|
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. A GM must observe your Handle Animal check, and must initial what tricks the animal gained in the "Conditions Gained" section of the scenario's Chronicle sheet. The first time a character with levels in druid, ranger, or any other class that grants an animal companion gains an animal companion, the animal enters play knowing its maximum number of tricks as dictated by the animal companion's Intelligence and the character's effective druid level. If the character replaces the animal companion for any reason, the new animal starts with no tricks known, save for bonus tricks granted based on the PC's effective druid level. Once per scenario, you may attempt to train the animal companion a number of times equal to the number of ranks you have in the Handle Animal skill. Each success allows you to teach the animal a single trick; a failed attempt counts against the total number of training attempts allowed per scenario, and you may not attempt to teach the same trick until the next scenario. Alternatively, you may train one animal for a single purpose as long as you have enough ranks in Handle Animal to train the animal in each trick learned as part of that purpose. You may take 10 on Handle Animal checks to teach an animal companion tricks.
You can make it at the start of the scenario (since you can make it at any time) which could be important if you're replacing an animal companion for some reason.
|
|
| 3 people marked this as FAQ candidate. Answered in the errata. |
** spoiler omitted **
You can make it at the start of the scenario (since you can make it at any time) which could be important if you're replacing an animal companion for some reason.
Right, I guess my question is, since the limits of what you can and can't teach an animal are up to the GM's discretion, how do we determine what tricks (outside of the CRB) are allowed?
Can I teach "Flank" to my animal companion so we can use Precise Strike (assuming Int above 2 here)?
|
Some GMs would say yes, and some would say no. Some GMs would refuse to acknowledge a "Flank" trick as anything but a house rule, and some people also just really hate animal companions.I know. The ambiguity with companions really discourages me to use them in organized play.
There is a lot of ambiguity with them. You can limit your frustration by expecting conservative rulings; if conservative expectations means you can't have fun with a rules resource, then going with another concept is a favor to yourself and your judges.
It doesn't take hating animal companions to lean toward conservative rulings. With something like this, where it is a long term resource that is at the option of the GM, then providing conservative rulings as a judge, to leave such options in the hands of the campaign administration, is a favor to the rest of the judging pool.
|
|
Right, I guess my question is, since the limits of what you can and can't teach an animal are up to the GM's discretion, how do we determine what tricks (outside of the CRB) are allowed?
Can I teach "Flank" to my animal companion so we can use Precise Strike (assuming Int above 2 here)?
As far as I know, there are no tricks outside the CRB. Is "Flank" a trick listed somewhere? If it is, check the Additional Resources page and see if it is legal.
|
As far as I know, there are no tricks outside the CRB. Is "Flank" a trick listed somewhere? If it is, check the Additional Resources page and see if it is legal.Right, I guess my question is, since the limits of what you can and can't teach an animal are up to the GM's discretion, how do we determine what tricks (outside of the CRB) are allowed?
Can I teach "Flank" to my animal companion so we can use Precise Strike (assuming Int above 2 here)?
The problem is that some GMs won't allow an AC that knows the Attack trick, even twice, to be able to flank without spending half an hour moving it around one square at a time into a flanking position.
So, one of the discussions brought up that Handle Animal mentions "other tricks" so some GMs were recommending training ACs with a flank trick to bypass the GMs who were being overly strict.
At which point, yet another batch of GMs, with potential overlap, pointed out that new tricks were GM decisions, and that PFS judges couldn't make any such decision.
Not to mention those GMs who would be ruling on an AC's ability to flank from the attack trick as being off of their species, wolves can, rhinos can't, etc.
Meh. At this point, my Samurai may never see play again. Some of the GMs posting are leaving a bad taste in my mouth. Especially when you consider that some of them are not thinking about what is going on, but acting in a knee-jerk reaction to something they think is cheese. For example, claiming that gloves would prevent the ability to use natural claw attacks. Which would affect more than ACs, honestly, but gets into affecting natural attack Rangers and Barbarians, among others. Boots would negate the ability to rend. Helmets would negate the ability to take a bite attack. No love for Half-Orcs, too, then.
|
|
Some of the GMs posting are leaving a bad taste in my mouth. Especially when you consider that some of them are not thinking about what is going on, but acting in a knee-jerk reaction to something they think is cheese.
The nature of organized play is that, unless you play in an isolated group, you will experience variance in play style. You will experience variance in rulings made at the table. The greater the degree to which you combine rule elements for a character advantage, the greater the chance and degree to which you will experience such variance.
The watch phrase that developed in Living Greyhawk, and which applies to this campaign for many of the same reasons, is "expect table variance." Understand the possible variance that your favorite tactic or combination of equipment and abilities might produce, and plan alternatives for when the ruling is beyond your threshold for what you see as being acceptable. Sometimes working with a given GM's rulings means, "I'll use an extra action to do blah..." Other times it means, "I won't play this character with this GM."
It is a tendency for people to view their own motivations in a positive light, and the motivation of others in a negative light. Frustration very often is the result of a misalignment between one's expectation and reality. If the reality is that table variance is greater when dealing with more extreme combinations, then expectations that don't take that into account will result in frustrations.
My approach is to play mechanically simple characters with my best effort at vibrant personalities in organized play. I'm not terribly interested in optimization beyond iconic effectiveness, but when attempting such builds and tactics, I reserve it for homeplay with GMs who like to see such things.
A lot of the stuff talked about in this thread, whether specific to animal companions, the interaction between feats/class abilities and equipment, or similar, stems out of differences that people bring to the table with respect to the long understood spectrum of simulationist vs. gamist. Everyone has a spot on that spectrum, and they may view it differently for different types of things. Unfortunately, it seems like the greatest degree of frustration stems from the combination of gamist players when running with simulationist GMs.
|
|
I'm looking forward to the Animal book coming out in December, and hoping it will include many more tricks so that you can legally teach your wolf companion to always try to flank...
Then they will need to make the animal able to learn many more tricks.
In 2nd Ed they got that granular, but when you animal was able to learn in the range of TWENTY tricks then it wasn't so bad.
Venture-Captain, Michigan—Mt. Pleasant
|
I'm looking forward to the Animal book coming out in December, and hoping it will include many more tricks so that you can legally teach your wolf companion to always try to flank...Then they will need to make the animal able to learn many more tricks.
In 2nd Ed they got that granular, but when you animal was able to learn in the range of TWENTY tricks then it wasn't so bad.
You mean like the 25 that a 20th level animal companion could know? (2 int, +4 ability increase = INT 6 @ 3/int = 18 tricks +7 bonus tricks)
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I was one of the GM's who felt that the current system doesn't support allowing animals to use advanced tactics unless the animal type typically uses such tactics in the wild (i.e. pack hunters--wolf--and flanking).
I was also one of the GM's who felt that creating new tricks was outside the purview of organized play. That if it doesn't exist, you can't create the new game mechanic. There is lots of precedent to back this up.
Now Jiggy can probably find the link, but James Jacobs indicated that because animal companions are special class features, that allowing them to use advanced tactics (flanking) should be part of their combat training.
So that's how I'm running animal companions now. As both a player and a GM.
|
|
You mean like the 25 that a 20th level animal companion could know? (2 int, +4 ability increase = INT 6 @ 3/int = 18 tricks +7 bonus tricks)
...except the 20 was from the early stages (ie when you FIRST got the companion)
They had fun tricks like 'Tactics' where the AC got to pick and choose its own tactical options.
...but James Jacobs indicated that because animal companions are special class features, that allowing them to use advanced tactics (flanking) should be part of their combat training.
I recall that post too. Was a nice ruling imo :)
|
|
My approach is to play mechanically simple characters with my best effort at vibrant personalities in organized play. I'm not terribly interested in optimization beyond iconic effectiveness, but when attempting such builds and tactics, I reserve it for homeplay with GMs who like to see such things.
I agree. And when I say that I avoid animal companions, I didn't mean to come off as bitter. It's unrealistic to expect PFS coordinators to come up with "house rules" for every case of GM discretion in the CRB.
That said, I'm finding the table variance with respect to companions, or even the expectation thereof, to be a turnoff. And it's not just tricks and combat. Some Judges will be okay with mounts or dinosaur companions walking around the streets of Absalom and into shops. Some will enforce limitations on them so that they're only really usable outside of urban areas--or outside period.
If Judges were allowed to decide how or whether magic worked, I don't imagine playing a wizard would be very fun.
|
Coming from someone who basically hates animal companions, I find this idea of not letting them be used to flank efficiently as kind of a waste of time. Just let the pet people do their pet stuff.
It is likely that at least one person's experience will be ruined by said animal companion, but that is out of the judges' hands in PFS.
The only realistic solution I see to the whole mess is to punish non-optimal players and make the scenario fights much more deadly, so PCs have something to do, even in the event of eidolons and animal companions.
|
Venture-Captain, California—San Francisco Bay Area South & West
|
Some Judges will be okay with mounts or dinosaur companions walking around the streets of Absalom and into shops. Some will enforce limitations on them so that they're only really usable outside of urban areas--or outside period.
I've had players try to ride their mounts down the aisle of a theatre (which I allowed), and into rooms and corridors of a regular building (which I didn't).
Should it arise, I would probably allow a halfling riding a wardog (or a gnome with a leopard ...) just about anywhere a half-orc could go (although the wardog might have problems climbing a tree).
|
Venture-Captain, California—San Francisco Bay Area South & West
|
The only realistic solution I see to the whole mess is to punish non-optimal players and make the scenario fights much more deadly, so PCs have something to do, even in the event of eidolons and animal companions.
IMO, this "solution" is far worse than the problem it purports to solve.
|
|
... James Jacobs indicated that because animal companions are special class features, that allowing them to use advanced tactics (flanking) should be part of their combat training.
So that's how I'm running animal companions now. As both a player and a GM.
I had the same understanding as Andrew, but if James Jacobs says otherwise, I will certainly allow advanced tactics going forward.
I'm still not sure about having an A/C move around behind an enemy just for the possibility of a flank with no ally there yet. But if an ally was there already, this would certainly qualify as being able to maneuver to add a flank.