I imagine if said animal was attacking out of hunger you might be able to just throw some rations or whatever at it so it would eat those instead. Also if you have speak with animals you might be able to talk an animal down depending why it's aggressive. (e.g "No, mama bear, we aren't gonna hurt your cubs, we're just passing through"). Might still need a diplomacy check in that case though.
This would be a handle animal check. You would be "pushing" the animal to...y'know. Not eat you.
If you are untrained in handle animal, you may perform the "pushing" action on domesticated animals. ...and if you are untrained, you have little business trying to convince a wild animal to do anything.
This is the extent of interaction with normal animals. That is what it means to have 1 or 2 int- it can't be reasoned with, and instead it has to be coaxed with deep understanding of animal behaviors and instincts.
You can try to throw a steak at that bear... but your lack of handle animal training means you don't realize that large, predatory animals have strong pursuit instincts, and your sudden attempt to flee caught its attention more than the steak.
Green Knight Cavaliers get wild empathy except it uses your diplomacy modifier instead of your druid level. Arguably this means you could take something like the "Student of Philosophy" trait in order to use intelligence for diplomacy to influence animals.
|
Depends on the GM.
Most (but not all) GMs will allow a character that can communicate with an animal to influence it. By the rules, that is impossible (it is explicitly DISALLOWED in both Handle Animal and Diplomacy skill descriptions) in general but most GMs allow it. Oh, and a couple of archetypes call for a character to do this DESPITE it being illegal :-(
Most GMs will also allow some non verbal communications (throwing food at a hungry animal, retreating from the cubs, etc etc) to succeed.
But some GMs play animals as pretty much robotic death machines willing to die if they can injure you a little in the process. Best not to play Dr Doolittle types with that sort of GM :-)
What about with speak with animals. I would think you could use diplomacy then like you could with a person. Considering they only have 1 or 2 int I imagine you would have to be very simple and explicit for them to understand though.
Speak with animals doesn't impart intelligence to the creatures with which you are conversing. They lack the ability to reason in any but the most trivial ways ("that smells like food, therefore I should eat it", "weak two legs in my territory, therefore kill or chase off"). You could attempt to reason on that level, but it's not really Diplomacy.
Speak with animals specifically doesn't make them any more friendly than normal. It is a divination spell, with a mechanism of conveying information via animals rather than a true means of communication with animals.
The communication is two-way. It does more than simply channel environmental information through an animal medium. You really are conversing with the animal in question.
Speak with animals definitely won't help you if the animal doesn't want to talk. You might cast it in the middle of combat only to hear nothing but "KILLKILLFOODKILLTHREATKILL".
The communication is two-way.
Sort of. You can ask questions and get answers. It doesn't mention anything at all about information flowing in the other direction.
The communication is two-way.Sort of. You can ask questions and get answers. It doesn't mention anything at all about information flowing in the other direction.
If an animal is friendly toward you, it may do some favor or service for you.
You ask an animal to do something, they may do it if they are so inclined.
I stand by my assertion that how speak with animals works depends massively on the GM. MOST GMs allow it to be at least somewhat useful if for no other reason than MOST groups consider the conversation entertaining and thus to be encouraged.
True, but one could say that for PC-NPC interaction in general. Diplomacy allows the players to affect NPC behavior, but it isn't completely deterministic.
I would think they can understand simple concepts that can be summed up in one sentence, such as "we aren't here to hurt you".
As a GM, the challenge I've found in this area is that there's a tension between a desire to encourage creativity and problem-solving for players of every class, while at the same time preserving the special role as "animal whisperers" given to rangers and druids through Wild Empathy.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I still like the Green Knight Cavalier Student of Philosophy convincing the wolves not to attack by explaining the finer points of moral particularism as the funniest solution.
I would think they can understand simple concepts that can be summed up in one sentence, such as "we aren't here to hurt you".
They might understand you, but that won't make them believe you.
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
There are numerous reasons for why an animal might attack a person. Convincing the animal to back down would be subject to the particular circumstances that led up to the animal attacking you in the first place. There's no rules, nor should there be, for resolving such a situation. This is GM fiat territory, so what it comes down to is reasoning with your GM.
I would think they can understand simple concepts that can be summed up in one sentence, such as "we aren't here to hurt you".They might understand you, but that won't make them believe you.
"you might not want to hurt me, but you know where my cave is and you might decide you are hungry later and come back when I am not here to eat my babies"
What about with speak with animals. I would think you could use diplomacy then like you could with a person. Considering they only have 1 or 2 int I imagine you would have to be very simple and explicit for them to understand though.You do realize that Diplomacy won't stop intelligent creatures from harming you, right?
You cannot use Diplomacy against a creature that does not understand you or has an Intelligence of 3 or less. Diplomacy is generally ineffective in combat and against creatures that intend to harm you or your allies in the immediate future.So even against your fellow man Diplomacy won't stop anyone that has already become hostile from attacking.
This is really weird. I always assumed the main use of diplomacy would be "talk someone down", so to speak. How would you actually do such a thing (assuming it's even possible?)
|
|
This is really weird. I always assumed the main use of diplomacy would be "talk someone down", so to speak. How would you actually do such a thing (assuming it's even possible?)
There are rules in Ultimate Intrigue for this. I don't like them at all (I forget the details but I think it involved taking feats to do things at massive penalties)
A reasonable number of GMs allow diplomacy in combat if the situation seems to warrant it. Despite this being against the rules.
Some PFS scenarios allow diplomacy in combat when the situation (in the authors opinion) warrants it. Despite this being against the rules.
I actually played in one scenario where the GM allowed diplomacy but enforced the "1 minute to make a check" rule. It was hilariously stupid but the bad guys were so ineffective that we actually did it :-).
Wild Empathy just gives a bonus to handle animal, basically. If the animal is hostile it's kinda pointless.
|
|
Wild Empathy just gives a bonus to handle animal, basically. If the animal is hostile it's kinda pointless.
That is absolutely NOT true in general.
Wild Empathy CAN be used against hostile animals with the Pacify Animal feat.
Wild empathy can be done as a standard action with the Fast Empathy feat
By explicit RAW Handle animal AND diplomacy do NOT work to shift animals attitudes. Many GMs choose to allow one or the other but RAW they do not work. While Wild Empathy DOES work by RAW
I've reread the rules, and I apologize for responding with incorrect information.
Wild Empathy (Ex)
A druid can improve the attitude of an animal. This ability functions just like a Diplomacy check made to improve the attitude of a person. The druid rolls 1d20 and adds her druid level and her Charisma modifier to determine the wild empathy check result.
The typical domestic animal has a starting attitude of indifferent, while wild animals are usually unfriendly.
To use wild empathy, the druid and the animal must be able to study each other, which means that they must be within 30 feet of one another under normal conditions. Generally, influencing an animal in this way takes 1 minute but, as with influencing people, it might take more or less time.
A druid can also use this ability to influence a magical beast with an Intelligence score of 1 or 2, but she takes a –4 penalty on the check.
Wild Empathy just gives a bonus to handle animal, basically. If the animal is hostile it's kinda pointless.
This is incorrect.
Firstly, wild empathy doesn't give a bonus to handle animal. Handle animal makes animals do things. Wild empathy makes animals friendlier (or unfriendlier).
Second, you can use wild empathy on hostile animals--there's even a DC listed for it on the Diplomacy table. What you (generally) cannot do is use wild empathy on animals while in combat. There's a difference between a creature being hostile to you and a creature being in combat with you.
Wild Empathy just gives a bonus to handle animal, basically. If the animal is hostile it's kinda pointless.This is incorrect.
Firstly, wild empathy doesn't give a bonus to handle animal. Handle animal makes animals do things. Wild empathy makes animals friendlier (or unfriendlier).
Second, you can use wild empathy on hostile animals--there's even a DC listed for it on the Diplomacy table. What you (generally) cannot do is use wild empathy on animals while in combat. There's a difference between a creature being hostile to you and a creature being in combat with you.
Yea, sadly my post is too old to edit or delete. I thought I had read it was a +1 bonus / 2 levels on a check, must have confused it with something else.
I'd say though that in my experience, there has never been a difference between a "hostile animal" and "combat with an animal". As pauljathome put it, I've pretty much only seen "robotic death machines willing to die if they can injure you a little in the process".
Heh, yeah, some games are like that. But once in a while, when the wind stands fair, you can convince a hungry shark to let you ride it in search of more delicious prey. (Though I'd recommend charm animal if you wanna try that one.)
|
|
That's weird to me. When I GM, animals usually flee if they fall below 25% health.
In my experience, how GMs handle animals is one of the areas of the game with the most variance from table to table.
Part of the difference is that people have VERY different opinions of how animals behave in real life and how far they can be trained. Even in a Fantasy universe many (most? nearly all?) GMs are strongly influenced by what they think "reasonable".
And fiction (including some "non fiction") also varies hugely. In some stories animals ARE robot death machines, in others they're basically humans in a furry skin. With lots of variations between those extremes.
It doesn't help that the actual rules support is quite lacking so the GM pretty much HAS to make it all up.
I think part of it is that lots of PCs expect to utterly defeat what they encounter. If they get ambushed, and the enemies ran away, they don't tend to feel like they won. Indeed, it kind of feels like a defeat. Especially among folks that get into the game with a culture of "you need to kill it to get the XP".
I have my creatures more likely to flee in games I run, but heck I'm fully aware that even when I'm a PC, and the other GMs have foes fleeing, I tend to want to interrupt the escape and kill them all.
It's kind of how, in video games, many missions have optional objectives, and it's a little disappointing if these aren't all checked off at the end.
Also, though, a point could be made that most animals are naturally afraid of humans and wouldn't attack them, and that those who do tend to be diseased (rabies), which could explain why they lack a sense of self-preservation. Though in that case players should probably roll to resist the disease too. :P
|
|
I played with a GM who had everything try to run away as soon as it looked like it was losing and then would say nope you don't get xp, you didn't kill it. It was most infuriating. Due to that experience when I GM I almost never have enemies flee. It's a situation where enjoyment trumps realism. (aside: do give xp if the enemy flees, you don't need to kill an enemy to defeat them) In my experience, unless so badly off they are incapable of continuing the fight, players will always try to chase a fleeing enemy.
I played with a GM who had everything try to run away as soon as it looked like it was losing and then would say nope you don't get xp, you didn't kill it. It was most infuriating.
That's unfortunate. It's also against the Core Rulebook guidelines.
Yea, but since when is that there? Players initiated with earlier editions might have been brought up with a different mentality. Also, well, video games. An enemy that flees grants no XP in video games. Also no loot, no matter the platform.
I do put enemies that flee in games I run, not systematically but often enough. We don't use XP though so that part is irrelevant. To me it's an extra form of non-lethal challenge for the players. Denying flight is often more challenging than killing off the last few survivors.