|
Please revise the "one trick trained per scenario" rule. That is all. -)
Kyle isn't the only one who has said this. In fact, I suspect the opinion is nearly universal. Please change this.
The only game-rules basis for limiting this is if there is a defined limited amount of time between scenarios. Yet, there isn't. Wizards can copy an unlimited number of spells into their spellbook, but that is also a time defined task.
From an aesthetics perspective, there may be some resistance to animals being fully retrained or replaced between every adventure. While the far end of the scale is when we see animals, even companions, treated as speed bumps or bearing the nametag "MeatShield XIII," this is a roleplaying matter.
The one trick trained rule has been called into center stage by the animal intelligence blog/FAQ, but it's been a problem for a while. It makes class features nearly useless and it encouraged acceptance of the Int 3= No Handle Animal perspective.
The pain of the existing system has been kept to a dull roar by fact that most dedicated animal handlers weren't using Handle Animal. Now they all are. The dull roar is about to blossom into an acute roar of crippling pain. Perhaps I stretched that too far....
Anyways, please fix.
|
|
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.
(Transfered over from the animal intelligence blog thread.)
Just how much time passes between adventures? Why can't a PC wait to adventure again until he is ready? Why can a wizard copy an unlimited number of spells into his spellbook during this time, but an animal companion arrives just as the adventure begins? Why can a PC perform a dayjob, but can't use that time to train the animal he relies upon?
|
There does seem to be a little imbalance there.
Perhaps something that could be more uniformly applied across various tasks of this nature? Unlimited would be easy enough, wizards and witches can do it for scrolls to spellbook (or walking spellbook). Also smacks of slightly abusive but on the other end of the spectrum.
Perhaps your relevant skill bonus per session? An 18 Int wizard or witch could make 4 scribe attempts and an 14 Cha druid could make 2 training attempts?
|
|
While the far end of the scale is when we see animals, even companions, treated as speed bumps or bearing the nametag "MeatShield XIII," this is a roleplaying matter.
I've crossposted Mark's response to the request to change the animal training rules from HERE.
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.
The decision to use Fluffy as a meat shield is a role playing decision. Applying this as rationale for why the rule exists is both akin to saying, "You're playing your character wrong" and penalizing a PC in a logistically unjustified manner for the addition, loss, or replacement of a companion, regardless of the reason.
Fluffy II might be new to the experience of adventuring because:
1) Fluffy II made the mistake of responding to the call of a first level druid. Silly druid forgot to spend the years of training prior to his first adventure training Fluffy, and instead took dumb but loyal Fluffy into danger's way.
2) Fluffy I was used as a meat shield and died.
3) Fluffy I, a dumb yet loyal beast, rushed to the aid of his master and died a tragic and heroic death. PC was mortified and disheartened.
3) Fluffy I was caught in a trap and nearly died. PC couldn't see poor Fluffy suffer further and retired poor Fluffy to retirement on a stud farm.
4) PC found that his increasing responsibilities (higher level encounters) were resulting in Fluffy I being put in danger beyond Fluffy's ability to reasonably survive. PC broken-heartedly realized that, to continue to pursue his responsibilities, he had to make a calamitous decision. Fluffy would be retired to a good life. PC would bond with an AC more suited for the changing nature of his responsibilities.
5) Fluffy I was caught in a fireball and died. PC's only failure was bringing Fluffy into a dangerous situation called an adventure.
X) Insert other strong scenarios, whether reacting to in-game situations or justifying purely mechanical reasons, here. Repeat ad infinitum.
******************************************
Animal Companions bring challenges to organized play. There are real issues and there are also issues about the disparity of vision about the nature of an AC by all participants, whether Administrator, GM, or player. Please address the real issues instead of painting a broad swath that has unjustified, unexpected, and unnecessary consequences.
|
While the far end of the scale is when we see animals, even companions, treated as speed bumps or bearing the nametag "MeatShield XIII," this is a roleplaying matter.I've crossposted Mark's response to the request to change the animal training rules from HERE.
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.The decision to use Fluffy as a meat shield is a role playing decision. Applying this as rationale for why the rule exists is both akin to saying, "You're playing your character wrong" and penalizing a PC in a logistically unjustified manner for the addition, loss, or replacement of a companion, regardless of the reason.
Fluffy II might be new to the experience of adventuring because:
1) Fluffy II made the mistake of responding to the call of a first level druid. Silly druid forgot to spend the years of training prior to his first adventure training Fluffy, and instead took dumb but loyal Fluffy into danger's way.
2) Fluffy I was used as a meat shield and died.
3) Fluffy I, a dumb yet loyal beast, rushed to the aid of his master and died a tragic and heroic death. PC was mortified and disheartened.
3) Fluffy I was caught in a trap and nearly died. PC couldn't see poor Fluffy suffer further and retired poor Fluffy to retirement on a stud farm.
4) PC found that his increasing responsibilities (higher level encounters) were resulting in Fluffy I being put in danger beyond Fluffy's ability to reasonably survive. PC broken-heartedly realized that, to continue to pursue his responsibilities, he had to make a calamitous decision. Fluffy would be retired to a good life. PC would bond with an AC more suited for...
I think your grossly misinterpreting what Mark said.
He didn't say "You're playing it wrong!"
He said "Actions have consequences"
If you don't want to worry about the costs in time to retrain a new pet, be a bit more careful how you use him. This doesn't mean you have to be careful with him either. It just means that if you aren't, bad things may happen. You have to deal with bad things when they happen, whether its an ACs death, or a fellow players.
|
|
I think your grossly misinterpreting what Mark said.
He didn't say "You're playing it wrong!"He said "Actions have consequences"
If you don't want to worry about the costs in time to retrain a new pet, be a bit more careful how you use him. This doesn't mean you have to be careful with him either. It just means that if you aren't, bad things may happen. You have to deal with bad things when they happen, whether its an ACs death, or a fellow players.
He didn't say, "you're playing it wrong," nor did I say he did. I said it was akin to it. It is being used as justification for not just what happens if Fluffy dies, it also is being used as justification for Fluffy being untrained for a 1st level druid, or for Fluffy dying through no action other than bringing Fluffy on an adventure, or for Fluffy being replaced in response to good role play reasons.
The game rules have a time element for a new animal. Got it. The campaign applies time inconsistently and in a manner that is detrimental for character classes with animal companions.
If the intent is to have a consequence for AC death, then apply a rule that addresses AC death in a consistent manner rather than being a consequence of merely choosing a character that has an AC. If the intent is to have a consequence for irresponsible AC death, than address that.
|
Couldn't using your Animal Companion as a meatshield be considered an evil act? I would for my home games so why not for Society? It would be akin to grabbing the commoner running away from the BBEG and throwing him in front of the bus, telling him to slow it down for you while you buff yourself up. Definitely an evil act.
|
|
I think your grossly misinterpreting what Mark said.
He didn't say "You're playing it wrong!"He said "Actions have consequences"
If you don't want to worry about the costs in time to retrain a new pet, be a bit more careful how you use him. This doesn't mean you have to be careful with him either. It just means that if you aren't, bad things may happen. You have to deal with bad things when they happen, whether its an ACs death, or a fellow players.
He didn't say, "you're playing it wrong," nor did I say he did. I said it was akin to it. It is being used as justification for not just what happens if Fluffy dies, it also is being used as justification for Fluffy being untrained for a 1st level druid, or for Fluffy dying through no action other than bringing Fluffy on an adventure, or for Fluffy being replaced in response to good role play reasons.
The game rules have a time element for a new animal. Got it. The campaign applies time inconsistently and in a manner that is detrimental for character classes with animal companions.
If the intent is to have a consequence for AC death, then apply a rule that addresses AC death in a consistent manner rather than being a consequence of merely choosing a character that has an AC. If the intent is to have a consequence for irresponsible AC death, than address that.
The only way to fairly address it without a sweeping rule that everyon 'should'* know when they choose the class is to instate a Time Unit system. These systems tend to be even less popular than these sweeping rules. (BTW, I love em)
*I know many people don't and then feel penalized. It's left to us GMs and coordinators to make sure they know as soon as possible.
|
|
Couldn't using your Animal Companion as a meatshield be considered an evil act? I would for my home games so why not for Society? It would be akin to grabbing the commoner running away from the BBEG and throwing him in front of the bus, telling him to slow it down for you while you buff yourself up. Definitely an evil act.
Meat shield means different things to different people. "Fluffy, go fight and die, you're expendable," is problematic to many people. "Fluffy, thanks for having fought alongside your loyal companion, you died a heroic death," is another. It tends to have a connotation of the first, and can be seen as a problematic issue.
Regardless of whether you see it as an evil act or not, that is immaterial to the discussion at hand, though. I appreciate that this is a 'net thread, and as such, they wander.
|
|
I’m really having trouble figuring out why this is such a huge deal. The animal companion is actually a fairly small part of the classes that get them, that curtailing their use doesn’t seem to be that huge. Giving a monkey a sword and a suit of chainmail, to me, seems like trying to get around the max-player thing. A loophole to have one more character at the table.
Also, personally, I really don’t have any sympathy for people who push the boundaries like that. You gotta know you are pushing the boundaries when you put a sword in a monkey’s hand.
|
|
I'm sure there a logical reason why scrolls can be scribed with only available gold as a limiting factor but animal training is limited to 1/session.
Can someone please lay it on me? Thanks!
Sure.
Game balance, pure and simple.
The coordinators saw a situation that was spiraling (or could spiral) out of control. They also made a decision they did not want monkey’s with swords.
When you see game balance issues, you have to take care of it.
This is how they took care of it.
That’s pretty logical to me.
|
|
Sure.
Game balance, pure and simple.
The coordinators saw a situation that was spiraling (or could spiral) out of control. They also made a decision they did not want monkey’s with swords.
When you see game balance issues, you have to take care of it.
This is how they took care of it.
That’s pretty logical to me.
That would be great if that were, in fact, what this thread was about.
Recognize! Explosive runes!
|
|
There does seem to be a little imbalance there.
Perhaps something that could be more uniformly applied across various tasks of this nature? Unlimited would be easy enough, wizards and witches can do it for scrolls to spellbook (or walking spellbook). Also smacks of slightly abusive but on the other end of the spectrum.
Perhaps your relevant skill bonus per session? An 18 Int wizard or witch could make 4 scribe attempts and an 14 Cha druid could make 2 training attempts?
I think that this has the germ of a solution if the PTB are willing to look for one. You can do a task between adventures. That task can be one of the following: Dayjob, copy spells/hexes, acquire new familiar, acquire new companion animal, train animals, do other things from a list. Anything that is time specific goes here. Player's cost for loss/replacement of animal is the opportunity cost of what he otherwise didn't do (dayjob at a minimum).
|
|
The Handle Animal training issue has absolutely nothing to do with monkeys with swords. Separate issue.Game balance, pure and simple.
The coordinators saw a situation that was spiraling (or could spiral) out of control. They also made a decision they did not want monkey’s with swords.
Not really. They are two situations brought on by the same issue.
What happens when an animal has a 3 INT or higher.
If people didn’t generally abuse the original ruling by Josh Frost, then we wouldn’t have monkeys with swords or Druid dipping Rogues with no handle animal.
Sorry, if you make a Druid, who, for whatever reason, is apparently completely dependent on their animal companion to feel any self-worth, and they didn’t take any handle animal…
Who’s the character? The Druid or the Monkey?
"I am Guk! And here is Samuel my spell-casting side-kick!"
|
|
I think that this has the germ of a solution if the PTB are willing to look for one. You can do a task between adventures. That task can be one of the following: Dayjob, copy spells/hexes, acquire new familiar, acquire new companion animal, train animals, do other things from a list. Anything that is time specific goes here. Player's cost for loss/replacement of animal is the opportunity cost of what he otherwise didn't do (dayjob at a minimum).
I think something is going to have to change.
Copy spells - unlimited.
Alchemical crafting - unlimited.
Animal Training - 1/session.
Wiskey. Tango. Foxtrot?
|
I’m really having trouble figuring out why this is such a huge deal. The animal companion is actually a fairly small part of the classes that get them, that curtailing their use doesn’t seem to be that huge. Giving a monkey a sword and a suit of chainmail, to me, seems like trying to get around the max-player thing. A loophole to have one more character at the table.
Also, personally, I really don’t have any sympathy for people who push the boundaries like that. You gotta know you are pushing the boundaries when you put a sword in a monkey’s hand.
As Mark pointed out, the problem being addressed in this thread has absolutely nothing to do with the chainmail wearing, greatsword wielding monkeys, but rather an entirely unrelated issue.
Since ACs can only earn one trick between adventures, Druids can get pretty hard with an animal death. No other class has this kind of class penalty. That's what the focus is. Monkey hating is over in the other thread. ;-)
|
|
I think something is going to have to change.
Copy spells - unlimited.
Alchemical crafting - unlimited.
Animal Training - 1/session.
I think the challenging aspect of the "you can do a task from this list" model is logistical overhead when new classes and archetypes are introduced. If they have class features that require activity but aren't on the list, then there is the inevitable flood of questions. Hopefully this would be addressed by the document that introduces the class into play and or the FAQ that Mark says he's fired up about.
|
|
I think that this has the germ of a solution if the PTB are willing to look for one. You can do a task between adventures. That task can be one of the following: Dayjob, copy spells/hexes, acquire new familiar, acquire new companion animal, train animals, do other things from a list. Anything that is time specific goes here. Player's cost for loss/replacement of animal is the opportunity cost of what he otherwise didn't do (dayjob at a minimum).I think something is going to have to change.
Copy spells - unlimited.
Alchemical crafting - unlimited.
Animal Training - 1/session.Wiskey. Tango. Foxtrot?
Yet most tricks take a free action to command your AC to do.
Spells and bombs (and other alchemical concoctions) take a standard action to use.
You top out on tricks pretty quickly (within a couple levels), so the whole training 1/session doesn't really hurt all that much.
The animal companion is a fairly small part of what a Ranger or Druid is, while the spells and bombs are a major portion of what the wizard and alchemist are.
Comparing the time needed to do these things and saying they should be equal, is the same as saying that All classes should get proficiency in all weapons and all armor and all shields.
|
|
I think the challenging aspect of the "you can do a task from this list" model is logistical overhead when new classes and archetypes are introduced. If they have class features that require activity but aren't on the list, then there is the inevitable flood of questions. Hopefully this would be addressed by the document that introduces the class into play and or the FAQ that Mark says he's fired up about.
Honestly, just implement time units and be done with it. Problem regulates itself from the Core as it should be, without lots of need for updating and retrofitting (house-ruling as some would call it).
|
|
A bunch of stuff not even tangentially on point....Sir, it is obvious that you are looking to argue for the sake of arguing. To you I say, good day.
Huh? I thought my last post was pretty on point there fella.
Just because I disagree with you that there is an issue (or even, for the sake of argument, I'm just playing devil's advocate) doesn't mean my post was off target.
I spoke directly in regards to the time it takes to do certain things, and posted a reason why I thought 1 train/session was ok. I'm ok if you disagree with me.
But saying that I'm not even tangentially on topic because you disagree with my assertion is kinda silly.
Furthermore, these boards are for discussion. I thought we were discussing things. Saying I'm just arguing for the sake of arguing simply because I'm not joining in on the Paizo bashing is also silly.
Director of Brand Strategy
|
Copy spells - unlimited.
Alchemical crafting - unlimited.
Animal Training - 1/session.
Copy spells (monetary cost, Spellcraft check required, failure prevents copying until next level) - unlimited
Alchemical crafting (monetary cost, Craft (alchemy) check required) - unlimited.Animal Training (no monetary cost, Handle Animal check required) - 1/session.
Each of these has at least two costs if we include time as a commodity. Pathfinder Society Organized Play does not use time as a commodity. In the case of both scribing spells into spellbooks and alchemy, the monetary cost remains, while training an animal would have only a skill check. The limit on number of tricks one can learn per session is to compensate for the removal of the secondary cost in this specific case. We currently have no plans on changing this, as it has worked fine up until now. People only started complaining about it when they discovered they needed to train their Int 3 animal companions.
|
|
Ok, now I've been accused of arguing for the same of arguing.
Have I ever done this in the past? Yes.
Am I doing it now? No.
Did I perhaps misinterpret what this particular thread was about? Possibly, I guess I was still fired up over the monkey with a sword thing and brought my bias over here. Once I got over the monkey with a sword thing while reading this thread, I tried to look at the time fairness issue.
So, for the sake of getting me on the right track here, let me re-iterate what I THINK this thread is discussing. If I'm wrong, then I apologize.
What I think, is that people feel it is unfair to only allow training of your animal companion of 1 trick per play session and are basing their argument on the time it takes for other classes to do off-time activities. And largely this complaint is coming from the latest ruling by Mark and Hyrum on how animal intelligence and the use of Animal Handling works.
It appears that some druids have been affected by this ruling, because they have created their characters with certain assumptions based on how past PFS directors have ruled. (Assumption is probably the wrong word here, since just going by what the rules say is not really an assumption). So now, they are higher level, have no handle animal ranks, and training their AC 1 trick per session will be quite a bit more difficult until they gain a couple more levels to put ranks into Handle Animal.
Is this about the situation?
Please correct me if I'm wrong. I wouldn't want to discuss a point without actually being aware of what I'm trying to discuss.
|
|
Copy spells - unlimited.
Alchemical crafting - unlimited.
Animal Training - 1/session.Copy spells (monetary cost, Spellcraft check required, failure prevents copying until next level) - unlimited
Alchemical crafting (monetary cost, Craft (alchemy) check required) - unlimited.
Animal Training (no monetary cost, Handle Animal check required) - 1/session.Each of these has at least two costs if we include time as a commodity. Pathfinder Society Organized Play does not use time as a commodity. In the case of both scribing spells into spellbooks and alchemy, the monetary cost remains, while training an animal would have only a skill check. The limit on number of tricks one can learn per session is to compensate for the removal of the secondary cost in this specific case. We currently have no plans on changing this, as it has worked fine up until now. People only started complaining about it when they discovered they needed to train their Int 3 animal companions.
While Mark put it much more succinctly that I did, what he says looks a lot like what I was trying to say. Guess my point was more than tangential to the discussion.
|
|
Yet most tricks take a free action to command your AC to do.
Spells and bombs (and other alchemical concoctions) take a standard action to use.
How does the action economy figure into this at all? It doesn't.
You top out on tricks pretty quickly (within a couple levels), so the whole training 1/session doesn't really hurt all that much.
It tops out at a number of adventures equal to the number of non-bonus tricks the animal has. That's six tricks/adventures for an animal with Int 2. How many for an animal with Int 3?
The animal companion is a fairly small part of what a Ranger or Druid is, while the spells and bombs are a major portion of what the wizard and alchemist are.
I'm glad you see this as not hurting much. I'm glad you see it as a small part of the class. If it's a small part, it shouldn't be subject to so much restriction, right? Whether it is a small part is a matter is a matter of character style. Druids, in particular, can be played in many different ways, focusing on spell casting, wildshaping, or as buffer/handler for the animal, where the animal is the primary feature they bring to the table.
That it is a small portion of your view of the class(es) is your style. It isn't everyone's. Please be there to tell an animal handler style druid that his now directionless animal is only a small portion of the class. Please be there to tell a player new to PFS, "Of course you can play a druid. But, be aware that your animal will start with only 1 bonus trick, and will have to gain additional tricks at a rate of one per adventure. You're animal will be fully trained at 3rd level..you know, toward the end of the convention if you keep at it. You can get him to attack, but you can't get him to stop. And, if he can attack, he won't heel; in other words, don't count on him to follow you. Nor defend you. Nor guard. "
Comparing the time needed to do these things and saying they should be equal, is the same as saying that All classes should get proficiency in all weapons and all armor and all shields.
I'm sorry, but that's quite a stretch as an analogy. There is a vast difference between "characters should have use of their class abilities, with appropriate consequences for their actions," and "all characters should have the same abilities." For a druid or like character, the fact that a wizard's spellbook is important to him has exactly zero bearing on the importance of his own ability to train and direct his animal companion.
|
|
Each of these has at least two costs if we include time as a commodity. Pathfinder Society Organized Play does not use time as a commodity. In the case of both scribing spells into spellbooks and alchemy, the monetary cost remains, while training an animal would have only a skill check. The limit on number of tricks one can learn per session is to compensate for the removal of the secondary cost in this specific case. We currently have no plans on changing this, as it has worked fine up until now. People only started complaining about it when they discovered they needed to train their Int 3 animal companions.
If you made it limited to CHA bonus/session it would be more reasonable.
A 25 gp cost on a 1st level failure isn't that drastic (and the spell list is huge, so trying another spell is always an option!), and 150 gp isn't that much either by the time you can start casting them. Also limiting these activities to ATTRIBUTE bonus/session would make the whole thing feel inherently more fair. At least to me :)
|
|
How does the action economy figure into this at all? It doesn't.Yet most tricks take a free action to command your AC to do.
Spells and bombs (and other alchemical concoctions) take a standard action to use.
I think it fits fairly well actually.
Same as what Mark said above as far as the commodity aspect of the differences between off-time activities.
There has to be some sort of balance, and while asking your pet Monitor Lizard to attack or Jump or whatever is a free action, casting a spell or tossing a bomb is a standard action.
Then include in that, that it only takes 2 or 3 levels to max out your number of maximum tricks...
Stands to reason that you don't actually NEED to train your animal companion more than one per session, while restricting spells and bombs equally would significantly hinder the entire basis of an entire class. Not just a portion of a class.
I've never played a druid as an animal handler, so I don't have experience in how this might actually work (most home game GM's I play with don't want to be bothered with a drove of animal companions, but the one druid I do play (16th level right now) has an awakened advanced dire lion as his companion and essentially is a 2nd character). But telling a new player who wants to play a Druid that they only can train their animal companion to do 1 trick isn't all that much different than telling a new player that their Wizard only has a few hit points and a couple spells and can only cast one to three spells per day.
First level characters always have drawbacks, and the training thing doesn't ding a 1st level druid significantly enough to make this as drama infested as it has been.
I think the main issue is that players with higher level druids who took advantage of past rulings are upset because now they have an animal companion they have to train, and it will take awhile for that training to actually work for them.
|
|
There does seem to be a little imbalance there.
Perhaps something that could be more uniformly applied across various tasks of this nature? Unlimited would be easy enough, wizards and witches can do it for scrolls to spellbook (or walking spellbook). Also smacks of slightly abusive but on the other end of the spectrum.
Perhaps your relevant skill bonus per session? An 18 Int wizard or witch could make 4 scribe attempts and an 14 Cha druid could make 2 training attempts?
This seems like a reasonable suggestion to me. Perhaps even 1+ the character's relevant ability bonus. This way druids with negative or zero Charisma could still train one per scenario.
Either that or just issue a set "time for XXX" between scenarios, two weeks or a month seems like a reasonable amount of time, this would give characters time to take care of typical maintenance task. This need not represent actual game time, just time the player has available for character maintenance tasks. Characters who have higher skills will be able to craft/ train/ scribe faster and get more done.
|
|
This seems like a reasonable suggestion to me. Perhaps even 1+ the character's relevant ability bonus. This way druids with negative or zero Charisma could still train one per scenario.
Why do I find the idea of a neg cha bonus druid trying to train an animal and failing getting his face mauled off completely hilarious? Must be one of those days... :)
What if we continue to complain? ;-)
Mark's head will explode.
And he's getting married soon, so I think his fiance will be a tad upset. ;)
|
I don't really have much to add to this. Howie has already covered, in great detail, anything I could have wanted to say.
I guess I just don't understand the sudden animal companion hate. I was on board with the greatsword wielding apes nerf but the sudden scrutiny on Handle Animal seems silly.
If you want people to use Handle Animal, fine. Let characters retrain a few ranks into Handle Animal (since there was reasonable precedent for the previous error) and update the training rules to make them a bit more reasonable. If your 3rd level character's animal companion dies you shouldn't have to play through 6 sessions with an uncooperative companion. What punishment do wizards get if their familiar dies? What about summoners?
|
|
This seems like a reasonable suggestion to me. Perhaps even 1+ the character's relevant ability bonus. This way druids with negative or zero Charisma could still train one per scenario.Why do I find the idea of a neg cha bonus druid trying to train an animal and failing getting his face mauled off completely hilarious? Must be one of those days... :)
Hey my 5 CHA Dwarven druid is OPTIMIZED for combat not playing with squirrels!
|
|
I've never played a druid as an animal handler, so I don't have experience in how this might actually work (most home game GM's I play with don't want to be bothered with a drove of animal companions, but the one druid I do play (16th level right now) has an awakened advanced dire lion as his companion and essentially is a 2nd character). But telling a new player who wants to play a Druid that they only can train their animal companion to do 1 trick isn't all that much different than telling a new player that their Wizard only has a few hit points and a couple spells and can only cast one to three spells per day.
This explains a lot.
An awakened animal can't serve as an animal companion, familiar, or special mount.
If you actually played with a companion by RAW you would understand the frustration and confusion.
|
Director of Brand Strategy
|
As long as he finished the invitations, she'll be fine.Mark's head will explode.
And he's getting married soon, so I think his fiance will be a tad upset. ;)
That's on the agenda tonight. Who knew stamps cost so much!? Luckily I can stuff envelopes while I watch Doctor Who.
|
|
This explains a lot.
I've never played a druid as an animal handler, so I don't have experience in how this might actually work (most home game GM's I play with don't want to be bothered with a drove of animal companions, but the one druid I do play (16th level right now) has an awakened advanced dire lion as his companion and essentially is a 2nd character). But telling a new player who wants to play a Druid that they only can train their animal companion to do 1 trick isn't all that much different than telling a new player that their Wizard only has a few hit points and a couple spells and can only cast one to three spells per day.
Yeah, I think it does. In a home game, my GM allowed it. As a someone who has experience coordinating and developing a living campaign (3 years of Living Dragonstar) I understand the reasoning behind not allowing a "2nd character" at a table. But this thread isn't about that, its about how many times you can train an animal companion in off-time.
If you actually played with a companion by RAW you would understand the frustration and confusion.An awakened animal can't serve as an animal companion, familiar, or special mount.
For what its worth, the home campaign is still playing 3.0, not 3.5 and so is using the Masters of the Wild splatbook ruling of Awaken. And we all understand it isn't really an animal companion anymore, but more a friend or henchmen. Per the text in Masters of the Wild, an awakened animal companion will still hang out and adventure with the druid, but may choose, based on circumstances, to leave the druid on his own as well.
As a player, I've made the determination that Greypaw will leave Ursk and go start a family, because in the last adventure she got turned to stone.
She was truly like a 2nd character and the group treated her more like a henchman. She got 1/2 share of experience and treasure.
But that is really, way, off-topic here.
|
|
Yeah, I think it does. In a home game, my GM allowed it. As a someone who has experience coordinating and developing a living campaign (3 years of Living Dragonstar) I understand the reasoning behind not allowing a "2nd character" at a table. But this thread isn't about that, its about how many times you can train an animal companion in off-time.This explains a lot.
I've never played a druid as an animal handler, so I don't have experience in how this might actually work (most home game GM's I play with don't want to be bothered with a drove of animal companions, but the one druid I do play (16th level right now) has an awakened advanced dire lion as his companion and essentially is a 2nd character). But telling a new player who wants to play a Druid that they only can train their animal companion to do 1 trick isn't all that much different than telling a new player that their Wizard only has a few hit points and a couple spells and can only cast one to three spells per day.
Yep, I'm done with this.
Have a nice day.
Remember folks, "new" animal companions come with a number of bonus tricks according to its HD: http://paizo.com/pathfinderRPG/prd/classes/druid.html
If you want your replacement companion to know additional tricks you have to invest the time (1/scenario) and training (Handle Animal checks) to teach the animal. Your new companion isn't useless, it's just not as useful as the old one until you get it up to speed.
