Still, those are explicit mechanics that ruin one's hands.

This is houseruling just to cripple one of the few druid paths that are not 'I turn into a tiger and pounce'.

What next? You speak a language, but you have a weird accent so you can't cast any verbal components?

I would say it is more along the lines of, if you do not have enough anatomy to be sneak attacked, why should you have enough anatomy to do fine manipulation of spell components.