If I have an animal companion with Int3, can I take Monster Feats that my companion is "physically capable" of performing?
For instance, could an INT3 bird animal companion take Flyby Attack?
I am away from my Core Rule Book and Beastiaries right now, so I can't speak from the perspective of Rules as Written (RAW), but I can offer to you insight as to how our table handles this issue: we allow Animal Companions, Famaliars, and Special Mounts to learn both a limited suite of feats, and a limited suite of skills. The feats and skills available to a particular Animal Companion, Familiar, or Special Mount are always tailored to those feats and skills that the specific creature is physically and mentally capable of utilizing. With this in mind, our table would have no problem with your avian learning Fly-by Attack since its clearly both physically and mentally capable of moving (via flight) and attacking.
Yes they could unless the GM said no. I don't think you even need an int of 3 to learn Fly-by Attack.
This is all very confusing to me.
Why is there such a thing as a "monster" feat when anyone can take them?
What is the point of listing animal companion feats if an animal companion can just "select other feats"?
What is the point in saying INT 3 animal companions can "select any feat they are physically capable of using"? RAW it seems like having INT 3 limits the feats available from "other" to "physically capable" although this obviously isn't RAI...
INT 3 is also confusing when considering the gnome ability to speak with animals, what exactly are they saying if they are too dumb to understand speach?
It seems like animal/player interactions are just not fleshed out well at all in the RAW, maybe I should just talk to the GM.
|
Monster feats come from the beastiary and there is a line at the beginning of the feat chapters that states PC's MAY be allowed to take them. That MAY puts it strictly into the hands of the GM whether you are allowed to take those feats.
Also the precedent set by PFS is that these feats are restricted and I (like many GM's) tend to follow that precedent and deny access to those feats unless a valid reason occurs to allow it.
Why is there such a thing as a "monster" feat when anyone can take them?
If you looks at Monsters by type (appendix 8 Core book) you will find animals listed, but none of the core races (Elf, Dwarf, Human, Half-Orc, etc), so not "anyone" can take these feats, but animals can.
What is the point of listing animal companion feats if an animal companion can just "select other feats"?
These are the feats an animal is limited to ... unless they have an intelligence of 3 or higher and are physically capable, in which case they can choose another feat.
What is the point in saying INT 3 animal companions can "select any feat they are physically capable of using"? RAW it seems like having INT 3 limits the feats available from "other" to "physically capable" although this obviously isn't RAI...
The point is that after Int 3, they are not limited to a specific list, because they are no longer technically "animals". "No creature with an intelligence score of 3 or higher can be an animal." (Core book creature types), although they are still an "animal companion" .. yes that is kind of weird.
INT 3 is also confusing when considering the gnome ability to speak with animals, what exactly are they saying if they are too dumb to understand speach?
I'm not sure why this is so far fetched. We are so willing to understand someone on the 18 side of 3-18, but not the 3? And the GM must play animal intellect as it was intended, more as instinctual impressions than elaborate conversations, one would think.
It seems like animal/player interactions are just not fleshed out well at all in the RAW, maybe I should just talk to the GM.
Yes, talk to the GM ... with a sufficient intellect ;)
Contributor, RPG Superstar 2010 Top 8
|
The point is that after Int 3, they are not limited to a specific list, because they are no longer technically "animals". "No creature with an intelligence score of 3 or higher can be an animal." (Core book creature types), although they are still an "animal companion" .. yes that is kind of weird.
That's not quite true. The limitation on animal Intelligence only comes into play when you're designing new animals, it doesn't mean that animals change type when they get smarter. They covered this in a blog a while back..
To the OP:
Basically, it boils down to "ask your GM". Your animal is no longer limited to the list of Animal Feats, but that doesn't give it automatic access to feats from the Bestiary.
That said, I and most GMs I know are happy to add the various flying feats (Fly-By Attack, Wingover, etc.) to the list of Animal Feats, allowing your bird to take them no matter what it's Intelligence is. I suspect the only reason they were omitted from the list in the first place was that the Bestiary had yet to be released when the Core Rulebook came out.
The rules say:
"Animal companions should select their feats from those listed under Animal Feats. Animal companions can select other feats, although they are unable to utilize some feats (such as Martial Weapon Proficiency)."
Should I just take the second sentence as a re-itteration of rule 0?
The intention seems to be that some feats require more intelligence to perform, but those feats are not spelled out anywhere.
I have to agree with Benchak that I would allow those Flying Feats as a GM. It is surprising that the Core book errata has not done this already. Fly-by is no different than Spring attack for flyers, and spring attack is in the list, albeit the spring attack has more requirements.
hmmm
|
Contributor, RPG Superstar 2010 Top 8
|
The rules say:
"Animal companions should select their feats from those listed under Animal Feats. Animal companions can select other feats, although they are unable to utilize some feats (such as Martial Weapon Proficiency)."
Should I just take the second sentence as a re-itteration of rule 0?The intention seems to be that some feats require more intelligence to perform, but those feats are not spelled out anywhere.
Basically, it's saying you're free to pick any feat in the Core Rulebook, provided it's something your animal can physically perform.
An example of this would be Stand Still. Not on the Animal Feat list, so an Int 2 animal companion can't take it. However, since its something most animals could physically accomplish (i.e. it doesn't require thumbs or the ability to speak) your Int 3 animal can take it.
If your GM allows players in your game pick feats from books outside the Core Rulebook (like Ultimate Combat, or Ultimate Magic), you should be able to select feats for your Int 3 animal companion from these sources as well.
An example of this would be Death From Above, from Ultimate Combat. Since it's not in the Core Rulebook, it's up to your GM whether anybody is allowed to take it--you, your animal companion, the wizard your friend is playing, etc. If your GM allows the feat, then your Int 3 animal companion can take it. Your Int 2 animal companion would not, since it's not on the Animal Feats list.
This is where the Bestiary comes in. We can't tell you "Yes, the Bestiary feats are OK!" because it's up to your GM whether the feats in the Bestiary are OK for anybody to take. If he's OK with you using the Bestiary as a source, your animal would need an Int of 3 to take those feats.
On a mostly unrelated not, I personally choose to include some of the Bestiary feats on the baseline Animal Feats list, because I think they make sense. Your GM may be willing to do the same.
(Edited for clarity)
Wait a minute back up...I know familiars in their animal starter package get feats but you can CHANGE those?! What the heck! I have been desperately seeking a way to make familiars more useful; why did no one in 3 threads mention this?
|
Contributor, RPG Superstar 2010 Top 8
|
Wait a minute back up...I know familiars in their animal starter package get feats but you can CHANGE those?! What the heck! I have been desperately seeking a way to make familiars more useful; why did no one in 3 threads mention this?
Because you can't (at least not without GM permission).
This thread is specifically about Animal Companions, which are separate and distinct from familiars. They gain feats and skills as you level, whereas familiars don't.
Several of the feats listed in the animal companion section of the druid class features ARE monster feats. The CRB also says that they can take any feat they are physically capable of using at Int 3, so any monster feats not listed in that section should be fair game.
If you are a hardcore rules lawyer, RAW spells it out for you plain as day: "...any feat..."
It's not like any of them are overpowered or anything, anyway.
I would also point out the books were published at different times so newer feats which might ordinarily have been on the animal companion feat list are not listed.
An example could be something like eldritch claws which require (Str 15, natural weapons, base attack bonus +6)could conceivably have that feat if they met the requirments ... that being said, and as others, its up to the individual GM
to be honest it would have been nice if they updated the AC feat list when they added new feats to the mix
I feel like I am not communicating well, so I'll go slowly.
1. There are two classes of animal companions, those with Int 3+ and those with Int 1-2.
2. Int 3+ animal companions can take any feat they can "physically perform."
3. Int 1-2 animal companions can take a feat off the list of approved animal companion feats, some of which are monster feats.
4. Int 1-2 animal companions can also choose from "other feats" with the caveat that "they are unable to utilize some feats" for some unwritten reason. It is the sentence right after it talks about them picking a feat off the list.
What are these "other feats" that Int 1-2 animal companions can take? From the responses it sounds like this is just a re-itteration of rule 0.
|
Contributor, RPG Superstar 2010 Top 8
|
I feel like I am not communicating well, so I'll go slowly.
1. There are two classes of animal companions, those with Int 3+ and those with Int 1-2.
2. Int 3+ animal companions can take any feat they can "physically perform."
3. Int 1-2 animal companions can take a feat off the list of approved animal companion feats, some of which are monster feats.
4. Int 1-2 animal companions can also choose from "other feats" with the caveat that "they are unable to utilize some feats" for some unwritten reason. It is the sentence right after it talks about them picking a feat off the list.
What are these "other feats" that Int 1-2 animal companions can take? From the responses it sounds like this is just a re-itteration of rule 0.
4. Yes, it's basically Rule 0. They're just reminding GMs that they can add feats from newer or third party books to the list that Int 1-2 animals can take.
It simply seems odd to me to say that you can have an animal companion of almost any animal found in the monster manual, but you can't take feats from the monster manual.
One of my DMs refused to let my druid's animal take Improved natural attack because it was a monster manual feat. So I ditched my bear animal companion and picked up a gorilla, who is now proficient with mithril chain mail (Light Armor) and great swords. Feats that I picked from the Pathfinder Player's Guide.
Does it make sense to me that a gorilla can use a great sword and armor? Nope.
Did it come from the Pathfinder Player's Guide and satisfy my DM's Requirements?
Yep.
Did my DM count on my Gorilla turning into a large creature?
Nope.
Did he regret the day that I got my Gorilla's sword enchanted?
Yep.
The Gorilla's name was Bright Eyes. >:)
Now I just have to teach him to speak, and perhaps change his name to Caesar.
|
|
It simply seems odd to me to say that you can have an animal companion of almost any animal found in the monster manual, but you can't take feats from the monster manual.
One of my DMs refused to let my druid's animal take Improved natural attack because it was a monster manual feat. So I ditched my bear animal companion and picked up a gorilla, who is now proficient with mithril chain mail (Light Armor) and great swords. Feats that I picked from the Pathfinder Player's Guide.
Does it make sense to me that a gorilla can use a great sword and armor? Nope.
Did it come from the Pathfinder Player's Guide and satisfy my DM's Requirements?
Yep.Did my DM count on my Gorilla turning into a large creature?
Nope.Did he regret the day that I got my Gorilla's sword enchanted?
Yep.The Gorilla's name was Bright Eyes. >:)
Now I just have to teach him to speak, and perhaps change his name to Caesar.
You do know that you have to use a handle animal (DC 20) check every round to PUSH your gorilla to use that greatsword instead of his natural attacks right? Hope you enjoy giving up your standard action every round to get Bright Eyes to swing that shiny stick around.
Assuming his int is above 3 and he has weapon prof in greatsword he shouldn't have to do that and even if by some stretch of imagination and confusion he did then it would only be a move action
Sensibly, the bird should be able to take flyby attack whenever the hell it wants to. its a freaking bird, and dive bombing things is in its DNA.
RAW, you need an int 3 to go off of the list.
So once you have an int of 3 or higher, nothing is preventing you from going off list except possibly the whim of the DM. RAW allows it and it definitely fits the companion.
You do know that you have to use a handle animal (DC 20) check every round to PUSH your gorilla to use that greatsword instead of his natural attacks right? Hope you enjoy giving up your standard action every round to get Bright Eyes to swing that shiny stick around.
My DM already tried to pull that crap on me, replacing the Animal Companion with an Eidolon or Summoned Monster.
I can't tell you how much the game slows down when you have to use 3 of your turns to tell 3 different earth elementals to attack the same bad guy. It made the character not fun to play and I threw him off of a cliff, for suddenly being so gimpy.
Also, last I checked a handle animal check was a move action.
Also, last I checked a handle animal check was a move action.
Handling an animal is a move action. "Pushing an animal" is a full-round action.
If you are a ranger or a druid then handling an animal companion is a free action and pushing is a move action.
My DM already tried to pull that crap on me, replacing the Animal Companion with an Eidolon or Summoned Monster.
This seems wrong. My understanding is that you can command a summoned monster to do whatever you want to do within its capabilities as long as you are able to communicate with it with no need to spend move or standard actions.
|
|
You do know that you have to use a handle animal (DC 20) check every round to PUSH your gorilla to use that greatsword instead of his natural attacks right? Hope you enjoy giving up your standard action every round to get Bright Eyes to swing that shiny stick around.
My DM already tried to pull that crap on me, replacing the Animal Companion with an Eidolon or Summoned Monster.
I can't tell you how much the game slows down when you have to use 3 of your turns to tell 3 different earth elementals to attack the same bad guy. It made the character not fun to play and I threw him off of a cliff, for suddenly being so gimpy.
Also, last I checked a handle animal check was a move action.
That slow down is partly the reason why this is required. running around with umpteen million critters to fight with slows play down enormously, this is a great dis-incentive to doing that.
I meant to right move action not standard but it only changes things slightly. Using a weapon is non standard for any creature of animal int and will always require a PUSH (DC 25 check)to get them to do it. This prevents you from ever taking a full round action so it's no longer a really valid trick once you get past the early levels of the game.
That blog post/errata has been out for like a year I'm surprised this keeps coming up.
@halifax, What we are talking about only pertains to things that are of type animal, THEY have a specific set of restrictions on what they can or cannot do.
He picked up prof greatswords therefore his int is at least 3 so he doesn't have to use push at least according to the rules within reference to his situation.
I have never heard of this "you can only communicate with one summoned critter at a time" rule. Anyone got a concrete ruling on it or was this something your dm pulled out of his hat to gimp conjuration classes?
|
|
He picked up prof greatswords therefore his int is at least 3 so he doesn't have to use push at least according to the rules within reference to his situation.
I have never heard of this "you can only communicate with one summoned critter at a time" rule. Anyone got a concrete ruling on it or was this something your dm pulled out of his hat to gimp conjuration classes?
The only thing an intelligence over 2 does for any creature of type=animal is allow it to learn more tricks.
If you check the animal intelligence blog post here you will see that they FIRMLY declared anything of type=animal requires a successful handle animal check to get them to do ANYTHING you want them to do.
It doesn't matter what the animals intelligence is, it still needs a handle animal check to perform any action you want it too.
Unlike a familiar there is no direct connection between the AC and the Ranger/Druid/etc. It will only perform actions you want it to do if you use Handle Animal on it.
You want it to attack? Handle animal check.
You want it to stay? Handle animal check.
You want it to go get a cup of coffee? Handle animal check.
You bump it's Intelligence up to 30 and it becomes headmaster of the wizards school and king of all Golarion and you want it to put on a hat? Handle animal check.
This is the part everyone glosses over but that's why they wrote the Animal Companion Blog post. You NEED to get +12 (minimum) bonus on your handle animal skill to ever be able to reliably control your companion (and that's only for Tricks you have succeeded in teaching it).
Also, in this same blog post they declared even if your Gorilla learns to use that greatsword as a trick you will still need to make that handle animal check each round to make him continue using it instead of his natural weapons which it would prefer.
He picked up prof greatswords therefore his int is at least 3 so he doesn't have to use push at least according to the rules within reference to his situation.
I have never heard of this "you can only communicate with one summoned critter at a time" rule. Anyone got a concrete ruling on it or was this something your dm pulled out of his hat to gimp conjuration classes?
He pulled it out of his gimp hat. Along with several other rulings that caused me to abandon my summoner.
Some of the classics include:
The Eidolon can not take Improved Natural Attack (Reason: It is overpowered)
Augment Summoning does not work on SLA (Reason: It is overpowered)
The Energy attacks evolution only applies to one of your natural attacks (Reason: It would let you do more damage than the fighter)
You need a fly check to be able to land on a small area with no bad weather. (Reason: It makes sense to me)
(He didn't like it when I asked how do birds land on branches.)
@Mathwei. An int over three allows you to take nonanimal feats. If said gorilla is skilled and trained in the use of a greatsword then it does not require him to be pushed as he is not using an unfamiliar tool. This is according to the fun section on animal companions in the core rule book. I never said that he didn't require you to roll a handle animal check. I said he didn't have to use push.
Oh and your exceeding rant on requirements for handle animal checks and all of that excitement. A minimum of 12 wow. Class skill and link. So now we need a plus 5. So we're reliably covered by level five at the minimum oh what horror.
I read the blog and its information on unfamiliar tool use. Without a further ruling which would exceed raw an Ape can use a tool with which he is familiar. Mind you Apes have thumbs and have been known to use tools. What is your point other than stating that you have to make a handle animal check? Which I knew and didn't say you didn't have to do.
Mogart. Yeah sounds like the dm didn't want anyone to play a summoner in which case he should probably say so before you start.
|
|
@Jak, the point is that you are disseminating incorrect information and the post was to clarify your error.
As to your Gorilla example, just because he has burned a feat to learn to use the Greatsword unless you also spend one of his Tricks as well on use greatsword then YOU have to use the PUSH action to get him to use it.
If it's not an actual trick you have trained it to do you HAVE to push it to do anything.
And my Rant as you call it is AFTER taking into account Class Skill + link. Class skill gives you +3 Link gives you +4 for a total of 7 against DC=s of either 15 or 25. Your idea of adding 5 ranks is enough means you'd have a skill of 12 and have a 55% chance of FAILING every time you tried to get King Kong there of swinging his sword and you wasting that move action.
My point was to emphasize that the Handle Animal check is glossed over by so many players that and the forget the action cost of doing so. If you knew good for you, other posters in this thread didn't and asked about it.
Now for you and your Gorilla...
Good luck with that.
I am not disseminating false information. You are inferring that I am because I am not stipulating all of the necessary requirements to use a build the individual had already built in the past. Moreover nowhere does it state that you have to spend a trick on him and then to use it as a push action in the raw or in the blog you posted or any combination of the three.
As for your rant. I took your requirements at a bare minimum because I assumed that you knew how handle animal worked according to raw and rai. Since you believe that you have to use push to get a companion to do anything as you say then I can see where the mathematical error arises.
I have a plan though that will fix this. You adamantly believe these animal companion push rules and I have no desire to correct you or prove you wrong. Enjoy them until someone bothers to do so.
|
|
The Push rules are written very specifically
To push an animal means to get it to perform a task or trick that it doesn’t know but is physically capable of performing.
Have you spent a trick to train this animal to use that greatsword on command? No? Then you must use the Push action to get him to use it. Whether the animal knows how to use something or not you HAVE to make the handle animal check to use it, the "Trick" just determines how easy that check is.
Now the part where I think you have missed is the 2nd part of the Blog Post from Jason Buhlman that states:
1. Animals work under the rules for Handle Animal. The only place where Int comes into this is using the skill for Magical Beasts (which must have an Int of 1 or 2 for the skill to be used on them) and the number of tricks an animal can learn. On the first issue, it is just easier to have the rules apply to all creatures of the animal type, regardless of Int. This does not necessarily create two different Int score tracks, it just places limitations on creatures of the animal type, which I think is perfectly reasonable. Similar limitations apply to plants, but PCs have fewer iterations with them as tools and allies, so the issue is far less common there. The rules are silent on the second issue, but I think a GM could safely assume that an animal can learn 3 extra tricks for each point of Int above 2 (following the pattern).
2. Because we are dealing with something that has a real world analog (animal intelligence), it is pretty easy to get into heated debate about what an animal can and cannot do. Remember that we are running a game here, not trying to simulate every exact possibility of reality. That means that in some situations, the rules might not be able to properly replicate every situation without opening up the system to easy abuse. Some GMs will certainly view the weapon wielding animal companions in this way, which is why we left it open for GM interpretation (such as in PFS). I am going to let Hyrum and Mark make the call on this situation for PFS, based on their experience and vision for the Org Play program.
Jason Bulmahn
Lead Designer
Paizo Publishing
It has taken weapon prof greatsword. By definition it knows how to use a greatsword much like it knows how to wear barding if it takes armor prof without encumbering itself.
To push is to perform a task that it does not know or a trick it does not know. Well we can assume our ape knows combat. Since we've taken weapon prof we know we've trained him to use greatswords in combat. Therefore it is a free action.
I don't know how you keep thinking that I don't understand the requirements for animals to work under the handle animal skill. The only effect that the higher int grants is the ability to learn non animal approved feats such as prof greatsword. At no point have I suggested or implied that boosting int to 3 removed the requirement to use handle animal as a free action to tell it to attack with its greatsword a tool it is familiar with because it acquired the prerequisite feat to enable greatsword use as it has the hand dexterity to hold and wield such a device.
This is the part everyone glosses over but that's why they wrote the Animal Companion Blog post. You NEED to get +12 (minimum) bonus on your handle animal skill to ever be able to reliably control your companion (and that's only for Tricks you have succeeded in teaching it).
I think even a mid level druid's animal companion gets all the tricks if they raise the animals Int.
Link (Ex): A druid can handle her animal companion as a free action, or push it as a move action, even if she doesn't have any ranks in the Handle Animal skill. The druid gains a +4 circumstance bonus on all wild empathy checks and Handle Animal checks made regarding an animal companion.
So +4 for being an animal companion, +3 trained, + 4 ranks +1 minimum roll. That won't be a problem after level 4 or so (depending on how hard you dumped your cha)
This also leaves out the animals natural behavior. It IS your friend after all. If someone is trying to stab you the critter probably doesn't NEED to be told to bite someone, it gets mad and does it on its own.
For summoned critters
This spell summons an extraplanar creature (typically an outsider, elemental, or magical beast native to another plane). It appears where you designate and acts immediately, on your turn. It attacks your opponents to the best of its ability. If you can communicate with the creature, you can direct it not to attack, to attack particular enemies, or to perform other actions.
The creatures are already in "attack mode" and don't need to be handled at all to attack. they're going to attack your foes unless you tell them not to.
|
|
It has taken weapon prof greatsword. By definition it knows how to use a greatsword much like it knows how to wear barding if it takes armor prof without encumbering itself.
To push is to perform a task that it does not know or a trick it does not know. Well we can assume our ape knows combat. Since we've taken weapon prof we know we've trained him to use greatswords in combat. Therefore it is a free action.
I don't know how you keep thinking that I don't understand the requirements for animals to work under the handle animal skill. The only effect that the higher int grants is the ability to learn non animal approved feats such as prof greatsword. At no point have I suggested or implied that boosting int to 3 removed the requirement to use handle animal as a free action to tell it to attack with its greatsword a tool it is familiar with because it acquired the prerequisite feat to enable greatsword use as it has the hand dexterity to hold and wield such a device.
The reason I keep saying you don't get it is that you are still saying it's a free action, it's not. The only time that it's a free action is if you specifically spend one of it's tricks to get it to use the greatsword to attack instead of it's claws. If you don't spend the trick then it's a PUSH and costs a move action to do it.
Combat is a trick that means to attack with it's normal weapons, having it use something other then it's natural attacks is a different trick.@bignorsewolf, yes that will let them get their AC to do any TRICK they've been trained to do, however we are discussing getting them to do a trick they DON'T know (which is the majority of things players try to get their AC's to do) and using the PUSH action to get em to do.
Gotcha so you think that using a weapon that it is trained to use should be a different trick than combat despite the fact that there is absolutely nothing to suggest this? And I think that it does count as using combat because there is absolutely no evidence to think otherwise.
If you read under the attack trick you'll note that it stipulates absolutely nothing about it being an attack with its natural weapons. It merely says attack which is kind of a given that it would be natural weapons as that is the only weapon that it is proficient in at least until you pick up greatsword prof in which case it is proficient in two types.
|
Contributor, RPG Superstar 2010 Top 8
|
Here's the relevant quote from Jason Bulmahn, taken from the blog on intelligent animals.
Another aspect of intelligent animals is tool use. There are a number of feats that convey an understanding and the proper use of weapons and armor. Generally speaking, these feats are off-limits to animals, but when their intelligence reaches 3, the rules state that they can use any feat that they are physically capable of using. Some people take this to mean that they can equip their animal companion in chainmail and arm him with a greatsword given the correct feats. While you could interpret the rules in this way, the "capable of use" clause is very important. 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.
So basically whether an ape can use a greatsword (and thus whether he needs to learn it as a separate trick, or whether you have to Push him as a move action) is up to your GM.
Yep. That is a gm call. As it is written it is perfectly legal to use it as a free action both according to RAI and RAW unless a gm stipulates otherwise.
|
|
Nice highlighting but this is what I'm talking about.
Another aspect of intelligent animals is tool use. There are a number of feats that convey an understanding and the proper use of weapons and armor. Generally speaking, these feats are off-limits to animals, but when their intelligence reaches 3, the rules state that they can use any feat that they are physically capable of using. Some people take this to mean that they can equip their animal companion in chainmail and arm him with a greatsword given the correct feats. While you could interpret the rules in this way, the "capable of use" clause is very important. 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.
What it means is that whether or not your ape can use a weapon is entirely up to your GM and the Dev's are empowering him to do that.
Pathfinder is an exclusive system, if the system doesn't state you CAN do something then it means you CAN'T do it. All of the above conversation is saying that you need to ask your GM if you can (that means default is no unless he decides otherwise).
So basically whether an ape can use a greatsword (and thus whether he needs to learn it as a separate trick, or whether you have to Push him as a move action) is up to your GM.
IF ... and this is a big if... you give a gorillia weapon proficiency with a greatsword then you don't need to push it. You have already decided that the animal is capable of using the feat and given it to him. The place to decide if the animal is CAPABLE is when you select the feat, not in the middle of combat. If the animal is capable there is no need to push. If the animal is not capable then they can't select the feat.
|
Contributor, RPG Superstar 2010 Top 8
|
@Jak
Yes, though since it's up to the GM whether an ape is 'capable of using' a greatsword, you would need to get GM permission before taking the feat.
Once you took the feat, absent any further GM ruling the ape should be able attack with it using the standard combat trick.
Me personally? I worry that arming apes creates a balance issue. I might be tempted to allow Simple melee weapons though, simply because I like the imagery of club-wielding apes. It's got a real 2001 vibe to it.
|
|
So basically whether an ape can use a greatsword (and thus whether he needs to learn it as a separate trick, or whether you have to Push him as a move action) is up to your GM.IF ... and this is a big if... you give a gorillia weapon proficiency with a greatsword then you don't need to push it. You have already decided that the animal is capable of using the feat and given it to him. The place to decide if the animal is CAPABLE is when you select the feat, not in the middle of combat. If the animal is capable there is no need to push. If the animal is not capable then they can't select the feat.
Now BNW my issue is from the line in Buhlman's post where he states "few animals will choose to use an artificial weapon". Just because he knows how to use the weapon doesn't mean that he will CHOOSE to use that weapon. If his default is to not use it then you need to make him use it. If you have to MAKE him use it then you have to use handle animal checks to do that.
That's an entirely different handle animal check which is why I rule it as a different trick.Attacking is easy, pulling out a strange unnatural weapon and using that instead of slamming it with your fist is totally different.
@Benchak
If you read further down on in the thread mdt and some others get into a huge debate about which creatures could use which weapons. I for one agree with the notion that an ape could use any swinging based weapons due to bone and muscular structure. Personally I'd give one an axe or a great club as to me that fits the imagery and the hands better.
The ruling is one that a dm would have to make and there is nothing in the rules prohibiting such an action. I would read that as a dm can revoke, but shouldn't need to grant permission depending on the group.
Edit @ Mathwei. You are making up rules that are up to a gm to decide, but are not present.
Edited due to a misread
Now BNW my issue is from the line in Buhlman's post where he states "few animals will choose to use an artificial weapon". Just because he knows how to use the weapon doesn't mean that he will CHOOSE to use that weapon. If his default is to not use it then you need to make him use it. If you have to MAKE him use it then you have to use handle animal checks to do that.
Don't read the line, read the whole paragraph.
There are a number of feats that convey an understanding and the proper use of weapons and armor. Generally speaking, these feats are off-limits to animals, but when their intelligence reaches 3, the rules state that they can use any feat that they are physically capable of using. Some people take this to mean that they can equip their animal companion in chainmail and arm him with a greatsword given the correct feats
He's clearly talking about the legality of giving the gorilla the feat, and he's telling DM's its ok to say that the Gorilla is not capable for reasons other than physical.
|
|
@Jak, ALL rules are up to the GM to decide, my examples are simply using the exclusive design that is the default standard for pathfinder.
You are asking the question "Why can't I do this?" when all the other rulings in the game ask "Can I do this?". Once you accept that fact then you and I will be on the same page and can discuss this rationally.
You are thankfully not most people's gm and the rules clearly stipulate that this course of action is allowed and that a dm can make an exemption here as BigNorseWolf and myself and others have all said and explained numerous times.
I am tired now although lightly humored that you have after a fashion claimed that I am acting irrationally. Which thinking on it strictly speaking is true. I am debating on the internet with a fanatic.
Edit: On the plus side you made me laugh. At myself of course, but still humor always brightens my day.
As I said good luck and enjoy it until someone convinces you otherwise.
As a note. I have not asked Why can't I do this? Rather I know according to raw, rai, the blog that I can. I have merely been trying to show you the rules that state that I can unless a dm states otherwise much like how at level one I can take iron will.
|
Contributor, RPG Superstar 2010 Top 8
|
@Jak, ALL rules are up to the GM to decide, my examples are simply using the exclusive design that is the default standard for pathfinder.
You are asking the question "Why can't I do this?" when all the other rulings in the game ask "Can I do this?". Once you accept that fact then you and I will be on the same page and can discuss this rationally.
I don't think anyone is acting irrationally, I think people are just talking past each other a little bit.
Jak isn't really asking "Why can't I do this?". He's saying "By letting the ape take the feat, the GM has already given me permission to do this. Adding in further requirements (like additional tricks or handle animal checks) is a house rule."
And he's right. Like BigNorseWolf says, the lines you've bolded from the blog post are just examples of why a GM might rule that apes can't use greatswords. They're there to let the GM veto the feat altogether, not modify how the feat is used once taken.
The debate with the gorilla and the greatsword is very interesting, but one question sticks out in my mind. Can a gorilla, with the proper feats, use a hammer with a bear trap attached to it? A bear-trap hammer if you will.
The legend lives on.