|
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.
This statement cannot be true.
Yes, its true. You're taking it out of context. I don't mean "rhinos were introduced into organized play in year 1", i'm saying MY character brought a Rhino to the table in year 1. When i did it, i looked around briefly to see that monsters from the bestiary were being allowed as additional options. The animal companions entry in the back of the druid section, which the ranger section references said
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
text which i notice now that they omitted from the online prd. So i took a rhino, because i was already high level and he was in the Bestaiary, at the time that seemed acceptable.
Am i generalizing that i remember it saying somewhere in one of the guides that animals come in fully tricked out ? yes. because its almost 1 am and i'm tired.
you wanna audit my 12th level ranger, go ahead. will that mean i can rebuild him with the Beastmaster archype and get a Rhino now ? fine, then I get a benefit. yay.
Nothing in the rules you copied and pasted from the 2.1 version of the rules said that new animal companions DIDn't come trained at the start. it just had rules for teaching them additional tricks.
...digs through old pdfs ...
gah, you're right. i was remember LG
Tricks
Any creature with an INT of 1 or 2 must be handled using
the Handle Animal skill. Purchased animals come with one
trick per point of INT. Animal companions come with the
maximum number of tricks allowed by their INT. Tricks
must be selected from the lists in the PH, CAd, RS, and RW.
Animals with fewer than their maximum tricks may be
trained further. Once per adventure, by spending 1 TU and
succeeding on the Handle Animal check, you can teach an
animal one extra trick. You may not take 20 on this check.
to be fair, looking back, there still isn't anything in the guide that says your animal starts knowing 0 tricks. you have to teach them all. the question is just "what kind of tricks can you teach your animal companion". people were asking that because some people were making apes with swords.
...
well. i goofed. question still remains. what do i do with the character now? rebuild him with beastmaster? force him to dip into druid 1/ranger 11? I mainly took ranks in Ride so i could control my rhino and ride him into combat.
Guess what i'll probably just have to keep playing him as is, because he's 12th level already, and not playing a whole heck of a lot of games.
i already familiarized myself with the current rules on animal companions when players started coming to me wanting to play druids.
though i'm fully considering making a Druid my next character, or a Sorcerer with a pet dog, just to stir up trouble at conventions.
|
|
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.
It wasn't listed as a resource? really? quite harping.
It didn't need to be listed as a resource. the beastiary has been part of the Core assumption of books. Pathfinder was much better IMHO when there weren't a dozen sourcebooks to muddy the waters.
Since the core assumption
for Pathfinder Society Organized Play is the Pathfinder
RPG Core Rulebook and the Pathfinder Bestiary, we cannot
assume that every Game Master will have the products
listed below.
Its ambiguous. please just drop it.
|
I would just replace the Rhino out completely since it is not a legal Companion and never was because of a misunderstanding, and replace it with a legal Ranger Companion fully built for your level.
Fixing that mistake should not be an issue, but they most likely will not let you rebuild your PC with Animal Handling since that has been denied every time it has been asked.
|
|
I would just replace the Rhino out completely since it is not a legal Companion and never was because of a misunderstanding, and replace it with a legal Ranger Companion fully built for your level.
Fixing that mistake should not be an issue, but they most likely will not let you rebuild your PC with Animal Handling since that has been denied every time it has been asked.
yeah. mark already let me grandfather in the rhino. it doesn't matter too much. he'd need a rebuild to be of much use anyway. i have a rhino and a dire wolf ( wolf w/ 7th level upgrade to large ) statted out to bring with me to the table.
I mostly ride him anyway. and i've got enough ranks to auto-make my ride checks. I'll just have to hope that gets me by. maybe i can get a headband of intillect / wis to replace my headband of wis, and get handle animal as the skill. THEN i'll be able to actually command my pet.
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.
It wasn't listed as a resource? really? quite harping.
It didn't need to be listed as a resource. the beastiary has been part of the Core assumption of books. Pathfinder was much better IMHO...
The Core Assumption is not, and never has been a list of legal books. Heck, even 2.0.1 says that not all of the Core Rules is legal. The Core Assumption is the CORE list of books that the GM is ASSUMED to have with him in order to GM a game. It has nothing whatsoever to do with player options, and everything to do with GM preparedness.
I'm not harping. I'm stating what the rules were. I'm pointing out that you saying that the rules allowed you to make a character who showed up at level 1 with a fully trained rhino companion cannot be true, and I'm backing up my statement with actual quotes from the rules sources as they were written at the time you are saying that they said something else.
The problem that I am having is that you appear to be complaining that the rules were change out from under you, and now you can't play the character you want with the companion that you want.
But the reality is that for the entire career of the character you are complaining about, the companion was not legal, and you had never trained it as the rules required you to do.
And not to be any snarkier than I have to be, but no. I don't want to audit your character. I don't particularly care that your character is, was, and continues to be illegal. But coming to this board and stating that your illegal character is somehow getting screwed over by a rules change that you probably would not have even obeyed (based on past behavior) seems pretty whiny to me.
|
To me (my opinion) it was clear that the list for the Ranger was meant to be an exhaustive one since it did not include the same language as the Druid that additional options were available. The reference in the Ranger section to the Druid section was as to how they function mechanically, not the list of what was available. If that was the case, then why have a list at all? Just say "see Druid companion."
In your case, I would rule that your AC is fully trained as that was the guideline when you created/last play him. However, the Rhino was never legal and would need to be changed to one of the approved companion types.
In your case, I would rule that your AC is fully trained as that was the guideline when you created/last play him.
It wasn't. See the quoted rules text upthread. The poster stating that it was legal does not change the actual rules history.
|
|
It wasn't. See the quoted rules text upthread. The poster stating that it was legal does not change the actual rules history.
Outside of his admitting that in the forum, how else would you know? Should we as GM's insist on auditing every druid/ranger that sits at our table and ensure that all the training was properly documented on the chronicles? I can say than nearly every PC with an AC in the entire society would become illegal if that was to happen.
Perhaps his companion should have been getting trained all along, but at 12th level, is it fair to punish the player for the failure of the GM's in the previous 33 sessions?
What we can agree on is that the AC needs to be "re-skinned" to an approved type. That is relatively easy and does not require any changes to the PC itself. But to also force him to now train the animal, from scratch, to "prove" it has all the appropriate tricks seems a bit harsh. YMMV.
|
|
What we can agree on is that the AC needs to be "re-skinned" to an approved type. That is relatively easy and does not require any changes to the PC itself. But to also force him to now train the animal, from scratch, to "prove" it has all the appropriate tricks seems a bit harsh. YMMV.
It is not really a Re-Skin, a Re-skin would imply he is taking the stats of a Rhino and putting the "skin" of a Wolf, what he is actually doing is Taken a wolf and stating up for a 12th Level Ranger, close to a re-build of the companion because of a mistake and "misunderstanding".
|
|
It is not really a Re-Skin, a Re-skin would imply he is taking the stats of a Rhino and putting the "skin" of a Wolf, what he is actually doing is Taken a wolf and stating up for a 12th Level Ranger, close to a re-build of the companion because of a mistake and "misunderstanding".
I think we all know what I meant. Do my quotes around re-skinned have any less meaning than the ones you put around misunderstanding?
It wasn't. See the quoted rules text upthread. The poster stating that it was legal does not change the actual rules history.Outside of his admitting that in the forum, how else would you know? Should we as GM's insist on auditing every druid/ranger that sits at our table and ensure that all the training was properly documented on the chronicles? I can say than nearly every PC with an AC in the entire society would become illegal if that was to happen.
Perhaps his companion should have been getting trained all along, but at 12th level, is it fair to punish the player for the failure of the GM's in the previous 33 sessions?
What we can agree on is that the AC needs to be "re-skinned" to an approved type. That is relatively easy and does not require any changes to the PC itself. But to also force him to now train the animal, from scratch, to "prove" it has all the appropriate tricks seems a bit harsh. YMMV.
If I were the player finding out that my animal companion was illegal, and needed to be replaced with a legal animal, what I would personally do is look to see when the last time my companion died. I would then make the assumption that I tried to teach the companion the allowed number of tricks at each succeeding scenario to the present. I might go so far as to roll the die in front of my next GM, saying "Hey, I found out that my animal companion is illegal, and have replaced him at the last instance of my animal companion dying. I need to make the training rolls that I should have made since then, so that I have the correct number of tricks."
No, I don't care about auditing him. I don't really care if he keeps playing an illegal animal or not. I was simply correcting the facts surrounding the instance. you stated that at the time he created the animal it would have come fully trained. I stated that no, it wouldn't. What happens from then on is really between him and his next GM.
I know that I tend to try very hard to make sure my character (for better or worse) is correct and legal. Others may not. Some people build wicked overspent-on-points eidolons. Other don't. There's a "Don't Cheat" clause that may or may not have made it to Guide 4.0. Regardless, I try to follow it.
Re-skinning is my new head explosion! And me explaining why I put quotes around misunderstanding will just get me in trouble. ;)
I think we all know what I meant. Do my quotes around re-skinned have any less meaning than the ones you put around misunderstanding?
Are you saying that you are re-skinning his statement to be more technically correct?
Smurfy!
|
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.
It's certainly better than basing it off the CHA modifier, as it rewards those who have actually invested in the animal training skill, which is surely more intuitive. It takes into account skill ranks, traits, and feats, and is improvable as the PC matures, rather than being based on one minor component of the overall bonus (the stat mod) that is set at the moment the character first walks out of his front door.
I think these rules are fine for a PC whose animal is not a class feature; putting a limit on the number of tricks still allows that pirate to get himself a hilariously foul-mouthed parrot, or the rogue to teach a monkey to pick pockets or fetch other people's belongings.
However, I'm with Fozzy, in that I don't see many balance problems in simply declaring all animals from class features come fully trained.
A PC could simply buy a fully-trained attack animal, and sacrifice it every scenario, with no condemnation, censure or lingering penalties.
Limiting class feature Animal Companions and mounts doesn't discourage animal abuse; it only hurts PCs who got ambushed, got unlucky, who want to match their companion to the prevailing climate, and those who want an animal with non-combat tricks.
|
|
I'm just trying to figure out what the objection is to druids replacing lost/dismissed AC with new fully-trained ACs (if one remains now that weapon-wielding critters are dealt with).
Especially in the case of dismissed companions.
One of the justifications for limiting training, is to punish those who use their animals as frontline combatants, with no thought for their welfare, or who fail to protect them properly.
None of that applies to a druid or ranger, whose animal companion survives the scenario without a scratch, and is released back to his pack/herd/pod to run free with his own kind.
That player is more deserving, more devoted, more ecologically aware, more in-character, than one who decides to drag the poor beast all round Golarion, simply due to the fact he can't afford to lose his investment.
Can we at least have the ability to release fully-trained animals back to the wild, and be reunited with the same animal at a later date?
Eg: "If I am in Varisia, I will have gone to the Howling Rock, and called for my old friend Bright Fang. If I am in Garund, I will be accompanied by my occasional ally, Striped Claw."
They would temporarily lose the bonus tricks and other benefits while separated, but regain them once they were back together.
|
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I think it takes much more work and can be much more fun and rewarding, to create a well rounded, or interesting character. This starts with the stats. If all you are doing is trying to optimize, then you start with the stats, and your mindset is set to build something awesome from a mechanical standpoint. But if you like to create a character instead of a page full of numbers, you create the personality and backstory first. Then try to fit the stats to that. In this case, a Druid based on handle animal would definitely have a higher charisma than a purely optimized handle animal druid might have.
No he wouldn't; he'd have a higher Handle Animal skill.
That's the whole point.Those who are dedicating their lives, investing in the skill that governs the training of animals, are being trumped by shysters, bunko artists and conmen amateurs who invested one token rank.
Your wolf/cat/bear/shark/wombat couldn't care less how much natural ability you have at dancing, telling stories or jokes.
They don't recognise what a snazzy dresser you are, or know that the girls at school loved the way you parted your hair.
They don't appreciate how well you strum a lute, or blow on the oboe.
They won't look down on you if you use the wrong fork, or if you don't use a fork at all.
If you try to sell them a pyramid scheme, they will simply ignore you.
What they will respond to, is how well you understand them, and how well you display the correct pack-leader behaviour, an ability that is described, in game, via the Handle Animal bonus, which is calculated as a factor of training (skill ranks), professional insider knowledge (class skill bonus), empathic bonding (the +4 bonus), traits, feats, and maybe, maybe, an proportionally insignificant minor modifier from Cha, tagged onto the end as an afterthought, simply because every skill needs to be based on one stat or other, so we may as well take pity on Cha and give it something to do.
What part of
(the most common druidic background);
suggests to you high Charisma?
Because 14 Cha is high. It's vastly higher than the majority of the population, who get by perfectly well with 10-11. Any rules should be written so that people with baseline stats should be able to perform common tasks, with those of higher statlines doing better.
Not to set the bar, so that only those who spend half their life's effort on the relevant stat need even bother.
What kind of Bizzarro world have we come to, when players are told they deserve to be useless at a skill they have maxed out, as punishment for 'dumping' a stat to 'only' a 13?
If a player turned up at PFS with a druid of Cha 14+ (the minimum required to gain any more than 1 training attempt per scenario), I would not think 'Oh, what a well-rounded character.', I would consider them to have made a completely out-of-character choice, to work an arbitary mechanic, that has no relevance outside of Society play, thus making a build that bears no resemblance to any druid you are likely to meet in the last 11 years of D&D3E/d20/OGL games, and that flies in the face of their stated background.
"My character is a quiet man of the woods, so I gave him the glib tongue, and the dazzling wit of a professional poet, a gambler, an urbane, lady-tupping lothario. Behold! As they swoon into the arms of.....Cyrano de Bear-Gerac!"
You talk of how essential it is to make the stats fit the character concept, then propose the exact opposite.
I think it takes much more work and can be much more fun and rewarding, to create a well rounded, or interesting character. This starts with the stats. If all you are doing is trying to optimize, then you start with the stats, and your mindset is set to build something awesome from a mechanical standpoint. But if you like to create a character instead of a page full of numbers, you create the personality and backstory first. Then try to fit the stats to that. In this case, a Druid based on handle animal would definitely have a higher charisma than a purely optimized handle animal druid might have.No he wouldn't; he'd have a higher Handle Animal skill.
That's the whole point.
Those who are dedicating their lives, investing in the skill that governs the training of animals, are being trumped by shysters, bunko artists and conmen amateurs who invested one token rank.Your wolf/cat/bear/shark/wombat couldn't care less how much natural ability you have at dancing, telling stories or jokes.
They don't recognise what a snazzy dresser you are, or know that the girls at school loved the way you parted your hair.
They don't appreciate how well you strum a lute, or blow on the oboe.
They won't look down on you if you use the wrong fork, or if you don't use a fork at all.
If you try to sell them a pyramid scheme, they will simply ignore you.What they will respond to, is how well you understand them, and how well you display the correct pack-leader behaviour, an ability that is described, in game, via the Handle Animal bonus, which is calculated as a factor of training (skill ranks), professional insider knowledge (class skill bonus), empathic bonding (the +4 bonus), traits, feats, and maybe, maybe, an proportionally insignificant minor modifier from Cha, tagged onto the end as an afterthought, simply because every skill needs to be based on one stat or other, so we may as well take pity on Cha and give it something to do.
What part of
...
Holy carp!
That was awesome!
Even Smurfy!
|
|
To me (my opinion) it was clear that the list for the Ranger was meant to be an exhaustive one since it did not include the same language as the Druid that additional options were available. The reference in the Ranger section to the Druid section was as to how they function mechanically, not the list of what was available. If that was the case, then why have a list at all? Just say "see Druid companion."
In your case, I would rule that your AC is fully trained as that was the guideline when you created/last play him. However, the Rhino was never legal and would need to be changed to one of the approved companion types.
to me it was ambiguous.
ranger:
The second option is to form a close bond with an animal companion. A ranger who selects an animal companion can choose from the following list: badger, bird, camel, cat (small), dire rat, 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. This animal is a loyal companion that accompanies the ranger on his adventures as appropriate for its kind. A ranger's animal companion shares his favored enemy and favored terrain bonuses.
This ability functions like the druid animal companion ability (which is part of the Nature Bond class feature), except that the ranger's effective druid level is equal to his ranger level – 3.
[ to me this means reference the animal companion block at the back of druid, and treat your ranger level as your druid level for all purposes. including looking for expanded lists of animal choices in the beastiary, as originally published in the Core Rules. Nothing really said those expanded lists are druid only. why do they get all the love and rangers don't? 3.5, rangers could take those advanced animals just like druids once they got high enough. Josh Frost didn't like that, and explicitly stated that those are the only animals a ranger ever gets. Mark continued that line of rulings on the forums. ]
druid:
The second option is to form a close bond with an animal companion. A druid may begin play with any of the animals listed in Animal Choices. This animal is a loyal companion that accompanies the druid on her adventures.
* emphasis added. *
if the druid class just listed out the animals like the ranger, would you treat the list differently and think that they can or can't take animals from the beastiary options?
Nothing in the paizo.com/prd on Druids now states that druids can take animals from the beastiary.
the pathfindersociety/resources lists which animals are legal resources, but it doesn't stipulate what class they're legal for.
yet there's no FAQ answering "what animal companions can i choose for druids" , just a FAQ for limiting what animals a ranger can now choose, clarified officialy on 8/15.
so devils' advocate: why do you think druids can take animals from the beastiary anymore?
|
|
No he wouldn't; he'd have a higher Handle Animal skill.
That's the whole point.
Those who are dedicating their lives, investing in the skill that governs the training of animals, are being trumped by shysters, bunko artists and conmen amateurs who invested one token rank.Your wolf/cat/bear/shark/wombat couldn't care less how much natural ability you have at dancing, telling stories or jokes.
They don't recognise what a snazzy dresser you are, or know that the girls at school loved the way you parted your hair.
They don't appreciate how well you strum a lute, or blow on the oboe.
They won't look down on you if you use the wrong fork, or if you don't use a fork at all.
If you try to sell them a pyramid scheme, they will simply ignore you.What they will respond to, is how well you understand them, and how well you display the correct pack-leader behaviour, an ability that is described, in game, via the Handle Animal bonus, which is calculated as a factor of training (skill ranks), professional insider knowledge (class skill bonus), empathic bonding (the +4 bonus), traits, feats, and maybe, maybe, an proportionally insignificant minor modifier from Cha, tagged onto the end as an afterthought, simply because every skill needs to be based on one stat or other, so we may as well take pity on Cha and give it something to do.
What part of
...
Charisma has a TON more to do with it than personality or social graces.
It is also about personal power or presence. Thus why its a primary stat for a Sorcerer or Oracle, who may or may not be pretty or socially ept.
|
|
why do you think druids can take animals from the beastiary anymore?
Because the Additional Resources document calls it out with a list of additional approved AC's.
IMO, you are reading what you want to see in the language in the Ranger class. It references the druid listing for how the ability functions not for what animals are approved. The list is clear, and exhaustive. If it wasn't meant to be it would include the same additional option that appears in the Druid text.
|
RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I have a proposal.
What does this do? It inconveniences the druid who continually sends her animal companion into the thick of battle. That character will continually have animal companions with a limited repertoire.
A druid worried about her crocodile companion, because she's going to be spending the next three scenarios fighting the shadow lodge up north, will need to decide whether to dismiss the crocodile and find a kindly bison, given the bison's unfamiliarity in the first scenario, and possibly the crocodile's limited repertoire for a scenario once she switches back.
So, it gives switching animal companions a disadvantage, but not one that plagues a character for levels.
|
|
I used to be quite passionate about animal companion issues. After realizing all I was doing was upsetting myself I just decided to stop reading animal companion threads and just not play my druid.
I decided to poke my head back in and find a new "fix" that still renders my druid basically unplayable until I spend at least 3 GM credits leveling him up. Which is particularly frustrating since I already used 8 GM credits on him to help get him up to a level I wanted to play him at, having to now not play him for the entirety of level 7 since I am not allowed to adjust him do to a rules change ("clarification") is very frustrating.
(Can I even train my animal companion if I'm applying GM credits?)
|
|
I have a proposal.
It's certainly better than the current situation.
What prevents me from giving it an unqualified thumbs-up, is the nature of convention play, in that unless you know you will be playing a multi-part story arc (like Year of the Shadow Lodge, or City of Strangers), you don't know where in the world you'll be based.
Some titles may give a clue, but many don't, and I'd consider it a breach of trust, for me to be checking out the details of scenarios before I play them. It's also an unnecessary headache for con-organisers, if players start requesting such details be extracted in a non-spoilering form, declining to play scenarios, or swapping active PCs at the last minute ("Sorry, you know full well that me and my ostrich don't travel north of Absalom").
If there was the option to note on a Chronicle Sheet, that a companion had been temporarily handed into the care of a trusted colleague, and that animal could be retrieved, with its training intact, when the campaign swings back to the relevant area (or near enough), then players would be more likely to avail themselves of appropriate companions for each scenario, thus avoiding the brain-straining anachronisms of the 'polar bears in the desert' and 'crocodiles up the glacier' that they are forced, by necessity, to perform right now.
|
RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16
|
This is better, but why not first separate killed from dismissed. We're not looking to 'punish' druids that decide not to take a tropical animal to an artic environment or vice versa, are we?
Thanks for your analysis and opinion, James.
Not "punish" so much as "provide options". If there's no penalty at all for hot-swapping companions, then a druid has no reason to stick with one furry friend. Under my proposal, there's a trade off: a new animal companion optimized for the new environment but unfamiliar with your commands, or the same old companion, who knows you well but who requires an endure elements spell.
And, honestly, I don't see why there should be any distinction. Your druid was friends with Fido; now she's friends with Fluffy. If Fido met a grisly end, I don't see as how that ought to affect Fluffy's training regimen.
(If anything getting a new animal companion the same species as the previously departed companion ought to provide a training advantage.)
|
|
why do you think druids can take animals from the beastiary anymore?Because the Additional Resources document calls it out with a list of additional approved AC's.
IMO, you are reading what you want to see in the language in the Ranger class. It references the druid listing for how the ability functions not for what animals are approved. The list is clear, and exhaustive. If it wasn't meant to be it would include the same additional option that appears in the Druid text.
that's just there. the text for additional animal companion options is no longer there. the FAQ clarifies that rangers can only choose the specified animals in the ranger description. The Core Rulebook doesn't state that the ranger is limited to those options. It was the opinion of Josh Frost to enforce it for society play, which mark is continuing.
The SRD rules no longer say additional options for druids can be found in the bestiary. As currently written a druid can only have the animal choices listed in the Core Rulebook. just like the ranger.
If you're going to give druids the option to choose from the legal animals in the bestiary, there's nothing in the core rules that prevents rangers from choosing them too. That's all i'm saying.
|
|
that's just there. the text for additional animal companion options is no longer there. the FAQ clarifies that rangers can only choose the specified animals in the ranger description. The Core Rulebook doesn't state that the ranger is limited to those options. It was the opinion of Josh Frost to enforce it for society play, which mark is continuing.
The SRD rules no longer say additional options for druids can be found in the bestiary. As currently written a druid can only have the animal choices listed in the Core Rulebook. just like the ranger.
If you're going to give druids the option to choose from the legal animals in the bestiary, there's nothing in the core rules that prevents rangers from choosing them too. That's all i'm saying.
Huh?
4th Printing Druid..
Pg 53
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. Some of the special attacks and qualities possessed by animals are covered in more detail there as well.
4th Printing Ranger..
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.
Nothing in the Ranger class says anything about Additional Companions, does not say you can choos from the following plus any Druid ones, It says you can choose from the following...the end.
Unless I am confused and this is not what you are talking about.
|
|
that's just there. the text for additional animal companion options is no longer there. the FAQ clarifies that rangers can only choose the specified animals in the ranger description. The Core Rulebook doesn't state that the ranger is limited to those options. It was the opinion of Josh Frost to enforce it for society play, which mark is continuing.
The SRD rules no longer say additional options for druids can be found in the bestiary. As currently written a druid can only have the animal choices listed in the Core Rulebook. just like the ranger.
If you're going to give druids the option to choose from the legal animals in the bestiary, there's nothing in the core rules that prevents rangers from choosing them too. That's all i'm saying.
Huh?
4th Printing Druid..
Pg 53
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. Some of the special attacks and qualities possessed by animals are covered in more detail there as well.
4th Printing Ranger..
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.
Nothing in the Ranger class says anything about Additional Companions, does not say you can choos from the following plus any Druid ones, It says you can choose from the following...the end.
Unless I am confused and this is not what you are talking about.
http://paizo.com/pathfinderRPG/prd/classes/druid.html#druid
A druid may begin play with any of the animals listed in Animal Choices.http://paizo.com/pathfinderRPG/prd/classes/ranger.html#ranger
A ranger who selects an animal companion can choose from the following list: badger, bird, camel, cat (small), dire rat, dog, horse, pony, snake (viper or constrictor), or wolf. ...
This ability functions like the druid animal companion ability (which is part of the Nature Bond class feature), except that the ranger's effective druid level is equal to his ranger level – 3.
In the druid section there's the druid description. ex-druids description. druid class description ends. Animal Companions section begins. In the online Animal Choices listing. There is no call out to the bestiary for additional options.
I had to double check myself and downloaded the latest pdf of the core rules, and the call out still exists in the pdf/print volume. so i'm wrong that they've removed it everywhere. got ahead of myself by going by the online prd since its what i have at work.
but please note: the animal choices section is in the animal companions section, not the druids section. the animal companion / animal choices section is not speaking directly to druids, its in its own section on animal companions. when it makes the call out to additional options in the bestiary, it doesn't limit it to referring to druids. to me the logic there reads that rangers can choose x, and y as starting animal companions. druids can choose x, y and z. both rangers and druids can look in the bestiary to look for additional options for animal companions.
|
|
the print version of the bestiary also lists this:
The Pathfinder RPG Core Rulebook presents druids and
rangers with a wide selection of animal companion
choices, but this selection by no means covers the entirety
of animals available as companions. Numerous additional
animals are presented in this book, and in each case,
rules for using them as companions are included. The
following list indexes all additional animal companions
found in this book, along with the page numbers on
which they can be located.
that's just there. the text for additional animal companion options is no longer there. the FAQ clarifies that rangers can only choose the specified animals in the ranger description. The Core Rulebook doesn't state that the ranger is limited to those options. It was the opinion of Josh Frost to enforce it for society play, which mark is continuing.
The SRD rules no longer say additional options for druids can be found in the bestiary. As currently written a druid can only have the animal choices listed in the Core Rulebook. just like the ranger.
If you're going to give druids the option to choose from the legal animals in the bestiary, there's nothing in the core rules that prevents rangers from choosing them too. That's all i'm saying.
Huh?
4th Printing Druid..
Pg 53
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. Some of the special attacks and qualities possessed by animals are covered in more detail there as well.
4th Printing Ranger..
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.
Nothing in the Ranger class says anything about Additional Companions, does not say you can choos from the following plus any Druid ones, It says you can choose from the following...the end.
Unless I am confused and this is not what you are talking about.
http://paizo.com/pathfinderRPG/prd/classes/druid.html#druid
A druid may begin play with any of the animals listed in Animal Choices.http://paizo.com/pathfinderRPG/prd/classes/ranger.html#ranger
A ranger who selects an animal companion can choose from the following list: badger, bird, camel, cat...
Wow. On this point you actually appear to be almost correct. (Yeah, that was snarky.)
The problem is this. There are three official rules sources for legality in PFS play.
1) PFS Guide to Organized Play (or whatever they've currently named it). This is the primary set of rules.
2) Additional Resources (linked from the PFS main page at the top). This lists expanded rules sources and what may be used from each.
(In this list, it gives a bunch of books that have animal companions, and it specifically lists which companions are legal to use.)
3) Frequently Asked Questions (also linked from the PFS main page).
This list offers clarifications (and errata, though Paizo staff don't like to use that word.)
Under this list of questions it specifically limits what the ranger may have as an animal companion.
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 one of the animals listed on page 66 of the Pathfinder RPG Core Rulebook. There is no expanded companion list for rangers.
—Mark Moreland, 08/15/11
So. There are a bunch of additional animal companions that are legal for PFS play, but none of them are legal for rangers to use.
Summary:
PFS GUIDE - silent on companion issue.
Additional Resources - Hey, here's a bunch of legal shiny companions!!! Have Fun!!!
FAQ - No Ranger!!! Not you!! Bad Ranger! Bad. Bad. Bad!
It does not matter what the Core Book or Bestiary say. Specific always trumps general. The Core Book and Bestiary are non-setting general rules books. The PFS Guide and Additional Resources and FAQ are setting-specific for PFS play on Golarion. If the specific material says something from the general material is restricted or not valid, then it is restricted or not valid.
|
|
It does not matter what the Core Book or Bestiary say. Specific always trumps general. The Core Book and Bestiary are non-setting general rules books. The PFS Guide and Additional Resources and FAQ are setting-specific for PFS play on Golarion. If the specific material says something from the general material is restricted or not valid, then it is restricted or not valid.
yup, i know the FAQ and everything override it. I'm just offering my interpretation of what the core rulebook says. just because there's a list of animals for ranger, and a list of animals for druids, doesn't mean its the end all/be all because its on a list.
its the end all be all because the Society developers decided to make it that way for rangers. They're the ones i get snarky on.
... Back to the main point of the thread...
hand wave animal training as long as you have ranks!
if wizards can "hand wave" having the skills necessary to craft an item out of their bonded item, can't druids hand wave something? pretty pretty please?
And for animals with intelligence above 2
the core rulebook specifically outlined:
http://paizo.com/pathfinderRPG/prd/monsters/creatureTypes.html
Animal
• Intelligence score of 1 or 2 (no creature with an Intelligence score of 3 or higher can be an animal).
Since Pathfinder is the first setting that allowed animal companions to get the stat bump every four hit dice, they're the first ones to bump into characters that legitimately could raise their pet's intelligence.
solution: create a Template for druid/companion animals. call it Nature Gifted or something. Unusually smart animals. the only break it has from the Animal type is that it allows them to reason a bit better than an animal. So druids who want a supernaturally intelligent animal companion, or a companion that they can teach more tricks to, can raise its intelligence.
Intelligence is also described in the core rules:
Creatures of animal-level instinct have Intelligence scores of 1 or 2. Any creature capable of understanding speech has a score of at least 3.
All that intelligence 3 does is allow it to start to rise above instinct, and start to really understand people.
but no- for society play they have to rule that raising its intelligence to 3 does nothing, doesn't make it easier to communicate with, doesn't make it smarter, doesn't make it able to resist its instincts.
SILLY. Its SILLY.
They published the rules for the game. and then they're ignoring them instead of adhering to them.
|
|
All that intelligence 3 does is allow it to start to rise above instinct, and start to really understand people.
but no- for society play they have to rule that raising its intelligence to 3 does nothing, doesn't make it easier to communicate with, doesn't make it smarter, doesn't make it able to resist its instincts
Actually, this was spelled out as a rules clarification by Jason Bulmahn in the Paizo Blog for the PFRPG.
|
|
Actually, this was spelled out as a rules clarification by Jason Bulmahn in the Paizo Blog for the PFRPG.All that intelligence 3 does is allow it to start to rise above instinct, and start to really understand people.
but no- for society play they have to rule that raising its intelligence to 3 does nothing, doesn't make it easier to communicate with, doesn't make it smarter, doesn't make it able to resist its instincts
ahh i see [url=http://paizo.com/paizo/blog/v5748dyo5lc1y]link[/link]
those are just guidelines though to try and help many a GM untangle the rules for home games. PFS play answers to different masters. IF that were an official clarification / entered into FAQ, it would have more weight.
I still disagree with the Trick system for animals that are bonded/part of a class feature. And i still disagree with the training rules listed in the PFS guide.
I also haven't heard anyone address whether GMs can train a pet when using a GM credit.
And the question of whether an animal has armor proficiency, while answered in the FAQ for the PFRPG , doesn't sit well with me. The concept of training an animal for war is still too vague in some cases. Whether it grants armor proficiency, like a fighter gets armor proficiency, for free. SKR says you can substitute armor proficiency in an animal you purchase for one of its other feats. But the Animals entry of creature types says creatures trained for war may have armor proficiency. ::shrug::
|
I am new to whole debate on animal companions. After reading many posts on this topic I thought that I would throw in a soltion to this problem.
Mark Morland and the Venture Captains should compile a list of 30 aninmals Int 2 or less and place the list on the forum and have the players vote on them and the top 15 animals are allowed for use in PFS for use by Rangers and Druids.
I think that this would solve the animal companion problem.
For the problem of 2 or less intelligence create a feat called
Enlightend Animal: Animal Companions of a Ranger or a Druid can have an intelligence above 2. Higher intelligence can be bought with level stat increases or with tomes if Animal coampanion has a high enough intelligence to gain a language. "Smart animals can read but not speak
due to no biological speach ablity."
Sugested animals
Wolf
Wolf Dire
Dire Badger
horse
Rideing dog
Lion
Tiger
Chimp
all avians smaller than medium
Crocadie
Cave Bear
Grant Large animals at EL 7
Rhino
Hippo
Elephant African or asian
Water Buffelo
DIre lion
Dire Tiger
Dire Large hunting cat of players choice
Gorillia
Dire Cave Bear
Almost forgot Boars Dire boars and Pigs of all kinds remember swine rule and taste mighty nice with BBQ sauce.
PS Josh is gone mark should make his own rulings and not rely on old flawed rulings.
I also haven't heard anyone address whether GMs can train a pet when using a GM credit.
Well, since anything done to a character, whether purchases or things that require dice rolls, such as checks to learn spells or to teach animals tricks, has to be done during or at the end of a session and witnessed by a GM, I would say no if he is not using that character in a scenario.
|
Letting we the players vote on issues isn't the best way to run a Organized campaign considering the forums don't have the activity to represent 51% of the player base.
Paizo as always needs to set the rules so we players can bend them. I for one have never had these issues with AC's. That is with about 350+ tables of games I have organized and just have not seen this problem. I am not saying it isn't a problem but I don't think that it is that big of an issue.
|
|
Well, since anything done to a character, whether purchases or things that require dice rolls, such as checks to learn spells or to teach animals tricks, has to be done during or at the end of a session and witnessed by a GM, I would say no if he is not using that character in a scenario.
I also haven't heard anyone address whether GMs can train a pet when using a GM credit.
no offense meant, i meant i haven't heard anyone official chime in on it with an answer.
if pfs guide requires you to only be able to train animals between games, and our faithful gms are busy running games for us, we're shafting them by not letting them train at least one trick between games when they apply certs to their characters. it isn't a day job, its not increasing the gold they have or resources. its completing the training on a class feature they possess.
|
RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16
|
James, I can't speak for Darius, but there are particular classes that many people don't imagine work well in PFS. Druids are one of those; Medium-sized cavaliers are another.
I haven't seen many druids at all, going well back to Seasons 0 (using the 3.5 ruleset) and Season 1. I don't think you can attribute that scarcity to a more recent ruling regarding training. (It does seem a popular choice among younger female players.)
A better indicator would be folks who had been playing druids griping about the changes they have to make, or pouting as they lay out money for headbands of alluring charisma. Or they would be playing druids with domains rather than animal companions.
I'll be completely honest with you here: the folks I know who like playing druids do so due to (a) the class's powerful spell list, (b) the opportunity to transform into a badger, and (c) a "best friend" animal companion. I don't think most players factor companion training into the decision.
|
|
I also haven't heard anyone address whether GMs can train a pet when using a GM credit.
Well, since anything done to a character, whether purchases or things that require dice rolls, such as checks to learn spells or to teach animals tricks, has to be done during or at the end of a session and witnessed by a GM, I would say no if he is not using that character in a scenario.
If they ruled that they got the average result, from a 'take 10', it wouldn't need to be witnessed, and could then be upgraded automatically.
The same effect would work for day job rolls, and I'm surprised it isn't the case, since 1) the day job is being carried out over a long period, so any peaks and troughs of productivity should average out, and 2) it would encourage more people to GM.