|
I mean I mostly agree with you. I have slowly come around to the fact that an AC out of the box might not be able to use tactics. I can even appreciate the logic of certain animals being able to flank while others cannot.
I overall don't think that it is that big of a problem since you can solve any conflict over this by just directing your AC to move to where you want it and then attack. Or you could raise it's Int to 3, or cast speak with animals.
I also disagree that this is ambiguous. There are plenty of huge ambiguous holes in the rules and this really isn't one of them.
|
I mean I mostly agree with you. I have slowly come around to the fact that an AC out of the box might not be able to use tactics. I can even appreciate the logic of certain animals being able to flank while others cannot.
I overall don't think that it is that big of a problem since you can solve any conflict over this by just directing your AC to move to where you want it and then attack. Or you could raise it's Int to 3, or cast speak with animals.
I also disagree that this is ambiguous. There are plenty of huge ambiguous holes in the rules and this really isn't one of them.
We agree on two points here.
1) That you can manipulate tactics in such a way that you can in effect create a flanking situation, without commanding your animal to flank, or allowing the animal companion to use intelligent battlefield tactics.
2) That the rules really aren't ambiguous as to creating a new Trick. I believe the rules quite explicitly disallow such a thing in PFS.
And for the record, my rules interpretation is not about balance. Its about what I believe the rules support and what makes sense to me where the rules are a bit ambiguous.
I believe the rules are a bit ambiguous in what exactly an animal can do when you command it to attack. I believe common sense should apply, but everyone's opinion on what common sense is in relation to this issue, is apparently different.
|
|
I think this thread has gotten past the point where continued discussion will produce anything useful for the campaign.
Andrew, you seem to feel pretty strongly about this subject. Why don't we take it to the VOs and campaign staff and see if it's worth addressing in the Guide or FAQ?
I agree. I don't know why I sometimes allow myself to get sucked into the tete-a-tete arguments that result in nothing useful.
I am completely open to taking this discussion to the V-O's and see if we can find a common ground.
However, interestingly enough, I'm not sure this issue warrants a FAQ or mention in the Guide. I believe the rules already cover everything that needs to be covered, and that the ambiguity that is there should result in table variance.
1) I feel that creating new tricks is clearly not allowed by the precedent in PFS of not creating new things with no existing mechanics to support them. Perhaps mention of this in the Guide along with no crafting is necessary. But not sure that it is.
2) I feel that what is, and is not allowed by the attack trick is too small of an issue to require even a FAQ entry, and should be up to GM discretion. If a GM wants to allow an AC to use all the tactics a PC can use, then that's up to that GM. But if a GM wants to insert common sense into what an AC can do, that is up to that GM. Neither of them is wrong, as the rule is not entirely clear here. I've simply stated on which side of the fence I would sit on this issue.
RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16
|
2) That the rules really aren't ambiguous as to creating a new Trick. I believe the rules quite explicitly disallow such a thing in PFS.
Here's where we disagree, my friend. First, the Guide doesn't explicitly disallow tricks that aren't on the list. You probably meant to say "implicitly".
Second, we have a different understanding of what tricks are. The way I understand them, they aren't something an animal (AC or otherwise) does. They're something the PC does with the skill Handle Animal. And PCs are always trying to pull stunts with skills.
For example, a lot of GMs allow a PC to use the Heal skill to tell how badly injured / poisoned / diseased an NPC is. That's certaily a reasonable use of the skill, but it's not explicitly allowed in the skill description.
Let's say the party's in a dark room, and the PC archer wants to draw her crossbow and nock a bolt without being heard by the alerted guards. You might ask her to make a Stealth check; that's a reasonable Skill to use, but it's not covered in the rules.
Underwater, a PC is attacked by a shark, and the character grabs on to the beast as it races away. A GM might ask the player to make a Ride check to stay secure, because Ride is a natural skill to use even though you won't find "stay attached to swimming shark" in the skill description.
The party breaks through the webbing and stands on a shallow ledge, overlooking a drow work camp. Which tent holds the treasures they've been stealing from the dwarves? A player might ask to make an Appraise check, since it allows a character to determine the most valuable item visible in a treasure hoard. Does that sound plausible to you? Or would you suggest Knowledge (local)?
A rogue PC wants to train his pet boar to adjust its position in a fight so that it sets up a flank with him. Handle Animal seems to be the right skill to use, and "teach trick" seems to be the right action, even though that's not an explicit trick.
Does that make sense?
RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
Well said, Chris. I have no idea whether I agree with you or not, but well said! ;) I feel like I understand your position (and more importantly, the reasoning behind it) better than has been the case with most posts/posters in this thread so far.
|
|
2) That the rules really aren't ambiguous as to creating a new Trick. I believe the rules quite explicitly disallow such a thing in PFS.Here's where we disagree, my friend. First, the Guide doesn't explicitly disallow tricks that aren't on the list. You probably meant to say "implicitly".
Second, we have a different understanding of what tricks are. The way I understand them, they aren't something an animal (AC or otherwise) does. They're something the PC does with the skill Handle Animal. And PCs are always trying to pull stunts with skills.
For example, a lot of GMs allow a PC to use the Heal skill to tell how badly injured / poisoned / diseased an NPC is. That's certaily a reasonable use of the skill, but it's not explicitly allowed in the skill description.
Let's say the party's in a dark room, and the PC archer wants to draw her crossbow and nock a bolt without being heard by the alerted guards. You might ask her to make a Stealth check; that's a reasonable Skill to use, but it's not covered in the rules.
Underwater, a PC is attacked by a shark, and the character grabs on to the beast as it races away. A GM might ask the player to make a Ride check to stay secure, because Ride is a natural skill to use even though you won't find "stay attached to swimming shark" in the skill description.
The party breaks through the webbing and stands on a shallow ledge, overlooking a drow work camp. Which tent holds the treasures they've been stealing from the dwarves? A player might ask to make an Appraise check, since it allows a character to determine the most valuable item visible in a treasure hoard. Does that sound plausible to you? Or would you suggest Knowledge (local)?
A rogue PC wants to train his pet boar to adjust its position in a fight so that it sets up a flank with him. Handle Animal seems to be the right skill to use, and "teach trick" seems to be the right action, even though that's not an explicit trick.
Does that...
So Chris, let me get this straight.
Boiled down to brass tacks.
You feel that creating a new trick that has no mechanics or rules to back it up (essentially creating new rules and mechanics) is ok in PFS?
Because that's what you are doing. What DC should training the AC to do this new trick be? How long doesn't matter in PFS, but that is another variable that would normally need to be considered.
How exactly does this training work? And where do you draw the line?
If you allow training for flanking, are you going to allow a special trick to command your AC to reaim a siege engine, or intimidate someone? I'm sure there is a list of a hundred different ideas a Player could come up with that would break the game. And who's to declare what is reasonable and what isn't?
Sure, you and I could probably do an ok job of allowing only reasonable new tricks. But what about newby GM who's also new to Pathfinder and maybe even roleplaying? Or Golarion God's forbid, what about that GM/Player combo that is a bit unscrupulous and they create something new that's ridiculous?
Do you see where I'm coming from with the creation of new tricks?
It isn't just about the Flank thing. If you allow that one, you have to allow the consideration of any new trick.
What happens if at Gen Con you allow someone to create a Flank trick for his Boar. And you set the DC at 25. You write this on their chronicle sheet.
But the guy goes home, his AC dies, and now he has to retrain his AC. So his GM's at home (or any other GM that isn't you) would have to abide by the new mechanic for training the AC to flank that you created? Does that seem like a good idea for PFS to you?
|
RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Andy, a couple of things:
I don't think you're grasping some other folks' points of view here. Take Chris' for example: he was clearly trying to make the point that if a player asks how to do X, and it's not clearly defined in the rules, the GM must make the most reasonable ruling possible. If the question is "how can I get my AniComp to flank with me?", then one GM might say "you need to train it as a trick" while another might say "you need to make a Push HA check". Both are answerig the "how to flank" question. Both are applying the most reasonable skill (Handle Animal). Both are adjudicating something that's not explicit in the rules (nothing tells you how to get your AniComp to flank).
The only difference is the final answer. The reasoning to get there is the same, and they're both applications of the most reasonable skill in order to produce an effect not covered in the rules.
If you want to show that one is valid while the other is not, then you need to show how two applications of the same skill are different. You keep asserting that training a new trick is "creating new stuff in PFS" and comparing it to crafting. But isn't the application of the "Push" mechanic (which you have advocated) also creating something new? (I.e., a new function of the mechanic.)
That's what Chris' list of examples were supposed to show: any one of those situations could be described as a GM "creating new stuff" by applying a skill to a situation that the rules don't cover.
It's up to you to illustrate the difference between asking for a skill check to Push-to-flank and asking for a skill check to Train-to-flank. You haven't done that so far. You've asserted that such a distinction exists, but you have done nothing to show that there's a difference or what that difference is or how it works. You just keep insisting it's different without ever showing how.
This is why no one seems to be responding to you the way you'd probably like.
Relatedly, it hasn't been coming across in your posts that you're very interested in understanding where anyone else is coming from. Your responses to others have generally been to reassert your claims (without further explanation - see above); to re-frame (i.e., "so you're saying...?") things to be the opposite of what you've said, regardless of what the person you're replying to actually said; to assign motives to people ("you're just calling people XYZ because they disagree with you", etc); and (ironically) to admonish people for allegedly not reading your posts.
Put it all together, and you're really not coming across in the most favorable light, I'm afraid.
I'm not saying whether I agree or disagree with your position, but that's my assessment of why this discussion has been going nowhere. Hopefully, clearing up some miscommunication can salvage this discussion.
|
RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16
|
You feel that creating a new trick that has no mechanics or rules to back it up (essentially creating new rules and mechanics) is ok in PFS?
Nope. Here's the mechanics:
Flank (DC 20) The attacking animal moves so that it flanks the current target with another attacker.
It takes a DC 10 Handle Animals check to order the animal to do this; the order is a move action that does not provoke an attack of opportunity.
If you allow training for flanking, are you going to allow a special trick to command your AC to reaim a siege engine, or intimidate someone? I'm sure there is a list of a hundred different ideas a Player could come up with that would break the game. And who's to declare what is reasonable and what isn't?
I would rule that re-aiming a siege engine is beyond the scope of animal intelligence.
Intimidating someone? Sure, I can see someone teaching his pet to scare people.
Menace (DC 20) The animal growls, roars, and snaps, in an attempt to Demoralize a target.
As for your other concerns, they apply equally well to all judgement calls. Let's say that you attend Gen-Con and a GM lets your PC use Heal to tell how badly an NPC is hurt. The player goes home and insists that, because you allowed it, all his GMs at home have to allow it as well.
A woman playing a shadowdancer sits at your table at the local gameday. Are you bound to adjudicate Stealth / Hide in Plain Sight the way she claims her GMs have ruled in the past?
So, a guy sits at my table with an ape AC and a trebuchet, and asserts that he conned some GM into letting him train the ape to load, aim, and fire the thing. I'd laugh and explain why I wouldn't be comfortable with that ruling, and ask him to pick an alternative trick for that session. (And secretly, I'd be glad to have somebody at the table who has actually bothered to teach his AC tricks.)
Am I the only person in this thread who keeps thinking "air conditioning" when I read "AC"?
|
|
Andy, a couple of things:
I don't think you're grasping some other folks' points of view here. Take Chris' for example: he was clearly trying to make the point that if a player asks how to do X, and it's not clearly defined in the rules, the GM must make the most reasonable ruling possible. If the question is "how can I get my AniComp to flank with me?", then one GM might say "you need to train it as a trick" while another might say "you need to make a Push HA check". Both are answerig the "how to flank" question. Both are applying the most reasonable skill (Handle Animal). Both are adjudicating something that's not explicit in the rules (nothing tells you how to get your AniComp to flank).
The only difference is the final answer. The reasoning to get there is the same, and they're both applications of the most reasonable skill in order to produce an effect not covered in the rules.
If you want to show that one is valid while the other is not, then you need to show how two applications of the same skill are different. You keep asserting that training a new trick is "creating new stuff in PFS" and comparing it to crafting. But isn't the application of the "Push" mechanic (which you have advocated) also creating something new? (I.e., a new function of the mechanic.)
That's what Chris' list of examples were supposed to show: any one of those situations could be described as a GM "creating new stuff" by applying a skill to a situation that the rules don't cover.
It's up to you to illustrate the difference between asking for a skill check to Push-to-flank and asking for a skill check to Train-to-flank. You haven't done that so far. You've asserted that such a distinction exists, but you have done nothing to show that there's a difference or what that difference is or how it works. You just keep insisting it's different without ever showing how.
This is why no one seems to be responding to you the way you'd probably like.
Relatedly, it hasn't been coming across in...
I totally get what he's saying.
And adjudicating something that's ambiguous or not explicitly stated is one thing.
Creating an entire new thing that doesn't already exist is completely another.
I'm actually surprised that people don't see the difference and actually advocate creating something new that requires new mechanics.
Chris...
What if as a GM I determine the DC of training Menance should be 25? But you determined it as 20?
|
RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
And adjudicating something that's ambiguous or not explicitly stated is one thing.
Creating an entire new thing that doesn't already exist is completely another.
Getting warmer. Now just show why "if you want him to flank, you need to teach him a trick" doesn't fall under "adjudicating something that's ambiguous or not explicitly stated".
Until you can make that clear, all you have is an opinion, rather than an argument or a case.
|
RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16
|
Andrew, I've explained the mechanics of the Handle Animal skill that allow for things like a Flank trick, or a Menace trick, as best I can. I don't see that as "a new thing requiring new mechanics."
What if we differed on the skill check necessary for riding a wild shark? Or sneaking past an ettin which has one of its heads in a bag? Or the Acrobatics check for running across a roof of wet shingles?
If that's the heart of your concerns, it's endemic in GMs ruling about the DC of any skill check. And I'll tell you, when I'm running a session, I would rather rule reasonably and quickly on a question like that, than pore over a collection of six rulebooks to find the exact RAW answer. So I may rule that Menace is a DC 20 one day, think about it, and then decide it should have been a DC 25 based on material in the APG or UC. (Or an example in one of the Adventure Paths.)
And with this, I take my leave. I've read the posts here, thought about the problem, and explained my position, perhaps badly but as well as I'm able; all I'd be doing now is repeating myself.
|
|
And adjudicating something that's ambiguous or not explicitly stated is one thing.
Creating an entire new thing that doesn't already exist is completely another.
Getting warmer. Now just show why "if you want him to flank, you need to teach him a trick" doesn't fall under "adjudicating something that's ambiguous or not explicitly stated".
Until you can make that clear, all you have is an opinion, rather than an argument or a case.
Because I've already shown it.
Chris even actually helped my argument by "creating" a new trick with the mechanics of the train DC and all that.
It would be akin to creating a new trait or feat.
It is an element not already part of PFS, that doesn't exist, requires mechanics assigned to it, that are not already part of the CRB, and then you expect other GM's to abide by your creation.
Chris saying he wouldn't allow some trick that created the seige engine aiming is essentially opening the door to other GMs not allowing the flanking trick that he created. Or changing them to something else.
Anytime "common sense" and "reasonable" have to be applied to the creation of something new, then you open things up to abuse.
It becomes an actual game element the same as a feat or trait.
Allowing the heal skill to be used in certain ways, or allowing the handler to push an animal companion in a certain way are creative uses of skills. That's covered under the rules. But it doesn't create a new game element.
You can't create new spells, new feats, new traits. Why should you be able to create new tricks? They are as much a hard coded element in Pathfinder as those other elements.
|
|
Andrew, I've explained the mechanics of the Handle Animal skill that allow for things like a Flank trick, or a Menace trick, as best I can. I don't see that as "a new thing requiring new mechanics."
What if we differed on the skill check necessary for riding a wild shark? Or sneaking past an ettin which has one of its heads in a bag? Or the Acrobatics check for running across a roof of wet shingles?
If that's the heart of your concerns, it's endemic in GMs ruling about the DC of any skill check. And I'll tell you, when I'm running a session, I would rather rule reasonably and quickly on a question like that, than pore over a collection of six rulebooks to find the exact RAW answer. So I may rule that Menace is a DC 20 one day, think about it, and then decide it should have been a DC 25 based on material in the APG or UC. (Or an example in one of the Adventure Paths.)
And with this, I take my leave. I've read the posts here, thought about the problem, and explained my position, perhaps badly but as well as I'm able; all I'd be doing now is repeating myself.
It literally boggles my mind how you cannot consider creating a new trick with your own mechanics, that can change on a whim, as not creating something new.
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32, 2010 Top 8
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
This tangent goes back to table variation, which I don't see as an issue (yet)
This isn't a CRPG. I can't throw a fireball to drop the roof of the cave in the Deep Roads in Dragon Age, but I can try it in the Darklands in a PFS scenario.
Likewise, I, as a GM, can adjust to circumstances if someone at my table argues a good bluff check would work instead of diplomacy.
At the same time, I should expect and prepare for GM variance. If I train fluffy the wonder wolf to 'attack any' and Chris rules that fluffy will move into flanking under instinct, and Andrew says he attacks head on, I might argue, but should accept the tactic and adjust accordingly.
Now that I understand the Animal Companion rules I feel that GMs should also be flexible. If a player shows up at my table and I ask for a list of tricks, I'm going to make clear if 'attack' is 'attack from the front' or 'flank'. Likewise, if I see listed on a chronicle sheet "Flank, CM" I'm going to ask what that means. If it means "After playing a scenario, Chris Mortika let me roll to teach my goat a flanking command." I'm going to roll with it, even though I think goats are dumb as a box of rocks and couldn't flank if their lives depend on it.
Venture-Captain, California—San Francisco Bay Area South & West
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I think goats are dumb as a box of rocks and couldn't flank if their lives depend on it.
Maybe not, but they sure can if new items for their food supply(*) depend on it. Many years ago my wife discovered this the hard way; while she was distracted by a cute fluffy lamb, or bunny, or something, a goat snuck up on her blind side and started chewing on her skirt. Judging by the grass stains, it had about a square foot of material in it's mouth before anybody had a chance to react.
* A pretty flexible concept, if you're a goat.
|
|
It literally boggles my mind how you cannot consider creating a new trick with your own mechanics, that can change on a whim, as not creating something new.And it boggles my mind that you think that's whathe'ssaying.
but that is what he said. He even created two new tricks that don't exist in this thread and then likened it to allowing creative uses of skills
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Does anyone have the actual rule on creating new stuff in PFS?
The only rules mentioned are PFS disallowing crafting, custom mounts, and non-listed deities.
Here are those rules:
PFS Guide to Organized Play v4.1 page 6: "Neither the craft feats nor the item creation section of the magic items chapter in the Core Rulebook are legal for play. Additionally, except for specific examples cited in this guide or the Pathfinder Society FAQ, the Craft skill is not legal for play and crafting of mundane items is not allowed in Pathfinder Society."
Pathfinder Society Frequently Asked Questions: "You may only select a mount from the listed mounts on page 63 of the Pathfinder RPG Core Rulebook unless another source grants access to additional creature choices."
PFS Guide to Organized Play v4.1 page 7: "Characters can elect to worship any deity listed in a table of gods in the Core Rulebook, The Inner Sea World Guide, Pathfinder Chronicles: Gods and Magic, or any other source listed as an official Additional Resource."
These are all notable because they are placing limits on something that is otherwise allowed by the rules. Normally you can craft items, in PFS you can't. Normally you can pick a weird mount, in PFS you can't. Normally you can worship the swimming meatloaf beast, in PFS you can't.
Normally you can use Handle Animal to teach a trick that isn't in the list of examples. Where's the rule saying in PFS you can't?
There's this:
PFS FAQ - How can I teach tricks to an animal using Handle Animal?: "You can teach any animal a trick so long as you follow the rules for Handle Animal on pages 97–98 of the Pathfinder RPG Core Rulebook."
Task: Teach an animal a trick
Handle Animal DC: 15 or 20*
* See the specific trick or purpose below.
So I want to teach my dog to load a siege engine. The DC is either 15 or 20. If we set the DC at 20, the maximum DC of the skill, then there can be no arguing about what the DC should have been.
I succeed on the check, and dog now knows the "Load siege engine trick" and it's DC 10 for me to use Handle Animal to command him to do so.
The problem isn't be whether I can teach dog the trick, clearly I can. The problem should be whether dog can physically perform that action.
Since it takes arms and maybe thumbs to load a siege engine, dog can't do so even though he knows the trick. I can teach him the trick, I can command him to do the trick, he can even attempt the trick. But actually doing it (and succeeding) is beyond him.
Now lets do the same for Flank. DC 20 and he knows it. DC 10 and he's handled. Can he flank something? Sure. He might not do it on his own (see the blog post on intelligent animals), but he is capable of doing it.
Trick: Go upstairs and get volume 6 of Bigby's Adventures in Palm Reading. Dog can't read, so he can't pick out that volume.
Trick: Keep that damn halfling away from my soup. No problem.
Trick: Jump to the moon. Dogs can't do that.
The PFS FAQ says to follow the rules. The rules say you can teach new tricks. Thus, barring anything specifying otherwise, in PFS you can teach new tricks.
|
RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
but that is what he said. He even created two new tricks that don't exist in this thread and then likened it to allowing creative uses of skillsIt literally boggles my mind how you cannot consider creating a new trick with your own mechanics, that can change on a whim, as not creating something new.And it boggles my mind that you think that's whathe'ssaying.
Creating something new and likening it to creative uses of skills is not the same as claiming that doing so is "not creating something new".
He did, as you say, create two new tricks. He did not, despite your claim to the contrary, suggest that doing so was not creating something new.
He did, as you say, liken the creation of tricks to creative uses of skills. He did not, despite your claim to the contrary, suggest that doing so was not creating something new.
He didn't say that doing XYZ was not creating something new. Rather, he implied (though did not state) that creating something new was sometimes acceptable.
The difference between those two things, and the fact that you've missed that difference so far (while simultaneously accusing others of not reading your posts carefully) and therefore continued to argue against things that people aren't saying, is probably why you're spinning your wheels in this thread.
|
|
It is an element not already part of PFS, that doesn't exist, requires mechanics assigned to it, that are not already part of the CRB, and then you expect other GM's to abide by your creation.
And this, for me, is where we differ.
Flanking is an element of Pathfinder which is already well-defined in PFS.
Flanking exists.
Flanking already has mechanics assigned to it.
Flanking is clearly defined in the CRB.
Flanking is nothing that I, as a GM or player, are creating from whole cloth.
Now, what you are doing is creating a definition for Animal Companions which doesn't exist.
You appear to define an Animal COmpanion as something as dumb as a post, and unable to learn anything new, nor new applications of things it already knows.
•Attack (DC 20): The animal attacks apparent enemies. You may point to a particular creature that you wish the animal to attack, and it will comply if able. Normally, an animal will attack only humanoids, monstrous humanoids, giants, or other animals. Teaching an animal to attack all creatures (including such unnatural creatures as undead and aberrations) counts as two tricks.
So, where does it define how the trained animal or Animal Companion will attack its target?
As someone pointed out, do you need to train the animal for each possible attack mode it has?
Bite
Claw
Claw/claw/bite
Attack from the south
Attack from the northwest
At what level do you say, "Animal Companions are trained to work with their humanoid companion, and have a fair understanding of their companions common combat characteristics."
Link, Shared languages, Telepathy
At what point does the dog learn that his companion mainly wants him to properly double-team his opponent, or, for a casty type, wants him to block his enemy's approach?
As a GM, at what level do you look at your NPCs and decide whether or not they are bright enough to consider flanking an opponent, or focus fire on a single enemy?
Skeletons & zombies?
Skeleton Champions?
Wolves?
|
The PFS FAQ says to follow the rules. The rules say you can teach new tricks. Thus, barring anything specifying otherwise, in PFS you can teach new tricks.
Fine, i teach my animal companion 2 tricks: understand and obey.
ANY trick you make is custom and not allowed under PFS, any more than a use activated truestriking sword is allowed even though by the rules presented in the magic items section you can make one.
|
RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
ANY trick you make is custom and not allowed under PFS, any more than a use activated truestriking sword is allowed even though by the rules presented in the magic items section you can make one.
Grick already addressed that difference. Not saying I agree or disagree with the conclusion, but if you want to make a rational case for your position, you need to counter/invalidate what's already been said, not just ignore it.
ANY trick you make is custom and not allowed under PFS
Can you please quote the rule that says so?
any more than a use activated truestriking sword is allowed even though by the rules presented in the magic items section you can make one.
This was covered up above. PFS Guide to Organized Play v4.1 page 6 states that the item creation section of the magic items chapter in the Core Rulebook is not legal for play.
Teaching a trick, following the rules about teaching tricks, that the PFS FAQ said to use, is not related to magic item creation. Thus, the rule prohibiting magic item creation does not apply to teaching tricks.
Venture-Agent, Nebraska—Columbus
|
I will say that when I think of animals that attack in a pack--I think they are more likely to attack from the flank than from the front. A wolf does not attack even an elk or deer front on if they can get to the flank. If a GM ever asked me what my wolf did, it would always be going for flank attack instead of straight up---I would have to take a standard action to command it to straight up attack into the teeth, horns I think on the intitial engagement(it just goes against the wolfs nature to charge in)
|
|
ANY trick you make is custom and not allowed under PFSCan you please quote the rule that says so?
any more than a use activated truestriking sword is allowed even though by the rules presented in the magic items section you can make one.This was covered up above. PFS Guide to Organized Play v4.1 page 6 states that the item creation section of the magic items chapter in the Core Rulebook is not legal for play.
Teaching a trick, following the rules about teaching tricks, that the PFS FAQ said to use, is not related to magic item creation. Thus, the rule prohibiting magic item creation does not apply to teaching tricks.
You are allowed to use the handle animal rules as they appear in the core rule book.
The "flank" "obey" and "understand" tricks are not there. Thus they're not legal.
It goes against the entire point of an organized society to have the animal need to change out tricks between DMs.
|
RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
You are allowed to use the handle animal rules as they appear in the core rule book.
If that's your argument, then I'd direct you here:
Possible tricks (and their associated DCs) include, but are not necessarily limited to, the following.
That's where your argument leads. Either revise your premise (i.e., change to "you DON'T get to follow the HA rules as written", much like Andrew Christian's position) or revise your conclusion (i.e., "the list in the book is not comprehensive; other tricks can be taught").
But "follow the HA rules as they appear in the CRB, therefore you only get the listed tricks" is logically impossible. The position is invalid.
|
|
Jiggy:
The position is perfectly valid. You're not making any sense. Other tricks are possible does not mean that any particular trick is possible. Without any particular trick being made possible you can't get any particular trick. My home brew trick: Obey (DC 5), the animal does as you tell it to as a free action" is just as valid as flank (ie, not)
To use less lawyer speak, the unwritten intent there is "other tricks are possible______" with the DM's approval. As the tricks an animal knows are part of a character that moves from table to table that decision making process is left up to the DM to house rule: that DM is the society rules, not the DM sitting at the table.
|
RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
As the tricks an animal knows are part of a character that moves from table to table that decision making process is left up to the DM to house rule: that DM is the society rules, not the DM sitting at the table.
That's a different position than what I was calling out. There's a big difference between "you can't invent tricks because the Core Rulebook says so" (invalid due to being based on an untrue premise) and "you can't invent tricks because they're subject to GM approval and the real GM (Mike Brock) hasn't approved any".
Maybe that seems nitpicky, but given the multiple pages of people arguing past each other while claiming to be basing their mutually-exclusive views on the same verbiage, I think it's time people paid a little closer attention to what their own damn thoughts are.
|
Venture-Captain, California—San Francisco Bay Area South & West
|
I will say that when I think of animals that attack in a pack--I think they are more likely to attack from the flank than from the front. A wolf does not attack even an elk or deer front on if they can get to the flank. If a GM ever asked me what my wolf did, it would always be going for flank attack instead of straight up---I would have to take a standard action to command it to straight up attack into the teeth, horns I think on the intitial engagement(it just goes against the wolfs nature to charge in)
In the context we are discussing, "Flank" does not mean "Attack from the side" - it means "Attack from a position opposite that of another attacker". So if there are two wolves attacking the elk, and they split left and right and attack the deer from either side, trying to go for the throat, they're probably still not flanking. If they come in directly from the side, though (presumably trying to go for the underbelly) that would be flanking.
Two lionesses or cheetahs taking down a running antelope probably wouldn't be flanking, either - those attacks come as much from behind as from the side.
Has anybody flagged this thread for a response yet? Just curious because this pedantic rules lawyering is getting nowhere. Its clear there is no compromise for some, a ruling is needed.
|
Venture-Agent, Nebraska—Columbus
|
I will say that when I think of animals that attack in a pack--I think they are more likely to attack from the flank than from the front. A wolf does not attack even an elk or deer front on if they can get to the flank. If a GM ever asked me what my wolf did, it would always be going for flank attack instead of straight up---I would have to take a standard action to command it to straight up attack into the teeth, horns I think on the intitial engagement(it just goes against the wolfs nature to charge in)In the context we are discussing, "Flank" does not mean "Attack from the side" - it means "Attack from a position opposite that of another attacker". So if there are two wolves attacking the elk, and they split left and right and attack the deer from either side, trying to go for the throat, they're probably still not flanking. If they come in directly from the side, though (presumably trying to go for the underbelly) that would be flanking.
Two lionesses or cheetahs taking down a running antelope probably wouldn't be flanking, either - those attacks come as much from behind as from the side.
and I am good with that also. It still did not block a player from getting in mobs face. It still shows the pack mentality of working with others. So it did not move right behind to flank. So long as it is not right beside me, it makes it easier during my move to take a flanking.
|
|
OK I'm inventing a new trick called 'Mad Combat skillz' where the Animal Companion can always optimally use the most appropriate tactic at the time and has been taught all about flanking, AOO's, the lot.
I'll make up a long and granular list of tactical decision trees for it later, and make sure that at then end I put the cop out rider that 'other choices may be made based on the tactical environment' - Its gona be awesome.
DC10 to get it to start fighting that way of course.
PFS GM's will all just roll with my newly invented skill because the CRB says other tricks are possible.
Seems legit.
|
Venture-Captain, California—San Francisco Bay Area South & West
|
My issue is if an animal had 3+ intelligence and can already talk in a language or more, why would there be a need for most handle animal rolls, especially for tricks it already knows?
It's only a DC10 roll (or at worst a DC12 if the companion has been injured). That's not going to be all that hard to make (assuming +4 for a companion, +3 for a class skill, and having invested a few skill points).
The game mechanics say that the increase in INT goes to the number of tricks that can be learned, not to how easily a companion animal can understand you. It might not be the closest approximation to "real life", but that's what the rules say. I don't know too many animals that can talk, anyway, so real-life analogies aren't all that useful.
|
|
My issue is if an animal had 3+ intelligence and can already talk in a language or more, why would there be a need for most handle animal rolls, especially for tricks it already knows?It's only a DC10 roll (or at worst a DC12 if the companion has been injured). That's not going to be all that hard to make (assuming +4 for a companion, +3 for a class skill, and having invested a few skill points).
The game mechanics say that the increase in INT goes to the number of tricks that can be learned, not to how easily a companion animal can understand you. It might not be the closest approximation to "real life", but that's what the rules say. I don't know too many animals that can talk, anyway, so real-life analogies aren't all that useful.
Well, I lived with a friend who owned several birds of the parrot variety.
It was very amusing in the early morning when I was leaving for work, and the birds were saying, "Hello." (literally) to each other.
|
|
Since you're the one teaching the animal to attack, natural tendencies shouldn't matter at all. It's also a DC 20 training check, so it's not going to be on the level of "when I say the command, go sink your teeth into whatever I point at". You should be teaching your animal to be an effective member in combat. I have to go with nosig's example with perform.
I would say that the caster who is more interested in keeping the AC between him and the enemy look at defend as the go-to trick instead of attack.
I'd guess BAB is a general abstraction of "fighting experience", with the 3/4 BAB classes spending a larger amount of time on non-combat areas of expertise, and the 1/2 BAB classes spending most of their time on non-combat areas of expertise. I think rogue (compared to the ranger) & monk are the only two who don't follow this (coincidence with them being often considered subpar combat classes?).
|
|
Exactly.
The BAB is an abstraction of combat experience, and ALL of the Companions you might choose from ALL start with a BAB equivalent to a first level fighter - whether Mr Bunnykins the herbivore, Timmy Treant, or your apex predator greatcat. They are better fighters than some of the Classes out there, yet those guys all know how to flank etc and the AC is unaware?
So whatever USED to be going on inside their cute and furry heads has been altered, its strange that your Pet could theoretically end up with quite a significant BAB and more attacks than a ninja on speed but still not have the Combat trick.
Tricks seem to have been designed to stop the good old days gaming from yesteryear where we just got Companions (ie 2nd ed) and these companions ended up making Lassie look mild because there was very little RAW to rein them in.
I think people are getting carried away with tricks and that is because they are very vague, not well quantified and qualified, and exist in some strange realm outside BAB/Skills/Feats/Traits.
