|
the rule does not prevent abuse of the class ability.
the rule stifles creativity and fun for new characters who want to try out having a different animal companion for a few sessions, or who want an animal companion that's more suited to the climate they'll be adventuring in.
I'm not going to take a reptile to the Arctic, or a polar bear to the desert. Not to mention the various adventures that take place at or under the sea, or on alternate dimensions. Not sure how many of those exist in PFS, but the point still applies to a home game. Any druid worthy of the name would take the needs of the animal into account, and plan for a trip to new lands.
If some believe it is stretching the time available, this can be explained differently; maybe the 'animal companion' is not a specific creaure, per se, but a bonded spirit, that either materialises into one of a variety of forms when required, or possesses an existing animal native to the adventure locale?
I suggested this during the Alpha and Beta test for the Paladin, too, to get away from the 'teleporting baggage-horse', or 'Pokemon'. A paladin would select and commandeer a normal mount from the battlefield, and transform it when required, returning to its usual form after a short time.
Kinda like THIS.
|
|
But it comes across as very meta-gamey or power-gamey when you talk about tanking Charisma for a Druid or Ranger simply because the the stat’s mechanical effects to class skills and such. There are many ways to build a character and optimization doesn’t have to be the primary way to do so. An animal companion is not specifically supposed to be the primary ability of a Druid. But if you choose to build your Druid that way, then Charisma is a logical choice, and you just accept that you will have to sacrifice elsewhere. That’s the way of designing classes with so many options.
Optimized building is lazy in my book.
One of the common themes for a Druid or Ranger is the 'Grizzly Adams' style mountain man. Someone who dislikes the hypocrisy of human culture, who gets on better with animals than humans, as they are honest, and wear their emotions in plain sight, not masking them behind artificial rules of ettiquette, with the intent of manipulating their fellow man. They choose to live in the wilderness, and may not even see another person for weeks at a time.
Why should such a character have above average CHA, or any ranks in Diplomacy, Bluff, etc? Why shouldn't they be dour and taciturn?
As for optimisation being lazy, or poor play, then go Google the Stormwind Fallacy.
All PCs are inhabitants of a world that is real to them, a world that has visible cause and effect, that just happens to be codified for us, the players, in rulespeak.
A player may describe his choices in mechanical terms, but the character is making those same choices based on observable precedent.
What you see as a player sullying themselves with dirty optimisation, others see a well-played character, making believable lifestyle choices.
Okay so theoretically if they had a defined time between scenarios and stated that you can only train your animal a number of tricks equal to your Charisma modifier in that defined time, that would be a better rule than it is now?The amount of time would define how many times they could try to train an animal a trick. The core rules have that time as 1 week for an individual trick (and a number of weeks for training for a purpose). It is weird why this would be made to depend on the CHA hard score in the first place, rather than the Handle Animal skill bonus, skill check or skill ranks. A PC with a 22CHA, Handle Animal class skill bonus and a single rank (+10 check) trains an animal for 6 tricks between each scenario (take 10 yields a DC20 which passes), but a PC with a 13CHA and a +30 handle animal skill check could only do 1/6 of that despite having 20 points higher in the relevant ability.
But the main point is that PFS is not standard on how much time does/can pass between scenarios. It hand-waves a lot of things for simplicity.
Personally I'd see hand-waving all of this to be in keeping. If they wanted to allow a price per trick (10-20gp/trick seems RAW) in order to feel better about 'balance' and/or allow any number of tricks provided that the PC can make the DC on a take 10 trained handle animal check that would be in keeping with everything else that goes on in PFS accounting.
Again personally I think that making more of these rolls as take 10s is better as then there are fewer rolls that a GM has to witness for a player at the end of a slot.
-James
I really don't like the idea of making the number of training attempts dependent on charisma. This seems unusually harsh punishment for a character that might have low charisma but makes up for it by taking ranks, buying tools, even skill focusing. It's like saying that only the pretty characters get to have smart doggies.
Yes, Handle Animal's associated ability score is Charisma. But saying that a 1st level druid with a 16 Charisma, but no ranks in the skill, with only a +3 to the attempt gets 3 attempts, but a 5th level druid with 8 Charisma but 5 ranks and masterwork tools who will end up with (5 ranks + 3 class + 2 tools -1 ability = +9) +9 to the attempt, but won't even get to make the attempt because he fails to meet some standard that doesn't even exist in the Core Rules seems a little harsh.
If a druid with a 16 Cha has no ranks in handle animal, then those three attempts aren't going to be very successful. A low Cha druid with a large bonus to handle animal is going to be more consistent.
I'm not sure this is true -
Noncombat tricks are a DC 15. With a +3 the 16 Cha/No ranks, needs a 12. He will make this 45% of the time. 3 attempts * .45 = 1.35 trained tricks per module.
Noncombat tricks are a DC 20. Here he only makes it 15% of the time, averaging 0.45 Combat tricks per module.
The Skilled Low Charisma druid gets one single attempt. At +9 he can "take 10" and make each non-combat training attempt. That gives him 1 trick per module.
Combat tricks he makes on an 11+, meaning that he will succeed 50% of the time.
So -
Unskilled High CHA druid - 1.35 Non-Combat tricks per level, 0.45 Combat tricks per module.
Skilled Low CHA druid - 1.00 Non-Combat tricks per level, 0.50 Combat tricks per module.
Under the charisma based system, the unskilled High CHA druid has an advantage. This seems to me to be contrary to the idea that skills and training are worthwhile things to have.
If a druid with a 16 Cha has no ranks in handle animal, then those three attempts aren't going to be very successful. A low Cha druid with a large bonus to handle animal is going to be more consistent.I'm not sure this is true -
It is true, but only for a side reason or two.
You need to be trained in Handle Animal in order to use it to train animals. So without any ranks the Druid could not do so.
Also since we're talking about the animal companion, they get the 'Link' ability at first level, which among other things gives them:
The druid gains a +4 circumstance bonus on all wild empathy checks and Handle Animal checks made regarding an animal companion.Thus your 16CHA 1 rank druid would have a +11 (1rank+3class+3CHA+4Link) handle animal check and via take 10 would automatically train his/her companion in 3 tricks at the end of each scenario.
Meanwhile the 13CHA 12rank skill focus animal affinity druid with a circlet of persuasion would have a +30 (12ranks +1CHA +6feat+4feat+4Link+3item) handle animal check but only be able to train 1 trick at the end of each scenario.
Your concept is right, the numbers were just off a bit is all. The core idea is that your ability to train animals should be dependent, if on anything but time, upon how well you train animals (i.e. your handle animal skill) rather than a RAW score that doesn't factor that in.
Note that the second druid could have had a 5CHA, but with that level of investment would still be miles above the skill of the charismatic druid that decided to dump his handle animal skill.
Again, PFS hand-waves other things so hand-waving this would be in keeping. It wouldn't curb 'bad behavior' one way or the other, but hand-waving this would at least not punish some PCs more than others.
-James
Ah, good catch. I forgot the +4 to handle animal checks, and the "trained only" status.
So let's say the High Charisma druid takes one token rank. He then goes from +3 to +7. Wow.
So now, he's making the DC 15 check every time with a "take 10". And he makes the DC 20 on 13+ (65% of the time).
So he gets 3 Non-Combat trained tricks per module, or (.65 x 3) 1.95 Combat tricks per module.
The fully skilled Low CHA druid (5 ranks, masterwork tools) who is at +14 (5 ranks + 3 class skill + 4 druid + 2 tools) automatically makes the 15 or 20 DC with a "take 10". But he still only gets 1 trained trick per module.
Wow. It's like anything other than one token rank in Handle Animal is irrelevant.
It's like watching Frank Grimes struggle to pay his way through college to become a Nuclear Engineer, only to meet Homer Simpson at the plant who got the identical job just by showing up one day.
|
I do not have a horse in this race (pun intended), and I endorse the RAW. However, in an attempt to end this circular "argument" that is not going anywhere...
If we retain the "unlimited" time between scenarios for the sake of ease of play, would the following be acceptable? If not, why?
-A druid (or other AC class) can teach a companion a number of tricks, per scenario, up to his/her ranks in Handle Animal
-A failed attempt to train a trick can be re-tried, but the failure counts against the number of tricks
-The trained tricks will be recorded on the scenario chronicle and initialed by the GM
-A druid (or other AC class) cannot hire a trainer to train tricks to their bonded animal companion
This would eliminate the dependency on CHA and allow more experienced trainers to be more efficient with a higher chance of success than one who is less trained in Handle Animal.
Keep in mind I did not write this to be published as written, it is just a bullet list and would need to be rephrased for clarity
I do not have a horse in this race (pun intended), and I endorse the RAW. However, in an attempt to end this circular "argument" that is not going anywhere...
If we retain the "unlimited" time between scenarios for the sake of ease of play, would the following be acceptable? If not, why?
-A druid (or other AC class) can teach a companion a number of tricks, per scenario, up to his/her ranks in Handle Animal
-A failed attempt to train a trick can be re-tried, but the failure counts against the number of tricks
-The trained tricks will be recorded on the scenario chronicle and initialed by the GM
-A druid (or other AC class) cannot hire a trainer to train tricks to their bonded animal companionThis would eliminate the dependency on CHA and allow more experienced trainers to be more efficient with a higher chance of success than one who is less trained in Handle Animal.
Keep in mind I did not write this to be published as written, it is just a bullet list and would need to be rephrased for clarity
I guess the problem I have is that at this point, we're just talking about taking a mechanic in Core Rules (Skill:Handle Animal) and inventing a way to limit it that has no real basis in any ruleset (number of time equal to CHA, number of times equal to ranks). We're doing this for what reason? Is there really anything broken about allowing the druid to have the animal know all his tricks? I don't know about you (and I'm certainly not telling you how to play), but if I had an animal destined for combat, I wouldn't take him in half-trained. I'd spend however many weeks I needed to until he was fully ready for the job.
But according to campaign rules mechanics, I can only attempt to teach my animal a number of tricks related to some ability score that my character might not see as important otherwise. Given that druids aren't known for diplomatic or intimidation skills out in the woods by themselves, it's generally not considered a high-priority stat. (The archetype of "hermit druid" living away from the city with just his animal friends for company springs to mind. Or was that Snow White and dwarves? Anyway...)
So really there are questions to ask:
1) Should the amount of time a druid can take to train his animal companion be limited? Or should he be allowed to fully train a new animal until he deems it ready to adventure?
2) If it should be limited, what is a fair way to do so? Or do you consider the current method (number of attempts = CHA mod) fair?
3) If the number of attempts should be limited, then why aren't other classes (ie. Alchemist) similarly limited? Or should they also be?
|
|
Bob, what's with the reluctance to let druid PCs hire experts to train their critters? I've always been a fan of opportunities to bleed money off of PCs.
It's the pandora's box syndrome. If we allow a druid to have it's animal companion trained by someone else, it would seem that the same argument could be made for other situations where a character wants to do something they are not trained for. Honestly, off the top of my head, I cannot think of a situation that would apply, but I have learned to err on the side of caution when trying to open up freedom with new "house" rules.
In a home game, the GM can easily rule the service provider is not available, or the cost is variable depending on environment, etc. but PFS GM's are not empowered to adjust published costs or availability.
I also see the class bonus for handling the AC to be inspired by their relationship with the animal. So if a druid was to hire someone else to train the beast, would that negate the +4? Perhaps. But that's another exception-based rule that we wouldn't want.
If you did allow a trainer to do the work for you, how would you determine the cost involved? Would it be automatic, or would you need to determine their Handle Animal score and have the GM make rolls to check for success?
This would avoid having to have a GM after a slot have to witness 6 d20 rolls for one PC, it would let those that have sufficient handle animal scores to train their animals to train them, and have a cost associated for those that do not.
'cause those six d20 rolls take, what, a total of 30 seconds of table time?
I'm just sayin', yo. da.
(Snarky, this post was. Alias, have I. Warned, you were...)
|
|
I'd simply do it as 'For training an animal done by yourself you take 10 on handle animal checks while otherwise you can pay 20gp per trick to have someone else train the animal. The animal can start play with as many tricks as you can train them or purchase for them subject to their max number of allowed tricks'.
Personally, I have no issue with the "take 10" but since the day job rolls are not allowed to use it, we might have to stay consistent with that existing rule.
When you pay your 20gp (or whatever) is it automatically successful? Or should it follow that the trainer (GM) has to make the checks? Is this much different than hiring a spellcaster to cast Remove Curse/Disease?
|
It's the pandora's box syndrome. If we allow a druid to have it's animal companion trained by someone else, it would seem that the same argument could be made for other situations where a character wants to do something they are not trained for.
I already see this all the time, For completing Faction missions.
This can't be done for all faction missions, but as an example of one that I have seen it done for.
You need to make a Diplomacy check to get the merchant to agree to work with your faction, instead of trying it yourself, which you are terrible at, you hire someone to do the talking for you.
It's the pandora's box syndrome. If we allow a druid to have it's animal companion trained by someone else, it would seem that the same argument could be made for other situations where a character wants to do something they are not trained for.I already see this all the time, For completing Faction missions.
This can't be done for all faction missions, but as an example of one that I have seen it done for.
You need to make a Diplomacy check to get the merchant to agree to work with your faction, instead of trying it yourself, which you are terrible at, you hire someone to do the talking for you.
I like to think of my hired negotiator as William Shatner. ("Priceline ne-go-tiator...") Besides, he's just that awesome.
(I know. I know. Reskinning isn't allowed. In reality he's NPC Negotiator 3 - no actual name.)
|
|
I already see this all the time, For completing Faction missions.This can't be done for all faction missions, but as an example of one that I have seen it done for.
You need to make a Diplomacy check to get the merchant to agree to work with your faction, instead of trying it yourself, which you are terrible at, you hire someone to do the talking for you.
To my knowledge this is a table-ruling by the GM, not an official PFS stance. I have gone away from this idea myself. IMO, the concept of Fame/Prestige is that YOU are completing the mission. If you hire out the task, then why wouldn't the hireling get the fame?
Yes, I can see it argued that you are the one ensuring the completion of the tasks and ride back into town with the proverbial slain dragon over your shoulder, but I think this violates the intention of the fame rules.
EDIT--and this could be extrapolated to not having party members from different factions involved in the tasks either, but that is for another thread. Sorry, for threadjacking...
|
The Venture Captains are all connected to the FAQ process and we are tasked with explaining and clarifying the rules, so I'm not sure what your getting at Seraph. All of the VCs report back what they see at their tables and what their GMs report back to them as well. It seems to me that your being dismissive of the Venture Captains. But the internet is a funny thing, sometimes you can't get someone's full understanding.
I didn't rebuff James, I did take in his feedback. A few others have done the same. You may say that there is evidence of a problem, but I and the rest of the VC don't have enough evidence of this issue. You make an inference that not many people play them, where are you drawing that information from. Just going through the message boards isn't going to give you that information.
If things are getting heated and out of hand at a table, then that should be reported. So far I haven't heard of a single incident of someone getting heated and...
I didn't know the venture captains were tasked with that. I'll report it to my local venture captain. I do have a horse in this race, a ranger as it were, who i very fondly love using his animal companion Baby, a pet rhinocerous. ( everyone in the groups always loved Baby ). I'm not trying to slight the VCs, i just didn't know that its in the job description. And it did look like the comments people made were being ignored or disregarded. I've been to gen con once. and have yet to see or hear of any kind of venture captain "action" taken over a rule or clarification. So you do your job well, from the shadows it seems. ( to me one lowly player / gm from the city ).
Unfortunately since the editions/Faq and Guide have changed, he's now no longer allowed to use a rhinocerous, because its not one of the set ranger animal companions. and since he's already 12th level, i can't take levels or go back and change it to make him a Beastmaster. All i can do is outfit him with a standard issue animal companion from the small list of ranger choices. According the latest FAQ, i'm not even allowed to teach him any tricks. he just knows the bonus tricks he's given to as a 12th level ranger. I don't even know if I have ranks in Handle Animal.
I stated in one of my other posts that i play in NY. saying that i don't see Druids at the tables is an observation of the NYC area pathfinders: i've seen one with a high level druid/sorcerer that mostly levelled during year 0 or 1 before it was an issue. I've seen one 4th level druid, i GM her for the first time tomorrow , so i don't know how she is on the animal companion topic. and I have one friend who i just got into gaming, that wanted to play a druid, and wants to try out other animals, since he's never played before, and isn't used to the different animals.
The rules as laid out in the FAQ stop him from changing his animal companion right now, because it would be harder to control since he's a 1st level druid, and is mainly focused on spell casting. he's got an average charisma ( 10 ). his starting Eagle has its full allotment of tricks, since neither the FAQ or the RAW contradict that a first level druid can start the game with a fully trained animal companion. but he's expressed that he wants to try other animals besides his Eagle and see how they are in the game.
That is three druids I've seen at the tables in the city, and in conventions around NY/CT/NJ. over the past 3 years. Among the stable of probably 60 characters I've seen over the years in the area and at conventions. THAT is where I'm getting my assessment that druids aren't getting much play.
I'm pushing to get the FAQ changed because its annoying red tape that takes time away from future games. Do I want to show up for my first 12th level game and have to deal with my animal companion? No. I want to get there and play and have a fun game. Not have to have a sucky game and report it to my venture captain before anything STARTS to get done to make a change.
If its a bad rule and I want to object to it, I'm going to object to it NOW, when i see there is a problem. Not wait until some new player comes along and wants to ride a pig at the table and tell her no and see her leave the table with a sad face and not play. In my 20 years as a GM for many games ( i'm 32 ), and years GMing for LG and Pathfinder Society, i've never seen a table ruined by a druid because his animal was fully trained. I do feel more like one GM somewhere complained to the right ear, and ALL druids/rangers are suffering needlessly now because of it.
Incidentally , to the point someone else made of druids/rangers not being common or well suited to be pathfinders. I'd like to point out that trail guides, and wilderness experts are often key in getting adventurers and diggers TO the sites of ancient artifacts that they want to find. So they fit in quite well tyvm.
I'm in favor of allowing animal companions to be fully trained when obtained. however they're obtained. if you want to limit that to something, a completely arbitrary limit that goes against the RAW anyway, then i suggest you not target the lowest / unnecessary stat used by most druids/rangers and instead place that limit based on the SKILL of the character.
I do feel more like one GM somewhere complained to the right ear, and ALL druids/rangers are suffering needlessly now because of it.
I've oft held that just about every campaign house rule in every campaign I've ever played from probably came from one of the play manager's home game where someone complained loud enough that the entire player base has to suffer through some arbitrary rule from then on.
|
|
I've oft held that just about every campaign house rule in every campaign I've ever played from probably came from one of the play manager's home game where someone complained loud enough that the entire player base has to suffer through some arbitrary rule from then on.
I don't think it's fair to say that the "entire player base has to suffer." Just because there are players who do not frequent the forums does not mean there aren't supports on both sides of this issue.
I believe that Mark/Paizo listened to all the banter over the past few years (forums, email, in person) regarding over-powered AC's disrupting play and created a rule he/they felt would rein in that problem.
I applaud him/them for taking action. Perhaps his/their solution was not what some of the society had in mind, but it is the current rule. I have not seen any druid players negatively impacted by it, but time will tell.
|
|
I'm a player. I'm impacted. In other campaigns I play druids. I am not playing druids in PFS (I have 5 currently active characters in PFS, and will be starting more), and I have advised other players (beginers) that are coming into the game that they should think twice about playing a character with an AC because of the training rules.
When, as a player, I learn that the DM doesn't like a character class (or ability, or race, or whatever), I don't play that class/race/whatever in his game. Years ago I played in a campaign where the DM dislike a Thieves (as they were then called) Sneak Attack - so we didn't play thieves in his game. I played for a DM who didn't like players playing cross-gendered characters, so for his game I played a male elf (and was a Farie-God-Father, very fun game too).
Sorry - you just hit a button for me.
This rule is having an effect. It limits character selection for some players, who like me, want to avoid potential problems at the game table. I guess it might cause some players to run characters with ACs though, to see how much "friction" they can cause. I'll try to avoid them, too.
I'm not sure how you can equate the position that you have to spend time to train your AC as being "hate". I think your doing other players a disservice doing so.
|
|
Well then let me officially be the first and loudest to complain! Mark you suck, and its a crappy limitation.
I've got a 12th level ranger that I'm dusting off for his first high level game in a few weeks. When he was converted at the start of year 1, all animal companions came fully trained. He hasn't needed a rank in handle animal in his entire career as a crossbowman. I can't go back and change him to the Beastmaster Archtype. he's 12th level already. I can't rebuild him now that this or the previous FAQ came out. With only four other games that I think he can play. His animal companion choices are now limited to the ranger animal companion choices. he's used to bringing along a giant snake, a dire wolf, or his favorite, Baby the rhinoceros.
Since he has no ranks in handle animal. and since he's a dour curmudgeon of a Forrest man, he's got a 7 charisma. leaving him with a +2 to train his new pet wolf in between his high level play slots. in which I fully expect his new animal companion to die at least once per game, because high level games are dangerous. hell. *I* fully expect to die at least once during one of these games.
Do I get to rebuild him since his Nature Bond ability with an animal companion has been neutered while he was in 12th level retirement? Do I get to keep my grandfathered Rhinocerous? Do I have to rebuild a 9th level druid companion's wolf, and only get to keep the 4 bonus tricks, and no other tricks known? I've gotta ask. since this is a high level game, and every class ability has to be used well if my character is going to survive.
|
|
I'm not sure how you can equate the position that you have to spend time to train your AC as being "hate". I think your doing other players a disservice doing so.I'm a player. I'm impacted. In other campaigns I play druids. I am not playing druids in PFS (I have 5 currently active characters in PFS, and will be starting more), and I have advised other players (beginers) that are coming into the game that they should think twice about playing a character with an AC because of the training rules.
When, as a player, I learn that the DM doesn't like a character class (or ability, or race, or whatever), I don't play that class/race/whatever in his game. Years ago I played in a campaign where the DM dislike a Thieves (as they were then called) Sneak Attack - so we didn't play thieves in his game. I played for a DM who didn't like players playing cross-gendered characters, so for his game I played a male elf (and was a Farie-God-Father, very fun game too).
Sorry - you just hit a button for me.
This rule is having an effect. It limits character selection for some players, who like me, want to avoid potential problems at the game table. I guess it might cause some players to run characters with ACs though, to see how much "friction" they can cause. I'll try to avoid them, too.
he doesn't mention "hate" anywhere in his post. he's saying that its kept him from making druid characters, and that he's advised n00bs against it by explaining the AC training rules. And they don't want to have the hassle of those particular rules. This FAQ doesn't solve a problem, any more than the PFS Guide before it did. It creates an aversion to play the druid or to choose nature bond : animal companion as a ranger. ( for that matter, how many rangers do people see in play anymore )
I think you're doing VC's a disservice.
|
|
I'm not sure how you can equate the position that you have to spend time to train your AC as being "hate". I think your doing other players a disservice doing so.I'm a player. I'm impacted. In other campaigns I play druids. I am not playing druids in PFS (I have 5 currently active characters in PFS, and will be starting more), and I have advised other players (beginers) that are coming into the game that they should think twice about playing a character with an AC because of the training rules.
When, as a player, I learn that the DM doesn't like a character class (or ability, or race, or whatever), I don't play that class/race/whatever in his game. Years ago I played in a campaign where the DM dislike a Thieves (as they were then called) Sneak Attack - so we didn't play thieves in his game. I played for a DM who didn't like players playing cross-gendered characters, so for his game I played a male elf (and was a Farie-God-Father, very fun game too).
Sorry - you just hit a button for me.
This rule is having an effect. It limits character selection for some players, who like me, want to avoid potential problems at the game table. I guess it might cause some players to run characters with ACs though, to see how much "friction" they can cause. I'll try to avoid them, too.
he doesn't mention "hate" anywhere in his post. he's saying that its kept him from making druid characters, and that he's advised n00bs against it by explaining the AC training rules. And they don't want to have the hassle of those particular rules. This FAQ doesn't solve a problem, any more than the PFS Guide before it did. It creates an aversion to play the druid or to choose nature bond : animal companion as a ranger. ( for that matter, how many rangers do people see in play anymore )
I think you're doing VC's a disservice.
And that would be two personal attacks Seraphimpunk. Please tone it down.
You can make your points without the vitriol.
What I was saying that some players aren't going to see this problem the same way.
Well then let me officially be the first and loudest to complain! Mark you suck, and its a crappy limitation.No need to blame Mark. That rule has been in effect for years.
Leaving aside the baby rhino, which I don't know how he fit into Core Rules, I think that he's complaining about the new training rule.
Prior to this rule, he could swap companions between scenarios without penalty. Well, no. That's not true. Since my copy of the 2.2 rules list 1 trick per scenario.
Okay, I'm somewhat confounded as to what his actual point is.
Clarification please?
|
|
His animal companion choices are now limited to the ranger animal companion choices. he's used to bringing along a giant snake, a dire wolf, or his favorite, Baby the rhinoceros.
I'm a bit confused. I do not recall it ever being legal for a ranger to select animals not listed under the ranger class. I do not see the Rhino on that list. It might be "cute" to re-skin an AC to look like a Rhino, or to even choose one from the Druid list, but this would violate RAW. Or am I missing something?
|
|
I'm the OP for this thread, although I posted it on behalf of the campaign as a whole rather than for myself. I don't have a character with an AC in the campaign.
The core rule involves specific time for training. The campaign itself does not track time, so some other mechanism is needed. Options could be unlimited training, retaining the single trick trained, use of Fame/Prestige for accelerated training, training based upon skill, training based upon ability, and I'm sure there are other options. In making the decision, the campaign moderators were answerable to multiple stakeholders in the decision. That includes the players who want more flexibility, the players who want some degree of roleplay encoded into the class features, the VCs, the GMs, the writers, the developers, and the publisher.
The option chosen does not grant the greatest degree of flexibility. In fact, I think it's the most stringent of those that I've listed. However, I think from a campaign moderation standpoint it has a number of advantages and probably is best overall when viewed from the perspective of multiple stakeholders. This is despite the fact that it is a degree removed from the original time-based mechanism than a skill based solution. The advantages are several: 1) It has a minimal impact; it can be augmented by chronicle sheet awards or future additional modular rules elements that grant further options; 2) It is strictly as good as or better than the old rule (no one has lost anything); 3) It tests the water and can be augmented if needed (It is much better to give more freedom than to take it away); 4) It is relatively simple in contrast to what might be a better option (such as a number of tries for every Handle Animal score of 4 or 5); 5) It parallels other game rules that are on a frequency of a fixed number + Ability Modifier times per time unit.
What I see is that the campaign heard us tell them that there was a problem and they made an incremental change. Not everyone will agree that it is best. Whatever change they made would have had complaints. The change that has been made, given that something had to be different than the core rule, is an incremental improvement that is good for the campaign when viewed in its whole rather than strictly on what provides the most flexibility for players.
|
RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16
|
I believe that Mark/Paizo listened to all the banter over the past few years (forums, email, in person) regarding over-powered AC's disrupting play and created a rule he/they felt would rein in that problem.
Bob,
For what my experience is worth, I've never seen any problems with animal companions (or pets) that are fully trained, so long as they work within their training parameters. The "overpowered" druids I've seen, were played as if the druid and the animal companion were two parts of the same character, with a single intelligence moving them, and with each being aware of whatever was happening to the other.
And that playstyle is common. (And not just with player characters. PFS scenarios have a few encounters with NPCs and their preternaturally clever companions.)
Also, a 3rd-level druid in PFS OP welcomes her new companion and it knows only 2 (bonus) tricks, plus 1 trained trick, and that's typically not enough to make the companion versatile without a Handle Animals check to push the beast. For what my opinion is worth, there are very few things less fun than a druid spending a move action to "push" her new companion to some important action, like "attack the worg," only to fail the Handle Animal roll.
|
|
While I never personally had any issues with AC's with regards to their tricks, I was just trying to voice my thought that Paizo responded to our complaints and made a change. IMO, that was good to see.
Whether or not their change is a good one is a different issue. I'm not sure that we should rush in and change the rule again just because a half-dozen or so opponents have voiced their opinion in the forums. Perhaps we need to see how this plays out during some actual game play.
I do not think this rule is going to affect the real issue, which is that GM's have not been good about checking tricks and such anyway. My expectation is that most players will go on playing druids knowing that their local GM's will either not check training, or ignore it because they don't like the rule. I'm not saying that is right, just that it can, and likely will happen.
Of course, conventions could be more risky to play with that mindset, but even at GenCon, I did not see/hear of many character audits. If you show up to a convention with an AC, there is no way for us to know if it was trained following the rules unless previous GM's recorded the death of the previous AC on the chronicles and there is no record of the new training. I, myself, missed an audit that would likely have voided a character from playing in the special event. Hindsight is always 20/20.
Also, a 3rd-level druid in PFS OP welcomes her new companion and it knows only 2 (bonus) tricks, plus 1 trained trick, and that's typically not enough to make the companion versatile without a Handle Animals check to push the beast. For what my opinion is worth, there are very few things less fun than a druid spending a move action to "push" her new companion to some important action, like "attack the worg," only to fail the Handle Animal roll.
A few months ago, I thought it would be fun to make a druid character, so I whipped one up. Imagine my chagrin when I took her through Godsmouth Heresy; I was stuck for a triple-length session with an animal companion who had a single trick (attack) which didn't work against 80%+ of the enemies in the module. Boo.
Also, a 3rd-level druid in PFS OP welcomes her new companion and it knows only 2 (bonus) tricks, plus 1 trained trick, and that's typically not enough to make the companion versatile without a Handle Animals check to push the beast. For what my opinion is worth, there are very few things less fun than a druid spending a move action to "push" her new companion to some important action, like "attack the worg," only to fail the Handle Animal roll.A few months ago, I thought it would be fun to make a druid character, so I whipped one up. Imagine my chagrin when I took her through Godsmouth Heresy; I was stuck for a triple-length session with an animal companion who had a single trick (attack) which didn't work against 80%+ of the enemies in the module. Boo.
So I'm not the only one that disliked that series?
|
|
What I see are two schools of thought here.
1) Druids don't need Charisma so making them actually need it or need Handle Animal isn't fair and limiting their animals isn't fair, bla bla bla
2) The broken companions like Pole Apes and Armored Sword Monkeys and such were a huge issue, and just slightly less so, using animal companions as a disposable, replaceable commodity as meat shields hurt the play environment.
Of course those are extreme and stereotyped and I'm sure that most of us fall somewhere along the fence between the two without ever actually riding the full extreme either way.
Something obviously needed to be done about pole apes and such.
My opinion is, that meat shields kinda defeats the roleplay of a druid having an animal companion, but maybe that's just me.
People are talking about taciturn, sour personalities that live in the woods with only their animal companion to talk to. That hermits don't generally have a good Charisma.
I respond to that by saying Charisma is a stat that means many, many things.
It used as a social stat in a civilized social environment.
It is used as a personal power stat for certain types of spontaneous spell casters.
It is used for presence (intimidate) and trickery (disguise or bluff for feinting).
It is also used to control animals.
Those who have a personal power or report with animals don't necessarily have to have the good graces or social graces of civilization. But they still have to be able to be likeable to animals.
As such, if you are creating (whether mechanically it matters or not) a druid that is based on the power of their animal companion, it makes a TON of sense to take Charisma as at the very least a secondary stat.
All that being said, I have a few ideas:
1) I think at 1st level (or the 1st level one might get an animal companion: 4th for rangers) your companion should come fully trained. That seems to make sense to me, as your character comes fully trained as a 1st level character.
2) Current rules apply to newly arrived animal companions, to help mitigate the need of some to bypass the CR of an encounter by using a meat shield.
3) You can spend say 2 to 6 PP to bring your animal companion back fully trained.
|
|
As such, if you are creating (whether mechanically it matters or not) a druid that is based on the power of their animal companion, it makes a TON of sense to take Charisma as at the very least a secondary stat.As an aside this is simply not true... at least not in the core rules.
If you are creating a druid that's going to use handle animal only on their animal companion then let's see how many ranks it takes to always be able to hit a DC10 in combat, a DC25 out of combat to push a companion and a DC 20 with a take 10 to train the companion.
If we take a dwarven druid (if there even are any) and give them a minimum CHA score.. then we see that we need a total of 5 ranks to be able to do this. If the druid has a 12CHA then a single rank will suffice.
So if you are building a druid that only needs CHA for handle animal, then no you really shouldn't make it at least a secondary stat.
Now if you want to also do diplomacy, perhaps disguise or just want your druid to be Charismatic then by all means invest in CHA. But merely to be able to control your own Animal Companion even the most dour dwarven druid can eventually achieve a level of competence that will more than suffice.
-James
You keep arguing mechanics James. I'm arguing roleplay. We can't have a meaningful discussion if you counter my arguments with information that is not germane to my argument.
|
|
So what does this new 'incremental change' do?
What the incremental change (no air quotes are needed) does is provide players with an option to create a character that has flexibility with respect to changing out animals. That flexibility comes at the cost of the ability points invested in Charisma. I agree it is more costly to a character who otherwise wouldn't invest ability score into Charisma; Pathfinder removed both Wild Empathy (a Charisma based ability) and Diplomacy as a class skill for Druid. There is a bit of a disconnect between devaluing Charisma for the class and then making it vitally important through the chosen house rule. You've suggested that it may be a false choice, and maybe it is. But, it does exist where it didn't before. That is an incremental change.
I think that what we've seen is that there is an incredible bias against swapping out companions on a regular basis, and/or on treating them as disposable. Given that it exists, I don't think we are going to see a rule that makes it a free resource; nor do the core rules suggest it should be free. I listed out five elements that I see as positive about this solution and have attempted to view it from the position of multiple stakeholders. What are your thoughts on the other points?
|
|
And that would be two personal attacks Seraphimpunk. Please tone it down.
You can make your points without the vitriol.
What I was saying that some players aren't going to see this problem the same way.
What personal attack? He made a simple statement that the attitude you have been expressing appears to do a disservice to the title VC, in general.
As to your statement at the end, you could make that statement about ANYTHING and almost always be true.
I am absolutely positive that I do not see this issue the same way that yuou do, but that is probably because I have truied to build a Druid as part of my stable of charactesr, and I have a Cavalier who I have played. Once. And found that even a fully trained riding animal needs more trained tricks.
This rule, in every form, has been intrusive, adding to paperwork and general work, not making life easier or simplifying any rules.
To be honest, I know of very few Druids, Rangers, or any other classes with ACs being played in my general area.
Druid - 8th level - domain
Druid Multiclass - 10th level character - Lion, not sure how much training it has, since it is mainly used at conventions or gets GM credits.
Druid - 1st level - 1 trick - not gonna be much use, when I get to play him.
Ranger Multiclass - 10th level - only 1 level of Ranger, so no AC in his future.
Actually, that brings up another question:
Can a GM train his AC on a GM credit Chronicle, or is that like a day job roll, and only doable on player credit Chronicles?
|
|
His animal companion choices are now limited to the ranger animal companion choices. he's used to bringing along a giant snake, a dire wolf, or his favorite, Baby the rhinoceros.I'm a bit confused. I do not recall it ever being legal for a ranger to select animals not listed under the ranger class. I do not see the Rhino on that list. It might be "cute" to re-skin an AC to look like a Rhino, or to even choose one from the Druid list, but this would violate RAW. Or am I missing something?
the rhino came in in the start of year 1 when the character turned from a level 9 wizard into a level 9 ranger in the rebuild. it wasn't clarified at the time to my knowledge that rangers could only pick the allotted animals. I thought at the time that rangers had access to the beastiary for picking out animal companions too. It wasn't clarified in a FAQ or PFS guide until later.
the point is, back then training animals was hand waved as just part of the class feature. i was never required to take ranks in handle animal. I could spend my few skill points elsewhere in perception, survival, knowledge nature, dungeoneering, healing etc. the only thing i worried about was that my animals knew attack twice.
In the first version of the pathfinder society guide, animal companions were stated as starting fully trained. it didn't go into further details. if it had been a problem while i was levelling my character, i could have taken ranks in handle animal. now i'm here with a grandfathered rhinocerous, no ranks in handle animal, and a +2 handle animal check with my animal companion to try and control it in combat. and if Baby dies, then yes he'll have to be replaced by a dog or wolf who only knows 4 tricks and that my character can't train himself because the rules he grew up in abandoned him.
|
|
the rhino came in in the start of year 1 when the character turned from a level 9 wizard into a level 9 ranger in the rebuild. it wasn't clarified at the time to my knowledge that rangers could only pick the allotted animals. I thought at the time that rangers had access to the beastiary for picking out animal companions too. It wasn't clarified in a FAQ or PFS guide until later.
Why would it need to be clarified? It is right there in the Core Rule..
A ranger who selects an animal companion can choose from the following list: badger, bird, camel, cat (small), dire rat (see the Pathfinder RPG Bestiary), dog, horse, pony, snake (viper or constrictor), or wolf. If the campaign takes place wholly or partly in an aquatic environment, the ranger may choose a shark instead.
There is nothing there that needs clarification, I am surprised you GM never caught that.
|
|
So what does this new 'incremental change' do?What the incremental change (no air quotes are needed) does is provide players with an option to create a character that has flexibility with respect to changing out animals. That flexibility comes at the cost of the ability points invested in Charisma. I agree it is more costly to a character who otherwise wouldn't invest ability score into Charisma; Pathfinder removed both Wild Empathy (a Charisma based ability) and Diplomacy as a class skill for Druid. There is a bit of a disconnect between devaluing Charisma for the class and then making it vitally important through the chosen house rule. You've suggested that it may be a false choice, and maybe it is. But, it does exist where it didn't before. That is an incremental change.
I think that what we've seen is that there is an incredible bias against swapping out companions on a regular basis, and/or on treating them as disposable. Given that it exists, I don't think we are going to see a rule that makes it a free resource; nor do the core rules suggest it should be free. I listed out five elements that I see as positive about this solution and have attempted to view it from the position of multiple stakeholders. What are your thoughts on the other points?
I don't think its enough of an incremental change. For druids/rangers, the people that have been complaining about the PFS Guide rules for over a year, it hasn't changed anything. They can't rebuild their characters because of this FAQ.
For new players, its still going to be a barrier for them to play, since three is no other incentive for a druid with charsima. and characters with multiple dependent ability score mixes do poorly ( to speak a bit too much meta). ( druid/sorcerers, druid/oracles and the like ).
I understand they've made a change. you're content to sit back, let another year pass, and see if anyone decides to play a druid with a charisma as a viable build. How about some venture captains sit down, playtest a table of all druids. and see how frustrating it gets.
The problem isn't skills. its pets, and controlling pets actions. Some GMs see a problem with the synergy of one player with one character and one pet. but that is the way most druids play their character isn't it? why not adapt the rules for control.
I completely understand the strong stance against apes with swords. it was a fun/ nifty idea because it was a rules loophole. guess what, apes with swords became eidolons with swords. they still exist, they're just played by different characters.
if they can't agree on a better option for animal companions and training? fine, i won't play rangers. i won't play druids. i'll play something else that i'll have fun with, where i won't mash my head up against a rules wall. That doesn't fix the problem, that just makes the class obsolete.
allowing animal companions to switch out fully trained, doesn't create apes with swords. sorry. ::shrug:: that's just a different problem. it just lets a druid use his class feature properly during a game.
a. i forsee most gms at home games, since they're unaware this discussion is even occurring, ignoring most of the training restrictions. unless the gm has had an animal companion themselves, chances are they're not going to audit you or check, or make you roll at the table to control you're animal.
b. 1. i'm in favor of skill based progression if you're going to limit the #of tricks. druid has 5 ranks in handle animal? thats decent. they can train 5 tricks between games. sorcerer has 1 rank in handle animal? fine 1 trick. wow they can give orders better than the druid in combat, but the druid is more skilled. he's got a frigging magic link to his animal. what's the sorcerer got? zip.
2. i'm in favor of stables of fully trained animals ( if you're going to the frigid tundra, you're not going to want a bird. they die in the cold. you'll maybe want a bear or snow leopard. yeah you could endure elements the bird but wouldn't it also make sense to be able to leave your trained animal companion with a pathfinder society outpost, start training up a new animal and then between games, be able to choose which one you'll play with ?
3. i'm in favor of being able to pay to have your animal trained. or spend prestige. pathfinder society is a large group, of diverse backgrounds. guides and wilderness warriors among them.
If these are the rules for animal companions, and tricks known. I am going to stop every GM during play when i see a druid in the field. Ask what tricks the animal companion knows. and ask the GM to make a roll to handle their animal.
Its only fair.
the rhino came in in the start of year 1 when the character turned from a level 9 wizard into a level 9 ranger in the rebuild. it wasn't clarified at the time to my knowledge that rangers could only pick the allotted animals. I thought at the time that rangers had access to the beastiary for picking out animal companions too. It wasn't clarified in a FAQ or PFS guide until later.
This statement cannot be true.
The PATHFINDER CORE RULES (page 66) are what limit (and have always limited) animal companion choices.
badger,
bird, camel, cat (small), dire rat (see the Pathfinder RPG
Bestiary), dog, horse, pony, snake (viper or constrictor),
or wolf.
In the first version of the pathfinder society guide, animal companions were stated as starting fully trained. it didn't go into further details.
Again. This statement is not true.
Version 2.0.1 of the guide. The first version after Pathfinder Core Rules was released, and the first guide to cover Conversion of existing characters states:
What kind of tricks can I teach to an animal using
Handle Animal?You can teach any animal a trick so
long as you follow the rules for Handle Animal on pages
97–98 of the Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Core Rulebook.
For the unique purposes of Pathfinder Society, you
may attempt to train one animal to do one trick per
scenario. A GM must observe your roll—failing this roll
means you have to wait until the next scenario to try
again. If you succeed on this roll, you must note that
your animal gained a trick on your “Conditions Gained”
section of that scenario’s chronicle. This does mean
you cannot train an animal until after you’ve completed
your first scenario (some class’ animal companions have
exceptions to this rule).
Do purchased animals come fully trained or do I have
to train them myself ?The entry for Handle Animal in
the Skills chapter of the Pathfinder RPG Core Rulebook
details which animals come trained—namely, some
riding horses and riding dogs have training and they
only come trained to bear a rider into combat. All
other animals are subject to Handle Animal to learn
additional tricks. See the “Mounts and Related Gear”
table on page 159 of the Pathfinder RPG Core Rulebook for
additional details.
So what it appears to me is that the problem that you are complaining of is actually not a problem with a rules change, but the fact that
1) A Rhino was never a valid choice as a companion.
2) Animals always had to be trained to learn new tricks.
I've looked, and I cannot find a time under Pathfinder rules where your statements could have been true. (And I have every version of the Guide from 1.1 (3.5 rules) to Present).
|
|
the rhino came in in the start of year 1 when the character turned from a level 9 wizard into a level 9 ranger in the rebuild. it wasn't clarified at the time to my knowledge that rangers could only pick the allotted animals. I thought at the time that rangers had access to the beastiary for picking out animal companions too. It wasn't clarified in a FAQ or PFS guide until later.Why would it need to be clarified? It is right there in the Core Rule..
A ranger who selects an animal companion can choose from the following list: badger, bird, camel, cat (small), dire rat (see the Pathfinder RPG Bestiary), dog, horse, pony, snake (viper or constrictor), or wolf. If the campaign takes place wholly or partly in an aquatic environment, the ranger may choose a shark instead.There is nothing there that needs clarification, I am surprised you GM never caught that.
because there were about a dozen animals listed in the beastiary as optional animal companions. when the ability said it worked like a druid's natural bond, why would I presume it was completely restricted to those, when new animal companions were being listed ?
the ranger list: badger, bird, camel, cat (small), dire rat, dog, horse, pony, snake (viper or constrictor), or wolfisn't that different from the starting druid list:
ape, badger, bear, bird, boar, camel, cat, crocodile, dinosaur, dog, horse, pony, shark, snake, wolf.
And it lists the ranger one, working like the druid companion. and the druid companion says " the animal companions listed here are by no means the only ones available - additional animal companion types can be found in the Pathfinder RPG Bestiary. "
look, its not a thread as to why did the year 1 guy have a Rhino.
I could do it now too, now that the APG came out: Beastmaster. People were used to my LG Beastmaster Ranger 2/Druid 12, me with a rhino was pretty commonplace in NY and cons.
Josh didn't chime in and clarify that its only animals on that list for PFS, and no other optional animals from the bestiary for rangers, unless they take a dip into druid, period, until my character was already retired.
because there were about a dozen animals listed in the beastiary as optional animal companions. when the ability said it worked like a druid's natural bond, why would I presume it was completely restricted to those, when new animal companions were being listed ?
the ranger list: badger, bird, camel, cat (small), dire rat, dog, horse, pony, snake (viper or constrictor), or wolf
isn't that different from the starting druid list:
ape, badger, bear, bird, boar, camel, cat, crocodile, dinosaur, dog, horse, pony, shark, snake, wolf.And it lists the ranger one, working like the druid companion. and the druid companion says " the animal companions listed here are by no means the only ones available - additional animal companion types can be found in the Pathfinder RPG Bestiary. "
And here the problem is that in 2.0.1 of the Guide, Bestiary was not listed as a legal resource at all. So nothing was usable.
By 2.2, Bestiary had been included, but 2.2 states:
As a ranger, what list of companions can I select my animal
companion from? As a ranger, if you choose an animal
companion for your hunter’s bond, you may only select the
animals listed on page 66 of the Pathfinder RPG Core Rulebook.
There is no expanded companion list for rangers.
And that has been the rule for rangers ever since.
So at no time was a straight ranger able to have a rhino companion. And by the time APG came out, it was much too late for you to switch to Beastmaster as you would have had to do so no later than 4th level, when you got Hunters Bond. Actually earlier, as the class skill list for Beast Master is different than the class skill list for straight ranger, you would have had to take it when you created the character.