"Noncombat animals cannot participate in combat at all" - What does this mean exactly?

[Mok]

The Campaign Guide says:

PFS Campaign Guide wrote:

Noncombat animals (ponies, horses, pet dogs, and so on) cannot participate in combat at all.

And in regard to slaves, Joshua Frost had this to say.

What has come up for us, is what does this mean exactly?

If you have an animal companion, and a mule for carrying gear, or if you have a slave who's job is to carry a torch around for you, what happens if the party is ambushed and this non-combat being is in the middle of combat?

Do they just stand there like statues? Can they move around on the PCs initiative? What happens if they get attacked?

What general principles from PFS on high should be used? The "it's the GM's call" isn't particularly satisfying, with massive table variation and interpretation.

The regular PF RAW has no stipulation for non-combat beings, so this category is completely PFS invented, so getting at least some notion of intent, or a basic principle would be good for GM's to follow.

[TwoWolves]

How about "DMs run all NPCs except for combat "pets", and non-combat NPCs can't fight?"

[Starglim]

I suggest they drop anything they're carrying and retreat from combat. Handle Animal, Diplomacy or Intimidate checks don't help.

[Enevhar Aldarion]

You pretend they are not there. They do not get in the way, they are not attacked, they cannot do anything, and they are not considered dead unless the whole party is wiped out. They also cannot be used against the party by the GM.

[Mark Moreland]

Enevhar Aldarion wrote:

You pretend they are not there. They do not get in the way, they are not attacked, they cannot do anything, and they are not considered dead unless the whole party is wiped out. They also cannot be used against the party by the GM.

This. The intent is that they do not contribute to the increase of minis on the board and slow down combat. You may have one combat animal per character unless granted more by multiple pet classes. If you have a servant or other hired minion, they simply don't exist during the combat for the same reasons that Leadership is not allowed as a feat selection.

[james maissen]

Mark Moreland wrote:

You may have one combat animal per character unless granted more by multiple pet classes.

Has this changed? Mind you I applaud it, just wanted to make sure.

-James

[Mok]

Mark Moreland wrote:

Enevhar Aldarion wrote:

You pretend they are not there. They do not get in the way, they are not attacked, they cannot do anything, and they are not considered dead unless the whole party is wiped out. They also cannot be used against the party by the GM.

This. The intent is that they do not contribute to the increase of minis on the board and slow down combat. You may have one combat animal per character unless granted more by multiple pet classes. If you have a servant or other hired minion, they simply don't exist during the combat for the same reasons that Leadership is not allowed as a feat selection.

Ok, that makes sense. Just for the sake of making it crystal clear, what happens is corner cases:

The slave is the only one carrying a light source. When ambushed do the lights go out? Does the light source clatter to the ground as the slave winks from existence for a bit?

A mule is carrying a petrified/paralyzed PC. Does the party member collapse to the ground? Are they prone?

The non-combat creature is carrying essential, party saving gear. Where does that gear go to? Does if all into a lump on the ground, or is it beyond reach for the encounter?

[Mok]

james maissen wrote:

Mark Moreland wrote:

You may have one combat animal per character unless granted more by multiple pet classes.

Has this changed? Mind you I applaud it, just wanted to make sure.

-James

Yeah, I just told someone that it wasn't worthwhile to be a Ranger/Beastmaster because it wouldn't be worth it due to the one-combat creature rule. They'd be delighted if they could do it.

[Enevhar Aldarion]

I am pretty sure the rule is still the same. Mark said combat animal per character, not animals in combat per character. It still means if you are playing a druid/ranger, you can have two combat animals but you can still only have one animal per combat active.

[james maissen]

Enevhar Aldarion wrote:

I am pretty sure the rule is still the same. Mark said combat animal per character, not animals in combat per character. It still means if you are playing a druid/ranger, you can have two combat animals but you can still only have one animal per combat active.

That's not what I'm reading here:

Mark Moreland wrote:

You may have one combat animal per character unless granted more by multiple pet classes.

And in all honesty if you're playing a PC that has two pets you're not going to slow down the game any more than anyone else.

If you're prepared then your rounds will go swiftly, if you're not or you dither over actions then they will go slowly. The presence or absence of animals aren't going to change this one way or the other.

I recall in LG running 5 different things in a mod and my turns were going faster than the player of the party wizard.. by a factor of more than two.

-James

[Scribbling Rambler]

james maissen wrote:

Enevhar Aldarion wrote:

I am pretty sure the rule is still the same. Mark said combat animal per character, not animals in combat per character. It still means if you are playing a druid/ranger, you can have two combat animals but you can still only have one animal per combat active.

That's not what I'm reading here:

Mark Moreland wrote:

You may have one combat animal per character unless granted more by multiple pet classes.

And in all honesty if you're playing a PC that has two pets you're not going to slow down the game any more than anyone else.

If you're prepared then your rounds will go swiftly, if you're not or you dither over actions then they will go slowly. The presence or absence of animals aren't going to change this one way or the other.

I recall in LG running 5 different things in a mod and my turns were going faster than the player of the party wizard.. by a factor of more than two.

-James

My experience is that each animal does slow down play significantly, so you must be an exception.

.... I still shudder about the table of 7 players with 4 pets.... looong combats.

[james maissen]

K Neil Shackleton wrote:

My experience is that each animal does slow down play significantly, so you must be an exception.
.... I still shudder about the table of 7 players with 4 pets.... looong combats.

I maintain that it's not the PC- it's the player. Any player can make a combat long, and any player can be swift with their turn.

One PC I ran in LG during 3.0 was an animal domain cleric that had a druid cohort (so both had animal friendship companion animals). Both would also bring 4 trained animals with them. They were a traveling circus (complete with metaorg to back it up). It was not hard to run them swiftly without taking up any more time than I've seen a player normally take for their turn. The DM, who actively shuddered when I put down all of those minis on the map, said after the end of the module how he had been dreading the expected slow down and how surprised he was that it never occurred.

You learn tricks to running a PC properly. For example an easy one: if you are an archer then you have matched dice for your shots. For most combats you simply declare a target then 'spill over' should the original target drop. When your turn is coming up you can even roll ahead of time, so when called your turn can sound like: "The mage with spill over to the ogre, AC 23 for 18; 22 for 20; 21 for 17 and 25 for 18" and be done really as quickly as the DM could process what you're saying.

Another essential trick is being properly prepared. The wizard that has to look up their spells, or worse the stats for the creature that they decide to summon is the antithesis of this. Meanwhile when running a spontaneous caster I would have a list of all the material components for their known spells so I'd know immediately what needed what (as well as what could be cast in a silence spell, or while grappled, etc).

-James

[Atrius]

james maissen wrote:

I maintain that it's not the PC- it's the player. Any player can make a combat long, and any player can be swift with their turn.

-James

I think everyone will agree with your point. But why give the player who you know is going to take a long time controlling his one character in combat the ability to slow down combat more by having multiple things to control?

You can't have the rule say: you can have multiple combat pets as long as you know what you are doing and take less than 15 seconds to do your actions per figure on the table.

The rule must use the lowest common denominator.

[james maissen]

Atrius wrote:

I think everyone will agree with your point. But why give the player who you know is going to take a long time controlling his one character in combat the ability to slow down combat more by having multiple things to control?

You can't have the rule say: you can have multiple combat pets as long as you know what you are doing and take less than 15 seconds to do your actions per figure on the table.

The rule must use the lowest common denominator.

Actually I strongly disagree with your conclusion.

First of all then from my experience with some slow players the 'rule' would be 'you're not allowed to play, ever' as some people are slow regardless. You don't need to include summons, pets, spell casting, rolling dice or anything into this mix before they are taking too long.

Secondly, the rule can simply leave some things to DM discretion in running the speed of a game. If you have a player that can't make up their mind, or is SO unprepared that they have to borrow someone else's book to look up EACH and EVERY one of their spells that their turns take over 10 minutes.. then you certainly can tell them that this is not acceptable in this venue.

It has nothing to do with summons, pets or materials on hand. It has everything to do with the player and the atmosphere that allows them to take so long.

Treating symptoms is not a cure.

Simply saying 'most games have a limited timeframe, as such the DM may limit the amount of time you take in order to progress the game within the allowed timeframe' would likely suffice.

If you have a slow player then their turns are going to take too long, period. You can't fix this by restricting choices on players that aren't slow. It's not a solution- it doesn't address the root of the problem.

Moreover it curtails others that don't need to be so limited.

-James

[TwilightKnight]

This is the same argument as to why restrict evil. In either case, a well-prepared player can maintain a good pace and not have a negative impact on the other player's enjoyment. However, this is not the "norm" as been demonstrated by every OP campaign I have ever been a part of. For every player that does it "right", there are a dozen who don't and that means a reduction in the fun-factor for all involved. It's not as simple as just the GM enforcing pace. Anytime the GM "pushes" the players to speed up, etc, it is often interpreted as being a jerk. No GM wants that vibe at their table. The existing rule is just eliminating a potentially bad situation from occurring and seems to be supported by the vast majority of the community.

Every player should be allowed to explore their imagination, but because of the nature of OP, some restrictions have to exist. If you want to play the "circus" or the "animal army" join me at my home-group table, I'd welcome it. But please play something a bit less "taxing" for PFS.

[LazarX]

Mok wrote:

The Campaign Guide says:

PFS Campaign Guide wrote:

Noncombat animals (ponies, horses, pet dogs, and so on) cannot participate in combat at all.

And in regard to slaves, Joshua Frost had this to say.

What has come up for us, is what does this mean exactly?

It means that neither you or the DM waste time on rolling combat dice for them. The answer for most animals including horses is that in a situation that gets violent enough they will panic and bolt for the hills if they have the opportunity. Small animals may simply look for a hole and hide until the dust settles, either way they're simply not part of the combat rounds.

Simmilarly most combatants with an IQ greater than three aren't going to waste time attacking the noncombatant animals (especially since they may want them for loot anyway) unless doing so removes an obstacle to a more important combat goal.) In which case they roll to hit if they hit the animal takes damage, enough damage it dies just like any other creature.

[TwilightKnight]

Mok wrote:

Ok, that makes sense. Just for the sake of making it crystal clear, what happens is corner cases:

The slave is the only one carrying a light source. When ambushed do the lights go out? Does the light source clatter to the ground as the slave winks from existence for a bit?

A mule is carrying a petrified/paralyzed PC. Does the party member collapse to the ground? Are they prone?

The non-combat creature is carrying essential, party saving gear. Where does that gear go to? Does if all into a lump on the ground, or is it beyond reach for the encounter?

The nature of OP makes adjudicating these things very difficult. It truly is in the eyes of the GM and there will always be "corner cases" regardless of the rules/guidelines. If you chose to play a "fringe" character that has a lot of features that are up to GM caveat, then you create your own issues and cannot get upset when someone's opinion differs from your own, even when it "nerfs" your character.

IMO, if you are "circumventing" the encumbrance rules or using a "disappearing" NPC/minion/slave to carry your stuff, it goes with them when they "disappear." If the item is that important to your effectiveness or survival, you shouldn't leave it to a non-character to manage. Of course, YMMV.

[james maissen]

TwilightKnight wrote:

However, this is not the "norm" as been demonstrated by every OP campaign I have ever been a part of.

The "norm" is what you make of it.

In LG I had the fortune to be able to travel a lot to many different regions across the states.

Let me tell you that the 'norm' varied TREMENDOUSLY from locale to locale.

What was old hat and overdone in one place was novel in another. What was seen as 'THE' way was not the same in other places.

I also disagree that the DM 'has to be a jerk' for enforcing time. Rather I see it as part of running the game.

The rule doesn't solve any problems, rather it simply removes a symptom. And it was curtailing some potential builds, up until a recent post I read here.

And in all honesty a slow player with one animal is going to need a DM pushing them. The break point just isn't when they have a second pet. We both know this.

-James

[Enevhar Aldarion]

james maissen wrote:

Actually I strongly disagree with your conclusion.

First of all then from my experience with some slow players the 'rule' would be 'you're not allowed to play, ever' as some people are slow regardless. You don't need to include summons, pets, spell casting, rolling dice or anything into this mix before they are taking too long.

Secondly, the rule can simply leave some things to DM discretion in running the speed of a game. If you have a player that can't make up their mind, or is SO unprepared that they have to borrow someone else's book to look up EACH and EVERY one of their spells that their turns take over 10 minutes.. then you certainly can tell them that this is not acceptable in this venue.

It has nothing to do with summons, pets or materials on hand. It has everything to do with the player and the atmosphere that allows them to take so long.

Treating symptoms is not a cure.

Simply saying 'most games have a limited timeframe, as such the DM may limit the amount of time you take in order to progress the game within the allowed timeframe' would likely suffice.

If you have a slow player then their turns are going to take too long, period. You can't fix this by restricting choices on players that aren't slow. It's not a solution- it doesn't address the root of the problem.

Moreover it curtails others that don't need to be so limited.

-James

What it will eventually come down to, whether we like it or not, is that the constantly slow player will be shunned by other players as they see it happen over and over. Honestly, if you have the choice to sit at a table where you know someone plays slow enough that the table never makes it through all the encounters or at a table that will, what would you do? Of course, this is also assuming this is a player that does not get it through his head that he is too slow.

[Scribbling Rambler]

james maissen wrote:

[The rule doesn't solve any problems, rather it simply removes a symptom. And it was curtailing some potential builds, up until a recent post I read here.

And in all honesty a slow player with one animal is going to need a DM pushing them. The break point just isn't when they have a second pet. We both know this.

-James

However, regardless of the relative speed of the player, controlling 2 combattants is generally going to slow them down. Controlling more is going to slow them that much more.

And you kind of lost me at "you're not allowed to play, ever"

[james maissen]

K Neil Shackleton wrote:

However, regardless of the relative speed of the player, controlling 2 combattants is generally going to slow them down. Controlling more is going to slow them that much more.

So does making multiple attacks, or casting an area effect spell that requires multiple saves, summoning 1d4+1 creatures or a myriad of other options.

The question is whether or not they can run their turns within a reasonable amount of time. And you'll note that there's no prohibition on summoning when you already have a pet, so you certainly could have a player running 3 or more creatures in a combat.

The rule that Josh had disallowing a PC with 2 pets from getting to use both seems to have been overturned by Mark (for the better imho). The rule didn't solve anything, rather it simply curtailed people in builds. That's not a decent solution for organized play.

Trust me watching a slow player summon something that they don't have the stats written down for is annoying. But then again so is the player of the fighter without any pet that has to recalculate all their bonuses from scratch each time.

It's not a matter of pets or summoning, but of slow players. Deal with them in a nice but firm social fashion and they'll get better for it. It's really the only real solution to this.

K Neil Shackleton wrote:

And you kind of lost me at "you're not allowed to play, ever"

It was in regards to the lowest denominator. Some people simply take too long because they've never had to move at a pace faster than glacial. If we were limited based upon their way we simply wouldn't be allowed to play.

People already have to deal with slow players. Lack of pets or limitations on them doesn't change this. Imho it only added to the house rules' bloat to which organized campaigns tend to succumb.

-James

[Starglim]

Mok wrote:

Mark Moreland wrote:

Enevhar Aldarion wrote:

You pretend they are not there. They do not get in the way, they are not attacked, they cannot do anything, and they are not considered dead unless the whole party is wiped out. They also cannot be used against the party by the GM.

This. The intent is that they do not contribute to the increase of minis on the board and slow down combat. You may have one combat animal per character unless granted more by multiple pet classes. If you have a servant or other hired minion, they simply don't exist during the combat for the same reasons that Leadership is not allowed as a feat selection.

Ok, that makes sense. Just for the sake of making it crystal clear, what happens is corner cases:

The slave is the only one carrying a light source. When ambushed do the lights go out? Does the light source clatter to the ground as the slave winks from existence for a bit?

A mule is carrying a petrified/paralyzed PC. Does the party member collapse to the ground? Are they prone?

The non-combat creature is carrying essential, party saving gear. Where does that gear go to? Does if all into a lump on the ground, or is it beyond reach for the encounter?

Hence my suggestion. 1 ) The torchbearer drops his torch, which continues to burn in his square. 2 ) Do you mean the PC was riding the mule and was paralysed/petrified in the surprise round? He would then fall to the ground. If already helpless and fastened on the mule, it would carry him out of the combat, and really, why would a GM involve a helpless PC in combat anyway? 3 ) If carrying the items in its hands, it drops them at its location. If strapped on, it carries them out of combat - the party should have had its essential, party-saving gear ready to use rather than on a pack animal.

[0gre]

The whole speed thing aside, the dungeons are only marginally big enough for a 6 character party, you add 2-4 pets and it gets ridiculous. I've been in a 6 person group with 2 summoners and a druid and sometimes characters get squeezed out of combat completely because there is just no room for them.

I've started reserving my summoner for games when I know we have a 4 player party just so I know I'm not bumping other players.

[james maissen]

0gre wrote:

The whole speed thing aside, the dungeons are only marginally big enough for a 6 character party, you add 2-4 pets and it gets ridiculous. I've been in a 6 person group with 2 summoners and a druid and sometimes characters get squeezed out of combat completely because there is just no room for them.

I've started reserving my summoner for games when I know we have a 4 player party just so I know I'm not bumping other players.

And that's a good thought on your part, but it doesn't need to be required from on high, anymore than they don't need to require balanced parties, people to take wands of CLW with their PCs, etc.

-James

[Callarek]

0gre wrote:

The whole speed thing aside, the dungeons are only marginally big enough for a 6 character party, you add 2-4 pets and it gets ridiculous. I've been in a 6 person group with 2 summoners and a druid and sometimes characters get squeezed out of combat completely because there is just no room for them.

I've started reserving my summoner for games when I know we have a 4 player party just so I know I'm not bumping other players.

I seem to recall an old LG rule, limiting the number of cohorts/animal companions/etc. to no more than would raise the party to a certain maximum size,like 6, and your cohort/whatever would be AWOL if you had a full table.

[0gre]

james maissen wrote:

0gre wrote:

The whole speed thing aside, the dungeons are only marginally big enough for a 6 character party, you add 2-4 pets and it gets ridiculous. I've been in a 6 person group with 2 summoners and a druid and sometimes characters get squeezed out of combat completely because there is just no room for them.

I've started reserving my summoner for games when I know we have a 4 player party just so I know I'm not bumping other players.

And that's a good thought on your part, but it doesn't need to be required from on high, anymore than they don't need to require balanced parties, people to take wands of CLW with their PCs, etc.

I'm ok with the PFS rules putting a cap on how rude people can be to other players even if it means some valid corner player concepts get invalidated.

[james maissen]

0gre wrote:

I'm ok with the PFS rules putting a cap on how rude people can be to other players even if it means some valid corner player concepts get invalidated.

I guess I'm a minimalist. I think that organized play is best when its rules additions are at a minimum.

One size doesn't fit all, and having people handle social problems socially shouldn't be either a burden or something that has to be handled with sledge-hammers.

It's one place where, imho, LG failed as its additional rules became more complicated than the game system itself.

-James