Clarifications - Pet Intelligence 3 and Combat Training

[punchbeard]

Hi all,

I'm about to join a Pathfinder campaign as a druid with the fire domain. The character I designed is a mess of melee, AOE fire damage, and battlefield control. The upside is that I always have options and I get resistance again a common damage type; the possible downside is that evocation damage is kind of unreliable and I'm trying to fit too many roles.

But suppose I instead wanted a big cat animal companion that I could ride/flank in combat, and I boost its intelligence to 3. How does this work with combat training? It seems silly that if we were attacked, I would need to roll to tell a lion to defend itself or to tell it to not eat its allies. Based on the forums that I already read, supposedly Ultimate Combat/Campaign have something about this, but the GM is only allowing CRB and APG. So how would this actually play out?

Additionally, if/when my pet dies and I get a new one with 3 intelligence, would it need to be retrained for combat?

[Coidzor]

It seems silly that if we were attacked, I would need to roll to tell a lion to defend itself or to tell it to not eat its allies.

Unless they released some errata I missed, it will automatically not attack previously designated allies like party members and their entourage(s). It will also automatically defend itself if attacked, provided it's not something too spoopy for it to attack that it will instead flee from.

That's baseline, Int 1-2 stuff, so an Int 3 Animal Companion doesn't magically become worse in that regard.

I can't really answer how the rest works out, since if you ignore the rules/guidelines that Paizo put out, it's all up to the GM. I could make suggestions how to run it or say how I would do it, but I'm not really in the mood to try to persuade your GM to do things my way by proxy.

That said, I've never liked the whole "No, you may not have a sapient Animal Companion!" idea, even going back to D&D 3.5. So I'd say it retains any tricks that would be applicable still and otherwise acts similarly to a cohort with those mental ability scores.

About the only training that I'd say it would still need would be Riding if it's meant to bear a rider. Of the tricks and training I can remember offhand, that is.

[punchbeard]

...provided it's not something too spoopy for it to attack that it will instead flee from.

So that's the part I'm worried about. Can a "scary" creature automatically frighten a large-sized lion (without an intimidate check or racial/magical ability)?

I understand that when an animal companion's intelligence goes to 3, they can understand basic language and commands. Does this mean they don't need to learn tricks? Would they still need combat training if I can just mount them and give commands normally?

[nyjastul69]

If I were GM the lion wouldn't need to do tricks, you can communicate directly, Int 3 has language capabilities. OTOH, with an Int 3 it woukd no longer qualify as an AC.

[punchbeard]

OTOH, with an Int 3 it woukd no longer qualify as an AC.

No, I checked that one. The "animals can't have 3 or more intelligence" refers to creating creatures. Animal companions can have any intelligence, but if they are Awakened then they no longer qualify.

[Coidzor]

So that's the part I'm worried about. Can a "scary" creature automatically frighten a large-sized lion (without an intimidate check or racial/magical ability)?

I understand that when an animal companion's intelligence goes to 3, they can understand basic language and commands. Does this mean they don't need to learn tricks? Would they still need combat training if I can just mount them and give commands normally?

The types that an animal has to be specially trained to attack are fairly clear, though there's probably some corner cases where GM adjudication is better. An intelligent animal should be as capable of attacking instead of fleeing as a standard humanoid creature that is a person in my book.

As for needing to learn tricks, according to Paizo, yes, but your GM said that your group is ignoring those sources, IIRC. According to me, not for the majority of them, my sense of verisimilitude means that up until higher levels I feel that creatures need a little bit of training to get used to being ridden if the Druid isn't spending one of their free, automatically known tricks on that. According to your GM is what matters, though, at the end of the day.

[nyjastul69]

No, I checked that one. The "animals can't have 3 or more intelligence" refers to creating creatures. Animal companions can have any intelligence, but if they are Awakened then they no longer qualify.

I understand the rules. Please don't specifically misquote me in order to further your point. I never claimed the rules stated 3 Int no longer qualifies an animal as an AC. I said 'If I were GM'.

[punchbeard]

Oops, sorry. I guess I misunderstood.
What are your thoughts about taking a druid domain instead of an animal companion? Most people seem to dislike damage spells with saves, but I think they add variety... what do you think?

[punchbeard]

The types that an animal has to be specially trained to attack are fairly clear, though there's probably some corner cases where GM adjudication is better. An intelligent animal should be as capable of attacking instead of fleeing as a standard humanoid creature that is a person in my book.

As for needing to learn tricks, according to Paizo, yes, but your GM said that your group is ignoring those sources, IIRC. According to me, not for the majority of them, my sense of verisimilitude means that up until higher levels I feel that creatures need a little bit of training to get used to being ridden if the Druid isn't spending one of their free, automatically known tricks on that. According to your GM is what matters, though, at the end of the day.

So if I'm understanding correctly: Having 3 intelligence doesn't really affect handle animal, other than the maximum number of tricks known. And if your handle animal skill is high enough, you basically can't fail checks in combat to make the animal perform tricks that it already knows. But the animal would need to be specifically combat trained in order to perform these tricks if you're mounting it. Of course, the GM can rule/overrule anything because they control the animal. Am I getting that right?

To clarify, I have read the rules and understand the concepts, but I don't know how it actually plays out in execution. Maybe what confuses is me is why everyone talks up having an animal companion, and yet they don't have full control over it.