|
Applying an FAQ about a feat already taken and the animal being able to use it, to whether an animal should be allowed to take it on the basis of whether they are physically capable or not, is disingenuous at best.<laugh> While I can empathize with the thought that those who disagree with me might be disingenuous in their responses, such is not the case. You're not following the thought process. IF a snake can take IUS, then per the FAQ, the snake would be allowed to use the feat when using the Attack command.. That's all that's being communicated to Nefreet.
If there is some RAW basis for disallowing IUS on an animal, any and all animals, it would be that an animal can't make an unarmed strike i.e. animals only have natural weapon attacks and are incapable of making an unarmed strike. Of course, that's not the argument Andrew is putting forth, but it might still apply.Animals are not unarmed. Therefore IUS does them no good.You're welcome.
You are correct. I didn't explicitly list this as part of my argument. Looks like we at least agree that this could be an argument made for disallowing IUS.
So Thank you.
|
|
Do I understand you to be implying that a monk with a weapon in one hand cannot use Improved Unarmed Strike, because he's not unarmed? (And let us specify, a humanoid monk.)
Nope. Not at all.
IUS and the Monk's ability that basically is IUS, specifically says that it does not require you to have "hands" free.
However, there is some very confusing language in the clarification on two-weapon fighting and Monk's flurry (ironic that a clarification would be so confusing), that essentially defines "hand" as an abstract term that essentially determines what you can do and how many of those things you can do.
So as long as the Monk doesn't attack with the sword (unless its one of the weapons that a Monk can use their flurry with) they get their full iteration of flurry attacks. Because they can use their head, knee, etc.
The argument for an animal not being able to use IUS has nothing to do with whether they have a "free hand" or not. Its about anatomy and the fact they already have a type of "unarmed attack" called a "natural attack."
There is a feat that allows a Monk to apply unarmed attack feats and bonuses and what not to natural attacks. Its called Feral Combat Training.
Do I understand you to be implying that a monk with a weapon in one hand cannot use Improved Unarmed Strike, because he's not unarmed? (And let us specify, a humanoid monk.)Nope. Not at all.
So as long as the Monk doesn't attack with the sword (unless its one of the weapons that a Monk can use their flurry with) they get their full iteration of flurry attacks. Because they can use their head, knee, etc.
The argument for an animal not being able to use IUS has nothing to do with whether they have a "free hand" or not. Its about anatomy and the fact they already have a type of "unarmed attack" called a "natural attack."
So,.... a human(oid) can headbutt, but a lion can't? Is this the same lion that can't climb trees?
|
|
Do I understand you to be implying that a monk with a weapon in one hand cannot use Improved Unarmed Strike, because he's not unarmed? (And let us specify, a humanoid monk.)Nope. Not at all.
So as long as the Monk doesn't attack with the sword (unless its one of the weapons that a Monk can use their flurry with) they get their full iteration of flurry attacks. Because they can use their head, knee, etc.
The argument for an animal not being able to use IUS has nothing to do with whether they have a "free hand" or not. Its about anatomy and the fact they already have a type of "unarmed attack" called a "natural attack."
So,.... a human(oid) can headbutt, but a lion can't? Is this the same lion that can't climb trees?
I'm saying that a Lion wouldn't want to headbutt, because they have a nasty bite, and several claws. Being that they are animals, they will resort to doing things in their animal way. Because this is their ingrained nature, they would not learn IUS, because it makes no reasonable sense to them in their animal mind.
I'm also saying, that a creature, that is not a humanoid, has a primary weapon type called a natural weapon. And that it is mutually exclusive to Improved Unarmed Strike.
|
|
I'm quite confused. You seem to be arguing that something with a natural attack shouldn't be able to take IUS then you point out a feat (Feral Combat Training) whose prerequisites are IUS and Weapon Focus with a Natural Attack. So you must be trying to say something else, but I can't figure out what it is.Do I understand you to be implying that a monk with a weapon in one hand cannot use Improved Unarmed Strike, because he's not unarmed? (And let us specify, a humanoid monk.)Nope. Not at all.
IUS and the Monk's ability that basically is IUS, specifically says that it does not require you to have "hands" free.
However, there is some very confusing language in the clarification on two-weapon fighting and Monk's flurry (ironic that a clarification would be so confusing), that essentially defines "hand" as an abstract term that essentially determines what you can do and how many of those things you can do.
So as long as the Monk doesn't attack with the sword (unless its one of the weapons that a Monk can use their flurry with) they get their full iteration of flurry attacks. Because they can use their head, knee, etc.
The argument for an animal not being able to use IUS has nothing to do with whether they have a "free hand" or not. Its about anatomy and the fact they already have a type of "unarmed attack" called a "natural attack."
There is a feat that allows a Monk to apply unarmed attack feats and bonuses and what not to natural attacks. Its called Feral Combat Training.
Sapient humanoids are different from animals.
Its all about anatomy, not about whether some feat could potentially work in some convoluted way under a full moon on Tuesdays.
|
|
The general rules on critters is usually ask the dm.
Hence why critters are one of the areas where a LOT of pfs specific rules come up.
Exactly.
The biggest mistake I see players make, is that they try to treat their animal companion like a second character instead of a companion and class feature.
Most of the clarifications, FAQs, and errata for animal companions, actually removes options, instead of adds them. Such as the clarification that animals cannot use weapons. Back in February of 2011, a Paizo blog, PFS FAQ, and what not was created that disallowed giving animals weapon proficiencies. Additionally, that same series of clarifications also indicated that even if an animal has a higher than 2 intelligence, it was still an animal, couldn't speak, needed a rank in linguistics to understand any language, and still needed to be pushed to do anything outside its set of tricks.
In other words, they aren't another player character. They are an animal.
As such, my postulation is, that just because they have a 3 Intelligence, it does not mean that they suddenly get to do everything a humanoid could do. They are still restricted by anatomy on what feats they can take. The language in the Core Rulebook that I have quoted twice now above, supports that supposition.
The main question is: do animals generally have the anatomy and wherewithal to actually use IUS. Is it appropriate, within the precedent set with all the animal clarifications since 2011, and the rules as written, that an animal could take IUS.
My interpretation is no. And currently the language in the core rulebook supports that I'm allowed to make that interpretation and restrict the use of IUS at the tables I run if I choose to do so.
And this is not a house rule I'm trying to impose on PFS. This is a table variation issue that each GM needs to decide for themselves.
RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
Andy: You keep saying (repeatedly) that "it's all about anatomy" and citing the FAQ's "physically capable" phrase as the thing you're interpreting to not allow certain feats/action.
Until someone points out something that's very obviously what a creature's anatomy would make them physically capable of (like a lion or snake making a headbutt), and then suddenly you switch to "but it doesn't WANT to do that" and stop talking about the anatomy and physical capabilities that were so important a minute ago.
Until you've moved away from the specific example and into generalities again (or until someone accuses you of making up limitations), and then you point back to "physically capable" again and claim the rules back you up.
Until someone points out that the animal is physically capable of... etc.
You keep going back and forth, back and forth; you talk about "physically capable" when you want to say you're backed by the rules, and talk about "it's not sapient" when that doesn't work.
But you roll it all up together like it's one thing, trying to use the part that the rules back up ("physically capable") to support your limitations that are based on anything BUT physical capability.
Feat choices for an INT 3 animal are restricted to physical capability, not natural disposition; that's what the Handle Animal "push" is for. Please stop conflating the two.
|
|
Andy: You keep saying (repeatedly) that "it's all about anatomy" and citing the FAQ's "physically capable" phrase as the thing you're interpreting to not allow certain feats/action.
Until someone points out something that's very obviously what a creature's anatomy would make them physically capable of (like a lion or snake making a headbutt), and then suddenly you switch to "but it doesn't WANT to do that" and stop talking about the anatomy and physical capabilities that were so important a minute ago.
Until you've moved away from the specific example and into generalities again (or until someone accuses you of making up limitations), and then you point back to "physically capable" again and claim the rules back you up.
Until someone points out that the animal is physically capable of... etc.
You keep going back and forth, back and forth; you talk about "physically capable" when you want to say you're backed by the rules, and talk about "it's not sapient" when that doesn't work.
But you roll it all up together like it's one thing, trying to use the part that the rules back up ("physically capable") to support your limitations that are based on anything BUT physical capability.
Feat choices for an INT 3 animal are restricted to physical capability, not natural disposition; that's what the Handle Animal "push" is for. Please stop conflating the two.
Both are intertwined issues as far as animals are concerned.
Both issues can deny an animal the use of a feat or the ability to do an action individually.
One is part of the rules (physical ability) and the other is precedent set by the way other animal clarifications have been made (they are still an animal and do animal things).
Indicating the whole "push" thing doesn't fly, because once they know a feat, they can use it. But if it doesn't make sense for them to use it, then why would they have (be able to take) the feat?
|
|
for the same reason an animal can't take weapon proficiency feats.
Reasonably, could you train an chimp to use a club or sword even? Sure.
Chimps use clubs out in the wild in the real world, all on their own, without training.
But the Pathfinder rules (not just PFS, its in the sixth printing of the Core Rulebook on page 53 now) indicate that animals will not be able to take weapon proficiency feats. The initial Blog that clarified this before it became part of the Core Rulebook errata, indicated that the reason was they are animals, and animals don't want to use what they weren't born with (paraphrasing because I don't remember the exact words).
As such, why would an animal choose to learn to use the side of its head or some other portion of its anatomy to attack with, if they would also choose not to use a manufactured weapon?
Its the concept of them being an animal, and there are just some things that you cannot train them to do.
And even if you could train them to use IUS or a weapon, why would the animal, of its own volition, choose to use a part of their anatomy that they were born knowing how to use over their natural weapons, without either A) the player metagaming or B) the character pushing the animal to do so.
And even if you could train the animal to use these non-natural attack modes, at what point do they choose which one to use? Is it random? Must the character push them? Do they now default to the new attack modes and the character has to push them to go back to the natural attack modes? Or does the player get to metagame when which type of attack is used for maximum benefit to the player?
Attack is a trick.
Attack using your headbutt instead of your bite, is not.
So how do you reconcile which attack mode is used, keeping in mind that metagaming is bad, a trick or push must be used, and an animal knows how to use their feats.
|
|
Wasn't there a clarification by Mike Brock or one of the developers that said that animals are capable of using the feats they have?
It seems that no one is disputing that the animals meet the physical requirements of IUS. Just whether or not the animal would be willing to use it.
But if the animal has the feat IUS, and the clarification does exist. Then wouldn't the animal use other parts of it's body to hit like it was trained to.
Also just because you are using IUS does not mean you can't also bite.
My Axe Beak has IUS. He hits once with his left wing. Then he hits again with his iterative. Then he hits again with his beak as a secondary natural weapon.
RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16
|
Wasn't there a clarification by Mike Brock or one of the developers that said that animals are capable of using the feats they have?
Yes, and Andrew is taking the counter-positive to this: An animal cannot have any feat that the animal is not capable of using.
The question arises, what does that mean, in practical terms? Is a Deinonychus animal companion capable of using Taunt? If the player can't sell that to the GM, then the companion could not have gained the feat in the first place.
|
|
Wasn't there a clarification by Mike Brock or one of the developers that said that animals are capable of using the feats they have?Yes, and Andrew is taking the counter-positive to this: An animal cannot have any feat that the animal is not capable of using.
The question arises, what does that mean, in practical terms? Is a Deinonychus animal companion capable of using Taunt? If the player can't sell that to the GM, then the companion could not have gained the feat in the first place.
Exactly, as I incorrectly read what NN 959 said earlier.
Just because you can use every feat you take, does not mean you can take every feat. You can't use the argument that you can use every feat you have, to mean that you can take every feat. That's counter-intuitive.
|
I just posted this in the FAQ thread:
Animals are already capable of making Unarmed Strikes.
Improved Unarmed Strike simply eliminates the Attack of Opportunity that a headbutting snake would normally receive.
So the question isn't whether an intelligent animal can take IUS.
It's whether such a creature can make unarmed strikes at all.
Not sure why I forgot this logic earlier in this debate.
|
|
So an animal companion can use any feat it has, and it may not take feats it may not use.
The Core only seems to address physical limitations. Clarifications have ruled out weapon proficiencies because an animal companion would favor its natural weapons over manufactured ones.
Interesting point is that the rules for unarmed strike specifically say they are light weapons and not natural ones, but the rules for the monk class ability say they could as natural weapons.
I think it would be within a reasonable persons thought process to decide that because an animal favors its own natural weapons over manufactured ones, and because IUS gives it light weapons, not natural ones, that that feat would not be allowed on an animal companion.
However, I personally do not agree with that line of reasoning as IUS is not a manufactured weapons and the clarification regarding weapon proficiencies only called out manufactured weapons, not light weapons. So I say an animal can take IUS and use it.
Now here is another interesting thing I had not noticed until I looked into it. IUS gives you the ability to deal lethal damage and count as armed with your unarmed strike, but it does not grant proficiency. Animals are not proficient in light weapons.
So here is my conclusion for people to pick away at:
An animal companion may take IUS and make unarmed attacks, but these attacks will take a -4 penalty for lack of proficiency.
Does this seem reasonable?
|
|
It's funny, we haven't even quoted the feat we're arguing over yet:
You are skilled at fighting while unarmed.
Benefit: You are considered to be armed even when unarmed—you do not provoke attacks of opportunity when you attack foes while unarmed. Your unarmed strikes can deal lethal or nonlethal damage, at your choice.
Normal: Without this feat, you are considered unarmed when attacking with an unarmed strike, and you can deal only nonlethal damage with such an attack.
Reading the feat, I think most of the arguments up to this point fall apart.
We're not talking about giving something like a snake proficiency in a weapon, we're talking about:
1) the snake no longer provokes when attacking unarmed - cool, no issue there
2) your unarmed strikes can deal either lethal or nonlethal damage - nifty
You're not teaching a snake Kung Fu, in other words, which seemed to be the mindset for the last 100 or so posts.
|
|
It's funny, we haven't even quoted the feat we're arguing over yet:
You are skilled at fighting while unarmed.
Benefit: You are considered to be armed even when unarmed—you do not provoke attacks of opportunity when you attack foes while unarmed. Your unarmed strikes can deal lethal or nonlethal damage, at your choice.
Normal: Without this feat, you are considered unarmed when attacking with an unarmed strike, and you can deal only nonlethal damage with such an attack.
Reading the feat, I think most of the arguments up to this point fall apart.
We're not talking about giving something like a snake proficiency in a weapon, we're talking about:
1) the snake no longer provokes when attacking unarmed - cool, no issue there
2) your unarmed strikes can deal either lethal or nonlethal damage - nifty
You're not teaching a snake Kung Fu, in other words, which seemed to be the mindset for the last 100 or so posts.
No, it is more like boxing or straight Karate/Tae Kwon Do.
It gives you access to Kung Fu.
The point is still, why would an animal need IUS? It can already attack without provoking an AoO because it has natural weapons.
|
RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
Andy, I'm curious what feats you think ARE within the purview of what an animal companion could take, that aren't already on the list for all animal companions. Your descriptions of what you think is reasonable for an animal to be able to learn seems like a description of the default feat list, but that's for animals who only have 1-2 INT. What exactly does INT 3 open up that wasn't already available?
|
Venture-Captain, California—Sacramento
|
I thought AC's could explicitly get Light Armor Proficiency. (It came up when they were debating whether to let combat trained horses get LAP for free as part of combat training, and they decided that no, they didn't, but you could swap out one of their starting feats for it. And that wasn't even AC, just ordinary purchased mounts.)
|
RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
I thought AC's could explicitly get Light Armor Proficiency.
They can, even with 1 INT. But with 3 INT—something only possible through the care and instruction of a druid or other exceptional fantasy hero—they apparently can't learn to safely headbutt someone, because doing so is just so much less animalistic than learning to wear armor properly.
|
RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16
|
Guys, just a note here.
I disagree with Andrew's position on this, but I recognize that he's a smart GM who isn't just spewing nonsense. (I think his position is rooted in a strong sense of wanting to temper the power of runaway animal companions, and I can see that as a worthwhile goal.) I think the tone of discourse could be improved with a reduction in sarcasm.
|
|
Andy, I'm curious what feats you think ARE within the purview of what an animal companion could take, that aren't already on the list for all animal companions. Your descriptions of what you think is reasonable for an animal to be able to learn seems like a description of the default feat list, but that's for animals who only have 1-2 INT. What exactly does INT 3 open up that wasn't already available?
When you read through the Appendix in the Bestiary that discusses how to advance a monster, it has a section that discusses feats.
Paraphrasing, it essentially says that the monsters typically take feats that increase their natural combat abilities.
As such, it seems to make sense that a charging mount, or mount with lots of movement, might take feats that lead up to spring attack, and take spring attack.
There are a lot of historical information of mounted attackers moving in and out quickly during a battle. Skirmishers so to speak.
It makes sense that the animal might take Dodge, because when trained to specifically fight, avoiding damage would seem like a good idea to the animal.
Some teamwork feats would make sense. Indeed, there is an entire new class coming up called the Hunter that is predicated on the master and animal using teamwork feats together.
So, if you take feats that enhance their ability to fight, in a way that they would normally fight, then those feats make sense. The examples above are of course feats that are on the list that any animal can take at 1-2 Int.
Stand Still would make sense. It requires combat reflexes that any animal can take. And not allowing an enemy to get past you seems like a good idea when you are using the Guard or Defend tricks.
Defensive Combat Training would make sense to beef up their CMD.
Wind Stance and Lightning Stance both are extensions of Dodge. Making themselves more difficult to hit seems to make sense, and in some cases you can actually point to real stories of real life animals that seem to ghost about.
Fleet makes sense, because its just teaching an animal to move faster, more efficiently. What animal trained to fight wouldn't like to get at their enemy a little faster?
Any of the Improved saving throw feats are natural extensions of the saving throw feats that any animal can take.
Improved Critical makes sense.
Intimidating Prowess makes sense. I mean a big roaring animal in your face can be pretty scarey.
Lunge, Nimble Moves, and Acrobatic Steps make some sense.
Greater versions of the power attack combat maneuver feats and Cleave make sense. Improved and Greater Sunder also make sense.
Step Up and Strike Back make sense.
Vital Strike and its iterations make sense, when the animal is deprived of using its full attack and doesn't have pounce, vital strike would be invaluable for it to become a better combatant.
That's almost all the feats in the Core Rulebook that don't have prerequisites that an animal cannot meet, or are explicitly forbidden from taking (like shield proficiency or various weapon proficiencies) or flat out don't have the anatomy to use.
The only feat out of the core rulebook, in my estimation, that has question on whether it should, or should not be allowed, is Improved Unarmed Strike.
If you allow IUS, lets look at what it opens up just from the Core Rulebook.
Deflect Arrows, Snatch Arrows, Improved Grapple, Greater Grapple, Scorpion Style, Gorgon's Fist, Medusa's Wrath, Stunning Fist.
Now one might be able to argue that an animal could position itself in such a way, that it could deflect an arrow (or even snatch it in their mouth). It does require that you have one "hand free". According to Nefreet, and the way he defines the Climb Skill, they couldn't take this feat because they don't have any hands.
Improved Grapple and Greater Grapple does make some sense for animals that have the grab special ability. However, what about wolves who have the trip special ability? They will never be able to take Improved Trip, because it requires Combat Expertise which requires an Intelligence of 13. Why should Snakes (or other animals with grab) be the only ones who can improve their natural ability like this?
Scorpion Style and its iterations, and Stunning Fist all require that you actually use Improved Unarmed Strike. Nefreet agrees that his snake using Improved Unarmed Strike to attack with, is not really all that reasonable. The only reason he took it was for access to Improved and Greater Grapple (and eventually Serpent Style). He never plans on using it to attack with. But if you are going to allow IUS, its binary. Either you have it or you don't. As such, if you are going to allow a Turtle to headbutt, or kinda sidle into you slowly with their shell (Unarmed Attack as opposed to their natural attack), then you have to allow them to take the feats that improve upon their unarmed attack.
Essentially, you can't have it both ways. Either IUS is allowed, and all the iterations after it are, no matter how silly it might be that a Turtle could learn Panther Style, or it isn't allowed, because all the alternatives are really stretching credulity.
|
Guys, just a note here.
I disagree with Andrew's position on this, but I recognize that he's a smart GM who isn't just spewing nonsense. (I think his position is rooted in a strong sense of wanting to temper the power of runaway animal companions, and I can see that as a worthwhile goal.) I think the tone of discourse could be improved with a reduction in sarcasm.
There basically isn't a way to temper animal companions without customizing encounter CR for said party. The animal companions will always be an extra body and extra pool of HP that the NPCs have to contend with. This argument is like fighting over how many angels can dance on the head of a pin.
|
RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
It seems odd to me, Andy, that you keep talking about IUS and style feats with comments about the ridiculousness of teaching an animal Kung Fu, but then you're okay with Wind Stance and Lightning Stance.
Even so, it's still reassuring to discover that IUS (and its dependent feats) are the main ones you have an issue with. I feared a far broader spectrum of allegedly unreasonable choices.
|
|
From Advanced Players Guide - The feats that an animal could take that aren't on the standard list:
Bloody Assault, Bodyguard, In Harm's Way, Bull Rush Strike, Charge Through, Combat Patrol, Crippling Critical, Dazing Assault, Eldritch Claws, Elemental Focus, Greater Elemental Focus, Fast Healer, Following Step, Step Up and Strike, Furious Focus, Dreadful Carnage, Go Unnoticed, Heroic Defiance, heroic Recovery, Improved Blind-Fight, Greater Blind-Fight, Improved Drag, Greater Drag, Low Profile, Rending Claws, Sidestep, Improved Sidestep, Stunning Assault, Sundering Strike, Taunt, Under and Over, Underfoot.
If you allow IUS the following become available:
Cockatrice Strike, Elemental Fist, Ki Throw, Improved Ki Throw, Perfect Strike, Punishing Kick.
From Ultimate Magic:
Uncanny Alterness
From Ultimate Combat:
Bolstered Resilience (if your AC somehow gets DR), Cleaving Finish, Improved Cleaving Finish, Deadly Finish, Death from Above, Death or Glory, Devastating Strike, Improved Devastating Strike, Disorienting Maneuver (assuming you allow animals to use the acrobatics skill to tumble to avoid an Attack of Opportunity), Flanking Foil, Gory Finish, Hammer the Gap, Impaling Critical, Improved Impaling Critical, Landing Roll, Quick Bull Rush, Quick Drag, Rebuffing Reduction (if AC has DR), Rending Fury, Improved Rending Fury, Greater Rending Fury, Stalwart, Improved Stalwart, Sure Grasp,
if you allow IUS the following become available:
Chokehold, Combat Style Master, Feral Combat Training, Jawbreaker, Bonebreaker, Neckbreaker, Pinning Knockout, Pinning Rend, Rapid Grappler, Stunning Pin, Vicious Stomp, Boar Style, Boar Ferocity, Boar Shred, Crane Style, Crane Wing, Crane Riposte, Djinni Style, Djinni Spirit, Djinni Spin, Dragon Style, Dragon Ferocity, Dragon Roar, Efreeti Style, Efreeti Stance, Efreeti Touch, Janni Style, Janni Tempest, Janni Rush, Mantis Style, Mantis Wisdom, Mantis Torment, Marid Style, Marid Spirit, Marid Coldsnap, Monkey Style, Monkey Moves, Monkey Shine, Panther Style, Panther Claw, Panther Parry, Shaitan Style, Shaitan Skin, Shaitan Earthblast, Snake Style, Snake Sidewind, Snake Fang, Snapping Turtle Style, Snapping Turtle Clutch, Snapping Turtle Shell, Tiger Style, Tiger Claws, Tiger Pounce
So I think you'll see from the above, that I'm not out to particularly restrict all but the base feats. Pretty much just IUS.
|
|
It seems odd to me, Andy, that you keep talking about IUS and style feats with comments about the ridiculousness of teaching an animal Kung Fu, but then you're okay with Wind Stance and Lightning Stance.
Even so, it's still reassuring to discover that IUS (and its dependent feats) are the main ones you have an issue with. I feared a far broader spectrum of allegedly unreasonable choices.
You are reading too much into the term "Stance" in the title of those feats.
This is the description of Wind Stance:
Your erratic movements make it difficult for enemies to pinpoint your location.
It isn't a martial art stance, but rather just a series of erratic movement.