|
Alright, so I've currently been working on a fun little paladin build concerning a gnome, some mighty fine lance and shield work, and a mighty white tiger steed through the Empyreal Knight. As the title suggests, this thread has to do with some rules questions pertaining to the steed.
1st, are animal companions incapable of taking improved unarmed strike? If so, that is unfortunate since it prevents the use of Improved and Greater Grapple.
2nd, with the rules on only having one combat effective animal companion, does this prevent one from using summoned creatures along with an animal companion?
3rd, if your combat effective animal companion goes down and you have another capable animal companion ready to go, can you make it your new combat effective animal companion or do you have to wait till the next scenario?
|
|
1) An animal companion may take any feat it is capable of using so long as it has an Intelligence of 3 or higher. Understandably, there are soft limits to what is reasonable for an animal (no kangaroos with firearm proficiency, for example), but Improved Unarmed Strike seems reasonable. This is all the more so because it serves as a prerequisite.
2) One can cast Summon Monster spells while still having an animal companion active. If this were not the case, many spontaneous-casting druids would cry about never being able to use the Summon Nature's Ally ability. Just be reasonable and efficient in your dice rolling to avoid bogging down combat turns.
3) A great question - I'll voice my thoughts once I think about it a bit more.
|
1st, are animal companions incapable of taking improved unarmed strike? If so, that is unfortunate since it prevents the use of Improved and Greater Grapple.
It is not on the standard feat list for animal companions, so no you cannot take it initially. But at 4th level you get free ability point that can be applied to INT and then it can take any feat it is capable of employing. You'll have late entry into the combat maneuver feats, but it's better than nothing.
2nd, with the rules on only having one combat effective animal companion, does this prevent one from using summoned creatures along with an animal companion?
No it does not, however, having a lot of figures on the board can be distracting and take much longer to negotiate combat. If you go this route, make sure you create stat block reference sheets for the creatures you intend to summon, especially if they are affected by things like templates (celestial/fiendish) or feats (augment summoning). If you are not prepared with stat blocks there are many GM's that won't allow you to summon because it slows the game down.
3rd, if your combat effective animal companion goes down and you have another capable animal companion ready to go, can you make it your new combat effective animal companion or do you have to wait till the next scenario?
The expectation is you are only permitted one active combat companion per scenario. Assuming you maintain multiple AC, the others will not be accessible (for combat) during that scenario.
|
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
You know, I have to say, I'm sort of getting tired of the "GM can do whatever he wants" mentality. Yes, the GM, is the final arbiter of rules. I get that. But, in organized play, the GM doesn't simply get to decide that a player doesnt get to use their standard abilities about which there is no conflict or questionable interpretation.
That being said, I agree that it's bad form to not have sheets prepared for creatures - summoned, templates, companions, or otherwise. But, that does not in any way give a GM authority to stop me from using a spell. Especially if it was one I didn't think that I would be casting beforehand. That's just not within their purview. That'd be akin to telling a fighter that he couldn't attack because he was taking too long with rolling all of his damage dice.
Were I playing at that table, it would be reported so fast it would make his head spin.
|
|
Thank you both for you quick responses.
In regards to the questions:
1st - Luckily enough, the lion meets the Intelligence prerequisite from the start as a Paladin's mount is required to have at least an Intelligence of 6 to start with.
2nd - I was looking into summoning as the Empyreal Knight gives a summon ability, but it does restrict to only one creature at a time which will help keep the board running.
3rd - I don't know if I'll ever face this problem, but I thought it was one that begged to be asked.
As for my thoughts...
While I understand its reaching for the limits, I have this amusing concept of a Paladin Gnome of Irori riding on a flying celestial white tiger at level twelve. Hopefully with the right scenarios, I can see to fruition the concept of them flying down upon their enemies to lash out with lance, claws, and teeth to leave the enemy grappled. Then, if the enemy is unfortunate enough, or dimwitted enough, to not break the grapple, the gnome will lash out with lance as his flying tiger drags the enemy into the air, either attacking or just going for max height, before free action dropping him/her back to the ground.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
GM stuff
I understand what you are saying, but remember a GM is responsible for the pace of the table and ensuing the players have a chance to complete the adventure. If a fighter-type has multiple attacks, it would be appreciated that s/he roll multiple dice simultaneously and that that their typical modifiers are all sorted out so the math is quickly resolved. No one likes to hear the individual addition of each and every bonus and every attack. That can apply to the summoning character as well. It is a player's responsibility to be prepared, at least, for the their turn, if not the scenario in general. It's not fair to the other players who have to sit there for minutes at a time waiting for you to figure out what to do and how to do it. At some point, the GM might just have to say no, if you are having a negative impact on the table's fun. Over-use of that power by the GM would certainly be considered jerky, just as would a player who fails to be prepared for their turn, time after time.
|
|
GM stuffGM Response
I must say I agree. Its a GM's roll to make sure everyone is having fun, or at least the majority, and to help make sure the party moves quickly enough to complete the mission/s set before them. I would rather be told I can't use a spell than find I made our party fail its mission because I took too much time figuring out my moves.
|
|
I don't want to derail the thread ... So i will simply say that understand your points about table pacing and all. I'm not talking about if a player's slow mechanics would cost the table a mission or something. No matter what class at is, it would be abhorrent.
But there're far better methods to controlling pace than telling a player they can't have their action. If they asked them nicely to have the numbers ready on their next turn, for example. Unless the player is causing a problem for other players, a GM should never withhold a players choice of action. I've had to sit through countless rounds where a player was unsure of their new abilities or was slower with the math ... Often, players with big numbers get two or three times the length of turn that others do.
But .... Back to the regularly scheduled thread ...
|
|
One of my pet peeves is players rolling lots of dice all at once. I'm not talking about a large amount of dice for a damage roll, but when a player will make all their attacks before learning the outcome of the first, etc. Especially when there is no clear indication of which D20 goes with each attack. Sure THEY know what die they use all the time, but even between turns are the rest of us at the table supposed to remember? Some players throw some type of markers on the table to indicate each roll, further cluttering up the battle surface. And how about when they leave those markers there after their turn?
One attack at a time also gives the player more options. They could switch their second or third attack to another opponent rather than indicating they just did 60 points to an enemy with only 4 hit points left.
I generally try to switch my enemies to making all their attacks at once rather than just moving on if the PC falls when players choose to go that route.
Regarding not allowing players to summon if they don't have the stats ready ...
I don't think it is within a PFS GM's purview to prevent the PC from summoning, but the GM can certainly move on if the player is taking too long figuring out their turn. At first I encourage slow players to complete their turn. If it continues I will tell them they are on Delay until they are ready and then move on to the next player. Generally this is welcomed by the others at the table. If the other players want to wait for the slow player, it is their game and I am happy to accommodate.
Lastly, in response to the OP ...
3) I agree with Bob on this one, but I could see a GM allowing a PC with another AC along to move it into the "combat slot" if the first dies or something.
I feel this would be wrong since the secondary AC reached that point in the adventure with basically no risk and is suddenly there to fight. On the other hand, presumably both ACs would be weaker than the PC having just one AC and the multiple ACs would be less effective one at a time so allowing the second AC to step in probably wouldn't be an unfair advantage to that player.
But based on the other rule about not getting to replace your AC until the next adventure, I agree with Bob. One combat AC per adventure.
|
I don't think it is within a PFS GM's purview to prevent the PC from summoning, but the GM can certainly move on if the player is taking too long figuring out their turn. At first I encourage slow players to complete their turn. If it continues I will tell them they are on Delay until they are ready and then move on to the next player. Generally this is welcomed by the others at the table. If the other players want to wait for the slow player, it is their game and I am happy to accommodate.
This is what I do with "turn hogs", which means anyone taking forever. Either be ready when I call your name, or I give you a moment, ask if you need a delay, wait another moment, delayed.
|
|
Stuff
While you make some valid points, there is an easy solution. Write it down. This solves the remembering problem. I use color coded dice and have a printed out cheat sheet. (i.e. 1st attack = green dice, 2nd attack = blue dice.) The color coding extend to damage dice as well. I point out the cheat sheet to the GM before hand and leave it on the table for all to see. I use the same sheet across characters so I have to have an assortment of damage dice, but really there is no such thing as too many dice.
Rolling attacks at once saves a lot of time. Especially on my Monk who can now get up to 6 attacks in a round.
|
|
While I understand its reaching for the limits, I have this amusing concept of a Paladin Gnome of Irori riding on a flying celestial white tiger at level twelve. Hopefully with the right scenarios, I can see to fruition the concept of them flying down upon their enemies to lash out with lance, claws, and teeth to leave the enemy grappled. Then, if the enemy is unfortunate enough, or dimwitted enough, to not break the grapple, the gnome will lash out with lance as his flying tiger drags the enemy into the air, either attacking or just going for max height, before free action dropping him/her back to the ground.
Not to put a damper on your plans, cause they do sound amazing, but if the tiger has an enemy grappled, you couldnt hit it with a lance, as the lance is a reach weapon. Regardless, you are still going to do a crapton of damage to the guy.
As for the player taking too long thing, I agree with the idea of having them delay while they figure out their stuff.
|
dice stuff
I do agree that that has to be some responsibility on the player's part. I play a druid in PFS and I will only use a wildshape or summon a creature that I have created a sheet for. I found a great PDF for wildshapes and carry 10 of them in my character folder, 1 for each wildshape. As for the dice, I bought that chessex pound'o'dice and have separate colors set up for each attack and damage, with them noted next to the attack modes on the character sheet. It takes a little time to set up, but save time for everyone at the table during a game.
If you play a character that involves creating creatures or altering your PC, then you need to step up and have everything planned in advance and all the rules you need printed out and ready to go. Plan a summoned creature for multiple terrain types and combat situations, plan a wildshape for land/sea/air and different types of protection. try to have enough dice to separate your attacks with different color sets. It really helps games go more smoothly.
That concludes my "players need to be prepared too" rant.
An animal companion may take any feat it is capable of using so long as it has an Intelligence of 3 or higher. Understandably, there are soft limits to what is reasonable for an animal (no kangaroos with firearm proficiency, for example)
No, but you could have an ape with a musket.
|
|
One of my pet peeves is players rolling lots of dice all at once. I'm not talking about a large amount of dice for a damage roll, but when a player will make all their attacks before learning the outcome of the first, etc. Especially when there is no clear indication of which D20 goes with each attack.
This is very much a matter of personal preference. Some people want you to hurry it up. Neither way is the right answer.
|
|
I want to go on the record that I adamantly feel that the precedence of an animal not being able to learn to use manufactured weapon should apply to improved unarmed strike (IUS).
I think it silly that a camel would choose to use IUS instead of its natural attack form(s).
And it is even more ludicrous that an animal could learn kung fu.
|
|
I know this is a fantasy game. I know lots of crazy things are possible because its a fantasy game. But when tge clarification and FAQ says an animal with 3 or more Int can take any feat their form could reasonably take...
Who in their right mind would consider IUS reasonable for a snake?!
Some animals, like apes could have a reasonable argument. Because they can make a fist and have opposable thumbs.
But what does a snake do for IUS?
Completely boggles my mind that folks think that because its technically legal and/or nothing says you "can't" that its suddenly I reasonable or ok to do so.
When you have boars with Dragon Kung Fun so they can charge through allies and over difficult terrain, or snakes with IUS...
Just silly.
|
I just imagine the training involved in taking IUS involves the training for better grappling.
In-game, nobody sees my snake's sheet and the text that says "Improved Unarmed Strike" under the "Feats" section.
And, like I said, I'll never have my snake body slam someone. I'll respect his desire to bite and constrict.
In-game, he won't have IUS.
|
|
It kinda is Jiggy.
Even though apes use tools, and in the wild they use crude clubs as weapons sometimes, in PFS animals can't learn to use weapons.
Part of the reasoning is that they are animals and will always default to their natural weapons.
Why would IUS be different.
And I can't think of a single real life reference where an Animal can do lethal damage by being trained to specifically hit with a non-natural attack form that isn't my above rare referenced ape with a log.
Telling me that a horse could hit with the side of its head as lethal damage as IUS is silly. If a horse were trained to do that, which is a dubious prospect at best, it would be a natural attack called a slam, not an IUS.
|
|
Absolutely. Its certainly the case in the real world that there are no martial arts inspired by animals. The entire concept of a snake doing anything resembling Snake Style is just silly.
Snark aside, I think you're missing Nefreets point. He wants his snake to do something that IS reasonable for a snake (improved grapple) and PF forces it to learn IUS to do so.
Edit: in the real world animals can be trained far past what a Pathfinder animal can be trained to do. Given that Int 3 animals far surpass real animals it seems quite reasonable to me that they should be able to at least reach the level of extremely well trained circus animals.
I haven't checked, but I bet somebody somewhere has trained an animal to shoot a gun.
|
|
I trying to figure out why, when a snake gets grab and a +4 to grapple, why improved or greater grapple matter. The only difference is that the snake could choose to initiate its grapple without biting first without provoking. I can't think of more than a handful of reasons where this might natter. And with the automatic Multiattack at 9th level you get an iterative attack at -5. Which isn't quite as strong as the move action grapple maintain as greater grapple, but with constrict a snake is pretty on par.
And since greater grapple move action is for maintaining, you can't grapple and pin with it in one round anyways.
Animals shouldn't be able to do things just like people can. Its unfortunate that some real world possibilities are hard to duplicate in the game because of prereqs... It doesn't change the fact that IUS is silly for animals. And I believe the language of the FAQ is strong enough for a GM to disallow it at their table.
|
|
I believe the language of the FAQ is strong enough for a GM to disallow it at their table.
Whoa, now.
That's extreme, and would ultimately become a case of table variation if it were practiced.
If you want to rule that way at home, feel free. You obviously don't like the idea.
But you can't enforce a personal belief like that in PFS.
It devolves into another case of "Not a my table!"
|
RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
Hey, ain't nothing wrong with viewing animals the way you do, Andy. You're entitled to your opinion, as well as your interpretation of the FAQ (haven't even looked at it lately, myself).
But so is everyone else, and I'm not sure that disagreement with your mental image of the game world qualifies someone as no longer being "in their right mind" or that their opinions/interpretations are automatically less "reasonable" or "ok" than yours.
|
|
I trying to figure out why, when a snake gets grab and a +4 to grapple, why improved or greater grapple matter. The only difference is that the snake could choose to initiate its grapple without biting first without provoking. I can't think of more than a handful of reasons where this might natter. And with the automatic Multiattack at 9th level you get an iterative attack at -5. Which isn't quite as strong as the move action grapple maintain as greater grapple, but with constrict a snake is pretty on par.
And since greater grapple move action is for maintaining, you can't grapple and pin with it in one round anyways.
Animals shouldn't be able to do things just like people can. Its unfortunate that some real world possibilities are hard to duplicate in the game because of prereqs... It doesn't change the fact that IUS is silly for animals. And I believe the language of the FAQ is strong enough for a GM to disallow it at their table.
If the language says what I remember it saying (having trouble finding where it says an animal companion of 3 int can take non animal feats at all) then its not a house rule, and definitely enforceable in PFS
|
|
Hey, ain't nothing wrong with viewing animals the way you do, Andy. You're entitled to your opinion, as well as your interpretation of the FAQ (haven't even looked at it lately, myself).
But so is everyone else, and I'm not sure that disagreement with your mental image of the game world qualifies someone as no longer being "in their right mind" or that their opinions/interpretations are automatically less "reasonable" or "ok" than yours.
When it comes to teaching animals things that they reasonably couldn't do based on their form, especially when there are rules in the game, built in for animals, that let them learn some pretty fantastic things, then yes, I have a right to make a declaratory statement on ridicoulosity.
|
|
IF that were the case, we'd need a list of allowable INT 3+ feats, because if you can houserule one away, any GM could do the same for whatever other feats didn't make sense to them.
That is true. But it isn't a house rule unless you are changing a rule. Its an interpretation of existing rules that are ambiguous or specifically give the GM the right to make a ruling as they see fit.
|
|
I don't see how a snake can be Acrobatic.
Should I ban that feat at my tables?
I mean, +2 to Fly? That's not realistic.
If that's how you see it, yes.
Although it would be more realistic to allow them the feat, but not allow animals like horses to use acrobatics to avoid provoking. And if they don't fly, then the +2 to fly is a moot point. But horses can jump, so let them use the feat for essentially a +2 to jump.
RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I'm playing a nagaji.
The nagaji is a cleric of Gozreh. She havs spells that shift the world around her to her will.
At 4th-level, the cleric forms a spiritual bond with a snake.
It hears the nagaji's commands and obeys them as a friend.
The snake learns how to fight better.
--
Which of those sentences strikes you as fantastic?
|
|
I can't believe I'm hearing this from you.
You're just making up restrictions.
How is that supported by any rule in PFS?
PFS has a common sense rule. Its in the guide.
I'm not just making up arbitrary rules either. For acrobatics, the CRB, page 53 lists acrobatic as allowable. So your GM ruling on what feats an animal could take can't restrict that.
But you can make rulings in game play that a camel can't use the acrobatics skill to avoid AoOs. Just like you can rule that a boar can't climb a free hanging rope.
|
|
I'm playing a nagaji.
The nagaji is a cleric of Gozreh. She havs spells that shift the world around her to her will.
At 4th-level, the cleric forms a spiritual bond with a snake.
It hears the nagaji's commands and obeys them as a friend.
The snake learns how to fight better.--
Which of those sentences strikes you as fantastic?
None, but fighting better and obeying your commands doesn't mean it can suddenly Di things a snake can't physically accomplish.
|
|
In the case of a horse using Acrobatics to avoid AoOs, I've seen zebras in documentaries do some crazy maneuvers to avoid lions.
I would thusly allow a horse that skill roll.
But if I went to your table, you wouldn't.
I don't think that's acceptable. One person reads a skill for what it is, while the other is imposing arbitrary restrictions that don't make sense to the other.
The most acceptable approach would be to leave it at what's written, and not what is unwritten.
