Venture-Lieutenant, California—Los Angeles (South Bay)
|
If this ends in the demise of Druids with velociraptor quasi-rogues with disable device (and M/work thieves tools) designed to comfortably remove the need for a real rogue in the parthy then I am delighted.
+1 as well.
I have seen animal companions played well and poorly, with the main focus of a character to be buffing the animal --- sometimes with the player character taking no action. However, I do not think that an animal companion should be equal to a character. The last thing a player wants at a table is to feel that his character is useless --- let alone being upstaged by a summoned creature or an animal companion.
So, I would hope that we have a careful examination of the roles that eidolons and animal companions can have in a party. I think that PCs should in any game should be more important to the storyline than henchmen, intelligent weapons , animal companions and eidolons. Maybe there could be a rule that gives PCs a higher priority on initiative or action than animal companions.
Having played with Twilight Knight, I have found the one frontline "fighter" I saw to be a very effective character. I can imagine how frustrating it is to design a character, play him, and feel like you are playing third fiddle to an eidolon and a gorilla.
|
|
Both of my high-tier PC's are optimized for combat. Both follow the typical builds for front-line "fighters." The issue is that the companion does not have to follow the same rules as PC's and can be strictly built for combat without consideration for skills, feats, etc that apply to its overall usefulness. The druid/summoner can spend most of its points on support skills and abilities. Essentially you can nearly double the number of feats/skills/etc that you can have as a player by having a PC with a companion. Not to mention that if you have some kind of spell-sharing ability, the companion essentially get to benefit from quickened spells.
A player should not have to win initiative over another player every time just to get an action. Sure, on occasion, a combat can be won quickly with the "right" combination, which is why I didn't just refer to a single encounter or even a single scenario. A data set of multiple encounters (20+) over five scenarios should be sufficient to determine if a disparity might exist. The issue occurred more than twice as often in just five mods than it did in more than 60+ events played with non-companion PC's. That seems to support my contention, at least IMO.
Sorry, you play with certain builds, whether AC, eidolon or PC, and you do need to win initiative to interact with any mook or middling-high BBEG involved.
My 9th level fighter build is not what I would call uber-optimized, but I have been know to down the BBEG in one attack sequence. Note that this is an archer build, and two levels are not Fighter levels, and one of those levels is not a full-BaB class. Heck, I was even miscalculating his attack value (taking a penalty for Manyshot which no longer exists) and he still was playing wack-a-mole with the BBEG.
Part of the issue is BBEGs that are not terribly efficiently built, IMO. This BBEG hit nicely (miss confirming a crit with a 4 on the die roll by 1, my PC's AC was 25), but even with a crit it would have been miniscule damage (non-crit damage was 4 points(!) at tier 5-6, crit might have been 12 points if the harpy's claws were X3...)
In one of these threads on ACs, I calculated damage for an AC ape with and without weapons, and it looked like the weapon actually cut down on the damage done by the AC....
For my first level Samurai, the Samurai was doing more damage than his Wolf AC, both because the Samurai hit more often, but was also getting charge damage with his lance... And that was with a PC whose highest stat was 15, and is a halfling....
|
For my first level Samurai, the Samurai was doing more damage than his Wolf AC, both because the Samurai hit more often, but was also getting charge damage with his lance... And that was with a PC whose highest stat was 15, and is a halfling....
Halfling lancers on wolves and gnomes on badgers would personally be the next on my hit list. Toddlers on tricycles imo.
|
|
It would seem that the designers never intended animal companions to wield weapons, and that the former manager's to decision to allow it for organized play was an error. The recent clarifications appear to support this. Unfortunately, that means some players with druids will have to redesign their character. I do not feel this is a knee-jerk reaction.
Hopefully, some of the "reining" in of the animal companions will be applied to the summoner's eidolon as well.
It might have been nice for someone at Paizo to have noticed that this was given the green light in the Guide to Organized Play for at least a year and a half, and that animal companions with weapons were discussed, in the Pathfinder Society threads, repeatedly during this time.
If this was such an issue, it should have been noticed much sooner.
The previous PFS administrator may have "made a mistake" in allowed animal companions with weapons, but the current crew has "dropped the ball" if they really didn't notice that this was listed in the Guide.
|
|
Halfling lancers on wolves and gnomes on badgers would personally be the next on my hit list. Toddlers on tricycles imo.
How about we suspend PFS for one month while everyone comes up with characters that annoy them, then we warn everyone that if your build annoys someone, its probably gone, no matter how much work you put into that character.
Or maybe someone can write up a handy guide on the right way to have fun and how to know when something should be illegal even if the rules don't say it is.
|
Halfling lancers on wolves and gnomes on badgers would personally be the next on my hit list. Toddlers on tricycles imo.
How about we suspend PFS for one month while everyone comes up with characters that annoy them, then we warn everyone that if your build annoys someone, its probably gone, no matter how much work you put into that character.
Or maybe someone can write up a handy guide on the right way to have fun and how to know when something should be illegal even if the rules don't say it is.
Interesting how a few othe posters mentioning that these builds had annoyed them, now means that campaign admin felt the same way.
|
|
Interesting how a few othe posters mentioning that these builds had annoyed them, now means that campaign admin felt the same way.
Also interesting how someone could actually be commenting on the fact that people have seen a build that annoys them banned, and are now lobbying for other builds to be banned, with no direct comment about the motives of the campaign administrators.
These builds were basically the same as the old trick in the video game of Diablo 2 of using your cohort in hardcore mode to go through the adventures at little to no risk to yourself.
Arm up your monkey with a bunch of magical gear and send it in to fight while you hang back at a safe distance and buff it. If it dies, who cares, pick up the gear and find another monkey to train to use it. It's like having a disposable fighter.
It was, at it's core, a very "video game" way to play the game. Three monkeys for a quarter, and if they die, just slap in another quarter and hit the "continue" button. It was a change that needed to happen. Even disregarding the "oh, it didn't fit into roleplaying" or "oh, the build annoys me personally" arguments, the risk vs. reward factor for these types of characters was commensurately out of whack with playing a fighter or barbarian.
|
|
Interesting how a few othe posters mentioning that these builds had annoyed them, now means that campaign admin felt the same way.
Its amazing, I didn't realise that I was so influential that my personal preferences were so important that the Campaign Admin was so considerate of my personal biases and sence of propriety that they'd simply grind the whole rockshow to a halt to wait on the pearls of my wisdom so they could be enshrined in RAW.
KEjr, I think 'comic relief' Gnome and Halfling Cavaliers are funny for about two minutes, and then should go join the rest of the circus acts once the initial giggles have worn off. Doesn't mean someone can't have one, I just can't take them seriously.
You can do what you want within RAW, and I can laugh all I want.
|
|
We should probably all take a breath.
To be honest, I haven't had much of a problem with uber-animals yet, and I have never been terribly strict about gettin HA checks on AC's. I may have rolled my eyes at the pole-arm wielding gorillas, but not more so than at silly names or naked monks or clerics with AC 40 or....
Weapons were allowed under the OPG rules, and there were valid interpretations of the rules allowed the bypassing of the HA checks.
Now the lead designer has clarified intent. And the PFS admins have changed the ruling on weapons.
The admins have admitted that the change could have been communicated better, but they are in the process of changing the way rules are updated. I don't think that we can fairly assess the new team until they begin a season of their own, in August: with their own plot points, rules, and setting changes (eg new factions). And I'm sure that we will see more changes. And I have every confidence that most people are going to love what they come up with, once they've seen the whole package.
People who have been playing beefed up Animal Companions have been doing so under the rules. Some may have been cheesing their characters, but most were just playing something they thought was fun.
The new rules interpretations are not as onerous as some depict. It has been pointed out that the natural attacks may be just as good, or better than the weapons. And the Handle Animal checks are quickly compensated for.
I think the new companion rules are a good thing, but if someone sat down at my table with a gun-wielding lock-picking raptor, I would treat them the same as I do anyone else who brings a character with variations from the OPG. I'd talk to them about the changes on the boards, change what could be changed in 2 minutes, and ask them to fix the rest before their next session. And then sit down and play.
Can't wait for more Monday blogs :)
|
|
We should probably all take a breath.
To be honest, I haven't had much of a problem with uber-animals yet, and I have never been terribly strict about gettin HA checks on AC's. I may have rolled my eyes at the pole-arm wielding gorillas, but not more so than at silly names or naked monks or clerics with AC 40 or....
Weapons were allowed under the OPG rules, and there were valid interpretations of the rules allowed the bypassing of the HA checks.
Now the lead designer has clarified intent. And the PFS admins have changed the ruling on weapons.
The admins have admitted that the change could have been communicated better, but they are in the process of changing the way rules are updated. I don't think that we can fairly assess the new team until they begin a season of their own, in August: with their own plot points, rules, and setting changes (eg new factions). And I'm sure that we will see more changes. And I have every confidence that most people are going to love what they come up with, once they've seen the whole package.
People who have been playing beefed up Animal Companions have been doing so under the rules. Some may have been cheesing their characters, but most were just playing something they thought was fun.
The new rules interpretations are not as onerous as some depict. It has been pointed out that the natural attacks may be just as good, or better than the weapons. And the Handle Animal checks are quickly compensated for.
I think the new companion rules are a good thing, but if someone sat down at my table with a gun-wielding lock-picking raptor, I would treat them the same as I do anyone else who brings a character with variations from the OPG. I'd talk to them about the changes on the boards, change what could be changed in 2 minutes, and ask them to fix the rest before their next session. And then sit down and play.
Can't wait for more Monday blogs :)
I just wanted to thank you for taking the time to point out that no one that was going by the rules as printed in the Guide was doing anything hinky or trying to get away with something. I think that's one of the main things that has been annoying me in this discussion. Everything was pre-asked and above board.
|
|
Sorry, don't feel like acting like a trained monkey. You failed your Handle Animal checks due to my creature type.
Uhuh, so then we can simply accept your plaintive cries of people 'lobbying' was simple hysteria and exageration, and accept your backhanded reply as simply furthering your sour grapes.
No problem.
|
|
Uhuh, so then we can simply accept your plaintive cries of people 'lobbying' was simple hysteria and exageration, and accept your backhanded reply as simply furthering your sour grapes.
No problem.
Yes. You win. Yours is the superior intellect. No one on the forum, anywhere, started suggesting characters they would like to see banned in PFS. Not only do you win this thread, you win the internet until the next competition, and please, please disregard everything I've ever posted.
|
Halfling lancers on wolves and gnomes on badgers would personally be the next on my hit list. Toddlers on tricycles imo.
I care nothing really about this sub-discussion/altercation about lobbying, as I rarely ever delve into the OP section of the boards. However, after reading this thread, the quote above is a crystal clear example of lobbying. You asked to kill a couple of more builds that irritate you. Sarcastic or not, it should be obvious that this might rankle with those unhappy with this turn of events. So it might pay to ratchet the aggression down just a tad here.
As for the animal companion "clarification", well its fairly obvious that this IS a rules change, regardless of how loudly and often dev protests to the opposite are given. From reading the dev posts its clear that for this "clarification" we have to invalidate a former ruling from Jacobs AND invalidate a specific ruling in the OP guide, that were in effect for more than a year. With all due respect, it sure sounds like a rule change to me.
The question really is, whether this is a good change, or a bad one. I'll leave that one up to you all. It doesn't affect the druid I play at home directly, but conceptually, I don't know why the AC needs to be made into a 2nd class citizen relative to the eidolon. We can have more than one flavor of "combat critter" that overlap in capability. Halberd weilding apes aren't any cheezier than some of the eidolon builds I've seen.
|
|
I don't know why the AC needs to be made into a 2nd class citizen relative to the eidolon. We can have more than one flavor of "combat critter" that overlap in capability. Halberd weilding apes aren't any cheezier than some of the eidolon builds I've seen.
And why IMHO, the eidolon needs to be reined in a bit as well
|
|
However, after reading this thread, the quote above is a crystal clear example of lobbying. You asked to kill a couple of more builds that irritate you.
There is a huge world of difference between expressing a personal opinion in response to a particular statement, especially when specifically denoted as such, and lobbying.
There have been no representations made to 'please ban xyz', and this is not an 'official' fora for the purpose.
This is a discussion board, and this thread is for discussion, as part of the discussion personal opinions are shared. Expression of personal opinion is perfectly acceptable and what has been said here in no way can be cited as lobbying, tenuous assertions to the contrary notwithstanding.
|
|
As for the animal companion "clarification", well its fairly obvious that this IS a rules change, regardless of how loudly and often dev protests to the opposite are given. From reading the dev posts its clear that for this "clarification" we have to invalidate a former ruling from Jacobs AND invalidate a specific ruling in the OP guide, that were in effect for more than a year. With all due respect, it sure sounds like a rule change to me.
Once again, the only actual change is about weapons in the OPG.
RAW about more intelligent animal companions is confusing, and needed clarification.
On the one hand:
Animal type says an Animal only has Int 1-2, and if it has more it is another type of creature.
James Jacobs said that if an animal companion gets higher Int, it should be able to understand languages if it takes Linguistics, and that it should not be subject to Handle Animal checks, but that it was still an Animal.
On the other:
Druids and rangers get a bonus for Handle Animal with their companions, who are clearly spelled out as at least starting as natural Animals.
Familiars are clearly defined as Magical Beasts.
Paladin mounts are defined as Animals with starting Int 6, who later become Magical Beasts, when the Paladin becomes 11th level. So what is it before that?
So the blog is more a clarification as to what section of the rules takes precedence, than an actual change to the rules. What has been set out now is the way several people already interpreted the rules.
|
|
I posted the quote on another thread. The Paladin's Mount becomes a Magical Beast when it gains the Celestial template, at 11th level. Nowhere does it specifically spell out what Type it is before that, but all of the options listed are Animals, and it says that the Mount "fucnctions like a Druid's Animal Companion".
If you can cite something other than the Animal type having Int of 1-2, I would like to understand what I'm missing.
|
|
And I was the opposition in that thread. And for that matter it showed no such thing, only made silly claims. Claims such as the 'ignore magical traps' that you are doing, when they are the lion's share of dangerous traps.
...And so was I, posted a mountain of objections.
All that being said, those posters did have a lot of merit in their arguments that I simply had to accept, there cases were very solid (refer Arsenic and Old Lace as a prime example)
I'm perfectly fine with pets for PC's, completely fine and welcoming them with open arms, I just don't personally accept that they should be given the capacity to start replacing players (ie the Rogue) or make the game into a curious oddity (Gorilla in full plate with a Lance trained to ride on a shapeshifted Druid) indeed that makes it kinda anti-heroic and a bit of a mockery.
I know Rogues are often called Skill-Monkeys, but to actually replace them with a monkey is a bit harsh.
|
|
Actually the paladin's mount only becomes a magical beast with regards to spells being cast on it. So at level 11, you could no longer cast Animal Growth on it because it is no longer an animal.
However, for all other purposes it is still an animal. Albeit a special case animal with an intelligence of at least 6. Taking into account the blog info, the paladin would need to use Handle Animal to get it to perform any actions it was not already trained to do.
Also, I just noticed in the CRB page 52...
"Animal companions can select other feats, although they are unable to utilize some feats (such as Martial Weapon Proficiency)."
That would seem to support the claim that since the beginning, animals should not have been using weapons.
|
|
Also, I just noticed in the CRB page 52...
"Animal companions can select other feats, although they are unable to utilize some feats (such as Martial Weapon Proficiency)."
That would seem to support the claim that since the beginning, animals should not have been using weapons.
That is true, and I'm certainly not going to argue the point. However, it was asked in the forums, was allowed by the admin, and placed in the Guide, making it an exception only for certain types of animal companions.
What is at issue for a lot of people isn't the specific ruling, but how the ruling was made. For example, if some poor guy happens to be on a business trip and he comes back to find out that multiple rules have now changed how his character works, not just one, and those changes are spread out on the forums.
I'd also point out that someone that first starts playing PFS, gets the guide, and makes up a character is going to be upset when he sits down at the table of a convention or at a game store and realizes that something called out as legal in the Guide is nixed at his first table.
|
|
I'd also point out that someone that first starts playing PFS, gets the guide, and makes up a character is going to be upset when he sits down at the table of a convention or at a game store and realizes that something called out as legal in the Guide is nixed at his first table.
There needs to be a better method of keeping up to date, and an official online rules guide would help this enormously. This isn't gaming circa 1980's, yet I feel this is all reminiscent of that era where you had to buy a magazine to find the rules changes in the back.
|
|
It would seem that the designers never intended animal companions to wield weapons, and that the former manager's to decision to allow it for organized play was an error.
I strongly disagree with the text I bolded. I believe it was a choice. The new PFS captains are choosing a new direction for PFS, and that's to be expected in many areas. When you say it was an error, to me you're saying he didn't know the rules or he did something wrong. A choice is a choice, with up-sides and down-sides.
This is like having guns in Pathfinder and PFS. Though some may disagree, it's not an error it's a choice.
-Swiftbrook
Just My Thoughts
|
Regional Venture-Coordinator, Baltic
|
It would seem that the designers never intended animal companions to wield weapons, and that the former manager's to decision to allow it for organized play was an error.I strongly disagree with the text I bolded. I believe it was a choice. The new PFS captains are choosing a new direction for PFS, and that's to be expected in many areas. When you say it was an error, to me you're saying he didn't know the rules or he did something wrong. A choice is a choice, with up-sides and down-sides.
This is like having guns in Pathfinder and PFS. Though some may disagree, it's not an error it's a choice.
I actually think some things can be explained as differences in direction, but I think what TK is saying about the armwielding animal companions is indeed what happened. Might have happened due to differences between Pathfinder and 3.5, but still an error.
|
|
I just wanted to thank you for taking the time to point out that no one that was going by the rules as printed in the Guide was doing anything hinky or trying to get away with something. I think that's one of the main things that has been annoying me in this discussion. Everything was pre-asked and above board.
This is 100% true and people need to get off the idea that these people were 'asking for it'. When the head man syas its ok, its ok and you are doing nothing wrong.
|
|
I strongly disagree with the text I bolded. I believe it was a choice.
If the original intention by the design team was that animal companions were not to wield weapons, and Josh added that to the Guide, then doesn't that constitute an error? There is even a post (by Mark I think) that indicates as such.
It is clearly not an animal.. it just counts as one for the purposes of spells until 11th level
Okay, so if an animal cannot have an INT higher than 2, and a paladin's mount is not actually a magical beast, then what is it?
There are a number of exceptions within the rule-set that allow things to happen outside of the 'norm.' So why can't the mount be a horse with a INT of 6? The designer/s seem to indicate that was their intention. (I think?)
Then it boils down to what's the lowest INT score that can use manufactured weapons?
I don't think it is necessary for the designers to specify this. They have stated that (1) an animal who's INT is raised through game-play maintains its status as an animal and (2) animals cannot use weapons. Seems like that just about covers it.
The subject of Handle Animal checks is, of course, a separate topic.
|
|
But it IS a magical beast.
Since rules-lawyering seems to be the theme of the week, where does it say that a paladin's mount is a magical beast? If we agree that it only functions as an MB for the purposes of spells, and only after 11th level, then you should also agree that there is no language specifically calling out its actual type. So my question would stand. Perhaps it's a spiritual outsider manifested in a corporeal body and gains the celestial template once the paladin has demonstrated his mettle. Or perhaps it is simply an untyped creature that is only identified for the purposes of what spells will affect it.
While a lot of this argument is now moot because today's blog post about the new version of the Guide coming out sometime today says this has been changed, the old version of the Guide NEVER said that ACs could wield martial weapons. Rather is said that ACs with an upped Int could take weapon feats and wield weapons, so long as the rules in the Core Book on pages 52-53 were followed, meaning no martial weapons. So yes, under the old PFS rule, you could have a simple weapon-wielding ape with weapon feats, but no longer from the sounds of it.
Also, I really wish the Int description from 2nd Ed:
A semi-intelligent creature (Int 3 or 4) can speak (with difficulty) is apt to act instinctively or impulsively.
had not been changed to what it says in 3rd:
A creature of humanlike intelligence has scores of at least 3.
The older version would really make it easier to apply to slightly smarter than average ACs.
As for the Paladin mount being a magical beast or not, I think the problem is that this part of the description from 3rd Ed was modified:
Once per day, as a full-round action, a paladin may magically call her mount from the celestial realms in which it resides.
without modifying the rest of the text on the mount. So it is a legacy thing where the mount was a magical beast in 3.5, but now is not supposed to be, but the text was not modified enough on the change to PRPG to make it obvious.
Director of Brand Strategy
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Animals with Int of 3 or higher maintain the animal type. They keep medium BAB advancement, d8 hit dice, good Fort and Reflex saves and 2 + Int modifier skills per level.
They do not change their creature type to magical beast or anything else. They do not gain d10 hit dice, nor fast BAB advancement.
I know the rules as written in the Core Rulebook are causing some confusion, but for the purposes of this campaign, the above is the clarification to use until such time as there is an official FAQ or Errata to the Core Rules.
|
Director of Brand Strategy
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Thanks Mark,
If the AC continues to be an animal and requires Handle Animal checks, what are the benefits, if any, to adding points to INT other than to eventually gain more skill ranks?
An Int of 3 or higher does unlock other feats from the Core Rulebook not specifically listed as available for animal companions. Just not any Weapon Proficiency feats. Not all rules options need to be optimized, however, so it may be that there are "better" choices for players to make regarding their animal companion's 4th-level ability boost. Everyone will need to weight those themselves.
|
|
This is 100% true and people need to get off the idea that these people were 'asking for it'. When the head man syas its ok, its ok and you are doing nothing wrong.
I've been having a hard time letting this go, and I apologize. A lot of the reason stemmed from my perception that a great deal of sentiment was assuming that people were "cheating" or intentionally trying to do something underhanded, when the entire issue was pretty up front and referenced often.
Thanks for cutting to the heart of what was getting at me.
|
This is 100% true and people need to get off the idea that these people were 'asking for it'. When the head man syas its ok, its ok and you are doing nothing wrong.I've been having a hard time letting this go, and I apologize. A lot of the reason stemmed from my perception that a great deal of sentiment was assuming that people were "cheating" or intentionally trying to do something underhanded, when the entire issue was pretty up front and referenced often.
Thanks for cutting to the heart of what was getting at me.
To be honest, the only person I thought was intentionally 'cheating' was you, you cheese creating SOB :P [/kidding]
|
|
An Int of 3 or higher does unlock other feats from the Core Rulebook not specifically listed as available for animal companions. Just not any Weapon Proficiency feats. Not all rules options need to be optimized, however, so it may be that there are "better" choices for players to make regarding their animal companion's 4th-level ability boost. Everyone will need to weight those themselves.If the PC druid is wildshaped into an animal such as an ape, are they considered physically unable to use any of their weapons? Not animal companions mind you, but rather the druid him/herself.
Also as there is some disagreement here, are Paladin mounts magical beasts? They don't seem to fall into the INT being raised as they always have a 6 INT.
Lastly, if a druid is using speak with animals with an animal can they ask it to do what they want rather than need to make a handle animal check?
-James
I'm not for sure on the first and last statement, but I think Mark answered your middle question with his original post, that it is not a magical beast, but an animal with a raised INT
|
|
...
In the end, the GM should feel free to restrict such choices if he feels that they take away from the feel of his campaign. The rules themselves are left a little vague to give the GM the latitude to make the call that's right for his campaign.This is takeaway number 1 from this blog post. While the FAQ may provide extra insight into the intent and interpretation of the rules, but for the purposes of this campaign, it doesn't actually errata any rules, just provide extra options for GMs. As Campaign Coordinator and Developer for the Pathfinder Society campaign, Hyrum and I have chosen not to use these additional options.
Request for official ruling:
Now that we are adressing animals with incresed intelligence and their capabilities; Are raven familiars wielding wands with UMD legal?
|
|
Diego, sometime I can't tell with you..so...is this realy a serious question?
No offense taken, Dragnmoon. I sometimes play the devil's advocate and sometimes like to joke around.
This time I am serious though. I have encountered a player insisting on this being legal, and I have not seen any ruling by Jason that states otherwise. As the rules are its pretty much up to the individual GM to make a ruling. In my own campaign I would say "no" in a heart beat, but as it is, this is H&M's campaign, so I would like them to tell us how it is :)