Why wouldn't you use the word "force"? It's what the trick does, no two ways about it.
I would not use "force" because the GM still runs the Animal Companion has a NPC. The GM may defer most control over to the Player, but still has the right (and duty) to say "no, the animal won't do something so suicidal"... so the AC will not ignore being frightened or panicked, for example, in order to obey a command. It is not "forced" to obey; it is "trained" to obey. If the master acts so egregiously against the animal companion, no amount of training will "force" it to come back if it gains its freedom. Training is not a magical compulsion.
Assuming an animal will never have the wherewithal to move into a flanking position of its own volition just because there's a trick you can teach it that forces it to, that's the same as assuming a companion will never come towards its master of its own volition just because there's a trick you can teach it that forces it to. Neither assumption makes any sense at all, and in fact, neither are implied by the respective tricks.
Your assumption is misleading. You seem to be assuming "not trained to do something on command" = "will never do so on its own". Animals not trained to do specific tricks may well take similar or identical actions.. but the master may not make them do so.
An Animal Companion not trained to flank could still enter flanking position if ordered to Attack, and the flanking square happened to be the most direct route to make that attack.
That's the difference... an animal trained to Flank on command will seek out the flanking position specifically, while one not trained to do so may incidentally wind up there anyway.
Ok, part of this is devil's advocate, but part of it is actually just how I feel.
So says me.
In a rules forum the best source is yourself as a DM, right? ;)
For the record, I do not believe you. I do not believe that when you DM that you do not have animals purposefully move into flanking position without the input from someone giving them a command to do so. In fact, I wouldn't believe it until you had one of your players posting corroborating your story. Yes, that part I'm serious about. I believe that almost all DMs do this for creatures that they typically believe use these tactics in nature.
I would not use "force" because the GM still runs the Animal Companion has a NPC. The GM may defer most control over to the Player, but still has the right (and duty) to say "no, the animal won't do something so suicidal"... so the AC will not ignore being frightened or panicked, for example, in order to obey a command. It is not "forced" to obey; it is "trained" to obey. If the master acts so egregiously against the animal companion, no amount of training will "force" it to come back if it gains its freedom. Training is not a magical compulsion.
Whether the compulsion is magical or not it works the same. You have to overcome a DC. The only difference is that the player rolls this rather than the defending creature. They, in fact, do not get a resistance to this. Whether you call it "forcing" or "training" them to obey it amounts to the same thing. If you beat your check the creature obeys your commands. The petty differences between the definitions of the words is moot as the result is the same.
I had a friend who played a Ranger with his first Favored Enemy being Animals. He treated them like tools to accomplish a task. He was more of the "cruel lion tamer" type rather than the "cuddle with my awesome animal companion" type. By your ruling it sounds like you wouldn't allow his concept. But, to be clear, there is nothing in the rules that would disallow this concept. The rules work the same regardless if he is trying to "lightly nudge" his animal companion into doing something or "outright asserting his will and forcing" it to do something. The rules are the same; he makes the check and if he succeeds the outcome is the same regardless of the words you use to get there.
...the rest of your post I agree with. :)
STOP THE THREAD!
...Cavall is upset.
I would not use "force" because the GM still runs the Animal Companion has a NPC. The GM may defer most control over to the Player, but still has the right (and duty) to say "no, the animal won't do something so suicidal"... so the AC will not ignore being frightened or panicked, for example, in order to obey a command. It is not "forced" to obey; it is "trained" to obey. If the master acts so egregiously against the animal companion, no amount of training will "force" it to come back if it gains its freedom. Training is not a magical compulsion.Whether the compulsion is magical or not it works the same. You have to overcome a DC. The only difference is that the player rolls this rather than the defending creature. They, in fact, do not get a resistance to this. Whether you call it "forcing" or "training" them to obey it amounts to the same thing. If you beat your check the creature obeys your commands. The petty differences between the definitions of the words is moot as the result is the same.
I had a friend who played a Ranger with his first Favored Enemy being Animals. He treated them like tools to accomplish a task. He was more of the "cruel lion tamer" type rather than the "cuddle with my awesome animal companion" type. By your ruling it sounds like you wouldn't allow his concept. But, to be clear, there is nothing in the...
Then I am not conveying it properly. If a PC or NPC took the "cruel lion-tamer" approach, the animal would obey its training mostly... but the difference would be things like :
- if the animal could save its master at the risk of its life, the one treated kindly is much more likely to do that
- if the animal ever slipped any collar or bonds, the one treated badly would likely take the opportunity to escape and ignore any "come" command issued by the "cruel lion-tamer"; the one treated well is less likely to do that
Ok, part of this is devil's advocate, but part of it is actually just how I feel.
So says me.In a rules forum the best source is yourself as a DM, right? ;)
For the record, I do not believe you. I do not believe that when you DM that you do not have animals purposefully move into flanking position without the input from someone giving them a command to do so. In fact, I wouldn't believe it until you had one of your players posting corroborating your story. Yes, that part I'm serious about. I believe that almost all DMs do this for creatures that they typically believe use these tactics in nature.
That's okay that you don't believe me. Yes, I refer to myself as the rules source in this case, because no published rules exist about animal behaviour (that I am aware of)-so, the behaviour of the animal is controlled by the GM.
If you play in an environment where this is not that case, I respect that.
I do, in fact, have animals attack in straight lines in my games. IF they happen to wind up in a position that grants flanking, they get the +2 flanking bonus. RARELY do I have them deliberately change their position to grant flanking.
Yes, rarely. Sometimes they do. Yes, it is often wolves (dire or normal) that do this.
I never said I wasn't a hypocrite.
It is important to recognize though that I am correct in saying that animal behaviour has not been addressed in the level of detail some of us would like to see.
The Flank trick is useful ONLY if we assume animals are poor tacticians...
Urath DM: And what rules would you be using to justify this? The AC would be ignoring it's master's commands ... because you say so? Even when the Handle Animal skill specifically contradicts this?
Urath DM: And what rules would you be using to justify this? The AC would be ignoring it's master's commands ... because you say so? Even when the Handle Animal skill specifically contradicts this?
I could see applying the -2 for being injured penalty (hurt feelings! Treat your kitty properly!), but otherwise I gotta take Lune's side on this one.
Arbitrarily ignoring published rules because you don't agree with a characters treatment of their pet is unfair to the player.
You could have ingame consequences OTHER than the AC rebelling... like create a Pathfinder equivalent of PETA... :D
Druids
Againt
Mistreatment of
Animals
DAMA. *shrugs* I dunno, I don't like coming up with houserules unless I have to, but I do enjoy adding story elements to address ingame abuse of things.
alexd1976: I knew it. ;)
Also, it has been my experience that hypocrits do not typically announce that they are such up front. I don't hold it against you though. As I said, I think it is something most GMs do based on personal experience.
Generally speaking I do think that animals are poor tacticians when it comes to commanding armies. When it comes to pack tactics, though... well, I think that animals who are used to working in packs typically do flank. That is not something that I consider advanced tactics though. In fact, it is about the most simple of tactics that I am able to think of.
And yeah, I could see adding a modifier as alexd1976 suggested. But not purposefully ignoring rules.
alexd1976: I knew it. ;)
Also, it has been my experience that hypocrits do not typically announce that they are such up front. I don't hold it against you though. As I said, I think it is something most GMs do based on personal experience.Generally speaking I do think that animals are poor tacticians when it comes to commanding armies. When it comes to pack tactics, though... well, I think that animals who are used to working in packs typically do flank. That is not something that I consider advanced tactics though. In fact, it is about the most simple of tactics that I am able to think of.
And yeah, I could see adding a modifier as alexd1976 suggested. But not purposefully ignoring rules.
Now I'm picturing a bear in a generals uniform, commanding an army of human soldiers...
Dammit...
I'm sure that picture exists somewhere on the interwebs.
The modifier I suggested is already a published thing, its the penalty to Handle Animal if your AC is injured.
I sort of see WHY he would want to have the AC act the way he mentioned though... So conceptually I agree with Urath, I just hate ignoring rules unless they really mess things up.
Another way to address abused AC would be to tell the player:
You are mistreating your AC, I'm giving you this warning, continue doing it and your character will be training the animal in the 'take abuse' trick.
If your companion doesn't have a free trick to account for this, it will replace a trick of my choosing.
If you fail the DC 20 Handle Animal to train it in 'take abuse', then it will run away.
Sometimes it IS necessary to make up rules or modify them.
Or, as a GM, you could just not care and let it slide.
I try to use the rules when I can, but it isn't always convenient.
Yeah, I know where he is coming from too. I just have never been for punishing a player's character concept just because I do not personally like it. If it is within the rules I try to make sure they have a fun game, not remove class abilities because they do not jive with the iconic idealized concept trope that is cliched by the book, pop culture or anyone's personal opinions.
Urath DM: And what rules would you be using to justify this? The AC would be ignoring it's master's commands ... because you say so? Even when the Handle Animal skill specifically contradicts this?
Nonsentient Companions: A nonsentient companion (one with animal-level intelligence) is loyal to you in the way a well-trained dog is—the creature is conditioned to obey your commands, but its behavior is limited by its intelligence and it can't make altruistic moral decisions—such as nobly sacrificing itself to save another. Animal companions, cavalier mounts, and purchased creatures (such as common horses and guard dogs) fall into this category. In general they're GM-controlled companions. You can direct them using the Handle Animal skill, but their specific behavior is up to the GM.
Note especially the last two sentences.
Game Balance: Even a simple change like allowing players to directly control companions has repercussions in the game mechanics. For example, if a druid has complete control over an animal companion, there's no reason for her to put ranks in Handle Animal, freeing up those ranks for other valuable skills like Perception. If a wizard with a guard dog doesn't have to use a move action to make a Handle Animal check to have the dog attack, he has a full set of actions each round and a minion creature that doesn't require investing any extra time to "summon" it. If companion animals don't have to know specific tricks, the PC can use any animal like an ally and plan strategies (like flanking) as if the animal were much smarter than it actually is.
Note especially the last sentence.
These are two small parts of a larger section on Companions of all types... Eidolons, Animal Companions, Cohorts, etc.
Yeah, I know where he is coming from too. I just have never been for punishing a player's character concept just because I do not personally like it. If it is within the rules I try to make sure they have a fun game, not remove class abilities because they do not jive with the iconic idealized concept trope that is cliched by the book, pop culture or anyone's personal opinions.
I think you're misreading me. I did not say that the abused animal would constantly refuse to obey, for example. What I said was that an abused animal is much more likely to flee from its master if it sees a chance. A well-treated Animal Companion (or animal in general) is likely to be more loyal and less eager to escape at the first chance.
In the case where an abused animal has a chance to escape, it will THEN ignore commands to "Come" or "Heel" in favor of escaping the abusive master.
So the entry about nonsentient companions calls out loyalty 'in the way a well-trained dog is' (dogs attack owners IRL, so there we go).
It also mentions they are GM controlled companions. "Their specific behaviour is up to the GM".
Under the entry for game balance, the last sentence:
"If companion animals don't have to know specific tricks, the PC can use any animal like an ally and plan strategies (like flanking) as if the animal were much smarter than it actually is."
the PC can plan strategies (like flanking).
The animal isn't doing any planning.
Hmmm.
I think it would be okay to have an AC rebel and attack it's master, or leave, based on this.
Yeah, I'm flip-flopping. Urath, gonna say it's okay to have an AC rebel under certain circumstances.
I am aware of those passages. Nowhere in them does it say a GM should disregard the Handle Animal skill. In fact, it states quite the opposite. If the animal knows a trick then you refer to the Handle Animal skill. If you pass your Handle Animal DC for a trick (whether pushing or having it complete a trick it knows), it does the trick.
Are you stating that the bit about "You can direct them using the Handle Animal skill, but their specific behavior is up to the GM." means "Disregard what the PC is trying to accomplish via the Handle animal skill and just have the creature do whatever you want because you are the GM and you can fiat anything you want."?
I am aware of those passages. Nowhere in them does it say a GM should disregard the Handle Animal skill. In fact, it states quite the opposite. If the animal knows a trick then you refer to the Handle Animal skill. If you pass your Handle Animal DC for a trick (whether pushing or having it complete a trick it knows), it does the trick.
Are you stating that the bit about "You can direct them using the Handle Animal skill, but their specific behavior is up to the GM." means "Disregard what the PC is trying to accomplish via the Handle animal skill and just have the creature do whatever you want because you are the GM and you can fiat anything you want."?
Let me try this again... since you are clearly reading more into what I said than I intended.
Under most circumstances, the animal will do as its master/handler directs, provided the appropriate skill checks are made, actions performed, etc.
Under unusual circumstances, such as when an abused animal has the opportunity to escape (or even to turn on its abuser), it is up the GM whether it does so or not. In such a case, the master can scream "Come" or "Heel" as much as desired... but if the GM judges that the animal has taken the course of escape.. too bad. That's the price of being an abusive master - no loyalty from the animal.
Lune, Urath, I am going to attempt to bring both of your conversational threads together here...
I think we all agree that animal companions do as they are told, by the rules, using the Handle Animal skill...
Urath is suggesting (and frankly I agree) that a character could create conditions where the animal companion would stop listening to the character.
Lune, would you think it reasonable for a trained animal to simply sit there and allow its master to beat it to death? Or would it defend itself?
By the rules, it seems that you SHOULD be able to just beat it to death.
Clearly this isn't reasonable.
It does NOT explicitly say that tricks work all the time, no matter what.
I would think that an abused animal would/could/should turn on it's master, regardless of how you read the entry on Handle Animal.
Handle Animal seems to assume a certain level of respect for the trained animal, though it doesn't call out every circumstance.
What Urath has done is extrapolated from written material, to create a framework that expands on existing rules, and I agree with what he is doing.
If I kept kicking my dog, I would expect him to bite me, no matter how much time I had spent training him.
I think I would agree with you except in the situation where a Handle Animal skill would prevent it. If the animal is alone it and knows it's master isn't nearby it would likely try to escape. Otherwise... nope.
I can tell you that you can be an abusive master and still have loyalty in the real world. Whether through fear being trained into the animal of the repercussions of disloyalty (negative reinforcement) or with the animal still appreciating being fed and taken care of despite its mistreatment it can and does happen.
In the game world though it doesn't matter. You have the Handle Animal skill. If you make the check the critter does what you want it to. It doesn't get a save to resist. Loyalty isn't a factor of Handle Animal barring GM fiat.
alexd1976: I disagree. I believe if you were able to train your animal in a trick to make itself Helpless that it would do so and allow you to CDG it.
Likewise, if you had say... a whip and you trained your animal to Stay if it were well trained (you had a high Handle Animal skill) you could sit there and whip it all day long without it attacking you back.
There are examples of this in the real world. Besides that, the game is not the real world. The rules state if you succeed at a Handle Animal check the animal does what you want. Barring GM fiat, of course. But then GM fiat isn't really part of any specific rule. A GM could just as easily fiat the Charm Person or Dominate Person spells even though they have codified rules just like Handle Animal does.
Nope. I'm sticking with "force" being a fairly apt term here.
I think I would agree with you except in the situation where a Handle Animal skill would prevent it. If the animal is alone it and knows it's master isn't nearby it would likely try to escape. Otherwise... nope.
I can tell you that you can be an abusive master and still have loyalty in the real world. Whether through fear being trained into the animal of the repercussions of disloyalty (negative reinforcement) or with the animal still appreciating being fed and taken care of despite its mistreatment it can and does happen.
In the game world though it doesn't matter. You have the Handle Animal skill. If you make the check the critter does what you want it to. It doesn't get a save to resist. Loyalty isn't a factor of Handle Animal barring GM fiat.
I wouldn't just end it there though, I would have the AC rebel if it was abused enough. No rules on it, it just seems logical.
Quoting the entry for animal companions listed in the Druid class:
"The second option is to form a close bond with an animal companion. A druid may begin play with any of the animals listed in Animal Choices. This animal is a loyal companion that accompanies the druid on her adventures.
Unlike normal animals of its kind, an animal companion's Hit Dice, abilities, skills, and feats advance as the druid advances in level. If a character receives an animal companion from more than one source, her effective druid levels stack for the purposes of determining the statistics and abilities of the companion. Most animal companions increase in size when their druid reaches 4th or 7th level, depending on the companion. If a druid releases her companion from service, she may gain a new one by performing a ceremony requiring 24 uninterrupted hours of prayer in the environment where the new companion typically lives. This ceremony can also replace an animal companion that has perished."
Focusing on the bolded sections, I infer that loyalty plays a role, and although the rules aren't specific on this, I would think a Druid who beats their pet has effectively released it from service.
Of course, it's just my opinion. As you pointed out, the rules basically say you can saw your animal companions paws off one at a time and all the critter can do is sit there and watch you do it.
So, you mean to say that when the rules state, "This animal is a loyal companion that accompanies the druid on her adventures." that you are inferring that if the druid/ranger/etc treats their animal companion in a way that is not loyal that the animal companion becomes disloyal? That isn't what it says. It says that the "animal is a loyal companion". It doesn't talk about the master being loyal, it doesn't say why the animal is loyal and it doesn't give exceptions.
It says, "This animal is a loyal companion that accompanies the druid on her adventures." Period. Literally.
It could be loyal because of the negative reinforcement that it's master instilled in it for the punishment of disobeying. After all, evil NPCs can have ACs too. Do you think they all treat their animals well?
So, you mean to say that when the rules state, "This animal is a loyal companion that accompanies the druid on her adventures." that you are inferring that if the druid/ranger/etc treats their animal companion in a way that is not loyal that the animal companion becomes disloyal? That isn't what it says. It says that the "animal is a loyal companion". It doesn't talk about the master being loyal, it doesn't say why the animal is loyal and it doesn't give exceptions.
It says, "This animal is a loyal companion that accompanies the druid on her adventures." Period. Literally.
It could be loyal because of the negative reinforcement that it's master instilled in it for the punishment of disobeying. After all, evil NPCs can have ACs too. Do you think they all treat their animals well?
I'm not disagreeing with what is printed, I'm disagreeing with the finality people assign it.
Literally, you could saw off your companions paws, and RAW, they would do nothing.
If you want to treat the game as nothing more than rules, that is your choice.
At my table, we roleplay first, then refer to rules when required.
Sawing off your animal companions paws isn't even evil, because there are no rules regarding it.
So there you are, sitting in the public tavern, hacking apart your pet tiger (again, no rules say you can't do this), throwing the severed chunks at people (no rules prevent this either) all the while whistling a merry tune...
"What the heck? I'm gonna shave him and take off his tail and ears too, why not?"
Then as you get up to leave, you whistle to your mangled and nearly dead animal companion...
and he comes right to you, because you trained him too.
Rules compliant, sure. Likely situation? Nope.
The rules don't define the story, the characters actions do, so although you are technically correct in that the printed rules force your companion to do what you say, obviously situations like this have not been considered.
alexd1976: I understand that you are trying to come up with the most extreme example possible. It has not changed my opinion or much less what the rules state.
Saying that a character loses a class feature because they mistreated it needs a specific rule. They do exist. Cavaliers, Paladins, Samurais and others all have class abilities that can be removed if they do not follow a set of actions. Druid's/Hunters/Rangers/etc. do not have a rule like this for their ACs. Neither is there any rule similar to that for Handle Animal.
What you are proposing is that if a GM doesn't like how their character are treating their AC that they can take away the class feature. And (outside of GM fiat) that just isn't true.
Before you went down the wild tangent of sawing off your AC's paws this was about the Flank trick and whether or not using Handle Animal "forces" them to do something or not. If we could return to that topic briefly I stand by agreeing with the original person who stated that: "forcing" is an apt description.
alexd1976: I understand that you are trying to come up with the most extreme example possible. It has not changed my opinion or much less what the rules state.
Saying that a character loses a class feature because they mistreated it needs a specific rule. They do exist. Cavaliers, Paladins, Samurais and others all have class abilities that can be removed if they do not follow a set of actions. Druid's/Hunters/Rangers/etc. do not have a rule like this for their ACs. Neither is there any rule similar to that for Handle Animal.
What you are proposing is that if a GM doesn't like how their character are treating their AC that they can take away the class feature. And (outside of GM fiat) that just isn't true.
Before you went down the wild tangent of sawing off your AC's paws this was about the Flank trick and whether or not using Handle Animal "forces" them to do something or not. If we could return to that topic briefly I stand by agreeing with the original person who stated that: "forcing" is an apt description.
Yeah, I do that a lot... I like to exaggerate a situation to try to prove a point.
Sorry about that.
Tangents aside, the original question is easily answered, and has been.
Of course your AC can flank.
How often it does, how effectively... is not up to the player unless he has taught his AC the Flank trick, or pushes the animal.
The GM controls the animal, unless the character uses a trick or pushes.
So we are agreed? The PC can "force" his animal companion?
...boy we took the long way around that discussion. ;)
Other than tricks and pushing, the behaviour of the Animal Companion is entirely the GMs decision.
So if that is what we are talking about, then yes, we agree.
Nowhere does it say the animal companion will put up with deliberate abuse. Nowhere does it say it won't.
So neither of us has any text to quote.
I'm not talking about abuse. I'm stating that the master can FORCE his companion to do things. "Force" being the word that started this whole tangent in the first place.
So we are agreed? The PC can "force" his animal companion?
...boy we took the long way around that discussion. ;)
Absolutely, unequivocally, not.
Training does not "force" the creature to do anything. "Force" being measured on the scale of a compulsion magical effect that literally over-rides the normal behavior of the creature.
An animal trained through fear will obey as long as the threat of punishment remains real. As soon as that threat is removed, the animal will flee or turn on its abuser.
If you don't accept that, then we are coming at this from different assumptions, and just need to agree to disagree.
So we are agreed? The PC can "force" his animal companion?
...boy we took the long way around that discussion. ;)
Absolutely, unequivocally, not.
Training does not "force" the creature to do anything. "Force" being measured on the scale of a compulsion magical effect that literally over-rides the normal behavior of the creature.
An animal trained through fear will obey as long as the threat of punishment remains real. As soon as that threat is removed, the animal will flee or turn on its abuser.
If you don't accept that, then we are coming at this from different assumptions, and just need to agree to disagree.
I think you're making assumptions about animal psychology based on logic. Animal psychology isn't based on logic. The statement "an abused animal will flee from or turn on it's abuser" is by no means an absolute. As a human example, battered spouses don't leave at the first sign of abuse. Usually, an extremely strong external influence is needed to break the cycle of abuse. The psychology of social non-human animals isn't far distant.
If you read this and go "that doesn't seem intuitive to me," you're right, it's not intuitive. Physical abuse is psychologically damaging, and that damage can manifest in countless ways.
TL;DR:
If you aren't an expert in animal psychology, you aren't in a position to make an informed call on how an AC will react to repeated abuse.
It has been a very long time since I read a book by R.A. Salvatore, but I don’t remember his books being exceptionally bad.
Regarding the rules about the animal always taking AoOs, I did indeed read that rule as meaning that the AC never avoid attacks of opportunity as it moves into flank (and therefore “always takes” them). I'd rather discuss whether that's the correct ruling on the Flank trick and AoOs than ponder the likely behaviors of abused pets. Teaching your animal companion a trick which forces it to suffer AoOs even if it has the Acrobatics skill or Spring Attack seems like abuse enough.
The trick's already been linked before, so I won't again, but...
I mean, I can see how you guys read it that way, but it says the AC will always take AoOs. Absent a FAQ, I'm ruling it as the AC always MAKES AoOs it's due, and when I (the GM) move the AC into position, it'll move the most intelligent way possible. Probably charging up, then taking 2 ft steps next turn to get around back, or making a double move to wrap around.
The wording, to me, doesn't make any sense if it meant "the animal intentionally provokes if that's the fastest way to flank."
I think that the animal moving in a direct manner and provoking AoOs is indeed the intent. It makes even less sense to me that a trick which teaches an animal how to flank would also force the animal to always perform AoOs on enemies who provoke them (like presumably even when not flanking?) That said, I'd guess animals in general would probably tend to perform AoOs on enemies who provoke them (at least until a "Make AoO" trick comes out?)
The last statement there is mostly a joke...
|
Feats
Some abilities are not tied to your race, class, or skill—things like particularly quick reflexes that allow you to react to danger more swiftly, the ability to craft magic items, the training to deliver powerful strikes with melee weapons, or the knack for deflecting arrows fired at you. These abilities are represented as feats. While some feats are more useful to certain types of characters than others, and many of them have special prerequisites that must be met before they are selected, as a general rule feats represent abilities outside of the normal scope of your character's race and class. Many of them alter or enhance class abilities or soften class restrictions, while others might apply bonuses to your statistics or grant you the ability to take actions otherwise prohibited to you. By selecting feats, you can customize and adapt your character to be uniquely yours.
Notice that some feats represent "training" but that "as a general rule feats represent abilities outside of the normal scope of your character's race and class."
If you have a feat, it is an ability, in which training is subsummed. A Feat IS training. Unless the feat has a prerequisite, it does not require a prerequisite. You do not need to be trained to use your feat to the best advantage, whether you are a PC, an NPC, or a monster.
I think that the animal moving in a direct manner and provoking AoOs is indeed the intent. It makes even less sense to me that a trick which teaches an animal how to flank would also force the animal to always perform AoOs on enemies who provoke them (like presumably even when not flanking?) That said, I'd guess animals in general would probably tend to perform AoOs on enemies who provoke them (at least until a "Make AoO" trick comes out?)
The last statement there is mostly a joke...
The thing is that the line isn't needed to tell the animal what to do in re: getting attacked. The animal moves to flank, it either gets attacked or it doesn't.
The animal only makes a decision about "taking" attacks when somebody it threatens moves. Then, per the command, it always attacks.
ETA: It also seems counterintuitive that you would train your AC to provoke as many attacks as possible.
So we are agreed? The PC can "force" his animal companion?
...boy we took the long way around that discussion. ;)
Absolutely, unequivocally, not.
Training does not "force" the creature to do anything. "Force" being measured on the scale of a compulsion magical effect that literally over-rides the normal behavior of the creature.
An animal trained through fear will obey as long as the threat of punishment remains real. As soon as that threat is removed, the animal will flee or turn on its abuser.
If you don't accept that, then we are coming at this from different assumptions, and just need to agree to disagree.
Aside from why this is psychologically untrue which Dallium touched on, and why how you say an animal will react is also often untrue there is that whole rules thing. Nothing of what you said is true within the rules.
Just because a GM doesn't like the idea of an AC being abused by it's master doesn't give him the right to remove the character's Animal Companion class ability. That is what you would effectively be doing by saying "your animal flees from your abuse" or worse, using the class ability against the character. There is nowhere in the rules that it says that an AC will flee from the character or turn on them. You are making that up based on your opinion of how it should work in the real world.
But when we are talking about the Handle Animal skill it most certainly does "force" an animal to do what you are trying to get them to do with a successful check. They don't even get a saving throw like a charm or compulsion effect. It most certainly DOES override the normal behavior of the creature. That, in fact, is exactly what it does.
I agree that training your animal companion to suffer AoOs it could otherwise avoid seems counterproductive. Obviously people can draw different conclusions from reading that particular bit of the rules though, so perhaps a FAQ request is in order.
In a more general sense I wonder what Paizo's take on animal companions using the Acrobatics skill to avoid AoOs might be. If the expectation is that animal companions shouldn't use Acrobatics to avoid AoOs then not allowing them to use it when moving into flank would make perfect sense. If they generally can and would use Acrobatics to avoid AoOs then denying them the ability to do so when moving into flank seems odd.
Perhaps I'm "reading too much into the rules", but that's how RAW discussions often get. Since the rules seem vague I'd also like to acknowledge that those who interpret the always takes AoOs line to mean that the animal always performs an AoO when the enemy provokes one might be correct. If so then I think that raises an even bigger question about what the "default" behavior of an animal companion is when an enemy provokes an AoO. Does the AC always take the AoO? Does it take the AoO if that particular enemy was one the AC was already attacking with the Attack trick? Does it make the AoO or not based on GM whim? Does the player decide?
The attack trick doesn't require the handler to indicate a target. If you don't, "the animal attacks apparent enemies". I've always assumed that included the use of AoOs.
The text in the flank trick about "taking" AoOs directly follows the bit about the animal attempting to flank the foe. I've always assumed that the two sentences were related by proximity, and that the "taking" of AoOs was to be interpreted as taking those AoOs on the proverbial chin as a consequence of moving into a flanking position, not the animal making them itself.
Surely it makes more sense to have the trick describe the consequence of moving into a flanking position than to dodge into the completely unrelated topic of making or not making AoOs?
That's how I think, Forseti, but obviously there's some disagreement on this matter.