[3.5] Animal Empathy Feat

[Hanuman]

Animal Empathy
Required Wis 14 or Cha 14
Gain the Wild Empathy class feature that does not apply to magical beasts.
You may take 10 when using the Wild Empathy feature to influence animals of indifferent or better attitude, and can make the check passively.
Gain +2 to your diplomacy and sense motive checks.

[Ashtagon]

Animal Empathy
Required Wis 14 or Cha 14
Gain the Wild Empathy class feature that does not apply to magical beasts.
You may take 10 when using the Wild Empathy feature to influence animals of indifferent or better attitude, and can make the check passively.
Gain +2 to your diplomacy and sense motive checks.

Ability score prerequisites are conventionally always odd numbers.

As a +2/+2 skill bonus feat that also grants other stuff, this is strictly better than any other skill bonus feat.

Does that Diplomacy bonus stack with the other skill bonus feats? If so, things get broken even faster. But that's a Diplomacy skill issue, not an issue with this feat.

Quite why Diplomacy and Sense Motive are added, I'm not sure. They seem a little out of focus for the concept given by the feat's name.

Passively taking 10 on Wild Empathy checks is dangerously close to being overpowered, depending on the encounters the DM feeds the party. The DM is quite able to make this a waste of a feat by controlling the encounters though.

[Hanuman]

As a +2/+2 skill bonus feat that also grants other stuff, this is strictly better than any other skill bonus feat.

I agree.

Does that Diplomacy bonus stack with the other skill bonus feats? If so, things get broken even faster. But that's a Diplomacy skill issue, not an issue with this feat.

Yes, as I consider it more like a skill synergy, except it's a specific use of diplomacy syn with diplomacy and sense motive, with a feat in-between.
Whether this synergy bonus stacks with your existing synergies, that's up to the DM's discretion.

Quite why Diplomacy and Sense Motive are added, I'm not sure. They seem a little out of focus for the concept given by the feat's name.

Body language study, mostly.

Passively taking 10 on Wild Empathy checks is dangerously close to being overpowered, depending on the encounters the DM feeds the party. The DM is quite able to make this a waste of a feat by controlling the encounters though.

I've never been asked to break out the minis for an indifferent animal.

[Almagesto]

I think a clever DM would find a way to render this feat useless if he wants to. So no, I don't think it's overpowering.

[Hanuman]

I think a clever DM would find a way to render this feat useless if he wants to. So no, I don't think it's overpowering.

Thank you, it's intended to be fluff-- walk without disturbing wildlife type thing, communing with nature ect.

[Ashtagon]

re: skill bonuses (Body language study, mostly.):

Human body language and animal body language vary quite noticeably. As a basic example, what humans typically recognise as a smile on a non-human primate's face is most usually a snarl indicating an over-stepping of personal space. Even within the human race, body language varies a lot between cultures (the Japanese body language for "me" looks a lot like the UK body language for "I have a secret"). To suggest that knowledge of animal body language would improve knowledge of human body language is odd; the two are simply too far unrelated.

re: passive wild empathy checks: Once a PC has pushed his diplomancerwild empathy check high enough, this effectively gives him a small army of followers ready to fight and die for him any time he steps into a wild area, without him having to do so much as gaze in the animals' direction. is that really your intent?

[Hanuman]

re: skill bonuses (Body language study, mostly.):

Human body language and animal body language vary quite noticeably. As a basic example, what humans typically recognise as a smile on a non-human primate's face is most usually a snarl indicating an over-stepping of personal space. Even within the human race, body language varies a lot between cultures (the Japanese body language for "me" looks a lot like the UK body language for "I have a secret"). To suggest that knowledge of animal body language would improve knowledge of human body language is odd; the two are simply too far unrelated.

re: passive wild empathy checks: Once a PC has pushed his diplomancerwild empathy check high enough, this effectively gives him a small army of followers ready to fight and die for him any time he steps into a wild area, without him having to do so much as gaze in the animals' direction. is that really your intent?

The difference between human and animal body language is mostly due to the self importance of humans, animals (including humans) are pretty simple.
This is about you and your presence and how you have observed animals being affected by the way you act, this could be compared to alexander technique.

Humans appear to be more complicated mostly due to their actions in response to body language, a good enough sense motive check should reveal that it affects them regardless of their complexities, real life or in-game.


As far as raising an animal army, I'm not seeing it. Maybe if you had a speak to animal spell active and you fanatic'd them then sure, but with only a +4DC higher with Wild Empathy for druid you could be getting an army of magical beasts instead. But hey, you want to go slosh around in the woods for several hours collecting animals that work together well then sure, I'd allow it as a DM.

Either way, the animals are still NPC's, and cannot be played by the players, leaving all final decisions in the hands of the DM.

[Ashtagon]

The difference between human and animal body language is mostly due to the self importance of humans, animals (including humans) are pretty simple.
This is about you and your presence and how you have observed animals being affected by the way you act, this could be compared to alexander technique.

Humans appear to be more complicated mostly due to their actions in response to body language, a good enough sense motive check should reveal that it affects them regardless of their complexities, real life or in-game.


As far as raising an animal army, I'm not seeing it. Maybe if you had a speak to animal spell active and you fanatic'd them then sure, but with only a +4DC higher with Wild Empathy for druid you could be getting an army of magical beasts instead. But hey, you want to go slosh around in the woods for several hours collecting animals that work together well then sure, I'd allow it as a DM.

Either way, the animals are still NPC's, and cannot be played by the players, leaving all final decisions in the hands of the DM.

Okay, I think it's better if we agree to disagree. I'm bowing out while we are all still being friendly :)

[Hanuman]

Okay, I think it's better if we agree to disagree. I'm bowing out while we are all still being friendly :)

Feel free to critique all you want, or release a revised version.