Yeah, I'd play with a GM who ran my druid's AC, but I'd be mostly rolling my eyes in my head over the control issues involved.
IKR? The guy who's job is explicitly to control all NPCs wants to control this NPC? What a control freak. [/sarcasm]
IKR? The guy who's job is explicitly to control all NPCs wants to control this NPC? What a control freak. [/sarcasm]Yeah, I'd play with a GM who ran my druid's AC, but I'd be mostly rolling my eyes in my head over the control issues involved.
As I said kidd, we'll see what the 8 pages say.
I don't think it would take 8 pages to say "GM controls everything."
But we'll see who ends up closer to the designers intent. We'll also see how "non-P" this "C" turns out to be.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
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, or other animals. Teaching an animal to
attack all creatures (including such unnatural creatures
as undead and aberrations) counts as two tricks.
• Come (DC 15): The animal comes to you, even if it
normally would not do so.
• Defend (DC 20): The animal defends you (or is ready
to defend you if no threat is present), even without any
command being given. Alternatively, you can command
the animal to defend another specific character.
• Down (DC 15): The animal breaks off from combat or
otherwise backs down. An animal that doesn’t know this
trick continues to fight until it must f lee (due to injury, a
fear effect, or the like) or its opponent is defeated.
• Fetch (DC 15): The animal goes and gets something. If
you do not point out a specific item, the animal fetches
a random object.
• Guard (DC 20): The animal stays in place and prevents
others from approaching.
• Heel (DC 15): The animal follows you closely, even to
places where it normally wouldn’t go.
• Perform (DC 15): The animal performs a variety of
simple tricks, such as sitting up, rolling over, roaring or
barking, and so on.
• Seek (DC 15): The animal moves into an area and looks
around for anything that is obviously alive or animate.
• Stay (DC 15): The animal stays in place, waiting for you to
return. It does not challenge other creatures that come
by, though it still defends itself if it needs to.
• Track (DC 20): The animal tracks the scent presented to
it. (This requires the animal to have the scent ability.)
• Work (DC 15): The animal pulls or pushes a medium or
heavy load.
Aid (DC 20): The animal can use the aid another action
to aid a specific ally in combat by attacking a specific foe
the ally is fighting. You may point to a particular creature
that you wish the animal to aid, and another that you
want it make an attack roll against, and it will comply if
able. The normal creature type restrictions governing the
attack trick still apply.
Bombard (DC 20): A flying animal can deliver
projectiles on command, attempting to drop a specified
item that it can carry (often alchemist’s fire or some other
incendiary) on a designated point or opponent, using
its base attack bonus to determine its attack roll. The
animal cannot throw the object, and must be able to fly
directly over the target.
Break Out (DC 20): On command, the animal attempts
to break or gnaw through any bars or bindings restricting
itself, its handler, or a person indicated by the handler.
If not effective on its own, this trick can grant the target
character a +4 circumstance bonus on Escape Artist
checks. The animal can also take certain basic actions
like lifting a latch or bringing its master an unattended
key. Weight and Strength restrictions still apply, and
pickpocketing a key or picking any sort of lock is still far
beyond the animal’s ability.
Bury (DC 15): An animal with this trick can be
instructed to bury an object in its possession. The
animal normally seeks a secluded place to bury its
object. An animal with both bury and fetch can be
instructed to fetch an item it has buried.
Deliver (DC 15): The animal takes an object
(one you or an ally gives it, or that it recovers with
the fetch trick) to a place or person you indicate.
If you indicate a place, the animal drops the item
and returns to you. If you indicate a person, the animal
stays adjacent to the person until the item is taken.
(Retrieving an item from an animal using the deliver
trick is a move action.)
Detect (DC 25): The animal is trained to seek out
the smells of explosives and poisons, unusual noises
or echoes, air currents, and other common elements
signifying potential dangers or secret passages. When
commanded, the animal uses its Perception skill to
try to pinpoint the source of anything that strikes it as
unusual about a room or location. Note that because
the animal is not intelligent, any number of strange
mechanisms, doors, scents, or unfamiliar objects may
catch the animal’s attention, and it cannot attempt the
same Perception check more than once in this way.
Entertain (DC 25): The animal can dance, sing, or
perform some other impressive and enjoyable trick to
entertain those around it. At the command of its owner, the
animal can make a Perform check (or a Charisma check if
it has no ranks in Perform) to show off its talent. Willing
onlookers or those who fail an opposed Sense Motive check
take a –2 penalty on Perception checks to notice anything
but the animal entertaining them. Tricksters and con
artists often teach their animals to perform this trick
while they pickpocket viewers or sneak about unnoticed.
Exclusive (DC 20): The animal takes directions only
from the handler who taught it this trick. If an animal
has both the exclusive and serve tricks, it takes directions
only from the handler that taught it the exclusive trick
and those creatures indicated by the trainer’s serve
command. An animal with the exclusive trick does not
take trick commands from others even if it is friendly
or helpful toward them (such as through the result of a
charm animal spell), though this does not prevent it from
being controlled by other enchantment spells (such as
dominate animal), and the animal still otherwise acts as a
friendly or helpful creature when applicable.
Flank (DC 20): You can instruct an animal to attack a
foe you point to and always attempt to be adjacent to (and
threatening) that foe. If you or an ally is also threatening
the foe, the animal attempts to flank the foe, if possible. It
always takes attacks of opportunity. The animal must know
the attack trick before it can learn this trick.
Flee (DC 20): The animal attempts to run away or hide
as best it can, returning only when its handler commands
it to do so. Until such a command is received, the animal
does its best to track its handler and any creatures with
him or her, remaining hidden but within range of its
sight or hearing. This trick is particularly useful for
thieves and adventurers in that it allows the animal to
evade capture, then return later to help free its friends.
Get Help (DC 20): With this trick, a trainer can designate
a number of creatures up to the animal’s Intelligence
score as “help.” When the command is given, the animal
attempts to find one of those people and bring her back to
the handler, even if that means journeying a long distance
to the last place it encountered the target creature.
Hunt (DC 20): This trick allows an animal to use its
natural stalking or foraging instincts to find food and
return it to the animal’s handler. An animal with this
trick may attempt Survival checks (or Wisdom checks if
the animal has no ranks in Survival) to provide food for
others or lead them to water and shelter (as the “get along
in the wild” use of the Survival skill). An animal with this
trick may use the aid another action to assist Survival
checks made by its handler for these purposes.
Maneuver (DC 20): The animal is trained to use a
specific combat maneuver on command. An animal must
know the attack trick before it can be taught the maneuver
trick, and it only performs maneuvers against targets it
would normally attack. This trick can be taught to an
animal multiple times. Each time it is taught, the animal
can be commanded to use a different combat maneuver.
Menace (DC 20): A menacing animal attempts to keep
a creature you indicate from moving. It does its best
to intimidate the target, but only attacks if the target
attempts to move from its present location or take any
significant action (particularly a hostile-seeming one).
As soon as the target stops moving, the animal ceases
attacking, but continues to menace.
Serve (DC 15): An animal with this trick willingly takes
orders from a creature you designate. If the creature you
tell the animal to serve knows what tricks the animal has,
it can instruct the animal to perform these tricks using
your Handle Animal bonus on the check instead of its
own. The animal treats the designated ally as friendly.
An animal can unlearn this trick with 1 week of training.
This trick can be taught to an animal multiple times.
Each time it is taught, the animal can serve an additional
creature you designate.
Sneak (DC 15): The animal can be ordered to make
Stealth checks in order to stay hidden and to continue
using Stealth even when circumstances or its natural
instincts would normally cause it to abandon secrecy.
Throw Rider (DC 15): The animal can attempt to fling a
creature riding it to the ground. Treat this as a trip combat
maneuver that applies to all creatures riding the animal,
and that does not provoke attacks of opportunity. An
animal that knows the throw rider and exclusive tricks can
be instructed to attempt to automatically throw anyone
other than its trainer who attempts to ride it.
Watch (DC 15): The animal can be commanded to
keep watch over a particular area, such as a campsite,
and raise an alarm if it notices any sizable or dangerous
creature entering the area. This trick is often included
in the Guarding purpose.
Again, my thoughts.
The animal companion is controlled by the player, but like all things, the GM has the final say.
How I understand the rules:
1) Does the action you are proposing the Animal Companion undertake fit the description of any above listed trick?
If Yes, move to 2. If no, GM discretion and cannot undertake the action in PFS because you cannot make up tricks.
2) Does the Animal Companion know the trick?
If yes, Roll DC 10, if No roll DC 25 to Push.
So how it would work at my table (A Short Play, In One Act):
Player: I order my AC to attack BBEG.
Me: Ok, roll Attack trick.
Player: I have a 9 Handle Animal Skill, +4, I cannot fail.
Me: Huzzah for a Druid that did not dump Cha! I could almost hug you!
-Player moves AC into position at BBEG.
Me: You draw 3 AoOs.
Player: No, my AC follows this specific path because it is smart.
Me: Ok. I don't see any trick that allows you to bypass AoO's. Please see the above listings, and correct me if I am wrong.
Player: I don't see one either.
Me: I also do not see a trick that lets you specify a path for an AC to follow when making an attack.
Player: Me neither. -player sighs-
Me: Ok. That means that Avoid AoOs would be a custom trick, and there are no custom tricks in PFS play. Your AC cannot avoid the AoOs. You could attack the nearest minion, however; without drawing AoOs if you like.
OR
Me: Ok. This is not PFS, and that is a custom trick. You will have to Push, the DC is 25.
Player: D'oh!
Me: Also, I noticed you placed your AC into flanking position. Does your Animal Companion have the flanking trick?
Player: No.
Me: I will need another Handle Animal check then please, because; you will have to push your AC to get the AC to perform that trick.
Player: Ok, I order my AC to attack the minion nearest her.
Me: Alright.
<Round Continues>
Me: This minion moves to you, in order to attack!
Player: Ah ha! That minion moved through my Animal Companion's threatened area! My AC gets an AoO!
Me: Hmm, the flanking trick says, " It always takes attacks of opportunity." Implying normally that an Animal Companion does not normally always take AoOs. Further, ACs know how to execute their feats, do you have Combat Reflexes as a Feat for your AC?
Player: No.
Me: I am sorry then, but you will need to train your AC in order to get it to take AoOs, otherwise, I am afraid your AC cannot take advantage of such opportunities.
The End.
In short, you control the AC so long as the AC acts in accordance with the rules, but I will enforce the AC rules. All of them. No I don't care that enforcing the rules will make you roll an extra 2-3 dice per round. I let the Zen archer play. . . I let the Summoner play, I can handle extra dice, and after a while, you will just do it all automatically.
|
-Player moves AC into position at BBEG.
Me: You draw 3 AoOs.
Player: No, my AC follows this specific path because it is smart.
Me: Ok. I don't see any trick that allows you to bypass AoO's. Please see the above listings, and correct me if I am wrong.
And this is where we get table variance, I am not saying your interpretation is wrong, only that it is just that, an interpretation.
There is a difference between having an animal use its own initiative and instincts to carry out a Trick it is commanded to perform (it is not an automaton), and having a Trick to force it to move in a certain way.
In your example the player indicated that the animal chose the path to avoid AoOs not because his PC was commanding the animal to do so, but because the animal was smart enough not to get too close to the foes it wasn't told to specifically attack.
If it wasn't a stretch I as a GM would allow a player to have their animal companion move in such a way, especially if the foes it was avoiding were obviously aggressive - waving weapons, an especially if waving flaming torches.
Me: Also, I noticed you placed your AC into flanking position. Does your Animal Companion have the flanking trick?
Player: No.
Me: I will need another Handle Animal check then please, because; you will have to push your AC to get the AC to perform that trick.
Again, I may possibly handle this differently. I would look at why the animal may have moved into that position that gives flanking - if it is also a position that means it is not within reach of another aggressive foe, or it is the natural position to go to if the animal companion were avoiding AoOs or other terrain features I would allow it.
If however, there was no reason for the animal to move into that position other than to gain flanking bonus I would in a PFS game, and now that Animal Archive has introduced the Flank trick, require the PC to Push the animal. Before Animal Archive and the Flank trick I would have maybe allowed it if it was an animal that tends to using flanking tactics naturally, e.g. wolves, and I will play like that when I GM 3.5.
Me: This minion moves to you, in order to attack!
Player: Ah ha! That minion moved through my Animal Companion's threatened area! My AC gets an AoO!
Me: Hmm, the flanking trick says, " It always takes attacks of opportunity." Implying normally that an Animal Companion does not normally always take AoOs. Further, ACs know how to execute their feats, do you have Combat Reflexes as a Feat for your AC?
Player: No.
Me: I am sorry then, but you will need to train your AC in order to get it to take AoOs, otherwise, I am afraid your AC cannot take advantage of such opportunities.
Again, I see table variance here, and if anything variance that wouldn't have necessarily happened before Animal Archive and the Flank trick.
The Attack trick states "The animal attacks apparent enemies", in your example the animal companion has been given the attack command (in addition it has also been instructed to attack a specific foe). So why wouldn't it take the AoO if presented with it?
IMHO the Attack trick is a "Okay you're allowed to attack anyone who looks threatening" with the optional addendum of "but focus your fire on him" <points>
Also, even if the animal had not been given the Attack command, but given the Defend command, I would definitely rule that it would use AoOs to try to stop a threatening foe getting to the character it is defending.
It seems the introduction of the Flank trick is now making it appear to some GMs that a lot of stuff is off limits unless the animal companion has the flank trick, when actually I see that stuff being part of how the animal fulfils other tricks.
Also, I am not sure why you would allow the animal to make the AoO if it had Combat Reflexes but not if it didn't. My Druid's dog has Combat Reflexes, but IMHO if he hadn't been given the Attack or Defend command he wouldn't make an AoO (the exception would be if the dog felt personally threatened by the action).
Whether an animal has the feat or not, it is able to make AoOs. Whether it will or not, depends on whether it has been given an appropriate command, and Flank isn't the only command that is appropriate, or if it feels threatened by the action.
I.e. just because he has the Combat Reflexes feat doesn't mean an animal companion would suddenly snap at everyone who walked past him unless he was told to Attack, Defend or Flank and that person was an apparent enemy.
In short, you control the AC so long as the AC acts in accordance with the rules, but I will enforce the AC rules. All of them.
Like many other GMs though, your interpretation of the AC rules that you will enforce may differ, and thus result in table variation. Unfortunately, your example is one that makes me feel Animal Archive may actually increase table variance.
RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16
|
With respect, Artanthos, you are arguing in circles.
Look: ranger's have a Hunter's Bond class feature.
This bond can take one of two forms. Once the form is chosen, it cannot be changed. The first is a bond to his companions. ... The second option is to form a close bond with an animal companion.
So you are advancing the argument that because the bond with the animal companion is under "class features", then the critter itself is a class feature, and all class features are sacrosanct and under the player's control, yes?
Are you also advancing the argument that the bond with the companions is a class feature, then the rest of the party is under the ranger player's control during the time he's lending his favored enemy bonus to them?
Put another way, there are a great many pages given to how a druid or ranger interacts with the animal, from the DCs of Handle Animal to the tricks involved, how long it takes to train a new companion, and on and on. If the player has control over the animal when these rolls fail, or outside the purview of the tricks, then there was never any reason for the designers to devote so many pages to them.
There are no rules for "how to get your Eidolon to behave the way you want". Other than a single spell that allows someone else to strip away control, there's nothing in the game that prevents a player from having the Eidolon behave exactly as she wants. There's nothing in the rules about handling familiars, or getting them to do tricks, because they're magical beasts that obey the will of their masters.
Animal Companions are different, because there are blocks of rules detailing how they're different.
|
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?
** spoiler omitted **
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...I understand what you're saying, I really do... but wow, talk about sucking the fun completely out of what should be a fast-paced, exciting and rewarding combat. If my games played like that, I wouldn't play.
I don't suppose there's anything to be said for a PC and its animal companion having experience...
Nothing sucks the fun out of being a melee class in PFS like being upstaged by a "class feature". Pets have multiple attacks, usually a better init, and certainly better movement than many melee classes, particularly at low level. ACs are, to me, one of the most broken "class features" in the game. If my PFS PC is going to be humbled and humiliated by a pet, the least the pet user can do is follow a couple of rules here and there.
|
|
If the player has control over the animal when these rolls fail, or outside the purview of the tricks, then there was never any reason for the designers to devote so many pages to them.
Maybe I am in the minority, and maybe that is why I don't necessarily agree that by default that the GM should run animal companions, but I as a player do not metagame when it comes to animal companions and how they act if my PC's command fails.
It sounds like you are suggesting that most players cannot be trusted not to metagame and therefore if for example their PC failed to command the animal companion to Stay they would say "well actually my animal companion is a little tired and wants to stay put anyway".
What do others feel about this? Going by your own experience is Chris Mortika correct in suggesting that the majority of players would just have their animal companion do what their PC wants it to do irrespective of whether that PC succeeds or fails their Handle Animal rolls?
|
|
Yes, I've rearely seen a push or any kind of handle animal roll at a PFS table. Even for very complicated instruction sets. DMs let players run ACs as eidolons. So why bother being a summoner?
I don't really blame any given party. It's just kind of evolved this way to accommodate the 5-hour time slot.
|
|
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.The rules text is simple. Druids get to do a Handle Animal roll as a free action on their Animal Companion. In practise, many DMs let this slide for routine noncontestable actions, minor fetch, protect master etc. I generally reserve the rolls for corner cases, such as making an animal face something that would normally fear the bejesus out of it.
The fact is that even if they did rule on it, this is one of those questions that would come up every three months on it.
From one PFS GM to another... grow a pair. No one who's the least bit reasonable, expects this campaign to be immune to table variation.
"Growing a pair" has nothing to do with it. Either DMs have final authority over ACs or they do not.
|
|
"Growing a pair" has nothing to do with it. Either DMs have final authority over ACs or they do not.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.The rules text is simple. Druids get to do a Handle Animal roll as a free action on their Animal Companion. In practise, many DMs let this slide for routine noncontestable actions, minor fetch, protect master etc. I generally reserve the rolls for corner cases, such as making an animal face something that would normally fear the bejesus out of it.
The fact is that even if they did rule on it, this is one of those questions that would come up every three months on it.
From one PFS GM to another... grow a pair. No one who's the least bit reasonable, expects this campaign to be immune to table variation.
You have final authority over EVERYTHING. Most things player character related though are delegated to the players for ease of play. I'm not going to waste time demanding animal handling rolls for routine tasks.
But quite frankly as DM, there isn't anything that's not under your preview, but that doesn't mean that you have to micromanage everything on a 24/7 basis. It does mean that you have the right of intervention if a player is either making an unknowing mistake or deliberately trying to cheese the system, especially in a metagaming way.
Oh, not so in PFS. DMs are bound to follow RAW and scenarios as written. No judgment calls. No rule bending. In homebrew, I can make the battles as difficult as I need to to counter act the effects of pets, but in PFS, but as the DM or a non-pet PC, one must helplessly watch pets eat scenarios.
|
|
I understand what you're saying but how a fundamental class feature is handled table to table should not be one of those judgment calls. The ACs are simply too powerful for table variation. As I said above, if they were mathematically less potent, it wouldn't be so bad. But they are literally "fighter in my pocket".
Story Archer, it's my experience that the thing sucking the fun out of the combat there is the player, arguing to have complete control over the animal buddy, despite being unable to effectively handle the animal.
All the rest of your argument is really solid, and is already reflected in the rules, as a +4 to the Handle Animal check, and Handle Animal being a free move, and all the additional tricks the critter knows.
If you only taught your critter "attack normal things" and not "attack anything", you can still get your companion to attack the Gibbering Mouther or the Shambling Mound, but it requires pushing. Do you read the rules differently?
I feel like that throws all of the blame onto the player and removes the DM of any risk or blame in life.
I don't know how thats two tricks. Attacking is attacking. I know raw, but its a little silly that you need 2 tricks to attack things other than that creature.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Yes, I've rearely seen a push or any kind of handle animal roll at a PFS table.
Perhaps you have, but as you are merely an onlooker and not the person running the PC with animal companion, you haven't recognised it.
For example, in a recent PFS scenario whilst exploring some sewers I had my Druid push his dog animal companion to Stay at an intersection (as his doesn't have the Stay trick). What you as another player may have simply seen is me say "Grelow turns to Barrow holds up a finger and says 'Stay!".
However, in my own mind I had already thought "Push DC is 25, Grelow's Handle Animal skill modifier is +11 but with his companion he gets a +4 making it +15. As we're not in combat or in a stressful situation, I can Take 10 and automatically succeed."
Now of course I could have verbalised all that and explained it to the other players, but it was simply quicker to say "Grelow turns to Barrow holds up a finger and says 'Stay!"
If the GM had been uncertain as to whether I was following the rules he could ask and I would explain, or he may have already glanced at my character sheet and figured it out himself.
|
|
But quite frankly as DM, there isn't anything that's not under your preview, but that doesn't mean that you have to micromanage everything on a 24/7 basis. It does mean that you have the right of intervention if a player is either making an unknowing mistake or deliberately trying to cheese the system, especially in a metagaming way.Oh, not so in PFS. DMs are bound to follow RAW and scenarios as written. No judgment calls. No rule bending. In homebrew, I can make the battles as difficult as I need to to counter act the effects of pets, but in PFS, but as the DM or a non-pet PC, one must helplessly...
If a player is metagaming in a bad way in PFS you, as GM, absolutely have the right to step in to prevent them cheesing the system.
Having your animal companion just decide to run over, past other foes, and attack the enemy wizard when your PC just failed his Handle Animal check to use the Attack trick is exactly the sort of attempt to cheese the system by metagaming that a GM should intervene on.
Its the same as if you as GM asked the PCs to make Perception checks and only one PC made it, you reveal that one PC spots the serving woman drawing a dagger out of her garter belt. If then the player of a PC who failed their Perception check announces that their PC draws his sword and attacks the serving woman that is blatant bad metagaming and the GM should step in and veto that action, or at the very least ask why the PC would take such an action.
What do others feel about this? Going by your own experience is Chris Mortika correct in suggesting that the majority of players would just have their animal companion do what their PC wants it to do irrespective of whether that PC succeeds or fails their Handle Animal rolls?
I think Chris is right. Players tend to run their ACs like a summoner would an eidolon when, technically, they shouldn't. But under most circumstances, it's not a big deal and I can certainly understand GMs not wanting to make a federal case out of it if the druid didn't roll to push his animal companion to do something it hasn't been trained to do.
|
|
To whit: they were having their animal companions do combat maneuvers when the PC would have wanted the NPC companion to do so without anyway to inform the companion whether this round they wanted them to do so or not.
I agree that is sounds like some players were perhaps metagaming, on the other hand of they were having their animal companions perform those combat manoeuvres when they felt that their animal companion would think it appropriate (rather than their PC or them as player thinking it the best tactical move) then they weren't metagaming.
What I would not want to see is GMs now ruling the existence of the new Maneuver trick means that animal companions would never perform combat manouevres of their own volition and in the process of carrying out another trick, e.g. Defend.
For example, whilst an Ape instructed to Attack a magician may not choose to initiate a Grapple, even though that may tactically be best as it would hamper spell casting attempts, if ordered to Defend a PC I could definitely see the Ape grapple a foe to prevent it getting at the PC it was tasked with guarding.
But I'll go one step further: players should not control more than one character. Many times a PC will have a point of view/information that they cannot (or do not wish to publicly) convey to others. If you, the player, has this information then how do you determine what you would have done without it?
Responsibly you defer to not making leaps and conclusions. Yet, in reality, without that outside information you very well might have done so.
I can agree with this to some degree, however the source of "other POV" information a player can gain through an animal companion is likely much less likely to generate such issues than the GM asking players for Sense Motive checks, or rolling for initiative, etc. Even more significant is the metagaming potential from replay of scenarios.
In the end it is a balancing act, you could have GMs take players off to another room, pass notes around the table and control animal companions, familiars and so forth, to minimise the potential to metagame - but that comes at a price in terms of speed of game play.
When I play/ run PFS its usually at convention play, so I am happy to put up with the fact that I may choose to not make conclusions that I may have otherwise genuinely made if it means we get the scenario completed in time.
And so similarly I am happier for whoever is likely to run animal companions quicker to do so - and in most cases that person should be the player.
|
RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16
|
It sounds like you are suggesting that most players cannot be trusted not to metagame and therefore if for example their PC failed to command the animal companion to Stay they would say "well actually my animal companion is a little tired and wants to stay put anyway".
That's a fair asessment of my experience. The most egregious was a fellow at a convention last fall: "My dinosaur finds the potion of cure light wounds on the bugbear [that he had just chewed up] and takes it over to the archer." But that differs only in degree from most players.
I don't play in PFS, but I've played a druid as my primary PF character for the past few years. For most of that time she's had an animal companion.
In all that time my GM has made a specific ruling on how my druid's AC would act maybe half a dozen times. The rest of the time it's been up to me.
Now, perhaps the gaming world is overrun with players who ignore rules, don't understand their characters' abilities or even who deliberately cheat to gain an unfair advantage.
Luckily our group doesn't seem to have any of that.
However, just for the sake of argument, here are some things that I have done with my druid and her AC that I would be interested to hear how others react.
1. On occasion in combat I will synchronize my druids initiative with her animal companion's. If my druid wins initiative (she usually does, she's got high init bonus) she will hold her action until it is the AC's initiative and then I'll move both as part of my turn. If the AC wins initiative, my druid will issue a "stay" command until her turn in the initiative comes up. The reason I do this is so that I only take one turn as we go around the table. Mostly my goal is to reduce any appearance that I'm running two characters.
2. The AC wears barding. He has the feat for it, but of course it has to be put on. The party barbarian actually hauls the barding around when the AC isn't wearing it, and on occasion if my druid is wildshaped at the time (for scouting purposes usually) then the party barbarian or another PC will put the AC's barding on outside of combat.
3. While wildshaped into the same form as her AC, my druid rarely performs handle animal checks. She just straight up talks to the AC in the AC's language. It occurs to me in reading this thread that by straight RAW, even though it says they can talk in the AC's language, it doesn't say that changes the need to perform "tricks". In this case I'd like to hear what other people think about what a wildshaped druid can communicate to their AC that they might not be able to do when not in the same form. For example, There is no PF defined trick to ask an AC to go hunt a deer and bring it back to camp. But could a druid in wildshape ask her AC to do that? And if so, what would that be in RAW? A "push?"
|
|
1. On occasion in combat I will synchronize my druids initiative with her animal companion's.
I only play PF RPG in PFS but invariably all the GM have me run my Druid's dog on the same initiative as my character. If they didn't I would likely play them as separate initiative actions if I think it would give the enemies an advantage if my druid were to delay. If the animal goes first he would likely look intimidating (growling etc) at most and maybe attack if attacked himself, but would otherwise delay.
2. The AC wears barding.
My druid's dog doesn't wear any armour or have any gear at the moment, so he is always good to go. :)
3. While wildshaped into the same form as her AC, my druid rarely performs handle animal checks. She just straight up talks to the AC in the AC's language.
I think if you are just talking to your animal companion as a GM I would make it a Diplomacy check (or Wild Empathy if that is better) to move them to Helpful (which assuming you don't mistreat your animal companion is likely to be a base DC 10 + creature's Cha modifier for a Friendly companion). The DC would be modified per Diplomacy for the effort needed and danger incurred).
Basically rather than commanding an animal to do something you are asking it, it gets a chance to refuse if it is tired, thinks it too dangerous etc.
Yeah, if it looks like a really tough fight and I really need my druid to do something tactically important on the first round, I will go ahead and run my druid and AC as separate initiative if the druid goes first. But usually by the second round I'm synchronizing them anyway. It just flows better. Yeah, on occasion that means I lose a bit of potential tactical advantage, but usually it's not meaningful.
So you are advancing the argument that because the bond with the animal companion is under "class features", then the critter itself is a class feature, and all class features are sacrosanct and under the player's control, yes?
The first part is absolutely correct, the creature itself is the class feature:
A druid who ceases to revere nature, changes to a prohibited alignment, or teaches the Druidic language to a nondruid loses all spells and druid abilities (including her animal companion, but not including weapon, armor, and shield proficiencies)
Stop being a druid and you loose the animal companion itself, not just your bond with it.
|
|
So it seems everyone is converging on "DM needs to be AC cheese policeman". That's fine with me, as long as DMs actually do this. Which never seems to happen.
This still doesn't address their insane level of combat effectiveness (they are just a class feature, after all) in comparison to non-optimized martial PCs. Obviously, though, there is no way to address this. My assertions that pet owners strictly adhere to the system laid out in the handle animal skill is just the only way I can see to address this issue in a RAW manner.
Most pets should be falling behind martial PCs actually. Pouncing large cat falls behind quickly after level 7 even. Your not outfitting these things with a bunch of magical gear without taking from your character, and they have slower HD progression ontop of 3/4 bab. They rarely have high strength and any way to get additional damage beyond that. Unlike say, a rogue who has sneak attack, rogue talents, and full HD for his level.
|
Are you also advancing the argument that the bond with the companions is a class feature, then the rest of the party is under the ranger player's control during the time he's lending his favored enemy bonus to them?
To provide, or not provide, a buff is the character's choice. The buff, once provided, is static. It makes no choices and takes no actions.
If the buff could take affect in one of several fashions, chosen at the time of application, the applying character would make that decision.
Put another way, there are a great many pages given to how a druid or ranger interacts with the animal, from the DCs of Handle Animal to the tricks involved, how long it takes to train a new companion, and on and on. If the player has control over the animal when these rolls fail, or outside the purview of the tricks, then there was never any reason for the designers to devote so many pages to them.
....
Animal Companions are different, because there are blocks of rules detailing how they're different.
They are different in precisely the manner the rules specify. No more, no less. What the rules do not say is, "Animal Companions are GM controlled NPCs."
|
|
Most pets should be falling behind martial PCs actually. Pouncing large cat falls behind quickly after level 7 even. Your not outfitting these things with a bunch of magical gear without taking from your character, and they have slower HD progression ontop of 3/4 bab. They rarely have high strength and any way to get additional damage beyond that. Unlike say, a rogue who has sneak attack, rogue talents, and full HD for his level.
Waiting till level 7 to out damage a *class feature* is a bitter pill in PFS. I think pets need even slower HD progression. They do get evasion, after all, so it's not like AE damage is going to matter to them. I've seen cavalier and paladin mounts with more HP than anyone else in the party. It's nuts.
David, lvl 7 is when the big cat turns into a DPR monster of sorts. They already have slow progression. I wasn't saying that at level 7 you outrace them, I was saying soon after that common example of a strong pet actually falls behind. DR/whatever can already devastate the poor thing.
I don't know what character falls behind the pet. An optimized pet may outdo an unoptimized character, but thats a severely unoptimized character and a pet that had resources dumped into it. I can't imagine a fighter or paladin being less useful than an Animal Companion though. A few pets get pounce or are useful for vital strike builds(Hippos are deadly!), but most players I know don't use optimized pets. They grab something like a wolf or horse, or something silly like a dinosaur. Those builds shouldn't be outracing the players unless they were doing something ridiculously unoptimized.(Sorry if I'm repetitive).
What character does falls behind a pet? Dervish dance rogue who doesn't flank? Even that has skillpoints I guess. Can I get examples for this? I'm really not coming up with much myself.
|
|
It might be the case that PCs don't fall behind a pet in a vacuum (although I've seen a rhino mount for a cavalier that makes me wonder), but don't you think an awful lot of PC builds will fall behind druid + pet? Or even worse, cleric w/ animal domain + boon companion + pet? I realize I play in a high munchkin concentration area, but I just keep finding myself staring in awe at how generous the AC advancement table is.
I find it pretty telling that I have never met a druid who took the spell domain class feature instead of the pet. In fact, my ranger is the only one I know that doesn't have a pet.
No, I don't think so. I have never had this problem. Have you? Worst pet I've seen is a bararian sharing his rage powers with a dinosaur, but thats not the same as a druid pet at all. My own druid pet never outshined anyone in society play. Except maybe that one time that rogue played up and refused to flank or use magic items, but thats like 2 or 3 levels difference. I don't think the chart is overly generous. It keeps the thing from dying constantly, but it doesn't push it ahead of other PCs. Especially not the full BAB classes.
How is the cleric any worse than the druid? They have the same level pet as a regular druid.
The pet is chosen more becuase the pet is more interesting to most. You can have a cuddly friend, or a few more spells. Most people prefer the cuddly friend. Its also free and helps tank and flank. Its more moves in an action economy and another tool for problem solving and most importantly roleplay.
|
|
I already conceded the point about pet in vacuum vs PC. It's crazy that we even have to do such a comparison, but we did.
I'm talking about pet + druid vs some poor schmuck PC in terms of over all utility.
A cleric with an AC, to me, is worse, because the cleric is a more powerful spell caster due to their selection of spells. And channel energy.
I don't see much roleplaying from ACs. But I do see them blocking charge lanes and preventing 20ft movement PCs from contributing quite often.
Channel energy at higher levels is awful. D6/2 caster levels? Thats not that great. Cleric vs Druid casting is another arguement altogether.
I use my pets to roleplay all the time. They actually do a lot. What people use things for is up to them, in the least its a prop who just sits there for imagery.
You did the comparison? Was this on another page? I just saw you complaining that an underpowered PC would be outperformed by a druid pet. I've had PFS scenarios where you fight a druid and his pet. Its not really that bad, and its rare you do one on one ever. The druid isn't exactly throwing out save or dies/suck, and wildshape isn't the monster it was in 3.5. At worst your fighting 2 pets, the druid if he wildshapes probably isn't a beast in battle without some buffs and the pet is still weaker than anyone at level.
Beyond all that, I'm not sure if making the DM control pets is a form of balance. Worse yet, constant rolling can slow the game down, and mostly punishes newer players playing lower level characters who can't get the skill ranks yet. "Oh its the druids turn, roll to see if your pet does that, so i can move him where I want, before you take your actual turn..." sounds bleh to me.
Erm... Aay that again? Sounded insulting and I'm not sure what your getting at.
|
|
It might be the case that PCs don't fall behind a pet in a vacuum (although I've seen a rhino mount for a cavalier that makes me wonder), but don't you think an awful lot of PC builds will fall behind druid + pet?I hadn't realized it was a race.
-James
Normally, I'd agree with you. I think some of the classes are certainly weaker than others. But the pet wielders to me, just really stand out.
|
|
"Beyond all that, I'm not sure if making the DM control pets is a form of balance. Worse yet, constant rolling can slow the game down, and mostly punishes newer players playing lower level characters who can't get the skill ranks yet. "Oh its the druids turn, roll to see if your pet does that, so i can move him where I want, before you take your actual turn..." sounds bleh to me."
I'm not that convinced either, since I've come to realize this is more of a mathematical/resource issue that is truly orthogonal to the control issue. But strict enforcement of handle animal is the only kind of check I see coming down the pike. There's not enough outcry over Fluffy stealing fighters' thunder.
If fluffy is stealing fighter thunder, your fighter is squeaking.... or something. I'm not good with metaphors.
I've had my critter blow away party members a few times.
1) vs unoptimized characters: Rogues. Damage dealing evokers, two weapon fighters, weird gishes that take 3 rounds of a 5 round fight to power up- If i want fluffy to be relevant with a two handed weapon wielder or Gatling gun archer in the party he pretty much has to blow these classes away.
2) Highly mobile fights. If the bad guys are running around all over the place 60 feet of movement and pounce becomes a lot better than spending every other round just getting to the fight and then making one attack.
3) Chase scenes. The one in
Something to remember is that when the pet does this, its often doing so with half of the druids spell alotment on it (barkskin, bulls strength, cats grace, g. magic fang, strongjaw, aspect of the wolf). A wizard using up his spell slots would get similar if not better results.
Have we done comparisons to summoners yet?