|
Most players with animal companions, when giving them an attack command, always seem to Stride into a flanking position if one exists. I cannot find a specific rule in the game to justify this other than GM fiat as described in the inset (CRB 249) or if you used the Train Animal feat. Seems like it would just move to the closest available square from which it can attack.
Do you just let the master tell it precisely where to go? Would you consider that like an advanced trick and require a Nature check vs an elevated DC? Would you require them to train the animal using the feat? Other?
|
|
No, and that's the point. Its an exercise of what is reasonable to expect from a creature that tends to have a -4/5 Intelligence being commanded or expected to determine on its own how to maximize game mechanical advantages that are not inherent to its instincts. The closest I can find is the referred inset (CRB 249).
"Issuing commands to an animal doesn’t always go smoothly. An animal is an independent creature with limited intelligence. Most animals understand only the simplest instructions, so you might be able to instruct your animal to move to a certain square but not dictate a specific path to get there, or command it to attack a certain creature but not to make its attack nonlethal. The GM decides the specifics of the action your animal uses.
It seems to simply be GM fiat, but it happens often enough and without any GM commentary that perhaps I was missing something in the rules that were more definitive. On the one hand, I want to be as accommodating as reasonably possible for player actions. OTOH, the "hive mind" aspect of a player running two "characters" is one of the main reasons why companions were widely disliked or at least created conflict in 1E.
I am a big fan of the 2E animal companion rules. I think they are elegant, at least with respect to 1E, but I'm keeping a close eye on them for exploits that could begin to unbalance them.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Attacking an enemy from behind or even outright Flanking with members of a pack is not unheard of among animals. So they are intelligent enough to employ such tactics. Presumably even more so if they are a trained animal companion.
And the rules you quote outright say you can command the companion to move to a certain square. The GM might rule that it's not aware/smart enough to get there without provoking AoOs or something, but moving into flanking position seems completely fine.
|
|
Attacking an enemy from behind or even outright Flanking with members of a pack is not unheard of among animals
I agree, though its certainly the exception, not the rule. Of the available companions, wolf immediately comes to mind given their pack instincts. Also, there is the raptor's flanking support benefit. Perhaps it diminishes their ability if every companion can flank.
And the rules you quote outright say you can command the companion to move to a certain square.
To be fair, it says "might be able to...move to a certain square" so its not as definitive as one might think. They seem to be just making some suggestions about possibilities without setting parameters.
Would it really be all that unfair or out of balance to limit a companion to the tricks listed in the Nature skill and requiring a check of some kind (based on the complexity) for other actions? And/or supplementing that by using the Train Animal feat to add additional "tricks" in a similar fashion as 1E that would allow it without making a check?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
To be fair, it says "might be able to...move to a certain square" so its not as definitive as one might think. They seem to be just making some suggestions about possibilities without setting parameters.
You need to take the sentence as a whole. It says you "might be able" as a comparison, not a possibility. It literally says
"You might be able to do this, but you can't do that".
It's not saying "You might or might not be able to do this".
Would it really be all that unfair or out of balance to limit a companion to the tricks listed in the Nature skill and requiring a check of some kind (based on the complexity) for other actions? And/or supplementing that by using the Train Animal feat to add additional "tricks" in a similar fashion as 1E that would allow it without making a check?
Seeing how an animal companion already costs you class feats - and quite a few of them if you want to keep them up to the challenges you're facing - and actually using it well costs you an action every round, I really don't see the need for more limitations.
Also, the rules you're refrring to are for the Command an Animal action of the Nature skill. That's pretty different from an actual Animal Companion. See the Animal Companion rules:
An animal companion is a loyal comrade who follows your orders. 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. 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.
It's right there. You use Command an Animal, which allows you to send an animal to a specific square. But you explicitely do NOT need to roll a Nature check.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Attacking an enemy from behind or even outright Flanking with members of a pack is not unheard of among animalsI agree, though its certainly the exception, not the rule. Of the available companions, wolf immediately comes to mind given their pack instincts. Also, there is the raptor's flanking support benefit. Perhaps it diminishes their ability if every companion can flank.
And the rules you quote outright say you can command the companion to move to a certain square.To be fair, it says "might be able to...move to a certain square" so its not as definitive as one might think. They seem to be just making some suggestions about possibilities without setting parameters.
Would it really be all that unfair or out of balance to limit a companion to the tricks listed in the Nature skill and requiring a check of some kind (based on the complexity) for other actions? And/or supplementing that by using the Train Animal feat to add additional "tricks" in a similar fashion as 1E that would allow it without making a check?
I mean, do Animal Companions really need a nerf? Other than maybe the free movement you can get using them as a mount (which this wouldn't interact with at all) they don't seem very strong.
The way the 'might' is worded in the nature skill call out seems to strongly imply that Animal Companions can go to a square you choose but are limited in choosing an optimal path. The way 'might' is used there (preceding a 'but' in that way), and then how it is followed with "or command it to attack a certain creature but not to make its attack nonlethal" looks very much like it is referring to what Animal Companions can do, contrasted with what they will find too hard to understand.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I tend to let animal companions be like they are in the movies and on TV. They are usually particularly intelligent for their kind and know how to fight with their human companion. Since it is assumed that animal companions are battle-trained given they do get to attack and support, I don't see why they wouldn't be very accustomed to flanking. If they are trained to do support activities, no reason to believe they wouldn't be very used to moving to an opposite position and attacking against a weaker defense. I've seen lion prides and wolf packs and hyenas do this naturally when attacking.
Animals are animals, but they're not dumb. I even in general have them take a path that avoids AoOs as most animals are smart enough to know to steer clear of the bad weapon.
Watch a bunch of animal documentaries. You'll find animals very smart when hunting or fighting. They do a lot of very intelligent tactics. Lion prides for example look for weak targets away from the herd, they often wear it down by hopping on the creatures back and cutting off it's air supply by choking it, and the lion that jumps on its back often does so because one of the other lionesses distracted it. Then are tigers who slowly stalk something until they run out and pounce. And there are water buffalo who keep an enemy in clear sight not letting it get behind them because they know that is a problem.
Animals who engage in combat and hunting in the wild are enormously intelligent, moreso than humans can imagine. An animal companion has all those honed instincts and is used to fighting with a humanoid companion. If you watch a bunch of animal documentaries, you'll change your mind as to how you see animals.
|
One thing that I've noticed is that in PF2 GMs seem to be much more lenient with what animals can do than they were in PF1.
In my mind, this is completely fair and correct. The character is EXPLICITLY spending an action to command them, it isn't the animal deciding it IS the person. Animals often get less leniency when they're using their free action as mature companions.
In real life well trained animals directed by their trainer can do incredible things. I see no issue with the same being true in a RPG. Just look at sheepdog trials, or circus animals or the like.
|
|
animal companions...particularly intelligent
I am almost positive that opinions on this subject are going to vary greatly (based on forum history) so its really not worth arguing about. I doubt many minds would be changed by doing so. I was just providing a counter-point to the assertion.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Attacking an enemy from behind or even outright Flanking with members of a pack is not unheard of among animals. So they are intelligent enough to employ such tactics. Presumably even more so if they are a trained animal companion.
And the rules you quote outright say you can command the companion to move to a certain square. The GM might rule that it's not aware/smart enough to get there without provoking AoOs or something, but moving into flanking position seems completely fine.
"Not unhead of" is an understatement for pack animals like wolves, flanking is there default tactic. Lions definitely understand it as well.
Animals that do not hunt in packs, still do understand attacking from behind. Note there are a number of creatures that put fake eyes on their back to make a predatory think they are alert.(Several moths, caterpillars, fish). I think it is safe to say most animals understand.
Attacking an enemy from behind or even outright Flanking with members of a pack is not unheard of among animals. So they are intelligent enough to employ such tactics. Presumably even more so if they are a trained animal companion.
And the rules you quote outright say you can command the companion to move to a certain square. The GM might rule that it's not aware/smart enough to get there without provoking AoOs or something, but moving into flanking position seems completely fine.
"Not unhead of" is an understatement for pack animals like wolves, flanking is there default tactic. Lions definitely understand it as well.
Animals that do not hunt in packs, still do understand attacking from behind. Note there are a number of creatures that put fake eyes on their back to make a predatory think they are alert.(Several moths, caterpillars, fish). I think it is safe to say most animals understand.
Trouble is flanking in nature doesn't always mean being on exact opposite sides to activate the rule. It's surrounding the enemy, or more specifically getting at their flank. And the real world has facing, so predators know when their targets seem vulnerable to a quick snip.
One of my players had an excellent rejoinder that in the game world, evolution would've ensured that flanking developed to be on exact opposite sides since that's how the physics there work.Fair enough.
The deal was done when we learned the fact you can place the AC in a specific square (assuming clear sight, etc.) which means the PC can place them to flank.
Go there (flanks), now attack. No "flanking" command needed, nor genius-animal interpretation of grids and angles.
Any more than two commands (representing the two actions the master's giving their AC) would likely lead to shenanigans, but flanking in a normal combat seems more straightforward than many of the other tricks or counter-intuitive command mixes that ACs can perform.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
One thing that I've noticed is that in PF2 GMs seem to be much more lenient with what animals can do than they were in PF1.While I agree with those who say the RAW explicitly allows a player to put the animal in the spot they want, I am curious why you think the above statement is supported in the rules.
I'm not making a RAW argument. I'm reporting my actual PFS game experience across a wide range of GMs and speculating as to the reason behind that observed difference.
In practice, RAW is far, far, far less important than Rules as GM runs them.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I play a Druid with Badger AC. It’s trained in Survival and has Scent. I’ve often been allowed to have it Track for us. That said, my PC is a gnome that can speak with the AC, so that does help somewhat.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Every animal companion has a skill in their stat block, a few of the upgrade options enhance companion skills, so if your DMs aren't allowing companion skills at all then I would say they are not running the game as written.