Arena Tournament, Round 109: Goodbad & Overnight vs. Unnamed & eldon winterfrost

[candycorn]

You are able to ask questions of and receive answers from animals, although the spell doesn’t make them any more friendly or cooperative than normal.

Handle animal is the skill which compels obedience from an animal. Communicating what you want is seperate from compelling obedience. Also, animals not trained to attack anything will only attack certain types of creatures.

In other words, it's still a 1 intelligence animal, with no effect compelling obedience. It should still need handling, and nothing in the speak with animals spell seems to have any impact on the action type required for that handling.

[Mysterious_A]

Hmmmm, yeah, I suppose I can see that. If prior to battle one was to take Animal Empathy checks to get a mount up to friendly, though, would that do the trick?

I see what you're saying about tricks, and I didn't know he didn't have any. That already pretty much invalidates Kickum's involvement in the match anyway (I seriously should have checked up on eldon's purchase beforehand, but it never occured to me that there would be any reason to )

That said, though, if obedience is a problem, how are you getting your mounts to attack us? I saw no use of Handle Animal, and see no reason why their attitude towads those of us who didn't attack them would be hostile (or at least no more than I see Kickum's being friendly, which would remove the obedience issue).

You might have set them to defend, I think. Was that it?

[candycorn]

Hmmmm, yeah, I suppose I can see that. If prior to battle one was to take Animal Empathy checks to get a mount up to friendly, though, would that do the trick?

I see what you're saying about tricks, and I didn't know he didn't have any. That already pretty much invalidates Kickum's involvement in the match anyway (I seriously should have checked up on eldon's purchase beforehand, but it never occured to me that there would be any reason to )

That said, though, if obedience is a problem, how are you getting your mounts to attack us? I saw no use of Handle Animal, and see no reason why their attitude towads those of us who didn't attack them would be hostile (or at least no more than I see Kickum's being friendly, which would remove the obedience issue).

You might have set them to defend, I think. Was that it?

Animals are always set to defend. If they are attacked, or their master is, there is no need for a check to have them counterattack. (Source: Handle animal, Defend trick).

The animal defends you (or is ready to defend you if no threat is present), even without any command being given.

No command is needed, for defend.

I believe AoO's are automatic, as well, by precedent.

For example, Manny would never attack your frost wolves, even with the defend trick, because it is a construct. It would respond normally to you, your partner, or any animals. If I tried to Push it, and succeeded, it could. By the same token, your animals would not attack my elementals unless pushed (per the handle animal description), because elemental isn't one of the listed types for attack training.

Quite simply, though: I'm not getting my animals to do anything. I've not rolled a single attack or given a single command to my mount. Heck, I don't even know for sure where it is. My elementals are a different story, but my mount has not once been commanded. It is reacting solely based on what has attacked it, and what hostile forces provoke an AoO near it.

I don't think the animal's attitude towards you would obviate the need for a Handle check either. To deal with an animal intelligence creature, it must be handled or compelled to action, from what I understand.

[Mysterious_A]

Yeah, but how can they tell something is hostile if it doesn't attack them? For example, when Kickum did something that provoked an AoO near Manny, it took the AoO even though Kickum had done nothing hostile towards him or his master.

If he does that with ours, doesn't it mean he should with yours? So, say, every time Postal moved near Manny it should take an AoO on it?

Anyway, you say you don't think attitude should remove the need for handle animal checks, but the way I see it when you handle an animal you're doing two things. One, you're getting it to understand what you want ,which is replicated with Speak. And the other is getting it to actually do it, even if it doesn't want to. But if a creature is friendly towards you, they'll be compelled towards doing what you ask anyway. So what you're saying basically is that an animal, an inteligent creature, can understand a request and he can want to do it, but then still need to be forced to do it? How does that make sense?

[candycorn]

Yeah, but how can they tell something is hostile if it doesn't attack them? For example, when Kickum did something that provoked an AoO near Manny, it took the AoO even though Kickum had done nothing hostile towards him or his master.

If he does that with ours, doesn't it mean he should with yours? So, say, every time Postal moved near Manny it should take an AoO on it?

I can't comment on specific AoO's, as I'm not familiar with what's going on outside my tent for the most part. That said, I believe animals automatically know friend and foe, by arena precedent. They just don't automatically seek them out and attack without command.

Anyway, you say you don't think attitude should remove the need for handle animal checks, but the way I see it when you handle an animal you're doing two things. One, you're getting it to understand what you want ,which is replicated with Speak. And the other is getting it to actually do it, even if it doesn't want to. But if a creature is friendly towards you, they'll be compelled towards doing what you ask anyway. So what you're saying basically is that an animal, an inteligent creature, can understand a request and he can want to do it, but then still need to be forced to do it? How does that make sense?

When you handle an animal, you are using an ability, granted by the rules, to compel a creature to action.

The bolded text is inaccurate. After all, when someone is Charmed, they treat you as a trusted friend and ally. However, they still cannot be compelled to act. Rule based checks are required to do so.

This is pretty solid ground showing that attitude and understanding alone are not enough to compel a creature to action, without a rulebook effect granting that.

In other words, once we start justifying actions based on attitude, we leave firm rules territory, and get into murky water. Without firm, enforcable rules, impartiality is very difficult to maintain.

[Psionic Dog]

Master Ref PsiDog

Handle an Animal
This task involves commanding an animal to perform a task or trick that it knows.

“Push” an Animal
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.

You are able to ask questions of and receive answers from animals, although the spell doesn’t make them any more friendly or cooperative than normal.

I'm sorry, but Speak with Animals breaths not a word on getting an animal to perform a task for you. The handle animal skill however, does.

There are a few exceptions or such as with Summon Natures Ally where simply communicating is enough to give detailed orders, but they are exceptions and not the general rule.

Speak with animals does not automaticaly overcome the need for Handle Animal checks.

Hmmmm, yeah, I suppose I can see that. If prior to battle one was to take Animal Empathy checks to get a mount up to friendly, though, would that do the trick?

Not good enough.
'Friendly' = "Chat, advises, offers limited help, advocates"

'Indifferent' or 'friendly' simply implies the animal will make truthful responses rather than inane insults or blatant lies when answering questions.

Active voluntary assistance doesn't start until helpful.
'helpful' = 'Protect, back up, heal, aid'

Asking a creature to use itself as a disposable aggressive minion according to your whims doesn't happen until fanatical.
'fanatic' = 'Will give life to serve you'.

[Jopustopin]

If we have to restart this battle I'm going to coup de grâce myself with my tower shield.

[candycorn]

LOL, if you bring that tower shield into a rematch, I will do the same.

[Jopustopin]

We would have to go back to the very first turn on Round 1 right? The mount that only has the trick "ride" took a non-handle animal double move action on the first round.

[candycorn]

A high ref would have to determine when the very first match-impacting error was, if any, to rewind to that point.

[Mysterious_A]

What if the question is, "Will you please do this one thing or the other for me?"

Also, if Fanatical is needed, then perhaps it could be assumed that the characters in question have taken the time and rolls prior to the match to get the animals up there, through the means of animal empathy checks and taking 20?

[candycorn]

Taking 20 implies no penalty for failure. Wild empathy functions as Diplomacy.

Getting a 1 would typically lower the category, which is a penalty for failure.

Optional, but not recommended because retries usually do not work. Even if the initial Diplomacy check succeeds, the other character can be persuaded only so far, and a retry may do more harm than good. If the initial check fails, the other character has probably become more firmly committed to his position, and a retry is futile.

If the animal is initially helpful, the DC to reach fanatical is 50. I doubt taking 10 or 20 would get there.

That said, I don't think "will you please" will alter anything.

Hostile creatures act against your interest, sometimes even if it harms them, to the point of open attack.
Unfriendly creatures act against your interest, sometimes even if it hinders them, to the point of hostile words/misinformation/passive aggressive.
Indifferent creatures act in their own interest, and would not go out of their way to help or hinder you.
Friendly creatures act in your interest, but not to the point of jeopardizing themself.
Helpful creatures act in your interest, even if it's at risk to themselves, but not to the point of death for your personal advantage.
Fanatical creatures act in your interest, and will do anything for you.

"Will you please" won't alter the level of risk an action carries.

[candycorn]

Post due to 500 error not updating.

[Mysterious_A]

Couldn't multiple attempts be taken, each to climb one step of the way?

And also, there is a retry option in diplomacy. Couldn't one keep retrying until he suceeded?

[candycorn]

Couldn't multiple attempts be taken, each to climb one step of the way?

And also, there is a retry option in diplomacy. Couldn't one keep retrying until he suceeded?

Diplomacy is "Optional, not recommended" for answering whether retry is allowed. That optional to allow, not optional to do.

Skills like climb show what a retry option is.

In addition, Eldon couldn't get someone to helpful, even if they were friendly, and even if he rolled a natural 20. If he's the one doing the talking, and therefore the communicating with the animals, it's not physically possible, no matter what he rolled. He has a -1 modifier to his wild empathy check.

[Mysterious_A]

I don't follow what you're trying to say about the retry. If it's "optional to allow", who decides if it's allowed?

And Eldon's not doing the talking, Unnamed is.

[candycorn]

I don't follow what you're trying to say about the retry. If it's "optional to allow", who decides if it's allowed?

And Eldon's not doing the talking, Unnamed is.

The DM, same as all optional rules. For example: Action points are an optional rule. The Arena does not use them. Critical fumbles are an optional rule. The Arena does not use them. Those decisions, however, were made by Master Refs at one point.

Try Again: Any conditions that apply to successive attempts to use the skill successfully. If the skill doesn’t allow you to attempt the same task more than once, or if failure carries an inherent penalty (such as with the Climb skill), you can’t take 20. If this paragraph is omitted, the skill can be retried without any inherent penalty, other than the additional time required.

The paragraph is not omitted from Diplomacy. Further, Diplomacy lists retries as optional, and strongly discouraged, as people can only be persuaded so far. If the initial check fails, a retry is futile.

There is a penalty for failure (worsened attitude), so take 20 is out. A failure makes retries futile.

[Mysterious_A]

Let's quote the entire paragraph, shall we?

Try Again

Optional, but not recommended because retries usually do not work. Even if the initial Diplomacy check succeeds, the other character can be persuaded only so far, and a retry may do more harm than good. If the initial check fails, the other character has probably become more firmly committed to his position, and a retry is futile.

I don't know how you read the last sentence, but the futility of a retry seems to rest upon the character becoming more firmly commited to his position. Which is, read, probable, not certain.

If the Arena doesn't use optional retries, though, there's nothing I can do. I'd appreciate a link to that ruling, though.

[candycorn]

Let's quote the entire paragraph, shall we?



I don't know how you read the last sentence, but the futility of a retry seems to rest upon the character becoming more firmly commited to his position. Which is, read, probable, not certain.

If the Arena doesn't use optional retries, though, there's nothing I can do. I'd appreciate a link to that ruling, though.

The arena allows retries for any skill which does not have a "Try again" listing, per the rules text. For abilities with such a listing, it is read, and interpreted.

It is absolutely certain that taking 20 is not allowed, as there is a penalty for failure.

Psionic Dog ruled that handle animal is needed for any creature that is not helpful or better.

If, at any time during the match, you attempted to command an animal without handle animal, who was not at least helpful, except an animal companion, that is a violation of Psionic Dog's ruling, and is the grounds for which I'm requesting a rewind.

Did you?

Mounts must be handled as a move action, per the handle animal skill, and wild cohorts also must be handled as a move action, per the handle animal skill.

Animal companions are free actions, so as long as you have a modifier of -10 or better, eventually, you'll successfully handle it. However, the others have an action cost for failure that was not taken into account.

[Mysterious_A]

Yes, I understand taking 20 is not allowed, it is the third time you tell me.

And yes, I did command animals without handle, and I'm not fighting PsiDog's ruling, I expect to see it enforced shortly.

What I'm trying to discuss with you, though, is the "interpretation" of diplomacy's try again, which I believe to be erroneous. You seem to be skimming my arguments for that, though, or perhaps I have not made them clear...

[candycorn]

Yes, I understand taking 20 is not allowed, it is the third time you tell me.

And yes, I did command animals without handle, and I'm not fighting PsiDog's ruling, I expect to see it enforced shortly.

What I'm trying to discuss with you, though, is the "interpretation" of diplomacy's try again, which I believe to be erroneous. You seem to be skimming my arguments for that, though, or perhaps I have not made them clear...

You made them clear. I just disagree with them. Every optional rule that has come up in the arena that I know of... Every one... has not been used. Action points, critical fumbles, and the like. Since the try again is optional, that's one strike against it. Since the writers explicitly recommended not implementing it, that's two.

A "maybe" and a "might" don't change the above two points. They are irrelevant to those points. It never gets to a "is this one of those "maybe" scenarios that actually works" question, if Try again is not used because it is an optional rule that recommends against using itself.

[Mysterious_A]

I see your point.

Let me offer up yet another interpretation, though, as this is a fairly ambiguous paragraph, and I believe open to such.

Try Again

Optional, but not recommended because retries usually do not work. Even if the initial Diplomacy check succeeds, the other character can be persuaded only so far, and a retry may do more harm than good. If the initial check fails, the other character has probably become more firmly committed to his position, and a retry is futile.

What if instead of being optional to implement, as you assume, it means optional to try? The text does not specificy, and no single line after it cannot be read thusly. So it would essentialy mean:

It is not recommended that you try, because it probably won't work, and might actually do more harm than good. It is still an option, however.

Thoughts? If there is anything in the paragraph that contradicts this, I'd like to hear it.

[candycorn]

I see your point.

Let me offer up yet another interpretation, though, as this is a fairly ambiguous paragraph, and I believe open to such.



What if instead of being optional to implement, as you assume, it means optional to try? The text does not specificate, and no single line after it cannot be read thusly. So it would essentialy mean:

It is not recommended that you try, because it probably won't work, and might actually do more harm than good. It is still an option, however.

Thoughts? If there is anything in the paragraph that contradicts this, I'd like to hear it.

Debate not directly related to the current match:

Spoiler

Show

The inclusion of the Try Again block means that a retry of the skill is either not allowed, or carries a restriction or penalty. (Source). There's no definite restriction, so that leaves either penalty or unallowed. Even a -1 penalty makes it impossible to reach Helpful, and unallowed also does. Either way, again, it leads to a dead end.

Regardless, we have both made our case for our interpretation of the rules clear. There is nothing to do but wait for any rewind on the issue. I'm not going to further belabor the point, especially since it has no bearing or relevance on THIS match.

I also feel that the interpretation you are trying to go with unduly overpowers mounted combat. By assigning an action cost to the extra combatant, the rules lessen what the main character can do if the mount is controlled. Attempting to circumvent that with questionable and contrived rules debates that depend on deliberately taking something out of context?

Would put me firmly in the "ban mounts, as they unduly unbalance the structure of the arena" camp. Regardless of the fact that I own a mounted character, and regardless of the fact that my mounted character is my personal favorite character I have. At that point, there's nothing to stop everyone from bringing in 9 animals to the arena, and controlling every one of them for free. (mount, wild cohort, animal companion, animal friends x3, for 6 baboons)

[Kyeudo]

GM Kyeudo

Looks like I'm needed here.

Diplomacy can't be retried. Directing a mount without riding it requires either Handle Animal checks or being able to both communicate with animals and being able to have its attitude be helpful towards you.

It appears that the very first Handle Animal checks are missed in the very first round. Rewind back to here:

Unnamed, 1st Commander of the Armies of the Wild by power and wisdom of the Druidic Council, Round 1

[darkillini]

oh joy we begin again lol

[darkillini]

soo i think mysterious is up now.

[candycorn]

Mysterious's last activity was over an hour after the rewind, so he should have had notice that it's his turn. I typically hate asking for DQ's, but future matches are waiting on this one. I'll wait until after 3pm to make the request, as I want to give him every opportunity to show up.

[darkillini]

well this is gonna get hard quick..

[Kyeudo]

GM Kyeudo

Unnamed is disqualified due his lack of posting.

[Jopustopin]

I wonder what happened to him.