|
2 people marked this as a favorite.
|
Aratorin wrote: That's not the same as being Hostile, which would be "I hate that fly and I'm going to murder it!" You're infusing element into the Hostile condition that are not part of RAW. While someone who actively seeks to harm you may not "hate" you, it doesn't matter. They are Hostile.
Attempting to shoo the fly does not to make you Hostile. Attempting to "swat" the fly (and thus kill it) makes you Hostile.
Squiggit wrote: N N 959 wrote: Insisting "actively seeks to harm that character" is materially different from "actively trying to harm" isn't a compelling or convincing assertion in this context. I mean, if the creature is actively trying to harm you, then you're past the point of rolling initiative, which means WE is useless until you get Legendary Negotiation at 15. Not according to PFS Scenarios. There are at least two instance of using WE in the context of animals already attacking in low tier scenarios. As such, it suggest that WE is useful in combat and Nature is not.
This makes WE uniquely useful...if you have a situation where the GM agrees it can be used in combat and doesn't try and tell you the attacking creature is actually Indifferent the whole time.
But the fact that we have to look to published content outside of the rules to understand how a rule is suppose to work, identifies room for improvement in the wording.
N N 959 wrote: There's actually nothing that supports your reading. Except for all those English words used to write the rules. Which, being typical English words, have more than one meaning and are heavily affected by context.
Your reading that the attitude conditions have nothing to do with intent and everything to do with action such that actions that do harm = a guarantee of hostile attitude is - however unfortunate this may be - no more, and no less, supported by the rules text than my interpretation that intent is relevant (and key) to determining attitude is.
That's why I brought up the "tie breaker" of the people that really should be an authority on how the rule is intended to function appearing to disagree with your interpretation - so that we aren't just going "nuh uh" and "yeah huh" with neither of us having an objectively more valid interpretation.
|
2 people marked this as a favorite.
|
thenobledrake wrote: Except for all those English words used to write the rules. Which, being typical English words, have more than one meaning and are heavily affected by context. Look, I enjoy an excuse to come and talk about the Ranger, but the words, in this context, are not ambiguous.
Quote: Your reading that the attitude conditions have nothing to do with intent and everything to do with action such that actions that do harm = a guarantee of hostile attitude is - however unfortunate this may be - no more, and no less, supported by the rules text than my interpretation that intent is relevant (and key) to determining attitude is. Except that you're not talking about "intent." Someone who attacks you, unequivocally intends to harm you. You're trying to insist the the rules allow an animal to actively do something that is inconsistent with its actual Attitude. It's like taking a 2 foot leap over a 10 foot ditch. You're not getting there from here.
Quote: That's why I brought up the "tie breaker" of the people that really should be an authority on how the rule is intended to function appearing to disagree with your interpretation - so that we aren't just going "nuh uh" and "yeah huh" with neither of us having an objectively more valid interpretation. But the "tie breaker" says you're wrong. Once gain, there is no situation anyone has brought up where an animal is actively attacking someone and the AP or scenario says you can use Nature. There is a PFS scenario where an animal attacks and the scenario only indicates WE can soothe the animal. So that answers Captain Morgan's questions: WE works against an animal that has already started attacking or is coded to attack, when Nature won't.
There's another way to show that your reading is demonstrably incorrect. We can look at the Command Animal rule itself.
p. 249 wrote: You automatically fail if the animal is hostile or unfriendly to you. If the animal is helpful to you, increase your degree of success by one step. This rule tells us that an animal can be Unfriendly or Hostile. Your reading insist all animals are simply Indifferent. The lion ripping your face off, just wants to eat his man sandwich and watch Youtube videos of hyenas getting run over by tour buses full of Australians. He's not really Hostile toward you.
It gets worse. Remember Aratorin's prior assertion? Aratorin wrote: When it comes to Command an Animal, I get the sense that the goal of that stipulation is to keep you from Commanding the enemy's dog.. Well, under your interpretation, that enemy's dog is actually Indifferent. After all, the dog is only doing what it's told. If it weren't for the master telling it to attack, it would leave you alone. That dog might as well as be fetching a ball. Fetch the ball or bite the leg? Either is fine with the dog, because it personally doesn't really care. How could it be hostile to a stranger it doesn't even know?
And if the dog is Indifferent, then anyone who it is attacking can use Command Animal on it.
Sorry, I think it's pretty clear that your reading is contrary to how it reads in English and how it interacts with the rules that are affected by it.
You know what works? An animal commanded to attack someone or a group of someone's is automatically Hostile to that group because that animal is "actively seeking to harm" those individuals And as such, the opposition can't use Command Animal on it. And the GM doesn't have to spend a nano-second figuring out how the dog really feels.
(But what happens if the enemy wins Init and commands your animal before you order it to attack??? KHAAAAAANNNNNN!!!!!!!)
N N 959 wrote: ...the words, in this context, are not ambiguous. Considering the dictionary I just cracked open (digitally) has 7 definitions for the word 'seek' which don't all result in synonymous meanings if used in the sentence "actively seeks to harm" I'm just gonna say this: I'm not sure you're being openminded about how variable and downright fickle the English language can be.
N N 959 wrote: Except that you're not talking about "intent." Someone who attacks you, unequivocally intends to harm you. Says you. The rules, however, don't say that attacking requires or causes a hostile attitude.
An attack could be a basic form of communication. A synonymous phrase with "don't stand so close to me" or "don't touch my tail" or "thanks for petting me, but I'm good for now, so stop." (yes, I am a cat person).
It is not a guarantee that what the creature making the attack seeks is to harm you.
Edit to add: N N 959 wrote: Your reading insist all animals are simply Indifferent. No it doesn't. An animal definitely can be hostile. It just doesn't have to be in order to attack you.
It's a case of squares and rectangles.
Sorry, but Extinction Curse gives a pretty black and white example of a non-Hostile Animal Attacking.
As much as you may not like it, it appears that the only benefit of Wild Empathy is a lower DC compared to Diplomacy instead of Nature.
This AP came out well after the Core Rules, so none of the "The Rules were still being codified" arguments that are used against Fall of Plaguestone and Age of Ashes hold water.
|
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
Aratorin wrote: Sorry, but Extinction Curse gives a pretty black and white example of a non-Hostile Animal Attacking.
As much as you may not like it, it appears that the only benefit of Wild Empathy is a lower DC compared to Diplomacy instead of Nature.
** spoiler omitted **
This AP came out well after the Core Rules, so none of the "The Rules were still being codified" arguments that are used against Fall of Plaguestone and Age of Ashes hold water.
Those animals aren't attacking. PCs could walk past them safely for instance or even take a nap next to one. They will attack if provoked by aggressive behavior, which is different, and applies to most every NPC & creature.
On the flip side, that instance does bring up the option of scared animals, ones that aren't actively hostile, but attack because they are panicked. Not sure I could call them indifferent either though.
Hmm...
Castilliano wrote: Aratorin wrote: Sorry, but Extinction Curse gives a pretty black and white example of a non-Hostile Animal Attacking.
As much as you may not like it, it appears that the only benefit of Wild Empathy is a lower DC compared to Diplomacy instead of Nature.
** spoiler omitted **
This AP came out well after the Core Rules, so none of the "The Rules were still being codified" arguments that are used against Fall of Plaguestone and Age of Ashes hold water.
Those animals aren't attacking. PCs could walk past them safely for instance or even take a nap next to one. They will attack if provoked by aggressive behavior, which is different, and applies to most every NPC & creature.
On the flip side, that instance does bring up the option of scared animals, ones that aren't actively hostile, but attack because they are panicked. Not sure I could call them indifferent either though.
Hmm...
You are just restating the same thing that I said. They are not Hostile. But they will Strike. N N 959 says that is impossible under the rules.
Also, nothing in the scenario says that you cannot use Nature or Wild Empathy after they Strike.
I mostly agree with NN here. To say that a lion that is trying to claw and bite you to death so it can eat you isn't hostile is just absurd. Of COURSE its hostile.
But there are cases where an animal is endangering a human without being hostile.
Examples would include a herd of stampeding animals or a creature so large that it doesn't even notice the PC (analagous to a human accidentally stepping on an ant).
An animal reacting in fear is probably another example of a non hostile act. Or a mother lashing out to protect its baby.
The common theme, in my mind, is that if the PC just gets out of the way the animal will stop attacking. No need for Wild Empathy or Nature, just get out of the way.
|
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
Here's the play-out of the scenario "the lion is trying to kill you and eat you" with the lion having different attitudes:
The Lion is Indifferent toward you you can put some other food source to the lion and, if it's enough food to satisfy it's hunger, the lion will leave you alone because what it currently seeks (to make sure we are using the language of the rules) is to eat something.
The Lion is Hostile toward you you could jam a fresh hunk of delicious gazelle right in it's maw, and it would spit it out and keep trying to kill you because what it currently seeks is to harm you.
|
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
thenobledrake wrote: N N 959 wrote: ...the words, in this context, are not ambiguous. Considering the dictionary I just cracked open (digitally) has 7 definitions for the word 'seek' which don't all result in synonymous meanings Context. But the disconnect is not "seek" it's "actively
p. 620 wrote: A creature that is hostile to a character actively seeks to harm that character. p. 620 wrote: A creature that is helpful to a character wishes to actively aid that character. You don't have to harm/aid, but if you're actively doing it then your Hostile/Helpful.
Quote: N N 959 wrote: Except that you're not talking about "intent." Someone who attacks you, unequivocally intends to harm you. Says you. The rules, however, don't say that attacking requires or causes a hostile attitude.
Neither did I. I said if an NPC animal is attacking someone (obviously of its own free will), then the NPC animal is actively trying to harm them and the NPC is Hostile.
Quote: It is not a guarantee that what the creature making the attack seeks is to harm you. In the context of animals and Nature checks (because that is the point of this discussion), I obviously disagree.
Quote: Edit to add: N N 959 wrote: Your reading insist all animals are simply Indifferent. No it doesn't. An animal definitely can be hostile. It just doesn't have to be in order to attack you. Whether or not that's true, using your rationale I can clearly argue that the dog Commanded to attack me is actually Indifferent, and that's how I know it's wrong.
|
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
Aratorin wrote: You are just restating the same thing that I said. They are not Hostile. But they will Strike. N N 959 says that is impossible under the rules. No, that's not what I said.
NN wrote: What is far more likely is that an encounter will hardcode an angry or aggressive creature as Indifferent at the start of the encounter, to give a PC a chance to use Nature before actual combat begins. But if the creature is coded to attack from the start, then it is not Indifferent. Your concern is addressed perfectly here:
Castilliano wrote: Those animals aren't attacking. PCs could walk past them safely for instance or even take a nap next to one. They will attack if provoked by aggressive behavior, which is different, and applies to most every NPC & creature. The AP is specifically hardcoding the animal as indifferent and intentionally writing the instructions so the animals are not attacking the PCs to start the encounter. I suspect your grizzly bear example use a similar approach.
Quote: Also, nothing in the scenario says that you cannot use Nature or Wild Empathy after they Strike. I'll also assume nothing in the scenario precludes the use of Athletics after they Strike. The reason is that the scenarios typically don't repeat all the rules that apply to encounter when those rules are found in the Core Rulebook.
Command an Animal p. 249 wrote: You automatically fail if the animal is hostile or unfriendly to you
A dog that is trained to attack on command is not just learning to bite when told to bite - they are learning to be hostile when told to be hostile.
That's why real-world attack dogs have to be trained not just "attack" but also "stop attacking".
So this bit:
N N 959 wrote: ...using your rationale I can clearly argue that the dog Commanded to attack me is actually Indifferent, and that's how I know it's wrong. Is you showing that you do not grasp my rationale.
Don't feel bad about that though, it can be hard to understand what other people are thinking. For instance, I'm having trouble understanding what you were thinking when you said:
N N 959 wrote: if an NPC animal is attacking someone (obviously of its own free will), then the NPC animal is actively trying to harm them and the NPC is Hostile. and claimed it to not be the exact IF attack THEN hostile statement I made when I said the rules don't say that attacking = hostility.
thenobledrake wrote: A dog that is trained to attack on command is not just learning to bite when told to bite - they are learning to be hostile when told to be hostile. Can you provide a rules link for that?
Thanks.
Deliberately taking my statements out of context isn't acceptable behavior.
Thanks.
lol...I asked you to provide a link for an assertion you've made about the rules. I fail to see how I've taken anything out of context. Does that or does that not apply to the rules of the game? If so, please provide a link that affirms your assertion.
Jumping ahead, you don't train an animal to be Hostile. Animals all know Strike by default and you Command it to Strike. That's when the animal becomes Hostile. The game doesn't require you Command/Train its Attitude. You Command Actions, from which the GM can easily assign Attitude
This simplifies the game. It makes the use of something with discreet boundaries, like Command Animal, easier to adjudicate and it opens design space for WE.
|
2 people marked this as a favorite.
|
Can we dial back on the snark? Just because we're on the topic of Hostility doesn't mean we need to be mean to each other... I think this issue very much is going to come with a good amount of table variation and that's OK.
Thanks.
thenobledrake wrote: N N 959 wrote: if an NPC animal is attacking someone (obviously of its own free will), then the NPC animal is actively trying to harm them and the NPC is Hostile. and claimed it to not be the exact IF attack THEN hostile statement I made when I said the rules don't say that attacking = hostility. Sorry, I'm not trying to be argumentative here. The logical conclusion is same. I'm attempting to be specific about the steps. You tried to ding me on "actively trying to harm" vs "actively seeking to harm," or whatever, so trying to preclude a debate along those lines.
N N 959 wrote: Aratorin wrote: You are just restating the same thing that I said. They are not Hostile. But they will Strike. N N 959 says that is impossible under the rules. No, that's not what I said.
NN wrote: What is far more likely is that an encounter will hardcode an angry or aggressive creature as Indifferent at the start of the encounter, to give a PC a chance to use Nature before actual combat begins. But if the creature is coded to attack from the start, then it is not Indifferent. Your concern is addressed perfectly here:
Castilliano wrote: Those animals aren't attacking. PCs could walk past them safely for instance or even take a nap next to one. They will attack if provoked by aggressive behavior, which is different, and applies to most every NPC & creature. The AP is specifically hardcoding the animal as indifferent and intentionally writing the instructions so the animals are not attacking the PCs to start the encounter. I suspect your grizzly bear example use a similar approach.
Quote: Also, nothing in the scenario says that you cannot use Nature or Wild Empathy after they Strike. I'll also assume nothing in the scenario precludes the use of Athletics after they Strike. The reason is that the scenarios typically don't repeat all the rules that apply to encounter when those rules are found in the Core Rulebook.
Command an Animal p. 249 wrote: You automatically fail if the animal is hostile or unfriendly to you It never actually says Command an Animal. It says make a Nature Check. The Rules around Command an Animal are not a factor.
Look, I agree that it's dumb, but example after example in published content demonstrates that the standard expectation of what Wild Empathy does is just let you make a check with a lower DC vs Diplomacy instead of Nature.
That's not my interpretation, that's not something that requires careful parsing of the rules, that's the actual implementation of the ability by Paizo.
Frankly, it's just a poorly thought out ability that no Ranger should ever waste a Feat on, because tying a Ranger's ability to deal with Animals to Diplomacy is just stupid.
For a Druid, it falls into the same "here's a Class Feature you'll never use" category as Shield Block.
N N 959 wrote: lol...I asked you to provide a link for an assertion you've made about the rules. Except that I made no such assertion about the rules, I was talking about real dogs in a way that translates to the attitude conditions in the game and explains why a trained attack dog being commanded to attack a character skilled with animals isn't a situation where the GM has to resolve a contest of whose commands the trained animal listens to.
I apologize for assuming you were malicious in your misunderstanding. I genuinely thought you were following along.
N N 959 wrote: You tried to ding me on "actively trying to harm" vs "actively seeking to harm," or whatever ...no?
My disagreements with you are thus:
1) you say attacking = definitely hostile. I say attacking and hostility aren't directly related (you can be one, the other, or both, depending on circumstances).
2) you say intent/motivation doesn't factor. I say the use of the word "seek" shows that it does, since that word has that kind of meaning.
Aratorin wrote:
It never actually says Command an Animal. It says make a Nature Check. The Rules around Command an Animal are not a factor.
I've definitely seen a scenario specifically use Command an Animal.
I've also seen an example where the animal is not hardcoded as Indifferent and the scenerio specifically mentions WE but not Nature.
It's also possible a scenario might be counting words and only refer to Nature and assume the GM will equate it with Command Animal.
Quote: Look, I agree that it's dumb, but example after example in published content demonstrates that the standard expectation of what Wild Empathy does is just let you make a check with a lower DC vs Diplomacy instead of Nature. That was my original thought after the examples posted in this discussion. But after doing my own research on the published content, that does not appear to be the case. What I have determined:
1. Any time Nature/Command an Animal is specifically allowed, the scenario makes it clear the animals are not attacking the PC's to start, and in most cases explicitly states the animals are Indifferent.
There are some shenanigans with animals exhibiting aggressive behavior, but still being Indifferent. Personally, I think that's in poor form, but it conclusively shows that the content writers know the animal has to be Indifferent for Nature to work.
2. In some cases an animals is coded to attack and WE is the only option cited to soothe the animal. While the wording might be ambiguous about when you have to use WE, it never clearly states it has to used before the creature attacks.
3. Where both are usable, WE always has a lower DC or a bonus to the attempt.
Quote: Frankly, it's just a poorly thought out ability that no Ranger should ever waste a Feat on, because tying a Ranger's ability to deal with Animals to Diplomacy is just stupid. Prior to my research of the published content, I would have emhatically agreed with you. But after seeing the specifics of how the encounters are setup, it's clear that WE is useful against an animal that has started attacking you when Nature is not. And per #3, when both are usable, the necessary die roll would be lower if Nature/ WIS weren't most likely higher than DIplo/CHR. Lastly, you can use Diplo on an animal and make a Request....whatever that is worth in the eyes of your GM.
My issue with WE is that:
1) It's implemented in a way that the average Ranger won't have it and couldn't leverage it. Triggering it off of Diplomacy, is a huge thematic problem for exactly the reason you cited earlier: having to be good with people to be good with animals, and no way to decouple that fact.
2) You have to buy it. For as little as this feat does (avoid a low percentage of animal combat), the fact that it is juxtaposed with other more useful feats, feels punative. Why do that Paizo? Skill feats? I could understand that...but the combat class feats? I don't agree with that approach to character design.
3) WE should be part of the Ranger chassis. Yes, I know PF2 is all about customization, but this is something that would help define the class as distinct from a Fighter with Nature / Survival.
4) It looks like WE is prone to lots of table variation and has a high likelihood of not being differentiated with using Nature. If you go through all the published examples of using WE/Nature and don't see it exactly the same, then add a #5 to the problems with this feat.
I admit that my opinion of WE being useful has changed to agreeing that it is not completely worthless on a Diplomacy Ranger and that it does do things Nature cannot. But the way Paizo has implemented it, makes me kind of resent the game rather than love it. And honestly, that affects my willingness to spend money on PF2.
thenobledrake wrote: My disagreements with you are thus:
1) .... I say attacking and hostility aren't directly related (you can be one, the other, or both, depending on circumstances).
For animals in this context, I say that's wrong.
Quote: 2) you say intent/motivation doesn't factor. I say the use of the word "seek" shows that it does, since that word has that kind of meaning. Not quite. I said that when the animal is actively seeking to harm you, the intent doesn't matter. If the creature isn't actively doing something, then you have to look at other factors. You seem to be trying to pivot on "seek" but that doesn't help you. An animal can't be attacking someone and not "actively seeking to harm" them. There's nothing in the rules or published content that supports or encourages that approach to adjudicating this. There's no basis for allowing an animal to roll an attack die and still be Indifferent.
The only context I am discussing this issue is when an animal attacks, either by command, hunger, or whatever, then it is automatically Hostile and you cannot use Nature. A review of the publish content shows Paizo is specifically careful not to combine an attacking animal with an Indifferent attitude. in every case, that I've seen a Nature call allowed, the animal is not attacking the PCs and will essentially ignore the PCs if given the opportunity. Yes, there are outward displays of "aggressive" behavior, but the animals are not actively seeking to harm the PCs at the start of the encounter..
Lemme try this one last time:
The phrase "actively seeking to harm you" can mean both of the following:
A) actively making attempts to harm you
B) actively having the goal to harm you
That is how that phrase doesn't necessarily lock out intent, and is the basis for allowing an animal (or any other creature, actually) to roll an attack while having an attitude condition other than Hostile.
Yes, I have understood that part of your rationale from the first. Regardless of how you want to interpret "seek" an animal that attacks you is both attempting to harm you and having a goal of harming you, and thus, Hostile.
Allowing a creature to roll an attack die and not satisfy the criteria of "actively seeking to harm" is nonsensical in the context of this game. A careful analysis of the published content is perfectly aligned with my interpretation. As of yet, no Indifferent animal starts off trying to attack PCs and no encounter that codes an animal to attack, identifies Nature as an option but does mention WE.
Now, maybe some future scenario might come out and contradict that, or, maybe it won't. Or maybe there's something out already that contradicts this, and if so, let's see it.
Either way, you're obviously welcome to adjudicate things however you want.
N N 959 wrote: Regardless of how you want to interpret "seek" an animal that attacks you is both attempting to harm you and having a goal of harming you, and thus, Hostile. So you are claiming that it is hostile if a cat that doesn't want you to touch their tail swipes at you with a claw?
So the attitude goes from friendly because it's your pet and it loves you , to hostile for a moment, to friendly again rather than it being able to be friendly the whole time because the goal of the attack is to communicate "don't touch that" rather than the "do harm to you" that you are arbitrating is the inherent goal of every possible attack ever?
thenobledrake wrote: Cats... Man, if you're trying to say that the attitude of the typical housecat does not swing wildly from helpful, to indifferent, and all the way to hostile at the drop of a hat then I'm not sure you've spent long enough living with one.
What you described is actually REALLY close to how many, if not most interactions with the cats I've raised in my lifetime. They could be grumpy and not want ANYTHING to do with you, actively swipe in your direction for no good reason and then seconds late turn up the cute and start rubbing on your legs or as you mentioned, turn instantly hostile for mysterious and unknowable reasons. Now, of course, this isn't the case for ALL housecats but I do feel that the more "emotionally stable" cats are more uncommon based solely on my own experiences.
|
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
Themetricsystem wrote: thenobledrake wrote: Cats... Man, if you're trying to say that the attitude of the typical housecat does not swing wildly from helpful, to indifferent, and all the way to hostile at the drop of a hat then I'm not sure you've spent long enough living with one.
What you described is actually REALLY close to how many, if not most interactions with the cats I've raised in my lifetime. They could be grumpy and not want ANYTHING to do with you, actively swipe in your direction for no good reason and then seconds late turn up the cute and start rubbing on your legs or as you mentioned, turn instantly hostile for mysterious and unknowable reasons. Now, of course, this isn't the case for ALL housecats but I do feel that the more "emotionally stable" cats are more uncommon based solely on my own experiences. You know how if X people work Y hours that's XY man-hours?
I have about 160 cat-years of experience with house cats.
And I ask you to apply Occam's razor the situation and see whether you think it's more likely that cats "attacking" are doing so as a means of communication in many circumstances and their attitude is otherwise relatively stable - or that they are literally swinging across the entire range of attitude at rapid pace and without cause.
If anything, I think the "for no good reason" and "mysterious and unknowable reasons" you mention highlight my point: it isn't that your cat has become inexplicably hostile - it's that you are assuming it's actions indicate hostility that isn't present.
Likely because you're thinking along the lines of "I wouldn't just slap somebody for no reason, I'd have to be mad at them" and anthropomorphizing the animal by treating that slap as the same as a cat's swat (it isn't) and their motives as being the same as yours (they aren't) - that's just talking to them.
...though there are many cats that are hostile. You can tell by way they keep drawing blood, yowling, hissing, and not letting up the instant you back off.
|
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
thenobledrake wrote: So you are claiming that it is hostile if a cat that doesn't want you to touch their tail swipes at you with a claw?
So the attitude goes from friendly because it's your pet and it loves you , to hostile for a moment, to friendly again rather than it being able to be friendly the whole time because the goal of the attack is to communicate "don't touch that" rather than the "do harm to you" that you are arbitrating is the inherent goal of every possible attack ever?
I think from the outset, you've wanted to turn this into a philosophical debate. I have no motivation to debate this on a philosophical level and have tried to steer the dicussion away from that by repeatedy using the phrase 'in context," "in the game."
To address this head on: Congrats. You've identified yet another subsystem/mechanic that doesn't accurately represent real life. We can file that behind Alignment, Armor Class, Hit Points, Saving Throws, Weapon Damage, Bulk, Economy, the Skills system, dice distributions, Tactical Movement, and so on. None of these things are meant to simulate or approximate real life. The are, at best, abstractions and at worse arbitrary constructs. Their purpose is only to facilitate game play, not model real life.
The fact that you can imagine a real life situation in which PF2's implementation of Attitude fails us, isn't really a cogent argument because no one uses a Nature check in real life to Command an Animal. More the point, the Attitude system isn't designed to facilitate the fickleness of a house cat. Normative game play doesn't involve Social checks with house cats, so if you find the system fails miserably on that level, I don't think it's an issue.
|
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
But if read the way I am reading it, which is valid given the words used by the writers, then it does accurately represent real life.
And this entire time I too have been talking about the game - trying to turn my argument into some other thing is dirty pool.
NN wrote: I think from the outset, you've wanted to turn this into a philosophical debate. Philosophical wrote: 1. relating or devoted to the study of the fundamental nature of knowledge, reality, and existence. thenobledrake wrote: Except that I made no such assertion about the rules, I was talking about real dogs in a way that translates to the attitude conditions in the game and explains why a trained attack dog being commanded to attack a character skilled with animals isn't a situation where the GM has to resolve a contest of whose commands the trained animal listens to. thenobledrake wrote: So you are claiming that it is hostile if a cat that doesn't want you to touch their tail swipes at you with a claw? thenobledrake wrote: Likely because you're thinking along the lines of "I wouldn't just slap somebody for no reason, I'd have to be mad at them" and anthropomorphizing the animal by treating that slap as the same as a cat's swat (it isn't) and their motives as being the same as yours (they aren't) - that's just talking to them. thenobledrake wrote: And this entire time I too have been talking about the game - trying to turn my argument into some other thing is dirty pool. You've repeatedly tried to bring in real life and the fundamental nature of behavior as a basis for how to adjudicate the game. There's no "dirty pool" being played here.
I think you're missing the point that the word Attitude describes a state of mind, not an Action.
thenobledrake is simply trying to provide examples that a Strike does not require a Hostile state of mind.
That is relevant to the Attitude Rules.
Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber
I'm sort of wondering how much this debate even matters. What a creature's attitude is at any given moment is solely within the purview of the GM (or in the case of a module, the module writer and the GM).
Whether or not a creature is an eligible target for Command an Animal or Wild Empathy, then, is pretty much just up to how much leeway the GM is willing to offer the player in that situation.
I don't think it's something we can really litigate all the well on a forum because it's ultimately up to whoever's creating the adventure and the circumstances of the story being told, for better or for worse.
Aratorin wrote: I think you're missing the point that the word Attitude describes a state of mind, not an Action. I'm not missing the point. I'm labeling his attempt to invoke "real life" as a basis for rules adjudication as "philosohpical" and he's accusing me of trying to turn his argument into "some other thing."
Quote: thenobledrake is simply trying to provide examples that a Strike does not require a Hostile state of mind. By trying to talk about what happens in real life. He's not able to provide any published content that follows his interpretation.
Quote: That is relevant to the Attitude Rules. No, not in my opinion. Real life is not a basis for interpretations that are counter-indicated by the rules.
Squiggit wrote: I'm sort of wondering how much this debate even matters. What a creature's attitude is at any given moment is solely within the purview of the GM (or in the case of a module, the module writer and the GM). My part in the debate is strictly aimed at answering Captain Morgan's questions: What does WE do that Nature doesn't.
Quote: Whether or not a creature is an eligible target for Command an Animal or Wild Empathy, then, is pretty much just up to how much leeway the GM is willing to offer the player in that situation. Not in the situations we're discussing. We're analyzing what is specifically coded in the published content and trying do determine how it differentiates the benefit of having WE vs Nature.
Quote: I don't think it's something we can really litigate all the well on a forum because it's ultimately up to whoever's creating the adventure and the circumstances of the story being told, for better or for worse. And we're looking at specific examples of what the publish content is telling us.
1. Nature isn't referenced in the case of an anmial that is coded to attack the PCS, but WE is.
2. Animals who are hardcoded as Indifferent do not start the encounter by attacking the PCs. In fact, it appears that in all cases, the PCs can avoid being attacked without having to make any skill checks. As such, these instances mention Nature and Command an Animal.
That leads to the conclusion that WE is usable if you are actually being attacked where Nature isn't. The only way you can use Nature after being attacked is if the GM insist the animal attacking you is actually Indifferent. Per the rules, this isn't possible and the publish content, that I've seen, agrees.
N N 959 wrote: I'm not missing the point. I'm labeling his attempt to invoke "real life" as a basis for rules adjudication as "philosohpical" and he's accusing me of trying to turn his argument into "some other thing." My interpretation isn't counter-indicated by the rules.
The words used "actively seeking to harm" can mean something different than what you've read them to mean.
And that is why you saying that I'm "making a philosophical argument" and "He's not able to provide any published content that follows his interpretation." absolutely is dirty pool.
You're declaring yourself final arbiter of what is or isn't valid evidence, and arbitrated your own evidence - the meaning of the words used in the rules text - as being invalid evidence if I use it and the only evidence needed if you use it.
Yes, I brought up reasons why I think the rules say what I think they say - that's called supporting an argument, and you're literally the only person on this forum I've ever seen try to frame it as though I'm doing something strange by doing so. So you're not just missing the point - you appear to be actively seeking to avoid the point.
Squiggit wrote: I'm sort of wondering how much this debate even matters. What a creature's attitude is at any given moment is solely within the purview of the GM (or in the case of a module, the module writer and the GM).
Whether or not a creature is an eligible target for Command an Animal or Wild Empathy, then, is pretty much just up to how much leeway the GM is willing to offer the player in that situation.
I don't think it's something we can really litigate all the well on a forum because it's ultimately up to whoever's creating the adventure and the circumstances of the story being told, for better or for worse.
Why I think this debate matters is because, theoretically at least, there may be readers that aren't already set in how they will handle certain situations and will possibly base their handling on what they saw being talked about.
And I think there are plenty of folks that would prefer if the result were one that didn't just follow a reading of the rules but also matched up to intuitive expectations so that they don't end up with a result like encountering a horse, wanting to mount it, but spoiling it's attitude and making it impossible if their GM knows that a horse will kick at something that walks up behind it and the GM, like N N 959, thinks that making an attack proves a hostile attitude.
|
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
thenobledrake wrote: N N 959 wrote: I'm not missing the point. I'm labeling his attempt to invoke "real life" as a basis for rules adjudication as "philosohpical" and he's accusing me of trying to turn his argument into "some other thing." My interpretation isn't counter-indicated by the rules. Yeah... it is. you're trying to tell me you can attack someone and be Indifferent and the rules say no. You've repeatedly try to end-around that by citing real life, and when that doesn't work you attack my character.
Quote: The words used "actively seeking to harm" can mean something different than what you've read them to mean. They could, but in this context, they don't. And...even considering the other options, none of them support the concept of attacking while remaining Indifferent. But you are absolutely free to keep insisting they do.
Quote: And that is why you saying that I'm "making a philosophical argument" and "He's not able to provide any published content that follows his interpretation." absolutely is dirty pool. So pointing out that you've not cited a single example of content that supports your conclusion is "dirty pool?" Okay, you're entitled to your opinion.
Quote: You're declaring yourself final arbiter of what is or isn't valid evidence, and arbitrated your own evidence - the meaning of the words used in the rules text - as being invalid evidence if I use it and the only evidence needed if you use it. No, I'm not the final arbiter, I'm just some random person on the Internet who says your interpretation is wrong. The publish content says you're wrong, and my interpretation of the rules says you're wrong. It's not personal. It's not malicious, it's just a discussion and my opinion. I don't have to accept your version just because you think you're entitled to be right. .
Quote: Yes, I brought up reasons why I think the rules say what I think they say - that's called supporting an argument, and you're literally the only person on this forum I've ever seen try to frame it as though I'm doing something strange by doing so. So you're not just missing the point - you appear to be actively seeking to avoid the point. I didn't say you're doing something "strange" Stop trying to misrepresent someone who says you're interpretation is wrong. Trying to use real life as a basis for your argument is pretty common in the forums, there's nothing "strange" about that tactic. Unfortunately, It's almost never compelling. The game isn't trying to recreate real life. It's trying to abstract it to so that people can play a game.
As far as your "reasons," your asserting you know the disposition of animals when they attack in real life? Really? Okay. Sure.
You're entitled to believe whatever interpretation you want. I don't have to agree with it, so stop trying to bully me into accepting it as valid.
tl;dr
In my home game I am still feeling this out, but currently I am going with the idea that the Command an Animal only works with domesticated animals, and animals that are pre-disposed to respond positively to humanoid interaction. Most wild animals will not respond favorably to the action.
Wild Empathy OTOH has an almost mystical quality to it that allow the character to reach beyond the animal's instinctive behavior. Someone said its a bit odd that Diplomacy would be the skill associated with WE given that its not exactly a prime skill for druids/rangers, which is why I substitute Nature for Diplomacy to resolve this. Makes much more sense, IMO.
Maybe we will find that this solution won't work long term. I dunno, but its working for us know, so I don't have a reason to change it. YMMV
N N 959 wrote: you're trying to tell me you can attack someone and be Indifferent and the rules say no. Except that they don't, or you wouldn't have to argue the definitions of words with me you could just quote the part that actually says "NPCs can't attack a target that they aren't Hostile towards."
N N 959 wrote: The publish content says you're wrong Except that it doesn't.
N N 959 wrote: I don't have to accept your version just because you think you're entitled to be right. Yet you seem to think that, rather than it be possible for both of us to have valid interpretations thanks to English words having differing definitions, you are entitled to be "right" and I'm "wrong" objectively.
And rather than actually address my arguments with anything other than the equivalent of "nope, you're wrong" you are trying to undermine my argument with your claims that I'm not arguing the right way and with alluded personal attacks.
Because I'm not trying to "bully you" by still having my own opinion even though you've disagreed with it and insisted it's not even possible to have in the first place.
|
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
My players going round grappling people to break up the fight at the start of plaguestone are Hostile to the villagers in NNs reading, which means at the very least it's a bad rule that needs houseriling upon contact with the actual game. In fact I'm pretty sure the fight is mostly a tension reliever and noone involved was actually hostile to each other.
Malk_Content wrote: My players going round grappling people to break up the fight at the start of plaguestone are Hostile to the villagers in NNs reading, No, they are not.
1. Core rulebook pg 305 wrote: A hostile action is one that can harm or damage another creature, whether directly or indirectly So if you're PCs are only grappling people and not doing damage, then the actions are not hostile.
2. The Attitudes nominally only apply to "creatures," not player characters.
pg 620 wrote: This condition reflects a creature’s disposition toward a particular character, and only supernatural effects (like a spell) can impose these conditions on player characters. Are your PCs under spell effects?
3. Attitude only matters for NPCs. Why, because the rule states
p 247 wrote: No one can ever change the attitude of a player character with these skills. So it's essentially irrelevant from a mechanics perspective what Attitude you might subscribe to a player. The game rules aren't constructed to manage PC Attitudes, only NPCs.
4. The whole point of this discussion is to determine whether Nature can do what WE can do. . My "reading" only applies to animals and the use of Nature vs WE in situations where animals are used and there aren't some specific rules intending to make a specific exception.
Quote: ...which means at the very least it's a bad rule that needs houseriling upon contact with the actual game. Whether you think it's a bad rule is entirely your prerogative. But you're 100% wrong about "my reading."
TwilightKnight wrote: tl;dr
In my home game I am still feeling this out, but currently I am going with the idea that the Command an Animal only works with domesticated animals, and animals that are pre-disposed to respond positively to humanoid interaction. Most wild animals will not respond favorably to the action.
Wild Empathy OTOH has an almost mystical quality to it that allow the character to reach beyond the animal's instinctive behavior. Someone said its a bit odd that Diplomacy would be the skill associated with WE given that its not exactly a prime skill for druids/rangers, which is why I substitute Nature for Diplomacy to resolve this. Makes much more sense, IMO.
Maybe we will find that this solution won't work long term. I dunno, but its working for us know, so I don't have a reason to change it. YMMV
Diplomacy for Wild Empathy has the added benefit of getting synergy from Diplomacy skill feats like Group Impression, Glad-Hand, and Legendary Negotiation. Furthermore, druids, being a wisdom-primary class, have a flexible attribute point to spend on attribute increases, and can choose charisma after getting the core three stats (dex, con, wis).
voideternal wrote: TwilightKnight wrote: tl;dr
In my home game I am still feeling this out, but currently I am going with the idea that the Command an Animal only works with domesticated animals, and animals that are pre-disposed to respond positively to humanoid interaction. Most wild animals will not respond favorably to the action.
Wild Empathy OTOH has an almost mystical quality to it that allow the character to reach beyond the animal's instinctive behavior. Someone said its a bit odd that Diplomacy would be the skill associated with WE given that its not exactly a prime skill for druids/rangers, which is why I substitute Nature for Diplomacy to resolve this. Makes much more sense, IMO.
Maybe we will find that this solution won't work long term. I dunno, but its working for us know, so I don't have a reason to change it. YMMV
Diplomacy for Wild Empathy has the added benefit of getting synergy from Diplomacy skill feats like Group Impression, Glad-Hand, and Legendary Negotiation. Furthermore, druids, being a wisdom-primary class, have a flexible attribute point to spend on attribute increases, and can choose charisma after getting the core three stats (dex, con, wis). Rangers don't really have that flexibility though, and their skills feats and increases are also hard to deviate from if they want to excel at Ranger things. Not undoable, mind you. I had a glad hand Ranger who actually worked really well as a face, but he wasn't as specced out for things like stealth and tracking.
TwilightKnight wrote: tl;dr
In my home game I am still feeling this out, but currently I am going with the idea that the Command an Animal only works with domesticated animals, and animals that are pre-disposed to respond positively to humanoid interaction. Most wild animals will not respond favorably to the action.
At first glance, that seems like a reasonable approach. So the question is why did Paizo not go this route? I think one answer may be that, like Aratorin, Paizo felt that all Rangers/Druids should have some ability to control wild animals, despite the removal of WE. Coding all animals as Indifferent by default thus gives all Rangers/Druids an option to exercise control in some situations. So Nature can function as a a "poor-man's" WE, so to speak. If you restrict Command to only work on domesticated animals, then you're kind of hurting Rangers/Druids even more. As presented in this thread, there are some encounters where there are non-domesticated animals that are hardcoded as Indifferent and for which Nature is intended to work. Your rule would preclude that, for better or for worse.
It should also be noted that in PF1, wild animals started out as Unfriendly where as PF2, they seem to start out as Indifferent. There are different ways to interpret this change, but this improves the the usability of Nature (and Ranger's faking WE) and it also let's WE have more likelihood of working to allow a "simple" Request,
Quote: Wild Empathy OTOH has an almost mystical quality to it that allow the character to reach beyond the animal's instinctive behavior. I think Paizo tried to represent that by coding it such that if you use WE, animals will give you the time to make the check, regardless. As described in published content, it works even when animals are Unfriendly or Hostile, so it works when Nature would "automatically" fail. That's also aside from it allowing "rudimentary" communication and simple Requests.
Quote: Someone said its a bit odd that Diplomacy would be the skill associated with WE given that its not exactly a prime skill for druids/rangers, which is why I substitute Nature for Diplomacy to resolve this. Makes much more sense, IMO. Considering how infrequently opportunities for WE come up, I am surprised Paizo didn't go this route. However, Paizo's in PF1, WE did rely on Charisma, so PF2 is going "legacy" on that account. But PF1 also included the Ranger's level as a modifier.
Quote: Maybe we will find that this solution won't work long term. I dunno, but its working for us know, so I don't have a reason to change it. YMMV If I'm being objective, I think WE is actually stronger in PF2. The problems is that
1. Opportunities to use it are few and far between. How many times in the entire Season 1 of PF2 is there an actual animal encounter where it will work? Now compare that to Hunter's Aim, Quick Draw and Monster Warden? Even Favored Terrain seems more likely.
2. The "rudimentary communication" and "simple Requests" aspect is totally subject to Table Variation. What is the proper degree of benefit a Ranger should get from WE on a success? How much materially significant information could be communicated? What is the range of actions an animal is likely to take? Who knows.
3. You've made it stronger (whatever that amounts to) for someone who leverages it, but positioned it so few will take it. If the average players doesn't make it pass lvl 10, how many of them are going to choose WE? I don't know. Maybe it's a lot more common in a home game where players are less likely to be optimizing for combat?
I would welcome your feedback on your experiences with Nature and WE.
Pathfinder Adventure, Adventure Path, Lost Omens, Rulebook, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
With the way it is written, I see Wild Empathy as more of a downtime activity for a character that wants to make friends with the local wild life in an area. Its probably better for homebrew stories with a strong 'build up a location' presence in an area.
As to the mechanical difference its an area of the rules that needs an FAQ clarification (much like what is the real value of Eschew Materials to justify it as a class feat).
But a character that spends their downtime using wild empathy in their local area may be able to start with local creatures as friendly or helpful. Coupled with Speak with Animals might see a bigger difference in play.
Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber
Cyder wrote: Coupled with Speak with Animals might see a bigger difference in play.
Not sure that would matter. Speak With Animals and Wild Empathy let you do the same thing. WE is basically just a way to have always-on Speak.
Pathfinder Adventure, Adventure Path, Lost Omens, Rulebook, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Squiggit wrote: Cyder wrote: Coupled with Speak with Animals might see a bigger difference in play.
Not sure that would matter. Speak With Animals and Wild Empathy let you do the same thing. WE is basically just a way to have always-on Speak. Kind of. Speak with animals for when you need to do something specific, gather info etc. Wild Empathy for building the relationship beforehand to improve their starting reaction.
I could 'maintain good relations with local wildlife' then later use 'Speak with animals to gather information.' Pretty sure Wild Empathy doesn't allow animals to tell you what they have seen etc. Also pretty sure the animals starting attitude being higher than normal would be good.
Its niche but for those kind of campaigns where you are playing a forest (or other natural terrain) protector it could be useful.
Cyder wrote: Kind of. Speak with animals for when you need to do something specific, gather info etc. Wild Empathy for building the relationship beforehand to improve their starting reaction. Eh. Not sure I'd agree with that.
Animals are still of animal intelligence, like -4 stat mod. Speak with Animals doesn't make the animals smarter or more eloquent. It doesn't impart any knowledge of human culture or make them conveyers of things necessarily important to humans. Objectively, you probably shouldn't get more than "rudimentary" communication from Speak w/Animals, which is what WE gives.
In practice, however, I think GMs are inclined to go all Jungle Book when a players uses Speak w/Animals. Conversely, the use of "rudimentary" with WE will have some GMs even go down a notch from what we would expect communication for animal to be like.
I also don't think WE is about building longterm relationships, certainly not in PFS. I suppose it might make more sense in an AP if the PCs are situated in a specific area, but then I would think Train Animal is going to give you just as much on the "long term" front.
Quote: I could 'maintain good relations with local wildlife' then later use 'Speak with animals to gather information. That's exactly what I've done with my Ranger in PF1. But I can tell you that in 10 levels, I can count on one hand the number of times it's been doable, let alone substantively useful.
Quote: Pretty sure Wild Empathy doesn't allow animals to tell you what they have seen etc. Why not? I would think you could relay a horde of orcs or the location of a lost ruin or a nasty monster with rudimentary communication if you were looking for those things. Maybe not the specific number of orcs, or the age fo the ruin.
Quote: Its niche but for those kind of campaigns where you are playing a forest (or other natural terrain) protector it could be useful. Sure. But I think what really hampers WE is the lack of a hard coded benefit. As your response suggests, most GMs are going to interpret "rudimentary" as you get nothing of value and I might even make it tedious and painful. And as far as make a "simple" Request? LOL. Good luck with that. Paizo really should have given specific examples of things an animal might do.
In terms of my PFS2 experience, between my druid and my gnome cleric with a druid dedication I've played most of the PFS scenarios.
Both have diplomacy trained.
I can remember 4 cases where being able to interact with animals came up at all (there were likely others where the impact was do minor that I don't remember).
In one, the scenario called for a nature check.
In 2 others, the GM (2 different GMs) let me defuse what was intended to be a combat encounter.
In a third case, the GM let another druid and my cleric combine our abilities (wild empathy, speaking with animals, diplomacy) to seriously impact the scenario (more than just avoiding a battle).
In the latter 3 cases it felt that the GM was, if anything, erring on the side of being lenient in letting our abilities work. Nobody at the table thought it was clear cut in the rules.
I've also played a few druids in PFS1. It was pretty much the same situation there. Comes up rarely and required GM leniency for it to work.
In my experience whenever you come to animals (companions, empathy, interaction, combat, etc) there is LOTS of table variation regardless of the system. Largely because people have wildly differing ideas of what an animal is capable of doing and what it will naturally do and GMs use their opinion as a baseline. Ambiguous rules aren't the main problem.
pauljathome wrote: In my experience whenever you come to animals (companions, empathy, interaction, combat, etc) there is LOTS of table variation regardless of the system. Largely because people have wildly differing ideas of what an animal is capable of doing and what it will naturally do and GMs use their opinion as a baseline. Right. Which is exactly why Paizo should have hard coded examples of what you should expect from animals. Just like they did with spelling out what Commands an animal will know, what its default Attitude is, etc. What does a "simple Request" and "rudimentary communication" include? Exclude? They were clearly thinking of something when they wrote this rule, they should have given examples.
Quote: Ambiguous rules aren't the main problem. Well, the rules aren't ambiguous, but there is no baseline on what is and is not possible, so that is a category of ambiguity, imo.
|
