As DM I am about to rule that as animals are so dumb (i.e. Intelligence of 1 or 2) they will automatically through instinctive natural defence mechanisms attempt to resist any spell, even if it is cast by someone they are on "friendly" terms with, i.e. the master (so they would save against Cure Light Wounds, Anthromorphic Animal, Animal Growth). A spell would mess with their mind, wouldn't it? It would rattle them and they would instinctively react against it. Or am I wrong? I admit I am a little unsure.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
There are no rules on that, as far as I know. But I think your ruling is perhaps a bit too brutal, especially for classes that partially rely on animal companions.
I also don't agree with your rationale behind your decision. I think if an animal is on good enough terms with its master, it would not save against a harmless spell any more than it would defend itself against mundane healing. Both make the animal very vulnerable, but part of the good relationship between animal and master is that the animal is willing to make itself vulnerable to its master because it trusts them.
I think it would be entirely reasonable to have the animal try to make its saves against recent allies of its master who they don't yet know or, even more interesting, a master who mistreats it.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I think an animal knows how to use its listed abilities and doesn't otherwise know about magic. If it has Share Spells with its master, it'll accept spells that that person casts. It won't resist harmless spells unless they have some disturbing display. It will resist an effect that it senses is harmful, in the same way that a person drinking a tainted potion does.
I don't mean animal companions which is clearly special and where there is clearly a bond. What I do mean is your average regular animal that the spellcaster is briefly acquainted with, and that he has maybe fed some food to for a day or so. If the animal felt a sudden magical presence in its head wouldn't it instinctively attempt to save as it doesn't know what the hell is going on? (Note: I also think animals could be trained to accept spells (e.g. give it a treat everytime you start chanting, so that it eventually just accepts the spell treat or no treat.)
Animal Companions are not going to save against any friendly spell that is cast by an ally.
Generally, when you are subject to an unusual or magical attack, you get a saving throw to avoid or reduce the effect.A cure light wounds spell is not an "attack" unless you're undead.
A spell would mess with their mind, wouldn't it? It would rattle them and they would instinctively react against it.Let me offer some advice. Don't use real life as a basis for countermanding RAW in a game that is filled with magic and all manners of absurd and fantastical things. Doing so is going to lead to a tremendous amount of arbitrary and inconsistent outcomes. Pathfinder is a game. It's not real life and it the rules are not meant to simulate real life. There are bajillion things in the game that defy real life logic. So when you start inventing rules because suddenly one thing sticks out at you, it comes across as capricious and arbitrary to players.
The rules aren't designed to make real life sense, they are crafted to facilitate a game experience.
I disagree on your latter "advice." Lots of the rules are meant to simulate real life, that's why they are there in quite some detail such as drowning, weather conditions etc etc. It's up to individual DM how to run the game, of course, and if it's good players will play and enjoy and everyone's happy. I'm sure you agree. I run a gritty true-to-life game because that's how I want to run the game. We have a few house rules relating to making the game more realistic in the basics (e.g. double penalty for swimming in armour), although not many, because the rules do a superb true-to-life job. Hence my initial thinking about the animals as the witch just chose "Anthromorphic Animal" and I just began wondering if an animal's instincts would kick in against any magic interfering with its head unless it had been trained otherwise.
Let me emphasize ... I mean 1/ animals that have recently been met (such as a goat on a mountain track) and perhaps fed some tasty food (to make it "friendly") or 2/ a pet rat or pet lizard or pet anything who has a "master," who feeds it etc. I am NOT referring to an animal companion or anything like that as I believe they would already be taught that when the boss starts his verbal, somatic stuff you just grin and bear it and no problem. (sorry if I was unclear in the original post)
There's no "Receive spells" trick in the Handle Animal rules, which there presumably would be if it was supposed to be played that way. Though you could just set a DC for it.
Another example of the animal-save issue here ... In regard to casting Animal Growth on an animal? I want to cast it on a lizard. Not an attack on the lizard so it doesn't get a save?
However, what happens if I cast Animal Growth on a lizard to stop the lizard from moving through a small hole in a wall to attack me. That would be a kind of "offensive" intention to the spell.
So how would an animal of Intelligence 1 or 2 know when to save or when not to save?
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
The drowning rules are absolutely horse radish and can't be said to represent reality.
A character with 12 con can hold his breath for two and a half minutes before even starting to roll. That is huge.
Read up on the cold weather rules issues and you will see how absurd those are as well.
Basically it is impossible for any life you exist in regions were the temp drops below 40 farrenheit for any appreciable length of time.
The game is an abstraction, not a simulation.
There's no "Receive spells" trick in the Handle Animal rules, which there presumably would be if it was supposed to be played that way. Though you could just set a DC for it.
Well, just because it's not there doesn't mean they did think about it and decided against it. They might not have thought about it or opted to leave it out as the rulebook is hefty enough as it is. They have to leave some stuff out. And sometimes they then have to add stuff later. Good point on the Handle Animal, a simple DC15 I guess. I might even say it can be a free extra trick above the 3 and 6 rule for INT of 2 or 3. Also please refer to my lizard example. That shows that this question is worth discussing. (ok, the cure light wounds, yeah, whatever, but there are reasons why there should be a ruling on animal saves).
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
In my game I'd probably rule that any animal that basically trusts you would not resist you. In your lizard example, there's no trust, so the creature would instinctively save.
In my game I'd probably rule that any animal that basically trusts you would not resist you. In your lizard example, there's no trust, so the creature would instinctively save.
That's what I aim to do. But the issue is when does the trust kick in? Iwas thinking one week of being with the animal and feeding/caring for it. You seem to suggest in your reply that it is not training. I can imagine in my game the witch will toss the lizard some food and then 5 minutes later cast the Anthromorphic Animal or Animal growth spell on it and complain if I give it a save. So I want to give the witch a basic idea.
The drowning rules are absolutely horse radish and can't be said to represent reality.
A character with 12 con can hold his breath for two and a half minutes before even starting to roll. That is huge.
Read up on the cold weather rules issues and you will see how absurd those are as well.
Basically it is impossible for any life you exist in regions were the temp drops below 40 farrenheit for any appreciable length of time.
The game is an abstraction, not a simulation.
OK, not going to argue it, just saying in my group we enjoy slowly making each rule more realistic although we haven't got round to all of them yet. We will no doubt get round to dealing with the weather rules at some point. But for now we are happy and the dice continue to roll.
Another example of the animal-save issue here ... In regard to casting Animal Growth on an animal? I want to cast it on a lizard. Not an attack on the lizard so it doesn't get a save?
It does get a save, because Animal Growth says that it does.
However, what happens if I cast Animal Growth on a lizard to stop the lizard from moving through a small hole in a wall to attack me. That would be a kind of "offensive" intention to the spell.
It would still get a save.
So how would an animal of Intelligence 1 or 2 know when to save or when not to save?
It doesn't. In this case the save is automatic.
A spell, like Cure Light Wounds, that identifies the save with "(harmless)" does allow a creature to attempt a save or not. That is more problematic for something like a lizard. The phrasing is that "a targeted creature can attempt a saving throw if it desires" suggests to me that it requires an active and specific desire to get a save. I don't think that a lizard would be capable of making that decision.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
As DM I am about to rule that as animals are so dumb (i.e. Intelligence of 1 or 2) they will automatically through instinctive natural defence mechanisms attempt to resist any spell, even if it is cast by someone they are on "friendly" terms with, i.e. the master (so they would save against Cure Light Wounds, Anthromorphic Animal, Animal Growth).
Honestly I would say no. My gm has a degree in Animal Sciences or somesuch and she literally has a farm of animals as pets (dogs, cats, rats, rabbits, horse).
I see the 'trusted Alpha effect' as I like to call it every time she has to give them medicine or check them for ticks or bandage their scrapes when they fight or check them when they hurt themselves. While they may run from me they go right to her to get help.
Generally if the animal trusts the being, they won't resist the beneficial spells that friend/being/Alpha casts. Trust from animal to sentient DOES exist and those animals exist in a world where magic is real and part of their ecology since the dawn of time so spells are not really any different than getting fed to them.
Why would your pet NOT want to get that soothing magic heal spell that makes it's pain go away, or that pat on the head that makes them feal safer or stronger or faster etc?
Honestly there is no real reason to do what you suggest. It will have no beneficial impact on your game.
That's what I aim to do. But the issue is when does the trust kick in?
When the player successfully uses Handle Animal on the creature and gets it domesticated I would say that a bond of trust has been formed between the animal and the trainer (and with those the trainer has the animal spend time with for this purpose), as long as that trainer has not been abusive and treats the animal well.
As a general rule of thumb if you consider the animal in question an ALLY of the party, it won't make unneeded saves. If the animal is NOT an ally (meaning it is wary, suspicious, wild or aggressive) it will take it's saves.
That said, using 'Handle Animal' to calm a wild creature or scared animal enough to try and cure it is a valid use of the skill.
I think I will go with if a PC has been with an animal for a week and has not abused it in any way and makes a successful Handle Animal check then a bond of trust has been formed. The animal then will not resist spells cast by the person or anyone else involved closely with the animal during the "training." Although teaching a trick is not quite involved I will rule the "training" need not be intensive and being on the road is fine so long as the animal is not injured/terrified.
If the animal has not been "trained" (meaning it is wary, suspicious, wild or aggressive) it will take it's saves. That said, using "Handle Animal" to calm a wild creature or scared animal enough to try and cure it is a valid use of the skill.
Thanks to Gilfalas and others who helped me come to this decision. I needed to decide before tomorrow's session so your advice was valuable. I may adjust/change my ruling later so I will read further comments if made.
I don't mean animal companions which is clearly special and where there is clearly a bond. What I do mean is your average regular animal that the spellcaster is briefly acquainted with, and that he has maybe fed some food to for a day or so. If the animal felt a sudden magical presence in its head wouldn't it instinctively attempt to save as it doesn't know what the hell is going on? (Note: I also think animals could be trained to accept spells (e.g. give it a treat everytime you start chanting, so that it eventually just accepts the spell treat or no treat.)In this case, you should base it on the attitude of the creature towards the caster, using the Diplomacy table. The rules for Wild Empathy state that a domestic animal starts out as indifferent and and wild animal is unfriendly.
I would rule that indifferent creatures will not resist harmless spells but unfriendly ones will, and Friendly creatures will intentionally fail their save.
When the player successfully uses Handle Animal on the creature and gets it domesticated I would say that a bond of trust has been formed between the animal and the trainerPer RAW, I would disagree with that. HA has nothing to do with changing the attitude of animal to the trainer. I've seen a lot of homebrew games where Handle Animal is substituted for Wild Empathy. Training an animal does not make it trust you. Caring and feeding for animal makes it trust. There are plenty of unfriendly animals that will follow commands because they are trained to follow commands, not because the animal has any level of trust.
Granted, most trainers care for the animals that they train and certainly any good trainer is able to establish some sort of rapport with the animal. But as I said above, this is a game, not real life so the rules don't reflect any robust reality.
...
I think I will go with if a PC has been with an animal for a week and has not abused it in any
Cool. Thanks a lot. That's really helpful. I will read this through and undoubtedly apply some of it. By putting "training" in quotes I basically meant "looking after it/hanging out with it," by the way. The other points useful. Thanks.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
To put it another way, the game rules are like a knit wool sweater with a lot of loose ends. If you start pulling on one of those loose thread to try and make it look better, you're most likely going end up unraveling it and doing more harm than good.
I'm not convinced that applies to all the rules. Maybe the combat ones, but if you make people drown 30 seconds sooner, or make polar bears not freeze to death in the snow, or make it so that you can't use Handle Animal to tell a horse to attack its rider, I don't think that's going to break anything.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I am sorely tempted to flag this as "wrong forum" since the OP is basically proposing a house rule and asking for opinions.
Instead, I think I'll just add this, emphasizing that it's entirely a house-rule suggestion.
Have the animal make a sense motive check. If it succeeds, it reacts appropriately, accepting well-intentioned spell casting and resisting hostile spell casting. If it fails, it instinctively resists a spell that it doesn't understand.
I am sorely tempted to flag this as "wrong forum" since the OP is basically proposing a house rule and asking for opinions.
Instead, I think I'll just add this, emphasizing that it's entirely a house-rule suggestion.
Have the animal make a sense motive check. If it succeeds, it reacts appropriately, accepting well-intentioned spell casting and resisting hostile spell casting. If it fails, it instinctively resists a spell that it doesn't understand.
Not sure what you mean about flagging my post as wrong forum. My question sums it up ... DO ANIMALS INSTINCTIVELY TRY AND SAVE AGAINST ANY SPELL, EVEN IF CAST BY ITS "MASTER"? Isn't that a rule question? I obviously can't find the answer so I am thinking of the house rule. For the future, which forum should I have put this question/thread on?
OK, not going to argue it, just saying in my group we enjoy slowly making each rule more realistic although we haven't got round to all of them yet. We will no doubt get round to dealing with the weather rules at some point. But for now we are happy and the dice continue to roll.And I'm telling you that you're headed down the rabbit hole. When I first started playing 3.5 with another GM, we went down this road. Every time we came across one of the many many many rules that seem superficially silly, we thought we were so clever for figuring out how to make it "better" or more "realistic." My personal pet peeve was the flat-footed rule and the ridiculousness of how that rule is implemented. A person with a 1000 DEX is no better off than a person with a 10 DEX, but a person with an 8 DEX is worse off than both...by the same amount.
Then I realized something, the rules are the way they are to facilitate other things in the game. The flat-footed rules are there to enable things like sneak attack and as a counter balance to Touch AC. So when we started mucking around with the rules in our hubris to "fix it," we just ended up breaking more things downstream.
Yes, you can do whatever you want with the game. But the rules are co-depedent and by that I mean Rule C is "balanced" around Rule A working the way it does. When the game authors wrote Rule C, they did it based on how Rule A works. So when you change how Rule A works, you're unwittingly screwing up Rule C and Rule G which also depends on Rule C, and so on.
To put it another way, the game rules are like a knit wool sweater with a lot of loose ends. If you start pulling on one of those loose thread to try and make it look better, you're most likely going end up unraveling it and doing more harm than good.
Honestly my group is having fun with adjusting certain rules and others that don't make sense we are fine with also. It's not a big deal. And we love Pathfinder. So we play it. And this kind of debate is getting away from my original question and the theme of this thread. This isn't about changing rules. so much It's about animals and their saving throws.
A v.good question..... but one that is just a tad pedantic for my liking!
You go down this path and things get murky!
You are obviously meant to cast spells on your critter. Critter buffs are on the spell list. You can cast spells on your critter regardless of its type.
If the rule was that creatures resisted spells, since they're paired with a spell casting class, there would have to be a trick or something to get around it. Since such a trick doesn't exist, that probably isn't the rule.
You are obviously meant to cast spells on your critter. Critter buffs are on the spell list. You can cast spells on your critter regardless of its type.
If the rule was that creatures resisted spells, since they're paired with a spell casting class, there would have to be a trick or something to get around it. Since such a trick doesn't exist, that probably isn't the rule.
Since he's not talking about an Animal Companion, Familiar, or Mount I'm confused about what you mean by "paired with a spell casting class."
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
When there are no rules for doing something, then it's not a rules question, but Suggestions/House Rules/Homebrew.
The initial "Are there any rules for this that I don't know about ?" is a rules question, but "Since there aren't any rules for this, what should I do ?" is advice/suggestion/Homebrew.
Having been smacked before for making homebrew suggestions in a rules thread, I am trying hard not to be irked.
When there are no rules for doing something, then it's not a rules question, but Suggestions/House Rules/Homebrew.
The initial "Are there any rules for this that I don't know about ?" is a rules question, but "Since there aren't any rules for this, what should I do ?" is advice/suggestion/Homebrew.
Having been smacked before for making homebrew suggestions in a rules thread, I am trying hard not to be irked.
I didn't know if there were rules for it or not. There might have been some that I was unaware of. That's why I asked the question in the first place. People have pointed out a lot of rules which have been very helpful and have helped me come to my conclusion about this situation.
When there are no rules for doing something, then it's not a rules question, but Suggestions/House Rules/Homebrew.
No.
When there is no directly stated rule for something you move on to making the best extrapolation you can from the available rules. It might not be an objective answer but it's still the rules.
There is no rule that says your head doesn't explode when you eat a strawberry. So the question is does your head explode when you eat a strawberry? Saying "no" is not a suggestion or house rule.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
If there is no bond between the animal and the caster, the default rules for NPCs should apply. Most NPCs will accept "harmless" spells unless they have reason to distrust the caster and will resist non-harmless spells unless they have reason to trust the caster. In this case, the caster has treated the animal well but is not well known to it, so the animal's attitude should be mildly friendly -- more than enough to prevent resisting "harmless" spells but not enough to accept non-harmless ones.
Attacks will always get a save unless the creature decides not to save. There is no rule for when an animal won't save against someone it is familiar with. It is a corner case so it falls to the DM to decide. I would call for a high handle animal check to get the animal to not save, if I allowed it at all.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
On the other hand friendly spells do not grant saves except under certain conditions and the default assumption is that no save I'd granted.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Would the animal let you run its belly?
Yes, it lets you cast a spell on it
No, it will try to resist
cat it lets you cast the first two spells and then bites you the second you start a third.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Would the animal let you run its belly?
Yes, it lets you cast a spell on it
No, it will try to resist
cat it lets you cast the first two spells and then bites you the second you start a third.
Or maybe poops in your shoe later