Save the Raging Dire Badger Animal Companion!

[Dinkeldog]

As the initial post specifies DIRE badger, tieing a rope around it will result in the druid being dragged around, not the badger.

Not if the druid wildshapes into bear form.

 

[Magus Coeruleus]

Great, now I have images of bears and badgers of various sizes playing tug-o-war with each other's leashes!

 

[MerakSpielman]

I just had an interesting image flash through my mind... What if you tied two (non-dire) badgers together?

Badger Bolas!

 

[mmu1]

Wow. Some great ideas here. I like the feel of the druid being able to get the badger to comply with a Handle Animal check, but do you really think it should even be possible since the badger can't end its rage voluntarily? I guess it depends on what "voluntarily" means to you. On the one hand, it sounds like the badger just shouldn't be capable of following that command because it's simply berserk. On the other, perhaps voluntarily means it can't choose, based on its own deficient survival instincts, to stop fighting, but if the druid pushes it to do so, well, that's not exactly voluntary, so it can work.

If you use 3.5 and the Badger has the "break from combat" trick or something equivalent, there is no check required "by the roolz". (I think. Hate posting from work.)

I suggested the Handle Animal check as a workaround, if you feel the above is simply too easy.

Personally, I don't think it's any different than having an animal go along with you into a fight to the death when its instincts are telling it to run.

 

[Magus Coeruleus]

You make a good argument, mmu1, but I wonder if it really should be as easy to get get a raging badger/wolverine to break from combat ("down" trick) as it is to do so for a nonraging creature. I think it comes back to this "voluntary" notion. Does the badger's inability to voluntarily end its rage mean that it won't do it on its own but will easily if commanded when it knows the trick, or does that mean that it cannot follow the command because it has no control over its behavior?

 

[mmu1]

You make a good argument, mmu1, but I wonder if it really should be as easy to get get a raging badger/wolverine to break from combat ("down" trick) as it is to do so for a nonraging creature. I think it comes back to this "voluntary" notion. Does the badger's inability to voluntarily end its rage mean that it won't do it on its own but will easily if commanded when it knows the trick, or does that mean that it cannot follow the command because it has no control over its behavior?

Ending its Rage and breaking from combat are two different things. It can break off from combat when ordered to, but continue to Rage, after all.

The "tricks" give the player a huge amount of control over the Animal Companion, but that's just what they were meant for. Using Handle Animal instead in a stress situation like this is not unreasonable (especially since Druids get +4 to checks made on their Animal Companion), but I think if you wanted to do it that way, the DC should be lower than for the "Push" - you're not trying to have the animal do something it doesn't know how to do, you're getting it to rember something it's been trained to do...

 

[Darkness]

Hm. Send the badger it back into its Pokéball!

I'm only half-joking, mind. Maybe you could build a magic item of that sort...

 

[Magus Coeruleus]

Ending its Rage and breaking from combat are two different things. It can break off from combat when ordered to, but continue to Rage, after all.

The "tricks" give the player a huge amount of control over the Animal Companion, but that's just what they were meant for. Using Handle Animal instead in a stress situation like this is not unreasonable (especially since Druids get +4 to checks made on their Animal Companion), but I think if you wanted to do it that way, the DC should be lower than for the "Push" - you're not trying to have the animal do something it doesn't know how to do, you're getting it to rember something it's been trained to do...

Okay, let's look at it the way you describe. By the way, I'm not trying to give you a hard time, but just trying to fully analyze your reasoning because I find it persuasive and I'd like to understand it more fully to see if I can ultimately accept it.

Let's look at the exact wording for that Rage:

Rage (Ex): A dire badger that takes damage in combat flies into a berserk rage on its next turn, clawing and biting madly until either it or its opponent is dead. It gains +4 Strength, +4 Constitution, and –2 AC. The creature cannot end its rage voluntarily.

So if ending the Rage and breaking from combat are two different things, when does the Rage end if you order the badger to break off from combat? If neither it nor its opponent dies, when does it stop raging? Of course, you could ask the same question under other circumstances where neither dies. For instance, what if the opponent manages to Teleport away? I'd think that if the opponent disappears completely, that counts as it's being "dead" as far as the berserking badger is concerned. But if you just make it break off and the opponent is still there, what happens with the rage? Can you direct it to attack someone else and take advantage of the rage that was triggered by the original opponent? That's a pretty powerful trick, I think.

I don't think badger rage is just the bonuses; it's also the involuntary drive to attack an opponent until one of them is dead or otherwise gone. Taken this way, you can't have a badger break off of combat but still be raging. It's not like a barbarian's rage, which is voluntarily with respect to whether attacks are made and to whom they're directed.

Here's another idea: Note the following regarding the Attack trick: "Normally, an animal will attack only humanoids, monstrous humanoids, giants, or other animals. Teaching an animal to attack all creatures (including such unnatural creatures as undead and aberrations) counts as two tricks." Would it be reasonable to say that teaching a creature that rages in the manner of badgers and wolverines to break off combat using the "Down" trick even when they are in a berserker rage counts as two tricks?

 

[mmu1]

Here's another idea: Note the following regarding the Attack trick: "Normally, an animal will attack only humanoids, monstrous humanoids, giants, or other animals. Teaching an animal to attack all creatures (including such unnatural creatures as undead and aberrations) counts as two tricks." Would it be reasonable to say that teaching a creature that rages in the manner of badgers and wolverines to break off combat using the "Down" trick even when they are in a berserker rage counts as two tricks?

Rather than make "down" cost two tricks, I think it'd make more sense to just have a "stop raging" trick seperate from "down". Costs an extra trick either way, but this way it'll have a wider utility...

 

[TheAuldGrump]

Personally I would treat th 'Calm Animal' spell as a special case in this instance. If I am reading the intent correctly the limitation on creatures in immenent danger is refering to the party casting the spell also being the one attacking it.... Or come up with a variant of that spell just for your shaggy friends....

The Auld Grump