I really loved the set of mods, I finally understood Painlord's comments about mods being sacred snowflakes. It had interesting challenges, interesting and unique rewards, and it made sense for Pathfinders to be there rather than just random thugs to kill orcs and take their pie.:)
They are sacred snowflakes, aren't they?
PFS scenarios are rare and special and the first running of such should be a point of emphasis for all of us to make the best for ourselves and fellow players.
:)
-Pain
Why does my brain keep reading this as "scared snowflakes"? It took me three readings to get the right reading of those two words together.
Yes. There are some especially good scenarios that will always be remembered for the quality that they are. (Mists of Mwangi comes to mind as a best-of-the-best).
It seems pretty clear to me. Paladin mounts are magical beasts at level 11. Familiars are magical beasts at level 1.
I don't know how this confuses you. Then again, I don't know how the paladin mount ruling was confusing to begin with.
Gallard,
This is what I read it to be. Both are magical beasts. The question then becomes: If the paladin's magical beast requires handle animal checks, why would the wizard familiar's magical beast not also require handle animal checks?
|
Alright. I'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt and try to break this down for you.
Here is the ruling:
Paladin mounts are animals and players must use the Handle Animal skill on them. At 11th level they become Magical Beasts in regard to spells but are still regarded as Animals and Handle Animal must still be used.
This is because:
At 11th level, the mount gains the celestial creature advanced simple template and becomes a magical beast for the purposes of determining which spells affect it.
The familiar says this:
A familiar is an animal chosen by a spellcaster to aid him in his study of magic. It retains the appearance, Hit Dice, base attack bonus, base save bonuses, skills, and feats of the normal animal it once was, but is now a magical beast for the purpose of effects that depend on its type.
One actually changes the creature's type. The other changes what spells can affect it.
RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16
|
And, see, I'm reading them both as animals (d8 hit points, 3/4 BAB, no darkvision) with certain exceptions as noted. Once a Paladin reaches 11th level (in PFS, that's another 3 scenarios and maybe a victory lap at 12th level...) her mount gains the Celestial template, and gets trated as a magical beast for some things. But the Paladin doesn't need to take a -4 modifier on her Handle Animal check, because the horse is still a horse.
But I don't think that familiars work that way at all. To cite one example, in one early Year Two scenario, an NPC witch sends his/her tiny familiar to search the party, find a particular doobis, use Sleight of Hand to steal it away from the PC that's carrying it, and make it back to the witch. That's far more than anybody can do with a Handle Animals check, and the NPC is 1st Level.
They do start with an Intelligence score orders of magnitude above the animal level being argued for all of the other types in this thread. They don't try to rise above animal level intelligence by adding a single point to their Int score when leveling up, but begin play as low human level intelligence and eventually become smarter than the majority of all humans. They obviously are not operating under the same parameters, but yes- it will probably take another line of errata or FAQ here too to put this nitpicking to rest.
<pokes the beehive>
What about a nature oracle's mount? They start off with an Int score of 6, and nature oracles can get a mystery to talk to animals...
|
|
<pokes the beehive>What about a nature oracle's mount? They start off with an Int score of 6, and nature oracles can get a mystery to talk to animals...
I would say this is an easy one. The mount works exactly the same as a paladin's mount, and the talk to animals allows exactly what speak with animals does. That is to say the clarification that Mark Moreland gave a couple days ago, that you can use speak with animals to tell a companion to do something without a handle animal check, as long as that something you are telling them to do is a trick they know or as long as it wouldn't normally be a "push" handle animal roll.
Removed some posts (and their replies, and apologies). Calling each other names is not productive—please be civil to each other.
|
I meant what I said. In this case your optimization came back to haunt you. Use this situation as an opportunity to learn something.
If the rules clarification doesn't bother you what do you want? I've read your post four times now and I'm afraid I don't get it.
Take ranks in random skills in case I later need them to make my class features work?
What bothers me is that I think it's a rules change, Jason Bulmahn posted that it's a rules change, but the PFS staff say it's a clarification.
One way makes the character I was enjoying fun by allowing me to fix him while the other makes him not fun.
If I didn't feel that stringently following the rules was important in an organized play environment I would just change my character, instead I care about the integrity of the rules and find myself incredibly frustrated instead.
|
|
AxeMurder0, I see that you've some experience as a PFSOP GM. Have you considered applying GM-credit to the character to raise him to the next level?
Well as per the rules I do not horde my GM credits. (I can't find the post at the moment but I remember one of the staff saying you had to apply the chronicles immediately if possible, please correct me if I'm wrong about this.)
The next 5-9s I'm running are The Heresy of Man trilogy which I can not apply to the character in question. It is nice to hear a friendly suggestion though so thanks for that.
|
RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16
|
I remember one of the staff saying you had to apply the chronicles immediately if possible, please correct me if I'm wrong about this.
That's close to my understanding, which is: we need to assign GM-credit as soon as possible.
For example, my PFS characters right now are 3rd, 5th, and 9th level. I'm scheduled to GM a couple of 7-11 modules in the next couple of weeks. I need to assign them as soon as possible. I might assign them both to the 9th level PC. If I assign one of them to the 3rd level PC, and the other to a hypothetical new PC I haven't started playing yet, those GM experience points would sit inactive until the character hit 7th level, at which point they'd immediately apply.
Since I can assign GM-credit to an unplayed character, and never choose to play that character, I can effectly decline GM-credit.
I remember one of the staff saying you had to apply the chronicles immediately if possible, please correct me if I'm wrong about this.That's close to my understanding, which is: we need to assign GM-credit as soon as possible.
For example, my PFS characters right now are 3rd, 5th, and 9th level. I'm scheduled to GM a couple of 7-11 modules in the next couple of weeks. I need to assign them as soon as possible. I might assign them both to the 9th level PC. If I assign one of them to the 3rd level PC, and the other to a hypothetical new PC I haven't started playing yet, those GM experience points would sit inactive until the character hit 7th level, at which point they'd immediately apply.
Since I can assign GM-credit to an unplayed character, and never choose to play that character, I can effectly decline GM-credit.
Actually, you are supposed to assign the credit to the most level-appropriate character that you have, so in your example you would have to assign them to the 9th level PC and none of the others if you ran in sub-tier 10-11. And if you ran in sub-tier 7-8, you would have the choice of assigning them to either your 5th or 9th level. But in neither case could you assign them to one of the other characters or make a new character to give them to. And in the case of, for example, running a sub-tier 4-5 scenario and not having any characters low enough level to accept the chronicle sheet, you would have to either make a new 1st level character for it or forfeit it. This is all according to posts made in the past by Josh and I have not seen any new rulings by either Mark or Hyrum to change it.
Enevhar, things have changed.
See this thread for example.
Chris, you sure that was the right thread? I remember reading that one and while there are a couple of posts by Mark, they do not say anything about assigning GM-earned chronicle sheets.
|
RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16
|
No, Mark doesn't mention that, but a whole bunch of people, including Venture Captains, are talking about how they're holding onto, and applying their GM credit. If you're right, then Mark, who was indeed reading the thread, should have corrected that. He didn't. So the rules have changed.
|
OK. With this INT does not equal INT change, just how far does the following stay legal and within the bounds of acceptable play for the PFS modules?
7th level druid/mage places the Share Language spell on her ape, 5th level animal companion, 8 times a week, so it is always in effect. The ape used his stat bump in INT for a 3 INT.
A) Is the ape still limited to learning one trick per scenario/module?
B) Does the ape need handle animal checks to attack? (standard trick)
C) Does the ape need push animal checks to tell it to flank? (not a standard trick)
D) Does the ape need push animal checks to tell it to slowly lower a rope to get a harnessed riding dog down into a sewer bypassing the ladder?
E) Can the ape be taught non-standard tricks/commands? Flank, Slap (=non-leathal attack)
F) Given that an ape can grunt through eek for about 5 octaves, and has a tongue and lips, can the ape (poorly maybe) speak simple one word commands? Food, Water, Yes, No, Danger...
G) Can he do multi-word sentences? Give Food. Tell Girl Give Beer.
H) Can the ape be trained to put a silver coin on a table *before* he says "Give Beer"?
Before these changes came down, my answer to all of these, except A, was yes. The ape has continuous enhanced language skills that allow him to read and follow extremely complex spoken or written commands. I was playing him as "follow a trained trick order, free action." and "understand a complex command, standard action, carry out the action on the next round."
Now that the rules waters have been stirred, and with the interaction of the Share Language spell, which no one has so far addressed, they are too muddy to be sure what is kosher.
No, Mark doesn't mention that, but a whole bunch of people, including Venture Captains, are talking about how they're holding onto, and applying their GM credit. If you're right, then Mark, who was indeed reading the thread, should have corrected that. He didn't. So the rules have changed.
Wow. I'm sorry, but that's just tortuous, twisted, stupid logic.
Either there is a ruling, or there is not. The existence of a thread and the absence of a ruling to the contrary does not create a ruling.
Fercrisakes, this entire thread is built upon an actual ruling that ACs could do such and so. And a lot of other direct statements from PAIZO STAFF as to what ACs could and could not do that became completely invalid based on an actual ruling.
Why not simply ask Mark for a ruling, and then base your answer on that? And in the absence of such a ruling, simply state that "while the printed text is such, it appears that several VCs simply deviate from that, so the rule exists, but is probably not enforced." ?
|
|
OK. With this INT does not equal INT change, just how far does the following stay legal and within the bounds of acceptable play for the PFS modules?
7th level druid/mage places the Share Language spell on her ape, 5th level animal companion, 8 times a week, so it is always in effect. The ape used his stat bump in INT for a 3 INT.
A) Is the ape still limited to learning one trick per scenario/module?
B) Does the ape need handle animal checks to attack? (standard trick)
C) Does the ape need push animal checks to tell it to flank? (not a standard trick)
D) Does the ape need push animal checks to tell it to slowly lower a rope to get a harnessed riding dog down into a sewer bypassing the ladder?
E) Can the ape be taught non-standard tricks/commands? Flank, Slap (=non-leathal attack)
F) Given that an ape can grunt through eek for about 5 octaves, and has a tongue and lips, can the ape (poorly maybe) speak simple one word commands? Food, Water, Yes, No, Danger...
G) Can he do multi-word sentences? Give Food. Tell Girl Give Beer.
H) Can the ape be trained to put a silver coin on a table *before* he says "Give Beer"?Before these changes came down, my answer to all of these, except A, was yes. The ape has continuous enhanced language skills that allow him to read and follow extremely complex spoken or written commands. I was playing him as "follow a trained trick order, free action." and "understand a complex command, standard action, carry out the action on the next round."
Now that the rules waters have been stirred, and with the interaction of the Share Language spell, which no one has so far addressed, they are too muddy to be sure what is kosher.
My attempt to answer these questions as I've interpreted the latest clarifications:
A: Yes. Just because your animal is smarter and can share your language does not mean it learns tricks faster or better.
B: Per Marks unofficial clarification, if using speak with animals a character need not make a handle animal check to tell its animal to do tricks it already knows how to do. As such, I'd imagine that share language would work similarly in this capacity.
C: As per answer B above, it would work as Mark unofficially clarified speak with animals and an action that requires a push would still require a push. An animal is still an animal regardless of its intelligence, and if you are asking it to do something it is unfamiliar with or uncomfortable with, it will act like an animal and need to be pushed.
D: Is this a "trick" question? Sorry for the bad pun... but seriously, is it? This is not an action that the animal would be familiar with, and it is not a trick it has been taught. So yes, it would need to be "pushed" to do this. Or as I've defined below, if you wanted to take several minutes of explanation, you could probably get your monkey to understand how to do this and accomplish it. But not in combat without a push.
E: No, it is still an animal, even though you can communicate with it more efficiently.
F: I would have no problem with this in a home game, and depending on how cheesy you would make it, may even allow something like this in a PFS game. I mean after all, how many youtube videos have we seen of talking dogs, dolphins, et. al. However, not sure why this is necessary since you and your monkey share a language. Additionally, I'm sure the official answer would be no, as it is an animal and does not have the correct anatomy to talk.
G: This is essentially the same answer as F above, but I think I see where you are going with this. You are trying to trick the powers that be into giving your monkey sentience because it has a 3 INT and can share a language with your druid. I'd say that since it can share a language with your druid, it can certainly, "magically", communicate to your druid sufficiently, but with an animal's intelligence. But will it be a walking, talking, up-lifted (awakened and thus magical beast) ape? No.
H: He can be "pushed" to do so I'd imagine, but he'd have to be pushed to do so every time. In a home campaign, I'd have no problem allowing you to develop your own set of custom tricks. But organized play needs to be consistent, so no, you can't teach your monkey customized tricks.
I think you are reading way too much (or too little) into share language.
The pertinent text reads as (highlights are for emphasis):
You can share your facility for one particular language with another creature. For 24 hours the target can read, understand, and communicate to the best of its ability in any one language you already know...
The key phrase is, best of its ability which means that its capacity for truly understanding complex concepts would be limited by its level of sentience. Since animals, no matter how high their INT score is, are not sentient, they can only understand limited complexity in concepts. And if the animal does not have anatomical capacity for creating the correct language sounds, it will not be able to truly speak the language either.
The target must have the physical capacity to articulate sounds, make gestures, or engage in whatever other method speakers of the language use to communicate with each other in order to actually converse. If the target lacks the mental capacity to grasp an actual language it still gains enough knowledge to respond and to carry out even extremely complex commands or suggestions coached in the language (whether written or spoken). However, since this spell does not endow the target with greater reasoning capacity, merely a temporarily enhanced vocabulary, the person offering up instructions to non-sentient creatures must take care to remove any ambiguity or guess work.
The removing any ambiguity or guesswork would essentially, in my mind, be considered a "push" if you want it to happen as you've described above. To carefully explain an action without ambiguity, in my mind, would more likely take a couple minutes.
I can see how you might read into this that your monkey can act like a mini-me version of your druid. But the spell is very clear that your monkey is not suddenly awakened, but rather just has an expanded vocabulary. It can understand and carry out complex commands.
|
Random thoughts, flame or not to taste:
1. Bestiary, pg. 168, from the Griffon entry: "Before it can be ridden in combat, a griffon requires practice bearin the weight of its rider. In order to be trained successfully, a griffon must first be helpful toward its trainer (possibly requiring a Diplomacy, Intimidate, or Handle Animal check). After that, 6 weeks of practice and a successful DC 20 Handle Animal check is sufficient for the beast to be comfortable with its burden, and due to their intelligence, trained griffons can be treated as knowing every trick listed in the Handle Animal skill description, possibly even responding to new simple requests made in Common." A griffon is listed as a magical beast, Int. 5, language Common (cannot speak).
2. I thought the horse Maximus stole the show in Disney's Tangled. A non-speaking but understanding, sentient horse. I liked the movie Tangled. I don't think I want to play in the Tangled campaign setting.
3. Donkey from the Shreck films. Blech. Of course Golem (pastry) tiny construct, and Golem (pastry) huge construct, from the second movie might be interesting. Treasure: one day's rations.
4. Huan, the greatest wolf hound from Tolkein's Similrion, spoke three times before he died. (In PF terms, perhaps a celestial advanced dog, and an animal companion to Beren.)
5. Marvel's Inhuman's Lockjaw spoke only once, and that was retconned into being a possible joke. Marvel's Shadowcat's Lockheed speaks rarely, but knows many languages.
6. The Bestiary, p. 280, under Worg: "Worgs that travel with goblins often allow them to ride on their backs, but in such situations it is usually the worg that is the master, not the rider." A base Worg is CR 2 magical beast, Intelligence 6, languages Common and Goblin (nothing indicating they can't speak). The base goblin is CR 1/3, intelligence 10, with 10 Ranks in Ride, and no ranks in Handle Animal.
7. Cavaliers, Druids, Paladins, and Rangers, have both Handle Animal and Ride as class skills. Clerics with the Animal Domain have neither.
|
There's always the Savannah Child trait Animal Friend if you're a g-nome.7. Cavaliers, Druids, Paladins, and Rangers, have both Handle Animal and Ride as class skills. Clerics with the Animal Domain have neither.Oracles of Nature do not have Handle Animal either, but do have Ride.
yes, savannah child is really useful! :)
|
RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16
|
No, Mark doesn't mention that, but a whole bunch of people, including Venture Captains, are talking about how they're holding onto, and applying their GM credit. If you're right, then Mark, who was indeed reading the thread, should have corrected that. He didn't. So the rules have changed.
Wow. I'm sorry, but that's just tortuous, twisted, stupid logic.
Thank you, Fozzy. I can't tell if you're continuing to be snide, or if you've just switched to being rude and insulting as I'm trying to help AxeMurderer0. In either case, this is the last time I'll be paying attention to your comments.
--+--
Something I mentioned a while back might have gotten skipped. I repeat it here.
But I don't think that familiars work the same way as animal companions at all. To cite one example, in one early Year Two scenario, an NPC witch sends his/her tiny familiar to search the party, find a particular doobis, use Sleight of Hand to steal it away from the PC that's carrying it, and make it back to the witch. That's far more than anybody can do with a Handle Animals check, and the NPC is 1st Level.
|
|
Wow. I'm sorry, but that's just tortuous, twisted, stupid logic.Thank you, Fozzy. I can't tell if you're continuing to be snide, or if you've just switched to being rude and insulting as I'm trying to help AxeMurderer0. In either case, this is the last time I'll be paying attention to your comments.
To be fair I thought that bit of logic didn't make any sense.
Something does not magically become legal just because people say they are doing it and Mark doesn't tell them to stop.
Of course I cannot currently find the Frost post that said you can't save GM chronicle sheets so maybe I'm imagining the whole thing?
|
RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16
|
Somewhere in these threads there is a stated policy change. I presented what I had, after trying and failing to find it; it's a question of "legal", not "magically legal". It's not what I would consider proof, but it's evidence that everyone from Venture-Captains to Mark M. himself accepts that GM-credit is more fluid than it's been in the past.
No, Mark doesn't mention that, but a whole bunch of people, including Venture Captains, are talking about how they're holding onto, and applying their GM credit. If you're right, then Mark, who was indeed reading the thread, should have corrected that. He didn't. So the rules have changed.Wow. I'm sorry, but that's just tortuous, twisted, stupid logic.Thank you, Fozzy. I can't tell if you're continuing to be snide, or if you've just switched to being rude and insulting as I'm trying to help AxeMurderer0. In either case, this is the last time I'll be paying attention to your comments.
--+--
Something I mentioned a while back might have gotten skipped. I repeat it here.
But I don't think that familiars work the same way as animal companions at all. To cite one example, in one early Year Two scenario, an NPC witch sends his/her tiny familiar to search the party, find a particular doobis, use Sleight of Hand to steal it away from the PC that's carrying it, and make it back to the witch. That's far more than anybody can do with a Handle Animals check, and the NPC is 1st Level.
I was insulting your logic, not you as a person. I'm not sure how else to make clear that what you wrote made absolutely no logical sense.
By that very logic, the post that began the whole "ape's wielding weapons" saga, posted back in 'ought nine, makes them legal because no authority stepped in to declare them illegal. But lack of a response in no way should be construed to mean approval. It's like a little kid in the hallway holding car keys and saying, "Unless you tell me not to, I'm going to just take the car for a spin", while his parents are upstairs asleep.
The existence of a familiar in a scenario that does something that a PC familiar probably could not also does not establish precedent. There are a great many things that occur in scenarios that NPC do that PCs cannot. It's called literary license. It's not called "infer any rules you want from this".
You can respond, or not. That's entirely your prerogative. Unwillingness to actually cite rules or actual rulings possibly undermines any argument you might make.
Again, as I've stated. All that is required to decide the issue is a ruling from Mark.
Q1) Do animal familiars with INT 6 which are "treated as magical beasts for the purpose of effects that depend on type" require handle animal checks in the same way that paladin mounts with INT 6 which are "treated as magical beasts for the purpose of spells that depend on type" do?
Q2) If they do not, then what is it about familiars, which begin their lives as "ordinary animals" before being bonded that makes them different from paladin mounts that also begin their lives as "ordinary animals" before being bonded?
|
|
Q2) If they do not, then what is it about familiars, which begin their lives as "ordinary animals" before being bonded that makes them different from paladin mounts that also begin their lives as "ordinary animals" before being bonded?
I'm not Mark, but this may be useful to Mark:
A2) All skill ranks of the master are shared unto the familiar (including language), which means the familiar gains all the knowledge of the master, making it a more "aware" being. The minute the master dies, the connection is broken and the familiar loses this virtual knowledge (which he was borrowing from the master) and thus becomes a normal animal of its kind all over again, requiring normal Handle Animal check. Familiars are usually smaller than Animal Companions and their increased understanding and master-familiar knowledge sharing is meant to assist a wizard in a lab or in library as opposed to the more combat-oriented Animal Companions or Bonded Mounts, which are meant to operate in the field and are thus more "dense" creatures.
Q2) If they do not, then what is it about familiars, which begin their lives as "ordinary animals" before being bonded that makes them different from paladin mounts that also begin their lives as "ordinary animals" before being bonded?I'm not Mark, but this may be useful to Mark:
A2) All skill ranks of the master are shared unto the familiar (including language), which means the familiar gains all the knowledge of the master, making it a more "aware" being. The minute the master dies, the connection is broken and the familiar loses this virtual knowledge (which he was borrowing from the master) and thus becomes a normal animal of its kind all over again, requiring normal Handle Animal check. Familiars are usually smaller than Animal Companions and their increased understanding and master-familiar knowledge sharing is meant to assist a wizard in a lab or in library as opposed to the more combat-oriented Animal Companions or Bonded Mounts, which are meant to operate in the field and are thus more "dense" creatures.
Source?
|
|
My charater is gonna be retiring soon, due to the level 12 rule. SO i wanna go all out on my animal companion.
Can i use a tome of clear thought on it? In doing so it would now be able to understand without making a roll. Also i could give it intell boosting items to make it smarter. Just wondering. Also do Animal companions get stats bumps too at 4,8? I forget.
thanks
I would say you cannot use a Tome on an animal companion. The RAW states that you must sit there and read the book for 48 hours. I highly doubt you will get any animal to read a book, especially since reading is not something animals do. On top of that, should your animal companion be somehow able to read and then die in an adventure, you just wasted 27500 gp because your new animal companion would not have read the tome.