| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
This thread has just gotten incredibly ridiculous.
People care too damn much about RAW instead of RAI.
Regardless of your animal companions intelligence, it needs tricks and you need to use handle animal on it. That's the bottom line.
Yes, asserting an opinion, one that is IMO bad for the game, is certainly going to convince the people using arguments.
As I have already pointed out, the rules contradict themselves within the same chapter, on p. 140 vs. p. 143. There is no reason to claim that p. 143 is "more rules" than p. 140. For all the reasons I have already stated, and which haven't been counterargued yet, p. 140 should take precedence in the conflict.
No matter if you try to define it any other way these are the definitions and rules for companions. Trying to argue that raising an animal's INT by 3 makes it a sentient companion and not subject to the handle animal rules is pointless, it is already addressed in the rules.
I see no contradictions or problems with rules I have quoted. The rules for handling regular animal companions are quite clear. The only exception to the that rule is Paladin bonded mounts. Off course this how I interpret the rules, someone else I am sure will argue different. Then this will become the cliche RAW vs RAI argument, I think the thread already has. I have said all I needed to say.
|
The rules as written, particularly those in the Animal Archive, are an awkward patch. The entire d20 framework assumes that the stats are an absolute range and are not relative to some subjective landmark--an animal with int of 5 should be exactly as intelligent as a human with an int of 5 who should be exactly as intelligent as an aberration with an int of 5. (Perhaps the animal should be a magical beast due to the int limitation, but you get the idea.) The idea that an animal with an int of 16 is not sapient is silly, borderline ridiculous, given the way the rest of the system (particularly the bestiary and monster rules) works. It also runs counter to the broader body of scientific knowledge available in the real world.
That said, the patch exists, and if you follow RAW, you've gotta use the patch. An animal companion with high Intelligence doesn't gain sapience. Mostly due to game balance concerns.
It isn't RAW but in a home game it seems perfectly reasonable to ignore the patch. Just be aware that it may make some character options much stronger than they currently are, that's all.
Also, animals are the only creatures generally allowed as animal companions, so if you want to argue that it isn't an animal, it probably can't be an animal companion.
And that brings in the issue of the Monstrous Mount feat where your animal companion is not and never was an animal.
|
Which is why eidolons, bonded mounts, and familiars are all bound by what the GM says they want, right?
Eidolons are outsiders and familiars are magical beasts. Not animals. Different rules and completely outside the scope of what I was talking about.
As to bonded mounts and other 'animal companion' variants... in my experience most GMs leave that to the player, but restrict them to directing the animal via tricks or 'pushing' with Handle Animal. However, those animals are (usually) not at the level of full NPCs with the ability to choose their own course, leave the bonded player, take class levels, et cetera. I've heard of (but never played in) games where players are allowed to control animals like that. My impression is that they are uncommon.
Otherwise a tiefling could go into a bear den, stab each of them to death with a blunt dagger, and walk out unharmed. Since by the rules they're an "unnatural creature" and animals won't attack them
Interesting take... "Normally, an animal will attack only humanoids, monstrous humanoids, giants, or other animals."
So yeah, RAW animals won't attack tieflings. Personally, I'd rule that tieflings seem similar enough to other 'humanoids' (meaning the shape, not the game term) that animals would attack them.
Which is why eidolons, bonded mounts, and familiars are all bound by what the GM says they want, right?Eidolons are outsiders and familiars are magical beasts. Not animals. Different rules and completely outside the scope of what I was talking about.
As to bonded mounts and other 'animal companion' variants... in my experience most GMs leave that to the player, but restrict them to directing the animal via tricks or 'pushing' with Handle Animal. However, those animals are (usually) not at the level of full NPCs with the ability to choose their own course, leave the bonded player, take class levels, et cetera. I've heard of (but never played in) games where players are allowed to control animals like that. My impression is that they are uncommon.
Otherwise a tiefling could go into a bear den, stab each of them to death with a blunt dagger, and walk out unharmed. Since by the rules they're an "unnatural creature" and animals won't attack themInteresting take... "Normally, an animal will attack only humanoids, monstrous humanoids, giants, or other animals."
So yeah, RAW animals won't attack tieflings. Personally, I'd rule that tieflings seem similar enough to other 'humanoids' (meaning the shape, not the game term) that animals would attack them.
Another case of applying rules terms to what is otherwise a very clearly written sentence.
The animal won't initiate combat, but obviously would attack back if it had no other options.
Under no circumstances would it just sit there and allow itself to be killed, anyone ruling that way is a fool.
As for controlling Animal Companions, some GMs are rather... harsh.
My current hunter can't even designate specific targets for her cat to attack, the GM just randomly chooses opponents in the direction my character points to.
:(
Sadly, that isn't against the rules, because the Animal Companion IS controlled by the GM.
Here are the rules for advancing animal companions. These are the rules that are followed not the bestiary ones.
Animal Companion: Advancement choices for an animal companion include feats, skills, ability score increases, and tricks.
If the companion's Intelligence score is 2 or lower, it is limited to a small selection of feats. You should decide what feats the animal learns, though the GM should have a say about whether a desired feat is appropriate to the animal's type and training—fortunately, the feats on the list are appropriate for just about any animal. If the animal's Intelligence is 3 or higher (whether from using its ability score increase or a magic item), it can select any feat that it qualifies for. You should decide what feat it learns, subject to GM approval, although the creature's higher intelligence might mean it has its own ideas about what it wants to learn.
As with feats, you should decide what skills your animal companion learns, chosen from the Animal Skills list and subject to GM approval. If the animal's Intelligence score is 3 or higher, it can put its ranks into any skill, with the GM's approval. Of course, the animal might not have the physical ability to perform certain skills (a dog can't create disguises, an elephant can't use the Ride skill, and so on).
Ability score increases are straightforward when it comes to physical ability scores—training an animal to be stronger, more agile, or tougher are all reasonable tasks. Training an animal to be smarter, more intuitive, or more self-aware is less easy to justify—except in the context where people can cast spells and speak with animals.
Because you're responsible for using the Handle Animal skill to teach your companion its tricks, you decide what tricks the companion learns. If you're not skilled at training animals or lack the time to do it yourself, you can hire an expert trainer to do it for you or use the downtime system to take care of this training.
And just for the record Crimeo you can rule the way you want to at your table if your the GM, but please do not try to pass your RAI as RAW. Bestiaries are more of a reference for GM's when planning encounters and also as a guide for building monsters/creatures. Animal Companions are a class feature of a PC which has its own rules and they do not get everything their bestiary counterparts do.
So, basically, if it's still the animal type, which most companions are, even if 3 intelligence or higher, you need to use the Handle Animal skill.
Companions/Mounts of a different type, can simply be commanded, if their intelligence is 3, or higher.
Yes?
True in PFS as well?
In PFS I would err on the side of caution and handle animal everything that's not a familiar, eidolon or equivalent. Arguably bonded mount shouldn't need handle animal, but it's not worth the grief hashing it out.
Now people will argue that PFS specific FAQ does not necessarily apply to the whole of Pathfinder, but I think this gives us pretty reasonable idea of how the issue would be clarified if it were ever to receive greater clarification.
So, basically, if it's still the animal type, which most companions are, even if 3 intelligence or higher, you need to use the Handle Animal skill.
Companions/Mounts of a different type, can simply be commanded, if their intelligence is 3, or higher.
Yes?
True in PFS as well?
Here is the ruling from PFS FAQ
Can I improve my companion’s Intelligence to 3 or higher and give it weapon feats?
No. An Intelligence of 3 does not grant animals sentience, the ability to use weapons or tools, speak a language (though they may understand one with a rank in Linguistics; this does not grant literacy), or activate magic devices. Also note that raising an animal companion’s Intelligence to 3 or higher does not eliminate the need to make Handle Animal checks to direct its actions; even semi-intelligent animals still act like animals unless trained not to. An animal with Intelligence of 3 or higher remains a creature of the animal type unless its type is specifically changed by another ability. An animal may learn 3 additional tricks per point of Intelligence above 2.
EDIT, Sorry Claxon I deleted the original post and redone it to be more accurate than what I had posted earlier
Crimeo, you edited your post to remove the part that said
The whole thing is a train wreck
And I just wanted to say, I really agree with that.
But despite that, I think there is enough evidence to suggest that regardless of int an animal companion and it's handler with always need tricks and handle animal to do things. (Mostly because they other parts that say they might not are really generic and short and the other parts are more specific.)
Tricks are for things that don't understand language. They are rote training based on noise commands and reward reinforcement.
At Int 6, one point in Linguistics will let it understand you. Then teaching it things is easy. "When I say this, you do this, ok?"
At that point its less like teaching tricks and more like training with short tactical commands. You could even use hand-signs like the military.
For more complex stuff or things that haven't been covered by training, you would just need to explain things to the animal.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Rather than the whole mess of a really intelligent animal still being treated like a stupid animal, it seems like it would have been a lot easier to post an FAQ or errata stating that --An animal's intelligence cannot be increased above 2, unless an effect explicitly increases specifically the intelligence score of that creature.-- If anything that seems like a more reasonable house rule than the --Animals are dumb. Always.-- ruling.
As for PFS, you must use handle animal on the creature with one possible exception. Monstrous Mount gives you a companion that is not nor never was an animal. These companions are magical beasts above 2 intelligence and so are not a legal target of Handle Animal, so they can't learn tricks ever. It must be assumed that these companions are handled more like a cohort or familiar.
enough evidence to suggest that regardless of int an animal companion and it's handler will always need tricks and handle animal to do things.I don't think I've actually seen one single RAW quote so far anywhere suggesting that you MUST use animal handling to communicate with animals. The PFS thing seems to be the only text even suggesting such.
What about the blogpost about animal companions?
I'm also not completely sure the paladin needs handle animal even for PFS. The blog post doesn't mention paladin mounts at all, despite the fact that they are the companions most likely to be very intelligent, and the paladin mount has this text:
The second type of bond allows a paladin to gain the service of an steed to serve her in her crusade against evil.
You would certainly face table variation with that though.
This actually came into play last game for me. Here is the way I see it, and I'm not going to get into the interpretations of some dude's blog, years ago, talking about something else;
The player: a cleric with the feather domain and a pet ape (because it doesn't actually say they have to take a bird)
The companion: Has 3 Int, a rank in Linguistics, understands but cannot speak common.
The situation: The players are fighting a bunch of Host devils, 8 are illusions, 5 are real. The cleric saw which are real from a previous allie's attack and wants his companion to attack the right one.
While it can understand common, with 3 (or even 6)Int, its still a retard (no offense to retarded persons, I am being literal). So the character can either spend several rounds trying to explain why to attack this one and not that one, or make a handle animals roll as a free action. In real life I've talked to educated parrots and held "conversations" with them. They are sentient and capable of thought, on the same level as a small child, which is going to be way too slow to be any help in combat. So I guess I would say you can take a diplomacy(or wild empathy) attempt to tell them what to do, or train them with set commands, for ease of use, like any sane person would.
Creatures with 3 or more Int are sapient, can learn languages, and cannot actually be animals.Lead designer disagrees with you:
http://paizo.com/paizo/blog/v5748dyo5lc1y&page=4?Monkey-See-Monkey-Do-A n-FAQ-on-IntelligentIf you wish to ignore that, then there's also the issue that no ability or effect chanegd the companion's type when he gained +1INT. If anything, by strict RAW, he is just a completely type-less creature, if he can't be an animal and wasn't made anything else. Pretty sure that's not a desirable state of affairs, so FAQ is probably better.
Given that Ultimate Campaign postdates that blog post by 3 years AND doesn't directly contradict the Core Rulebook in multiple places, I'm going to go with Ultimate Campaign over that blog post where the two contradict each other.
The UC has that part as an optional rule a DM can choose to apply to their game. Yes there is an optional rule for it. There is an optional rule to have Dr instead of AC too. That does not make it the standard overriding rule.
The UC has that part as an optional rule a DM can choose to apply to their game. Yes there is an optional rule for it. There is an optional rule to have Dr instead of AC too. That does not make it the standard overriding rule.Creatures with 3 or more Int are sapient, can learn languages, and cannot actually be animals.Lead designer disagrees with you:
http://paizo.com/paizo/blog/v5748dyo5lc1y&page=4?Monkey-See-Monkey-Do-A n-FAQ-on-IntelligentIf you wish to ignore that, then there's also the issue that no ability or effect chanegd the companion's type when he gained +1INT. If anything, by strict RAW, he is just a completely type-less creature, if he can't be an animal and wasn't made anything else. Pretty sure that's not a desirable state of affairs, so FAQ is probably better.
Given that Ultimate Campaign postdates that blog post by 3 years AND doesn't directly contradict the Core Rulebook in multiple places, I'm going to go with Ultimate Campaign over that blog post where the two contradict each other.
How is it an optional "rule". It doesn't even list rules. It just discusses the rules that already exist.
|
Well, the PFS FAQ seems to explicitly pertain to animals(though I am sure it also pertains to vermin).
Get a companion of a different type, with a higher than 3 intelligence, and say goodbye to Handle Animal checks.
Let's see, Celestial Servant, Monstrous Mount, or Sable Company Marine feats make this possible.
At 11th level, a Paladin need not make such checks.
Sure there are others.
It's really odd that you need 4 ranks in Handle Animal to get a companion you can't legally use it on.
PFS also specifically says they can't use weapons, while the core books says they can learn any feat (including weapon or armor proficeny), once they have 3 INT. So the problem here is RAW vs PFS house rules vs RAI.
How is it an optional "rule". It doesn't even list rules. It just discusses the rules that already exist.The UC has that part as an optional rule a DM can choose to apply to their game. Yes there is an optional rule for it. There is an optional rule to have Dr instead of AC too. That does not make it the standard overriding rule.Creatures with 3 or more Int are sapient, can learn languages, and cannot actually be animals.Lead designer disagrees with you:
http://paizo.com/paizo/blog/v5748dyo5lc1y&page=4?Monkey-See-Monkey-Do-A n-FAQ-on-IntelligentIf you wish to ignore that, then there's also the issue that no ability or effect chanegd the companion's type when he gained +1INT. If anything, by strict RAW, he is just a completely type-less creature, if he can't be an animal and wasn't made anything else. Pretty sure that's not a desirable state of affairs, so FAQ is probably better.
Given that Ultimate Campaign postdates that blog post by 3 years AND doesn't directly contradict the Core Rulebook in multiple places, I'm going to go with Ultimate Campaign over that blog post where the two contradict each other.
that part is from this section of the ult camp. They are tweaks as ti says below. optional ways to change your game. Not an explanation on the rules. You took a subsection from this section to make your point.
Campaign Systems
This chapter presents a variety of small tweaks for your campaign, each one focused on giving life to moments and depth to activities in your game. You can use these systems individually or mix and match them together to taste.
PFS also specifically says they can't use weapons, while the core books says they can learn any feat (including weapon or armor proficeny), once they have 3 INT. So the problem here is RAW vs PFS house rules vs RAI.
Where does it say this?
PFS also specifically says they can't use weapons, while the core books says they can learn any feat (including weapon or armor proficeny), once they have 3 INT. So the problem here is RAW vs PFS house rules vs RAI.Where does it say this?
Can my animal companion or familiar wear or use magic items?
It is intended that animal companions or familiars can not activate magic items. An animal companion could benefit from an item with a continuous magical effect like an amulet of natural armor if its master equipped the item for the animal companion. Animal companions of any type may not use manufactured weapons.
as for more general rules...
Another aspect of intelligent animals is tool use. There are a number of feats that convey an understanding and the proper use of weapons and armor. Generally speaking, these feats are off-limits to animals, but when their intelligence reaches 3, the rules state that they can use any feat that they are physically capable of using. Some people take this to mean that they can equip their animal companion in chainmail and arm him with a greatsword given the correct feats. While you could interpret the rules in this way, the "capable of use" clause is very important. Most weapons require thumbs to use properly, and even then, few animals would choose to use an artificial weapon in place of the natural weapons that have served them all their life. It's what they were born with, after all, and virtually no amount of training will change that. In the end, the GM should feel free to restrict such choices if he feels that they take away from the feel of his campaign. The rules themselves are left a little vague to give the GM the latitude to make the call that's right for his campaign.
Its not quite making a rule of no weapons for critters, but its very much encouraging DMs to rule that way, because its a very valid rules interpretation.
How is it an optional "rule". It doesn't even list rules. It just discusses the rules that already exist.The UC has that part as an optional rule a DM can choose to apply to their game. Yes there is an optional rule for it. There is an optional rule to have Dr instead of AC too. That does not make it the standard overriding rule.Creatures with 3 or more Int are sapient, can learn languages, and cannot actually be animals.Lead designer disagrees with you:
http://paizo.com/paizo/blog/v5748dyo5lc1y&page=4?Monkey-See-Monkey-Do-A n-FAQ-on-IntelligentIf you wish to ignore that, then there's also the issue that no ability or effect chanegd the companion's type when he gained +1INT. If anything, by strict RAW, he is just a completely type-less creature, if he can't be an animal and wasn't made anything else. Pretty sure that's not a desirable state of affairs, so FAQ is probably better.
Given that Ultimate Campaign postdates that blog post by 3 years AND doesn't directly contradict the Core Rulebook in multiple places, I'm going to go with Ultimate Campaign over that blog post where the two contradict each other.
that part is from this section of the ult camp. They are tweaks as ti says below. optional ways to change your game. Not an explanation on the rules. You took a subsection from this section to make your point.
Campaign Systems
This chapter presents a variety of small tweaks for your campaign, each one focused on giving life to moments and depth to activities in your game. You can use these systems individually or mix and match them together to taste.
While I will not argue with your logic, it makes sense, just be careful where it leads because in the core rule book, it has this to say.
The Most Important Rule
The rules in this book are here to help you breathe life into your characters and the world they explore. While they are designed to make your game easy and exciting, you might find that some of them do not suit the style of play that your gaming group enjoys. Remember that these rules are yours. You can change them to fit your needs. Most Game Masters have a number of “house rules” that they use in their games. The Game Master and players should always discuss any rules changes to make sure that everyone understands how the game will be played. Although the Game Master is the final arbiter of the rules, the Pathfinder RPG is a shared experience, and all of the players should contribute their thoughts when the rules are in doubt.
While I will not argue with your logic, it makes sense, just be careful where it leads because in the core rule book, it has this to say.
The Most Important Rule
The rules in this book are here to help you breathe life into your characters and the world they explore. While they are designed to make your game easy and exciting, you might find that some of them do not suit the style of play that your gaming group enjoys. Remember that these rules are yours. You can change them to fit your needs. Most Game Masters have a number of “house rules” that they use in their games. The Game Master and players should always discuss any rules changes to make sure that everyone understands how the game will be played. Although the Game Master is the final arbiter of the rules, the Pathfinder RPG is a shared experience, and all of the players should contribute their thoughts when the rules are in doubt.
I understand that. I was debating that it is not a core standard rule. RUle zero still trumps.
How does "a character must still make handle animal checks to train his animal and get him to perform the appropriate task" at all mean it isn't required?
Because that's the only interpretation I can take away from that.
How does "a character must still make handle animal checks to train his animal and get him to perform the appropriate task" at all mean it isn't required?
Because that's the only interpretation I can take away from that.
Because its talking about an int 3 quasi sentient critter. Not an int 7 or higher paladin mount.
When apointing your horse to the senate actually raises the average IQ you either need to lay off the handle animal rules or teach the horse the "just a bill" song.
How does "a character must still make handle animal checks to train his animal and get him to perform the appropriate task" at all mean it isn't required?
Because that's the only interpretation I can take away from that.
Because I don't care about training my animal or getting it to perform "tasks appropriate to" said training.
I wish it to perform totally UN-trained tasks by interpreting on the fly linguistic information, which it can do when it knows a language, because that is the whole point and purpose of language.
Untrained task would be "pushing the animal" and would still require handle animal, as I understand it.
I guess were going to have to just disagree on this.
From the handle animal skill:
A druid or ranger can handle an animal companion as a free action or push it as a move action.
A druid or ranger gains a +4 circumstance bonus on Handle Animal checks involving an animal companion.
In addition, a druid's or ranger's animal companion knows one or more bonus tricks, which don't count against the normal limit on tricks known and don't require any training time or Handle Animal checks to teach.
A druid or ranger with no ranks in Handle Animal can use a Charisma check to handle and push her animal companion, but she can't teach, rear, or train other nondomestic animals.
Not one mention of a paladin. Clearly the paladin was not intended to use handle animal for his mount.
Just for clarification, I haven't been talking about paladin mounts.
That is a slightly different topic and I think it's more of a grey area I'm not prepared to argue about.
I've merely been talking about general animal companions (even those raised above 2 int) outside of paladin mounts.
"a character must still make handle animal checks to train his animal and get him to perform the appropriate task"
I think people have been bolding the wrong part of this quote. It is unusual for an optional ability to start with "you must".
If you don't teach it the task it cannot perform it, no matter how sweetly you ask.No, fluttering your eyelashes won't help either.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Rather than the whole mess of a really intelligent animal still being treated like a stupid animal, it seems like it would have been a lot easier to post an FAQ or errata stating that --An animal's intelligence cannot be increased above 2, unless an effect explicitly increases specifically the intelligence score of that creature.-- If anything that seems like a more reasonable house rule than the --Animals are dumb. Always.-- ruling.
Yes, but would mean going back on a previous ruling. Flurry of Blows has always required two weapons. We have always been at war with Eurasia.
|
|
Another case of applying rules terms to what is otherwise a very clearly written sentence.Interesting take... "Normally, an animal will attack only humanoids, monstrous humanoids, giants, or other animals."
So yeah, RAW animals won't attack tieflings. Personally, I'd rule that tieflings seem similar enough to other 'humanoids' (meaning the shape, not the game term) that animals would attack them.
I find it unlikely that "monstrous humanoids" would be used for some meaning other than its "rules terms" interpretation.
The animal won't initiate combat, but obviously would attack back if it had no other options.
Under no circumstances would it just sit there and allow itself to be killed, anyone ruling that way is a fool.
Sure, but 'run away' seems the likely reaction in most circumstances.
Tricks are for things that don't understand language. They are rote training based on noise commands and reward reinforcement.
At Int 6, one point in Linguistics will let it understand you. Then teaching it things is easy. "When I say this, you do this, ok?"
At that point its less like teaching tricks and more like training with short tactical commands. You could even use hand-signs like the military.
For more complex stuff or things that haven't been covered by training, you would just need to explain things to the animal.
Telling your monkey to juggle wont get him to juggle.
He needs to learn how to juggle first.
Another case of applying rules terms to what is otherwise a very clearly written sentence.Interesting take... "Normally, an animal will attack only humanoids, monstrous humanoids, giants, or other animals."
So yeah, RAW animals won't attack tieflings. Personally, I'd rule that tieflings seem similar enough to other 'humanoids' (meaning the shape, not the game term) that animals would attack them.
I find it unlikely that "monstrous humanoids" would be used for some meaning other than its "rules terms" interpretation.
The animal won't initiate combat, but obviously would attack back if it had no other options.
Under no circumstances would it just sit there and allow itself to be killed, anyone ruling that way is a fool.
Sure, but 'run away' seems the likely reaction in most circumstances.
Absolutely