|
| 20 people marked this as FAQ candidate. Answered in the errata. |
There is a pretty serious thread in the PFS section of the boards about animal companions. During this discussion, there is now a question of who ultimately is in control of an animal companion? Is it an NPC? Does it matter that it is a class feature? Is it technically under the control of the DM, who then usually "farms it out" to the PC to whom it is a class feature of? Or is it inappropriate for DM's to control them?
A ruling on this would be very useful, since everything in PFS is supposed to be RAW, and nothing homebrewed. Obviously, this is not such a quandry in a homebrew, since the DM has considerably more power to make this call in that situation.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
Everything that is not a PC should be under control of the DM. That includes animal companions.
Animal companions actually require Handle Animal checks to get them to do what you want. Thats why druids get a +4 bonus on Handle Animal checks when dealing with their companion.
Link (Ex): A druid can handle her animal companion as a free action, or push it as a move action, even if she doesn't have any ranks in the Handle Animal skill. The druid gains a +4 circumstance bonus on all wild empathy checks and Handle Animal checks made regarding an animal companion.
If an animal companion was under control of the druid, and so does whatever the druid wants, then there would be no need for that. If the check is required, then there is at least a chance of failure, and the companion not obeying the character and doing what it wants (what the DM wants it to do).
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
By explicit rule, Druids must make a Handle Animal role to give the companion instructions to perform a specific trick on the animal's list. "Defend," "Guard," "Attack," etc. The GM then adjudicates how the animal goes about performing those instructions.
In practice, GMs often let the player do it so the GM has less to worry about.
While not exactly about this issue, players DO choose which feats their animal companions get. This means that at absolute best, "it depends" as there are aspects where the player is in control and there are aspects where the GM might be in control.
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Animal companions actually require Handle Animal checks to get them to do what you want. Thats why druids get a +4 bonus on Handle Animal checks when dealing with their companion.
The alternative to the GM controlling the animal is not the character controlling it, rather the alternative is the player controlling it.
So the player can control the AC just like he controls his PC, but if he doesn't follow the rules, or has the AC act out of character or too intelligent for an animal, the GM can step in just like he would step in if the player had their PC break a rule (e.g. like ignoring encumbrance penalties) or play against abilities (e.g. make a rousing speech with eloquent use of long words when the PC had Charisma 6 and Intelligence 7).
|
|
By explicit rule, Druids must make a Handle Animal role to give the companion instructions to perform a specific trick on the animal's list. "Defend," "Guard," "Attack," etc.
Yep, I agree.
The GM then adjudicates how the animal goes about performing those instructions.
That is not explicit however, it could just as easily be the player who adjudicates how the animal goes about performing those instructions.
Problems arise when a player metagames and has the AC act as if he was merely an extension of the PC's will and ignores the nature and stats of the animal.
Animal companions are a class feature, not an NPC. This debate comes up about every three months or so.
By RAW I suppose you could argue that a GM should control animal companions, but then what about familiars?
As a GM I really don't want to take on the burden of controlling your animal companion. For the most part I assume it will do what you want so long as you can communicate your intentions. In extreme circumstances I might say "your AC wouldn't do that" (like, maybe, "go grapple that lava monster!") but it is a rare, rare thing that I would want to interfere with a player controlling his PC's AC.
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Why the heck don't they ever rule on it if it comes up every three months? I don't even really care what the answer is at this point, I just want an answer, because PFS must be run RAW. I don't want points that can be argued, I want a bimodal situation resolved. Either they are under DM control and delegated to players, or not. There is no middle ground for PFS.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
If they must be given instructions via Handle Animal, I do not see why they would be adjudicated by the GM any differently than a store bought animal that also must be given instructions via Handle Animal. The druid class specifically states that you gain bonuses to handle the animal, which seems quite explicitly to mean that they should be adjudicated just as other animals are, albeit with certain bonuses granted by class features.
So to me, the question is whether or not the GM or PC controls animals bought and owned by PCs. The same answer should apply to companions.
| 11 people marked this as a favorite. |
This is my interpretation of the rules. Since the AC is an Class Feature, I let the player run the AC to the degree they follow the rules as I understand them.
If you want your AC to do something that is a Trick listed in Core, or Animal Archives, and the AC knows said trick you roll a DC 10 Handle Animal check. If your AC does NOT know the trick, you roll a DC 25 Handle Animal check to Push. If you want your AC to do something that is not a trick listed in Core or the Animal Archive, you are out of luck. There are no allowances for making up your own trick in PFS.
I make the AC move the shortest distance possible to meet its general objective.
For example:
Round 1:
Druid: I order my AC to attack.
GM: (GM looks at the creature type, and it is humanoid, monstrous humanoid, giant, or other animal) Does your AC have the attack trick?
Druid: Yes.
GM: Please make a DC 10 Handle Animal check, remember you have a +4 bonus because it is your Animal Companion.
Druid: (Rolls 10). I succeed!
GM: Right, the most direct path that ends with your AC in combat position is here, roll your attack!
Druid: But I want my AC here, (points at map) so he can provide Flanking for the rogue.
GM: Well, on your next turn, you can order your Animal Companion to flank.
Round 2:
Druid: Ok, this round I want my AC to provide flanking for the rogue.
GM: Fine; do you have the Flank Trick?
Druid: No, but he knows how to attack, and flanking is just an attack from a specific location.
GM: I understand, but flanking is a specific trick, if you don't know it, you will have to push your AC, DC 25.
Druid: But all the Guides to Druid told me Cha was a dump stat, so I only have a 7 Cha for -2, and 1 rank in Handle Animal, plus three because it is a class skill for a total of +2!
GM: Don't forget your +4 because it is your Animal Companion. You will succeed on a 19 or 20.
Druid: Well, can I aid other then, since I can't flank, how about I have my AC aid the rogue for the +2?
GM: Your companion certainly can, do you have the Aid trick?
Druid: . . .
Round 3:
Druid: Ok, that target is dead. I order my AC to attack the next creature.
GM: An ooze is not a normal animal, did your animal companion learn Attack twice, so it can attack any target?
Druid: No, Why?
GM: . . .
I hit FAQ. So many reasonable posts here, but FAQ is the only thing that really resolves this officially.
Alot of posts here describe exactly what I know and experience, namely that the player /de facto/ runs the animal companions /most of the time/,
but that the GM retains the right to over-rule things if they don't match up or are 'out of character',
even if the action is physically possible or within the normal combat rules on it's own.
...That pretty much correlates to the GM being in ultimate control of the animal's actions, and 'farming out' running it for convenience (not per rules dictate).
(over-ruling happens much less than the GM describing some action out of the blue or before the player decides,
but that undoubtedly is because of a working compact that the player running the animal doesn't do anything the GM wouldn't)
This doesn't really seem to disrupt or make the game less fun, if everybody's starting assumption is that the PC has a limited means of control over the companion (handle animal) which may be less precise than using normal speech to command a 100% loyal humanoid... The variances from what you might ideally like, to how the animal fulfills commands, is just part of the package, and lends variety to otherwise 100% optimized combat. Although the companion may be farmed out pretty much 99% of the time, it's often fun to see what the companion (or Familiar, same deal) does on it's own without direction, with the GM interjecting some behavior I may have not thought of (because it really is easy to treat the companion as a sockpuppet and not always spend the effort to give it motivations outside the PC's own motivations).
re: Cheapy's point about player's choosing Feats, while that's always how I play /in fact/, I don't think the RAW specifies that (neither does it for Leadership minions AFAIK), it actually says 'animal companions should select their feats...'. Which is pretty much neutral on this issue, since whoever is ULTIMATELY controlling the animal companion would logically make that choice.
|
|
Alot of posts here describe exactly what I know and experience, namely that the player /de facto/ runs the animal companions /most of the time/,
but that the GM retains the right to over-rule things if they don't match up or are 'out of character',
even if the action is physically possible or within the normal combat rules on it's own.
...That pretty much correlates to the GM being in ultimate control of the animal's actions, and 'farming out' running it for convenience (not per rules dictate).
All that you said also applies to the player character itself though, so by that definition does that correlate to the GM being in ultimate control of the character's actions, and 'farming out' running it for convenience?
I've always played it as me having control over the pet unless the DM questions what I'm doing. Its simpler and faster than having to roll anytime I want my pet to do something and then seeing the DM play it out. In fact the few times I have done that the group wants it gone because its time consuming and rather boring. I also happen to know several DMs who would gladly kill your 2 int best friend if they had control over him. I don't want my Fluffykinz running mindlessly through AoOs or fire! He's a trained war beast!
Animals understand reach. Some just don't care when they are in attack mode. If its a bigger animal they are fighting they will lunge from farther away.
So... Why wouldn't an animal avoid an AoO? Are we infering the animal doesn't know the harm of being stabbed, or that a longer pointy stick has a longer range? The difference in opinion here is one of the reasons I'd rather have the player in control. Also helps leave less bad feelings and loss of control.
I quite like Arizhel's method.
It is not a house rule at all, but rather an explicit rule taken to the degree necessary to run it properly. Further, it works on not just AHs, but on store bought animals as well, you just have to spend actions to handle them and don't get the +4. Clean all around and universally applicable.
+1ing that post, for future reference.
This is why I bump my companions Int up to 3 ASAP
+1
So once a companion has an Int of 3, what do you do? Take linguistics with it and then just talk to it? Does that bypass the handle animal roll entirely?
/curious
|
So once a companion has an Int of 3, what do you do? Take linguistics with it and then just talk to it? Does that bypass the handle animal roll entirely?
/curious
There was a thread where one of the devs came in and clarified that it doesn't bypass the Handle Animal check entirely. They're still animals, just ones capable of understanding more complex ideas. You still have to convince them to actually do whatever it is you're asking.
This is my interpretation of the rules. Since the AC is an Class Feature, I let the player run the AC to the degree they follow the rules as I understand them.
If you want your AC to do something that is a Trick listed in Core, or Animal Archives, and the AC knows said trick you roll a DC 10 Handle Animal check. If your AC does NOT know the trick, you roll a DC 25 Handle Animal check to Push. If you want your AC to do something that is not a trick listed in Core or the Animal Archive, you are out of luck. There are no allowances for making up your own trick in PFS.
I make the AC move the shortest distance possible to meet its general objective.
EXAMPLES DELETED FOR SPACE
Excellent post, Arizhel.
I've just researched the heck out of this, since I am running a low-level Druid (with a crappy Cha mod) for the first time. And I'd like to add one more important thing....
The Bonus Tricks that an animal companions get do not require a Handle Animal Check to Peform. And they cannot ever be changed. From the descirption of Bonus Tricks:
The value given in this column is the total number of “bonus” tricks that the animal knows in addition to any that the druid might choose to teach it (see the Handle Animal skill). These bonus tricks don’t require any training time or Handle Animal checks, and they don’t count against the normal limit of tricks known by the animal. The druid selects these bonus tricks, and once selected, they can’t be changed.
The Bonus Tricks that an animal companions get do not require a Handle Animal Check to Peform. And they cannot ever be changed. From the descirption of Bonus Tricks:
Not true. They don't require a Handle Animal check to learn. Thats why its listed there with the note on no training time.
All tricks require a Handle Animal check to perform.
| 1 person marked this as FAQ candidate. |
The Bonus Tricks that an animal companions get do not require a Handle Animal Check to Peform. And they cannot ever be changed. From the descirption of Bonus Tricks:Not true. They don't require a Handle Animal check to learn. Thats why its listed there with the note on no training time.
All tricks require a Handle Animal check to perform.
Really? See bolded:
The value given in this column is the total number of “bonus” tricks that the animal knows in addition to any that the druid might choose to teach it (see the Handle Animal skill). These bonus tricks don’t require any training time or Handle Animal checks, and they don’t count against the normal limit of tricks known by the animal. The druid selects these bonus tricks, and once selected, they can’t be changed.
That sentence is entirely about learning the trick. Normally, it takes a week, a successful Handle Animal check to learn, and there is a strict limit on the number of tricks known.
The beginning of the sentence ("These bonus tricks don’t require any training time") removes the need for the week of work. The last part of the sentence ("and they don’t count against the normal limit of tricks known by the animal.") says the bonus trick doesn't count against the maximum number of tricks learned.
Since the entire rest of the sentence is talking about learning the trick, why would the middle part ("or Handle Animal checks") be any different? The entire sentence is about learning the trick, and how it differs from the normal procedure (no time, no check to learn, and doesn't count toward the limit of tricks known).
|
|
Here's the difference: the player should be allow to optimize movement paths, for example, to avoid AOOs from reach weapons. Animals don't understand reach weapons. So their movement paths, I think, should not be able to take that into account.
Assuming we all agreed that animals don't understand reach weapons and therefore wouldn't circle around foes to get at the target of their Attack command, why does that mean animal companions should be under the control of the GM?
The player can run the animal companion and if they tried to have the animal companion avoid AoOs from reach weapons the GM could step in at that point and say "Sorry, no, Handle Animal rules apply, animals wouldn't recognise reach weapons unless taught the trick!"
In just the same way the GM would step in if a player had their PC heavily loaded with equipment and then tried to run 4x their speed "Sorry, no, encumbrance rules apply, your run speed is 3x"
If anything rather than a ruling on who gets to control an animal companion, what people actually seem to want is more rigour in what animals will and will not naturally do in combat.
E.g.
"Animals will not recognise the potential of suffering attacks of opportunity and so will not make any effort to avoid them"
"Animal companions do not naturally recognise the tactical benefit of flanking (unless taught or pushed to perform the Flank trick) and so will not move into a flanking position if there is no other reason to do so"
"Unless it would prevent them from performing a Trick they have been successfully commanded to perform, an animal will naturally attempt to move away from foes who attack them and who they have not been instructed to attack. In such cases the animal will attempt to move at least 10 feet away from the attacking foe."
That actually seems to be what is wanted rather than more tricks or a ruling on the GM controlling the character etc, some basic rules of how to run animals that the GM and the player can follow.
| 1 person marked this as FAQ candidate. |
"That actually seems to be what is wanted rather than more tricks or a ruling on the GM controlling the character etc, some basic rules of how to run animals that the GM and the player can follow."
+1000!!!
I typed up a post (see below) but Digital Mages' comment it what I ment to say!!
I have given this a little thought as I have several players with ACs. I am of the opinion that ACs are a class feature under the control of the player. BUT and a BIG BUT, how that control interacts the world/game is up to the GM. A wizard has full control over his spellbook and which spells he casts that day, but the GM decides through arbitration and die rolls how those spells manifest. A fireball does not automatically work, there are reflex saves, die rolls, etc…An AC is no different. The player decides what he wants his animal to do, there are die rolls involved and the GM communicates the result. With the new book, I do see some problems with the level of granularity though. Some of the new tricks are too specific. (ie Watch/Guard, or Come/Heel are almost the same thing). And where the book should have made thing clearer, it makes things more complex (item slots, flank, etc…)
And on the subject of flank. A creature (like a wolf for example, knows how to flank, that is how wolves hunt…they flank). What a wolf does not know how to do is “Move into a flanking position with the parties rogue” when asked by its owner, unless it knows the trick. The attack command should also have a line about moving to the nearest square to make an attack, to clear up confusion with how flank trick works with animals. It of course “can” flank without the trick, the trick is a command to move into flank if is not already there (since I will running attack as “attack from closest square” for home games….and have NO clue how I am officially supposed to run it in PFS….expect table variation I guess.)
I am on the whole disappointed with the book (especially with how it interfaces with PFS)…it basically changes a class feature (or should I say clarifies the feature to such an extent that it works differently that it has for years).
And I am no closer to rules to govern my witches familiar. Is it even an animal anymore? It has an INT of 10 and teaches me magic! It can talk to me…should I have PC level control over it? Does it even know tricks? Do I need to know Handle Animal for it?
I am not responding for the PFS but I as GM allow my players to control their AC except in strange circumstances. My druid solve the control problems fairly easily having a very high handle animal. By second level any trick the AC knew was a 1 on the die while Pushing the animal became trivial by 5th level (feats, magic items and skill points).
My only house rule rule is that the same command can be given to multipul animals as part of the same action. Now I have to be careful about what animals and magical beasts I include since they will become the druids friend and he has all the handle animal he needs to get them to fight for him at least for a while.
They usually only help for an encounter or two but he loves trying to make BBEG's pet turn on its master. It even works sometimes.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
There's a sidebar in the Animal Archive which has wording that makes it clear Paizo does not intend to rule on this. It references that some DMs do and some DMs don't control companions and familiars. By putting that in print it makes it obvious that Paizo intends this to be up to the person running the table to decide.
How that works with PFS I have no idea.
Wow Brun, how do you get a trivial Handle Check by 5th leve1? (My druid would like to know)
If CHA is not a dump stat (lets say it is 12) we get a skill of +9 at 5th.
From link we get +4
From Training Harness we get +2
From Skill Focus we get +3.
For a total of +18 … the DC to push a trick is 25 (27 if they are wounded … which is likely in combat).
Which means you would need to roll at least a 7 and more likely a 9 to push. Am I missing something? What other things do players do to get their skill higher?
hmmm....a 28% failure chance is not trivial to me.
The bonus tricks are free tricks to learn. That is why they don't require any training time.
These bonus tricks don’t require any training time or Handle Animal checks, and they don’t count against the normal limit of tricks known by the animal.
Wow Brun, how do you get a trivial Handle Check by 5th leve1? (My druid would like to know)
If CHA is not a dump stat (lets say it is 12) we get a skill of +9 at 5th.
From link we get +4
From Training Harness we get +2
From Skill Focus we get +3.For a total of +18 … the DC to push a trick is 25 (27 if they are wounded … which is likely in combat).
Well, if custom magic items are available, you can get a +5 competence bonus on Handle Animal for 2,500gp. Add in the animal Affinity feat, thats an additional +2 for a total modifier of +25. Automatic success without having to roll to push an animal to perform a trick it doesn't know. You would have to roll a 2 or higher to do that when its wounded.
(Brun did say magic item was used, but not which one).
I agree. I was glad when I learned that with my own summoner when I was summoning animals but had no ranks in the Handle Animal skill. I had no such problem with my eidolon, so I made a mental note to focus on intelligent summoned creatures whose languages I spoke when my eidolon was not available.
Of course, I am surprised that nobody has mentioned the obvious workaround for flanking. It may be a pain to get the animal into proper flanking position, but it is not as difficult to get the animal to attack and then take a five foot step of your own so that you flank with the animal. At least you can usually rely on an animal that is already in flanking position not to leave it on its own.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
All that you said also applies to the player character itself though, so by that definition does that correlate to the GM being in ultimate control of the character's actions, and 'farming out' running it for convenience?Alot of posts here describe exactly what I know and experience, namely that the player /de facto/ runs the animal companions /most of the time/,
but that the GM retains the right to over-rule things if they don't match up or are 'out of character',
even if the action is physically possible or within the normal combat rules on it's own.
...That pretty much correlates to the GM being in ultimate control of the animal's actions, and 'farming out' running it for convenience (not per rules dictate).
All that I said doesn't apply, I'm pretty damn certain there are lines implicating the player controls their PC (as in can dictate the character's self-directed actions/desires), which isn't true for Animal Companions, Familiars, or Leadership NPCs.
The exactly rationale the GM has for controlling NPCs under his/her control simply doesn't matter as a rules question, the GM has that control, and can deploy it however they really want to, you can do that badly and stupidly, but that is not a subject the rules address.
Perhaps it confused the issue that I deigned to describe what is going on in a GM's head as he/she controls NPC creatures/characters, I thought it established context for how the games are actually run (as does the concept of 'farming out' when the 'ultimate control suggested by the rules' doesn't care about that).
I currently run two characters with Animal Companions:
The better at Handle Animal is my Gnome Sylvan Sorcerer/Oracle of Heavens (5th level).
+5 Charisma
+3 Class Skill
+5 Ranks Handle Animal
+3 Circlet of Persuasion
+4 Link
+2 Training Harness
___________________________
+22 Handle Animal.
My Druid is only level 3, and is not a party face, so I am unlikely to buy a Circlet of Persuasion so he loses +3. My Druid has a Charisma of 12, not 20. so only +1, not a +5. I am buying a training harness for both. Mostly because it saves me 2 skill ranks; the acceleration is a bonus. Neither character has the spare feat to spend on Skill Focus.
I would spend gold for skill ranks all day long if possible.
Here's the difference: the player should be allow to optimize movement paths, for example, to avoid AOOs from reach weapons. Animals don't understand reach weapons. So their movement paths, I think, should not be able to take that into account.
That is getting into something that just isn't covered by the rules, and is just extraneous to what the fundamental rule is for PC/NPC control over animals.
The fundamental concept here is that the only 'control' the PC has over the animal is that a command (Trick) is being issued, and the animal DOES try to fulfill it to the best of it's ability. But the Trick isn't conveying any other more subtle goals for the animal to fulfill than exactly what it says, it is a very limited communication (animals are limited to receiving limited communication).
One could claim that ANY character (PC, NPC) maneuvering to avoid AoOs on a 5' grid (which doesn't really exist in the game-world itself) is purely metagaming - I think we can agree that is just an assumed level of metagaming, just as is spending your standard actions and move action judiciously, even though your character in-game can't know that given actions are measured with such units.
If an animal can fulfill a command in a way that isn't obviously self-endangering, it will likely do so. The animal doesn't have any of the knowledge the PC (or handling NPC) has in their head, and the commanded Trick isn't communicating any other information, like 'do that trick in X way which is convenient for this future event', but nothing is forcing the animal to fulfill the trick in a way which endangers itself. Nothing in the rules suggests that wild animals are incapable of maneuvering to avoid AoOs. If the GM is playing all animals in this manner, then they MAY (combat training does seem like it could change things) play the trained/commanded animals similarly - if ALL animals in the game behave like that, then there is no special reason why the trained/commanded animal wouldn't... But that isn't really a rules issue though, any more than whether a GM plays animals as making certain sounds every so often, or not.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I personally would not object to a GM who ran an encounter the way Arizhel laid it out. But then again, I've been pretty dutiful about handle animal skill development so my 9th level druid's normal chance on a push is, I think, 75% and any "normal" trick (including flank) is an auto-succeed.
However, I am glad my GM allows me to deal with all of that. I know the rules better, know what and when to roll and do my best to get through my turn as quickly and efficiently as possible. Just the back-and-forth between the GM and me to ask for a roll and check success and for the GM to work out approaches and other things would probably triple the time spent in combat by my AC.
This, I think, is one of those cases where the game benefits from a GM being a bit less stringent in enforcing the rules, unless they have some reason to believe a player is exploiting, ignoring or forgetting something important.
Here's the difference: the player should be allow to optimize movement paths, for example, to avoid AOOs from reach weapons.Assuming we all agreed that animals don't understand reach weapons and therefore wouldn't circle around foes to get at the target of their Attack command, why does that mean animal companions should be under the control of the GM?
I certainly don't agree with that limitation :-), it's certainly not supported by the rules, but if in a given game the GM was playing ALL animals (including combat trained ones) as being incapable of that, it doesn't seem like there is any reason that it wouldn't also apply to commanded/handled animals.
That said, that is NOT a reason why the commanded animal (class feature or otherwise, the rules are the same for both) is ultimately under the control of the GM - which is due to the wording of the relevant rules, NOT consideration of AoO avoidance. David Bowles is getting into issues which are not truly crucial as to the basic question of who is supposed to have ultimate control of the animal, but into issues which really speak to consistency of the game, i.e. however the GM views ALL animals acting. That just isn't relevant to the core question here, for example there is no question over player control of NPCs apart from their character, yet an NPC could be the exact same species, culture, or indeed an identical twin that the player's knowledge of their PC gives them vast knowledge of their twin, yet that doesn't lead to player control over this NPC even though there is functionally little grounds for inconsistency: the player just doesn't have control over that NPC, they only have control over their own character.
It doesn't matter if it is a 'class feature', a class feature can fairly be 'an NPC loyally follows you around'. This is the same as for Leadership, which nowhere says that players 'control' their Cohorts/Followers, or even choose their starting gear or Feats, or anything else.
The player can run the animal companion and if they tried to have the animal companion avoid AoOs from reach weapons the GM could step in at that point and say "Sorry, no, Handle Animal rules apply, animals wouldn't recognise reach weapons unless taught the trick!"
In just the same way the GM would step in if a player had their PC heavily loaded with equipment and then tried to run 4x their speed "Sorry, no, encumbrance rules apply, your run speed is 3x"
Well, no, those just aren't at all the same sort of thing.
If the player is in ultimate control of the animal (because it's a class feature, because they bought it, whatever), then the player is deciding WITH NOBODY ABLE TO OVER-RULE THEM exactly how they want to implement any commands given, as well as what the animal 'wants' to do without any given commands. That is the entire point of controlling a character/creature, you can dictate what it 'wants' in any given moment - something for which there is absolutely no rules for, and thus nothing for a GM to rule on.As seen in the commentary from the PFS staff, it is more than plausible for SOMETIMES a simple command to attack to result in the creature moving into a Flanking position - at minimum, if that is the only open square available, or it may be the closest square, or there may be 'yucky' stuff in other squares which the animal may choose to avoid.
If the GM is in ultimate control of the animal (like other animals in the game), then he/she gets to decide how the animal reacts to the circumstances AND the command given to it, with the rules saying that it tries to fulfill the command, but how it does so is open ended (depending on internal thought process of animal, which isn't regulated by any rule). If the player is in ultimate control, then they can dictate the internal thought process of the animal, and there is no rule for the GM to impose over that... As long as the end result of the animal's action does fulfill any given commands, and general rules are being followed (move speed, etc), then there is no rule for the GM to over-rule with, just like there is no rule for the GM to over-rule PC actions which he doesn't understand the motivation for - only de jure rules are grounds for limiting PC actions. (there can be out-of-game agreements or conventions to maintain immersion, but that's outside of the scope of a discussion of what the game rules are)
If anything rather than a ruling on who gets to control an animal companion, what people actually seem to want is more rigour in what animals will and will not naturally do in combat.
E.g.
"Animals will not recognise the potential of suffering attacks of opportunity and so will not make any effort to avoid them"
That actually seems to be what is wanted rather than more tricks or a ruling on the GM controlling the character etc, some basic rules of how to run animals that the GM and the player can follow.
While Paizo COULD issue such Errata/FAQ clarification, I don't really see the NEED to. If the rules are currently envisioning the GM being in ultimate control over what the animal's thought process is, then there really isn't a problem that needs to be solved by codification, the GM runs the animals fulfilling their Tricks in line with how all other animals are run, aiming to fulfill their own goals. Perhaps I could see it desired for PFS to codify such GM calls, and I'm not opposed to that per se (PFS codifies alot of other GM calls), albeit it seems likely to be rather excruciating, given that different types of animals tend to act differently, and so the codification would need to be rather intricate in order to allow for that.
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
How that works with PFS I have no idea.
How this works in PFS is: if the GM decides he's controlling everything not my PC, I fill my spell slots with various summon natures ally/summon monster spells and let him have fun running ALL my creatures.
Eventually he'll give me back what is mine.
I've had this disagreement before while running a wizard (though not in organized play). After about 3 sessions of hordes, the GM relented. We all went back to controlling our own class features and having fun.
I would spend gold for skill ranks all day long if possible.
AFAIK, nothing in the rules say you must have tought the animal the Trick yourself...
So you can buy the services of an expert to teach the animal a trick if you want to,only limitation being that they can't be simultaneously tought other tricks (e.g. by yourself) in the same time used for other trick teaching.
If the expert has high ranks/accelerating class abilities, it could be pretty quick.
At the least, if you have other things to do with your PC's down-time, this could be useful.
Also, PCs with lesser levels of companion class ability, and/or who have poor handle animal skills,
may benefit from the party Druid or other high-ranked PC teaching their companion Tricks for them,
commanding an existing trained Trick is not really difficult, it is Pushing which is difficult.
There's a sidebar in the Animal Archive which has wording that makes it clear Paizo does not intend to rule on this. It references that some DMs do and some DMs don't control companions and familiars. By putting that in print it makes it obvious that Paizo intends this to be up to the person running the table to decide.
How that works with PFS I have no idea.
That's interesting, although I'm not sure if it really speaks to what the RAW implies... Some GMs don't follow every aspect of RAW, after all. And that could simply be referring to different GM's preferences/conventions for 'farming out' tasks which are still under their ultimate control.
Still, it does suggest that sort of thing is up to table variation by default.
Which means it is still up to table variation in PFS, unless PFS codifies it one way or another.
I don't really care one way or another, PFS has it's own dynamics from home games,
and PFS could decide to codify things to work differently than RAW.
As in my above post, I think 'codification' of how animals act outside of commands, or how they prosecute fulfilling their commands, is just a hideously complex subject to open if you don't have to, but however they want to resolve it is fine with me. The Core Rules flat-out leave some things up to GM fiat, PFS can either leave it up to table variation, flat-out state that they are GM controlled NPCs (which doesn't conflict with the GM farming out any tasks, meaning there is no basic difference between this and the first option if the GM is just deciding how they want to run it at their table), or codify how animals act across all PFS games regardless of GM.
How this works in PFS is: if the GM decides he's controlling everything not my PC, I fill my spell slots with various summon natures ally/summon monster spells and let him have fun running ALL my creatures. Eventually he'll give me back what is mine. I've had this disagreement before while running a wizard (though not in organized play). After about 3 sessions of hordes, the GM relented. We all went back to controlling our own class features and having fun.
OK. Player entitlement can lead to passive-aggressive behavior and blackmail. Next on Jenny Jones...
HINT: Resolving differences of opinion directly and maturely can lead to problems being fixed, or adults agreeing to disagree and deciding they don't want to play with each other.Paizo's own rulebook for Animal Archive explicitly acknowledges that GMs may run animal companions (PCs can use Handle Animal of course), so I'm baffled how you could treat this as having no justification or somehow coming out of the blue. I'm not sure why it's not obvious to you that a GM who is trying to apply the RAW would exactly just be happy to see such a disruptive player leave his table, exactly the same as a player who felt entitled to violate any other rule they don't personally like. I'm sure there are some weak, insecure GMs, who may feel desperate for players, and such tactics work against them, but so what? That's how any school-yard bully operates.
How that works with PFS I have no idea.How this works in PFS is: if the GM decides he's controlling everything not my PC, I fill my spell slots with various summon natures ally/summon monster spells and let him have fun running ALL my creatures.
Eventually he'll give me back what is mine.
I've had this disagreement before while running a wizard (though not in organized play). After about 3 sessions of hordes, the GM relented. We all went back to controlling our own class features and having fun.
How it works when I dm is if a player is being a passive aggressive dick because I've decided to follow the rules as written, they don't get invited back.
Nowhere in the RAW for summons or AC does it say the player controls them. Since there's no specific rule given, that means the general rule is in effect. The general rule in this case being that the DM controls all NPCs.