I see that the Monstrous Mount feat is legal for PFS play, but I have a question about it.
Can a Mad Dog Barbarian take this feat? The requirements are worded such that an argument can be made that since a Mad Dog does not gain "Hunters Bond" they do not qualify for this feat. Has there been a clarification?
|
I'd be more concerned with the fact that they're still covered under Handle Animal rules despite the fact that some of them have 5 Int as a base and one of them can speak.
I have a Cavalier with a Griffon Mount that took Intelligence increases at every opportunity, and has its own headband. He has Intelligence 9, and a Ring of Eloquence (he Speaks and Understands 4 languages and understands several more).
I apparently need Handle Animal to direct the actions of a creature smart enough to debate philosophy with their rider.
|
I'd be more concerned with the fact that they're still covered under Handle Animal rules despite the fact that some of them have 5 Int as a base and one of them can speak.
I have a Cavalier with a Griffon Mount that took Intelligence increases at every opportunity, and has its own headband. He has Intelligence 9, and a Ring of Eloquence (he Speaks and Understands 4 languages and understands several more).I apparently need Handle Animal to direct the actions of a creature smart enough to debate philosophy with their rider.
As none of the monstrous mounts are animals you should not need handle animal. Handle Animal is not specifically required for Animal Companions... it is just required for Animal Companions that are animals.
Of course, if an animal had 9 INT you would need handle animal. But so sayeth the rules.|
|
As written only a couple of classes with fitting class features can take this feat, which excludes hunters among others. I am not aware of any comment that increases the number of classes that can access this feat.
One of the very few additional classes(outside of cavalier, Paladin and Ranger) that has a Mount class feature is the Vigilante archetype, Mounted Fury.
Venture-Agent, Netherlands—Utrecht
|
The discussion whether you still need Handle Animal pops up every once in a while. While it seems to make sense that Handle Animal is only for animals, and not Magical Beasts like Griffons and Worgs, that interpretation is really dangerous to the team. Yes, a Worg has a decent INT score and is capable of voicing its dissent, but if you're a Cavalier and your mount refuses to run at the scary dragon, you've wasted your turn. Similarly, it's unrealistic that any animal companion will do exactly what it's told, even if it's suicidal, why should magical beasts be any different? If you need to roll opposed Diplomacy checks whenever you want your Griffon to do something, that takes up a lot of time and energy best spent elsewhere.
By the strictest interpretation of the rules I'd agree that Handle Animal wouldn't be the best choice, the lack of a reasonable alternative means it's your best option. Hell, when I was doing research for my Treesinger, I found one post on this forum stating that your plant companion isn't subject to Handle Animal, but the poster didn't offer any alternatives. According to him, they're just wild beings that might as well turn on its master as soon as their whim allows it.
TL;DR: Though it's not ideally phrased, the intent is clear. If there are two interpretations and one interpretation makes the class not work as intended, the other option must be the preferable one.
|
|
The discussion whether you still need Handle Animal pops up every once in a while. While it seems to make sense that Handle Animal is only for animals, and not Magical Beasts like Griffons and Worgs, that interpretation is really dangerous to the team. Yes, a Worg has a decent INT score and is capable of voicing its dissent, but if you're a Cavalier and your mount refuses to run at the scary dragon, you've wasted your turn. Similarly, it's unrealistic that any animal companion will do exactly what it's told, even if it's suicidal, why should magical beasts be any different? If you need to roll opposed Diplomacy checks whenever you want your Griffon to do something, that takes up a lot of time and energy best spent elsewhere.
By the strictest interpretation of the rules I'd agree that Handle Animal wouldn't be the best choice, the lack of a reasonable alternative means it's your best option. Hell, when I was doing research for my Treesinger, I found one post on this forum stating that your plant companion isn't subject to Handle Animal, but the poster didn't offer any alternatives. According to him, they're just wild beings that might as well turn on its master as soon as their whim allows it.
TL;DR: Though it's not ideally phrased, the intent is clear. If there are two interpretations and one interpretation makes the class not work as intended, the other option must be the preferable one.
The plant companions are non-sentient. While not animals... handle animal is the closest approximation for controlling them. But RAW there is no perfect answer that I'm aware of.
But Magical Beasts are sentient. They would be controlled the same way you control a cohort... through speech. The thing to be remembered is an animal companion is friendly with their master and actively helpful.
The biggest problem here is that, with the different rules interactions, animal companions have become so changeable that the base rules no longer cover every possibility.
|
•Intelligence score of 1 or 2 (no creature with an Intelligence score of 3 or higher can be an animal). LINK
You are trained at working with animals, and can teach them tricks, get them to follow your simple commands, or even domesticate them.
-
Handle an Animal: This task involves commanding an animal to perform a task or trick that it knows.
-
"Push" an Animal: To push an animal means to get it to perform a task or trick that it doesn't know but is physically capable of performing.
-
Teach an Animal a Trick: You can teach an animal a specific trick
LINK
I would say that a creature that was once an Animal but increases their Int above 2 is no longer an Animal Type, and is not governed by Handle Animal any longer. They can understand your spoken words and body language enough to act on their own similar to an Eidolon or Familiar. No check is required, normally, the player just controls their second character and can RP it as agreeing or not as they wish.
They no longer know or use Tricks, they simply act. Diplomacy/Intimidate might be required to have them do something particularly dangerous or stupid, but that's a DM call.
|
|
•Intelligence score of 1 or 2 (no creature with an Intelligence score of 3 or higher can be an animal). LINK
You are trained at working with animals, and can teach them tricks, get them to follow your simple commands, or even domesticate them.
-
Handle an Animal: This task involves commanding an animal to perform a task or trick that it knows.
-
"Push" an Animal: To push an animal means to get it to perform a task or trick that it doesn't know but is physically capable of performing.
-
Teach an Animal a Trick: You can teach an animal a specific trick
LINKI would say that a creature that was once an Animal but increases their Int above 2 is no longer an Animal Type, and is not governed by Handle Animal any longer. They can understand your spoken words and body language enough to act on their own similar to an Eidolon or Familiar. No check is required, normally, the player just controls their second character and can RP it as agreeing or not as they wish.
They no longer know or use Tricks, they simply act. Diplomacy/Intimidate might be required to have them do something particularly dangerous or stupid, but that's a DM call.
I wish. But they have specifically said that raising an animals INT does not make them sentient. My home games are less rigid in this regard.
Venture-Lieutenant, Netherlands—Leiden
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Animals are normally defined by having 1-2 Int. So in that sense, you should have just never been allowed to raise that Int above 2 with ability score increases. That would have nipped a lot of issues in the bud.
Now however we're in the situation that "creatures with Int 3+ are sentient, except if they're animal companions because animals are never sentient".
RPG Superstar 2013 Top 8
|
I have a Cavalier with a Griffon Mount that took Intelligence increases at every opportunity, and has its own headband. He has Intelligence 9, and a Ring of Eloquence (he Speaks and Understands 4 languages and understands several more).
I assume that your mount took the Extra Item Slot feat twice to get a ring slot and headband slot? Otherwise it only has a barding and neck slot per this FAQ.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Animals are normally defined by having 1-2 Int. So in that sense, you should have just never been allowed to raise that Int above 2 with ability score increases. That would have nipped a lot of issues in the bud.
Now however we're in the situation that "creatures with Int 3+ are sentient, except if they're animal companions because animals are never sentient".
That's exactly what I do in my home games. If an animal companion doesn't have the animal type (it's a magical beast, usually) I say you can increase its int past 2; otherwise, no dice. It drives me nuts that animal companion intelligence undermines the foundations of 3.x/pathfinder ability scores that way--ability scores were designed as "objective" and a magical beast with 10 int is equivalent to a humanoid with 10 int and is equivalent to an aberration with 10 int. Besides, if it's "still an animal, with animal intelligence" and you still need Handle Animal to manage it, how does it qualify for the broader variety of feats that require intelligence? It's kind of nonsensical. A bolted-on quality-of-life improvement that's inconsistent with the rest of the system.
Of course, for PFS, you can't make that ruling. Animal companions of all types can have more than 2 int and as long as they're an animal companion you need to use handle animal to manage them. Even if it acts like a diplomacy check against an int 12 mount.
|
The discussion whether you still need Handle Animal pops up every once in a while. While it seems to make sense that Handle Animal is only for animals, and not Magical Beasts like Griffons and Worgs, that interpretation is really dangerous to the team. Yes, a Worg has a decent INT score and is capable of voicing its dissent, but if you're a Cavalier and your mount refuses to run at the scary dragon, you've wasted your turn. Similarly, it's unrealistic that any animal companion will do exactly what it's told, even if it's suicidal, why should magical beasts be any different? If you need to roll opposed Diplomacy checks whenever you want your Griffon to do something, that takes up a lot of time and energy best spent elsewhere.
By the strictest interpretation of the rules I'd agree that Handle Animal wouldn't be the best choice, the lack of a reasonable alternative means it's your best option. Hell, when I was doing research for my Treesinger, I found one post on this forum stating that your plant companion isn't subject to Handle Animal, but the poster didn't offer any alternatives. According to him, they're just wild beings that might as well turn on its master as soon as their whim allows it.
TL;DR: Though it's not ideally phrased, the intent is clear. If there are two interpretations and one interpretation makes the class not work as intended, the other option must be the preferable one.
If your intelligent mount refuses to charge a dragon when the character wants to, then you as a player have serious issues. As an intelligent creature, it's under the player's control. So this is a "player being an idiot" issue because they're the ones controlling their mount.
It's really quite simple. You use the rules for advancing your mount as per the Animal Companion class feature. Your mount isn't an animal so it doesn't require handle animal checks.
|
|
I would say that a creature that was once an Animal but increases their Int above 2 is no longer an Animal TypePer the Monkey See, Monkey Do blog, you'd be wrong.
Note that while the monster guidelines talk about a maximum Int for an animal, this only applies to the creation process. Giving an animal a higher Intelligence score does not somehow transform it into a magical beast, unless the effect says otherwise, such as in the case of awaken. Animals can grow to have an Int higher than 2 through a variety of means, but they should not, as a general rule, be created that way.
Yah, I had forgotten it was a PFS specific thread when I posted.
|
Venture-Lieutenant, Netherlands—Leiden
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Monkey See Monkey Do says a lot about animals, and how you can't un-animal them by raising their Intelligence. But Monstrous Mounts aren't animals at any point, so MSMD shouldn't apply to them at all.
My take is that you don't need any skill or ability to give them orders; they're like familiars in that respect.
|
Venture-Agent, Netherlands—Utrecht
|
Okay, let's try it the other way around: how are you supposed to control Monstrous Mounts, if not with Handle Animal? A Worg and a Griffon are the only mounts capable of understanding Common naturally; how are you supposed to train a Hippogriff? Stick a rank in Linguistics and have it understand your language? Seems a bit counterintuitive.
Basically, the mount advances as an animal companion and not as a Magical Animal, why would training it be any different? I'm sticking to Occam's Razor here: if there's a simple interpretation and a complicated interpretation, the simple one is the easiest to adopt.
|
Venture-Lieutenant, Netherlands—Leiden
|
A word and a griffin don't need to be controlled. They're sentient and on
your side.
A hippogriff has Int 2, so is subject to Handle Animal, and can be taught tricks. Handle Animal works (with a bit of a DC hike) on Int 1-2 Magical Beasts. If it's Int rises to 3, it becomes sentient and you can use normal language.
The rules just say they advance as an animal companion; there's nothing "Occam's Razor" about adding more requirements to that than is actually there.
I don't need a special skill to command my phantom, shadow, eidolon or familiar. Why would I need it for my magical beast mount with sentience?
|
Venture-Agent, Netherlands—Utrecht
|
I'm simply not a fan of a subsection of things not behaving like other things from that section, especially if there's no internal consistency within that subsection itself.
Phantoms, shadows, eidolons and familiars are all described how they function in their own section. Since magical beast mounts lack that, it makes sense to me they default to their parent class, rather than inventing your own rules.
|
Venture-Agent, Netherlands—Utrecht
|
Some of the Monstrous Mounts are also excellent pets aside from being just mounts. I could see a Ranger picking one as an animal companion and not intend to ride it. If you don't spend that stat bonus on an INT boost, that means your mount is essentially uncontrollable, which just seems weird to me. Too special to count as an animal, too dumb to understand orders.
|
|
I'm simply not a fan of a subsection of things not behaving like other things from that section, especially if there's no internal consistency within that subsection itself.
Phantoms, shadows, eidolons and familiars are all described how they function in their own section. Since magical beast mounts lack that, it makes sense to me they default to their parent class, rather than inventing your own rules.
Animal Companions are not one set of creatures. They are multiple sets of creatures.
An animal is not a plant is not a magical beast is not a verminous creature.
These all have their own rules to follow. With animals being unique in that they are non-sentient even if their INT raises above 2.(Notice that familiars, ACs, phantoms, eidolons and shadows do not actually say how they are controlled as that isn't a facet of those class features... control is based on sentience and creature type)
Actually, there is a tiny post on the Monkey See, Monkey Do blog that states plants also do not become sentient by raising their INT. But it isn't in a FAQ. It does also confirm the core of what I've been talking about though.
A sentient creature may be communicated with just as you would communicate with the cleric in your party or any cohort you might have. It doesn't matter their creature type or companion type. It matters if they are sentient or not.
Some reading I'd suggest for you would be the Ultimate Campaign section on controlling companion beings. It goes over these concepts.
|
Venture-Agent, Netherlands—Utrecht
|
Thanks for pointing me at Ultimate Campaign, that clarifies a lot. But still not everything, and you brought it up yourself: vermin companions. They're technically not animals, and definitely don't have enough intelligence to understand human language. I'd say because it falls under "Nonsentient companions," and that section specifically calls out using Handle Animal, that suffices. Same with plant companions and dumb magical animals.
I'm inclined to say "if it's dumb, treat it as an animal companion, if it's smart, treat it as a sentient companion." But I'm still not happy about not treating all of the monstrous mounts the same way.
|
|
Thanks for pointing me at Ultimate Campaign, that clarifies a lot. But still not everything, and you brought it up yourself: vermin companions. They're technically not animals, and definitely don't have enough intelligence to understand human language. I'd say because it falls under "Nonsentient companions," and that section specifically calls out using Handle Animal, that suffices. Same with plant companions and dumb magical animals.
I'm inclined to say "if it's dumb, treat it as an animal companion, if it's smart, treat it as a sentient companion." But I'm still not happy about not treating all of the monstrous mounts the same way.
Vermin are handled explicitly in the rules. Page 36 of Ultimate Magic where they are introduced.
"Vermin companions follow the same rules as animal companions, advancing their Hit Dice and other abilities per Table: Animal Companion Base Statistics. Vermin companions can be trained as if they were animals using the Handle Animal skill."
Plants are the only creature that I know of that you can get as a companion that does not cover how to control it. Or at least I haven't found a quote yet that explains it. Other than the quote you spoke of.
"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. You can direct them using the Handle Animal skill, but their specific behavior is up to the GM."
|
Venture-Lieutenant, Netherlands—Leiden
|
I'm inclined to say "if it's dumb, treat it as an animal companion, if it's smart, treat it as a sentient companion." But I'm still not happy about not treating all of the monstrous mounts the same way.
It's a simple rule that makes sense and covers every case.
That not all monstrous mounts are treated equal is a logical consequence of not all of them being equal.
Thanks folks. I am assuming that there is no FAQ by a developer out there that allows all classes who can gain an "Animal Companion" the ability to use this feat.
The Intelligence of the Animal Companion/Magical Beast and how to control it was not something I was concerned about.
|
Venture-Agent, Netherlands—Utrecht
|
I'm inclined to say "if it's dumb, treat it as an animal companion, if it's smart, treat it as a sentient companion." But I'm still not happy about not treating all of the monstrous mounts the same way.It's a simple rule that makes sense and covers every case.
That not all monstrous mounts are treated equal is a logical consequence of not all of them being equal.
I'm a big fan of simplicity of rules. In Pathfinder, everything works the same. There are rarely exceptions to rules, and I like that. The lack of an internal consistency annoys me on a fundamental and philosophical level.
|
Venture-Lieutenant, Netherlands—Leiden
|
Thanks folks. I am assuming that there is no FAQ by a developer out there that allows all classes who can gain an "Animal Companion" the ability to use this feat.
The Intelligence of the Animal Companion/Magical Beast and how to control it was not something I was concerned about.
I guess monstrous mounts remain restricted to classes that get companions specifically intended as mounts (even if they don't always use them that way).
|
|
I guess monstrous mounts remain restricted to classes that get companions specifically intended as mounts (even if they don't always use them that way).Thanks folks. I am assuming that there is no FAQ by a developer out there that allows all classes who can gain an "Animal Companion" the ability to use this feat.
The Intelligence of the Animal Companion/Magical Beast and how to control it was not something I was concerned about.
And rangers. Ranger ACs are not built around being mounts. Otherwise the small birds wouldn't make sense.