I just want to make sure that the animal companion rules work the way that I think they do. I am wondering if I should stop playing my Ranger before he gets his 4th XP untill we get the 1st level rebuild rules.
So can animal companions still take any skill or feat (except proficiency feats apparently) if they have INT 3?
Usually they can, but PFS tosses the usual rules for animal companion intelligence out the window, so I'm not sure. The fact that the FAQ mentions the linguistics skill suggests that this is still the case.
By RAW an animal companion that has its INT increased to 3 ceases to be an animal, becomes a magical beast and can take any skill or feat that it is physically capable of using. Can an animal companion with it's INT raised to 3 take Eldritch Claws (a particularly useful feat for an AC)? Can it take Step Up? Can it take the improved maneuver feats with Power Attack as a prerequisite?
|
We are going to handle these on a case-by-case basis as it is almost impossible for me to evaluate all the feats out there. As a generalization, I would say yes. However, I'm sure there are a few corner cases I can't foresee.
In this case, as long as the animal companion meets the prerequisites of STR 15, has natural weapons, and has a BAB of +6, then yes, the animal companion would qualify for Eldritch Claws.
Yes, an AC can take Step Up feat.
What improved maneuver feats did you have in mind?
|
By RAW an animal companion that has its INT increased to 3 ceases to be an animal, becomes a magical beast
Just to clear this part up, your last part I highlighted in not correct when adding Int with a stat bonus, they do not become a Magical Beast.
This was made clear here, and was when all the clarifications to animal companions in PFS started happening.
Here is the relevant text
Giving an animal a higher Intelligence score does not somehow transform it into a magical beast, unless the effect says otherwise, such as in the case of awaken.
I know that there is a special ruling for PFS that doesn't follow RAW. That's why I had the question in the first place.
The improved maneuver feats most useful for an AC would be things like the Overrun line up to Elephant Stomp, maybe the Bull-Rush or Sunder line.
Did they forget to errata the bestiary then? It has been a year since this FAQ. The description of animals still contradicts the post.
Intelligence score of 1 or 2 (no creature with an Intelligence score of 3 or higher can be an animal).
Did they forget to errata the bestiary then? It has been a year since this FAQ. The description of animals still contradicts the post.
Intelligence score of 1 or 2 (no creature with an Intelligence score of 3 or higher can be an animal).
From The monkey see monkey do Blog
Note that while the monster guidelines talk about a maximum Int for an animal, this only applies to the creation process. Giving an animal a higher Intelligence score does not somehow transform it into a magical beast, unless the effect says otherwise, such as in the case of awaken. Animals can grow to have an Int higher than 2 through a variety of means, but they should not, as a general rule, be created that way.
____
So they didn't mean to say your animal can never have more than a 2 int (even if a strict reading of the raw would say that)
But the 3 INT animal can still take a rank in linguistics and learn to understand a langauge? At that point, are handle animal checks no longer required, on analogy to speak with animals or do things of the animal type intrinsically require handle animal no matter what the circumstances. The latter is probably true from a more gameist balance oriented standpoint even though logically the former would be the case.
I can see why the automatic change to Magical Beast is bad due to confusing implications about HD and BAB, but the rules for animals seem to still be all over the map.
But the 3 INT animal can still take a rank in linguistics and learn to understand a langauge? At that point, are handle animal checks no longer required, on analogy to speak with animals or do things of the animal type intrinsically require handle animal no matter what the circumstances.
From the blog
The Handle Animal skill functions similarly no matter how intelligent an animal becomes.
The latter is probably true from a more gameist balance oriented standpoint even though logically the former would be the case.
Probably. Mind you it doesn't take much to make handle animal autosucceed on a task it knows.
I can see why the automatic change to Magical Beast is bad due to confusing implications about HD and BAB, but the rules for animals seem to still be all over the map.
Definitely.
Another problem that is very prevalent with Animal Companions[AC] is the lack of scrutiny by players and judges on their tricks. Giving an AC a feat does not automatically confer the corresponding tricks.
Consider a constrictor snake AC. To utilize its grab options, one would have to teach it a "non-lethal grapple" trick to do non-lethal grapple/constrict damage, the "pin" trick to use its grapple option to pin, the "release" trick to stop grappling a dead opponent so that it could attack a new creature, etc.
Not all judges would construe the "attack" trick on a new creature to imply that the AC automatically releases its tasty food item, dead or alive.
I'm not seeing any possible justification for forcing "switch target" to be a new trick. Giving the attack command again implicitly makes the animal switch to the new target, so I'm not seeing your logic here.
Similarly, judges might understandably rule that an AC with the feat, Step Up, would need the trick "step up" for the AC to utilize this feat. At 4th level the example of the constrictor snake gains reach 10 feet, so it is not obvious that an AC is not engaged in melee if a medium opponent were to 5-foot step away from it.
I don't think that that is an understandable ruling. Mike as said that animals can take the Step Up feat, which is by definition an immidiate action to use. Why should a DM be able to effectively not allow your AC to use the feat by requiring a handle animal check, which is impossible for an immidiate action. It goes against the clear spirit of Mike's ruling.
A snake with 10ft. reach is not a good example for Step Up, since reach already has weird interactions with the feat.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Another problem that is very prevalent with Animal Companions[AC] is the lack of scrutiny by players and judges on their tricks. Giving an AC a feat does not automatically confer the corresponding tricks.[
I agree that there is a problem with players and dms not knowing the rules, but i think my agreement stops there.
Consider a constrictor snake AC. To utilize its grab options, one would have to teach it a "non-lethal grapple" trick to do non-lethal grapple/constrict damage, the "pin" trick to use its grapple option to pin, the "release" trick to stop grappling a dead opponent so that it could attack a new creature, etc.
Theres a few problems with this. RAW those tricks don't exist. I cannot give an animal companion a custom trick any more than i can give them a custom magic item.
Also its a flippin snake. It knows how to grab something and squeeze it to death.
Not all judges would construe the "attack" trick on a new creature to imply that the AC automatically releases its tasty food item, dead or alive.
Thats exactly what the trick does: overrrides what the animal would normally like to do to make it do what you want it to.
Similarly, judges might understandably rule that an AC with the feat, Step Up, would need the trick "step up" for the AC to utilize this feat.
This is not reasonable, because there is no step up trick for the animal companion to get. Denying this as part of attack denies them the use of the feat. While mechanically the concept of an immediate action out of turn using movement unless you haven't moved can throw some players, the in game action: stay right next to that delicious wizard is a peice of cake.
|
Core Rulebook, page 97, under Handle Animal, "Possible tricks (and their associated DCs) include, but are not necessarily limited to, the following." The usual list of tricks follow.
Core Rulebook, page 52, under Link, "A druid can handle her animal companion as a free action, or push it as a move action."
I am not a rules Nazi for Handle Animal, but I have seen many judges react negatively to very loose assumptions as to what is implied in a trick. Can a character use the "attack" trick to command a snake AC to bite without grabbing? How about as an opportunity attack?
With respect to RAW, I think the intent of the Handle Animal text is to allow players to give their AC's the feats under discussion here AND the requisite tricks to make them effective. I do not see a statement equivalent to the above regarding "custom magic items."
Handle Animal with a "step up" trick can occur as a free action, making the feat useful. Using it as a trick also allows the character the option at that juncture not to utilize the feat.
Core Rulebook, again page 97, under "Down", "An animal that doesn't know this trick continues to fight until it must flee (due to injury, a fear effect, or the like) or its opponent is defeated." Does an Int 1 snake constricting some delicious morsel know that defeated means dead?
Some judges, like me, would probably rule that way, but not all. I have seen many druids not train their animals with "down" and assume that their "attack/attack" tricks encompass all sorts of variations without using the DC 25 push as a move action.
Can a character use the "attack" trick to command a snake AC to bite without grabbing?
That one is probably the DM's call. A snake should bite and grab by default because.. well thats what it does. If it grabs a porcupine or someone wearing a barbed vest once it might change its mind.
How about as an opportunity attack?
There's nothing to hint that critters can't make attacks of opportunity. The animal has a chance to attack the thing its trying to attack/eat and its going to take it.
With respect to RAW, I think the intent of the Handle Animal text is to allow players to give their AC's the feats under discussion here AND the requisite tricks to make them effective. I do not see a statement equivalent to the above regarding "custom magic items."
This isn't raw. Its not even hinted at. There is an enormous gap in logic between "other tricks are possible" and " other tricks are required to use feats"
If you were supposed to give an animal a trick to use its feats there would be a trick "use feat". You really can't expect a player to come to the same conclusion as you from whats presented in the rules, and then they sit at your table their AC will effectively be denied their feats.
Theres no mechanism for a player making up their own tricks in organized play, mostly to prevent someone from calling a trick "common sense" and using it for everything.
Handle Animal with a "step up" trick can occur as a free action, making the feat useful. Using it as a trick also allows the character the option at that juncture not to utilize the feat.
Step up is an IMMEDIATE action. Unless the druid has an immediate action or is doing nothing but holding his action to handle the animal they can't use it.
Some judges, like me, would probably rule that way, but not all. I have seen many druids not train their animals with "down" and assume that their "attack/attack" tricks encompass all sorts of variations without using the DC 25 push as a move action.
Attack attack works without down on everything but the last opponent. (which can be problematic for faction missions) The attack trick says "You may point to a particular creature that you wish the animal to attack, and it will comply if able" The snake is quite able to slither away from lunch and start biting dinner. This is important so the druid doesn't have to waste multiple actions redirecting his critter.
|
|
If Handle Animal cannot be used as a free action out of turn, then AC's could not take opportunity attacks on monsters that they had not been commanded to attack.
Similarly, if "step up" were a trick, then it could also be used as a free action out of turn, assuming that the handler and the animal are in communication. So the animal expends its immediate action, the handler consumes a free action.
If Handle Animal cannot be used as a free action out of turn, then AC's could not take opportunity attacks on monsters that they had not been commanded to attack.
Under handle animal
The animal attacks apparent enemies.
Even if you tell Cuddles the anaconda to attack the chief, the guard that runs by is an apparent enemy and the snake will go after them.
This is very exploitable: you can have mooks take the attacks of opportunity so the big bad doesn't have to.
Similarly, if "step up" were a trick, then it could also be used as a free action out of turn, assuming that the handler and the animal are in communication. So the animal expends its immediate action, the handler consumes a free action.
But its not a trick, much less one that violates the rules for the action it takes to use a skill.