|
I'm curious how long it takes to scribe scrolls into your spell book.
I looked up the time it takes to do alchemical things. Extracts you get a number per day, and bombs are things you create as a standard action. Mutagens take 1 hour per dose.
I think the scrolls into spell book is like 1 day per spell level but I haven't looked it up so I may be wrong.
Tricks take 1 week per trick.
So if a time unit thing was created to cover this, I'm going to guess that the training will use many more time units and 1 train per session may still end up being the norm.
In any case, I seem to have cheesed off a couple people, so I suppose I should bow out of this conversation for awhile.
|
|
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.
I have seen and understand that you've taken note of the points made here and have opted to not act at this time. However, a couple of comments on the material above.
Time isn't a requirement in the campaign. This is true...except for training animals. There, it is the sole factor that 1) highly influences a character's ability to function and 2) cannot be overcome.
As for people not complaining until now, that isn't the case. Rather people have complained, been told that Int 3 does the job, and then have taken that course of action. They've been told by others in the campaign here, by other players, by their GMs, and by their VCs. The reason is planted in a campaign guideline to follow the normal game rules, is rooted in a statement made by the Creative Director as to what those normal game rules are, and flowered in hothouse of GMs following that statement lest they violate Don't Be a Jerk. This is the harvest.
It isn't that everything was fine. Rather, everyone had a workaround for what was and continues to be a problematic rule. That workaround is now gone. All that is left is the problematic rule.
So, I fully understand and respect the need and desire to not change things in a reactionary fashion. I hope that as additional feedback unfolds, that this will be revisited.
Thanks for having weighed in.
|
|
We have no plans to change this aspect of the game at this time. The concerns raised in this thread have been noted, but we're not changing anything now.If I want to buy an animal (rather than an animal companion) can I hire a trainer to train it with a trick or two?
-James
Another question: could you have someone else at the table train it for you?
|
People only started complaining about it when they discovered they needed to train their Int 3 animal companions.
Can I get a clarification? I see rules for replacing lost animal companions, and I see rules guiding the number of animal companions in play ( which seems a pity for archtypes like the beastlord which are devoted to having multiple animal companions )
My question:
What does a first level druid with an animal companion get ?
is the animal presumed to be trained up to its 6 tricks? I can't find this wording in the society guide anymore. ( sorry. i've searched for half an hour at work, and no one seems to have linked to an entry where someone attached to PFS says definitively what they get.
If an animal is dismissed and a new one is summoned between adventures, does the new one come with their tricks?
and i'm whining:
A first level druid has to make a DC 25 handle animal check ( average +8 check to the roll . a 10 charisma is average. and charisma is not a required / associated stat for druids ), and spend a move action to push their animal companion to make them attack an unnatural creature?
my friends are just getting into PFS. I'm now going to have to break it to them that their hawk and wolf aren't an addition to their primary spell casting class, and that combat will have to be slowed down with them making rolls to handle their animal in combat as well as their own actions. James Jacobs refers to druids as a primarily spell casting class, hence their wider selection of animal companions. Yet the pathfinder society document then greatly restricts the usefulness of this class feature.
solution: a compromise. if you want to speed up play let the animals come pre-trained with 3 tricks, + 1 bonus trick for druids. characters won't have to make their Handle Animal checks in combat and slow things down.
We have no plans to change this aspect of the game at this time. The concerns raised in this thread have been noted, but we're not changing anything now.If I want to buy an animal (rather than an animal companion) can I hire a trainer to train it with a trick or two?
-James
(For those following along at home, certain purchased animals now come pre-trained; animal companions -- even smart ones -- are still S.O.L.)
A first level druid has to make a DC 25 handle animal check ( average +8 check to the roll . a 10 charisma is average. and charisma is not a required / associated stat for druids ), and spend a move action to push their animal companion to make them attack an unnatural creature?
I played through The Godsmouth Heresy with a level 1 druid, and I think her animal companion ended up attacking a grand total of 1 enemy -- everything else was "unnatural". :-/
|
Several of the DMs in my lodge insist that the Druid's animal companion gained at 1st level comes with 7 tricks trained already.
Me i never really minded having to slowly train my animal companions {this coming from a druid who lost his first animal companion in first slot game on Tuesday}. To me its fun to try and rein in my flanking buddy and not always have it work quite right.
Here looking forward to training my new large size ape with his 23 str. at Playoncon this weekend CHEERS!
|
|
the big suck comes when you're 11th level, and yeah its a tough mod, low and behold your meat shield animal companion dies... sad. you have a little funeral. you've got maybe 2 more mods you can play before retiring... and what do you have ? if you're lucky and you're a full druid, you've got 4 tricks so you're not S.O.L. but you've got to push the new pet to do tricks the old one already had, and you only have time to teach it two more tricks before you retire. A major part of your character is hamstrung ( if you're an animal companion druid at all, or a ranged ranger w/ a meat shield pet ).
so we see that at 1st level , if animal companions start with 0 tricks + 1 bonus trick, you're shafting the newbies. and at high levels, you're shafting the people that've devotedly played for the past year or more.
I don't see anything that says starting animal companions DON'T come fully tricked out. I just see rules in the guide that say if your animal companion dies, the next one you get isn't tricked out at all.
so it seems to be up for GM interpretation whether an animal gets 6 tricks at first level or not. But i agree that the retraining rules require change. I know Mark posted somewhere that the one trick limit per module for training is an "opportunity cost". since its free, and wizards and alchemists pay money to scribe scrolls and craft poisons in between modules. they're effectively paying a gold piece cost for their downtime to gain something. the druid/ranger who trains his animal has to wait 6 mods to get theirs fully trained. since you can't train it for a purpose in between mods, you're limited to 1 trick per mod. that's the opportunity cost.
I think its inane. its free. if there were a system where druids could pay a trainer with ranks to train their animal, they'd be allowed to start the next mod with a fully trained animal and cross off some gold.
PFS doesn't use the negative level penalty from raise dead, but they penalize druids / rangers who lose an animal companion by making them work for 6 modules ( more if they fail checks ) to get part of their character back up to par.
|
the big suck comes when you're 11th level,...
but you've got to push the new pet to do tricks the old one already had,...
DC 25
11 Ranks Handle Animal+4 bonus for Animal Companion
+Cha mod
If you don't dump Charisma, you succeed on a "push" 55% of the time. And you will have 5 of the 12 Tricks already (you would have trained 1 after the session your AC died, right?)
Should see you through 2 scenarios.
EDIT: I forgot the +3 for it being a class skill. So that's 70% success on a push.
You could also try Speak with Animals + Charm Animal and asking politely for a favour. ;-)
|
|
the big suck comes when you're 11th level,...
but you've got to push the new pet to do tricks the old one already had,...DC 25
11 Ranks Handle Animal
+4 bonus for Animal Companion
+Cha modIf you don't dump Charisma, you succeed on a "push" 55% of the time. And you will have 5 of the 12 Tricks already (you would have trained 1 after the session your AC died, right?)
Should see you through 2 scenarios.
EDIT: I forgot the +3 for it being a class skill. So that's 70% success on a push.
and it becomes a move action rather than a swift action to control your animal companion...
|
|
You could also try Speak with Animals + Charm Animal and asking politely for a favour. ;-)
Its not like we need ranks in Handle Animal to control a creature conjured by a Summon Nature's Ally spell. Is it such a big leap from Animal Companion to Familiar to allow it to understand its bonded owner ?
( yeah that becomes a game rule change suggestion ) but its already in the realm of possibility with magic.What does that do? eliminates the skill sink for Handle Animal unless you want to handle / train wild animals. eliminates the ambiguity in Tricks and what one gets that's so much better than a trained dog. ( your trained dog does a few tricks. my trained wolf understands me when I tell him to wait over there and pounce the next guy to come out of the alleyway ).
Its not like we need ranks in Handle Animal to control a creature conjured by a Summon Nature's Ally spell.
When I'm GMing, I certainly require Handle Animal checks to get a summoned animal to do anything besides attack your enemies (which SNA says is the default behaviour).
|
Its not like we need ranks in Handle Animal to control a creature conjured by a Summon Nature's Ally spell.When I'm GMing, I certainly require Handle Animal checks to get a summoned animal to do anything besides attack your enemies (which SNA says is the default behaviour).
And given Summon Monster requires the summoned creature to share a language and be able to understand instructions to do anything beyond attack the caster's enemies, I think this is a more than fair ruling.
|
|
Its not like we need ranks in Handle Animal to control a creature conjured by a Summon Nature's Ally spell.When I'm GMing, I certainly require Handle Animal checks to get a summoned animal to do anything besides attack your enemies (which SNA says is the default behaviour).
but they don't need to be pushed, even to attack unnatural creatures.
their default is that they at least know how to attack things.
|
Well, in order to be fair to the druids, I guess its time to start stealing or sundering a wizard's spellbook or bonded object. Those wizards need to be more careful using their class features like that.....The proper analogy would be a rule limiting wizards to scribing only one spell after each game session.
I don't see what the rule is meant to achieve, and it's not in keeping with other similar things here, so frankly it doesn't seem like it fits.
-James
Oh, its far worse than that. Imagine that if a wizard cast a spell, he stood a chance of losing his spellbook and would need to spend a minimum of six encounters repairing it. The rule frankly makes no sense at all. In any home game, I'll ignore it, and in PFS....*shrug* I'll either ignore it there as well or I'll start stealing spellbooks.
|
|
There seems to be a very large assumption being made by some people, that the only reason a druid would be introducing a new companion, would be because they are a reckless, cruel master, who regularly forces their unfortunate pets into lethal combats that are out of their league.
And thus, deserve to be shown the error of their ways.
There are actually many reasons why a druid or ranger may change companions, including, but not restricted to;
1) they were minding their own business, when some lunatic jumped out from behind a bush and killed their pet. No fault by owner.
2) the owner is now of sufficient level to qualify for a larger, rideable companion to act as a mount. He releases the old animal back to the wild. No fault by owner.
3) The campaign has moved to another climate or environment. A lizard will not be happy in Irrisen. A polar bear will get heatstroke in the Mwangi Expanse. He releases the old animal back to the wild. No fault by owner.
4) The campaign has taken a certain length of time, and the owner is aware of the animal's needs, such as hibernation or mating season. He releases the old animal back to the wild. No fault by owner.
As you can see, there's four possibilities I came up with while writing. Others will undoubtedly be able to think of more, if they try.
Number 1 is a shocking development, that could possibly take the owner by surprise, but the latter three are all forseeable.
While one can say that the nature of PFS means the PC may not know the details of the mission before the briefing, they will have notice to appear at a certain lodge, or will have been picked because they were in the area anyway.
Is there any reason they could not have performed the necessary calling, bonding, re-acclimatisation and training, prior to the adventure?
If we can handwave that every PC who turns up for a briefing at the Irrisen lodge has brought cold-weather gear, can we not also assume some PCs have decided not to bring their cold-blooded or tropical mounts, and have picked up an arctic animal, teaching it on the way?
|
|
I think you missed my point.
When sitting down to play a PFSoc scenario, the players will not always have advance warning of where in the world it is taking place. The scenario titles can sometimes give a hint, but not always.
The PCs, on the other hand, do know.
They either received an invitation to travel there, or they are assumed to already have already been in the area, having made the decision to travel there for other reasons.
Yes, you can tell the players to knock off the cost of cold-weather gear.
My point was that the GM handwaves the fact that the PCs would have already taken this sensible precaution, prior to the start of the scenario.
What the GM doesn't do, is read the box text; "You all arrived in Irrisen 24 hours ago...HAH! 24 cold weather saves! Now! Haha, Gotcha!".
It's perfectly reasonable for a player to hear where the scenario is taking place, hold up his hand, and say "Whoah, that's a cold place, I would have bought some cold-weather gear.", and cross of Xgp.
If everyone is willing to give the players (and their PCs) the benefit of the doubt, that they would have taken time out to prepare for their journey, which could have taken an unspecified amount of time (possibly several weeks or months) 'off-screen', then why is it difficult to believe that a druid may have taken equally sensible measures to replace his previous companion with one suitable to the new climate, either already trained, or training it himself, during that same unspecified time?
Why is it more acceptable, and/or believable, to rule that new animal companions are teleported into the druid's lap, six seconds before the mission briefing?
|
|
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.
I don't envy you, having to come up with a ruling that will satisfy all sides.
Make swapping or replacing ACs too convenient, and you risk accusations of favoring one class over another, or of rewarding players with a callous disregard for what should be a valued friend.Make it too difficult, and you risk accusations that you make some classes undesirable or unplayable as intended.
Is there not an easy fix?
Since the sticking point seems to be, that the RAW cost of replacing an animal (time) is not a meaningful restriction in PFSoc, whereas the RAW cost of copying spells and brewing alchemical items (gold) is measured;
Why not change the cost for replacing an animal, from abstract time, to measurable gold?
Most druids and rangers identify themselves with some loose organisation; is it not possible, that those organisations contain non-adventuring members, who train animals with the most usual tricks? And that these animals are available for use by their adventuring comrades?
Some players may wish to play loners, or believe that such organised domestication is counter to the ethos of the Druidic faith. That is understandable, to which, I suggest;
Is it not possible that the Pathfinders provide such a service, for their members?
Charge a nominal gp amount, to reflect training carried out by a third party, or the cost of keeping the new animal while you trained it between scenarios?
|
|
Why not change the cost for replacing an animal, from abstract time, to measurable gold?
Most druids and rangers identify themselves with some loose organisation; is it not possible, that those organisations contain non-adventuring members, who train animals with the most usual tricks? And that these animals are available for use by their adventuring comrades?
Some players may wish to play loners, or believe that such organised domestication is counter to the ethos of the...
+1
stables!( alternatively i'm only ever taking a riding dog for my animal companion because i can apparently pay for him to come trained, and then add 9HD to him overnight =)
war-ning: if you're going to limit the rules in insane ways, i'm going to show you just how insane you're being.
EDIT: Just noticed, though--they removed the whole animals and companions section from the organized play guide...I wonder if this was a mistake on their part or if this means we can now have multiple animals in a scenario and animals come trained as per the core rulebook, since nothing's preventing it?
I thought Mark said they're moving that and some other things to the FAQ (although they haven't done so yet).
|
|
I'll be attending my first PFS session soon. I was poking through these forums and found this thread to be relevant to my class choice, a Druid. I've read through a few linked threads for about an hour now...
Fortunately for me I put a point in Handle Animal. However, I'm scratching my head over the ruling to limit training to one per session. I'm taking it on faith that this won't be an issue, but have been considering the topic nonetheless.
With a total Handle Animal bonus of 9 with my AC (HA 5 + 4 from Link) , I'd have to roll a 16 or better (DC 25) to "push" an animal to avoid potentially hazardous situations. A 25% chance of success. Not good, but again, I hope that I won't have to resort to this because my wolf will likely die.
• When do we get to train our animal? At the beginning or end of the session?
• Any advice on training order to keep my AC alive? Here is what I propose.
Bonus - Attack
1 - Down
2 - Come
3 - Heel
4 - Attack (all creatures)
5 - Seek
6 - Track
• Oh, and one last question. Mark Moreland stated in another thread, "For the sake of PFS, animal companions can wear barding and neck-slot items. All other slots aren't really appropriate for animals (or even magical beasts). Does this include magical barding? Could my wolf take Armor Proficiency (light), wear masterwork chain shirt barding initially and have magical enhancement bonuses applied to it over time? I assume so, but I'd like to be certain before the first session that I can take this path.
Sorry about the lengthy post, but thanks for reading.
What I generally do with an untrained animal: After the Pathfinder briefing, I would either "take 20" in order to push the animal to use the Defend trick, or I would ask it to defend me as a personal favour using Speak with Animals (this is more useful for Animal domain clerics).
YMMV and YGMMV (Your GM May Vary).
|
|
And yes, you can take light armor proficiency and have your animal wear barding. Although you won't be able to start out with masterwork, since you only get 150 gp worth of starting money total.
You may want to consider masterwork studded leather barding or a Mithral chain shirt barding. Both have an armor check penalty of zero so an animal companion without Light Armor Proficiency doesn't take any penalties to attack or skills when wearing one of them. That frees up a feat. Both can be magically enhanced as well.
Also, I strongly disagree with animals being taken out of the PFS Guide to Organized Play.
- The FAQ simply isn't reference by enough players.
- Number of combat animals per player at the table is an issue for everyone.
- Training Tricks needs to be addressed much better. With a slow and fast track of experience progression, training one trick per scenario isn't fair.
-Swiftbrook
|
|
I'm resurrecting this thread due to the update to this rule in the FAQ.
You may now train a number of Tricks equal to your Charisma mod after each scenario (Minimum 1).
I think this is an excellent compromise. Characters dependent on their AC can re-train them much more quickly if they have the appropriate ability.
|
Contributor, RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16
|
I'm resurrecting this thread due to the update to this rule in the FAQ.
You may now train a number of Tricks equal to your Charisma mod after each scenario (Minimum 1).
I think this is an excellent compromise. Characters dependent on their AC can re-train them much more quickly if they have the appropriate ability.
I like it, though I think 1 + bonus would be nicer, that would reward people for having a 12 CHA. As it is not you either need a 14+ or might as well dump it (though there are obvious other benefits to CHA).
|
|
Oh, its far worse than that. Imagine that if a wizard cast a spell, he stood a chance of losing his spellbook and would need to spend a minimum of six encounters repairing it. The rule frankly makes no sense at all. In any home game, I'll ignore it, and in PFS....*shrug* I'll either ignore it there as well or I'll start stealing spellbooks.Well, in order to be fair to the druids, I guess its time to start stealing or sundering a wizard's spellbook or bonded object. Those wizards need to be more careful using their class features like that.....The proper analogy would be a rule limiting wizards to scribing only one spell after each game session.
I don't see what the rule is meant to achieve, and it's not in keeping with other similar things here, so frankly it doesn't seem like it fits.
-James
Ok, lets set aside the fact that the new FAQ makes training your animal much more friendly, and that's probably stated later in this thread.
This really is an overdramatization of the facts.
A wizard's spellbook is the class.
A druid can do MANY other things without an animal companion.
The two are not analogous at all.