There was one tidbit I picked up:
Animal companions (and summoned creatures, and probably familiars too) require one of your actions to command, and themselves have only two actions to play with.
I can't remember where I got that from, but it was from an official source—probably Jason Bulmahn in a Q&A at a convention. It might now be on the ENWorld compiled PF2 information page if you want to check.
There was one tidbit I picked up:
Animal companions (and summoned creatures, and probably familiars too) require one of your actions to command, and themselves have only two actions to play with.
So like the Mechanic in Starfinder. That’s good news, I thought they did a good job with that and hope to see an even more improved implementation.
And if gaining a companion is based on a skill feat then that’s super cool. Animal companions for all yo, I want to play a Rogue with a monkey companion that picks locks or an alchemist with a mutagen-addicted Octopus he keeps on a jar.
|
There was one tidbit I picked up:
Animal companions (and summoned creatures, and probably familiars too) require one of your actions to command, and themselves have only two actions to play with.
I can't remember where I got that from, but it was from an official source—probably Jason Bulmahn in a Q&A at a convention. It might now be on the ENWorld compiled PF2 information page if you want to check.
I wouldn't be surprised if that were true. In the Know Direction interview with Erik and Logan, Logan talked about summon spells and (I believe) mentioned that summons get 2 actions. Makes sense that companions would be in the same space.
It does make sense. A summon or pet gives you a bit of extra action economy - trading one action for two - but not so brokenly as to get a full extra turn. At least until the inevitable Master feat that does give your summons and pets three actions for one, and then the Legendary followup that lets them take three actions at no cost to you.
There was one tidbit I picked up:
Animal companions (and summoned creatures, and probably familiars too) require one of your actions to command, and themselves have only two actions to play with.
I can't remember where I got that from, but it was from an official source—probably Jason Bulmahn in a Q&A at a convention. It might now be on the ENWorld compiled PF2 information page if you want to check.
Jason said this during the Q&A at the end of the Game Trade Media playtest. (video link here, timestamp 1:44:15)
Meh...
I wonder if it’s an action every round, or if you can just direct them at a target.
Summons can act on the round they’re summoned, so I don’t think they cost an action per round- it’s three actions and a spell as an up front cost.
Hmm. If companions take an action to direct, I wonder what the pre-command state is. Animal companions might have a default of guarding you- stay in an adjacent square and attack enemies who attack you.
As I've written elsewhere, I'd like to see a greater distinction between really dumb animals, e.g. reptiles, and smarter/easier to command ones, e.g. domesticated or partly-domesticated mammals.
Currently, dinosaurs get significant natural armor bonus and other combat-friendly features, while taking no penalty for the fact that they really weren't all bright.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Currently, dinosaurs get significant natural armor bonus and other combat-friendly features, while taking no penalty for the fact that they really weren't all bright.
Uh...we have no idea how bright dinosaurs were. Some of the predatory ones, like a deinonychus, give every evidence of being quite bright.
Dinosaurs frequently demonstrated pack hunting, ambush, and herd defense strategies just like modern animals. We can't say how smart they were or were not, but on the whole, probably not too far off from modern animals. Even for those who we know the brain size, that actually doesn't say much: a cat has a bigger brain than a rat but a rat is smarter than a cat.
There's other factors too we just can't judge. How did the differing chemicals in their diet affect their nervous system and metabolic function? What effect did the higher oxygen concentration in the ancient atmosphere have on this? Etc. There's nothing we can definitively say without a time machine.
|
|
Summons can act on the round they’re summoned, so I don’t think they cost an action per round- it’s three actions and a spell as an up front cost.
Hmm. If companions take an action to direct, I wonder what the pre-command state is. Animal companions might have a default of guarding you- stay in an adjacent square and attack enemies who attack you.
I was thinking about this, and if the default is 1 action to order 2, I wonder if the "3 actions" for a summon might be 2 to cast + 1 to command.
Pure speculation! (The Erik and Logan interview where they talked about it was kinda unclear, sounded like details might not be final?)
Point taken about our lack of detaled knowledge about dinosaur intelligence. However, I think we can say that on average mammals are smarter than reptiles. Also, I am not aware of any domesticated reptiles (using domesticated in its fullest sense).
I’d like to see the followin Int spread for animals
1 - dumb animals
2 - average intelligence animals
3 - smart animals
4 - exceptionally smart animals, mechanically similat to Int 3 animals currently
We have smart birds, though, and a quick Google says that there are some reptiles that test in the mammal/avian range (monitor lizards being especially smart). I know you’re talking on average, but it seems unfair to only look at reptiles and not birds.
|
|
Point taken about our lack of detaled knowledge about dinosaur intelligence. However, I think we can say that on average mammals are smarter than reptiles. Also, I am not aware of any domesticated reptiles (using domesticated in its fullest sense).
Dinosaurs (especially stuff like deinonychus) were more closely related to birds than they are to most modern reptiles. Birds are pretty smart, as animals go.
Hmmm... I'm kind of alright with reduced action economy on pets from a game balance point of view. I'm hoping they don't just sit there with a stupid look on their face when you're too busy not dying to tell them to run away from the dragon. And hopefully the more permanent pets are sturdy and useful enough to feel like they're pulling their weight. They don't need to out damage the fighter, but it would be a shame if they just ended up feeling like waste of time. That said, I'm sure they're smarter than that.
That said, I'm not really feeling idea from the video that lions, demons, and bears only get two actions because they aren't super trained combat machines like wizards and bards. That's as silly as nerfing weapon cords because a developer isn't very well coordinated when calling it a balance decision would have been fine.
Point taken about our lack of detaled knowledge about dinosaur intelligence. However, I think we can say that on average mammals are smarter than reptiles. Also, I am not aware of any domesticated reptiles (using domesticated in its fullest sense).Dinosaurs (especially stuff like deinonychus) were more closely related to birds than they are to most modern reptiles. Birds are pretty smart, as animals go.
Crows, for example, for sure are smart, but I still don't think they can compete with a fair number of mammals.
I'm no expert, but I guess that while you can train a bird for hunting or bringing messages, training a dog is easier and can give it a much broader competence (more tricks, if we talk PF).There must be a reason why men have started domesticating wolves and horses much more often than birds, in their history.
If we get to primates, there's even more difference.
But familiars, paladin mounts, animal companions aren't common animals: they are a special thing, so I don't see why a snake companion shouldn't be as intelligent as a monkey.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Crows are really smart. They’re up there in the running with dogs, non-human primates, and dolphins. They craft and use tools, learn from one another, recognize themselves in mirrors, and recognize other creatures as having independent goals.
Well, hard to judge based on this alone and not the rest of the system, but im hoping this turn to 0 or that ACs in general are much, much stronger now at high levels, otherwise they might not be worth the action they cost to direct them with time.
Point taken about our lack of detaled knowledge about dinosaur intelligence. However, I think we can say that on average mammals are smarter than reptiles. Also, I am not aware of any domesticated reptiles (using domesticated in its fullest sense).Dinosaurs (especially stuff like deinonychus) were more closely related to birds than they are to most modern reptiles. Birds are pretty smart, as animals go.Crows, for example, for sure are smart, but I still don't think they can compete with a fair number of mammals.
I'm no expert, but I guess that while you can train a bird for hunting or bringing messages, training a dog is easier and can give it a much broader competence (more tricks, if we talk PF).
There must be a reason why men have started domesticating wolves and horses much more often than birds, in their history.
If we get to primates, there's even more difference.But familiars, paladin mounts, animal companions aren't common animals: they are a special thing, so I don't see why a snake companion shouldn't be as intelligent as a monkey.
African Grey Parrots are on par with the great apes and dolphins.
And I mean, dogs are easier to train not because of their intelligence, but because they are pack animals and when properly socialized see there owners as "leaders" of the pack. Crows and Parrots don't really have that social organization. A crow or raven is absolutely more intelligent than the average dog...it's just a lot less likely to see you as the boss.
A crow or raven is absolutely more intelligent than the average dog.
Pretty outlandish claim, although I appreciate that the guy with the bird avatar is the one making it! I think we can safely say that corvids are extremely intelligent, but saying that any animal that demonstrates a high level of intelligence is "more intelligent" than another is an exercise in futility. I mean, simply defining what intelligence is is a contentious enough issue in itself.
We're getting pretty off topic here though. We should probably return to discussing PF2.
The only real clue we have about dinosaur intelligence is brain size. From the fossil evidence, their skulls do not appear to have very much room for brains. Of course, they did not have to compete with any of the larger brained animals that exist today.
I'll shift slightly to making a more general point. There is a lot of variation among the various animals available in PF - different sizes, hit die, senses, attacks, natural armor, ability scores other than Int, etc. However, there doesn't appear to be any variation in Int. To the best of my knowledge, all animals have a Int of 2, and I'd like to see a more nuanced take on this.
I'll shift slightly to making a more general point. There is a lot of variation among the various animals available in PF - different sizes, hit die, senses, attacks, natural armor, ability scores other than Int, etc. However, there doesn't appear to be any variation in Int. To the best of my knowledge, all animals have a Int of 2, and I'd like to see a more nuanced take on this.
Many reptiles and fish have an Int of 1 instead of 2.
Having a 1 INT actually cuts the number of tricks an animal can know before bonus tricks in half. A dumb animal is actually less flexible in what it can do without a Handle Animal check to push it, if you're actually using the skill. Some groups just kind of gloss that over to make the game run faster.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
octopi are intelligent
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
octopi are intelligent
Yea but everyone knows they are aberrations.
Having played a Mechanic in Starfinder and enjoyed it, which has a similar system with it consuming one of your actions and gradually improving to be more and more independent. I'm fine with this change.
What I'm more interested in is the amount to which I'm able to invest in my animal companion for my ranger or druid or whatever. I like classes that give you pets. Often, I want to use pet as a primary combatant rather than the character, and when I level up I immediately look to see in what ways I can improve the aspect of my class that I enjoy the most: the pet. If there is no way to really do that other than just leveling up along the track... It's a little disappointing.
I hope there are plenty of class feats that let you train your little Pokemon pals to be the very best that ever was.
I have never seen a companion outdo actual charact r short of summoner.
That said I do hope they make it easier to handle all little guys
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Everyone always thinks of how the level 1 druid's wolf or tiger is the best character in the party, and forgets how once you get past level 5 or so they're actually kind of mediocre. But yeah, it'd be nice if the power curve was evened out so there was a consistent level of "pet quality" at all levels.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
Point taken about our lack of detaled knowledge about dinosaur intelligence. However, I think we can say that on average mammals are smarter than reptiles. Also, I am not aware of any domesticated reptiles (using domesticated in its fullest sense).Dinosaurs (especially stuff like deinonychus) were more closely related to birds than they are to most modern reptiles. Birds are pretty smart, as animals go.Crows, for example, for sure are smart, but I still don't think they can compete with a fair number of mammals.
I'm no expert, but I guess that while you can train a bird for hunting or bringing messages, training a dog is easier and can give it a much broader competence (more tricks, if we talk PF).
There must be a reason why men have started domesticating wolves and horses much more often than birds, in their history.
If we get to primates, there's even more difference.But familiars, paladin mounts, animal companions aren't common animals: they are a special thing, so I don't see why a snake companion shouldn't be as intelligent as a monkey.
On the contrary, crows may well be the most the intelligent animal next to humans. There is footage out there (easily viewable on YouTube right this instant) of them discovering solutions to multi-layered problems within mere minutes of encountering them. Discovering how to bend a wire into a hook to get food from a tube. Figuring out how water displacement works. Figuring out how to use a tool to get a longer tool to get the food (this one is crazy high-level stuff). And so on. Even the smartest mammals haven't mastered those nearly as fast as the crows did. They've been proven to think about the future and consequences, pass on knowledge socially, and more.
Now, a lot of the non-avian dinosaurs were not as smart as the modern crow. They did, however, dominate the Earth for well over 100 million years for a reason. The crow may be more intelligent than, say, the 60-ton sauropod, or the 7-ton tyrannosaur, but those two still "win."
Seriously, though, for some fascinating stuff, look up crow intelligence. It's beyond crazy. In fact, you want to see something nuts? Literally. Check out this video, where crows have learned to use passing cars to crack their walnuts, then wait to use the crosswalk to claim their prize.
I’m hoping to see Ranger Animal Companions get a bit of a boost honestly. Maybe it’s just my table, but Animal Companions that function at “Druid Level -3” almost immediately get relegated to packmules because a 2-3 d8 HD creature with a BAB of +1/+2 just isn’t durable enough to be a frontline fighter at 4th or 5th Level. And the disparity in combat effectiveness just gets worse the higher level you go. Unless you’re just using it to a eat a hit and then replacing it later or something.
Hopefully it’s just my players doing something wrong. Does anyone here know how to make a “Druid Level -3” Animal Comanion useful in combat?
from know direction.
the summoned creature will have 2 acts on the turn it's summoned.
and summoning spells no longer summon the creator on the turn after.
they also mentioned that this might change.
In my opinion, cephalopods, cetaceans, corvids, elephants, primates, and psittacines in general should all deserve INT 3.
Limiting them to INT 2 smelled strongly of some kind of ugly arrogance for us humans, which makes me feel a lot of guilt of some sort...
|
|
In my opinion, cephalopods, cetaceans, corvids, elephants, primates, and psittacines in general should all deserve INT 3.
Limiting them to INT 2 smelled strongly of some kind of ugly arrogance for us humans, which makes me feel a lot of guilt of some sort...
I'm inclined to agree, honestly. And might give some of them higher Int scores than that if actually trying for accuracy/realism.
Not that it matters all that much in most games.
In the livestream, I asked if you’d be able to get a pet talking cat. The answer was, “yes, after a fashion”, and Druids/Rangers (I think) were mentioned as having an option to get a special animal companion. Sounds like animal companions will have cooler customization than in the old CRB!
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I hope there are plenty of class feats that let you train your little Pokemon pals to be the very best that ever was.Well....If we are talking about hopes and desires, I hope we can all agree that a pet which is the equal of a front-liner backed by a full caster....was a little problematic.
I love pets to, but it shouldn't allow a full caster to replace the need for front-liners. Now, if pet prowess came at the expense of casting prowess, I could get behind that....and shape changing coming at the cost of both.
It already does though. If I'm investing my limited options to improve my character into my pet to improve its overall performance in preference to mine, why shouldn't it get stronger though?
If I'm willing to focus all the resources I'm given into the pet, those resources aren't going toward the functioning of the actual PC. If I choose to specialize in a melee front-line companion, why shouldn't it be competitive? I'd like to be able to have it contribute, and not be told, "Oh, you have a animal companion, but that's just going to make it so crowded..."
octopi are intelligent
Octopuses.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
octopi are intelligentOctopuses.
That is most accurate. I prefer octopodes myself.
Yeah Except then I have to have an animal companion and that is effort but If I don't use it I feel i'm wasting resources so now I can't win.
(Lol yes I know the answer is to just not invest in it)
Yeah, congratulations your "awesome" animal companion has less actions in a round then a normal version of that same animal... Yeah that makes sense.
Yeah, congratulations your "awesome" animal companion has less actions in a round then a normal version of that same animal... Yeah that makes sense.
You think that is how its going to work?