Lady-J wrote:
the ruling is flawed as there is no difference between an animal with an int of 3 and a humanoid with an int of 3 they are just as sentient
Paizo doesn't see it that way.
Just to be clear I am only speaking of the game rules, and that is what the others are saying. They ruled that even with an int of 3 you still need handle animal checks. Even an intelligent animal will be limited by its nature. That is pretty much what an int 3 does for animals in PF. It lets them do things that normal animals can't do, but it doesn't change them completely.
Anything outside of that is a houserule.
Moonheart wrote: That's probably completly wrong, because I'm prettry sure there is absolutly no rule stating that an int of 3 is a sufficient condition to be qualitifed as "sentient", but who cares?
I already explained to you that becoming sentient is not going to make any creature magicaly become also magicaly dominated and thus forced to obey your every whim without you needing to roll some skill to convaince it.
So, it's still irrelevant for the current topic.
In 3.5 it was the rule, int 2 means sapient int 3 means sentient (and Magical Beast). However thats 3.5 and this is Pathfinder, and the rules are clear even if they dont make sense and are just there to prevent exploits.
That said if those rules werent there gaining sentience would make it obey your commands. Your special bond with your animal companion and the explicit wording " A sentient companion (a creature that can understand language and has an Intelligence score of at least 3) is considered your ally and obeys your suggestions and orders to the best of its ability. It won't necessarily blindly follow a suicidal order, but it has your interests at heart and does what it can to keep you alive." means its highly likely to follow your orders unless it thinks of what it considers a better plan. Its not dominated to do so, but chances are it respects you enough and your battle judgement to do so. Relevant parts bolded
The FAQ is just standard Paizo damage control of anything which could get out of hand and actively counteracts their own printed definition of what a sentient animal is and how it acts. But one of the reasons people like Pathfinder over 3.5 is it keeps overpowered tricks to a minimum.
@Baval: Ok, let me add the full text you omitted, and bold the true relevant parts of it:
Quote: 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.
Sentient Companions: a sentient companion (a creature that can understand language and has an Intelligence score of at least 3) is considered your ally and obeys your suggestions and orders to the best of its ability. It won’t necessarily blindly follow a suicidal order, but it has your interests at heart and does what it can to keep you alive. Paladin bonded mounts, familiars, and cohorts fall into this category, and are usually player-controlled companions. (Note from myself: note there is no "animal companion" in this list)
---------------
Intelligent Animals
Increasing an animal’s Intelligence to 3 or higher means it is smart enough to understand a language. However, unless an awaken spell is used, the animal doesn’t automatically and instantly learn a language, any more than a human child does. The animal must be taught a language, usually over the course of months, giving it the understanding of the meaning of words and sentences beyond its trained responses to commands like “attack” and “heel.”
Even if the animal is taught to understand a language, it probably lacks the anatomy to actually speak (unless awaken is used). For example, dogs, elephants, and even gorillas lack the proper physiology to speak humanoid languages, though they can use their limited “vocabulary” of sounds to articulate concepts, especially if working with a person who learns what the sounds mean.
An intelligent animal is smart enough to use tools, but might lack the ability to manipulate them. a crow could be able to use simple lockpicks, but a dog can’t. Even if the animal is physically capable of using a tool, it might still prefer its own natural body to manufactured items, especially when it comes to weapons. An intelligent gorilla could hold or wield a sword, but its inclination is to make slam attacks. No amount of training (including weapon proficiency feats) is going to make it fully comfortable attacking in any other way.
Even if an animal’s Intelligence increases to 3 or higher, you must still use the Handle Animal skill to direct the animal, as it is a smart animal rather than a low-intelligence person (using awaken is an exception—an awakened animal takes orders like a person). The GM should take the animal’s Intelligence into account when determining its response to commands or its behavior when it doesn’t have specific instructions. For example, an intelligent wolf companion can pick the weakest-looking target if directed to do so, and that same wolf trapped in a burning building might push open a door or window without being told.
Lady-J wrote: that's because animals are far more intelligent then the game gives them credit for and are there for poorly made rules while there are some dumb animals that would fall under the kind of rules currently in place for animals not all of them fall into that category some of whom are nearly on par with humans and a small handful are smarter This again ? How long are you going to hammer this intelligence argument when I explained you three times already that intelligence is totaly irrelevant on the matter?
Are we going to do the whole thread again from the beginning because you don't make any effort to integrate the elements of information that were given to you?
1) it makes sense around int 3 or 4. 5, 6, 10? It starts to not.
2) its kind of a moot point. With minimal investment in handle animal and the right tricks the critter does what you want anyway 99% of the time.
BigNorseWolf wrote: 1) it makes sense around int 3 or 4. 5, 6, 10? It starts to not. I've explained why it makes sense, but seems I could as well piss in the snow... so your turn: please explain me in what the fact a creature reach 10 intelligence suddently turns it into a perfectly submissive being that would suddently jump into the lava with no check needed if you asked for it?
Moonheart wrote: BigNorseWolf wrote: 1) it makes sense around int 3 or 4. 5, 6, 10? It starts to not. I've explained why it makes sense, but seems I could as well piss in the snow... so your turn: please explain me in what the fact a creature reach 10 intelligence suddently turns it into a perfectly submissive being that would suddently jump into the lava with no check needed if you asked for it? Since I'm not making that claim, try again.
You claim that it makes no sense to be needed to make an handle animal checks toward an animal with 6 intelligence (I'm not talking of 10, since animal companion can't naturaly reach 10 int anyway)
I surely did an exageration speaking of a suicidal order like jumping into lava, but besides that, saying that upon hearing an order that doesn't look too suicidal, the animal will obey you everytime.
So please explain why, by your understanding, becoming more intelligent make a living creature suddently willing to obey every of your non-harmful command without question?
Moonheart wrote:
So please explain why, by your understanding, becoming more intelligent make a living creature suddently willing to obey every of your non-harmful command without question?
Fido the T rex is willing to obey my commands pretty much the same way that Leafy tree the druid is. It's less the druid ordering it than the player having an idea of what they want their two characters to do.
Also, that isn't that much different than a free action can't miss on a 1 dc 10 handle animal check, which even Surly the 8th dwarf they don't talk about much can make around 3rd level.
It is a lot!
I told it several times already in this thread, but you need to not forget that Pathfinder is a roleplaying game.
Not all feats and features are just mechanical battle benefits with no consequences: many are also roleplaying mechanics meant to bring flavor to the adventure.
The Animal Companion feature is one of them, and not one of the smallest: it's meant to add a flavor element similar to the one to own your own real dog in real life: i.e. you have creature by your side which loves you a lot, but yet is an independant living being acting on its own will until you train it to perform a small set of orders, and show enough autority to trigger those orders when you decide so.
By its nature, the Animal Companion is meant to be a NPC naturaly prone to misbehave in many situations, simply because it does not understand the world the same way than its master.
The master is in return supposed to think ahead to predict the pitfall and prevent the animal to do something wrong, in return of the advantage of a bit of extra combat power.
For exemple, let say you explore a dongeon: An animal would naturaly wander slightly around you be simple curiosity, and perhaps walk on a trap on the way.
To prevent this, the master is supposed to train your animal to understand the "Follow" keyword, that he could use in such situation to prevent an accident.
That's part of the "price" the player have to pay to have such an ally by your side, and just not take a feat and say "oy, now I have only benefits and no work to do"
Naturaly, some DM just handle player the control of the animal companion without caring about it. But you gotta ask yourselves: is it truly the kind of game you want to play?
Acting always like this is just turning Pathfinder in some kind of dumb wargame where you just have to follow rules and rolls, optimize your character and win encounters... which would be a true waste.
A true, well used Animal Companion is far much more interesting that a simple walking, automated, living weapon.
It's a f@!@ing roleplaying machine that can suddently, while you start to negociate with a king, decide to walk casualy between the royal guards and lick the face of the king because he ate some delicious-smelling roasted meat just before your audience!
--------------------
To summarize: The way an animal companion works is totaly replicated from the real world relation between human and dogs, because it brings a realistic element that can be used in thousand of ways by both DM and players.
And this is the core reason why intelligence increase does not change the need for Handle Animal checks: doing so will transform this companion character into a fully predictable, and thus terribly less interesting, element of the game.
Handle Animal and the NPC status of the animal companion bring small chances of failure to be exploited by the DM, either due to very bad dice throws, or problem of misinterpretation of the orders recieved by the creature.
It's not a judgment on the intelligence of real-life animal but a pure decision of game-design.
Moonheart wrote: A true, well used Animal Companion is far much more interesting that a simple walking, automated, living weapon. I think you underestimate interest in living weapons.
lol I gave you the stick for this one, Haywire :)
Moonheart wrote: It is a lot!
I told it several times already in this thread, but you need to not forget that Pathfinder is a roleplaying game.
Not all feats and features are just mechanical battle benefits with no consequences: many are also roleplaying mechanics meant to bring flavor to the adventure.
The Animal Companion feature is one of them, and not one of the smallest: it's meant to add a flavor element similar to the one to own your own real dog in real life: i.e. you have creature by your side which loves you a lot, but yet is an independant living being acting on its own will until you train it to perform a small set of orders, and show enough autority to trigger those orders when you decide so.
By its nature, the Animal Companion is meant to be a NPC naturaly prone to misbehave in many situations, simply because it does not understand the world the same way than its master.
The master is in return supposed to think ahead to predict the pitfall and prevent the animal to do something wrong, in return of the advantage of a bit of extra combat power.
For exemple, let say you explore a dongeon: An animal would naturaly wander slightly around you be simple curiosity, and perhaps walk on a trap on the way.
To prevent this, the master is supposed to train your animal to understand the "Follow" keyword, that he could use in such situation to prevent an accident.
That's part of the "price" the player have to pay to have such an ally by your side, and just not take a feat and say "oy, now I have only benefits and no work to do"
Naturaly, some DM just handle player the control of the animal companion without caring about it. But you gotta ask yourselves: is it truly the kind of game you want to play?
Acting always like this is just turning Pathfinder in some kind of dumb wargame where you just have to follow rules and rolls, optimize your character and win encounters... which would be a true waste.
A true, well used Animal Companion is far much more interesting that a simple walking, automated, living...
not all animals are dogs so comparing all animal companions to dogs is silly
Moonheart wrote: @Baval: Ok, let me add the full text you omitted, and bold the true relevant parts of it:
Quote: 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.
Sentient Companions: a sentient companion (a creature that can understand language and has an Intelligence score of at least 3) is considered your ally and obeys your suggestions and orders to the best of its ability. It won’t necessarily blindly follow a suicidal order, but it has your interests at heart and does what it can to keep you alive. Paladin bonded mounts, familiars, and cohorts fall into this category, and are usually player-controlled companions. (Note from myself: note there is no "animal companion" in this list)
---------------
Intelligent Animals
Increasing an animal’s Intelligence to 3 or higher means it is smart enough to understand a language. However, unless an awaken spell is used, the animal doesn’t automatically and instantly learn a language, any more than a human child does. The animal must be taught a language, usually over the course of months, giving it the understanding of the meaning of words and sentences beyond its trained responses to commands like “attack” and “heel.”
Even if the animal is taught to understand a language, it probably lacks the anatomy to actually speak (unless awaken is used). For example, dogs, elephants, and even gorillas lack the proper physiology to speak humanoid languages, though they can use their limited “vocabulary” of
...
I didnt omit any of it. I referenced only the relevant part, that being the actual definition of sentience in Pathfinder and a description of how a sentient companion acts. The parts youre bolding have no relevance.
The first part regarding what is a non sentient animal is a list of examples, not a hard list. The definition of what is sentient is provided. It specifically defines a sentient animal as one with int of 3 that can understand a language. A list of examples doesnt change the definition, nor is it reasonable to expect a list of examples to include every possible situation that could possibly come up when a hard rule (an animal with with int 3 and can understand languages) was already defined. The wording supports this, using "fall into this category" rather than "comprise this category".
The second part regarding still needing handle animal is an FAQ which i addressed. It is a damage control faq like the "hands of effort" one or a number of others and is just damage control for potentially overpowered builds and not anything that actually makes sense. It is however still the official rules.
Learn to read other peoples posts if youre going to be cocky.
Moonheart wrote: Lady-J wrote: that's because animals are far more intelligent then the game gives them credit for and are there for poorly made rules while there are some dumb animals that would fall under the kind of rules currently in place for animals not all of them fall into that category some of whom are nearly on par with humans and a small handful are smarter This again ? How long are you going to hammer this intelligence argument when I explained you three times already that intelligence is totaly irrelevant on the matter?
Are we going to do the whole thread again from the beginning because you don't make any effort to integrate the elements of information that were given to you? Intelligence is not irrelevant in the slightest as Lady-J is correct that it is 50% of the defining characteristic of sentience in Pathfinder, and 100% in 3.5.
Intelligence like all ability scores is not relative to the creature it is an absolute number. A creature with an int of 10 IS as smart as the average human, whether its a mindflayer (making it dumb for mindflayer) or a dog (making it incredibly intelligent for dogs)
Moonheart wrote: BigNorseWolf wrote: 1) it makes sense around int 3 or 4. 5, 6, 10? It starts to not. I've explained why it makes sense, but seems I could as well piss in the snow... so your turn: please explain me in what the fact a creature reach 10 intelligence suddently turns it into a perfectly submissive being that would suddently jump into the lava with no check needed if you asked for it? You havent, youve explained why it would make sense in a relative system, but ability scores are an absolute system. A dog with an int of 18 isnt super smart for a dog, its a genius even by human standards. It would be able to understand not only that its companion is in danger but what the danger is, why it should help them, and if it has the relevant skill checks or none are required how it can help them. To the point that a dog with ranks in heal could be expected to preform CPR to stabilize a dying player or similar crazy in the real world acts.
Moonheart wrote: You claim that it makes no sense to be needed to make an handle animal checks toward an animal with 6 intelligence (I'm not talking of 10, since animal companion can't naturaly reach 10 int anyway)
I surely did an exageration speaking of a suicidal order like jumping into lava, but besides that, saying that upon hearing an order that doesn't look too suicidal, the animal will obey you everytime.
So please explain why, by your understanding, becoming more intelligent make a living creature suddently willing to obey every of your non-harmful command without question?
Becoming more intelligent doesn't make it willing to obey you, it already was willing to obey you, it allows it to understand orders it didnt previously.
Handle animal to make an animal do a trick doesn't make wild animals obey you, it makes tame animals understand you. This is specifically called out in the definition of sentient animal companions.
fun fact if a dog had an int of 18 it would be as smart as Albert Einstein
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Lady-J wrote: fun fact if a dog had an int of 18 it would be as smart as Albert Einstein I would vote for Dr Genius Dog.
However, this is a game, there is a specific exception for animals, so no.
DM_aka_Dudemeister wrote: Lady-J wrote: fun fact if a dog had an int of 18 it would be as smart as Albert Einstein I would vote for Dr Genius Dog.
However, this is a game, there is a specific exception for animals, so no. The exception is only that you still need to use handle animal for some reason, it is still that smart.
Moonheart tldr summation: you role play badly
And we're done here.
Lady-J wrote: fun fact if a dog had an int of 18 it would be as smart as Albert Einstein It would be as smart as einstein with 7 years of life experience, no education, and raised by strange beings who dont fully understand humans and that he canr
T talk to
Lady-J wrote: not all animals are dogs so comparing all animal companions to dogs is silly It's not a comparison, it's a game design choice. If you had to factor the kind of an animal into how to handle it as a companion, you'll need 70 pages of rules only for this, due to the influence of its degree of wilderness, its place into the food chain, its pack mentality or lack off, its age, its mating season and more.......
A dog behavior is simple to grasp for players as this animal behavior as a companion for humans is known relatively well by anyone, so the game made the choice to say any companion behave toward his master like a dog to keep the game process around such a comoanion relatively fluent.
A real life tiger can still jump on his master to kill him after YEARS of training, which should mean that if you were not treating it as a dog in pathfinder, any critical failure at handle animal would make the tiger attack you with a true intent to kill.
This would make your point about arguing for a perfectly controlable animal companion even less relevant.
(RE-editing, because I wrote something completly unclear...)
Baval wrote: I didnt omit any of it. I referenced only the relevant part, that being the actual definition of sentience in Pathfinder and a description of how a sentient companion acts. The parts youre bolding have no relevance.
The first part regarding what is a non sentient animal is a list of examples, not a hard list. The definition of what is sentient is provided. It specifically defines a sentient animal as one with int of 3 that can understand a language. A list of examples doesnt change the definition, nor is it reasonable to expect a list of examples to include every possible situation that could possibly come up when a hard rule (an animal with with int 3 and can understand languages) was already defined. The wording supports this, using "fall into this category" rather than "comprise this category".
The second part regarding still needing handle animal is an FAQ which i addressed. It is a damage control faq like the "hands of effort" one or a number of others and is just damage control for potentially overpowered builds and not anything that actually makes sense. It is however still the official rules.
Learn to read other peoples posts if youre going to be cocky.
That's truly a sentence you should't conclude with as you didn't in fact read what I've written in my other posts, and you're being twice as cocky as I am.
For exemple, if you readed my earlier posts, you would have known that if that text started as an FAQ in 2011 it was later made part of official printed rules in 2013, and then incorporated in the official online SRD.
And thus, you should have known that it makes you "it's just FAQ" argument obsolete even before writting it.... because it's litteraly RAW now.
Then, on the point of being cocky, how do you qualify someone that dismiss whole sentences of the rules on the behalf -he- decide they are just exemples when NOWHERE it's written they are?
And dismiss the validity of what official rule writters say as a clairfication to the said rules under the pretext they wrote it in an FAQ?
And that state which part of the rule is more important than another one (like when you say the part in () in the earlier quotes is more important than the list of companions fitting in a category) even when the people of paizo say its the other part which has priority?
You litteraly, by holding that ground, put your own opinion above the one of the people that created the game!
Talking about being cocky... at least I only think I'm more right than some other players here, not than the authors themselves.
BigNorseWolf wrote: Lady-J wrote: fun fact if a dog had an int of 18 it would be as smart as Albert Einstein It would be as smart as einstein with 7 years of life experience, no education, and raised by strange beings who dont fully understand humans and that he canr
T talk to Well, given that the "culture"/instinct of a dog is one relative to the food chain and the absolute dominance of alpha member, I imagine very well a genius dog try to dominate every member of its surrounding so they provide food and security for free...
Wait... isn't it what every dog already recieve from its humans "master" ?
My god, we're being decieved from the begining!
Moonheart wrote: Baval wrote: I didnt omit any of it. I referenced only the relevant part, that being the actual definition of sentience in Pathfinder and a description of how a sentient companion acts. The parts youre bolding have no relevance.
The first part regarding what is a non sentient animal is a list of examples, not a hard list. The definition of what is sentient is provided. It specifically defines a sentient animal as one with int of 3 that can understand a language. A list of examples doesnt change the definition, nor is it reasonable to expect a list of examples to include every possible situation that could possibly come up when a hard rule (an animal with with int 3 and can understand languages) was already defined. The wording supports this, using "fall into this category" rather than "comprise this category".
The second part regarding still needing handle animal is an FAQ which i addressed. It is a damage control faq like the "hands of effort" one or a number of others and is just damage control for potentially overpowered builds and not anything that actually makes sense. It is however still the official rules.
Learn to read other peoples posts if youre going to be cocky.
That's truly a sentence you should't conclude with as you didn't in fact read what I've written in my other posts, and you're being twice as cocky as I am.
For exemple, if you readed my earlier posts, you would have known that if that text started as an FAQ in 2011 it was later made part of official printed rules in 2013, and then incorporated in the official online SRD.
And thus, you should have known that it makes you "it's just FAQ" argument obsolete even before writting it.... because it's litteraly RAW now.
Then, on the point of being cocky, how do you qualify someone that dismiss whole sentences of the rules on the behalf -he- decide they are just exemples when NOWHERE it's written they are?
And dismiss the validity of what official rule writters say as a clairfication to the said rules under the pretext... See this is a prime example. I *did* read what you said and offered a rebuttal to them. I said that the FAQ is a damage control FAQ to the way things did work in 3.5. The rules are lifted straight from that with the extra bit from the FAQ tacked on.
*Every* FAQ or errata answer is RAW. Thats the point of them, to clarify what is RAW. However Paizo often likes to change what is actually RAW (which they didnt themselves actually write remember since theyre lifted from 3.5) to try and curb what they see as overpowered abilities. Again, this is shown by the fact that their addition directly contradicts the definition of sentient companions actions. Indeed the wording "it is a smart animal rather than a low-intelligence person" shows whoever wrote the FAQ doesnt understand how objective ability scores work. For another related example go look at the essay on how animal companions will act after awakened from animal archive, which directly contradicts the awaken animal spell. So no I don't put myself above the people who created the game (Wizards of the Coast), but I do at times consider myself less prone to knee jerk reactions than the people who modified the game(Paizo) and this is why as a DM I will often ignore nonsensical FAQs, even if they get printed. Note however that I did say twice through this thread that official Pathfinder rules are you still need to use Handle Animal and that cant be overruled without a house rule.
I am able to ignore certain irrelevant parts such as the list by using simple reading skills. For example in the following sentence:
A dictator (a ruler with total power over a country, typically one who has obtained power by force) will often be harmful to his country. Adolf Hitler, Benito Mussolini, and Mao Zedong fall into this category.
You'll notice that I used the exact same format and wording as the sentient companion listing. It is understood that the list is not a compiled list of every possible and past dictator, and that instead you should refer to the definition to determine on your own what qualifies. In general you can ignore lists from any given definition except as clarification *unless* the list specifically says the list is all inclusive. The lists in the companion definitions do not.
All of this, all of it, I already explained in my previous post. So now Ive read and rebutted everything you said, lets see if you bother to read what I say.
Wow, I have never seen so many people whining like little kids about how the rules don’t make sense (even though they do in fact make sense) while simultaneously calling the people who aren’t agreeing with their factually wrong protests names. Like god d***, grow the f*** up and either don’t play pathfinder or accept the rules.
Back on topic, since the game supports theoretically infinitely leveled characters, and there are archetypes which let you divide your effective druid levels between as many animal companions you want, you can take a theoretically infinite amount of animal companions. However high you go in epic levels is how many animal companions you get.
Reksew_Trebla wrote: Wow, I have never seen so many people whining like little kids about how the rules don’t make sense (even though they do in fact make sense) while simultaneously calling the people who aren’t agreeing with their factually wrong protests names. Like god d***, grow the f*** up and either don’t play pathfinder or accept the rules.
Back on topic, since the game supports theoretically infinitely leveled characters, and there are archetypes which let you divide your effective druid levels between as many animal companions you want, you can take a theoretically infinite amount of animal companions. However high you go in epic levels is how many animal companions you get.
They make sense huh? Ok. Ill leave it to you to explain how "can understand a language and obeys your orders to the best of its ability" and "cant understand you and/or wont obey you unless you teach it a trick" both make sense when talking about the same subject.
Nice thing about roleplaying games is I dont have to accept the bad rules to play the game, I can change any that dont make sense.
But, that’s already been explained, several times in this thread. So the fact that you are asking for an explanation that has already been given to you can only mean you are trolling. Great, now I’m sad, because apparently even this awesome site gets trolls.
Reksew_Trebla wrote: But, that’s already been explained, several times in this thread. So the fact that you are asking for an explanation that has already been given to you can only mean you are trolling. Great, now I’m sad, because apparently even this awesome site gets trolls. No, it has not been explained, so why don't you explain it.
How do you reconcile two directly opposing traits on the same subject. It's really easy to try and take the high ground and tell people to grow up or dismiss any argument you dont have an answer to as "youre just trolling" but its a lot harder to actually back up your claims.
|
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
My cat knows i want him to come inside.
He just takes perverse joy in standing in doorways.
|
2 people marked this as a favorite.
|
Maybe he’s a cleric of Alseta?
OMG now I want to make a catfolk cleric of Alseta...
Baval wrote: Reksew_Trebla wrote: But, that’s already been explained, several times in this thread. So the fact that you are asking for an explanation that has already been given to you can only mean you are trolling. Great, now I’m sad, because apparently even this awesome site gets trolls. No, it has not been explained Literally every time you brought it up it was countered in this thread. Just reread the posts opposing you, except this time actually accept the fact that you could be wrong instead of being an a** and assuming everyone not agreeing with you is automatically wrong.
The short answer, since your a troll, thus I know you won’t actually do that, is that those two things do NOT in fact both apply to animals. Animals don’t understand languages just cause they gained a 3 or more in intelligence, it takes several years to learn one, and even after learning one, they still have their natural instincts and thus won’t just obey you just because they know what you are saying.
Now I know you’re just going to call me wrong because I’m not agreeing with you, so I’m not going to bother replying again, because you know, do not feed the trolls and what not.
The rules say what they say. It's not unclear.
Animal companions regardless of intelligence require tricks and handle animal for them to take actions as desired by their PC handler. If this doesn't make sense to you or is illogical...well it's your prerogative to change it for your home games, but there's no sense in arguing it here.
Reksew_Trebla wrote: Baval wrote: Reksew_Trebla wrote: But, that’s already been explained, several times in this thread. So the fact that you are asking for an explanation that has already been given to you can only mean you are trolling. Great, now I’m sad, because apparently even this awesome site gets trolls. No, it has not been explained Literally every time you brought it up it was countered in this thread. Just reread the posts opposing you, except this time actually accept the fact that you could be wrong instead of being an a** and assuming everyone not agreeing with you is automatically wrong.
The short answer, since your a troll, thus I know you won’t actually do that, is that those two things do NOT in fact both apply to animals. Animals don’t understand languages just cause they gained a 3 or more in intelligence, it takes several years to learn one, and even after learning one, they still have their natural instincts and thus won’t just obey you just because they know what you are saying.
Now I know you’re just going to call me wrong because I’m not agreeing with you, so I’m not going to bother replying again, because you know, do not feed the trolls and what not. Cute how you think anyone who disagrees with you is a troll, youll go far with that attitude.
Youre the first person to bring up that the animal doesnt instantly learn a language, and while thats true fluffwise its irrelevant since mechanically as soon as I give it a rank in linguistics it does.
Your argument for after having one is "it still has its natural instincts and thus wont just obey you" to which I counter with the *printed rules* " sentient companion (a creature that can understand language and has an Intelligence score of at least 3) is considered your ally and obeys your suggestions and orders to the best of its ability."
So yes it will, or else you once again have to explain how "obeys your orders to the best of its ability" and "wont obey you unless you teach it a trick" both make sense when talking about the same subject who can understand you.
Oh but wait, Im a troll so you wont respond again.
Claxon wrote: The rules say what they say. It's not unclear.
Animal companions regardless of intelligence require tricks and handle animal for them to take actions as desired by their PC handler. If this doesn't make sense to you or is illogical...well it's your prerogative to change it for your home games, but there's no sense in arguing it here.
I agree completely (and have said so about 3 times now), however I do enjoy discussing the logic behind rules. Theres no doubt that in any official Pathfinder strict game Id have to follow these rules (if i ever used an animal companion) but that doesn't mean they make sense.
Reksew_Trebla wrote: Baval wrote: Reksew_Trebla wrote: But, that’s already been explained, several times in this thread. So the fact that you are asking for an explanation that has already been given to you can only mean you are trolling. Great, now I’m sad, because apparently even this awesome site gets trolls. No, it has not been explained Literally every time you brought it up it was countered in this thread. Just reread the posts opposing you, except this time actually accept the fact that you could be wrong instead of being an a** and assuming everyone not agreeing with you is automatically wrong.
The short answer, since your a troll, thus I know you won’t actually do that, is that those two things do NOT in fact both apply to animals. Animals don’t understand languages just cause they gained a 3 or more in intelligence, it takes several years to learn one, and even after learning one, they still have their natural instincts and thus won’t just obey you just because they know what you are saying.
Now I know you’re just going to call me wrong because I’m not agreeing with you, so I’m not going to bother replying again, because you know, do not feed the trolls and what not. everything in game with an int of 3 or higher understands language, that is raw it also does not take years to learn a new language it takes a nights rest and one extra point into linguistics
thats actually wrong lady-j, they need to take the linguistics before they can understand a language
Baval wrote: thats actually wrong lady-j, they need to take the linguistics before they can understand a language PFS has a rule that they need a point of linguistics. According to the monkey see monkey do blog they just get it after an unspecified amount of time and work.
BigNorseWolf wrote: Baval wrote: thats actually wrong lady-j, they need to take the linguistics before they can understand a language PFS has a rule that they need a point of linguistics. According to the monkey see monkey do blog they just get it after an unspecified amount of time and work. I think that blog is wrong. The rules of the game say anything needs to put a point into linguistics to understand a language. Another thing is that blog treats the gaining the intelligence as something that just happens overnight, and not the eventual result of a gaining thats been happening the whole last level as its supposed to represent
The blog also says awakened animals might leave eventually when the blog says that your most recent awakened animal obeys your commands
Baval wrote: thats actually wrong lady-j, they need to take the linguistics before they can understand a language if an ooze has an int of 3 they can know common
pulled right from the book/paizo rules website
Creatures incapable of speech have an Intelligence score of 2 or lower.
meaning if you have 3 int or more you are capable of speech which means you are capable of language
Baval wrote:
I think that blog is wrong.
Blogs are really big FAQ subjects, so this is kind of like saying that the rules are wrong.
Quote: The rules of the game say anything needs to put a point into linguistics to understand a language. So human fighters without ranks in linguistics are limited to points and grunts?
If you mean something else, provide a citation.
Quote: Another thing is that blog treats the gaining the intelligence as something that just happens overnight, and not the eventual result of a gaining thats been happening the whole last level as its supposed to represent Leveling is kind of funny in the game, but its a necessary abstraction
BigNorseWolf wrote: Baval wrote:
I think that blog is wrong.
Blogs are really big FAQ subjects, so this is kind of like saying that the rules are wrong.
Quote: The rules of the game say anything needs to put a point into linguistics to understand a language. So human fighters without ranks in linguistics are limited to points and grunts?
If you mean something else, provide a citation.
Quote: Another thing is that blog treats the gaining the intelligence as something that just happens overnight, and not the eventual result of a gaining thats been happening the whole last level as its supposed to represent Leveling is kind of funny in the game, but its a necessary abstraction
Paizo is working with rules they didnt write. The rules are right here, Paizos interpretation of them is wrong. Paizo pretty much always skews its faqs in the direction of whichever ruling will cause the least exploits regardless of what the rules actually say or what would make logical sense.
Human Fighters start with common and possibly racial languages. Animals do not. To learn a new language a creature needs to put ranks in linguistics. Common might be a language almost every creature who can speak speaks (and even then not all), but its not a divine magical language zapped into your brain.
Lady-J wrote: pulled right from the book/paizo rules website
Creatures incapable of speech have an Intelligence score of 2 or lower.
meaning if you have 3 int or more you are capable of speech which means you are capable of language
Capable doesn't mean you automatically know one. Humans are capable of learning every language but that doesn't mean they automatically do. See my above comment about common and zapping.
Also you got it backwards. Int 3 means capable of learning a language, it does not mean capable of speech.
Baval wrote: Animals do not. To learn a new language a creature needs to put ranks in linguistics. Please realize you are claiming that paizo isn't following the rules they made up without even bothing to cite a contradiction.
To learn a new language a creature needs to put ranks in linguistics.<---- Where is this coming from? Where is the rule, or what rule are you drawing this inference from?
BigNorseWolf wrote: Baval wrote: Animals do not. To learn a new language a creature needs to put ranks in linguistics. Please realize you are claiming that paizo isn't following the rules they made up without even bothing to cite a contradiction.
To learn a new language a creature needs to put ranks in linguistics.<---- Where is this coming from? Where is the rule, or what rule are you drawing this inference from? Please realize you are claiming Paizo made up rules that are copied from Wizards of the Coast word for word. And I already cited several contradictions, such as awakened animals leaving or not obeying you despite the awaken spell explicitly stating the most recent one obeys your orders.
That is what the linguistics skill does. Every rank in it is a new language. If your DM lets you learn languages without it thats their call, but its the same as letting a player use dex to hit without weapon finesse.
Baval wrote:
That is what the linguistics skill does. Every rank in it is a new language. If your DM lets you learn languages without it thats their call, but its the same as letting a player use dex to hit without weapon finesse.
You are making leap of logic to reach a rules interpretation and using that interpretation to say that paizo is wrong.
That absolutely doesn't work.
Just because you learn a new language with a rank in linguistics does not mean that there's no other way to acquire a language. In fact, most characters start with a language despite having zero ranks in linguistics.
A--->B
C---> Not B.
Your interpretation of the rules is not the rules. There is no contradiction here.
BigNorseWolf wrote: Baval wrote:
That is what the linguistics skill does. Every rank in it is a new language. If your DM lets you learn languages without it thats their call, but its the same as letting a player use dex to hit without weapon finesse.
You are making leap of logic to reach a rules interpretation and using that interpretation to say that paizo is wrong.
That absolutely doesn't work.
Just because you learn a new language with a rank in linguistics does not mean that there's no other way to acquire a language. In fact, most characters start with a language despite having zero ranks in linguistics.
A--->B
C---> Not B.
Your interpretation of the rules is not the rules. There is no contradiction here.
I didnt say there was no other way to acquire a language. I specifically said already that every PC race starts with at least 1 language, please read what I actually say. In addition there are class abilities and feats and the like that can give you languages.
However the way you dont get a language is telling your DM "btw i know this new language now for reasons" because hes going to ask "did you put ranks in linguistics?"
Because thats how the rules work. If something allows you to do something you cant do it without that thing unless you have another way to do it in the rules. Otherwise feats and skills and everything else are useless.
Now if your DM says "you have been living with elves for 5 years and picked up elven" thats his call. The same as if he says "youve been training in the pits for 5 years so now you can Power Attack"
Baval wrote: I didnt say there was no other way to acquire a language. You are arguing as if that is the case. What you said was read. What you said was considered. What you argued is being objected to on it's own merits. If that bothers you change your position because the idea that there's a contradiction here is completely unfounded.
Quote: Because thats how the rules work. If something allows you to do something you cant do it without that thing unless you have another way to do it in the rules. Otherwise feats and skills and everything else are useless. This is completely made up. Thats not whats happening at all.
Sentient creatures (those with int 3+) start with a language. Animals don't start out with a language. I don't know if this rule is spelled out anywhere, but its a heck of a trend.
An animal companion starts knowing no languages, but becomes sentient (or sapient if you prefer) and gains an int 3. Does it get a language?
That was a bonified gray area "there are no rules that cover this" situation. The blog filled in that blank with a yes. PFS filled that blank in with a "get a point in linguistics".
None of the rules you're citing to the contrary are actually rules, nor do they logically follow from any rules that you're citing. Calling the official blog a house rule because you have a terrible argument against it is.. i don't know if its the height of hubris but you're climbing way up there for a view.
BigNorseWolf wrote: Baval wrote: I didnt say there was no other way to acquire a language. You are arguing as if that is the case. What you said was read. What you said was considered. What you argued is being objected to on it's own merits. If that bothers you change your position because the idea that there's a contradiction here is completely unfounded.
Quote: Because thats how the rules work. If something allows you to do something you cant do it without that thing unless you have another way to do it in the rules. Otherwise feats and skills and everything else are useless. This is completely made up. Thats not whats happening at all.
Sentient creatures (those with int 3+) start with a language. Animals don't start out with a language. I don't know if this rule is spelled out anywhere, but its a heck of a trend.
An animal companion starts knowing no languages, but becomes sentient (or sapient if you prefer) and gains an int 3. Does it get a language?
That was a bonified gray area "there are no rules that cover this" situation. The blog filled in that blank with a yes. PFS filled that blank in with a "get a point in linguistics".
None of the rules you're citing to the contrary are actually rules, nor do they logically follow from any rules that you're citing. Calling the official blog a house rule because you have a terrible argument against it is.. i don't know if its the height of hubris but you're climbing way up there for a view. Youre just saying random things now. "what you said was read". Ok, then if thats the case why did you point out twice in a row that humans have a starting language. "If that bothers you change your position because the idea that there's a contradiction here is completely unfounded. " You havent even *mentioned* the contradiction i brought up (that an awakened creature both obeys and might not obey your orders) you just keep talking about languages. Youre not very good at either arguing or reading.
And then you go on to argue that you can do things without the relevant skills or feats for them?
I dont want to play whatever game youre playing in where the core framework of the game is ignored. Its one thing to say "im ignoring this rule it doesnt make sense" and another entirely to say "im ignoring the concept of the game having rules"
"Sure you can finesse without weapon finesse. Yeah you can speak as many languages as you want"
Theres no hard rule that every creature with an int of 3 or more has a language. That is just a common occurrence because most things with an int of 3 or more values langauge. The Carbuncle has an int of 6 and has no language.
http://www.d20pfsrd.com/bestiary/monster-listings/magical-beasts/carbuncle/
nor does the devil dog, not even a way of communicating
http://www.d20pfsrd.com/bestiary/monster-listings/magical-beasts/devil-dog- tohc/
There is no grey area here. You only get languages from int when your character is first created. Raising int afterwards does not allow you to learn new languages unless you put skills in linguistics or have another ability such as a class feature or feat that specifically say you can.
|
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
I very much agree with Baval, Lady-J, and BNW. In my home game I specifically suggested our Hunter/Samurai to put her Tiger's first stat point increase in Int, and a skill point in Linguistics when she could, cuz it saves me a headache (since I'm inexperienced as a DM)...
Then again I also allowed her to take Beast Rider (at 1st level) in exchange for Mounted Archer, and suggested Hunter and specifically Pack Master when she found a second animal she wanted to add as a pet (a hyena, that she intimidated cuz it was working for the enemy). She now has found a Roc egg she wants to hatch as well x3
|
