Animal companion says no!


Rules Questions

1 to 50 of 139 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | next > last >>
Silver Crusade

So here is one to ponder. my PC have found a monkey in their travels. a little spider monkey, who I threw in for some comic relief. Said monkey has been hanging around with the fighter and ranger, cause they give him food, and he likes the sound of laughing, so he does things that makes the party laugh. (or tries, in his limited way). Now the ranger turned 4th level and want to take the monkey as an animal companion. Even though it is not on the list, the rest of the players say "let him do it" so I do.

Now, the ranger wants to put the ability bump up for the monkey in his int. Make him a tiny bow, and get him the martial weapon prof in bows. Add in the rangers fav enemy is humans, and he has turned the monkey into a little killer (as in role, not ability).

Well, here is the thing. Now that the monkey is intelligent, and was really based around making people laugh, I think he may not like being a human hunter. Is it appropriate for an animal companion with intelligence to defy his master. Handle Animal wont work, though diplomacy might keep him friendly. Still, I cant see him liking what the ranger is asking him to do. What happens if the monkey doesn't want to be an animal companion, now that he is smart enough to make decisions? Thoughts?


noretoc wrote:

So here is one to ponder. my PC have found a monkey in their travels. a little spider monkey, who I threw in for some comic relief. Said monkey has been hanging around with the fighter and ranger, cause they give him food, and he likes the sound of laughing, so he does things that makes the party laugh. (or tries, in his limited way). Now the ranger turned 4th level and want to take the monkey as an animal companion. Even though it is not on the list, the rest of the players say "let him do it" so I do.

Now, the ranger wants to put the ability bump up for the monkey in his int. Make him a tiny bow, and get him the martial weapon prof in bows. Add in the rangers fav enemy is humans, and he has turned the monkey into a little killer (as in role, not ability).

Well, here is the thing. Now that the monkey is intelligent, and was really based around making people laugh, I think he may not like being a human hunter. Is it appropriate for an animal companion with intelligence to defy his master. Handle Animal wont work, though diplomacy might keep him friendly. Still, I cant see him liking what the ranger is asking him to do. What happens if the monkey doesn't want to be an animal companion, now that he is smart enough to make decisions? Thoughts?

First, there is absolutely no reason that the animal companion has to do what the ranger says. He is not a slave, like a familiar. That's what handle animal is for. If the ranger wants the companion to do something that companion doesn't want to do, make him roll a handle animal check.

Second, the monkey doesn't get his ability score increase until the ranger hits lvl 7, since his effective druid level is ranger level -3. That means the monkey can't take bow proficiency until he gets his 5th level feat, when the ranger hits lvl 8.

Silver Crusade

From a role play perspective I think him saying no is fine. Especially if his name is Caesar.

From a game balance perspective I think that might be one of the perils of giving your animal companion human level intelligence; they start to think for themselves. Animal companions can be hard to handle if adjudicated properly. You have to tell them what to do, sometimes you have to make handle animal checks. Once in a while even an animal intelligence creature will just not do something. Most DMs hand wave that for the sake of simplicity (I do too).

So rule wise I think it is supported for an animal companion to say no sometimes. Keep in mind though that animal companions are described as loyal so the no's should be rare.

Silver Crusade

Truth be told, if I was running the game I would just let the monkey carry on (within the rules stuff mentioned by Bascaria) as long as it was not an overpowered companion compared to the usual ranger choices.


karkon wrote:
Truth be told, if I was running the game I would just let the monkey carry on (within the rules stuff mentioned by Bascaria) as long as it was not an overpowered companion compared to the usual ranger choices.

And I don't think it will be. Small creature with low strength wielding a bow, even if you give it a longbow, is still capped at d6 damage per round, which is nothing compared to what a wolf, badger, or camel can do, or the increase to damage potential that a companion mount provides.

Silver Crusade

Bascaria wrote:
karkon wrote:
Truth be told, if I was running the game I would just let the monkey carry on (within the rules stuff mentioned by Bascaria) as long as it was not an overpowered companion compared to the usual ranger choices.
And I don't think it will be. Small creature with low strength wielding a bow, even if you give it a longbow, is still capped at d6 damage per round, which is nothing compared to what a wolf, badger, or camel can do, or the increase to damage potential that a companion mount provides.

it is not an issue of balance, or of the level he can do this at. It is more an issue of, should the ranger be able to shape the personality of a companion, that already had a personality, just by making him a animal companion.

handle animal does not work on creature with an int higher than 2.

Lantern Lodge RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32

karkon wrote:
From a game balance perspective I think that might be one of the perils of giving your animal companion human level intelligence; they start to think for themselves. Animal companions can be hard to handle if adjudicated properly. You have to tell them what to do, sometimes you have to make handle animal checks. Once in a while even an animal intelligence creature will just not do something. Most DMs hand wave that for the sake of simplicity (I do too).

IIRC, once an animal's intelligence score hits 3, it ceases to be an animal, and therefore an invalid choice for an animal companion. (See the druid spell awaken)

Besides, I thought the rules only allowed for increasing the intelligence score of vermin companions.

Silver Crusade

SirGeshko wrote:
karkon wrote:
From a game balance perspective I think that might be one of the perils of giving your animal companion human level intelligence; they start to think for themselves. Animal companions can be hard to handle if adjudicated properly. You have to tell them what to do, sometimes you have to make handle animal checks. Once in a while even an animal intelligence creature will just not do something. Most DMs hand wave that for the sake of simplicity (I do too).

IIRC, once an animal's intelligence score hits 3, it ceases to be an animal, and therefore an invalid choice for an animal companion. (See the druid spell awaken)

Besides, I thought the rules only allowed for increasing the intelligence score of vermin companions.

Several places in the animal companion section, it list rules for animals with int higher than 2. We'll assume thay are allowed for the sake if this thread.


Well as far as I remember you can bump its into to 3 when it gets the stat bump through the rangers level. With 3 Int it retains the Animal type and is still an Animal, and being an Animal it cannot use weapons. There is quite a long thread about this elsewhere in the forums, but that was more about greatsword wielding full plates Gorillas... though the thurst is still the same.

So nice idea, but rulez sayz no.

(They never were allowed to use said weapons anyway, says so in Core rules)


I guess that now is a good time to offer a link to that.


A very common mistake among rangers is thinking that they HATE their favoured enemy. But that doesn't have to be true. A ranger who hunts animals, for example, might have a lot of respect for animals of all kinds, but he just knows them really extremely well, and so when he inevitably has to take the life of an animal, he does it with skill and respect.

So your ranger player can choose to train his animal companion to know how to fight humans, when he must, but that doesn't mean that the monkey hates all humans.


leo1925 wrote:
I guess that now is a good time to offer a link to that.

Thanks, I was just off looking for that one... :p


Shifty wrote:
leo1925 wrote:
I guess that now is a good time to offer a link to that.
Thanks, I was just off looking for that one... :p

Glad i could help.

Liberty's Edge

SirGeshko wrote:
karkon wrote:
From a game balance perspective I think that might be one of the perils of giving your animal companion human level intelligence; they start to think for themselves. Animal companions can be hard to handle if adjudicated properly. You have to tell them what to do, sometimes you have to make handle animal checks. Once in a while even an animal intelligence creature will just not do something. Most DMs hand wave that for the sake of simplicity (I do too).

IIRC, once an animal's intelligence score hits 3, it ceases to be an animal, and therefore an invalid choice for an animal companion. (See the druid spell awaken)

Besides, I thought the rules only allowed for increasing the intelligence score of vermin companions.

Actually, the animal companion rules are a special case. You absolutely can increase its intelligence to 3 and above. It stays an animal too.


noretoc wrote:

So here is one to ponder. my PC have found a monkey in their travels. a little spider monkey, who I threw in for some comic relief. Said monkey has been hanging around with the fighter and ranger, cause they give him food, and he likes the sound of laughing, so he does things that makes the party laugh. (or tries, in his limited way). Now the ranger turned 4th level and want to take the monkey as an animal companion. Even though it is not on the list, the rest of the players say "let him do it" so I do.

Now, the ranger wants to put the ability bump up for the monkey in his int. Make him a tiny bow, and get him the martial weapon prof in bows. Add in the rangers fav enemy is humans, and he has turned the monkey into a little killer (as in role, not ability).

Well, here is the thing. Now that the monkey is intelligent, and was really based around making people laugh, I think he may not like being a human hunter. Is it appropriate for an animal companion with intelligence to defy his master. Handle Animal wont work, though diplomacy might keep him friendly. Still, I cant see him liking what the ranger is asking him to do. What happens if the monkey doesn't want to be an animal companion, now that he is smart enough to make decisions? Thoughts?

Why do you want to ruin the player's fun? They liked the NPC you introduced, and want to give it a larger role. From the outside looking in, I'm not seeing any reason to arbitrarily decide the monkey has a conscience and is morally opposed to defending and aiding his new best friend.

If the monkey takes on this role, what's the downside? You have a happy and engaged player who has a marginally useful animal companion. If the other players don't see a problem with it, I see no reason to make one.

Quote:
it is not an issue of balance, or of the level he can do this at. It is more an issue of, should the ranger be able to shape the personality of a companion, that already had a personality, just by making him a animal companion.

Sounds like this is just a control issue. You created an NPC, and you don't want the player to redefine it. Or do you apply this level of moral conviction to all of your NPCs? Keep in mind, INT 3 is still extremely stupid -- I honestly don't think it would have the ability to contemplate that something was 'wrong' or 'right'. I'd say you have to be at 5 or 6 INT to do that.


This is not a mechanical suggestion at all, but it might help.

Way back in 2nd Ed, I threw a fremlin into an encounter with some nasty little gremlins. For those who don't remember, fremlins were friendly, somewhat dimwitted gremlin-types.

Anyway, the party took an immediate liking to him, and he became a mascot/buddy/pet, whatever. Of course, nobody could take him as an animal companion, but that has not stopped players from trying to goad, con, bribe, etc., him into action (we still occasionally pick up that party and revisit him from time to time). Sometimes he fights (usually quite ineffectually), sometime he just sleeps through the whole thing. Mostly he just messes things up.

And I guess that's my point. The personality of the thing; clumsy, dim, goofy and flatulent, was established early on, before anyone could make designs on him or his usefulness. Just like your monkey. If I were in your position, I would stick to my guns. These guys knew the monkey was bribable with food and liked to do dumb stuff to get attention. Newly found intelligence is no reason to change his essential nature now.

I say play him as a smarter version of the same little freak. Probably, the ranger will find greener pastures, eventually.


Yeah I sort of agree too - the personality has been defined as comic relief, and now the player is turning it into a bow-bot killer... not quite the same thing.

If the player was suggesting an unusual build with a Monkey running around using 'imp steal' and 'imp dirty trick' (comic relief stealing the opponents weapons, throwing coconuts, and flinging poo) then it could be cute and I'd roll with it....

But Bow-Bot targetting enemy casters would do low damage, but quite accurate with the bonuses from size, high dex, ranger FE etc - it becomes viable, but out of keeping with character.

That is, of course, if you houseruled it in.

Silver Crusade

Adam Ormond wrote:
noretoc wrote:

So here is one to ponder. my PC have found a monkey in their travels. a little spider monkey, who I threw in for some comic relief. Said monkey has been hanging around with the fighter and ranger, cause they give him food, and he likes the sound of laughing, so he does things that makes the party laugh. (or tries, in his limited way). Now the ranger turned 4th level and want to take the monkey as an animal companion. Even though it is not on the list, the rest of the players say "let him do it" so I do.

Now, the ranger wants to put the ability bump up for the monkey in his int. Make him a tiny bow, and get him the martial weapon prof in bows. Add in the rangers fav enemy is humans, and he has turned the monkey into a little killer (as in role, not ability).

Well, here is the thing. Now that the monkey is intelligent, and was really based around making people laugh, I think he may not like being a human hunter. Is it appropriate for an animal companion with intelligence to defy his master. Handle Animal wont work, though diplomacy might keep him friendly. Still, I cant see him liking what the ranger is asking him to do. What happens if the monkey doesn't want to be an animal companion, now that he is smart enough to make decisions? Thoughts?

Why do you want to ruin the player's fun? They liked the NPC you introduced, and want to give it a larger role. From the outside looking in, I'm not seeing any reason to arbitrarily decide the monkey has a conscience and is morally opposed to defending and aiding his new best friend.

If the monkey takes on this role, what's the downside? You have a happy and engaged player who has a marginally useful animal companion. If the other players don't see a problem with it, I see no reason to make one.

Quote:
it is not an issue of balance, or of the level he can do this at. It is more an issue of, should the ranger be able to shape the personality of a companion, that already had a personality, just by making him a animal
...

A control issue? Are you serious? If that was the case, I would not have allowed the player to take him as an AC. I don't need rules to justify anything, that it the cool thing about running the game. So let me make this a bit clearer.

The monkey had an established personality. it was against it's nature to use violence. It instead was motivated by making people laugh. Now before I read the thread linked above, I was under the impression that once the animal's int was raised, it would not be trainable by handle animal. (could it be taught, yes, but not rained like an animal). Apparently according to the blog post that is incorrect. Handle animal can be used regardless of the animal's intelligence. I don't like that, and am ignoring it. Therefore we have the following situation.

he monkey is not a violent creature and doesn't like the idea of hurting people. That is a given, as it was already established. End of story there.

Should making it an animal companion automatically change that personality to one that is more in line with the ranger's intentions? Or should the monkey keep his personality, and reject the ranger's assistance he learn how to hurt humans.

Silver Crusade

Bruunwald wrote:

This is not a mechanical suggestion at all, but it might help.

Way back in 2nd Ed, I threw a fremlin into an encounter with some nasty little gremlins. For those who don't remember, fremlins were friendly, somewhat dimwitted gremlin-types.

Anyway, the party took an immediate liking to him, and he became a mascot/buddy/pet, whatever. Of course, nobody could take him as an animal companion, but that has not stopped players from trying to goad, con, bribe, etc., him into action (we still occasionally pick up that party and revisit him from time to time). Sometimes he fights (usually quite ineffectually), sometime he just sleeps through the whole thing. Mostly he just messes things up.

And I guess that's my point. The personality of the thing; clumsy, dim, goofy and flatulent, was established early on, before anyone could make designs on him or his usefulness. Just like your monkey. If I were in your position, I would stick to my guns. These guys knew the monkey was bribable with food and liked to do dumb stuff to get attention. Newly found intelligence is no reason to change his essential nature now.

I say play him as a smarter version of the same little freak. Probably, the ranger will find greener pastures, eventually.

Thanks for the advice. I think this is the way I am going, but I still am interested in others opinions.

Silver Crusade

Shifty wrote:

Yeah I sort of agree too - the personality has been defined as comic relief, and now the player is turning it into a bow-bot killer... not quite the same thing.

If the player was suggesting an unusual build with a Monkey running around using 'imp steal' and 'imp dirty trick' (comic relief stealing the opponents weapons, throwing coconuts, and flinging poo) then it could be cute and I'd roll with it....

But Bow-Bot targetting enemy casters would do low damage, but quite accurate with the bonuses from size, high dex, ranger FE etc - it becomes viable, but out of keeping with character.

That is, of course, if you houseruled it in.

The ranger gave him skill focus sneak. with his favored terrain bonus it makes him a great sneaker, though, not really a scout, as he has no way to report on anything he sees. I think the rangers plan is to turn him into a little assassin. Not sure. That would def go against the little guys nature, as it was.


noretoc wrote:
Shifty wrote:

Yeah I sort of agree too - the personality has been defined as comic relief, and now the player is turning it into a bow-bot killer... not quite the same thing.

If the player was suggesting an unusual build with a Monkey running around using 'imp steal' and 'imp dirty trick' (comic relief stealing the opponents weapons, throwing coconuts, and flinging poo) then it could be cute and I'd roll with it....

But Bow-Bot targetting enemy casters would do low damage, but quite accurate with the bonuses from size, high dex, ranger FE etc - it becomes viable, but out of keeping with character.

That is, of course, if you houseruled it in.

The ranger gave him skill focus sneak. with his favored terrain bonus it makes him a great sneaker, though, not really a scout, as he has no way to report on anything he sees. I think the rangers plan is to turn him into a little assassin. Not sure. That would def go against the little guys nature, as it was.

Stuff with 3 int can learn languages. Real world primates, though the larger ones, can learn to sign. I'd say that with the int boost it should be able to learn a sign language to report with. That'll also make it less upsetting if it refuses to learn to kill people.

Silver Crusade

Atarlost wrote:
noretoc wrote:
Shifty wrote:

Yeah I sort of agree too - the personality has been defined as comic relief, and now the player is turning it into a bow-bot killer... not quite the same thing.

If the player was suggesting an unusual build with a Monkey running around using 'imp steal' and 'imp dirty trick' (comic relief stealing the opponents weapons, throwing coconuts, and flinging poo) then it could be cute and I'd roll with it....

But Bow-Bot targetting enemy casters would do low damage, but quite accurate with the bonuses from size, high dex, ranger FE etc - it becomes viable, but out of keeping with character.

That is, of course, if you houseruled it in.

The ranger gave him skill focus sneak. with his favored terrain bonus it makes him a great sneaker, though, not really a scout, as he has no way to report on anything he sees. I think the rangers plan is to turn him into a little assassin. Not sure. That would def go against the little guys nature, as it was.
Stuff with 3 int can learn languages. Real world primates, though the larger ones, can learn to sign. I'd say that with the int boost it should be able to learn a sign language to report with. That'll also make it less upsetting if it refuses to learn to kill people.

True, a bit irrelevant but true. The ranger has shown no interest in teaching him to communicate, but even giving him the benefit of the doubt, that he want the monkey to scout, the monkey, would be more interested in stuffing enemy's boots with bananas than counting troops. Should that attitude change to suit his new master's intentions for him, automatically,


From where I stand things aren't gonna go any way great if you say no.

Right now you have a player who isn't Min-Maxing his companion who actually, the way you describe it, treats it more like another person at the table, and who probably cares if it dies. If you won't let it learn the bow i forsee one of 3 actions.

A. He uses every spare day he has to attact a monkey that will learn archery.

B. Takes the Next chance to drop the monkey and get something useful like a pounce kitty. (i mean useful in the sense of combat not overall)

C. Deal with the choice and keep roll playing but probably won't be as excited about the monkey.

Right now you made a NPC so awesome that someone wants it around long enough to use a class feature to make sure it will be there for a good long while be proud.


noretoc wrote:
The monkey had an established personality. it was against its nature to use violence.

I think you gave this monkey a different personality than normal animals. There is a rule that says that animals don't have alignment.

Quote:
It instead was motivated by making people laugh.

I'm not sure how realistic a motive this is. I've interacted with very few monkeys, but I suspect that the real motivation was the food.

But never mind the fact that I might think you're running animals wrong, because that's neither here nor there. The problem is where your players have an expectation that's different from what you're doing. If you tell them "it's just an animal", then they have every right for it to act like a normal animal, and that it can also be trained by a ranger who knows a thing or two about the behaviour and motivations of normal animals. If you're doing things differently, I suggest acknowledging that fact so the players can be on the same page as you.

Quote:
Now before I read the thread linked above, I was under the impression that once the animal's int was raised, it would not be trainable by handle animal. (could it be taught, yes, but not rained like an animal). Apparently according to the blog post that is incorrect. Handle animal can be used regardless of the animal's intelligence. I don't like that, and am ignoring it. Therefore we have the following situation.

Not a problem at all. In fact, there are rules for dealing with creatures with Int 3 and higher. It's called Diplomacy.

Quote:
The monkey is not a violent creature and doesn't like the idea of hurting people. That is a given, as it was already established. End of story there.

A typical monkey shouldn't be capable of this kind of reasoning. However, you are partly on the right track in that no animal, not even humans, are willing to fight for no reason. Human soldiers have to go through an incredible amount of training in order to be willing to kill, and even then, a percentage of them will refuse to shoot an enemy in the heat of the moment.

But that's what taking on an animal companion entails. It means that the ranger is investing the time to teach the animal to be able to endure some of these battlefield situations.

Silver Crusade

Talonhawke wrote:

From where I stand things aren't gonna go any way great if you say no.

Right now you have a player who isn't Min-Maxing his companion who actually, the way you describe it, treats it more like another person at the table, and who probably cares if it dies. If you won't let it learn the bow i forsee one of 3 actions.

A. He uses every spare day he has to attact a monkey that will learn archery.

B. Takes the Next chance to drop the monkey and get something useful like a pounce kitty. (i mean useful in the sense of combat not overall)

C. Deal with the choice and keep roll playing but probably won't be as excited about the monkey.

Right now you made a NPC so awesome that someone wants it around long enough to use a class feature to make sure it will be there for a good long while be proud.

Well, I never said anything that should leave you to believe what you wrote in your first paragraph is true. The ranger actually tried to kill the monkey once. It has grown on him though. But assuming your first paragraph was 100% accurate, than why would the player do any of the other things you suggested. Why would he:

a. use everyday to attract a new monkey if he thinks of the one he has as a person and cares about it.
b. see a
c. not be excited that he has an animal companion that is more than just a block of statistics that he can use as an extra combatant?

if he was more concerned about having a class feature, than maybe he should have picked another companion and allowed the monkey to stay as what he was... That option was there (and still is). Should I turn the animal into something it wasn't just so he can have his class feature be as useful as a cat with pounce and deprive the rest of the group of their old companion? (I mean that as a question, what do you think?)


Isn't a Spider Monkey like six inches tall? How much damage can a bow six inches long do? 1 hp on a critical?

EDIT: I guess they are about 24 lbs. I thought I saw some monkey once that was tiny and called a spider monkey.


noretoc wrote:
Bascaria wrote:
karkon wrote:
Truth be told, if I was running the game I would just let the monkey carry on (within the rules stuff mentioned by Bascaria) as long as it was not an overpowered companion compared to the usual ranger choices.
And I don't think it will be. Small creature with low strength wielding a bow, even if you give it a longbow, is still capped at d6 damage per round, which is nothing compared to what a wolf, badger, or camel can do, or the increase to damage potential that a companion mount provides.

it is not an issue of balance, or of the level he can do this at. It is more an issue of, should the ranger be able to shape the personality of a companion, that already had a personality, just by making him a animal companion.

handle animal does not work on creature with an int higher than 2.

Animal companion wouldn't be with him in the first place if he didn't like his personality in the first place.


noretoc wrote:
True, a bit irrelevant but true. The ranger has shown no interest in teaching him to communicate, but even giving him the benefit of the doubt, that he want the monkey to scout, the monkey, would be more interested in stuffing enemy's boots with bananas than counting troops. Should that attitude change to suit his new master's intentions for him, automatically,

What, it can't count their boots while it stuffs bananas in them?

Silver Crusade

Jawsh wrote:
noretoc wrote:
The monkey had an established personality. it was against its nature to use violence.

I think you gave this monkey a different personality than normal animals. There is a rule that says that animals don't have alignment.

Quote:
It instead was motivated by making people laugh.

I'm not sure how realistic a motive this is. I've interacted with very few monkeys, but I suspect that the real motivation was the food.

But never mind the fact that I might think you're running animals wrong, because that's neither here nor there. The problem is where your players have an expectation that's different from what you're doing. If you tell them "it's just an animal", then they have every right for it to act like a normal animal, and that it can also be trained by a ranger who knows a thing or two about the behaviour and motivations of normal animals. If you're doing things differently, I suggest acknowledging that fact so the players can be on the same page as you.

Quote:
Now before I read the thread linked above, I was under the impression that once the animal's int was raised, it would not be trainable by handle animal. (could it be taught, yes, but not rained like an animal). Apparently according to the blog post that is incorrect. Handle animal can be used regardless of the animal's intelligence. I don't like that, and am ignoring it. Therefore we have the following situation.

Not a problem at all. In fact, there are rules for dealing with creatures with Int 3 and higher. It's called Diplomacy.

Quote:
The monkey is not a violent creature and doesn't like the idea of hurting people. That is a given, as it was already established. End of story there.
A typical monkey shouldn't be capable of this kind of reasoning. However, you are partly on the right track in that no animal, not even humans, are willing to fight for no reason. Human soldiers have to go through an incredible amount of training in order to be willing to kill, and even then, a...

well, if he had chosen just any old animal companion this wouldn't be an issue. I though that it was very clear from my posts that it is not a typical monkey. I'm sorry if you did not get that. The ranger was well aware of the personality of the monkey before choosing it as a companion. It has been with them a while. Also he is planning on increasing his intelligence, as I said, which will make it even less like a regular animal.

As for how I played the monkey, it can't be "wrong" as I made him. The way he acts and what he does is just "right" for the purpose he originally served..

Silver Crusade

Duncan & Dragons wrote:

Isn't a Spider Monkey like six inches tall? How much damage can a bow six inches long do? 1 hp on a critical?

EDIT: I guess they are about 24 lbs. I thought I saw some monkey once that was tiny and called a spider monkey.

absolutely irrelevant.

Silver Crusade

Abraham spalding wrote:
noretoc wrote:
Bascaria wrote:
karkon wrote:
Truth be told, if I was running the game I would just let the monkey carry on (within the rules stuff mentioned by Bascaria) as long as it was not an overpowered companion compared to the usual ranger choices.
And I don't think it will be. Small creature with low strength wielding a bow, even if you give it a longbow, is still capped at d6 damage per round, which is nothing compared to what a wolf, badger, or camel can do, or the increase to damage potential that a companion mount provides.

it is not an issue of balance, or of the level he can do this at. It is more an issue of, should the ranger be able to shape the personality of a companion, that already had a personality, just by making him a animal companion.

handle animal does not work on creature with an int higher than 2.

Animal companion wouldn't be with him in the first place if he didn't like his personality in the first place.

Well, he doesn't have increased int yet, and the ranger has not so far, tried to get him to do anything unusual. (He just leveled last game). He hangs around the ranger because he give him food, and when he tips over the ranger food bowl, the rest of the party laughs.


Why does the monkey have to either be the party clown or a stone cold assassian why can't it be jovial and funny when its not combat and have a game face when its go time?

As to the rest the way i read the situation was just as i put it that he choose the monkey because he liked it and wanted it more. As to my statements let see

A.) He really wants a archer monkey. This choice wasn't super likely but was there in my mind.

B. If he can't have a choice he liked that was sub-par might as well break the bank. Leaning towards this now since your leading me to believe nothing i thought was true was.

C. He likes the monkey but was still hoping he could train it to be more than a high HD scout eventually.

Also as to A&B If he keeps giving the current monkey treats and playing with it he still has the monkey around without having an Animal companion who apparnetly won't learn to use a bow on some form of personal ethics.

Silver Crusade

Atarlost wrote:
noretoc wrote:
True, a bit irrelevant but true. The ranger has shown no interest in teaching him to communicate, but even giving him the benefit of the doubt, that he want the monkey to scout, the monkey, would be more interested in stuffing enemy's boots with bananas than counting troops. Should that attitude change to suit his new master's intentions for him, automatically,
What, it can't count their boots while it stuffs bananas in them?

It get distracted by the smell of sweaty feat.


Well then you need to decide where you are comfortable at the monkey contributing. Personally I don't mess with my player's AC (except to drop hints and even then it's "AC is acting oddly... doesn't seem to like the cave, but follows at your insistence uneasily"), I figure the animal wouldn't be an animal companion if they didn't trust and agree with the person's position.

Basically put for me their a bit like a cohort but with a bit more player control.


noretoc wrote:
well, if he had chosen just any old animal companion this wouldn't be an issue. I though that it was very clear from my posts that it is not a typical monkey. I'm sorry if you did not get that. The ranger was well aware of the personality of the monkey before choosing it as a companion. It has been with them a while. Also he is planning on increasing his intelligence, as I said, which will make it even less like a regular animal.

I'm just saying it may be more typical than you think. Animals, in general, are cowards. With the exception of highly territorial animals, and predators in very specific situations, most animals would have a similar outlook to your monkey. Fighting and killing human-style does not come naturally to animals. But, rangers can train them to do it.

Also, PCs can have changes in outlook. And so can NPCs. Why can't this particular monkey have a change? Becoming someone's animal companion is a perfectly justified reason for having a change in outlook, as far as I'm concerned.

Silver Crusade

Talonhawke wrote:

Why does the monkey have to either be the party clown or a stone cold assassian why can't it be jovial and funny when its not combat and have a game face when its go time?

Never said he couldn't. It just so happens that the monkey right now, would not want to hurt anyone. (for whatever reason). Could he learn to, I guess so. Does he automatically change due to becoming an animal companion to put his loyalty to his master above his own wants? Even after he get smart enough to know the difference? That is what I am asking opinions on.

As I said, I think I am going to go with him being headstrong and saying no way to the bow, but it is still nice to hear what other people think.

Silver Crusade

Abraham spalding wrote:

Well then you need to decide where you are comfortable at the monkey contributing. Personally I don't mess with my player's AC (except to drop hints and even then it's "AC is acting oddly... doesn't seem to like the cave, but follows at your insistence uneasily"), I figure the animal wouldn't be an animal companion if they didn't trust and agree with the person's position.

Basically put for me their a bit like a cohort but with a bit more player control.

That is how I normally handle it also, and was going to not allow the ranger to take him, but the then the players all kinda pushed me on it, so I gave in. This is def an unusual situation.


One last thought -- if you decide against it, I suggest letting him leave out the monkey as an animal companion -- but offer up the chance of leadership to be taken with the monkey and hinting at perhaps the monkey is more that it strictly appears (or has appeared in the past).

This offers the plot hook of a baleful polymorph monkey that you have more control over (since cohorts are closer to 'regular' npcs than ACs are) and the chance of a different follower later if somehow the baleful polymorph is over come (perhaps the baleful polymorph is backed up by a greater bestow curse spell, or Geas spell that needs dealt with before the baleful polymorph can be handled).

Silver Crusade

Abraham spalding wrote:

One last thought -- if you decide against it, I suggest letting him leave out the monkey as an animal companion -- but offer up the chance of leadership to be taken with the monkey and hinting at perhaps the monkey is more that it strictly appears (or has appeared in the past).

This offers the plot hook of a baleful polymorph monkey that you have more control over (since cohorts are closer to 'regular' npcs than ACs are) and the chance of a different follower later if somehow the baleful polymorph is over come (perhaps the baleful polymorph is backed up by a greater bestow curse spell, or Geas spell that needs dealt with before the baleful polymorph can be handled).

Well, I will say that if the monkey does refuse and lives to tell about it, the ranger will def be able to drop him for another AC. As for the cohort idea, it came to mind for me. One thing I have not mentioned because I have not decided on how it is going to fit in, is that the monkey was found sitting on a dead vizier, who also had a genie bottle on him. There was def more to the story than what it appeared, before the ranger decided to bond him. I just hadn't decided what yet.


noretoc wrote:

It just so happens that the monkey right now, would not want to hurt anyone. (for whatever reason). Could he learn to, I guess so. Does he automatically change due to becoming an animal companion to put his loyalty to his master above his own wants? Even after he get smart enough to know the difference? That is what I am asking opinions on.

As I said, I think I am going to go with him being headstrong and saying no way to the bow, but it is still nice to hear what other people think.

Does he automatically change? I think yes. Maybe not right away. But the mechanics of having an animal companion is that it does what its master wants, for the most part. The point of the class feature is that the ranger is exerting his influence over the monkey. The same way a teacher or a parent would exert influence over a developing child. Or a sergeant would exert influence over a new recruit.

Sometimes recruits fail to be trainable. Remember the guy in Full Metal Jacket who blew his brains out? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vc2cPuwpqTg (warning: blood)

Silver Crusade

Jawsh wrote:
noretoc wrote:

It just so happens that the monkey right now, would not want to hurt anyone. (for whatever reason). Could he learn to, I guess so. Does he automatically change due to becoming an animal companion to put his loyalty to his master above his own wants? Even after he get smart enough to know the difference? That is what I am asking opinions on.

As I said, I think I am going to go with him being headstrong and saying no way to the bow, but it is still nice to hear what other people think.

Does he automatically change? I think yes. Maybe not right away. But the mechanics of having an animal companion is that it does what its master wants, for the most part. The point of the class feature is that the ranger is exerting his influence over the monkey. The same way a teacher or a parent would exert influence over a developing child. Or a sergeant would exert influence over a new recruit.

Sometimes recruits fail to be trainable. Remember the guy in Full Metal Jacket who blew his brains out? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vc2cPuwpqTg (warning: blood)

def a way of looking at it. appreciate the opinion. Thanks.


My comment on size was that it appears more of a Tiny animal than a Small one and is inappropiate as a combatant. Tell him to buy a Chimpanzee (which I guess is Small) and start training it from an infant. Therefore, the subject of the spider monkey's disposition is irrelevant.

Remind him that these creatures do not have opposable thumbs and therefore can not use weapons. Therefore, the subject of the spider monkey's disposition is irrelevant.

Finally, if you do decide that it is a Small creature and that the character can invent something to act as an opposable thumb, he has picked a creature that has already been characterized as 'non-violent'. If the character tries to train the monkey for violence, let him try to train the creature with negative modifier of -2, or maybe -4, and see how the dice fall.

Silver Crusade

Duncan & Dragons wrote:

My comment on size was that it appears more of a Tiny animal than a Small one and is inappropiate as a combatant. Tell him to buy a Chimpanzee (which I guess is Small) and start training it from an infant. Therefore, the subject of the spider monkey's disposition is irrelevant.

Remind him that these creatures do not have opposable thumbs and therefore can not use weapons. Therefore, the subject of the spider monkey's disposition is irrelevant.

Finally, if you do decide that it is a Small creature and that the character can invent something to act as an opposable thumb, he has picked a creature that has already been characterized as 'non-violent'. If the character tries to train the monkey for violence, let him try to train the creature with negative modifier of -2, or maybe -4, and see how the dice fall.

The disposition of the monkey is the point of this whole post. There would be no training roll as I already said I am disallowing handle animal due to the intelligence boost. Did you read the thread at all?


Yes, I read the thread.

Duncan & Dragons wrote:
Finally, if you do decide that it is a Small creature and that the character can invent something to act as an opposable thumb, he has picked a creature that has already been characterized as 'non-violent'. If the character tries to train the monkey for violence, let him try to train the creature with negative modifier of -2, or maybe -4, and see how the dice fall.

I was using the term 'train' since up thread we were talking about training humans as soldiers. Subsititute the words 'Diplomacy Check' for the word 'train' if you like.

I was trying to suggest that this does not have to be black-and-white. You as the DM can let the character try to influence an NPC to become an Animal Companion/Combatant but with a negative modifier to the chance of success. Just like they can try to talk the King's daughter into becoming an Assassin. But if you have already decided 'she is kind and good' there is a negative modifier to trying to influence her to do something against her nature.

I think I have upset you so I will drop from the thread. My apologies.


This does bring up the point of what type of creature an animal is when it gets a 3 intelligence since per the rules it is no longer an animal.


Talonhawke wrote:
This does bring up the point of what type of creature an animal is when it gets a 3 intelligence since per the rules it is no longer an animal.

according to Paizo's clarification in that other thread that got linked above, the animal remains an animal, even with Int 3+.


Jawsh wrote:
noretoc wrote:
well, if he had chosen just any old animal companion this wouldn't be an issue. I though that it was very clear from my posts that it is not a typical monkey. I'm sorry if you did not get that. The ranger was well aware of the personality of the monkey before choosing it as a companion. It has been with them a while. Also he is planning on increasing his intelligence, as I said, which will make it even less like a regular animal.

I'm just saying it may be more typical than you think. Animals, in general, are cowards. With the exception of highly territorial animals, and predators in very specific situations, most animals would have a similar outlook to your monkey. Fighting and killing human-style does not come naturally to animals. But, rangers can train them to do it.

Also, PCs can have changes in outlook. And so can NPCs. Why can't this particular monkey have a change? Becoming someone's animal companion is a perfectly justified reason for having a change in outlook, as far as I'm concerned.

Most creatures live by fight or flight, it's instinctual, but many monkeys (especially large groups) have been filmed/shown to go out in groups to specifically hunt and kill other monkeys... not only that, but they have been shown to use weapons, which can even be crafted in some very primitive form (intentionally sharpened sticks, or weighted objects specifically picked for their ability to deliver a "heavy blow") to kill others of their species for no apparent reason. If any animal companion was to learn to use a tool, and be ok with killing for killings sake, a monkey would be it... having said that ~~~~

This particular creature was a kind, timid, happy animal, and making it an animal companion shouldn't necessarily change that. It does change pretty much everything else about it though(animal companions are not normal animals of their kind, they are changed by becoming an animal companion, and if ever released, will revert back... it is a magical bond that causes quite the transformation). How the monkey acts is up to you, and you can have him refuse to attack/kill humans, but if you choose to do so, than it should be apparent pretty much right away so the ranger can release him from his service and gain another animal companion in 24 hrs that will be more willing to act the way he wants. This wouldn't harm the existing creature, and he can go back to being the party mascot.


I hope this is the non-rules answer you were looking for.

No, the monkey's personality wouldn't change.
(Nor, necessarily does the Ranger know he's changing it. He may not know it's such a pacifist. Even funny animals can be violent.)

Yes, the monkey would learn the bow because his best friend is teaching him how to use it. (If you allow the ruling.)
BUT, "Wait, this thing is to hurt people?" (Bow=toy)
Odds are the happy monkey would be disturbed by the amount of death and hate(not to mention flashy magic/fire/explosions/undead) around the PCs.
BUT, it's an AC now in an adventure game, so it sticks around (fight over flight). The monkey may help combat foes since he's there and his friends are getting whacked on. Yet, being a little monkey, what's he most likely to do? Shoot a bow in tactically sound ways against spellcasters and staggered foes? Or screech a lot, hit back with a stick, and fling poo? The latter three, I say. It could perhaps even distract with that screech (flank + aid another (defensively perhaps)).

High five (low five) from the barbarian for the extra 12-20+ damage or from the wizard who got missed due to the distraction (aid AC).
Remember, he wants his friends alive and laughing (and feeding him), not hurt, sad, and/or in a 'dead-no food' state.

And there are pooey/rock-like substances he could be trained to fling:
Most any alchemical weapon, Fire Seeds, oil, magic dust, poisons, et al.
Those aren't size dependent, they can lead to silly effects (esp. Tanglefoot bags), and keep the monkey mood and allow him to contribute effectively.
And caltrops. "Here, little buddy, just sneak over there near the side door and spread these around."

And you'll certainly need to talk to the player.

Oh, and I don't have the rules handy, but I think any critter with an intelligence of 3+ automatically understands one language, though stat bumps to animals may be an exception.
JMK

Shadow Lodge

noretoc wrote:
Talonhawke wrote:

Why does the monkey have to either be the party clown or a stone cold assassian why can't it be jovial and funny when its not combat and have a game face when its go time?

Never said he couldn't. It just so happens that the monkey right now, would not want to hurt anyone. (for whatever reason). Could he learn to, I guess so. Does he automatically change due to becoming an animal companion to put his loyalty to his master above his own wants? Even after he get smart enough to know the difference? That is what I am asking opinions on.

As I said, I think I am going to go with him being headstrong and saying no way to the bow, but it is still nice to hear what other people think.

Your position is reasonable. It's pretty clear that you had established a personality for the monkey, it's a bonified NPC. Your player opted to take him, he should accept him as he is or just use the normal rules for grabbing a companion.


A couple things...

Firstly, as for the disposition of the animal. Once it became the animal companion of the Ranger, then it's the ranger's class feature. If the monkey was not going to go along with what the ranger was planning, then it should have been refused in the first place (and the ranger find a different AC).

The intelligence increase is even less of a problem, as I see it, as the Ranger is the one that decided that it's Intelligence was boosted, so how it got smarter (and what changes were done) are entirely up to the Ranger. This isn't like shaping a child, who has predispositions and would have grown into the intelligence anyways.. the animal is literally getting "smarts" it could never have had. It is coming directly from his connection to the Ranger.
If the ranger wants the monkey to smarter in a way that is more sadistic than before, then that's how he changed the monkey's intelligence.

There is a definite change going on, and a personality change is entirely appropriate. Especially since he's getting ridiculous amounts of HD (which implies combat training, since it involves BAB, hitpoints and saves).

Also, you can just play it off as the master thinks hurting bad guys is funny, so he's making his master laugh by hurting others. *shrug*

.
The second issue on high intelligence animals was well covered by the blog post that was linked earlier. But in case people missed it, here's some relevant quotes:

Tool Use:

Quote:

Another aspect of intelligent animals is tool use.

...
Most weapons require thumbs to use properly, and even then, few animals would choose to use an artificial weapon in place of the natural weapons that have served them all their life. It's what they were born with, after all, and virtually no amount of training will change that. In the end, the GM should feel free to restrict such choices if he feels that they take away from the feel of his campaign. The rules themselves are left a little vague to give the GM the latitude to make the call that's right for his campaign.

Handle Animals:

Quote:
The Handle Animal skill functions similarly no matter how intelligent an animal becomes.

So yeah. No diplomacy checks needed here, it's still an animal responding to Handle Animal.

Oh, also:

Quote:
Once a creature's Int reaches 3, it also gains a language.

That doesn't mean it can speak it, but it should be automatic, and it should be one the Ranger knows (since the Ranger gave him the Intlligence to know language in the first place).

Now, you can always do whatever you want, but the quotes above are basically RAW written by the developers of Pathfinder, so at least you know where you stand within the rules.

1 to 50 of 139 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder First Edition / Rules Questions / Animal companion says no! All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.