| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
To the Mature Animal Companion effect, yes. Even if you do not command the companion it will stride toward or strike your enemy with one of it's two actions.
To the second question, as far as I am aware mounting an Animal Companion does not override the following:
Your animal companion has the minion trait, and it
gains 2 actions during your turn if you use the Command
an Animal action to command it; this is in place of the
usual effects of Command an Animal.
Thus a mounted animal companion cannot be commanded like a "mundane" horse or other mount. Instead they have 2 actions that they can usually only use if you command them. I say usually because the Mature Animal Companion ability specifically overrides that and allows the companion to stride toward or strike your opponent even if you do not command them. Note also that it says that the animal companion "can" stride or strike your prey. This doesn't mean they have to, which can be beneficial if moving towards the enemy could place your companion in too much danger.
|
I've mentioned this in another thread before but it leaves you in a position where if you have a horse animal companion it becomes very difficult to use your support action without a haste effect going.
Since you have 3 actions to split between you and your mount the breakdown ends up being something like:
Command An Animal, Stride, Support, and you are out of actions for you to strike with.
If you are attempting to use a Mature Animal Companions stride that does not require a command you still are left with:
Stride, Command An Animal, Support and you are once again out of actions.
I personally recommend the home rules of increases horse speed to 60 and then making the support benefit while mounted a free action.
The reason for the speed buff is to give people a reason to want to be mounted as it is most characters in encounter mode can cover more ground than a mounted rider. Then of course the free action to make the support benefit a option you actually have the action economy to utilize.
I actually don't believe that an Animal Companion can benefit from Haste.
minion (trait) Minions are creatures that directly serve another creature. A creature
with this trait can use only 2 actions per turn and can’t use reactions.
As a rule, a Minion can only use 2 actions per turn. You could argue that Haste being a Specific rule, it would override the general rule implied here, but generally I don't think that any Minion is intended to be able to be Hasted, or even if they are they cannot use more than two actions even if they are somehow granted an additional action. Haste does not specifically override this in my opinion.
That being said, that would mean that your AC would only have 2 actions to use during your turn, which does make using the support benefit a bit more difficult but not impossible. With the base 40 speed a horse can traverse most battle maps in a handful of moves barring difficult terrain. It would stand to reason that if you had to commit two moves to reaching your enemy, your horse wouldn't do whatever special action it does to "support" your attack.
You also don't "split" your actions on your turn with your AC when mounted. Your character gets their actions, one of which will likely be a command an animal action, and when commanded your AC get's it's two actions. If you are hasted, then your character would get to use that action, not the animal companion.
I see nothing in the rules that would indicate that you can command an Animal Companion in the same way as a mundane creature.
|
|
if you read the animal companion feature it mentions that horses (companions with the mount type) can move and support. As both are action I can only assume the RAI you get two actions.
Yeah the issue just comes when you look at the actual economy RAW. But I 100% agree that Paizo intended for you to support and stride for your mounted rider.
My personal opinion is that the real issue is just that Horses (and by extension the Horse Animal Companion) are either designed poorly or designed with a different iteration of the rules in mind. That line of thinking is what led me to the house rules I suggested.
|
|
I actually don't believe that an Animal Companion can benefit from Haste.
minion (trait) Minions are creatures that directly serve another creature. A creature
with this trait can use only 2 actions per turn and can’t use reactions.As a rule, a Minion can only use 2 actions per turn. You could argue that Haste being a Specific rule, it would override the general rule implied here, but generally I don't think that any Minion is intended to be able to be Hasted, or even if they are they cannot use more than two actions even if they are somehow granted an additional action. Haste does not specifically override this in my opinion.
That being said, that would mean that your AC would only have 2 actions to use during your turn, which does make using the support benefit a bit more difficult but not impossible. With the base 40 speed a horse can traverse most battle maps in a handful of moves barring difficult terrain. It would stand to reason that if you had to commit two moves to reaching your enemy, your horse wouldn't do whatever special action it does to "support" your attack.
You also don't "split" your actions on your turn with your AC when mounted. Your character gets their actions, one of which will likely be a command an animal action, and when commanded your AC get's it's two actions. If you are hasted, then your character would get to use that action, not the animal companion.
I see nothing in the rules that would indicate that you can command an Animal Companion in the same way as a mundane creature.
We are saying the same thing but I think we are just using different word choices.
When I say "Split" I mean that once you have Commanded an Animal you and that animal are both using the same 3 actions in the turn if they are your mount. So I suppose "Share" would have been a better word choice from me.
100% in agreement about it not working like the mundane command an animal and it also not working like when you and the animal are not mounted up together.
You would still need to be hasted because to take advantage of the Horse's support benefit from what can I see. There are two ways I can see this playing out while you are riding the horse.
1.) Command An Animal, Horse Strides, Horse Supports - you are now out of actions to take the strike which would have the circumstance bonus to it.
2.) Commandless Stride due to Mature Animal Companion, Command an Animal, Horse Supports - you are still out of actions to take that strike with the circumstance bonus unless you have Haste.
So the issue isn't about the amount of actions the Animal Companion takes its about the overall action economy and I suppose Haste would have to be on the PC and not the Animal Companion.
@Hsui, that is also my read.
Your animal companion is almost treated as a "sub turn" of yours from what I understand. You command it, it does things, then you finish your turn.
Your minion acts on your turn in combat, once per turn, when you spend an action to issue it commands.
So the "proper" order of operations would be like this:
Ranger First Action: Command Animal
AC Action: First Action
AC Action: Second Action
Ranger Second Action: Whatever
Ranger Third Action: Whatever
Ranger Haste Action: Stride or Strike
Note that you can swap those around however you like, but as written the rules indicate that your animal companion acts once per turn.
This is what creates the odd scenarios I posted about in another thread with MAP. The rules are a bit too vague on whether or not a mounted animal companion retains or gains Multiple Attack Penalty from actions that occurred before or after it became/stopped being a "mount".
Playing a mounted character with an Animal Companion as a single creature is definitely not supported by the rules as I read them. If that was the case, you would never have a chance to Command a frightened Horse to stop it from fleeing, as it would use all of it's actions to escape the source of it's fear, leaving you with no actions at all.
You also couldn't spend a Haste action that a rider has to stride with a mundane horse. The two are separate creatures and would benefit from buffs separately. Haste the horse and it gets a 4th action that you would need to somehow command it to use.
|
|
This is the same argument which has no better resolution. We could not find then and cannot find now where the rules say that when you are on a mount that is an animal companion and not a general animal , you and the mount "share actions."
An animal companion mount is a minion. It acts on your turn but it has it's own pool of 2 actions. You spend an action to command it (which gives it its pool) and you the PC have two actions left (hence the 4 action combined comment from the last thread). If you spend no action, there is still the 4 action limit. Do you also say that if you are not using the AC as mount, your combined limit is 3 actions? Where does it say it changes when it is a mount?
The mounted combat rules on p478 is the general rules that refer to a general mount since it is not in the animal companion section (the normal 1:1 action rules where there is indeed a pool of three actions which could even be all three used by the mount assuming you commanded three times). The animal companion rules are more specific and state you give the animal companion two actions when you spend one action to command it. There is no section which says that when an animal companion is a mount there is an action loss.
Hsui correct but two facts still remain:
1. The Mounted Combat Rules reduce two creatures action from 6 to 3. Considering that and the example they give in the CRB to illustrate the rule it becomes increasingly difficult in my mind to follow the interpretation that allows for two actions from a mount being ridden. It significantly increases the disparity between action economy. An enemy will have 2 actions besides command an animal to use. You and your AC will have 4.
2. The biggest piece of evidence against this I think is that they specifically call out how the Ride feat (which grants the minion trait) works with mounted combat rules and does not mention it changing the action economy listed in the example. They only state that it allows a user to automatically pass a Command An Animal Check. So if Ride and Animal Companion work the same then I am led to believe the 3 actions total rule is most likely correct.
I can understand a different viewpoint here but if we reexamine the section.
"You can ride some creatures into combat. As noted in the Mount specialty basic action (page 472), your mount needs to be at least one size larger than you and willing. Your mount acts on your initiative. You must use the Command an Animal action to get your mount to spend its actions. If you don’t, the animal wastes its actions. If you have the Ride general feat, you succeed automatically when you Command an Animal that’s your mount.
For example, if you are mounted on a horse and you make three attacks, your horse would remain stationary since you didn’t command it. If you instead spent your first action to Command an Animal and succeeded, you could get your mount to Stride. You could spend your next action to attack or to command the horse to attack, but not both."
I think it is really hard to argue when looking at both sections together that having 5 actions total to spend (1 Command An Animal Action, Two Minion Actions, and Two More PC actions) is what they were intending to convey. But hey to each their own.
I also believe the statement about you and your mount fighting as a unit is in the Mounted Attacks rule section.
EDIT:
I know Paizo has talked about this issue on stream but I haven't been able to find the clip for the life of me. If I do I will make sure to post to share with the community.
|
|
Ok so it acts like a minion.
We can assume this to mean it acts on your turn and it would have depending on your interpretation 2-3 actions to use.
Whether or not it is a minion or animal companion or normal beast, if it acting the same as one it puts us in the exact same place when it comes to action economy which is the core of the discussion.
I think if we're examining key wording we should look at mounted combat rules where it says
"Your mount acts on your initiative ". By my reading this is different from how normally an animal companion acts "during your turn". One shows (with the combination of the other wording examples and the section as a whole) you and your mount sharing your actions. The other is a time frame that an Animal Companion would normally gain it's own two actions to act as you see fit.
The thing is, those rules work totally fine for commanding a non-companion animal. But as I stated previously, you cannot command an animal companion using command an animal in the same way as a mundane horse.
Let's examine the relevant sections.
Your animal companion has the minion trait, and it
gains 2 actions during your turn if you use the Command
an Animal action to command it; this is in place of the
usual effects of Command an Animal.
And:
You or an ally can ride your animal companion as long as
it is at least one size larger than the rider. If it is carrying a
rider, the animal companion can use only its land Speed, and
it can’t move and Support you on the same turn. However, if
your companion has the mount special ability, it’s especially
suited for riding and ignores both of these restrictions.
Nothing overriding the Minion trait there.
You must use the Command
an Animal action (page 249) to get your mount to spend
its actions. If you don’t, the animal wastes its actions. If
you have the Ride general feat, you succeed automatically
when you Command an Animal that’s your mount.
So we know that you have to use Command an Animal to get your mount to spend it's actions. Cool. Now we look at how you Command an Animal Companion.
So it gets 2 actions when you command it. This is in place of the usual effects of command an animal.
A Mundane horse acts like a minion in that it activates on your turn when you command it. This is a distinctly different scenario than being a Minion. As I have said in many threads here, being "like" something is not the same as being that thing. The Mounted Combat section even goes to great lengths to describe how that works. You use an action to command an animal, it uses one of it's actions. If you were not riding the animal, say it was a dog instead, it would activate on it's own initiative and perform any actions that you commanded it to perform in the order you made the commands. That is what Mounted Combat changes.
This does not apply to an Animal Companion as you cannot use the "normal effects" of Command an Animal with it and it always acts on your initiative. Instead, it gains 2 actions when you command it.
There are a few moving parts here, so I can understand there being multiple ways to interpret the rules, but generally the one that causes the least amount of friction I feel is mine. Why include the option to use an animal companion as a Mount if you are just going to lose actions doing so? Why not just use a mundane warhorse if there is no mechanical benefit to using a feat gained companion?
|
|
So here is the problem and of course I acknowledge multiple ways of looking at it.
A mundane horse acting like a minion already has 3 actions to use on your turn if it is a mount. So by my reading you having an animal companion gain 2 actions from being a minion does not skew the action economy in your favor because unlike when you command it normally it is acting on your initiative still. Gaining 2 actions does nothing without a way to use them but you do have them at your disposal.
The benefit of the Animal Companion is that you will auto-succeed with that animal companion without needing a ride feat. Your also gonna have an advantage as the mount matures its gonna have a better stat block and more options to interact with feats. Mature animal companion will be able to move or strike without a command which will be huge. It's going to eventually become magical and give you benefits depending on your character progression. Side by Side probably being one of the better pick ups. It's also gonna be an effective ally even when not serving as a mount.
The effect of Command an Animal is not the big discrepancy here from what I can see with Mounted Combat, as the normal effect of Command an animal is not even in play. If Command An Animal was operating with it's normal functionality a rider and an animal would each have their own turn where multiple commands by the rider would be acted out by the animal on its turn. That is not how mounted combat works though even when a 3 action, separate creature, is acting like a minion on your turn.
I see it as an animal companion is still gaining two actions (up from the 0 it can spend without a command or a compelling instinct determined by the GM or the mature companion single action that doesn't require a command) but since it is acting on your initiative your ability to spend them and do other stuff on the same turn is more restricted.
|
|
How is it more restricted? When a mount or AC are acting on your turn, you have control of the order of actions. A PC might mark prey (or any other action), command their animal, and then attack themselves. Or have the AC attack and then take two more actions, or take two actions and then have their AC attack. If the animal is on its own initiative, the PC always has to spend their own actions, including any actions spent to command, then wait for the animal's initiative for it to take any actions. That seems far more restrictive to me.
I see it as an animal companion is still gaining two actions (up from the 0 it can spend without a command or a compelling instinct determined by the GM or the mature companion single action that doesn't require a command) but since it is acting on your initiative your ability to spend them and do other stuff on the same turn is more restricted.
Fair point!
I just meant in total number of actions available.
I feel like I am misunderstanding what Goldryno is trying to say. Goldryno, are you saying that an Animal Companion would need to be commanded for each of their actions on your turn when mounted?
|
|
If you are asking if I believe there need to be a command an animal action for each action the animal companion would make then the answer is Yes... Sort of. There's one Command an Animal action that is a nature check and an autopass if you have Ride feat or an Animal Companion. After that is passed during that same turn you use one of the remaining 2 actions from your shared 3 actions to Stride. Finally you have the option to "Command An Animal to Strike" as your last action or Strike yourself. Going to repost once more because the wording is so relevant to my interpretation.
"You must use the Command an Animal action to get your mount to spend its actions. If you don’t, the animal wastes its actions. If you have the Ride general feat, you succeed automatically when you Command an Animal that’s your mount.
For example, if you are mounted on a horse and you make three attacks, your horse would remain stationary since you didn’t command it. If you instead spent your first action to Command an Animal and succeeded, you could get your mount to Stride. You could spend your next action to attack or to command the horse to attack, but not both."
If it's not RAI the more I look at it this is my RAW interpretation. And a bit of a further breakdown of how I see it working.
The Ride feat specifies that a horse or similar creature (which normally has 3 actions to spend) is mounted, it now act on the rider's initiative like a minion. This means that it would carry over two actions for you to use on your turn if it was meant to work the way you are saying commanding your animal companion should work. However in the example of the Ride feat that should be working the same way we see no change in the action economy. You are still restricted to using those 3.
Other places state your horse and you act as a unit and the rules by my reading kinda consistently conform to this throughout the section. Even going so far as to specify you share a -MAP (How we got back to the Question in the other thread) In a scenario where you should have the same actions available as when a Ranger Commands An Animal Companion (3 normal actions, and 2 minion actions) it explicitly says you cannot do both things. You are restricted to 3 actions. Otherwise in the example you would still have two actions available to strike twice but it explicitly stated you do not.
My logic would follow based on their wording is that if the missing key would be to use command an animal later to unlock more actions to extend the single action economy you and the mount are sharing...then not mentioning that at all in an example designed to show you how the rules work is such a big oversight and counter to what is in the rest of the section that I have difficulty thinking that that's the case (but hey we all make mistakes and I could be wrong!).
Mounted defense rules state when mounted you don't have a speed and that you can only use your mounts. So that stride and mount strike shouldn't be depleting your action pool if it worked as you proposed.
All together the Mounted Offense (shows you working as a unit and sharing a MAP), Mounted Defense (Shows only one speed/stride available while mounted), and Mounted Combat (showing a shared action economy) sections point to this for me.
I will note that while I couldn't find where they talked about mounted combat on stream, I did come across a part in the Errata video where they mentioned some things weren't addressed in that document because they are still deciding the ultimate form they want some things to take. I highly suspect this is one of those things and we will be seeing some changes at some point.
P.S.
In the post by Mellack I was just stating that in concept the ranger using normal animal companion rules as compared to normal command an animal rules are not restrictive.
I can see why you would think that, and the rules are not as explicit as I would like, but I will say that I think that that interpretation is overly restrictive to any class that uses Animal Companions, and especially the class that solely gains an AC for use as a Mount: Champion.
My justification is thus: A mundane animal has it's 3 actions that it can use on any given turn, provided that you command it for each action you want it to make. This is a 1 for 1 trade no matter the circumstances. If you have a guard dog, it activates on it's initiative and performs whatever your last set of instructions were to the best of it's abilities. When mounted, the only thing that changes is when that animal acts. It acts on your initiative but otherwise does not gain or lose any actions.
Animal Companions on the other hand always activate on your initiative, and gain 2 actions when you spend 1 to command them. Meaning that there is a net +1 action benefit to having such a companion.
Why would the simple act of mounting that companion make you lose that action?
Or why would that animal companion then somehow gain an action, if they can suddenly use all 3 of your "combined" actions? No rule states that this changes in any way based on whether you are mounted or not.
Add to that my previous argument, that nothing in the Ride or Mounted Combat sections explicitly state that they overrule the Animal Companion rules. Animal Companions can't be commanded like normal animals. They instead gain 2 actions when you command them once. Nothing indicates that this would change because you are riding on their back.
The rules do not support an animal companion reverting to using the "standard" command an Animal rules when mounted. In fact, they don't even state that you "automatically pass" a Command an Animal check with the companion. You don't have to because you aren't really using command an animal the skill. You are using the action to give your minion a command.
RE: P.S.
Those rules are restrictive. The phrase, "this is in place of the usual effects of Command an Animal," absolutely indicates that an Animal Companion cannot be commanded in the same way as a mundane animal.
And the "Riding an Animal Companion" section would be the perfect place to indicate that you use the "standard" mounted combat rules with an Animal Companion. But it doesn't say that.
This is why I believe that the Mounted Combat section, and the Ride Feat, are written from the perspective of a mundane mount. That is the most basic scenario after all. You could call it a general rule, one that the specific rules governing Animal Companions would override.
|
|
I feel you are not addressing in your reasoning though is the fact that the rules specifically mention other changes at place here.
One of the key other changes mentioned, it states that the actions a mount is not commanded to use are wasted. Full stop. You must use an initial command an animal check (which can be autopassed) but while it is your mount those two actions you gain still must be commanded to be used or else they are wasted. The issue here is not how that initial command an animal check changed because you have an animal companion, because that is working the same. You are still auto-succeeding a nature roll and the animal companion is gaining two actions to use. It just can't use it as an independent entity like normal, so they may get wasted.
It is the ability of a rider to use those actions for a mount that would otherwise waste those actions that is the problem. The rest of the book states you are working as one cohesive unit during this. The book shows the action economy at play in an example to attempt to avert confusion.
If the rules specifically mention the effect of the Ride feat. Which includes the text that it makes a normal "mundane" mount act like a minion on your initiative. And in this example to show you how the rules work does not have the action economy you state. I find it hard to say "the rules do not support this".
I would also say that specific overrides general is a mute point here. One could say the mounted combat example is a lot more of a specific circumstance than using an animal companion normally.
I feel like the argument for more actions (5) total is because:
1.) That's what we are the most used to
2.) The example does not do a comprehensive breakdown of the action economy at work.
I am still open to new ideas but my initial reading still stands in my mond. I feel like we cannot accept the premise of 5 actions total to use without throwing this section and the example out the window or making some really big assumptions that are not supported by the rest of the book. To me it seems that the 5 actions reading with breaking it down to PC actions and minion actions with two action economies going on the same turn is creating exceptions that are not supported RAW or by the rest of the wording of the section.
Those are the rules for normal animals. The rules for animal companions give you better action economy than that.
Goldryno is assuming that because Mounted Combat describes how normal animals function again that it overrides how minions function. I don't really find the evidence particularly compelling though, because the rules for how you command animal companions still exist.
|
|
Most animals know the Leap, Seek, Stand, Stride, and Strike basic actions. If an animal knows an activity, such as a horse’s Gallop, you can Command the Animal to perform the activity, but you must spend as many actions on Command an Animal as the activity’s number of actions. You can also spend multiple actions to Command the Animal to perform that number of basic actions on its next turn; for instance, you could spend 3 actions to Command an Animal to Stride three times or to Stride twice and then Strike
These are indeed the normal command an animal rules. This would be how you would command a guard dog or another creature with its own initiative.
Animal Companion rules are different in that they grant the minion trait and the animal acts during your turn instead of on its own initiative. These actions are used by a command an animal action that interacts with the Animal Companion feats.
This is further modified by the mounted combat rules where you and your mount act on one initiative as a unit. There are examples in the core rule book for all three scenarios.
You're assuming the mounted combat rules somehow turn off animal companion features but I'm not really seeing anything to support that.
|
|
I am not making assumption but rather trying to follow the wording in the example they provide.
Gonna revisit some key sentences once more but at this point I do not know how much more can be gained quoting the book more. I would also quickly note all this is in a section labeled "Special Battles" so its hard to consider them normal/generic.
"Your mount acts on your initiative."
"You must use the Command an Animal action to get your mount to spend its actions. If you don’t, the animal wastes its actions."
"if you are mounted on a horse and you make three attacks, your horse would remain stationary since you didn’t command it. If you instead spent your first action to Command an Animal and succeeded, you could get your mount to Stride. You could spend your next action to attack or to command the horse to attack, but not both."
"You and your mount fight as a unit. Consequently, you share a multiple attack penalty. For example, if you Strike and then Command an Animal to have your mount Strike, your mount’s attack takes a –5 multiple attack penalty."
"Any animal you’re mounted on acts on your turn, like a minion. If you Mount an animal in the middle of an encounter, it skips its next turn and then acts on your next turn."
"Because you can’t move your body as freely while you’re riding a mount, you take a –2 circumstance penalty to Reflex saves while mounted. Additionally, the only move action you can use is the Mount action to dismount."
"You occupy every square of your mount’s space for the purpose of making your attacks."
"You are in an attacker’s reach or range if any square of your mount is within reach or range.""
These are the the majority of statements that I am pulling from the section to support my interpretation. I understand the Animal Companion rules say they replace the normal effect of Command an Animal BUT if as the mount we're not just acting on that players turn but acting on that same PCs initiative. We only have 3 actions to spend them with if we're being a single cohesive unit.
if we had a mini AC turn within a turn as is normal, why would they use different wording between the two sections? Why would we share a -MAP? Or interpret our hit-boxes as being the same? None of these things happen when using an Animal Companion normally.
I believe that you are stating that you believe that this section does not apply at all if you have an animal companion? And that your animal companion is ALWAYS a distinct entity with its own turn to act twice? I personally see more evidence against that than for it.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I actually don't believe that an Animal Companion can benefit from Haste.
As a rule, a Minion can only use 2 actions per turn. You could argue that Haste being a Specific rule, it would override the general rule implied here, but generally I don't think that any Minion is intended to be able to be Hasted, or even if they are they cannot use more than two actions even if they are somehow granted an additional action. Haste does not specifically override this in my opinionminion (trait) Minions are creatures that directly serve another creature. A creature
with this trait can use only 2 actions per turn and can’t use reactions.
This came up right when the core rulebook was released. Mark Seifter (either in a Paizo stream or his Arcane Mark stream) answered that minions can benefit from the quickened condition. There weren't, as I recall, any follow-ups like, "they only get the extra action when commanded" or anything. It was basically, just read the rules for both, and they both happen. I'll caveat that this was in a rapid-fire Q&A thing, so it's obviously not a formal, official Paizo clarification. It's also roughly 6 months old, and his opinion may have changed since then.
It makes sense, though. If minions were immune to quickened because the minion rule was the overriding rule, they could also be read as immune to slowed and stunned, which would be really weird.
I feel you are not addressing in your reasoning though is the fact that the rules specifically mention other changes at place here.
One of the key other changes mentioned, it states that the actions a mount is not commanded to use are wasted. Full stop. You must use an initial command an animal check (which can be autopassed) but while it is your mount those two actions you gain still must be commanded to be used or else they are wasted. The issue here is not how that initial command an animal check changed because you have an animal companion, because that is working the same. You are still auto-succeeding a nature roll and the animal companion is gaining two actions to use. It just can't use it as an independent entity like normal, so they may get wasted.
And when you use Command an Animal to grant your Animal Companion their 2 minion actions, that doesn't count somehow? Also, if you don't use Command on your AC then, yes, it's actions are wasted. Barring the 1 "free" action that it gets for being mature if you have the relevant feat.
It is the ability of a rider to use those actions for a mount that would otherwise waste those actions that is the problem. The rest of the book states you are working as one cohesive unit during this. The book shows the action economy at play in an example to attempt to avert confusion.
Wait, are you trying to say that a mounted character Has to use Command an Animal on their turn? Because they don't. In Mounted combat they provide an example of you simply not commanding your horse (a mundane one) and it not doing anything. This doesn't cause a problem. And "working as one cohesive unit" is not rules text. They don't go into detail to describe how that works specifically. It is used as a primer, a way to get the idea across that you and your Mundane Horse now share an initiative and MAP etc... Being a cohesive unit does not mean that you "share" actions.
If the rules specifically mention the effect of the Ride feat. Which includes the text that it makes a normal "mundane" mount act like a minion on your initiative. And in this example to show you how the rules work does not have the action economy you state. I find it hard to say "the rules do not support this".
Again the Mounted Combat rules are written from the perspective of using a Mundane horse as a mount. The ride feat has 0 effect on an animal companion after all since you don't need to make a nature check to command your animal. And changing a mundane horses initiative to yours doesn't effect an animal companion: They already act on your initiative.
I would also say that specific overrides general is a mute point here. One could say the mounted combat example is a lot more of a specific circumstance than using an animal companion normally.
I fully disagree with this. Describing how a combat situation works is very obviously a General Rule. Describing how a specific type of companion works is very obviously a Specific Rule. Mounted Combat describes how mount works with any animal, regardless of whether they have the Mount special rule or not. Animal Companion then modifies that by changing how you can command the companion. This is a perfect example of a Specific rule overriding a General rule.
I feel like the argument for more actions (5) total is because:
1.) That's what we are the most used to
2.) The example does not do a comprehensive breakdown of the action economy at work.I am still open to new ideas but my initial reading still stands in my mond. I feel like we cannot accept the premise of 5 actions total to use without throwing this section and the example out the window or making some really big assumptions that are not supported by the rest of the book. To me it seems that the 5 actions reading with breaking it down to PC actions and minion actions with two action economies going on the same turn is creating exceptions that are not supported RAW or by the rest of the wording of the section.
And to me using the Mounted Combat section to override how you command an Animal Companion the rest of the time is reaching for a connection that the book does not make. At no time does anything in the Riding Animal Companions section mention that you revert to the standard use of Command an Animal when you mount them. Nothing is said on the matter, so obviously you continue using Command an Animal to give your Animal Companion access to it's 2 actions in place of the normal effects of Command an Animal. "Working as a cohesive unit" is very much what you are already doing with your Animal Companion and riding on their back doesn't change that.
I believe that you are stating that you believe that this section does not apply at all if you have an animal companion? And that your animal companion is ALWAYS a distinct entity with its own turn to act twice?
Animal companions don't have their own turn. The rules you quoted even say minions act on your turn.
What I'm disagreeing with is your assumption that the ability to command minions goes away and are replaced by the normal rules for commanding animals if you're mounted, which nothing you've quoted supports.
You spend an action to command your AC. Your AC gets two actions. Because that's what the rules for animal companions say happens.
I actually don't believe that an Animal Companion can benefit from Haste.
As a rule, a Minion can only use 2 actions per turn. You could argue that Haste being a Specific rule, it would override the general rule implied here, but generally I don't think that any Minion is intended to be able to be Hasted, or even if they are they cannot use more than two actions even if they are somehow granted an additional action. Haste does not specifically override this in my opinionminion (trait) Minions are creatures that directly serve another creature. A creature
with this trait can use only 2 actions per turn and can’t use reactions.This came up right when the core rulebook was released. Mark Seifter (either in a Paizo stream or his Arcane Mark stream) answered that minions can benefit from the quickened condition. There weren't, as I recall, any follow-ups like, "they only get the extra action when commanded" or anything. It was basically, just read the rules for both, and they both happen. I'll caveat that this was in a rapid-fire Q&A thing, so it's obviously not a formal, official Paizo clarification. It's also roughly 6 months old, and his opinion may have changed since then.
It makes sense, though. If minions were immune to quickened because the minion rule was the overriding rule, they could also be read as immune to slowed and stunned, which would be really weird.
That is a fair point. The way the two rules interact could lead to either outcome. It gets weirder with non-minion creatures though, like a guard dog. Would the Guard Dog get a "free" action being hasted that you don't have to order it to use?
Minions I can see getting that bonus action as it only takes one action for you to get them to act. But a mundane creature would be the sticky point for me.
|
|
I believe that you are stating that you believe that this section does not apply at all if you have an animal companion? And that your animal companion is ALWAYS a distinct entity with its own turn to act twice?Animal companions don't have their own turn. The rules you quoted even say minions act on your turn.
What I'm disagreeing with is your assumption that the ability to command minions goes away and are replaced by the normal rules for commanding animals if you're mounted, which nothing you've quoted supports.
You spend an action to command your AC. Your AC gets two actions. Because that's what the rules for animal companions say happens.
Right but there is a difference between gaining two actions during your turn and acting on your initiative.
If the animal companion gains two action to use during your turn. But a mount acts on your initiative and the actions it is not commanded to use are then wasted. It stands to reason that an Animal Companion mount would gain two actions during your turn, but since as a mount it specifies that it "acts on your initiative" it does not get to use them as normal.
When you Command An Animal Companion, that Companion still has to use those two turns they gain. This doesn't automatically happen within that same Command An Animal Companion action the ranger just took. The Animal Companion itself has to spend those two actions following the command. What ends up happening is a sort of turn within a turn.
IF we look at the example you notice that AFTER the initial command an animal the hypothetical player then gets access to the horses actions in a 1-1 exchange as you so carefully noted. But what is also noted here is that the horse does not have to wait until the next round to do those actions. After the successful Command an Animal check he can then get the mount to directly Stride and if he wishes to Strike during that same initiative but it comes from the same resource pool of actions.
A big thing they clearly show in the example that changes things is that the Initial Command An Animal check is different from the actual Commands to do actions themselves. Instead of Command An Animal to Stride, Command them to Strike, then I strike. To accomplish this you would need to Command An Animal, Command An Animal to Stride, then Command to Strike or Strike yourself but not both. That is part of the change in Action Economy that mounted combat shows.
IF we act on the premise that the 2 actions gained and spent during your round when you Commanded Your Animal Companion, do not come from the shared resource pool; we then come across a scenario where a Ranger would Command An Animal Companion (autopass), then he Spends an action getting the animal to do two things instead of one. Then he has a choice of what to do from only his actions of what to do with his last action? I have not seen anyone champion this reading before but its the closest I can get to your interpretation without disregarding something explicitly stated in the rulebook without cause. Otherwise we are double dipping or just clearly going against any semblance of compliance with the Mounted Combat rules.
Funnily enough that new 3rd interpretation does get rid of the conflict of not being to easily use the Horse Animal Companion's Support action. It just gets strange because you are stating you can claim two actions in one while mounted. That breakdown would be Command An Animal, Animal Companion/Minion -Move and Support, Last PC action. It also doesn't represent a huge action discrepancy but something more in line with what is experienced when on foot. I may consider this some more because this possibility does have me considering changing my stance.
With Mounted combat rules specifying that your mount acts on your initiative and with the examples and words that follow It seems to me that an in depth comparison of the rules does not support a 5 actions to use model.
Edit: Reposting a paragraph because I know sometimes my logic can be hard to follow and rereading some of your responses that seems to be the biggest point of difference. If my point isn't clear please pay special attention to this part and see if that changes anything for your interpretation:
"A big thing they clearly show in the example that changes things is that the Initial Command An Animal check is different from the actual Commands to do actions themselves. Instead of Command An Animal to Stride, Command them to Strike, then I strike. To accomplish this you would need to Command An Animal, Command An Animal to Stride, then Command to Strike or Strike yourself but not both. That is part of the change in Action Economy that mounted combat shows."
And it is true that the Command an Animal action is separate from the actions of the animal themselves. Edit: By this I mean that your character spends an action to command the animal, then the animal using it's own action performs the action that has been commanded.
The issue is that you are assuming that "acting as a cohesive unit" somehow means the two creatures are treated as One creature with one set of actions. They are not. Even a Mundane horse has it's own independent pool of actions that it uses. Your character spends one of their actions to get the animal to spend one of it's actions. This is a 1 for 1 trade with a standard non-companion animal.
However. Animal Companions do not work that way. Nothing says that they do when mounted. Instead, you spend a single action, they get 2 actions. That is the end.
The example that you keep going back to is an example of mounted combat with a mundane horse. Not an Animal Companion.
An animal companion is a loyal comrade who follows
your orders without you needing to use Handle an Animal
on it. Your animal companion has the minion trait, and it
gains 2 actions during your turn if you use the Command
an Animal action to command it; this is in place of the
usual effects of Command an Animal. If your companion
dies, you can spend a week of downtime to replace it at no
cost. You can have only one animal companion at a time.
The phrase, as I have said before and will say again, "this is in place of the usual effects of Command an Animal," is not ignored or overruled or side stepped by Mounted Combat in any way.
You cannot use Command an Animal on an Animal Companion in any way other than giving it 2 actions due to it being a Minion.
Your argument ignores that line as though somehow a general rule could override a specific one.
It stands to reason that an Animal Companion mount would gain two actions during your turn, but since as a mount it specifies that it "acts on your initiative" it does not get to use them as normal.
No it doesn't. There is literally nothing in that statement that suggests the features of the animal companion stop working.
You spend an action to command your animal companion. Per the rules for animal companions and the minion trait, your AC gets two actions.
Then, since you've only spent one of your own actions, you have two more to do things with.
Your animal companion has the minion trait, and it gains 2 actions during your turn if you use the Command an Animal action to command it; this is in place of the usual effects of Command an Animal, and you don’t need to attempt a Nature check.
This is completely unambiguous language.
without disregarding something explicitly stated in the rulebook without cause.
You mean like disregarding the rules for how animal companions work?
|
|
You seem to think that Commanding an animal is an action, then that it takes another action to tell the animal what to do. I believe that is incorrect. Each action spent by the PC directly translates into an action spendable by a normal animal. That action to tell the animal what to do is already built into the Command action. So if a PC wants a mount to Stride, they do a Command action and if they roll a success, the animal takes a Stride. If they want it to then Strike, the PC spends another action to Command and the animal gets an action to strike. All Command does for normal animals (mounted or not) is transfer an action from the PC to being spent by the animal. I do not see where you think the initial command is any different.
I believe this for mounted combat because that is what is shown directly in the example by my reading.
"if you are mounted on a horse and you make three attacks, your horse would remain stationary since you didn’t command it. If you instead spent your first action to Command an Animal and succeeded, you could get your mount to Stride. You could spend your next action to attack or to command the horse to attack, but not both."
I'm not ignoring that rule because like I said the issue is not with how Command An Animal works it's the action economy at play. We keep circling this point but you have to see in the context they present it would not work the same way as when you were not mounted because it has to act on your initiative.
|
|
And it is true that the Command an Animal action is separate from the actions of the animal themselves. Edit: By this I mean that your character spends an action to command the animal, then the animal using it's own action performs the action that has been commanded.
The issue is that you are assuming that "acting as a cohesive unit" somehow means the two creatures are treated as One creature with one set of actions. They are not. Even a Mundane horse has it's own independent pool of actions that it uses. Your character spends one of their actions to get the animal to spend one of it's actions. This is a 1 for 1 trade with a standard non-companion animal.
However. Animal Companions do not work that way. Nothing says that they do when mounted. Instead, you spend a single action, they get 2 actions. That is the end.
The example that you keep going back to is an example of mounted combat with a mundane horse. Not an Animal Companion.
An animal companion is a loyal comrade who follows
your orders without you needing to use Handle an Animal
on it. Your animal companion has the minion trait, and it
gains 2 actions during your turn if you use the Command
an Animal action to command it; this is in place of the
usual effects of Command an Animal. If your companion
dies, you can spend a week of downtime to replace it at no
cost. You can have only one animal companion at a time.The phrase, as I have said before and will say again, "this is in place of the usual effects of Command an Animal," is not ignored or overruled or side stepped by Mounted Combat in any way.
You cannot use Command an Animal on an Animal Companion in any way other than giving it 2 actions due to it being a Minion.
Your argument ignores that line as though somehow a general rule could override a specific one.
Your statement here did make me reconsider my position and the more I think about it the more I am in support of option 3. If we follow the example and add the animal companion rules along side it. A 1-1 exchange should become a 1-2 exchange. This leads to that 4 action economy I was talking about.
Action 1 Command an animal.
Action 2 Get the animal to actually do something. In the example it was a mundane animal but an animal companion would have two actions to use here. Giving it the ability to stride and support if that's what the owner wanted.
Action 3. One last PC action.
This interpretation falls in line with all rules in play. Mounted Combat, Animal Companion, Minion, Ride, the whole deal.
it would not work the same way as when you were not mounted because it has to act on your initiative.
Aha, so this seems to be your hangup. Animal companions act on your turn normally though, so I'm not sure how this changes anything. You seem to be parsing "on your initiative" as some unique state that defies the normal rules, but can you support that assertion?
Unlike a typical check, where the result is compared to a
DC, the results of initiative rolls are ranked. This ranking
sets the order in which the encounter’s participants act—
the initiative order. The character with the highest result
goes first. The second highest follows, and so on until
whoever had the lowest result takes their turn last.
Your initiative is just an indication of when your turn starts, there's nothing else that initiative represents. Acting on your turn is acting on your initiative.
|
|
it would not work the same way as when you were not mounted because it has to act on your initiative.Aha, so this seems to be your hangup. Animal companions act on your turn normally though, so I'm not sure how this changes anything. You seem to be parsing "on your initiative" as some unique state that defies the normal rules, but can you support that assertion?
Unlike a typical check, where the result is compared to a
DC, the results of initiative rolls are ranked. This ranking
sets the order in which the encounter’s participants act—
the initiative order. The character with the highest result
goes first. The second highest follows, and so on until
whoever had the lowest result takes their turn last.Your initiative is just an indication of when your turn starts, there's nothing else that initiative represents. Acting on your turn is acting on your initiative.
Glad we're coming closer to finding a common ground.
That is due to how the example shows in Mounted Combat. 6 actions between Rider and Non Animal companion getting condensed into 3. If they behaved just as normal then the example would not be accurate. If acting during your turn and acting on your initiative were the same then the example presented would read differently. With rider strikes, animal commands, and animal actions not coming from the same action pool.
I believe my flaw before was in not acknowledging animal companion changes a 1-1 exchange into a 1-2 exchange. Something that is present in some other parts in the game with feats that let you strike twice or stride and strike with a single action.
|
|
Your statement here did make me reconsider my position and the more I think about it the more I am in support of option 3. If we follow the example and add the animal companion rules along side it. A 1-1 exchange should become a 1-2 exchange. This leads to that 4 action economy I was talking about.
Action 1 Command an animal.
Action 2 Get the animal to actually do something. In the example it was a mundane animal but an animal companion would have two actions to use here. Giving it the ability to stride and support if that's what the owner wanted.
Action 3. One last PC action.
This interpretation falls in line with all rules in play. Mounted Combat, Animal Companion, Minion, Ride, the whole deal.
Sorry, but that cannot be right. That requires a PC to spend two actions to get even a single action out of a mundane animal. That would contradict the example under Command an Animal.
Most animals know the Leap, Seek, Stand, Stride, and
Strike basic actions. If an animal knows an activity, such as a
horse’s Gallop, you can Command the Animal to perform the
activity, but you must spend as many actions on Command
an Animal as the activity’s number of actions. You can also
spend multiple actions to Command the Animal to perform
that number of basic actions on its next turn; for instance, you
could spend 3 actions to Command an Animal to Stride three
times or to Stride twice and then Strike.Note that it says you can get up to three actions from an animal. It also says you spend actions equal to the activity. That would be impossible under your reading.
You are not considering the Mounted rules at all here and without that I do not believe we can reach a common understanding on this issue.
|
|
I don't see anything in the mounted rules that changes the actions. The only thing it changes is when the actions happen. Mounted combat says you still have to spend an action to have your mount take an action.
Correct but it also shows your mounts actions and your actions happening in the same 3 turn interval. When normally this is an interaction that takes 6 actions total (3 command an animal actions and 3 actions from the animal following the commands). The example shows when mounted you take one command an animal action, then use the animals action to stride, then you have the animal strike or striking yourself for your third action.
My original assertation was that this means you have 3 actions total to spend between you two no matter whether it was an animal companion or not. Our discussion here has shown that to be partially in error.
My refined assertation is that to be consistent with the example if you had an animal companion you would still command an animal as your first action (which you would auto pass) . Then for the next action on your initiative your animal companion mount would use its two actions (the 1-2 exchange). Then you have one last action to spend.
Then you have one last action to spend.
Players get three actions in a round. Your example only has the player spending two.
Are you assuming this is the turn the player gets on the mount? So it's Mount>Command>Something Else? That's fair, but from the way you're describing it for some reason it sounds like you're only giving the player two actions a round.
|
|
The full example shows an alternative using all 3 actions. To put that in direct comparison with an example showing 2 actions and then stopping doesn't make sense to me.
Clarifying that you could not strike and your mount strike in a single action also seems unnecessarily confusing if that was the intention. Especially since no other rules even the normal animal companion rules work this way. A unequal example and an unnecessary clarification is a hell of a combo in a section designed to help you learn how the rules work.
It also makes it less consistent with the other wording in the section.
"Your mount acts on your initiative. You must use the Command an Animal action (singular) to get your mount to spend its actions (plural)." Parenthesis mine.
|
|
Then you have one last action to spend.Players get three actions in a round. Your example only has the player spending two.
Are you assuming this is the turn the player gets on the mount? So it's Mount>Command>Something Else? That's fair, but from the way you're describing it for some reason it sounds like you're only giving the player two actions a round.
Admittedly I have changed my stance so I apologize for any confusion.
So I am not including Mount as an action. I am saying for someone already mounted. You first need to pass your command an animal check, then in the next action in your initiative your mount would spend its two actions. Then you have one last action left.
I think I am grasping what Mellack is asserting. He is stating that every action is 1-1 while mounted and the example ends at two actions. Which would mean a Non Animal companion mount and rider would get 3 actions all of which translated directly into a mount action or a player strike.
If we go by this interpretation then a non animal companion mount and rider combo gets a total of 3 actions to use but all the mounts actions are essentially free actions that don't count against the economy but he has to be commanded to do them.
In his interpretation not much really changes once you are mounted. And a player character with an animal companion would have his command an animal action. To unlock two actions for the AC to use. And then the PC would have two actions left. So we're left with 5 actions (really 4 because the initial command an animal action doesn't result in a direct animal action but instead unlocks two minion actions as normal)
So the end result is something a lot more consistent and understandable than I originally thought. It just seems that this relies on the assumption Paizo conveyed what they wanted in a really bizarre way (by my standards)