Why are DM's Biased against animal companions

[Vyanie]

I have now left 4 games in a row now because trying to play a simple animal companion class and the DM takes away the animal companion for a majority of the campaign every single time. It seems like quite a few DM's have a massive bias against them for some reason. Last campaign I had a 50 movement speed animal companion that could not overtake a 20 movement enemy that was trying to run away, on open land, making me do animal handle checks on tricks that my animal knew (attack). Then it somehow outran my companion. Campaign I just left 3 games in and my companion was nowhere to be found, I had no clue if it was dead so no idea if i could at least use my summon natures ally in minutes per day. This has seemed like a massive bias against animal companions in multiple games. Anyone else notice a similar trend?

[Palanan]

I’ve never seen or heard of anything like that. Sounds like you just had a run of terrible luck where animal companions were concerned.

[KillianHawkeye]

All I can say is that animal companions have a tendency to steal the show in pretty much every game that I've seen them in, so it doesn't surprise me at all to hear that some DMs are against the idea.

[Fouredged Sword]

Too much stuff to keep track of. 4 players is hard enough. When one or two of the players have 2 sets of actions is takes an already long battle turn and stretches it out further.

Just my guess anyway.

[Goaty14]

Because at low levels, it makes fighters cry. At higher levels it's annoying ("Whadda mean you have an elephant hauling around your gear?").

Just my guess anyway.

[Vyanie]

All I can say is that animal companions have a tendency to steal the show in pretty much every game that I've seen them in, so it doesn't surprise me at all to hear that some DMs are against the idea.

I might be able to go along with this if people didnt allow casters into games.

[Pleh]

Yeesh. If a DM has issues with animal companions, maybe ask them to read their rulebooks more carefully and choose a system more suited to their playstyle. No point denying players their Core Base Class Features. It's just sad.

[Crake]

I definitely require players to use handle animal to make animals do tricks.

Even if an animal knows a trick, it's still DC10 to get the animal to do it (12 if the animal has taken any damage). Of course, you get +4 to handle animal checks made to handle animal companions, so with 1 wis, you can succeed on a natural 1 at level 1, and handling an animal comapnion is a free action. By level 3 you can automatically handle your animal companion even if it's taken damage, so I don't see what the issue is with actually making you do handle animal checks for your animal companion, unless you didn't put any ranks in it?


Because at low levels, it makes fighters cry. At higher levels it's annoying ("Whadda mean you have an elephant hauling around your gear?").

Just my guess anyway.

Despite people saying this, I've never seen an animal companion outshine a fighter. 1d6+1 damage plus a potential trip from a wolf at +3 to hit and 14 AC isn't really that big a deal compared to the greatsword wielding fighter with +5 (+4) to hit, and 2d6+6(+8) damage, with power attack.

[Darth Ultron]

Yea, it has been a problem for a long time.

Too many players treat the animal companion as a second character, not an animal companion. They use it as a loophole and exploit to try and ruin the game play. And this is very disruptive to the game.

Though it does work if the DM keeps control of the animal companion and treats it like just an animal.

[Vyanie]

I definitely require players to use handle animal to make animals do tricks.

Even if an animal knows a trick, it's still DC10 to get the animal to do it (12 if the animal has taken any damage). Of course, you get +4 to handle animal checks made to handle animal companions, so with 1 wis, you can succeed on a natural 1 at level 1, and handling an animal comapnion is a free action. By level 3 you can automatically handle your animal companion even if it's taken damage, so I don't see what the issue is with actually making you do handle animal checks for your animal companion, unless you didn't put any ranks in it?



Despite people saying this, I've never seen an animal companion outshine a fighter. 1d6+1 damage plus a potential trip from a wolf at +3 to hit and 14 AC isn't really that big a deal compared to the greatsword wielding fighter with +5 (+4) to hit, and 2d6+6(+8) damage, with power attack.

multiple problems with it, it forces people on an already MAD class to be even more MAD something i detest, handle animal is a CHA check not WIS and having a class feature just flat out dissapear because of a low roll, literally your companion in the heat of combat will sit there like a good pet and do nothing? If you have any experience with animals that is about the opposite that an animal will do ESPECIALLY a natural predator like Bear or Lion. The bigger issue is forcing the player to roll attack trick every single round to do the exact same thing (attack).

[RoboEmperor]

multiple problems with it, it forces people on an already MAD class to be even more MAD something i detest, handle animal is a CHA check not WIS and having a class feature just flat out dissapear because of a low roll, literally your companion in the heat of combat will sit there like a good pet and do nothing? If you have any experience with animals that is about the opposite that an animal will do ESPECIALLY a natural predator like Bear or Lion. The bigger issue is forcing the player to roll attack trick every single round to do the exact same thing (attack).

Have it perform the defend trick before battle then. It will attack anything that attacks you automatically.

[Crake]

multiple problems with it, it forces people on an already MAD class to be even more MAD something i detest, handle animal is a CHA check not WIS and having a class feature just flat out dissapear because of a low roll, literally your companion in the heat of combat will sit there like a good pet and do nothing? If you have any experience with animals that is about the opposite that an animal will do ESPECIALLY a natural predator like Bear or Lion. The bigger issue is forcing the player to roll attack trick every single round to do the exact same thing (attack).

Well, it depends. Yes a dog will fight to defend you, that's because you told it to guard/defend before the fight even started, so it'll attack anyone hostile coming near you, but if you instead wanted to get your dog to attack a specific enemy, yes that would require a check. You don't however need to roll every round, just every command, so if you order your dog to attack an enemy, it'll keep doing that until either that enemy dies, or you give it another successful order.

And even so, handling a companion is a free action, you could just try again within reason.

[Dr_Dinosaur]

Well, it depends. Yes a dog will fight to defend you, that's because you told it to guard/defend before the fight even started, so it'll attack anyone hostile coming near you, but if you instead wanted to get your dog to attack a specific enemy, yes that would require a check. You don't however need to roll every round, just every command, so if you order your dog to attack an enemy, it'll keep doing that until either that enemy dies, or you give it another successful order.

And even so, handling a companion is a free action, you could just try again within reason.

If it’s a free action then requiring the check is pointless in the first place because the player can just keep rolling until they suceed

[RoboEmperor]

If it’s a free action then requiring the check is pointless in the first place because the player can just keep rolling until they suceed

Pretty sure its a move action.

[Crake]

Pretty sure its a move action.

It's a move action on a non-companion, for a companion, it's free. It's a move action to push a companion.

However, that said, you have as many free actions on your turn that are within reason, so you can't reasonably keep trying infinite times until you succeed.

[JNAProductions]

It's a move action on a non-companion, for a companion, it's free. It's a move action to push a companion.

However, that said, you have as many free actions on your turn that are within reason, so you can't reasonably keep trying infinite times until you succeed.

So what's the cut-off? Just to put a number on it.

[Remuko]

So what's the cut-off? Just to put a number on it.

RAW the cut-off is DM discretion.

[JNAProductions]

RAW the cut-off is DM discretion.

I'm asking Crake what their's is.

[RoboEmperor]

I think the same free action is once a round.

Otherwise, Conjure Ice Beasts, who do 1d6 damage in a 10ft aura as a free action at the beginning of their turn, could just trigger it 1million times and insta kill everything that's not resistant to cold.

Is there a rule that says that anywhere? Rule Compendium maybe?

[Crake]

I'm asking Crake what their's is.

Thinking about it, I'd probably make the limit 1, the next would cost you your swift action, then your move action, though I'd appreciate that other DMs might give more leeway.

Honestly though, I've never actually had someone have an animal companion, and NOT have enough to automatically succeed on their handle animal check, so it's never been something that's come up at my table.

[Vyanie]

Thinking about it, I'd probably make the limit 1, the next would cost you your swift action, then your move action, though I'd appreciate that other DMs might give more leeway.

Honestly though, I've never actually had someone have an animal companion, and NOT have enough to automatically succeed on their handle animal check, so it's never been something that's come up at my table.

the problem I have is Paizo decided they wanted to make a class that requires str/dex/con because its a melee character then wisdom for being a caster and INT because feat tax stupidity. I love the flavor of the class, but it was not thought out so when someone wants to play it the only thing to be passable in what they require is to dump cha to make a somewhat feasable character. so failing an action of something that an animal was trained on fairly easily is pretty much out of the question. Its like giving casters a 25-30% chance to fizzle every spell even before stuff gets saves. Worse is when a DM expects you to keep having to roll it every single attack every turn. As someone who has trained service animals (and remember in real world we have no magic) they just do not behave like this. Add in the mysticism of animal companion classes it makes it more than a bit aggravating, also generally telling something to attack (usually in a different language than your main language) is pretty instant

[Elkad]

Despite people saying this, I've never seen an animal companion outshine a fighter. 1d6+1 damage plus a potential trip from a wolf at +3 to hit and 14 AC isn't really that big a deal compared to the greatsword wielding fighter with +5 (+4) to hit, and 2d6+6(+8) damage, with power attack.

Check back when the druid has a tiger wearing half the druid's WBL, and is benefitting from all the party buffs.
5 attacks means 5x bard song, 5x amulet of mighty fists, etc. It moves 70 to the fighter's 40, has evasion, a higher AC, etc.
5 swings at +21/+21/+19/+19/+19, for 4d8+2d6+58.
At my table, the tiger of the L8 druid just one-shotted a hill giant in slightly upgraded gear. Granted the tiger rolled a couple crits, but 80 damage a round is pretty typical, and 110 isn't much of a stretch.

You have to know something about optimization to do that with a fighter.

And we haven't even gotten to venomfire fleshrakers yet.

[Warchon]

I've had a DM limit free actions to your DEX bonus (minimum one) per round. Typically people who aren't abusing the rules aren't trying to do 5 free actions at a time anyway so it never caused an issue.

[LuminousWarrior]

I feel like the biggest problem with animal companions is action economy. That being said, animal companions are fine. I typically play Pathfinder, so I'm more worried about summoners than druids. As much as I hate druids, a summoner tends to be better if you're trying to break the action economy.

[Krazzman]

For my last campaign I had 3 players in a Gestalt game, the main point I said for character creation: No Animal Companions, don't use Summoning as a main shtick etc.

Mainly because with one new and another still learning player this would be a bit too harsh. They did use Summon Natures Ally to summon a distraction as well as summon swarm as a distraction which was allowed. But if one player would go "I summon xd6 monsters" every round it would have both dragged out combats too long and would be stealing the spotlight for the others.

Familiars handle under: "I won't target them if you don't make them a target." If you use your Mauler Familiar regularly, of course an enemy will hit it back but just using it as some bonus stats? Yeah, that's all right.

[Yogibear41]

They tend to die in our games or be useless. Usually cuz its like a ranger or something with a 1/2 level dog or something, or the player doesn't use them wisely and gets them killed.

However, we have also seen people try to play them like they are playing 2 characters, assume the companion can read their mind, miss treat them, take them places they don't like, etc. Our DM is not a big fan of this, people who constantly mistreat them tend to have them abandon them.

Same with familiars, people treat them like slaves alot of the time, their not. They have free will. I don't know anywhere in the rules where it says you specifically control your familiar.

Which isn't to say our DM doesn't let us do what we want to with them the majority of the time, its just possible that if you tell them to do something completely against their nature they might not do it.

I freely admit when I was playing a low level orc druid, I sacrificed my wolf to buy time for the rest of the party to escape from a monster that out classed us, probably saved a TPK. Poor Woolfy. :smallfrown:

[Crake]

the problem I have is Paizo decided they wanted to make a class that requires str/dex/con because its a melee character then wisdom for being a caster and INT because feat tax stupidity. I love the flavor of the class, but it was not thought out so when someone wants to play it the only thing to be passable in what they require is to dump cha to make a somewhat feasable character. so failing an action of something that an animal was trained on fairly easily is pretty much out of the question. Its like giving casters a 25-30% chance to fizzle every spell even before stuff gets saves. Worse is when a DM expects you to keep having to roll it every single attack every turn. As someone who has trained service animals (and remember in real world we have no magic) they just do not behave like this. Add in the mysticism of animal companion classes it makes it more than a bit aggravating, also generally telling something to attack (usually in a different language than your main language) is pretty instant

That right there is the issue. You issue the attack command once, and the animal will attack until told to stop. That is in fact the very reason why the down command exists: " An animal that doesn’t know this trick continues to fight until it must flee (due to injury, a fear effect, or the like) or its opponent is defeated. "

But, if you're playing a ranger, and you're getting an animal companion, you're only getting it at level 4, so by then you should have 7 ranks (or 4 ranks, +3 class skill in pathfinder), and +4 from link, meaning even with 10 cha, you automatically succeed on commanding your companion, even if it's injured. The only time I can see it being an issue is if you didn't actually put enough ranks into handle animal, in which case, it's your fault anyway.


Check back when the druid has a tiger wearing half the druid's WBL, and is benefitting from all the party buffs.
5 attacks means 5x bard song, 5x amulet of mighty fists, etc. It moves 70 to the fighter's 40, has evasion, a higher AC, etc.
5 swings at +21/+21/+19/+19/+19, for 4d8+2d6+58.
At my table, the tiger of the L8 druid just one-shotted a hill giant in slightly upgraded gear. Granted the tiger rolled a couple crits, but 80 damage a round is pretty typical, and 110 isn't much of a stretch.

You have to know something about optimization to do that with a fighter.

And we haven't even gotten to venomfire fleshrakers yet.

So from what I can tell, the tiger must have had haste, +4 str, +1 amulet of mighty fists (could have saved that and just cast greater magic fang really), the bard must have stacked inspire courage up to +4, that would give him the damage you listed. Adding all that up only puts the tiger's attack bonus at +17 though, 19 while charging, so I'm curious as to how you got the extra +2, flanking perhaps? I do sincerely doubt the tiger has a higher AC though unless the fighter was practically naked or was using shock trooper, and if he was close, then the reason was likely buffs that you cast on him, that you COULD have cast on the fighter as well, but opted against doing so for some reason?

A fighter at the same level with shock trooper and leap attack will have 8 bab, 20 str, +4 item/buff, a +2 weapon, (+1 valorous, then buffed to +2 with GMW), then another +2 charging/flanking, +4 from the bard, and +1 from haste, for a total bonus of +26, for 4d6+80 damage on a single attack, not relying on multiple hits, and not suffering from multiple damage reduction damage losses (your tiger would lose a huge chunk of damage against anything with DR10). That's just a basic charger build, vs a basic tiger build, but the fighter can still do a normal power attack at +16 to hit for 2d6+28 damage if he's left unable to charge, wheras the tiger is left with a single measly blow of 1d8+14, admittedly at the higher bonus of +19, but the fighter can pull back his power attack by 3 points to meet that and still be at 2d6+22.

Also, by the way the rakes are at full attack bonus, not -5 from secondary, despite only getting half str bonus as a secondary does. Also, the bite should be at -5 not -2, tigers don't get multiattack.

[Luckmann]

Yea, it has been a problem for a long time.

Too many players treat the animal companion as a second character, not an animal companion. They use it as a loophole and exploit to try and ruin the game play. And this is very disruptive to the game.

Though it does work if the DM keeps control of the animal companion and treats it like just an animal.I've never understood this ruling, honestly, and it frustrates me, partly because it seems endemic. It's the same with Cohorts. A lot of people seem to assume that if a player gets a Cohort, the player gets to design it. If they have a Cohort or Animal Companion, they get to fully control it as if it's an extra character, etc.

I think that in the rules, it's pretty clear that that is not at all how it is supposed to work.

[noob]

I've never understood this ruling, honestly, and it frustrates me, partly because it seems endemic. It's the same with Cohorts. A lot of people seem to assume that if a player gets a Cohort, the player gets to design it. If they have a Cohort or Animal Companion, they get to fully control it as if it's an extra character, etc.

I think that in the rules, it's pretty clear that that is not at all how it is supposed to work.

For cohorts it is suggested that it is a possibility to give control of the cohort to the player.
And familiars are supposed to want to help you so it is rather normal that if you say "research a spell while I go and adventure" the familiar might do that.
And for getting your familiar to do dangerous stuff do not forget that if the wizard die the familiar stops progressing(but then can gain levels easier if he goes and adventure but then adventuring without a master is way more dangerous) so the familiar might be interested in helping his master to survive.
One of the reasons why cohorts and familiars are often placed under total control by the players is that else it would be an npc that ends up being quite smart and wise and so it would not make sense if that npc does not sometimes comes up with the obvious like:
"come on they can not have trapped each wall and door and square centimeter of floor and of roof of a house in which they live"(the truth is that they did) or yet "for going above those pit traps instead of filling them with molten iron we could just build a bridge above with those benches in the room next to this corridor"(obviously any smart adventurer knows that by filling with molten iron everything that can be filled with such material they can get rid of the traps and of the monsters that can not swim in molten iron)

[Florian]

Why?

That's simple: Because a lot of players treat things like animal companions, cohorts, summons and such as equipment, not as an actual NPC with its own motivation, tactics, aims and goal, all that, but rather like a WoW Hunter pet or Warlock demon. It actually is annoying when a tiger or imp companion is _not_ played as an tiger or imp but rather as a full extension of the Druid/Infernalist character (and player).

[Fizban]

I like animal companions. I'm not much of a dog person, but I love the "dog who improbably survives all kinds of stuff and defends their master/master's family" trope as much as anyone. And the "kid plays on lethal jungle cat" trope. And hunting birds, and big lizards, and all that stuff.

The problem is bears. Specifically, Brown Bears. 3.5's Brown Bears are basically the most powerful animal that isn't explicitly a Dire version of a bear. The only things stronger than Brown Bears are things that are bigger: Huge creatures that aren't "companions" anymore, just siege quality beasts of war. The Giant Crocodile and Rhinoceros can compare, but only with single attacks and a bit more hp. The vital statistics given for "brown bears" don't even match those of your average brown bear. The 3.5 Brown Bear is clearly based on the rare and isolated Kodiak Bear, which is way bigger than the common north American grizzly bear. But it has this weird combination of a paltry 6 HD and str that rivals or even exceeds that of many Huge creatures, and is apparently just the standard go-to for any druid of 7th or higher level, they'll just step outside for 24 hours and poof they have a terrifying Kodiak Bear "companion."

And what story even has a bear as a "companion?" Again- dogs, cats, birds, lizards, horses, bigger versions of all of these, all over the place. But the only time I hear trained bears mentioned are the circus, and char-op.

Fix the animal stats, fix the companion progressions, just axe companions larger than medium, all sorts of easy fixes. But running one of the more poorly considered abilities in 3.5 exactly as written? Yeah no.

[EldritchWeaver]

But, if you're playing a ranger, and you're getting an animal companion, you're only getting it at level 4, so by then you should have 7 ranks (or 4 ranks, +3 class skill in pathfinder), and +4 from link, meaning even with 10 cha, you automatically succeed on commanding your companion, even if it's injured. The only time I can see it being an issue is if you didn't actually put enough ranks into handle animal, in which case, it's your fault anyway.

Why are you requiring rolls on something someone autosucceeds?


I've never understood this ruling, honestly, and it frustrates me, partly because it seems endemic. It's the same with Cohorts. A lot of people seem to assume that if a player gets a Cohort, the player gets to design it. If they have a Cohort or Animal Companion, they get to fully control it as if it's an extra character, etc.

I think that in the rules, it's pretty clear that that is not at all how it is supposed to work.

In Ultimate Campaign, there is a rule stating: "If it is on your character sheet, it is yours to control." After all, no player would accept that a GM disallows using feats like Power Attack by the player himself. Granted, mistreatment as reason to remove an AC or cohort is something I'd accept as player, but in general, the additional character does what I say.

[Pleh]

And what story even has a bear as a "companion?" Again- dogs, cats, birds, lizards, horses, bigger versions of all of these, all over the place. But the only time I hear trained bears mentioned are the circus, and char-op.

Brother Bear.

I had a race of ice dwarves that had their captains sometimes riding polar bears.

And I think any solution provided for Animal Companions (and cohorts) should heed Grod's Law: Don't try to balance them by making them annoying to use.

As (I believe it was Crake) mentioned, commanding your AC is a free action that becomes auto successful pretty early if you put points in it.

A DM that says an enemy with 20ft speed outruns a 50ft speed Companion because *unintelligible* is just being a sourpuss who wanted a returning villain and didn't plan for the PCs very effectively. It's cheap and shoddy game management at the player's expense.

That said, it's possible this Druid isn't very optimal. The OP said they need Str/Dex/Con/Wis, but last I checked, Druids don't worry about physical stats at all because they're just going to wild shape into a bear anyway. Maybe it's just different in PF, but Natural Spell basically negates the only drawback to always being Wild Shaped in combat. No reason to not have all your mental stats cranked to 16 and just Wild Shape, then buff with spells, because you're stronger as a bear with Bear's Strength than you would ever be in your humanoid form.

[noob]

Brother Bear.

I had a race of ice dwarves that had their captains sometimes riding polar bears.

And I think any solution provided for Animal Companions (and cohorts) should heed Grod's Law: Don't try to balance them by making them annoying to use.

As (I believe it was Crake) mentioned, commanding your AC is a free action that becomes auto successful pretty early if you put points in it.

A DM that says an enemy with 20ft speed outruns a 50ft speed Companion because *unintelligible* is just being a sourpuss who wanted a returning villain and didn't plan for the PCs very effectively. It's cheap and shoddy game management at the player's expense.

That said, it's possible this Druid isn't very optimal. The OP said they need Str/Dex/Con/Wis, but last I checked, Druids don't worry about physical stats at all because they're just going to wild shape into a bear anyway. Maybe it's just different in PF, but Natural Spell basically negates the only drawback to always being Wild Shaped in combat. No reason to not have all your mental stats cranked to 16 and just Wild Shape, then buff with spells, because you're stronger as a bear with Bear's Strength than you would ever be in your humanoid form.

Did the op say it was a druid?
maybe it was a ranger and rangers are known for two things: mad issues and animal companions(and still being better than fighters but fighters are just really bad)
Now polymorph no longer override physical stats but physical stats are still quite inconsequential for a druid(except if you somehow take hits or really need initiative and even they animal shape can give a consequential bonus to thoses) for a druid can just cast battlefield control spells such as entangle or just win with 4d chess with no fights involved.

[Pleh]

Did the op say it was a druid?
maybe it was a ranger and rangers are known for two things: mad issues and animal companions(and still being better than fighters but fighters are just really bad)
Now polymorph no longer override physical stats but physical stats are still quite inconsequential for a druid(except if you somehow take hits or really need initiative and even they animal shape can give a consequential bonus to thoses) for a druid can just cast battlefield control spells such as entangle or just win with 4d chess with no fights involved.

Good points. I guess I just figured if Animal Companion were important to you, you wouldn't choose the completely inferior option, but maybe the companion wasn't the focus and just an unfortunate side effect.

[Crake]

Why are you requiring rolls on something someone autosucceeds?

If the player auto succeeds, there is a "virutal" roll. The dice don't need to actually be thrown, but the "roll" still happens by the rules. But, in the OP's case, it didn't sound like it WAS an automatic success.


In Ultimate Campaign, there is a rule stating: "If it is on your character sheet, it is yours to control." After all, no player would accept that a GM disallows using feats like Power Attack by the player himself. Granted, mistreatment as reason to remove an AC or cohort is something I'd accept as player, but in general, the additional character does what I say.

There are exceptions to this, when explicitly stated. Leadership cohorts are officially under the DM's control, and various improved familiars are explicitly stated to abandon their masters if mistreated, despite the player's "control" of them.

[Quertus]

Yeah, OP, I've not seen this kind of mistreatment of animal companions at my tables. Sorry for your luck.


All I can say is that animal companions have a tendency to steal the show in pretty much every game that I've seen them in, so it doesn't surprise me at all to hear that some DMs are against the idea.


I might be able to go along with this if people didnt allow casters into games.

At the optimization levels I've seen, I've not seen animal companions upstage... anyone.


I've never understood this ruling, honestly, and it frustrates me, partly because it seems endemic. It's the same with Cohorts. A lot of people seem to assume that if a player gets a Cohort, the player gets to design it. If they have a Cohort or Animal Companion, they get to fully control it as if it's an extra character, etc.

I think that in the rules, it's pretty clear that that is not at all how it is supposed to work.

I mean, some GMs don't want to have to design (or run) half a dozen cohorts, animal companions, cohort's animal companions, etc - they'd prefer the players to do the work.

I'm one of those GMs.

[blackwindbears]

the problem I have is Paizo decided they wanted to make a class that requires str/dex/con because its a melee character then wisdom for being a caster and INT because feat tax stupidity. I love the flavor of the class, but it was not thought out so when someone wants to play it the only thing to be passable in what they require is to dump cha to make a somewhat feasable character. so failing an action of something that an animal was trained on fairly easily is pretty much out of the question. Its like giving casters a 25-30% chance to fizzle every spell even before stuff gets saves. Worse is when a DM expects you to keep having to roll it every single attack every turn. As someone who has trained service animals (and remember in real world we have no magic) they just do not behave like this. Add in the mysticism of animal companion classes it makes it more than a bit aggravating, also generally telling something to attack (usually in a different language than your main language) is pretty instant

Sorry what class is this? Are we talking about a druid?

If they dump Cha (8), you have a handle animal check on your companion of 4(skill)+4(for animal companion)-1(Cha)= +7. You need to get between a 3 and a 5. So 10-20% chance of failure at level one. The druid has *plenty* to do at level one.

This stops being a problem entirely by, what, level 3?

Edit: Also, regarding the chase. It's hard for you to know what actually happened.

I recall when I came back to playing after DMing for awhile (8 years ago). I mistrusted the DM very badly. There was an opposing caster I was worried about hitting us with a spell, so I readied a maximized magic missile against him casting a spell.

Then he started casting dimension door. Awesome, I hit him automatically for 25 damage. The DM says "it doesn't do anything, he finishes casting and escapes". I was shocked, "if he has magic resistance I should get a roll." The DM just moved on. I was really annoyed because I just assumed he had pulled dm Fiat to save his npc. That seemed probable to me, because as a DM I had to make many tough calls to let important NPCs die. I talked to the DM later, it turned out that the NPC had shield up. (Duh)

As a player, your information is extremely limited. There might have been a good reason he escaped. Maybe he cast invisibility just after he went out of sight, maybe your animal companion started following a quickly moving illusionist. Maybe it was just bull****. But you need to re-establish trust or quit, because the DM has too many options, and can't always be explaining every detail of something. But just because the DM can't give you a satisfactory explanation doesn't mean there isn't one.

[Jack_Simth]

I've had a DM limit free actions to your DEX bonus (minimum one) per round. Typically people who aren't abusing the rules aren't trying to do 5 free actions at a time anyway so it never caused an issue.

Archers. Drawing an arrow is a free action. Hurts Archery Rangers badly.

[Goaty14]

Archers. Drawing an arrow is a free action. Hurts Archery Rangers badly.

Any archer worth his salt has a DEX bonus equal to their attacks in a full-attack.

[JNAProductions]

Any archer worth his salt has a DEX bonus equal to their attacks in a full-attack.

Doesn't Zen Archery allow you to use Wisdom in place of Dexterity for archery?

[Fizban]

Brother Bear.
Aha! Well I'm glad there's at least one, but Ima still rage against the bear.

I had a race of ice dwarves that had their captains sometimes riding polar bears.
The X on bears thing has always sounded to me like a direct result of bear "companions" in 3.5. Polar bears are also comparable in size to the Kodiak bear so that makes sense, have 2 more hit dice so their strength isn't so mismatched, and are a full tier higher on the animal companion table so they're 3 levels later. The simplest fix is to just put 2 more HD on the "brown" bear and put it on the same tier. And then fix the rest of the list on the way.

Regarding player/DM control: if the player is actually acting out their companion as a companion, then all they've got to do is put in the Handle Animal ranks to skip the rolls and it'll follow the trick descriptions, but I'm not skipping those (a clever player might notice the built in way to do so, however). If the player is running their "companion" as floating set of attacks, then I'll probably treat them as such- allowing it to get killed by some monster when they slip up, and then enforce the full might of the "where are you getting that?" question.

A big, powerful, rare animal is not something you pull out of your pocket, it's something you protect.

[EldritchWeaver]

There are exceptions to this, when explicitly stated. Leadership cohorts are officially under the DM's control, and various improved familiars are explicitly stated to abandon their masters if mistreated, despite the player's "control" of them.

So according to the official PRD (http://legacy.aonprd.com/ultimateCampaign/campaignSystems/companions.html), the following rules are used (some extrapolated, exceptions can occur):



Companion

Controlled mainly by



Nonsentient Companions

GM



Sentient Companion

Player



Eidolons

Player



Magical Control

Player



Cohort

Player



Follower

Player



Hirelings

GM

[Vyanie]

Brother Bear.

I had a race of ice dwarves that had their captains sometimes riding polar bears.

And I think any solution provided for Animal Companions (and cohorts) should heed Grod's Law: Don't try to balance them by making them annoying to use.

As (I believe it was Crake) mentioned, commanding your AC is a free action that becomes auto successful pretty early if you put points in it.

A DM that says an enemy with 20ft speed outruns a 50ft speed Companion because *unintelligible* is just being a sourpuss who wanted a returning villain and didn't plan for the PCs very effectively. It's cheap and shoddy game management at the player's expense.

That said, it's possible this Druid isn't very optimal. The OP said they need Str/Dex/Con/Wis, but last I checked, Druids don't worry about physical stats at all because they're just going to wild shape into a bear anyway. Maybe it's just different in PF, but Natural Spell basically negates the only drawback to always being Wild Shaped in combat. No reason to not have all your mental stats cranked to 16 and just Wild Shape, then buff with spells, because you're stronger as a bear with Bear's Strength than you would ever be in your humanoid form.


Hunter not druid, very similar as hunters are the worst of druids and rangers ( literally the lowest of everything IE.. saves, BAB, meeting feet reqs) in exchange they get a few teamwork feats that they still have to qualify for unlike the ranger ignoring requirements with bonus feats. It is supposed to be a class based around the synergy of a person and an animal companion.

[Darth Ultron]

I think that in the rules, it's pretty clear that that is not at all how it is supposed to work.

Except the rules never say it explicitly.

And it's worse as many players ''interpret" an animal companion as a second character deim god.

Also a big problem is the role play side...if your game has role playing in it.

The player will insist that the animal must stay within a foot of the character at all times, they want some sort of special in game rule that animal companions are ''so cool" they can go anywhere anytime.

And the player loves it if an NPC is scared of their animal or something good happens.....but , of course, they turn into the biggest cry babies if anything bad or negative happens.

Good:The NPC at the magic shop is all "take all the magic items, just don't let your animal eat me ekk!"
Bad:The NPC closes the magic shop as soon as the character and bear enter the town.

And, you also have the ''my animal can go physically anywhere" whine. Where the player will insist their animal can climb down a ladder or such...because they ''want them too".

Often I just kill animals in the first combat....they are such easy, weak targets. And most players just toss them into battle thinking the ''plot armor gentleman rules" protect them like they do player characters. It's so much fun to watch their shock and horror when they are told "you animal gets hacked to pieces".

Another good trick is to just teleport the character and animal far away form each other.

[Jack_Simth]

Any archer worth his salt has a DEX bonus equal to their attacks in a full-attack.
As a primary archer? Maybe. Consider a fighter with Brutal Throw, Quick Draw, and a bunch of javelins. Entirely str-based, so very useful as a backup method of attack when it's a bad idea to close with an opponent. Also isn't completely negated by Wind Wall.


Doesn't Zen Archery allow you to use Wisdom in place of Dexterity for archery?
That too. There's more than one way to be an archer that's not Dex-based.

[Vyanie]

Except the rules never say it explicitly.

Another good trick is to just teleport the character and animal far away form each other.

You are basically the kind of DM ive been running into. Do you take away a wizards spellbook and make the entire world an antimagic zone?? a fighters armor and weapons making them fight naked after removing their arms and legs? hobble the monk with chains and dont let him move after crucifying them with a spike in each limb? Ohh i know, you say a cleric let a fly land on them so they are not divine enough and take away all granted spells and having their god be pissed and dropping a mountain on them.

Personally I play my animal companion and the character as one single entity, especially on a class that without one you literally lose 2/3 of your character. it might have to wait outside of a shop because a shopkeeper might feel nervous but if you look at even the american frontier in the past with say a hunting dog in Alaska or even most of europe faithful companions went everywhere with their masters.

[Goaty14]

As a primary archer? Maybe. Consider a fighter with Brutal Throw, Quick Draw, and a bunch of javelins.

People actually use javelins in pathfinder? :smallconfused: That's a pretty nice TO build.

[Darth Ultron]

You are basically the kind of DM ive been running into. Do you take away a wizards spellbook and make the entire world an antimagic zone??

Yes, and no not the ''whole world", but yes, parts of it.



a fighters armor and weapons making them fight naked after removing their arms and legs?

Yes, even more so if the fighter has an exotic weapon they can't easily replace



hobble the monk with chains and dont let him move after crucifying them with a spike in each limb?

No and no



Ohh i know, you say a cleric let a fly land on them so they are not divine enough and take away all granted spells and having their god be pissed and dropping a mountain on them.

YES




Personally I play my animal companion and the character as one single entity, especially on a class that without one you literally lose 2/3 of your character. it might have to wait outside of a shop because a shopkeeper might feel nervous but if you look at even the american frontier in the past with say a hunting dog in Alaska or even most of europe faithful companions went everywhere with their masters.

Right, you play the animal as a second character...that is exactly the problem. You don't play the animal AS an animal companion.

I have no doubt your the type that if a fight breaks out while the character is in a shop, that the animal companion will ''know" somehow and ''somehow" get into the shop so it can be part of the fight.

And yes it is true that some places in a game world might accept animals....maybe. But details like that are up to the DM. The DM creates the world and gets to say ''what is what", not whining players that say ''my animal companion has to go everywhere with character!"

[Crake]

Personally I play my animal companion and the character as one single entity, especially on a class that without one you literally lose 2/3 of your character. it might have to wait outside of a shop because a shopkeeper might feel nervous but if you look at even the american frontier in the past with say a hunting dog in Alaska or even most of europe faithful companions went everywhere with their masters.

I'm curious to know what kind of character you're playing honestly. I can't think of a single class where the animal companion makes up THAT much of the character. Honestly, I hate the animal companion system in pathfinder, I think the 3.5 one is far better, so I tend to pick the alternate option for the companion on druids and rangers when I play them in pathfinder.

All that said: I also have little to no compunctions in killing off animal companions if players use them recklessly, and pretty much ANY non-domestic animal is not welcome in towns in my games. If you want to have a canine animal companion that can walk into town, get a riding dog. Bears and wolves, ESPECIALLY dire versions, are not allowed. I also require players to actually find their animal companions (barring their starting one obviously), so getting things like tigers and dinosaurs is practically impossible unless you're in the right part of the world.

[JNAProductions]

I have no doubt your the type that if a fight breaks out while the character is in a shop, that the animal companion will ''know" somehow and ''somehow" get into the shop so it can be part of the fight.

Just gonna address that, but...

Wouldn't the animal hear a ruckus breaking out? In this situation, they're right outside the door. It's pretty easy to hear a fight.

[Crake]

Just gonna address that, but...

Wouldn't the animal hear a ruckus breaking out? In this situation, they're right outside the door. It's pretty easy to hear a fight.

Animals tend to have trouble opening doors though. That said, if your animal is trained, and you gave it the stay command while outside, it SHOULD follow that command until given another.

[JNAProductions]

Animals tend to have trouble opening doors though

Windows aren't that hard to break.

Heck, doors aren't that hard for bigger beasties.

[Crake]

Windows aren't that hard to break.

Heck, doors aren't that hard for bigger beasties.

I added it as an edit, but there is the issue of: If you issued a stay command to your animal, it SHOULD follow that command, even when it hears a fight break out. Unless your animal companion charges off toward any fight it hears?

Plus I believe DU's point was more that suddenly the fight starts and boom, your animal companion who was previously outside is now right by your side ready to fight somehow.

[JNAProductions]

I added it as an edit, but there is the issue of: If you issued a stay command to your animal, it SHOULD follow that command, even when it hears a fight break out. Unless your animal companion charges off toward any fight it hears?

Plus I believe DU's point was more that suddenly the fight starts and boom, your animal companion who was previously outside is now right by your side ready to fight somehow.

Ah.

That is a good point, but you could easily just yell "GET IN HERE AND FIGHT WITH ME!" to your animal buddy.

And I would agree that THAT is silly, but I don't think that's what anyone here who likes animal companions has said.

[Darth Ultron]

Just gonna address that, but...

Wouldn't the animal hear a ruckus breaking out? In this situation, they're right outside the door. It's pretty easy to hear a fight.

Sure the animal might hear something...but it is an animal. They don't know what a fight sounds like, and don't react exactly like a human.

Not for an animal companion the ''link'' is not a mystical connection where the animal gets like an INT of 10 and a human personality.


Animals tend to have trouble opening doors though. That said, if your animal is trained, and you gave it the stay command while outside, it SHOULD follow that command until given another.

This too. A trained animal does what it is told to do. They don't just do whatever is best for the player character.


Windows aren't that hard to break.

Heck, doors aren't that hard for bigger beasties.

See this gets a bit into the silly Disney animals. So the animal companion outside will hear the fight and have the human like intelligent thought of ''oh no, I must get in there and help my companion"?

Unless you specifically train an animal to say ''break a window", most animals won't do that.

[Quertus]

I was really annoyed because I just assumed he had pulled dm Fiat to save his npc. That seemed probable to me, because as a DM I had to make many tough calls to let important NPCs die. I talked to the DM later, it turned out that the NPC had shield up. (Duh)

I'm glad to hear that your GM played it honest. Shield is kinda one of those obvious ones, IMO. Although there are plenty of other (generally less obvious, more obscure, suboptimal, homebrew or even completely beyond your level) possibilities. Now, if I'd been in your shoes, my concern would have been whether or not I got a Spellcraft check recognize Shield, and whether that should have occurred before or after hitting it with Magic Missile. (AFB, and don't know the answer offhand)

[JNAProductions]

Sure the animal might hear something...but it is an animal. They don't know what a fight sounds like, and don't react exactly like a human.

Not for an animal companion the ''link'' is not a mystical connection where the animal gets like an INT of 10 and a human personality.

This too. A trained animal does what it is told to do. They don't just do whatever is best for the player character.

See this gets a bit into the silly Disney animals. So the animal companion outside will hear the fight and have the human like intelligent thought of ''oh no, I must get in there and help my companion"?

Unless you specifically train an animal to say ''break a window", most animals won't do that.

As Crake pointed out, an animal that's well-trained would stay put, even if they hear a fight.

However, as I pointed out, unless you're currently being gagged or something, you can yell for your animal to get to you and help.

And while it might be a TOUCH unrealistic for an animal to leap in through a closed window, I would like to point out dragons. And wizards. And [insert pretty much anything about D&D here that's not realistic].

I don't think it's too great an ask to say "If a fight breaks out when my animal companion is outside, and I order them to come help me, they'll do basic things (like breaking through a window) to get to me." ESPECIALLY since the OP appears to be playing a class where the animal companion is a MUCH bigger part of the class than, say, a Druid.

[Otomodachi]

And what story even has a bear as a "companion?" Again- dogs, cats, birds, lizards, horses, bigger versions of all of these, all over the place. But the only time I hear trained bears mentioned are the circus, and char-op.


Hi! :)

https://vignette.wikia.nocookie.net/disney/images/3/36/Mowgli_and_Baloo_the_bear_are_both_relaxing_on_the _river.jpg/revision/latest/scale-to-width-down/640?cb=20150818163148

Agree with the all the important details of what you said though.

[Vyanie]

Sure the animal might hear something...but it is an animal. They don't know what a fight sounds like, and don't react exactly like a human.

Not for an animal companion the ''link'' is not a mystical connection where the animal gets like an INT of 10 and a human personality.



This too. A trained animal does what it is told to do. They don't just do whatever is best for the player character.



See this gets a bit into the silly Disney animals. So the animal companion outside will hear the fight and have the human like intelligent thought of ''oh no, I must get in there and help my companion"?

Unless you specifically train an animal to say ''break a window", most animals won't do that.

See this right here is where i believe you are wrong, if a fight breaks out and lets say your animal companion is a bear, guess what you scream for the animal to help you and a trained animal will go through the flimsy door ( its wood not a steel reinforced castle gate) to come and help you, yes this might take at most half a turn as the thing comes barreling into the store but if your line of thought is ohh look your inside a small structure NO ACCESS TO ANIMAL COMPANIONS!!! you not only have no idea how things would work you are just generally a **** DM who I am extremely thankful don't play with. the correct action is assist, or come, and a trained animal will do damn near anything to get there. remember also this is a MAGICAL world where dragons fly through the skies and gods walk around with common folk.... thinking a class that is seperated half and half animal companion / character is not better than you at training a dog is pretty sad.

[ATHATH]

I'm curious to know what kind of character you're playing honestly. I can't think of a single class where the animal companion makes up THAT much of the character.
A Hunter (http://www.d20pfsrd.com/classes/hybrid-classes/hunter/), apparently. Based on what the OP has said in this thread, it appears that the class's whole shtick is having and working with their Animal Companion.

[Vyanie]

I'm curious to know what kind of character you're playing honestly. I can't think of a single class where the animal companion makes up THAT much of the character. Honestly, I hate the animal companion system in pathfinder, I think the 3.5 one is far better, so I tend to pick the alternate option for the companion on druids and rangers when I play them in pathfinder.

All that said: I also have little to no compunctions in killing off animal companions if players use them recklessly, and pretty much ANY non-domestic animal is not welcome in towns in my games. If you want to have a canine animal companion that can walk into town, get a riding dog. Bears and wolves, ESPECIALLY dire versions, are not allowed. I also require players to actually find their animal companions (barring their starting one obviously), so getting things like tigers and dinosaurs is practically impossible unless you're in the right part of the world.

Hunter no archtype, your summon nature ally is affected by if your AC is dead or alive, your animal focus changes if your AC is dead or alive, the class is focused around teamwork feats that you share with your AC (you give up a ton of stuff from both the druid and ranger parent classes to get this minor class defining feature) so without an AC your feats are worthless as you are basically a commoner without an AC as you even had to use your normal feats to qualify for the teamwork feats (bad paizo decision they could have at least followed rangers bonus feats and ignored reqs) in addition you have had to spread your stats so thin you are basically a farm worker. When i say if you do not have an AC you lose 2/3 of your character that is not an exaggeration it is a simple fact.

[Fincher]

Animals tend to have trouble opening doors though.

Bears can open car doors, for the record. They just can't handle round doorknobs.

[Darth Ultron]

However, as I pointed out, unless you're currently being gagged or something, you can yell for your animal to get to you and help.

Well, to be fair, by RAW you can give your animal the Come and Attack commands.



And while it might be a TOUCH unrealistic for an animal to leap in through a closed window, I would like to point out dragons. And wizards. And [insert pretty much anything about D&D here that's not realistic].

Well, most of the D&D world...unless the Dm changes things..is just like the real world, especially Nature. Most D&D games don't have ''ok, the trees in my world grow thousands of miles high every night and eat chunks out of the moon and the moon is just an egg for a giant space dragon".

Also

Real life animals do do some amazing things....well, at least Dogs do.

As a volunteer firefighter I once saw a dog carry a baby(like less then a year old) out of a burning house. This was back in the Time Before Time, so we did not all have supercomputer cameras/video recorders in our pockets. Some how the dog knew 'fire was bad' and the 'baby needed help'. The baby was burned and had bite marks...but he lived, and grew up...and though the dog passed away years ago, he still wears a tooth from that dog around his neck.

A couple years later, my neighbors shed full of corn caught fire...and caught the corner of our house on fire at like 3 AM. Our Irish Setter Loki barked like crazy, jumped up in our bed and bit my wife and me to wake us up. Again, somehow Loki knew that 'fire was bad' and "I should make up the humans'. So sure, to this day, Loki has not figured out ''glass'' yet and still runs into our glass back door when it's closed...but she did good that day.





I don't think it's too great an ask to say "If a fight breaks out when my animal companion is outside, and I order them to come help me, they'll do basic things (like breaking through a window) to get to me." ESPECIALLY since the OP appears to be playing a class where the animal companion is a MUCH bigger part of the class than, say, a Druid.

See, instead of the ''oh my animal companion is like a mini wish spell that can do whatever I want on a whim", I'd want to have it done other ways.

Like, obviously, don't pick fights when your animal companion is not near by. And if you ''must" fight...maybe try moving things outside before the fight starts.

Or even..gasp...take a ''cool combat action" to like have your character jump out and smash the window to get near your animal companion (you know instead of ''OK, iI move five feet so I can make four attacks using two full round actions").


See this right here is where i believe you are wrong, if a fight breaks out and lets say your animal companion is a bear, guess what you scream for the animal to help you and a trained animal will go through the flimsy door.

Yep. You are crossing the line from animal to human. You don't want an animal companion, you want a second character.

[Fincher]

Also, if we're talking medieval doors, I'd think they'd be more like the ones with the metal rings you pull on. As long as a dog can reach high enough and the door isn't too heavy, it seems like they'd be able to pull it open after a moment or so.

[RoboEmperor]

See this right here is where i believe you are wrong, if a fight breaks out and lets say your animal companion is a bear, guess what you scream for the animal to help you and a trained animal will go through the flimsy door ( its wood not a steel reinforced castle gate) to come and help you, yes this might take at most half a turn as the thing comes barreling into the store but if your line of thought is ohh look your inside a small structure NO ACCESS TO ANIMAL COMPANIONS!!! you not only have no idea how things would work you are just generally a **** DM who I am extremely thankful don't play with. the correct action is assist, or come, and a trained animal will do damn near anything to get there. remember also this is a MAGICAL world where dragons fly through the skies and gods walk around with common folk.... thinking a class that is seperated half and half animal companion / character is not better than you at training a dog is pretty sad.

I recommend you end your discussion with Darth Ultron here. He's infamous around here for his... opinions. If someone thinks the unoptimized fighter is the norm for d&d 3.5 and bans or destroys anything that's stronger than the unoptimized fighter with DM fiat then there's nothing you can do to convince him that playing the class as intended by its creators is acceptable.

[Vyanie]

Well, to be fair, by RAW you can give your animal the Come and Attack commands.



Well, most of the D&D world...unless the Dm changes things..is just like the real world, especially Nature. Most D&D games don't have ''ok, the trees in my world grow thousands of miles high every night and eat chunks out of the moon and the moon is just an egg for a giant space dragon".

Also

Real life animals do do some amazing things....well, at least Dogs do.

As a volunteer firefighter I once saw a dog carry a baby(like less then a year old) out of a burning house. This was back in the Time Before Time, so we did not all have supercomputer cameras/video recorders in our pockets. Some how the dog knew 'fire was bad' and the 'baby needed help'. The baby was burned and had bite marks...but he lived, and grew up...and though the dog passed away years ago, he still wears a tooth from that dog around his neck.

A couple years later, my neighbors shed full of corn caught fire...and caught the corner of our house on fire at like 3 AM. Our Irish Setter Loki barked like crazy, jumped up in our bed and bit my wife and me to wake us up. Again, somehow Loki knew that 'fire was bad' and "I should make up the humans'. So sure, to this day, Loki has not figured out ''glass'' yet and still runs into our glass back door when it's closed...but she did good that day.





See, instead of the ''oh my animal companion is like a mini wish spell that can do whatever I want on a whim", I'd want to have it done other ways.

Like, obviously, don't pick fights when your animal companion is not near by. And if you ''must" fight...maybe try moving things outside before the fight starts.

Or even..gasp...take a ''cool combat action" to like have your character jump out and smash the window to get near your animal companion (you know instead of ''OK, iI move five feet so I can make four attacks using two full round actions").



Yep. You are crossing the line from animal to human. You don't want an animal companion, you want a second character.

No, no i did not, have you never seen any trained animals? If the handler is aggravated so is the animal, if the handler screams the animal will go through whatever it has to in order to be next to the handler, if the handler is in pain the animal will defend the handler without question (sometimes even from trained medics). A combat animal will drag an unconscious handler to a safer location without having been told. You seem to have crossed the line from animal to brick. You don't want an animal companion you want an inanimate object to only do EXACTLY what you tell it when and how you tell it. Animals are not stupid, they can think for themselves and while they can not process all of the steps a human can, they can do a pretty damn good job of assisting or defending without being told to. Remember this is a real life animal not even a Pathfinder mystical connection that the thing gets stronger/smarter/bigger as you do and can have spells cast through it.

I loved when you said
Like, obviously, don't pick fights when your animal companion is not near by. And if you ''must" fight...maybe try moving things outside before the fight starts.

.... you mean when you flat out said "Another good trick is to just teleport the character and animal far away form each other."

It seems you both purposely misread things to be able to be a pain to your players or make stuff up on the spot just to make them not want to play. Very much a DM must win vs player type, and I feel sorry for anyone that has the misfortune to attempt to run a game with you as their DM.

Honestly the more you respond the less I truly believe you have any understanding of animals, real life or otherwise.

[Vyanie]

I recommend you end your discussion with Darth Ultron here. He's infamous around here for his... opinions. If someone thinks the unoptimized fighter is the norm for d&d 3.5 and bans or destroys anything that's stronger than the unoptimized fighter with DM fiat then there's nothing you can do to convince him that playing the class as intended by its creators is acceptable.

Thank you for letting us know, while I lurk and sometimes post on the forums I have not seen him around so honestly had no idea of what type of poster he was and was taking it at face value. It honestly explains quite a bit though.

[Darth Ultron]

It seems you both purposely misread things to be able to be a pain to your players or make stuff up on the spot just to make them not want to play. Very much a DM must win vs player type, and I feel sorry for anyone that has the misfortune to attempt to run a game with you as their DM.

Well, players that have their animal companion act like an animal or even better, just let the DM control the animal don't have a problem.

And, often, players like yourself work better with intelligent ''human level" creatures, not animals.

[Pleh]

Well, players that have their animal companion act like an animal or even better, just let the DM control the animal don't have a problem.

And, often, players like yourself work better with intelligent ''human level" creatures, not animals.

And here's the other half of his argumentation style: ignoring half or more of your post to suit his argument, often to the extent of mischaracterizing your point. I'd stick to not engaging with it anymore.

Yeah, if you specifically left an AC outside a shop, all you should gave to do is give a sharp "come" whistle and, hearing the danger, should be intelligent enough to respond with power and urgency.

Most trained animals view their handlers as family. That's pretty much how you get enough trust for them to be trained. They will have an urge to protect their handlers and to use violence to do so without external prompting.

But especially when your entire class is based on training and handling ACs, it's really rude for a DM to get angry about the AC being a Disney animal companion. You approved the character at session 0, so grow up and play the game fairly.

It's just childish to later redefine what constitutes "animal intelligence/instinct" to throw the player a houserule that undermines their build because they're winning too easily. Have the guts to admit you've simply been beaten and start planning for how to challenge the characters given without cheating (removing essential equipment by fiat IS cheating if there is no reasonable way to recover their equipment). When you build an encounter to tear apart a player's build, you've already lost. Just let them play the way they want and create natural challenges for them.

Instead of teleporting the Hunter's AC away from them, demonstrating that you aren't a good enough DM to handle their strategy, instead make their quest take them to a large city where their kind of animal is taboo. Then it will be up to the player whether to leave the AC behind for a little while, try to smuggle them in at risk of getting in trouble with the law, or try to continue theur quest without entering town. Now we've created a problem for players to solve strategically with meaningful differences between viable solutions instead of throwing a toddler tantrum and ripping a toy out of their hands because we don't like it.

[Crake]

Instead of teleporting the Hunter's AC away from them, demonstrating that you aren't a good enough DM to handle their strategy, instead make their quest take them to a large city where their kind of animal is taboo. Then it will be up to the player whether to leave the AC behind for a little while, try to smuggle them in at risk of getting in trouble with the law, or try to continue theur quest without entering town. Now we've created a problem for players to solve strategically with meaningful differences between viable solutions instead of throwing a toddler tantrum and ripping a toy out of their hands because we don't like it.

To be fair, splitting the party with teleportation, animal companion or no, is a valid tactic for an enemy to use. If the party can be split in this method, there's no real reason why the animal companion must necessarily remain with it's master. There are in fact monsters that specifically rely on this sort of tactic, such as the amusingly named "crypt thing", who's primary ability is to teleport all enemies within 30ft a random distance away in a random direction, 10d10x10ft, which, in a mazelike crypt, can mean being separated for the remainder of the fight.

[Pleh]

To be fair, splitting the party with teleportation, animal companion or no, is a valid tactic for an enemy to use. If the party can be split in this method, there's no real reason why the animal companion must necessarily remain with it's master. There are in fact monsters that specifically rely on this sort of tactic, such as the amusingly named "crypt thing", who's primary ability is to teleport all enemies within 30ft a random distance away in a random direction, 10d10x10ft, which, in a mazelike crypt, can mean being separated for the remainder of the fight.

Sure, but that's also the kind of thing a person could prepare for ahead of time. Any unwilling teleport monster (not a fiat magic from an undisclosed, "mysterious" source) will have a saving throw, possibly SR, magic wards against their effects that could be purchased, and other things you could prepare for. While you don't always know what's in the dungeon, it's usually valid to do preliminary research about the location and if the DM uses a Crypt Thing more times in a campaign than you can count on one hand, you can bet they didn't prepare it that way before they saw the AC in play.

[Elkad]

So from what I can tell, the tiger must have had haste, +4 str, +1 amulet of mighty fists (could have saved that and just cast greater magic fang really), the bard must have stacked inspire courage up to +4, that would give him the damage you listed. Adding all that up only puts the tiger's attack bonus at +17 though, 19 while charging, so I'm curious as to how you got the extra +2, flanking perhaps? I do sincerely doubt the tiger has a higher AC though unless the fighter was practically naked or was using shock trooper, and if he was close, then the reason was likely buffs that you cast on him, that you COULD have cast on the fighter as well, but opted against doing so for some reason?

A fighter at the same level with shock trooper and leap attack will have 8 bab, 20 str, +4 item/buff, a +2 weapon, (+1 valorous, then buffed to +2 with GMW), then another +2 charging/flanking, +4 from the bard, and +1 from haste, for a total bonus of +26, for 4d6+80 damage on a single attack, not relying on multiple hits, and not suffering from multiple damage reduction damage losses (your tiger would lose a huge chunk of damage against anything with DR10). That's just a basic charger build, vs a basic tiger build, but the fighter can still do a normal power attack at +16 to hit for 2d6+28 damage if he's left unable to charge, wheras the tiger is left with a single measly blow of 1d8+14, admittedly at the higher bonus of +19, but the fighter can pull back his power attack by 3 points to meet that and still be at 2d6+22.

Also, by the way the rakes are at full attack bonus, not -5 from secondary, despite only getting half str bonus as a secondary does. Also, the bite should be at -5 not -2, tigers don't get multiattack.

Pretty close. Bard is putting out +5 on inspire courage (basically all of his L1 slots get used for Inspirational Boost). Yes, the tiger is Hasted (as is the rest of the party - it's assumed for every combat past about L6). Tiger has 2pts of Str on an item, and 1 for being in the L3 companion column, putting it at 26. +2HD as well. So 8hd(+6), 26str(+8), bard +5, +1 haste, +1 amulet. Looks like I forgot the charge bonus. It's feats are customized, so it has multi-attack. And yes, I'm aware the attack bonus for rake is wrong. If I fix the rake issue as secondaries (which is a houserule I forgot to remove for this post) and take out the custom feats (though at 9hd it'll definitely get to choose a feat), and remove multi-attack, then it's 4 claws at +23, bite at +18, for 1d8+14, 1d8+14, 1d8+10, 1d8+10, 2d6+10.

Tiger has a base AC of 15 (including his bonus point of dex). Greater Mage Armor alone puts it basically equal with a 10dex fighter with +1 plate, amulet, ring.
And it's sharing all the druid's buffs on top of that (granted, it limits it's charge range - but I'm lax about letting the druid and tiger move as a unit on their initiative).

That should be completely bone stock, and requires not much optimization at all. Just give it 2 basic items and take Natural Bond.

The bard did more optimizing getting IC up there, but the whole party shares that.

[GreatDane]

I think it goes without saying that your experiences are a little extreme. As a DM, I do have a bias against animal companions, but that just means I don't like them. Although 3.5 uses a unified stats system for both monsters and PCs, the two aren't designed the same way. Monsters are "front-loaded" with powers that can make an impact during the few rounds of combat that occur before their defeat, while PC abilities are intended to be useful to a character for many adventures. Therefore, I'm not a fan of abilities that allow/require PCs to rifle through the Monster Manual - that includes animal companions as well as shapeshifting and summoning.

It's also my experience that when it comes to combat, more bodies on the field means longer turns. Most players don't make an effort to play faster at all, much less to compensate for having twice as many actions, and the imbalance is tiresome.

These are all just my preferences as a DM, though; if the campaign includes companions/summoning/whatever and the player decides to do that, I'm not going to harass them for it. I'm pretty sure there's a quote floating around the forum about how you can't/shouldn't balance mechanics by making them annoying to use. (Edit: found it, Grod's Law (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/member.php?10688-Grod_The_Giant).)

[Elkad]

It's also my experience that when it comes to combat, more bodies on the field means longer turns. Most players don't make an effort to play faster at all, much less to compensate for having twice as many actions, and the imbalance is tiresome.

"Tiger assists the Fighter" or "Tiger charges that giant", even if the druid has to reference his sheet for every attack sequence is still faster than the Wizard throwing Black Tentacles, and rolling opposed checks plus damage for the 5-40 creatures caught in it. And more opposed checks on the enemy turns when they try to get free.

And then both the druid and the wizard still have to cast a spell.

And as DM, you have a duty to help your newer/less-efficient players streamline their turns. I'd rather spend some time showing them how to work an automatic buff figuring spreadsheet where they just check the boxes for haste, bless, etc than telling them they can't have an AC, or can't summon more than one creature and only off a specific list, etc.

I'm used to slow combat turns anyway. My current game seems amazingly fast at probably 30 minutes/round, since I only have 5 players and one AC - which is about half my typical number.

[Darth Ultron]

Sure, but that's also the kind of thing a person could prepare for ahead of time.

Maybe, but the typical player that is exploiting their characters animal companion is not often one of them. That type of player is too obsessed with ''making a Spot check" so the can "auto surprise" a foe and ''make a five foot step so they can do two full attacks".

Very often animals are only awesome in D&D if the DM bends the Gentleman's Agreement to cover them. So like when a whole group of goblins surround the characters...only one lone goblin goes for Ranger Rick's wolf companion, Like: "The goblin hit your wolf for: one point of damage! Player Rick: "oh no Sir Wolfalot is down to 11 hit points!"

[Psyren]

1) Generally, animal companions (especially PF ones) are balanced such that the player should be able to use them the way they want without breaking the game, so long as the thing they are trying to do is within the limitations of their (high for an animal) intelligence and their physical structure. PF has extensive guidance on this - look up "Aspects of Control" in Ultimate Campaign (or on the PRD for free if you don't have that book.)

2) Specific to the OP's example - chasing down a fleeing character is definitely something that an animal companion should be able to do. Actually catching or restraining them might be another matter, depending on the target, but a simple footrace is easy to model.

Having said that, I would look into the Chase rules (conveniently ALSO found in Ultimate Campaign or the PRD) to make that scene a bit more cinematic and less of a foregone conclusion, which I think is what the GM was going for but ill-equipped to deliver on without resorting to unsatisfying fiat. Raw speed isn't always enough to win a race or catch a perp - a dog* might be able to overtake you on an open plain for example, but in a back alley a humanoid runner might be able to knock over a barrel or clamber up a scaffold out of reach etc. The GM can easily put obstacles like that closer to the runner than to the animal, evening the odds.

*Note that I don't know exactly what animal was being used here.

[Liquor Box]

My opinion:
- Most animal companions would not be allowed in most shops or taverns. A small one that can be carried would probably be fine, or perhaps a dog. But dangerous animals like wolves or larger would likely not be.
- I have some doubts whether animal companions would even be allowed in most cities. Certainly I doubt that bears, tigers, dire animals or dinosaurs would be allowed.
- I think an animal companion would attempt to come to its owner's aid if a fight broke out inside a shop (particularly if the owner called for it) and whether it would be able to make its way into the shop depends entirely on the circumstances.

I do think it is ok to put the above real world restrictions on animal companions. Generally they are associated with wilderness classes (who prefer not to spend to much time in cities or taverns) so the above issues wont apply too often.

[Concrete]

Only real problem I've heard a gm voice about animal companions was when pretty much all of our group brought an animal companion character. (With more than one animal companion in the case of the packmaster druid.) We could barely fit them all on the battle map, turns took forever, and when our animal companions died, getting new ones took up pretty much all our down time. (Especially the packmaster. We had a running joke that we had roasted tiny dinosaur/lynx/falcon/dog/odd little monkey thing that we were reasonably sure was just a slightly too hairy goblin/boar for pretty much every meal. He had no regard for their safety what so ever.)

In the end we just agreed that they were a bigger hassle than they were worth and nowadays, it's pretty much tacitly agreed that we at most have one animal companion per group.

[Pleh]

Maybe, but the typical player that is exploiting their characters animal companion is not often one of them.

You seem to have overlooked the other conversation in this thread about the Tiger AC optimization, which includes spell buffing and magic item equipping the Tiger. "Protect (even partial) from uninvited teleports" is in the same ballpark.

Again, the OP is playing a Hunter, whose entire list of class features seem all but totally dependent on having an Animal Companion. Seems like preventing separation of that AC would be quite a worthwhile investment.

And I scoff at the notion that using your AC is "exploiting" anything. I suppose casting a spell is "expoiting magic," using power attack is "exploiting damage multipliers," and using trapfinding to notice a magic spell is "exploiting the search skill."

[Darth Ultron]

I do think it is ok to put the above real world restrictions on animal companions. Generally they are associated with wilderness classes (who prefer not to spend to much time in cities or taverns) so the above issues wont apply too often.

A lot of it comes from the Roll Playing players...even worse the all combat roll playing optimizations. They want the table top game to be like a all mindless combat video game or a board game like checkers: The move and kill, move and kill, move and kill.

So it's not even an ''animal companion" to them...it's ''mechanical exploit number one".

[Elkad]

The "AC on the porch, fight breaks out" stuff above.

My own dog will calmly stay in her crate for hours while I'm at work. She'll ignore the baby gate that's near the back door - which is to keep her from eating the cat food (or worse, cat poop).

But in a situation she deems an emergency, which happens about once a year, she demonstrates that she's only obeying because I want her to, not because she is actually trapped.
Smoke alarm goes off? She's out of her crate in a flash.
My wife falls on the back steps? Dog is out of her crate, through the house, smashed into the baby gate so hard the center support shattered, and was frantically scratching at the back door and barking, before my wife had time to say "ouch".
Had someone at the door last week. I crated the dog before I answered. And then got in an argument with the guy selling steaks out of the back of his truck because he wouldn't go away. Dog decided to help. (and it worked.. dude ran like hell)


And that's without the benefit of an empathic link.
If master gets in a fight in the shop, the AC is coming inside.
I think the more likely problem situation is when the master get's agitated or hurt but doesn't want the assistance of his pet. Say a spirited discussion of the merits of two political candidates. Or an honorable duel. Fluffy is likely to decide to come save him anyway. And when Fluffy has a Str of 30 and a ring collar of adamant touch, Fluffy is getting inside.

[Liquor Box]

A lot of it comes from the Roll Playing players...even worse the all combat roll playing optimizations. They want the table top game to be like a all mindless combat video game or a board game like checkers: The move and kill, move and kill, move and kill.

So it's not even an ''animal companion" to them...it's ''mechanical exploit number one".

I don't think it's an exploit. Where there are rules around animal companions, they should be followed (or only modified with due caution).

But the rules are silent on how wild animal companions would react in a city, or be treated by city folk, so in my opinion it is for the DM to rule on that issue in a sensible way.

[Darth Ultron]

I don't think it's an exploit. Where there are rules around animal companions, they should be followed (or only modified with due caution).

But the rules are silent on how wild animal companions would react in a city, or be treated by city folk, so in my opinion it is for the DM to rule on that issue in a sensible way.

Well, I'm talking real exploits, like:

*The animal ''suddenly" has an INT 20 and can recognize all illusions ever
*The animal ,with INT 20, knows "secret sign language" can can ''communicate anything"
*The animal can detect magic
*The animal automatically knows the value of any item it sees and what it is and how to use it
*The animal knows all magic, so it won't ever bite a wizard under a fire shield spell, for example
*The animal can get things out of the characters backpack...in combat..as a free action

and so on....

[Vyanie]

Well, I'm talking real exploits, like:

*The animal ''suddenly" has an INT 20 and can recognize all illusions ever
*The animal ,with INT 20, knows "secret sign language" can can ''communicate anything"
*The animal can detect magic
*The animal automatically knows the value of any item it sees and what it is and how to use it
*The animal knows all magic, so it won't ever bite a wizard under a fire shield spell, for example
*The animal can get things out of the characters backpack...in combat..as a free action

and so on....

1. Quite a few animals have high wisdom scores and MUCH higher senses then a human will so it is not unreasonable to see how it disbeliefs an illusion as it is a Will save and illusions do not have a smell

2. Handlers quite often have animals do certain things if something happens or to communicate intent, ever see a bomb dog? a working dog? Seen a gorilla sign? even a dolphin or sea lion at an ocean park?

3. Ever see an animal specifically avoid an area for seemingly no reason at all? almost like a 6th sense about bad juju.

4. I have never once seen a player have an animal act like this, but if the master maybe treats an animal with cure wounds potions and that big gash in its side is healed the animal would learn fairly quickly the smell and taste of said potion to dig it out of a backpack that might be on the ground or within reach. Maybe in a quick and easy spot for said animal to get to?

5. Someone is on fire and has flames radiating out from them, its hot, are you so much an idiot to believe an animal would willingly bite something on fire that would inflict massive damage to itself? (hint if you honestly believe this YOU have mental stats lower then the animals)

6. I'm guessing you have never been to south america? It is always amusing to watch monkies jump onto someone and jump away a second later with an iphone or something similar that was stolen from a backpack or a purse. Those things are master thieves.

Get out of the basement please. Look at how stuff works. You are trying to complain and wonder why an animal does not behave like a hamster that you smacked with a 2x4 a few dozen times when it was a baby and barely has any brain cells left because you fed it lead paint chips. Quite often an animal is either smarter or more clever than a human.

[Vyanie]

I don't think it's an exploit. Where there are rules around animal companions, they should be followed (or only modified with due caution).

But the rules are silent on how wild animal companions would react in a city, or be treated by city folk, so in my opinion it is for the DM to rule on that issue in a sensible way.


The biggest problem about this is that most people do not seem to understand is that a city in the approximate time period that pathfinder is set in would be about the dark ages for our world, it was quite common to have massive hunting dogs or wolf hybrids walk through town with their masters, hell look at some of the paintings and some of the richer folk would walk around with panthers or bears on a leash. This is not modern day Los Angeles, a place where people scream like school children if a chiwawa is not chained up and muzzled and locked in a crate. This is a time period of wilderness, adventure, astonishing things. All of this is set in a world where someone can snap their fingers and a demon appears, a tsunami engulfs a city, or they just shift to another plane of existence. Seeing someone that battles dragons and gods and can perform miracles with a bear or a wolf shouldn't really be out of place unless maybe you are in a city that abhors nature and just summons all undead so living creatures are shunned. Remember animal companions are mystical in nature as you have to commune with nature (24 hour ceremony in most cases).

[Vyanie]

1) Generally, animal companions (especially PF ones) are balanced such that the player should be able to use them the way they want without breaking the game, so long as the thing they are trying to do is within the limitations of their (high for an animal) intelligence and their physical structure. PF has extensive guidance on this - look up "Aspects of Control" in Ultimate Campaign (or on the PRD for free if you don't have that book.)

2) Specific to the OP's example - chasing down a fleeing character is definitely something that an animal companion should be able to do. Actually catching or restraining them might be another matter, depending on the target, but a simple footrace is easy to model.

Having said that, I would look into the Chase rules (conveniently ALSO found in Ultimate Campaign or the PRD) to make that scene a bit more cinematic and less of a foregone conclusion, which I think is what the GM was going for but ill-equipped to deliver on without resorting to unsatisfying fiat. Raw speed isn't always enough to win a race or catch a perp - a dog* might be able to overtake you on an open plain for example, but in a back alley a humanoid runner might be able to knock over a barrel or clamber up a scaffold out of reach etc. The GM can easily put obstacles like that closer to the runner than to the animal, evening the odds.

*Note that I don't know exactly what animal was being used here.

While I can agree with the chasing down, in my particular instance a boss goblin emerged from a secret tunnel exit that myself and my animal companion were about 30 feet from, taking into account that we were specifically prepared for stuff coming out from somewhere as the rest of the party was smoking the goblins out inside the cave, the boss gob came up out of the ground from a ladder (swinging open a trapdoor from belowground) climbing onto the ground from a ladder onto the side of the road, seeing us as we were charging it and being able to flee into an extremely sparsely wooded area (think a tree every 100 - 150 feet or so at most) all while having its movement hampered from walking on caltrops during the battle.

I have personally released animals onto fleeing individuals that were a LOT further then 30 feet, even in an urban setting guess what happened every single time? Fleeing human down and dog mauling them, they are like a guided missile and unless you go somewhere they can not physically go you are done. You went through a window? great so did the dog, over a fence? so did the dog or it went under it or through it, tried to climb a tree? great hope your more than 8 feet off the ground in the couple of seconds it took to catch up or you are being pulled out of the tree extremely painfully.... even then you are not getting down. Think diving into a car with windows down saved you? nope now its in your face biting you. There is a reason humans used dogs to catch criminals for so many years, and unless you have a disgusting head start like 30-40 minutes then you are as good as brought down.

[Darth Ultron]

1. Quite a few animals have high wisdom scores and MUCH higher senses then a human will so it is not unreasonable to see how it disbeliefs an illusion as it is a Will save and illusions do not have a smell


Right, so you want to home brew a book of rules here? Or would you just say ''whatever I want to happen, happens". I'd note the animal text block says nothing about them having auto illusion detection abilities.

And would you say animals with scent would then fall for olfactory illusions easy? Or can they smell and illusion too?

And if an animal sees an illusion from like 100 feet away upwind, they can still ''smell the illusion", right?



2. Handlers quite often have animals do certain things if something happens or to communicate intent, ever see a bomb dog? a working dog? Seen a gorilla sign? even a dolphin or sea lion at an ocean park?


I'm talking about when the player has the animal ''talk'' like in a tap or blink code exactly like a human voice.



3. Ever see an animal specifically avoid an area for seemingly no reason at all? almost like a 6th sense about bad juju.

Again, I'd point out that the animal stat block does not contain this power. You want animals to have a continuations Foresight super natural ability.



4. I have never once seen a player have an animal act like this, but if the master maybe treats an animal with cure wounds potions and that big gash in its side is healed the animal would learn fairly quickly the smell and taste of said potion to dig it out of a backpack that might be on the ground or within reach. Maybe in a quick and easy spot for said animal to get to?

Right...so again, adding to the stat block?



5. Someone is on fire and has flames radiating out from them, its hot, are you so much an idiot to believe an animal would willingly bite something on fire that would inflict massive damage to itself? (hint if you honestly believe this YOU have mental stats lower then the animals)

Except not all fire or ice or acid and so forth monsters have the 'damage foes that hit it" special ability....but it sure is amazing the animal read the rules right? And knows when to attack and when not too.

Same way the animal understands D&D movement, threatened squares, reach and attacks of opportunity, right?



6. I'm guessing you have never been to south america? It is always amusing to watch monkies jump onto someone and jump away a second later with an iphone or something similar that was stolen from a backpack or a purse. Those things are master thieves.

So, one animal does something...so all animals do it too?



Get out of the basement please. Look at how stuff works. You are trying to complain and wonder why an animal does not behave like a hamster that you smacked with a 2x4 a few dozen times when it was a baby and barely has any brain cells left because you fed it lead paint chips. Quite often an animal is either smarter or more clever than a human.

You anthropomorphize animals too much.

[Crake]

1. Quite a few animals have high wisdom scores and MUCH higher senses then a human will so it is not unreasonable to see how it disbeliefs an illusion as it is a Will save and illusions do not have a smell

Many illusions do have smell in fact. And even if it doesn't, not having a smell isn't automatic clause for disbelieving an illusion.


2. Handlers quite often have animals do certain things if something happens or to communicate intent, ever see a bomb dog? a working dog? Seen a gorilla sign? even a dolphin or sea lion at an ocean park?

Those are highly specialized animals, who are trained specifically to relay that kind of information. Being able to relay general information in an intelligent way is beyond what animals are capable of.


3. Ever see an animal specifically avoid an area for seemingly no reason at all? almost like a 6th sense about bad juju.

Animals also have a penchant for walking right into stupid stuff as well, so i'd say you're experiencing selection bias.


4. I have never once seen a player have an animal act like this, but if the master maybe treats an animal with cure wounds potions and that big gash in its side is healed the animal would learn fairly quickly the smell and taste of said potion to dig it out of a backpack that might be on the ground or within reach. Maybe in a quick and easy spot for said animal to get to?

Typically potions are sealed away in stoppered, watertight glass vials, so they'd be almost impossible to locate via scent, not to mention retrieving an item from a backpack is a full round action for a person with hands. It'd be at least several rounds of rummaging, likely spilling the potion in question.


5. Someone is on fire and has flames radiating out from them, its hot, are you so much an idiot to believe an animal would willingly bite something on fire that would inflict massive damage to itself? (hint if you honestly believe this YOU have mental stats lower then the animals)

If you read the spell, the flames are thin and wispy, don't actually give off much heat, or actually half the time give of coolness, and can't actually be used to burn things. They only react to attacks, so yeah, ok, maybe after the first time being lashed at, but then, lions keep attacking wilderbeasts that hind kick them in the face, so maybe not. It'll follow your orders, and if you told it to attack, it'll keep attacking until it's on the brink of death.


6. I'm guessing you have never been to south america? It is always amusing to watch monkies jump onto someone and jump away a second later with an iphone or something similar that was stolen from a backpack or a purse. Those things are master thieves.

All the videos I've seen have involved the monkey stealing the whole backpack, not something specific from the backpack. They'll run off with it and rummage about inside, not nip something incredibly specific from inside the backpack. Plus, most animals don't have hands.


Get out of the basement please. Look at how stuff works. You are trying to complain and wonder why an animal does not behave like a hamster that you smacked with a 2x4 a few dozen times when it was a baby and barely has any brain cells left because you fed it lead paint chips. Quite often an animal is either smarter or more clever than a human.

I think you need to relax, and understand that animals aren't at all like what they're portrayed as in fantasy literature. For someone playing a realistic game, having sensible limits on what animals are capable of adds to the game, not detracts from it. I honestly agree with Darth Ultron on this one, if you want a companion capable of all of this, pick up leadership and get a magical beast like a blink dog or something, or get the celestial companion feat to give your animal a higher intelligence.


Pretty close. Bard is putting out +5 on inspire courage (basically all of his L1 slots get used for Inspirational Boost). Yes, the tiger is Hasted (as is the rest of the party - it's assumed for every combat past about L6). Tiger has 2pts of Str on an item, and 1 for being in the L3 companion column, putting it at 26. +2HD as well. So 8hd(+6), 26str(+8), bard +5, +1 haste, +1 amulet. Looks like I forgot the charge bonus. It's feats are customized, so it has multi-attack. And yes, I'm aware the attack bonus for rake is wrong. If I fix the rake issue as secondaries (which is a houserule I forgot to remove for this post) and take out the custom feats (though at 9hd it'll definitely get to choose a feat), and remove multi-attack, then it's 4 claws at +23, bite at +18, for 1d8+14, 1d8+14, 1d8+10, 1d8+10, 2d6+10.

Tiger has a base AC of 15 (including his bonus point of dex). Greater Mage Armor alone puts it basically equal with a 10dex fighter with +1 plate, amulet, ring.
And it's sharing all the druid's buffs on top of that (granted, it limits it's charge range - but I'm lax about letting the druid and tiger move as a unit on their initiative).

That should be completely bone stock, and requires not much optimization at all. Just give it 2 basic items and take Natural Bond.

The bard did more optimizing getting IC up there, but the whole party shares that.

Ah, you had the natural bond feat? Cause tigers are normally L6 companions. But honestly, much of that is coming from the bard's huge bonuses, And it's also assuming the tiger can charge every round. As a large creature, on a battlefield littered with creatures that you cannot charge through, I find it hard to believe that was the case. In the case of single attacks, the figher easily comes out on top, and in the case of charging, they're both roughly equal, sure the tiger gets 5x the benefit of bard inspire, but it also gets 5x the penalty of damage reduction.

Of course, if nobody was buffing the fighter beyond AoE buffs, of COURSE the fighter is gonna be underwhelming compared to the animal companion recieving buffs from the druid, but that's not because the AC is so good, it's because it's being buffed out the ass while the fighter is sitting around getting hand-me-down haste buffs.

[Liquor Box]

The biggest problem about this is that most people do not seem to understand is that a city in the approximate time period that pathfinder is set in would be about the dark ages for our world, it was quite common to have massive hunting dogs or wolf hybrids walk through town with their masters, hell look at some of the paintings and some of the richer folk would walk around with panthers or bears on a leash. This is not modern day Los Angeles, a place where people scream like school children if a chiwawa is not chained up and muzzled and locked in a crate. This is a time period of wilderness, adventure, astonishing things. All of this is set in a world where someone can snap their fingers and a demon appears, a tsunami engulfs a city, or they just shift to another plane of existence. Seeing someone that battles dragons and gods and can perform miracles with a bear or a wolf shouldn't really be out of place unless maybe you are in a city that abhors nature and just summons all undead so living creatures are shunned. Remember animal companions are mystical in nature as you have to commune with nature (24 hour ceremony in most cases).

Have you got a source for it being common for wolf hybrids to walk through towns (not little frontier outposts, but proper towns)? Because to me that sounds made up. I could believe that small hamlets where trappers came to sell their furs might have large dogs, but not proper towns.

Despite that, I might be able to make an allowance for wolves being allowed into towns (but not buildings), but to think that bears and crocodiles etc would be able to is a bit silly I think.

If there are paintings of people with bears and panthers on leashes that was because the sight was so unusual that the painter felt compelled to capture it (unless the painter was imagining the scene). It was probably an organised thing where someone sponsored a panther to be led through town and the populace gathered to see it.

I don't think it makes any difference that you are in a high magic world. Unless the general population of the town are high level, then the bear (or dire tiger or whatever) would still be dangerous to them, so wouldn't be allowed.

[Pleh]

Then again, if a drifter rolls through town with a bear, do you try to stand in his way, or look the other way and hope he leaves more quickly?

Fear is a double edged argument here. All the PC has to do is say, "The bear? I don't tell him where to go. I just keep him from eating too many nosy humans before breakfast."

[Concrete]

Then again, if a drifter rolls through town with a bear, do you try to stand in his way, or look the other way and hope he leaves more quickly?

Fear is a double edged argument here. All the PC has to do is say, "The bear? I don't tell him where to go. I just keep him from eating too many nosy humans before breakfast."

That kinda seems like something that'd provoke the torches-and-pitchforks kinda fear, and not the do-what-you-want-we're-your-humble-servants kinda fear.

[Vyanie]

Ok to address two of you just to make it easier.

lets go down the list shall we?
First off, Darth, a will save is based off wisdom, and many if not most of the animals that qualify for animal companion have a higher than 10 (supposedly base stat) for wisdom. so no, that is not home brewing anything. That is taken directly from the books. I never once said auto detection but i did say it was easier.

If an animal companion is blinking in morse code the something is wrong, but conversely it is not hard to train an animal to signal when conditions are met (IE smells something not normal, hears strange noises, hears a lack of noise.) but hey the thing can talk to you (beastkin trait)

Crake, your animal companion is a highly specialized animal and with training and (in this game magical help being a druid or some other base) this is not a straight off the shelf wolf or monkey that you pointed at and said I choose you!! . These are animals that you have a deep bond with (again mystical as you need to perform a special ceremony for them for 24 hours). the information might be limited vs a human, but with a limited amount of information and knowledge on how your animal reacts it is very easy to piece together things quickly and efficiently. AGAIN I am not saying that the thing talks to you (it can with a trait or a spell or even just an ability)

Darth, you ever get a strange feeling like you should not be somewhere or a feeling in your gut that something is wrong? ohh wait no... nevermind its not in your stat block correct? maybe the air is stale, maybe death hangs in the air, these are things an animal is MUCH more sensitive to than a human. Ever go hunting? You learn quickly that animals learn bad areas and they just seem to know not to go to certain things. Not all animals as just like humans there are a multitude of stupid ones that would happily keep getting shocked trying to get a cookie out of a jar, not understanding why they are getting shocked. Yes Crake I do agree that animals have a penchant for walking right into stupid things, so do humans, just watch how many people walking into glass doors or cant read a PULL sign on a door and keep trying to push it.

Both Crake and Darth, you mark your bottles by sight correct? how about if you rubbed a rose on certain ones? a bittering agent on another? pretty soon most animals would get the idea that a certain smell does something. what about animals with color vision? gorillas? monkies? maybe you wrap the flask in a different color like red (studies have been done with monkies similar to this and within one day or usually a few hours they figure out one color is good and another is bad.) vials of potions are not just all thrown into a backpack... if they are you have no vials in a few hours of hiking as they broke or became unstoperred. It generally gets put into some sort of rack to hold them a certain way. Hell even horses after an hour figure out after showing them that water comes out when they push the lever down for them to drink.

Something has flames dancing around them (wisps of flame still produce heat or cold for the other version) and even if it does hit then after that they would generally stop unless ordered to do it again (and a class with an animal companion that keeps ordering a pet to basically kill itself is asking to have it leave like a druid loosing abilities or somesuch wantingly killing nature) most animals in our world are EXTREMELY wary of fire.

Darth, you are wondering if animals understand D&D movement? really? watch some animal planet predators are acutely aware of the reach of their prey, they understand when stuff can strike out at them. watch a mongoose attack a snake, watch a wolf pack take down a caribou. They judge distances, amount of enemy threats in the area, they harrow their prey they are careful and relentless, if they were not they would all be dead.

Crake I have seen them take entire backpacks yes, generally unattended ones, I have also seen them jump on people grab that big shiny thing in the backpack and jump off (generally a womans pull close backpack and not a zip closed one)

Darth no not all animals do the same thing, but generally it is a learned behavior, and a player as a person bonded with an animal can do quite a bit more than what you might be able to imagine.

Liqour Box, for you if you want I can find and cite sources of people in ancient egypt owning hippos (owning hippos was akin to owning and controlling chaos) and other animals, even cases where one of the sects of a religion owned crocodiles as well as another that had Jaguars (bastet worshipers) and brought them around. (never said humans were smart). There were also individuals that owned bears in Europe (yes these were the ultra wealthy but any adventurer over level 3 has more wealth then 90% of the population of pathfinder)

Crake, My point is this, if you are trying to ground a game that has any type of magic whatsoever based on what your perception of what the absolute best a mundane can do then honestly you need to remove magic from the game. This is not a realistic game it has magic, and gods and demons, and even if it was, animals can do a lot more then what some of the people here are giving them credit for. please, stop trying to make something that should be better then reality, as it is a fantasy game, into worse than reality because (MUH SPELLCASTER!!! I dont know how to train stuff so no one can be better than me at it! MUH SPELLCASTER!!!) on a side note it honestly reminds me of when one of the pathfinder writers nerfed weapon cord because they, as someone with no martial ability or practice couldn't catch their mouse by using the cord since of course, no one that could train with it could be better than him right? Naa not if training with a weapon was literally a part of their life.

Concrete, what about if you put a funny hat on the bear and claim you are the first part of a circus coming through town and you just arrived earlier than most of the rest because of (random excuse)? all of a sudden everyone is coming out to see the bear. A long time ago I was a DM and a party that I was running with most of them having a different animal companion did this (they also had a bard) roleplay wise it was amazing, after all they were looking for more members for the circus and even got into an evil baronesses court with them for a show.

[Crake]

Crake, your animal companion is a highly specialized animal and with training and (in this game magical help being a druid or some other base) this is not a straight off the shelf wolf or monkey that you pointed at and said I choose you!! . These are animals that you have a deep bond with (again mystical as you need to perform a special ceremony for them for 24 hours). the information might be limited vs a human, but with a limited amount of information and knowledge on how your animal reacts it is very easy to piece together things quickly and efficiently. AGAIN I am not saying that the thing talks to you (it can with a trait or a spell or even just an ability)

Bomb dogs spend their entire lives being trained to do that job, and are pretty much exclusively capable of doing that, and almost nothing else. Even once they're retired, they have a hard time doing other things.


Both Crake and Darth, you mark your bottles by sight correct? how about if you rubbed a rose on certain ones? a bittering agent on another? pretty soon most animals would get the idea that a certain smell does something. what about animals with color vision? gorillas? monkies? maybe you wrap the flask in a different color like red (studies have been done with monkies similar to this and within one day or usually a few hours they figure out one color is good and another is bad.) vials of potions are not just all thrown into a backpack... if they are you have no vials in a few hours of hiking as they broke or became unstoperred. It generally gets put into some sort of rack to hold them a certain way. Hell even horses after an hour figure out after showing them that water comes out when they push the lever down for them to drink.

All these different things you're saying you want your animal to do? They're what the game calls "tricks". Animals have a limited capacity to learn, and the game represents that by limiting the number of tricks they can learn. Animal companions get bonus tricks sure. The problem isn't that you want your animal companion to be able to do these things. The problem is you want your animal companion to be able to do all these things. This is doubly an issue when, for example, you want to be able to train your animal to learn to identify different potions and retrieve them for you. Fine, we'll call that a trick. Now when did you spend the time training your companion to do that? It definitely wasn't prior to the campaign, since back then you didn't have a massive assortment of potions to train your animal with.

Sure you can speak with your animal by casting a spell, but the spell doesn't give the animals any kind of heightened intelligence, all it does is enable communication.


Crake, My point is this, if you are trying to ground a game that has any type of magic whatsoever based on what your perception of what the absolute best a mundane can do then honestly you need to remove magic from the game. This is not a realistic game it has magic, and gods and demons, and even if it was, animals can do a lot more then what some of the people here are giving them credit for. please, stop trying to make something that should be better then reality, as it is a fantasy game, into worse than reality because (MUH SPELLCASTER!!! I dont know how to train stuff so no one can be better than me at it! MUH SPELLCASTER!!!) on a side note it honestly reminds me of when one of the pathfinder writers nerfed weapon cord because they, as someone with no martial ability or practice couldn't catch their mouse by using the cord since of course, no one that could train with it could be better than him right? Naa not if training with a weapon was literally a part of their life.

We need a name for this fallacy. Yes magic exists, but that doesn't make the mundane any less mundane. Just because the world has magic, doesn't mean the setting can't be realistic. Sure mages can fly, but only when they cast fly. You can't say "I can fly by flapping my hands, the game has magic, it doesn't need to be realistic. This is not, and will never be, a good argument to make.

Honestly, it just sounds like you want more out of your animal companion that what an animal companion is expcted to be able to offer, and you dislike it when they tell you your companion isn't capable of doing this or that. Maybe look into arcane heirophant and make a familiar/animal companion hybrid that will better match your expectations.

[Pleh]

That kinda seems like something that'd provoke the torches-and-pitchforks kinda fear, and not the do-what-you-want-we're-your-humble-servants kinda fear.

It depends. If you've heard tales the dude with the bear helped slay the local dragon, AND you have reason to believe the torches and pitchforks solution wouldn't have succeeded against the dragon, you might be well advised to avoid instigating a confrontation that doesn't need to occur.

That doesn't mean rolling over and accepting whatever abuse the bear friend wants (necessarily). It might mean having motive to be especially polite, accomodating, and grateful to the dragon slayer.

[Quertus]

Many illusions do have smell in fact. And even if it doesn't, not having a smell isn't automatic clause for disbelieving an illusion.

Maybe not by RAW, but things not smelling right certainly can even let humans - let alone animals - know that something is up. Egyptian mythology associates cats with the dead for a reason.

I doubt many illusionists are going to know how to imitate scents that they've never smelled. (OK, that was probably a 2e thing that got left out of 3e).


Animals also have a penchant for walking right into stupid stuff as well, so i'd say you're experiencing selection bias.

That's fair. But I suspect that the OP wants to play something better than reality, and focus on something at the upper end of what's realistic, not something worse than reality. So, a skilled Fighter, not someone who rolls on the fumble table every round - but in animal form.


Typically potions are sealed away in stoppered, watertight glass vials, so they'd be almost impossible to locate via scent, not to mention retrieving an item from a backpack is a full round action for a person with hands. It'd be at least several rounds of rummaging, likely spilling the potion in question.

I had a wonderful cat who, whenever I went into my study to work, thought that something must be wrong, and came in to give me love and affection. It took years to teach it that my working mood was not something I needed help with. So I agree that the potions thing - even with associating unrelated scents with desired effects - is a bit far fetched. Definitely counts as a "trained only" trick, and a "wow, it's cool that you trained your animal to do that" moment.


We need a name for this fallacy. Yes magic exists, but that doesn't make the mundane any less mundane. Just because the world has magic, doesn't mean the setting can't be realistic. Sure mages can fly, but only when they cast fly. You can't say "I can fly by flapping my hands, the game has magic, it doesn't need to be realistic. This is not, and will never be, a good argument to make.

Honestly, it just sounds like you want more out of your animal companion that what an animal companion is expcted to be able to offer, and you dislike it when they tell you your companion isn't capable of doing this or that. Maybe look into arcane heirophant and make a familiar/animal companion hybrid that will better match your expectations.

Hmmm... The are definitely different ways to look at this. Personally, I prefer the "be a fan of your players" method of GMing, of, when in doubt, erring on the side of letting them do cool things. Or, for the sake of balance, tempering that with a "effectiveness", "coolness", and/or "how often you push the envelope" budget.

If you haven't reached your budget, then you should be able to "spend a coolness point to have mundane do anything that anyone at the table believes that mundane could possibly ever do", rather than always being limited to what the most limited mind at the table believes is the upper limit of what mundane can accomplish.

[Crake]

Maybe not by RAW, but things not smelling right certainly can even let humans - let alone animals - know that something is up. Egyptian mythology associates cats with the dead for a reason.

I doubt many illusionists are going to know how to imitate scents that they've never smelled. (OK, that was probably a 2e thing that got left out of 3e).

Yeah, but at the same time, what's a dog supposed to know about how a red dragon smells etc, that argument swings both ways. Plus, if simply detecting with an illusion using your senses resulted in a save, then anyone looking at the illusion or listening to it should also be granted a save.


That's fair. But I suspect that the OP wants to play something better than reality, and focus on something at the upper end of what's realistic, not something worse than reality. So, a skilled Fighter, not someone who rolls on the fumble table every round - but in animal form.

I can appreciate wanting to play something better than reality. Another way to describe that is super (better) natural (real). Use magical things to achieve that.


I had a wonderful cat who, whenever I went into my study to work, thought that something must be wrong, and came in to give me love and affection. It took years to teach it that my working mood was not something I needed help with. So I agree that the potions thing - even with associating unrelated scents with desired effects - is a bit far fetched. Definitely counts as a "trained only" trick, and a "wow, it's cool that you trained your animal to do that" moment.

I'm glad you can appreciate that animals are sometimes annoyingly stubborn and hard to train.


Hmmm... The are definitely different ways to look at this. Personally, I prefer the "be a fan of your players" method of GMing, of, when in doubt, erring on the side of letting them do cool things. Or, for the sake of balance, tempering that with a "effectiveness", "coolness", and/or "how often you push the envelope" budget.

If you haven't reached your budget, then you should be able to "spend a coolness point to have mundane do anything that anyone at the table believes that mundane could possibly ever do", rather than always being limited to what the most limited mind at the table believes is the upper limit of what mundane can accomplish.

I will admit that I do tend to hold quite closely to what is realistically plausible... in the early levels. When people are throwing around acrobatics checks of +20 and BABs in the double digits I try to change that to "you can try, good luck". The main issue I have with that kind of a thought process though, is that it ultimately punishes people who "play by the rules". The kind who say "sliding underneath someone and feinting are a move action and a standard action, so there's no way I could tumble through their square and attack them flat footed this around" vs the kind of person who doesn't even think about it, and says to the DM "I want to slide under the enemy to catch him offguard and stab him for sneak attack damage". Saying yes to the second player is rewarding and cool and fun for them, but leaves the first player questioning the purpose of the rules if he's sticking to them, but other people are casually tossing them out of the window.

[Pleh]

That's fair. But I suspect that the OP wants to play something better than reality, and focus on something at the upper end of what's realistic, not something worse than reality. So, a skilled Fighter, not someone who rolls on the fumble table every round - but in animal form.

Yeah, I think this is an important thing to keep in mind. The animal companion shouldn't be an "average" member of its species any more than the PC is of its own.

I forget if the rules specify how "average" the animal should be, but traveling with an empathic link to a force of the cosmos makes the beast rather exceptional, even if nothing else would be discernably different.


Yeah, but at the same time, what's a dog supposed to know about how a red dragon smells etc, that argument swings both ways. Plus, if simply detecting with an illusion using your senses resulted in a save, then anyone looking at the illusion or listening to it should also be granted a save.

I feel like this starts to wade into the question of what qualifies as "interacting" with the illusion.

We would normally think that looking at an illusion is merely observing it, while touching it is interacting with it.

But sometimes speaking to an illusion or trying to attack it counts as interaction.

Dunno if PF defines illusion interaction more strictly than 3.5, but when it becomes most important, the definition gets a but fuzzy.

[Psyren]

Dunno if PF defines illusion interaction more strictly than 3.5, but when it becomes most important, the definition gets a but fuzzy.

As a matter of fact, yes, PF has much more detailed guidelines than 3.5 did. There is a whole section on Disbelief and Interaction (https://www.d20pfsrd.com/gamemastering/other-rules/intrigue/) published in Ultimate Intrigue that helps to define what constitutes "interacting with an illusion" in such a way that you would be entitled to a saving throw (or not.)

For speech specifically, the short version is that free action banter doesn't count, but a skill check like trying to get information from an illusion or convince it would, because those would require at least a move action if not greater. It also depends on the type of illusion - glamers might require more specific forms of interaction than figments for example.

[Liquor Box]

Liqour Box, for you if you want I can find and cite sources of people in ancient egypt owning hippos (owning hippos was akin to owning and controlling chaos) and other animals, even cases where one of the sects of a religion owned crocodiles as well as another that had Jaguars (bastet worshipers) and brought them around. (never said humans were smart). There were also individuals that owned bears in Europe (yes these were the ultra wealthy but any adventurer over level 3 has more wealth then 90% of the population of pathfinder)

Yes, please provide your sources about people having hippos accompanying them around town.

Owning a hippo (or other animal) doesn't mean much - nobody is saying that a druid shouldn't be able to 'own' an animal companion. Just that the animal companion wouldn't be able to accompany the character into some places (how many places depend on the animal companion).

[Darth Ultron]

We need a name for this fallacy. Yes magic exists, but that doesn't make the mundane any less mundane. Just because the world has magic, doesn't mean the setting can't be realistic.

This does need a name. Like sure you can have a setting where like ''a big waterfall of water falls off the moon and dumps water on the giant turtle that the game world is on back of....but default D&D, and most worlds are 95% ''just like Earth."



Honestly, it just sounds like you want more out of your animal companion that what an animal companion is expcted to be able to offer, and you dislike it when they tell you your companion isn't capable of doing this or that. Maybe look into arcane heirophant and make a familiar/animal companion hybrid that will better match your expectations.

The problem is making the creature into a Second Character and not treating it just like an animal. It's a good example of a player that can't, or refuses to role play. It often comes from watching too much Disney stuff, and other things like cartoons that make animals just like humans.


Maybe not by RAW, but things not smelling right certainly can even let humans - let alone animals - know that something is up. Egyptian mythology associates cats with the dead for a reason.

Of course, rules things like this are for the DM to decide....not the wacky bias player who will just say ''my animal is super duper and can detect all illusions".



So I agree that the potions thing - even with associating unrelated scents with desired effects - is a bit far fetched. Definitely counts as a "trained only" trick, and a "wow, it's cool that you trained your animal to do that" moment.


I would agree this would count as a trick in the D&D rules...and also the animal must be able to move the item.



If you haven't reached your budget, then you should be able to "spend a coolness point to have mundane do anything that anyone at the table believes that mundane could possibly ever do", rather than always being limited to what the most limited mind at the table believes is the upper limit of what mundane can accomplish.

Yea, I'm on the other side where I don't want a silly Disney at will wish effect animal.

[Pleh]

As a matter of fact, yes, PF has much more detailed guidelines than 3.5 did. There is a whole section on Disbelief and Interaction (https://www.d20pfsrd.com/gamemastering/other-rules/intrigue/) published in Ultimate Intrigue that helps to define what constitutes "interacting with an illusion" in such a way that you would be entitled to a saving throw (or not.)

For speech specifically, the short version is that free action banter doesn't count, but a skill check like trying to get information from an illusion or convince it would, because those would require at least a move action if not greater. It also depends on the type of illusion - glamers might require more specific forms of interaction than figments for example.

That's interesting and tells us that animal companions MIGHT be entitled to saving throws that their PC companions might not.

What factors that might prompt a *person* to analyze an illusion more closely might not be the same as those that might prompt an animal to do the same.

In the PFSRD, they mention that an illusion may make a dress seem more fancy. The person gets a save on introduction, but after that, they only get another if the dress is specifically pointed out again.

Now, an animal likely wouldn't care about an illusory dress even if they made their save. BUT if a monstrous creature were glamered to seem like a normal person, the AC and the hero miss their first save, and the disguised creature approaches non chalantly, the hero might not have cause to pay special attention to another person walking by, but a guard dog might take every passing stranger as a potential threat (precisely because animals tend to lack the abstract context humans rely on).

[Psyren]

^ Correct, and it makes sense - an animal commanded to be vigilant would, much like a guard or watchman, be making a series of active Perception checks. This would be a move action in PF and thus trigger the "interaction" rule. And in the animal's case especially, that would involve normally less precise senses like smell and hearing that a humanoid might not be equipped to employ.

Now, whether the animal can TELL you that it succeeded at its save is another matter entirely. At the very least, once it tips you off that something is up (e.g. by raising its hackles and flooding you with emotion) you would examine whatever it's reacting to more closely, getting another save yourself.

[Dr_Dinosaur]

Can I just say it’s really funny that Darth Ultron, who constantly rails against “rollplayers,” is arguing that animals (even magically empowered and highly trained special ones) can’t do anything not explicitly marked on their sheet?

[Pleh]

^ Correct, and it makes sense - an animal commanded to be vigilant would, much like a guard or watchman, be making a series of active Perception checks. This would be a move action in PF and thus trigger the "interaction" rule. And in the animal's case especially, that would involve normally less precise senses like smell and hearing that a humanoid might not be equipped to employ.

Now, whether the animal can TELL you that it succeeded at its save is another matter entirely. At the very least, once it tips you off that something is up (e.g. by raising its hackles and flooding you with emotion) you would examine whatever it's reacting to more closely, getting another save yourself.

This speaks to the mark of a good RPG rule. It's just mechanical enough to make common sense, rewards tactical engagement without throwing out all aspects of randomness, and just flexible enough to tailor to unusual situations.

[PhantasyPen]

Can I just say it’s really funny that Darth Ultron, who constantly rails against “rollplayers,” is arguing that animals (even magically empowered and highly trained special ones) can’t do anything not explicitly marked on their sheet?

I thought we established years ago that Darth was a massive hypocrite? Honestly I'm surprised he hasn't been permanently banned yet.

[Darth Ultron]

Can I just say it’s really funny that Darth Ultron, who constantly rails against “rollplayers,” is arguing that animals (even magically empowered and highly trained special ones) can’t do anything not explicitly marked on their sheet?

I don't see why....using the rules is not ''roll playing". It's only Roll Playing if your specifically NOT Role Playing in favor of using only the dice and nothing else(like imagination, for example).

The game rules do set,for the players, exactly what the player can do in the game world. Does every animal have the supernatural ability to detect illusions? Nope, it's not in any animal stat block. Can an animal 'teleport' to the characters side at will? Nope, not in the stat block.


I thought we established years ago that Darth was a massive hypocrite? Honestly I'm surprised he hasn't been permanently banned yet.

Why would I be gone? Just as some disagree with me?

[Vyanie]

Can I just say it’s really funny that Darth Ultron, who constantly rails against “rollplayers,” is arguing that animals (even magically empowered and highly trained special ones) can’t do anything not explicitly marked on their sheet?

Damn you, I was trying to eat while i was reading this and damn near died laughing because i started choking on food.

[RegalKain]

*The animal ''suddenly" has an INT 20 and can recognize all illusions ever As has been pointed out further in, some animals may be allowed an extra save. Will saves are based off of Wisdom, seems likely it may have a better chance than the average barbarian to dis-beleive.


*The animal ,with INT 20, knows "secret sign language" can can ''communicate anything" Depends on the animal and the build I suppose. With an INT of 20? Yes, it probably can. For your reading pleasure -https://paizo.com/community/blog/v5748dyo5lc1y?Monkey-See-Monkey-Do-An-FAQ-on-Intelligent
If you built your animal companion to for whatever reason have a high intelligence score, it may infact understand a lot more than the average...well Barbarian I guess. (Not to pick on Barbarians but they are usually the INT dumpers at my tables.)


*The animal can detect magic I won't say all animals can, but a sufficiently intelligent animal probably could yes.


*The animal automatically knows the value of any item it sees and what it is and how to use it High Int, Appraise goes off of Int, so they may know the value, they may not know how to use it. (Though as a GM if a character doesn't have a relevant skill, I usually allow a raw INT check to determine these things, such as using a semi-complex device that's not quite magic.)


*The animal knows all magic, so it won't ever bite a wizard under a fire shield spell, for example Spellcraft is a thing, high Int ACs might have it, general wariness is a thing, this is where I'd do it on a case by case basis though, if the character who has the AC is say a RAnger, with favored enemy -this exact flavor or caster- then I might be more inclined to say "Yeah, your Pet smells something funny, it think's it been here before and is hesitating to attack, want to push it to do so with a free action check? "


*The animal can get things out of the characters backpack...in combat..as a free action This one is a stretch sure, I can't imagine most people are gonna go this route but sure, if this is happening it's bad.



I'm talking about when the player has the animal ''talk'' like in a tap or blink code exactly like a human voice. If the animal has a reasonably high INT, and has learned a common language, or learned sign language, yes infact. It can probably be trained to blink exactly like a "human voice" since as the blog post points out, they may not be capable of actual speech.




Again, I'd point out that the animal stat block does not contain this power. You want animals to have a continuations Foresight super natural ability. The "Animal Stat Block" also happens to be a creature stat block, meaning some universal and general rules apply. It seems a lot of people in this thread are forgetting that. "Detecting a magical illusion" is never on a normal character's stat block (At least none that I have seen.) Yet they are allowed the relevant check because their a creature, and it's a universal rule.


Same way the animal understands D&D movement, threatened squares, reach and attacks of opportunity, right? If an Int 5 Barbarian is expected to understand basic combat strategy (Barely above animal intelligence.) then I'd be ok with someone "spending" a trick on teaching their companion about reach and the basics of pack flanking etc. (Since it's something found in nature in certain creatures anyway.) Also a high enough Int makes this a moot point.




So, one animal does something...so all animals do it too? For someone who's entire life is based around an animal (Like this hunter class.) I'd be willing to argue the point to my DM that my pet should know some pretty nifty things that creatures of it's same type normally don't.




You anthropomorphize animals too much. You forget this is a system where your animal can be given a cute ribbon and have an Int that's 6 higher and actively be taught to utilize that intellect.




Despite that, I might be able to make an allowance for wolves being allowed into towns (but not buildings), but to think that bears and crocodiles etc would be able to is a bit silly I think.

I don't think it makes any difference that you are in a high magic world. Unless the general population of the town are high level, then the bear (or dire tiger or whatever) would still be dangerous to them, so wouldn't be allowed.
I personally think this depends 100% on your setting though right? If your setting has a city that has a dragon as it's patron guardian, or a ruling council of strange creatures or fey creatures. Or is an elven city, I'd wager the common populace wouldn't care at all about a bear or dire tiger. It'd probably be pretty "mundane" to them at that point right? You're assuming all cities are human cities, which is an issue in and of itself. (Sorry, I think you're assuming that since Elves are known to be close with nature lore-wise, dwarves are sturdy and care little about more things, goblins would freak the F out if even a to large dog was around, etc. )







Both Crake and Darth, you mark your bottles by sight correct? how about if you rubbed a rose on certain ones? a bittering agent on another? pretty soon most animals would get the idea that a certain smell does something. what about animals with color vision? gorillas? monkies? maybe you wrap the flask in a different color like red (studies have been done with monkies similar to this and within one day or usually a few hours they figure out one color is good and another is bad.) vials of potions are not just all thrown into a backpack... if they are you have no vials in a few hours of hiking as they broke or became unstoperred. It generally gets put into some sort of rack to hold them a certain way. Hell even horses after an hour figure out after showing them that water comes out when they push the lever down for them to drink. Alternatively, if the animal has a proper int score, and you take the time in game to teach it to read (See spend a skill point when available for it.) then why can't you just write out actual labels? In fact a smart ranger type might have another belt that's easily in reach and accessible so that a companion can grab a potion quickly, maybe give it reduced effect for it smashing it on your face or something.




Bomb dogs spend their entire lives being trained to do that job, and are pretty much exclusively capable of doing that, and almost nothing else. Even once they're retired, they have a hard time doing other things. You're trying to force the mundane into a world where you can have a literal dinosaur follow you around like it's a dog. Where you can give that same dinosaur a + Int item and have actual conversations with it about it's day. Human beings spend their entire lives (A fair bit longer then a dog's life.) learning to master a single martial art, or a single weapon or form of combat, Pen and Paper characters do this in a few years of play time (Takes less than that to hit level 20 by RAW standard right? It's like 9 months or something insane, assuming minimal down time.) They can literally bend space and time with their minds. So you're ok with sentient creatures being "over the top and stupidly unbelievable " but not animals? Is there a reason for that?




All these different things you're saying you want your animal to do? They're what the game calls "tricks". Animals have a limited capacity to learn, and the game represents that by limiting the number of tricks they can learn. Animal companions get bonus tricks sure. The problem isn't that you want your animal companion to be able to do these things. The problem is you want your animal companion to be able to do all these things. This is doubly an issue when, for example, you want to be able to train your animal to learn to identify different potions and retrieve them for you. Fine, we'll call that a trick. Now when did you spend the time training your companion to do that? It definitely wasn't prior to the campaign, since back then you didn't have a massive assortment of potions to train your animal with. . High Int solves a lot of the things you're talking about,t hat said, someone who just really loves playing with their animal companion (Maybe IRL they've always wanted a dog tehy can just chill and chat with, and gaming is how they get it.) might spend the resources needed so that they can do ALL of those things.



Sure you can speak with your animal by casting a spell, but the spell doesn't give the animals any kind of heightened intelligence, all it does is enable communication . Just give it a heightened intelligence. I dunno if that works in 3.5 but it does in Pathfinder.




We need a name for this fallacy. Yes magic exists, but that doesn't make the mundane any less mundane. Just because the world has magic, doesn't mean the setting can't be realistic. Sure mages can fly, but only when they cast fly. You can't say "I can fly by flapping my hands, the game has magic, it doesn't need to be realistic. This is not, and will never be, a good argument to make.. I think this "fallacy" does both ways. People are willing to suspend logic and reasoning when it concerns a cleric talking to a literal god to bring something back from the dead, from the Wizard using the power of jazz hands to literally break space and time, and from a dungeon crashing fighter from literally plowing through solid stone walls. But you can't get behind an animal mystically tied to one of these insane tropes, knowing more then a basic animal does? It seems like you're falling for the "fallacy" in the other direction honestly.


Honestly, it just sounds like you want more out of your animal companion that what an animal companion is expcted to be able to offer, and you dislike it when they tell you your companion isn't capable of doing this or that. Maybe look into arcane heirophant and make a familiar/animal companion hybrid that will better match your expectations. Except (At least in Pathfinder) almost all of these things are well within reason, but people who refuse to think even the slightest bit outside the box (But still in the rules mind you) just instantly nay-say it because for some reason they all just hate animals I guess.


Yeah, but at the same time, what's a dog supposed to know about how a red dragon smells etc, that argument swings both ways. Plus, if simply detecting with an illusion using your senses resulted in a save, then anyone looking at the illusion or listening to it should also be granted a save. I'd say if the resulting companion had favored enemy dragons, the dog would absolutely know what a dragon smells like. But a better thought, maybe the lack of smell is what makes the dog do a double-take, maybe the fact it doesn't make sound the right way, maybe it doesn't seem to put enough weight on the ground, maybe the fact it appeared out of thin air makes the dog inspect it closer to make sure it's best bud doesn't turn into BBQ,




I can appreciate wanting to play something better than reality. Another way to describe that is super (better) natural (real). Use magical things to achieve that. I'd say that an animal that magically gets stronger just by way of association with you, comes across as better than reality to me, but hey, maybe I'm biased.




I will admit that I do tend to hold quite closely to what is realistically plausible... in the early levels. When people are throwing around acrobatics checks of +20 and BABs in the double digits I try to change that to "you can try, good luck". The main issue I have with that kind of a thought process though, is that it ultimately punishes people who "play by the rules". The kind who say "sliding underneath someone and feinting are a move action and a standard action, so there's no way I could tumble through their square and attack them flat footed this around" vs the kind of person who doesn't even think about it, and says to the DM "I want to slide under the enemy to catch him offguard and stab him for sneak attack damage". Saying yes to the second player is rewarding and cool and fun for them, but leaves the first player questioning the purpose of the rules if he's sticking to them, but other people are casually tossing them out of the window. I admit I'm a sucker for rule of cool. "I want to slide under the enemy to catch him offguard and stab him for sneak attack damage." Ok, well the rules say you can't normally do all of that on your turn, but let's do this, give me an Acrobatics check, the DC is going to be a lot higher, they will oppose it with a Sense Motive and Reflex save, either way you'll be on the other side, but whether it's a surprise or not depends on the rolls." I understand the rules are there for a reason, but they are a structured guide line to help you create an interesting story, use them as such. You're the DM, help your players feel cool, help your players feel heroic, that is literally your job, is to tell an awesome and awe-inspiring story that your players re-tell to friends and other people they run into that talk about gaming. "Oh man this one time I-" Maybe that's just my group since we don't mind being open about our nerdiness and we hang with a lot of other nerds.


This does need a name. Like sure you can have a setting where like ''a big waterfall of water falls off the moon and dumps water on the giant turtle that the game world is on back of....but default D&D, and most worlds are 95% ''just like Earth." While I realize I only have one earth to go off of (I assume the one we live on is the one you are using as a reference.) I've personally never seen a dragon, or a mind flayer, or a beholder, or seen someone who can literally raise the dead, heal wounds instantly, summon a massive fire ball from their finger tips. So I dunno what earth you're using here that the default D&D worlds are "just like" but in my experience it's not this one.




Yea, I'm on the other side where I don't want a silly Disney at will wish effect animal. Well at least you admit you j ust hate animals in pen and paper. Rather dis-like them, I guess that sort of cements your side of this discussion doesn't it? Cause an animal that you can train to literally speak with you and read, that's pretty damn Disney boss.

[Telonius]

For whatever it's worth, I have no problem with animal companions existing. "Preternaturally smart creature that helps out the hero" is not something that was invented by Walt Disney. Crack open some Grimm's tales, or the Silmarillion (and Huan); they're all over the place.

I do have a (game-balance) problem with Druids getting the full-strength version of them. In my houserules I have Druid and Ranger swap companions. Rangers get them full-strength, Druids at half level. An extra set of claws is a Nice Thing to give to a (primarily) martial class. Taking it away would just be a kick in the teeth.



We need a name for this fallacy. Yes magic exists, but that doesn't make the mundane any less mundane. Just because the world has magic, doesn't mean the setting can't be realistic. Sure mages can fly, but only when they cast fly. You can't say "I can fly by flapping my hands, the game has magic, it doesn't need to be realistic. This is not, and will never be, a good argument to make.

I think I've heard this called the "But Dragons!" fallacy.

[Psyren]

All these different things you're saying you want your animal to do? They're what the game calls "tricks". Animals have a limited capacity to learn, and the game represents that by limiting the number of tricks they can learn. Animal companions get bonus tricks sure. The problem isn't that you want your animal companion to be able to do these things. The problem is you want your animal companion to be able to do all these things. This is doubly an issue when, for example, you want to be able to train your animal to learn to identify different potions and retrieve them for you. Fine, we'll call that a trick. Now when did you spend the time training your companion to do that? It definitely wasn't prior to the campaign, since back then you didn't have a massive assortment of potions to train your animal with.

That's easy though - Both 3.5 and Pathfinder have rules for getting an animal to do stuff it hasn't learned as a trick. It's called "pushing" (http://www.d20pfsrd.com/skills/handle-animal) and it can cover just about any task the animal is physically capable of doing that isn't already an explicit trick in its repertoire. It's DC 25 and for classes with animal companions, usually costs them a move action.

In short, just because something isn't on the trick list or a given animal has already learned as many tricks as it can, it doesn't rule out any activities the animal is capable of doing.

[exelsisxax]

That's easy though - Both 3.5 and Pathfinder have rules for getting an animal to do stuff it hasn't learned as a trick. It's called "pushing" (http://www.d20pfsrd.com/skills/handle-animal) and it can cover just about any task the animal is physically capable of doing that isn't already an explicit trick in its repertoire. It's DC 25 and for classes with animal companions, usually costs them a move action.

In short, just because something isn't on the trick list or a given animal has already learned as many tricks as it can, it doesn't rule out any activities the animal is capable of doing.

But it DOES rule out things like "my companion fox steals the Evil Plans before returning from scouting, because I think it can do that on its own initiative"

[noob]

But it DOES rule out things like "my companion fox steals the Evil Plans before returning from scouting, because I think it can do that on its own initiative"

Except if you consider you can have as a trick any indication of behaviour shorter than 15 words then you can start programming your fox by pushing your fox to do tons of different tricks with a behaviour shorter than 15 words(individually) then with that you make an ai that is entirely made of orders to a fox.
So the question is: are foxes turing complete?
And maybe you would get exponential difficulties for pushing your dog to do more and more complex stuff.
considering that pushing a fox to do an additional order at once increase the difficulty by 2^the number of orders and that for making an ai that reach approximatively the expectations raised here you only need maybe like 10^15 orders for sapience then with +2^(10^15) in handle animal and by spending 10^15 rounds you can have a fox with an ai(you also need to meet the needed check for making a sapient ai which might be something as low as a 1000^1000 check in the appropriate knowledge).

[Pleh]

But it DOES rule out things like "my companion fox steals the Evil Plans before returning from scouting, because I think it can do that on its own initiative"

A fox companion might rather compulsively steal things from anywhere it goes (unless it gets focused on personal safety). But at my table, I'd roll percentile to see what object from the BBEG's personal affects happens to catch the fox's eye.

They might steal the Evil Plans (tm), but they also might steal a harmless bauble. I think the most interesting outcome is stealing a ledger. This means the party gets clues about the BBEG's activities, but no direcr insight into the Evil Plan (tm).

[exelsisxax]

Except if you consider you can have as a trick any indication of behaviour shorter than 15 words then you can start programming your fox by pushing your fox to do tons of different tricks with a behaviour shorter than 15 words(individually) then with that you make an ai that is entirely made of orders to a fox.
So the question is: are foxes turing complete?
And maybe you would get exponential difficulties for pushing your dog to do more and more complex stuff.
considering that pushing a fox to do an additional order at once increase the difficulty by 2^the number of orders and that for making an ai you only need 10^15 orders then with +2^(10^15) in handle animal and by spending 10^15 rounds you can have a fox with an ai.

You can't, because you can only give a single set of orders of up to 15 words.


To push an animal means to get it to perform a task or trick that it doesn’t know but is physically capable of performing. This category also covers making an animal perform a forced march or forcing it to hustle for more than 1 hour between sleep cycles. If the animal is wounded or has taken any nonlethal damage or ability score damage, the DC increases by 2. If your check succeeds, the animal performs the task or trick on its next action.

You are not permitted to que orders, and (normal) companions are incapable of understanding a conversation about the Evil Plans, reading the Evil Plans, or figuring out why the Grand Vizier is smiling triumphantly over a piece of paper. So, you could order them to go and steal the Evil Plans if you know with a moderate degree of precision where they are, but can't set a contingency that permits your AC to steal without you already being aware of the presence of said Evil Plans in that particular location and time.

[noob]

Well so it means that the dog can row a whole lane of an infinitely long field in one action if you push it to do so and taught the row lane trick to the dog.
Even better the dog does not need to know the trick.
It is awesome now we need an evil plan based on superluminic field rowing dogs.

[Psyren]

But it DOES rule out things like "my companion fox steals the Evil Plans before returning from scouting, because I think it can do that on its own initiative"

Sure, I have no problem with that. (And an animal is highly unlikely to know what "Evil Plans" look like anyway.)

But if you're there with it and it can see/hear you, "grab that thing off the table" should work.

[Liquor Box]

I personally think this depends 100% on your setting though right? If your setting has a city that has a dragon as it's patron guardian, or a ruling council of strange creatures or fey creatures. Or is an elven city, I'd wager the common populace wouldn't care at all about a bear or dire tiger. It'd probably be pretty "mundane" to them at that point right? You're assuming all cities are human cities, which is an issue in and of itself. (Sorry, I think you're assuming that since Elves are known to be close with nature lore-wise, dwarves are sturdy and care little about more things, goblins would freak the F out if even a to large dog was around, etc. )


I agree that it depends on your setting.

But I don't think it is that relevant if there are fantastic creatures as a ruling council or a patron. What is relevant is how powerful your commoners are. If your townsfolk are uber-powerful creatures, then I think you are right that they would not be concerned about tigers walking about the town, because tigers would not be dangerous to them.

But if the townsfolk are mostly low level commoners, then I think they would be concerned about dangerous animals walking the streets regardless of whether there was a dragon watching over the town. The tiger would be powerful enough to kill them, and they are likely to perceive that as being a possibility. For that reason, I think that dangerous animals are unlikely to be allowed in towns/cities even in a fantastic world - because the people in the city/town are still mostly mundane.

Of course you could make a different rule for your campaign. You could rule that in your world druidic powers are so well known and trusted that the populace would have no problem brushing past a dinosaur in a city, or queing in front of a crocodile. Not he most realistic scenario I don't think, but a DM could create a world that way. But to call a DM "biased against animal companions" because they don't create a world that way is silly in my opinion.

[Erloas]

I think one of the overlooked things about ACs in town and shops is that they aren't really going to be that unusual. They aren't going to be the first person the town has ever seen with a weird animal, probably not even the first that week. Most familiars would be weird and unusual to have from a real world point of view, even if not necessarily dangerous. Same with bonded mounts.
This PC with an AC is not really that usually, might not be a commonly seen animal but hardly a rare occurrence overall. Especially in any sort of magic shop that is going to be drawing in adventurers all the time. They aren't even going to be seen as all that dangerous compared to the rest of the world. Now if the shop is going to have anti magic wards and make sure all weapons are left outside then I could see them also taking precautions for animals.

[Liquor Box]

I think one of the overlooked things about ACs in town and shops is that they aren't really going to be that unusual. They aren't going to be the first person the town has ever seen with a weird animal, probably not even the first that week. Most familiars would be weird and unusual to have from a real world point of view, even if not necessarily dangerous. Same with bonded mounts.
This PC with an AC is not really that usually, might not be a commonly seen animal but hardly a rare occurrence overall. Especially in any sort of magic shop that is going to be drawing in adventurers all the time. They aren't even going to be seen as all that dangerous compared to the rest of the world. Now if the shop is going to have anti magic wards and make sure all weapons are left outside then I could see them also taking precautions for animals.

I don't think it is the novelty of the animal companion that is likely to make it unwelcome in town, but the fact that it is dangerous to most people.

I accept that there are things more powerful and lethal than animal companions (high level characters etc). But I think there is a clear distinction between thinking participants in society and animals in terms of people's expectation that they will not suddenly become dangerous. In the real world, a person with a gun is much more powerful and lethal than an animal - but there are many places in the world (and even more throughout history) where people were able to carry guns, but few (if any) where dangerous predators are allowed to stroll around town.

[RegalKain]

I agree that it depends on your setting.

But I don't think it is that relevant if there are fantastic creatures as a ruling council or a patron. What is relevant is how powerful your commoners are. If your townsfolk are uber-powerful creatures, then I think you are right that they would not be concerned about tigers walking about the town, because tigers would not be dangerous to them.

But if the townsfolk are mostly low level commoners, then I think they would be concerned about dangerous animals walking the streets regardless of whether there was a dragon watching over the town. The tiger would be powerful enough to kill them, and they are likely to perceive that as being a possibility. For that reason, I think that dangerous animals are unlikely to be allowed in towns/cities even in a fantastic world - because the people in the city/town are still mostly mundane.

Of course you could make a different rule for your campaign. You could rule that in your world druidic powers are so well known and trusted that the populace would have no problem brushing past a dinosaur in a city, or queing in front of a crocodile. Not he most realistic scenario I don't think, but a DM could create a world that way. But to call a DM "biased against animal companions" because they don't create a world that way is silly in my opinion.


You mean the town folk that stand a very good chance of dying to a typical house cat at level 1 in a fight? Or the commoners that stand a fair chance by RAW to fail their knowledge local check to get home (If they have an Int penalty of any kind.) ? Yeah, I'm sure they are aware the tiger could kill them, as much as they are aware their dog or cat will also probably kill them in a 1v1, because mechanically the game says so. So what's the cut off for that? Would a level 10 commoner be less scared of a tiger then a level 1 commoner? I suppose this is where it just gets weird, personally though, my towns folk act appropriate to what they see on a regular basis, a town that is built around a Paladin order is pretty used to seeing demons, celestials and unicorns, if a beholder shows up they are mostly going to wonder WTF it is, call the Paladins and probably hide. That said, I also admit that I don't use NPC classes in my world at all, because my players are gestalt and most "run of the mill humans" have a trade of some kind, even if that's just fighter or rogue etc. May not make a ton of sense mechanically. But neither does a cat being able to fairly reliably kill a level 1 commoner.

[Quertus]

Regarding stealing the BBEG's plans - that seems odd for most animals. However, I'm left wondering a) which stat covers initiative to take actions on their own; b) why more people don't equip their ACs with masks to grant language knowledge.


I don't think it is the novelty of the animal companion that is likely to make it unwelcome in town, but the fact that it is dangerous to most people.

And this is why adventurers are disliked in most towns, and why house cats were hunted to extinction on all D&D worlds.

[Liquor Box]

You mean the town folk that stand a very good chance of dying to a typical house cat at level 1 in a fight? Or the commoners that stand a fair chance by RAW to fail their knowledge local check to get home (If they have an Int penalty of any kind.) ? Yeah, I'm sure they are aware the tiger could kill them, as much as they are aware their dog or cat will also probably kill them in a 1v1, because mechanically the game says so. So what's the cut off for that? Would a level 10 commoner be less scared of a tiger then a level 1 commoner? I suppose this is where it just gets weird, personally though, my towns folk act appropriate to what they see on a regular basis, a town that is built around a Paladin order is pretty used to seeing demons, celestials and unicorns, if a beholder shows up they are mostly going to wonder WTF it is, call the Paladins and probably hide. That said, I also admit that I don't use NPC classes in my world at all, because my players are gestalt and most "run of the mill humans" have a trade of some kind, even if that's just fighter or rogue etc. May not make a ton of sense mechanically. But neither does a cat being able to fairly reliably kill a level 1 commoner.

I don't know what this has to do with what we were discussing. So RAW leads to some unrealistic outcomes in some scenarios - you can deal with that by accepting it, by modifying RAW somewhat, or by simply designing your game slightly differently (if most townsfolk are level 2 commoners or higher then they are not so under threat from the cat).

But whatever oddities might arise out of RAW as they apply to level 1 commoners, there is nothing odd, unrealistic or inconsistent about an average townperson's life being in danger from a tiger or bear or other large predator. That is true both from the perspective of RAW, RAI and simple common sense and realism.

If you design a world differently, then that's your prerogative. But again, I don't think a DM is being biased if he or she doesn't design it that way.

[Liquor Box]

And this is why adventurers are disliked in most towns.

I think there is a difference between being around people who have the capability to kill you and a predatory animal that has the capability to kill you. That's why there are many real world examples of places and time where people have been able to walk around town armed (so a potential danger to townsfolk), but none I think where dangerous predators have been able to walk around time with people paying them no regard.

[RegalKain]

I don't know what this has to do with what we were discussing. So RAW leads to some unrealistic outcomes in some scenarios - you can deal with that by accepting it, by modifying RAW somewhat, or by simply designing your game slightly differently (if most townsfolk are level 2 commoners or higher then they are not so under threat from the cat).

But whatever oddities might arise out of RAW as they apply to level 1 commoners, there is nothing odd, unrealistic or inconsistent about an average townperson's life being in danger from a tiger or bear or other large predator. That is true both from the perspective of RAW, RAI and simple common sense and realism.

If you design a world differently, then that's your prerogative. But again, I don't think a DM is being biased if he or she doesn't design it that way.


I apologize, I guess I should have coated all of that blue. I was more meaning that, in DnD, in it's base world, a child (Up to 18 or so I guess when it can get levels or however that **** works.) that is a level 1 commoner, has a lethal chance of dying if it angers a house cat. By your logic of a dangerous predator (Remember cats are in fact predators.) towns wouldn't allows cats either, because it'd be a very, very, very serious danger to the children in town. (Ever see a kid grab a cat to quickly or roughly and it swats at them? ) That was the point I was getting at. It's NOT inconsistent that a human common 1 child stands a good chance at dying to a house cat. IT's not unrealistic in-game terms (Which is what you guys are rallying against to some degree with what Animal Companions should be allowed to do.). It may not make sense in the real world, then again see the "But Dragons!" fallacy. That's what I was getting at, I don't think commoners would see a tiger that's walking next to a person who can literally punch them and they probably die or fall seriously into the negatives and nearly die (From a single punch.) As "Oh my god I'm going to die, run scream, panic, grab the pitchforks!" because their standard is that they are very, very likely to die at almost any turn, for any reason.

Now I design my world differently, solely so that it makes more logical sense, in other words the level 1 commoner farmer, isn't dying horribly to their pet house cat.

[Erloas]

I think there is a difference between being around people who have the capability to kill you and a predatory animal that has the capability to kill you. That's why there are many real world examples of places and time where people have been able to walk around town armed (so a potential danger to townsfolk), but none I think where dangerous predators have been able to walk around time with people paying them no regard.

Except that it isn't uncommon for there to be mountain lions in and around some towns. Lots of places with snakes. There are crocodiles in ponds around Disney World. I've seen bears around work before and I'm in the middlish of a large metro area. Some are removed, some are killed, some are simply avoided. It isn't really that unusual.


But I think the more important point is the refusal to accept that they can be trained. We've got many examples of apex preditors being trained by people. Granted there isn't a lot of reason for them to be out in public, but that doesn't mean it can't be done.



Now we go into the D&D world and we've got people controlling magic, we've got people controlling celestial creatures to ride around on, we've got wizards with all sorts of random pets, we've got people raising the dead and controlling them. But the idea that someone could train and control a "wild animal" is so outlandish as to not even be entertained. And I use the term wild animal loosely here because they're all significantly less dangerous than many of the other creatures of the world, they aren't even that high on the food chain in this setting.


Simply put, people having very tight, sometimes magic, sometimes divine, sometimes supernatural, control over other creatures is pretty common. It really shouldn't cause much of a stir at all in the setting.

[Liquor Box]

I apologize, I guess I should have coated all of that blue. I was more meaning that, in DnD, in it's base world, a child (Up to 18 or so I guess when it can get levels or however that **** works.) that is a level 1 commoner, has a lethal chance of dying if it angers a house cat. By your logic of a dangerous predator (Remember cats are in fact predators.) towns wouldn't allows cats either, because it'd be a very, very, very serious danger to the children in town. (Ever see a kid grab a cat to quickly or roughly and it swats at them? ) That was the point I was getting at. It's NOT inconsistent that a human common 1 child stands a good chance at dying to a house cat. IT's not unrealistic in-game terms (Which is what you guys are rallying against to some degree with what Animal Companions should be allowed to do.). It may not make sense in the real world, then again see the "But Dragons!" fallacy. That's what I was getting at, I don't think commoners would see a tiger that's walking next to a person who can literally punch them and they probably die or fall seriously into the negatives and nearly die (From a single punch.) As "Oh my god I'm going to die, run scream, panic, grab the pitchforks!" because their standard is that they are very, very likely to die at almost any turn, for any reason.

Now I design my world differently, solely so that it makes more logical sense, in other words the level 1 commoner farmer, isn't dying horribly to their pet house cat.

I think the fact that a level 1 commoner can be killed by a house cat is an anomaly in the rules, rather than reflecting a principle that commoners can be killed by anything, and by extrapolation that commoners would not be put out by dangers to their lives because everything (even cats) are a danger to them.

As an aside, I don;t think I am relying on rules for the arguments I put forward (other people may be relying on the rules for their very different arguments). As far as I know the rules are silent on whether animal companions would be allowed to walk around in cities, be allowed into Inns to sleep the night, or into shops etc. Accordingly, I think it is for each DM to decide how to treat that in their own setting, hopefully based somewhat on what would be a realistic way for people to react to dangerous animals in close proximity. My opinion is that in most standard settings animal companions would not be given free access (depending on how dangerous and monstrous the animal companion is).

[Quertus]

I guess it seems a bit of odd world-building to me to have towns with magic item shops and Hydra trainers, but for people to get freaked out by a pet wolf.

If the world doesn't have blinders, and acknowledges the existence of adventurers, then ACs should probably be treated differently than in modern or even historic Earth.

[John05]

On the matter of the OP's DM nerfing the AC in combat, that does seem excessive, but it's not much worse than any other DM fiat. Instead of the AC, it could have been a monk NPC chasing a poorly-planned pet BBEG and the BBEG would still have gotten away.. somehow. :P

As for animal companions in town, I do think it's realistic/reasonable for many NPCs to be scared of animals. Dogs are domesticated and well-known, well-loved animals IRL, but that doesn't mean large ones don't scare the crap out of many people I know. It could be a cultural thing as well. For example, large dogs are a lot more frightening for nonwhite Americans than they are for white Americans, IME.

Even a town that legalizes wild pets like bears, ones that have adventurers passing through the town frequently with exotic pets could still have NPCs living in those towns who just respond with, "Ok, I don't care how well trained that thing is, it ain't getting anywhere near me."

[John05]

I guess it seems a bit of odd world-building to me to have towns with magic item shops and Hydra trainers, but for people to get freaked out by a pet wolf.

Eh, depends on the setting, which we aren't privy to here. Lions and tigers exist irl on the other side of the world, but they aren't commonly seen where I am. Mountain lions even exist where I live, but I rarely see them. People still get intimidated by large dogs here.

It doesn't have to be a rational thing. People aren't rational. I have firearms but people will still be more intimidated by mostly harmless wild animals more than they would by me. Just like how people can generally trust powerful PCs, because their brains are just wired to trust humanoids (even level 10+ ones) more than they would a CR 4 brown bear.

[Liquor Box]

Except that it isn't uncommon for there to be mountain lions in and around some towns. Lots of places with snakes. There are crocodiles in ponds around Disney World. I've seen bears around work before and I'm in the middlish of a large metro area. Some are removed, some are killed, some are simply avoided. It isn't really that unusual.

My point exactly. They are removed, killed or avoided - presumably based on expediency, how dangerous the animal is, and the threat it poses (is it just lounging in the pond behind the 'beware of alligator' sign)?

Those cougars, alligators and bears you refer to do not simply walk amongst the population, who accept them.


But I think the more important point is the refusal to accept that they can be trained. We've got many examples of apex preditors being trained by people. Granted there isn't a lot of reason for them to be out in public, but that doesn't mean it can't be done.

We also have lots of examples of trained apex predators killing people, even without the stimulation of being out in public. I googled "are trained tigers safe" and every result on the first page said they were not. Here's a the first result:
https://www.thesprucepets.com/pet-tigers-1238150
"Many tigers are trained to be around people and will go years without incident but you can't predict the behavior of a tiger. They are still wild animals at heart. Famous trainers have been mauled by their beloved tigers, even after working with them daily and for years. They are unpredictable and it is a huge risk to be handling a mature tiger whether you are a professional or not."


Now we go into the D&D world and we've got people controlling magic, we've got people controlling celestial creatures to ride around on, we've got wizards with all sorts of random pets, we've got people raising the dead and controlling them. But the idea that someone could train and control a "wild animal" is so outlandish as to not even be entertained. And I use the term wild animal loosely here because they're all significantly less dangerous than many of the other creatures of the world, they aren't even that high on the food chain in this setting.

Simply put, people having very tight, sometimes magic, sometimes divine, sometimes supernatural, control over other creatures is pretty common. It really shouldn't cause much of a stir at all in the setting.

I think you are asking yourself the wrong question here. The question is not whether the idea of being able to train a wild predator is 'outlandish', but rather whether it would be commonly accepted that all wild predators in the company of adventuring parties are sufficiently well trained that they are not at all dangerous even in potentially unforeseen circumstances.

To use a real world analogy, it is not at all outlandish to think that you could survive a fall off a third story balcony, but that doesn't mean that it would acceptable for a third story balcony to collapse. The possibility that danger may not arise not being outlandish is completely the wrong threshold here.

But you are right. As I said several posts ago, it is possible that in some settings there might be such faith on Druidic magic/techniques (even amongst uneducated commoners) that there completely accept that all animal companions are completely safe (even if one were to spill boiling water on it, or some other unforeseen accident was to happen). It is the DM decision whether a particular setting has such wide acceptance of animal companions. In my opinion wide acceptance of dangerous animals in towns/shops etc is not that likely but you or your DM might come to a different view. But where a DM does decide that animal companions are not allowed in towns, or inns or shops, this does not mean that the DM is "Biased against animal companions".

[RoboEmperor]

IRL I don't give a damn whether someone says a tiger or an elephant is trained. Once they get into heat they kill and eat their masters. Musthing Elephants, look it up. For really absolutely no reason male elephants start killing everyone and everything and even start raping rhinoceroses before killing them.

If I was a spellcaster i wouldn't mind animal companions wandering the streets, but if I was a literal 4hp human commoner and saw a complete stranger wandering the streets my children play in with a tiger or a bear, not a chance in hell. I'd go to the guards and get the adventurers thrown out.

If I was a commoner in a large city where there are hydra trainers and whatnot, then I wouldn't mind. It's called conditioning and desensitization. It's why guns are no big deal in some towns and absolutely outlawed in other towns IRL.

[Erloas]

From a "commoner" standpoint of in character world, would they know the difference between an animal companion and a familiar? Would they know how the bonds between the adventurer and the animal differ between a paladin's horse, a ranger's badger, a wizard's viper, a druid's tiger, a cavalier's riding wolf, a hunter's wolf, a witch's Raven?
Do they know which ones are better controlled? Which ones might attack and which ones won't? Are they not worried about some of them just because they are smaller?
　
Granted it is always up to the DM, but most animal companions are fairly important parts of the class that gives them and routinely taking them away while leaving other classes fully functional seems like a bad move.

[Liquor Box]

From a "commoner" standpoint of in character world, would they know the difference between an animal companion and a familiar? Would they know how the bonds between the adventurer and the animal differ between a paladin's horse, a ranger's badger, a wizard's viper, a druid's tiger, a cavalier's riding wolf, a hunter's wolf, a witch's Raven?
Do they know which ones are better controlled? Which ones might attack and which ones won't? Are they not worried about some of them just because they are smaller?
No, they probably wouldn't know the difference between all those things, which is why they are likely to be cautious of dangerous looking animals. They don't know if the animal is a familiar, and animal companion, or simply a wild animal. They don't know how much control the person has over the animal.



Granted it is always up to the DM, but most animal companions are fairly important parts of the class that gives them and routinely taking them away while leaving other classes fully functional seems like a bad move.

The types of classes that animal companions are generally associated with are wilderness type classes. It is generally part of those characters class that they are aligned with nature (Druids lose their class features if they fail to revere nature), and as such one would not expect them to spend significant time out of nature (in towns and Inns), and it is entirely consistent with their fluff that they do lose a portion of their power when they are in that different environment. Also, Druids at least are pretty powerful even without their animal companions.

To be clear, I am not suggest you weaken the class because it is too strong, or punish it for entering the city. All I am saying is that it makes sense for animal companions to be restricted in where they can go, and those restrictions are entirely consistent with the Druid's focus. Further, if one was wanting to play a Druid who often entered the city, restricting the ability of the Druid's tiger or bear or dinosaur to go into the city might encourage more creative choices of animal companion (smaller ones which may be more likely to be allowed in cities and buildings).

[Crake]

I think the fact that a level 1 commoner can be killed by a house cat is an anomaly in the rules, rather than reflecting a principle that commoners can be killed by anything, and by extrapolation that commoners would not be put out by dangers to their lives because everything (even cats) are a danger to them.

These anomalies disappear when you use wounds/vitality instead of flat hit points.

[Darth Ultron]

From a "commoner" standpoint of in character world, would they know the difference between an animal companion and a familiar?

They would know a lot, yes. The average person in ''before 1500 Earth time" knows a lot about animals. After all, they do quite literately live with animals and interact with animals all day long.

They would not ''know" an animal is a familiar or companion for sure...but as the animal will be at least acting tame and controlled....they will likely know ''something" is up.

And the average person would fear wild animals..as of course, it's likely they or like half the people they know have been attacked by a wild animal at some point. Really even some domestic animals too.

Even in 21st century America, half the country (the country parts) live in places with dangerous wildlife. Bears, coyotes, snakes, scorpions, alligators, sharks, rays...and more...and that does not even count dogs and cats(and horses and pigs).