|
I'm beginning to get the subtle hint that I should stop asking my question after having been ignored the last 2 times. I'm going to try once more though since it's easy to miss things in a thread like this.
This comment suprised me:
Note that while the monster guidelines talk about a maximum Int for an animal, this only applies to the creation process. Animals can grow to have an Int higher than 2 through a variety of means, but they should not, as a general rule, be created that way.
Compare that to the Animal Type:
Intelligence score of 1 or 2 (no creature with an Intelligence score of 3 or higher can be an animal)
These two statements would seem to contradict one another.
With the very specific example of animal companions and other similar animals gained as a class feature, the rules would seem to be pretty clear in saying NO animal can have an Intelligence score of 3 or higher.
They do and this is an intentional change we are making. The rules leave no room for an animal to gain intelligence without somehow transforming into a magical beast, which comes with a whole host of changes. There has to be room here for corner cases and exceptions, which this absolute rule does not allow.
Jason Bulmahn
Lead Designer
Paizo Publishing
Bulmahn says "this is an intentional change"
Moreland says this is not a rules change, just a clarification.
This pair of statements is the root of my confusion. Am I reading one of these incorrectly?
|
I'm beginning to get the subtle hint that I should stop asking my question after having been ignored the last 2 times. I'm going to try once more though since it's easy to miss things in a thread like this.
** spoiler omitted **
Bulmahn says "this is an intentional change"
Moreland says this is not a rules change, just a clarification.This pair of statements is the root of my confusion. Am I reading one of these incorrectly?
The intentional change is about the connection between the animal type and intelligence score.
What is just a clarification is whether Handle Animal is needed for all animals.
Director of Brand Strategy
|
I've explained how it works in PFS. If you need additional explanation for whether a creature of the animal type may have an Intelligence greater than 2, please direct that to the rules forums. For PFS play, a creature's type does not change if it gains a point of Intelligence through a headband of vast intellect, HD-based ability increases, or whatever. Unless you changed the type of your animal companion to magical beast when you bumped his Intelligence to 3, this isn't a change. It's simply a clarification that an animal's type should not change even if it increases in Intelligence.
|
Director of Brand Strategy
|
Please revise the "one trick trained per scenario" rule. That is all. -)
No. If your familiar dies, you pay a gold cost. If you animal companion dies, you have to reinvest time to get the new one up to speed with where the last one left off. If you're worried about it, don't use Fluffy as a meat shield.
|
|
Please revise the "one trick trained per scenario" rule. That is all. -)No. If your familiar dies, you pay a gold cost. If you animal companion dies, you have to reinvest time to get the new one up to speed with where the last one left off. If you're worried about it, don't use Fluffy as a meat shield.
Ouch. The bonus tricks come with the new AC fresh, right? So you're down 6 tricks (or 2 full levels) if your AC dies (assuming 2 INT).
|
|
No. If your familiar dies, you pay a gold cost. If you animal companion dies, you have to reinvest time to get the new one up to speed with where the last one left off. If you're worried about it, don't use Fluffy as a meat shield.
Because animal companions are clearly not suppose to be used in combat.
We could cut out the middle man, ban druids, and tell everyone that wants a "pet" class to play a summoner. I mean, eidolons understand language, use weapons, and don't need to be trained.
|
|
Thanks for trying Moreland, but your post did nothing to solve my confusion which is:
Bulmahn says it's a rules change.
Moreland says it's not a rules change.
You've reiterated your point that it's not a rules change but I don't understand your justification for doing so.
I think this will help me understand where you're coming from.
Do you think I'm reading Bulmahn's statements incorrectly and he's not saying it's a rules change?
or
Do you think I'm reading Bulmahn's statements correctly and he's just wrong about it being a rules change?
|
Director of Brand Strategy
|
Ouch. The bonus tricks come with the new AC fresh, right? So you're down 6 tricks (or 2 full levels) if your AC dies (assuming 2 INT).Please revise the "one trick trained per scenario" rule. That is all. -)No. If your familiar dies, you pay a gold cost. If you animal companion dies, you have to reinvest time to get the new one up to speed with where the last one left off. If you're worried about it, don't use Fluffy as a meat shield.
Bonus Tricks are automatically known when an animal companion is bonded to a druid through nature's bond. They specifically do not take any time or Handle Animal checks to learn. Any additional tricks (meaning those allowed by the animal's Int) need to be trained and can be taught at a rate of one per scenario downtime.
|
Once you reach level three as a druid, your AC has two bonus tricks. Those can be spent on a General Purpose instead of a single trick. So loosing an AC is not as big a problem as you would think.
At levels 1-2 it could be a bigger issue, but I suspect that the survivability of AC's at low levels is higher (at least relative to a PC) so training a new AC may not be much of an issue.
|
|
You've reiterated your point that it's not a rules change but I don't understand your justification for doing so.
If they had to give a Justification for everything they did things would go nuts here.
In the Past Josh took the stance that he does not need to give his justification for everything he does, though Mark specifically has not stated the same, I would not be surprised if he took the same stance.
It is enough to know what the rule is and roll with it, you knowing the justification is not going to change what Mark/Hyrum has ruled.
|
|
Once you reach level three as a druid, your AC has two bonus tricks. Those can be spent on a General Purpose instead of a single trick.
I must have missed this. TK, can you provide a citation on where the substitution of a general purpose is in place of two tricks? To the best of my knowledge, a general purpose counts the same trick slots as the number of tricks in the general purpose suite. In addition, in PFS, there is no option to train for a general purpose via a single roll. Happy to be corrected.
|
|
I must have missed this. TK, can you provide a citation on where the substitution of a general purpose is in place of two tricks? To the best of my knowledge, a general purpose counts the same trick slots as the number of tricks in the general purpose suite. In addition, in PFS, there is no option to train for a general purpose via a single roll. Happy to be corrected.
I looked it up and sure enough it's not there. Maybe that was a 3.5 rule. It does sound familiar. I haven't played any companion PC's in PF yet, so I was just running with what the other druid players had told me. Grrrr
|
Thanks for trying Moreland, but your post did nothing to solve my confusion which is:
Bulmahn says it's a rules change.
Moreland says it's not a rules change.You've reiterated your point that it's not a rules change but I don't understand your justification for doing so.
If I can be presumptious here, I think the factor you're not seeing is that Jason's jurisdiction is the RPG rules.
Mark's jurisdiction is the ruleset of the PF Society.They are not the same.
For various logistical reasons, there are things that are legal in the Core Rules, which do not filter through to the Organised Play environment.
Crafting feats are one such example. Sure, somebody in Golarion made all those items the PCs keep finding, but the PCs themselves will never be crafters. The writers want to be able to predict what items are likely to be owned by the PCs in any scenario they are commissioned to write.
It's also a pain for GMs to track that a PC has spent x gold toward a McGuffin of plot-wrecking. It's abusive for a player to retroactively assume he'll get six weeks downtime between two scenarios to craft in.
So you end up with a situation in which the PFSoc rules add a further layer of restriction on choice.
By the RAW, an alchemist gets Brew Potion as a bonus feat.
In PFSoc, they get a different feat.
There's no contradiction in that, just as there's no contradiction in there being limits on the number of active creatures (cohort/familiar/animal) per PC, and what can be done with them.
|
|
Bonus Tricks are automatically known when an animal companion is bonded to a druid through nature's bond. They specifically do not take any time or Handle Animal checks to learn. Any additional tricks (meaning those allowed by the animal's Int) need to be trained and can be taught at a rate of one per scenario downtime.Ouch. The bonus tricks come with the new AC fresh, right? So you're down 6 tricks (or 2 full levels) if your AC dies (assuming 2 INT).Please revise the "one trick trained per scenario" rule. That is all. -)No. If your familiar dies, you pay a gold cost. If you animal companion dies, you have to reinvest time to get the new one up to speed with where the last one left off. If you're worried about it, don't use Fluffy as a meat shield.
Mark, mjust for clarification, my new 1st level Druid's Animal Companion only knows the one bonus trick when my PC starts playing?
Also, as a GM, does this mean that my Druid with AC is screwed because of being unable to teach it tricks for any GM credits put on the Druid PC?
|
|
We're not pulling rules out from under anyone. The rule hasn't changed, only been clarified in light of the recent attention the FAQ blog instigated. A paladin needs to make Ride checks when riding her mount and Handle Animal checks when not (until 11th level, when the mount changes type to magical beast). If you have a build that was optimized for a different interpretation of the rules, you may still make Handle Animal or Ride checks untrained, and have the opportunity to put skill ranks in either with your next level; this is not an occasion to warrant a rebuild.
When I broke this to the local gorilla-tamers they just shrugged and said "we knew it would come to an end, it was fu while it lasted, but in fairness is very silly".
I hope many of you GMs out there have a similar response from your gorilla-tamers.
|
Regional Venture-Coordinator, Baltic
|
Very interested to hear the answer to this, since the nature oracle I made would be in the same boat...
So paladin mounts prior to level 11 require handle animal to control?That's pretty rough. I don't know any paladins that actually trained Handle Animal. I'm going to assume this qualifies for the 'things got changed out from underneath you' rule and thus allow paladins to get the skill they need to control their class feature.
Nature oracle bonded mounts have intelligence 6 don't they?
|
|
Bleh... my oldest and most flavorful character has just been nuked.
I didn't have my ape running around with weapons, but the Int 3 was specifically so I don't have to bother with handle animal checks.
It's not as if HA rolls are somehow fun, or add extra coolness to the game. They just slow things down, make combat more complicated and overall detract from the game.
"Remember that time when you spent half the combat yelling at your pet to do some basic task?"
I tend to think of it as "Remember that time when animal companions acted like animals?"
Handle Animal checks to do 'basic things' (you do have tricks which cover things like attack, stay, follow, etc after all) is DC 10 and a free action, you don't even have to roll for this after 5th level or so. Mostly Handle Animal is used to get the animal companion to do something that an animal wouldn't normally be doing and even then it is a move action to 'push' your Companion.
|
|
...the ape is no longer a "character"...
Exactly. This is one of the issues that bother so many of us about the way animal companions have been utilized. The AC is not a "bonus" character for the player to use. It is an extension of the PC, somewhat like a tool, suit of armor, or spell. It just has some advantages (and disadvantages) compared to an inanimate object. It can have a personality and bring some unique aspects to the game, but it shouldn't take away from other PC's.
I'm not accusing you of using the AC inappropriately, but there are enough players out there who are, that we need some adjustments. I am tired of the player response, "but the rules don't say I can do X." It would be nice if we always ask ourselves, I can do this, but should I? Many of the "broken" builds (either mechanically or thematically) would be eliminated and then strict rules wouldn't be necessary.
|
|
...the ape is no longer a "character"...Exactly. This is one of the issues that bother so many of us about the way animal companions have been utilized. The AC is not a "bonus" character for the player to use. It is an extension of the PC, somewhat like a tool, suit of armor, or spell. It just has some advantages (and disadvantages) compared to an inanimate object. It can have a personality and bring some unique aspects to the game, but it shouldn't take away from other PC's.
I'm not accusing you of using the AC inappropriately, but there are enough players out there who are, that we need some adjustments. I am tired of the player response, "but the rules don't say I can do X." It would be nice if we always ask ourselves, I can do this, but should I? Many of the "broken" builds (either mechanically or thematically) would be eliminated and then strict rules wouldn't be necessary.
This. +4 :)
|
|
...the ape is no longer a "character"...Exactly. This is one of the issues that bother so many of us about the way animal companions have been utilized. The AC is not a "bonus" character for the player to use. It is an extension of the PC, somewhat like a tool, suit of armor, or spell. It just has some advantages (and disadvantages) compared to an inanimate object. It can have a personality and bring some unique aspects to the game, but it shouldn't take away from other PC's.
I'm not accusing you of using the AC inappropriately, but there are enough players out there who are, that we need some adjustments. I am tired of the player response, "but the rules don't say I can do X." It would be nice if we always ask ourselves, I can do this, but should I? Many of the "broken" builds (either mechanically or thematically) would be eliminated and then strict rules wouldn't be necessary.
Thanks TK. Couldn't have said it better myself. Animals are an extension of a character and not a separate character.
|
|
Bleh... my oldest and most flavorful character has just been nuked.
I didn't have my ape running around with weapons, but the Int 3 was specifically so I don't have to bother with handle animal checks.
It's not as if HA rolls are somehow fun, or add extra coolness to the game. They just slow things down, make combat more complicated and overall detract from the game.
"Remember that time when you spent half the combat yelling at your pet to do some basic task?"
"Yeah, that was really cool, it was like being in every awesome book and movie I've ever come across. One of the highlights of my PFS play."
I could have boosted Con or Str and made the ape even more of a combat focused, but instead I did Int so that the interaction was fluid and allow for interesting and flavorful moments between my character, my ape, and other players.
So what happens to the linguistic skill point the ape has so he knows common?
I can see the whole ape with a greatsword thing being out of whack, but mashing tedious handle animal checks on everything doesn't seem like a way to enhance gameplay, it seems more like a way to erode gameplay, both practically (more rolls, more time) and flavor (the ape is no longer a "character" and can't do funny and interesting things).
I fail to see how a druid, especially a high level druid, is nuked because their animal companion needs handle animal checks.
Its like you people are hinging your entire class on their companion and forgetting that a druid is probably one of the most powerful classes in the game all on its own WITHOUT the animal companion.
By the way, I think monkeys with swords is stupid.
|
|
Ok, so I can be clear on all of this, and my apologies for asking, lol, but:
A player can still put the stat point for an AC into the animals INT score if they want(which does not change the animal into a magical beast or anything else), which allows the AC to take a wider range of feats (though not weapon prof feats) and skills, though it does not get around the need to do Handle Animal checks, cannot weild weapons or tools of any sort other than their own natural weapons, and (likely) doesnt allow them to put points into Linguistics to understand a language.
Am I correct there?
Also, Woould an animal with 3 int be allowed to take armor proficiency feats (ape in armor doesnt seem too ridiculous), or is it limited to just those who already have the armor proficiency when they begin play(Cavalier's mount)?
|
|
A player can still put the stat point for an AC into the animals INT score if they want(which does not change the animal into a magical beast or anything else), which allows the AC to take a wider range of feats (though not weapon prof feats) and skills, though it does not get around the need to do Handle Animal checks, cannot wield weapons or tools of any sort other than their own natural weapons, and (likely) doesn't allow them to put points into Linguistics to understand a language.
All of this is accurate, although, I'm not sure if the Linguistics issue has been officially resolved.
Also, Would an animal with 3 int be allowed to take armor proficiency feats (ape in armor doesn't seem too ridiculous), or is it limited to just those who already have the armor proficiency when they begin play(Cavalier's mount)?
An AC can take armor proficiencies and wear armor, including barding. Just keep in mind the extra gold that has to be spent to accommodate unusual shapes and sizes.
|
|
Sounds good. I figured if weapons were too complicated for a 3 int ape to use, then linguistics is probably out of reach as well, lol.
Other ones ought to be obviously disqualified, too. Knowledges, Craft, Profession, Spellcraft, Disable Device, UMD. Probably others too ought not be allowed. Maybe just all Int based skills?
|
|
Handle Animal checks to do 'basic things' (you do have tricks which cover things like attack, stay, follow, etc after all) is DC 10 and a free action, you don't even have to roll for this after 5th level or so. Mostly Handle Animal is used to get the animal companion to do something that an animal wouldn't normally be doing and even then it is a move action to 'push' your Companion.
Actually, with a Cha mod of +1, you auto-succeed on a DC 10 Handle Animal check if you take a rank at 1st level. (+1 Cha + 1 rank + 3 class skill +4 animal companion bonus = +9)
Even if you take Cha as a dump stat, you can auto-succeed on a 10 by 3rd.
Don't understand what the fuss is about.
|
|
I can't be wasting my time making handle animal checks just to get the ape into position so I can get my sneak attack.
As a Druid it's a free action for a trained trick (such as attack), but I would always argue that it's (nearly?) impossible to get your animal to go around a creature's threatened area to provide flank. An animal, even at 3 Int, isn't smart enough to understand high level tactics*. As the Rogue, I would expect that you'd be the one maneuvering into position.
|
At my table, the innate ability of an animal with a 3 or 4 INT to handle "high-level tactics" would depend on the animal. Wolves, for example, are naturally good at flanking, because that's how they take down prey. Rhinoceroses, not so much.
I would think pretty much any pack-hunter would be the same, but again, PF is not the real world so I think it's better to assume that the Druid/Rogue would just maneuver to flank to follow wherever the animal went.
Although this thread gives me an idea for a Beastmaster with multiple velociraptors...
|
|
At my table, the innate ability of an animal with a 3 or 4 INT to handle "high-level tactics" would depend on the animal. Wolves, for example, are naturally good at flanking, because that's how they take down prey. Rhinocereses, not so much.
Unfortunately, as much as I would like to, I do not have the capacity to channel Wild Kingdom at my table, so I couldn't make such calls if I wanted to, and I would suspect many GMs are in the same boat.
|
|
It's ultimately not a big deal. As other posters have mentioned you need, at most, 2-3 ranks to auto-succeed handling your companion for the tasks he's already trained in.
The problem comes in when the companion is being used for things that there isn't necessarily tricks to cover. For example, flaking. It's not unreasonable to want your AC to flank for you but what does that require a 'Push'? If there was a trick for it I'm sure more people would take it.
Another example is 'Into Harms Way'. A local player in my area has both Bodyguard and Into Harms Way on his companion. When the companion was 'intelligent' I could justify letting him use those feats as he saw fit. Now that animals are just animals even with improved intelligence how should feats like these work? Does it require a push to get the animal to use these feats?
|
|
Handle Animal checks to do 'basic things' (you do have tricks which cover things like attack, stay, follow, etc after all) is DC 10 and a free action, you don't even have to roll for this after 5th level or so. Mostly Handle Animal is used to get the animal companion to do something that an animal wouldn't normally be doing and even then it is a move action to 'push' your Companion.
Actually, with a Cha mod of +1, you auto-succeed on a DC 10 Handle Animal check if you take a rank at 1st level. (+1 Cha + 1 rank + 3 class skill +4 animal companion bonus = +9)
Even if you take Cha as a dump stat, you can auto-succeed on a 10 by 3rd.
Don't understand what the fuss is about.
The fuss that I'm seeing stems out of two areas. The first is mechanical and the other has to do with play flavor.
From the mechanical side, this comes down to skill ranks and training time. Some characters haven't taken even one rank in Handle Animal, because it was viewed as unnecessary with Int 3. That is fixable, but will take a level or two. Of greater issue is the difficulty in training animals; while the mechanic is a game rule matter, the application is entirely a campaign decision. Training a companion is a slow process at 1 trick per adventure, and the Handle Animal requirement is slightly higher to succeed. The DC20 required for some of the necessary tricks (+3 ranks/cha, +3 class skill, +4 animal bonus, Take 10). Replacing Fido, is another two levels of training time; it is immaterial whether this is due to administration's punative "you're playing wrong by using him as a meat shield," for responsive or creative role play reasons, an unfortunate death, or whatever else might come up.
On the play flavor front, Int 3 has been seen by some as a binary switch. Either the animal is an intelligent, cooperative companion or a loyal yet dense creature who wants Scooby Snacks. At some tables, this then becomes a need to use move action Push commands to get Fido to perform an action that is represented by an untrained command. That DC 25 is much less accessible. There is much more table variance about what Fido can realistically do.
All of this is compounded by the fact that there has always been a lot of community variance regarding the nature of animal companions. Some view an animal companion as a more easily trainable and controllable loyal animal. Others view animal companions as an extension of the character who does whatever master says. This variance was somewhat dampened by the Int 3 idea and now has the potential to return a bit.
|
|
Ok, I see… and please don’t take offense or think I’m trying to slam you personally by my next few comments, because I don’t know you, and I don’t know your play style. It could just be a really cool idea you had that now is kinda biting your rump.
But in my local area, we have a few home GM’s that get frustrated when they try to run games for OP players, because of the min-max and level dipping that goes on. That isn’t to say that level dipping doesn’t happen in the home play, It more often happens to get pre-reqs for a prestige class or feat.
It sounds like you tried to min/max the flanking thing by geeking out your pet.
A poster above noted that you would probably have to be the one to maneuver around your target anyways, whether handle animal was to be used or not. Sorry, I don’t care if the rules didn’t cover it, or whether it was said you didn’t need to make the handle animal checks or not to command your animal… your 3 Int isn’t going to maneuver that intelligently.
As such, free action to command your animal to attack, you tumble around and flank… no biggy…
Your weird druid / rogue is still viable.
From a purely roleplaying perspective, I hope you have a really good reason for this weird combo.
Not ferrets? :(
Although this thread gives me an idea for a Beastmaster with multiple velociraptors...
Only if they're named Podo and Codo. :)
|
|
The fuss that I'm seeing stems out of two areas. The first is mechanical and the other has to do with play flavor.
From the mechanical side, this comes down to skill ranks and training time. Some characters haven't taken even one rank in Handle Animal, because it was viewed as unnecessary with Int 3. That is fixable, but will take a level or two. Of greater issue is the difficulty in training animals; while the mechanic is a game rule matter, the application is entirely a campaign decision. Training a companion is a slow process at 1 trick per adventure, and the Handle Animal requirement is slightly higher to succeed. The DC20 required for some of the necessary tricks (+3 ranks/cha, +3 class skill, +4 animal bonus, Take 10). Replacing Fido, is another two levels of training time; it is immaterial whether this is due to administration's punative "you're playing wrong by using him as a meat shield," for responsive or creative role play reasons, an unfortunate death, or whatever else might come up.
... :o
Druids must be good at handling animals... umm yeah?
:o
Are people really that disconnected from the role-play aspects of the game?
On the play flavor front, Int 3 has been seen by some as a binary switch. Either the animal is an intelligent, cooperative companion or a loyal yet dense creature who wants Scooby Snacks. At some tables, this then becomes a need to use move action Push commands to get Fido to perform an action that is represented by an untrained command. That DC 25 is much less accessible. There is much more table variance about what Fido can realistically do.
All of this is compounded by the fact that there has always been a lot of community variance regarding the nature of animal companions. Some view an animal companion as a more easily trainable and controllable loyal animal. Others view animal companions as an extension of the character who does whatever master says. This variance was somewhat dampened by the Int 3 idea and now has the potential to return a bit.
There are a lot of people who appreciate this very aspect, the animals in the game will have to again act as animals. Treat Fido is a well trained *dog* (cat/ rhinoceros/ dinosaur) and you are unlikely to have a lot of trouble with table variance. Of course if a character has zero ranks in handle animal it's likely they haven't bothered training any tricks either. I think most people have a pretty good understanding of what a really well trained animal does.
|
|
Druids must be good at handling animals... umm yeah?Are people really that disconnected from the role-play aspects of the game?
There are a lot of people who appreciate this very aspect, the animals in the game will have to again act as animals. Treat Fido is a well trained *dog* (cat/ rhinoceros/ dinosaur) and you are unlikely to have a lot of trouble with table variance. Of course if a character has zero ranks in handle animal it's likely they haven't bothered training any tricks either. I think most people have a pretty good understanding of what a really well trained animal does.
It isn't an issue for people who have been playing it this way all along. The issue is for those who relied on an interpretation provided by James Jacobs that there was an alternative treatment; that addressing the control/training element could be dealt with either by investing in the PC resource of AC Int point and Linguistics, or could be addressed through the investment in PC resource of Handle Animal ranks.
Maybe the message that comes out of this is to avoid relying upon the authority of designer statements in forum posts rather than one's own understanding of the rules.
In a home game, had I led a druid's player to understand it could be handled in one way, and then changed that understanding, I would provide a mechanism so that my player wasn't left out in the cold. The campaign has said the game follows the normal rules. When in doubt, people look to what others see. When people see those deemed to speak with a voice of authority, there is a tendency to follow that voice.
|
|
It isn't an issue for people who have been playing it this way all along. The issue is for those who relied on an interpretation provided by James Jacobs that there was an alternative treatment; that addressing the control/training element could be dealt with either by investing in the PC resource of AC Int point and Linguistics, or could be addressed through the investment in PC resource of Handle Animal ranks.
I'm just generally confounded at the idea that people would build a druid with zero ranks in Handle Animal. I sort of assume that it's a given that druids are going to invest in what it takes to be good with animals. Like I said above, to me this is a total disconnect between role playing and gaming.
Maybe the message that comes out of this is to avoid relying upon the authority of designer statements in forum posts rather than one's own understanding of the rules.
In a home game, had I led a druid's player to understand it could be handled in one way, and then changed that understanding, I would provide a mechanism so that my player wasn't left out in the cold. The campaign has said the game follows the normal rules. When in doubt, people look to what others see. When people see those deemed to speak with a voice of authority, there is a tendency to follow that voice.
I agree, there have been a lot of confusion and rules changes.
On the bright side, it seems to be getting better.