I've solved this problem by letting the player control the AC / familiar. I've noticed that in battle this is more trickier than in non-combat situations, because the player in question (playing a druid with a bear AC) wants to micromanage every of her AC's actions. And usually "forgets" to use the Handle Animal skill to do this..
In our last session the limits of what the druid's AC can do became very apparent however.
The party had tracked down a treasure they had been searching for some time - partly because of the bear AC, who had scented it and led the PC's to the right spot.
The tresure was buried into a hard packed ground. The PC's look at their belongings and realize they have no tools for digging. But they have the bear!
So the druid orders the bear to dig. The bear does not understand - and has no trick for digging. The druid tries to push the bear to dig. No success.
Then the entire party tries to make the bear to dig. The druid imitates digging with her hands. The sorcerer tries to talk the bear to do the digging - "because I have high Charisma", explains the player. The inquisitor tries to intimidate the bear to dig by yelling. No success from any of them. Thankfully the rogue just sat back and didn't poke the bear with his dagger..
I have no idea why the PC's couldn't dig themselves with some improvised tools.. But it was fun to watch :)
And to clear up my position I see a large difference between the GM suddenly having the AC do something absolutely stupid just to get the PCs herded (oops your AC went over and humped the princess before pissing on the king) and him going, "As you command Fluffy to come he instead whines a bit before pawing at the wall he has sat beside. When you call him again he gets more agitated and stands before pawing at the wall again -- it occurs to you he might have found a secret door."
The second is the GM allowing the AC's perception check to be presented in an in game way that is very helpful -- the first is just stupidity to be a jerk over something the PCs didn't have control over and to punish them for GM fiat.
And to clear up my position I see a large difference between the GM suddenly having the AC do something absolutely stupid just to get the PCs herded (oops your AC went over and humped the princess before pissing on the king) and him going, "As you command Fluffy to come he instead whines a bit before pawing at the wall he has sat beside. When you call him again he gets more agitated and stands before pawing at the wall again -- it occurs to you he might have found a secret door."
The second is the GM allowing the AC's perception check to be presented in an in game way that is very helpful -- the first is just stupidity to be a jerk over something the PCs didn't have control over and to punish them for GM fiat.
Yes.
@thejeff: That's fine though, that's you, as a GM, trying to convey a sense of reality to your fantasy world. You're not saying "nope" you're saying "yes, but..." there's a vast difference. As a GM I try to never say "no," unless there's some very specific mechanical reason that forbids an action, like charging through difficult terrain or something.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
An animal companion, familiar, or eidolon is as much a part of a character as is the character's own arm.
By default, the player should control it, not the GM.
I would have few qualms of the GM overruling me in sensible situations, however.
I would be down with it going either full, partial or no DM control...provided the DM clearly outlined the rules before the game started and there was trust between myself and the DM that my own class feature wouldnt be used as a punishment device in his possession.
I really like the idea of DM control for RP with player combat control. I have never played that way but it sounds like a lot of fun to have an animal companion with a personality to interact with, rather than one thats an extention of my own character.
I find full DM control to be at least a little daunting however. To make rolls to finesse my class feature into executing tactics I invested feats in seems a bridge to far. I would try it and in the hands of a trustworthy DM it could be a good time...but it could be a deal breaker in the wrong hands.
Full Player control is what I am used to and is my comfort zone. It may not be optimal for RP..but it does allow complete control of concept and execution.
Wow such controversy...
Obviously the GM has control.
But...
I have rarely seen a GM who didn't allow the PC to control her pets. Within reason of course. You are not going to be playing chess with your wolf. The situation is one of different expectations I guess. Since most GMs allow or even encourage players control over all these critters, it has become expected by players that this is their right. Clearly the player and GM need to have a bit of a chat over the familiar. You know... come to an understanding. I am sure the GM didn't intend anything wrong by having the familiar take it's own actions.
In that case, you are practically controlling the pet while the GM is simply affirming that it indeed happens. Like if you say "I use channel energy" and the GM goes "bad guy #2 is hit". He's not really controlling it.And to clear up my position I see a large difference between the GM suddenly having the AC do something absolutely stupid just to get the PCs herded (oops your AC went over and humped the princess before pissing on the king) and him going, "As you command Fluffy to come he instead whines a bit before pawing at the wall he has sat beside. When you call him again he gets more agitated and stands before pawing at the wall again -- it occurs to you he might have found a secret door."
The second is the GM allowing the AC's perception check to be presented in an in game way that is very helpful -- the first is just stupidity to be a jerk over something the PCs didn't have control over and to punish them for GM fiat.
Honestly it depends on who rolls for the AC, and the specific check. I've had GMs that roll for perception checks for the PCs such before -- some I've been okay with others I haven't (example -- had a +19 on perception check, needed a 1 to find something and must have rolled a -10 because I failed while the girl with a -2 on her perception checks did fine it).
But again the GM is 'technically' controlling Fluffy in the second case... however he is doing so in a helpful and game improving way.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
While the ongoing discussion about the "technical" correctness of the GM running an AC or familiar is fun to read, there is another issue in this case that interests me. And that is all about setting GM/Player expectations.
I'm not talking about "I might run your familiar for role playing purposes" expectations. I'm talking about something more fundamental than that.
I'm talking about "As the GM I might occasionally do something that surprises you. You need to trust that I am doing it for a good reason and that it is not because I am on some power trip."
For example... I play a druid. As with most druid players I routinely control my animal companion. I almost never make a "handle animal" check, the GM and I just naturally assume that the tiger is going to do what my druid wants.
One game we were playing the GM suddenly took control of my tiger. It wasn't even some unusual situation. We were just moving through an area. Suddenly my druid's animal companion refused to proceed.
My immediate reaction? "Hey, look guys, something's strange, Thorn doesn't usually act like this."
Now, it turned out that the tiger had gotten a sniff of dragon smell. The GM decided that, based on a very borderline roll, the tiger had sniffed something that raised the AC's hackles, but was not specific enough to say "dragon." So he just role played the tiger for a few rounds until we figured it out.
Was I upset?
I thought it was awesome.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Wow such controversy...
Obviously the GM has control.
If it was obvious there wouldn't be this much controversy. ;)
If it was obvious there wouldn't be this much controversy. ;)Wow such controversy...
Obviously the GM has control.
Oh how I wish you were right with such a comment....
In fact I think most of the flame wars are precisely because of how "obvious" the issue is.
If it was obvious there wouldn't be this much controversy. ;)Wow such controversy...
Obviously the GM has control.
Touche.
Perhaps it is only obvious from a GMs perspective.
Wait, if he doesn't like goblins wouldn't he all the more want to attack them?"my companion has the attack trick and I rolled a 20 for a modified 42 handle animal check. I have it attack the goblin"
DM: "He won't attack the goblin"
PC: "Why not?"
DM: "He doesn't like goblins."
PC: "...."
I dunno, sometimes.
Some folks hate spiders and refuse to go near them- much less raise a shoe to squish 'em.
It was just a random example though. the DM could just say " you don't know why" and move on. The point was- the DM telling you that despite your successful skill check the animal refuses to do as you say.
-S
If it was obvious there wouldn't be this much controversy. ;)Wow such controversy...
Obviously the GM has control.
Touche.
Perhaps it is only obvious from a GMs perspective.
Nah. It's obvious if you've always played that way.
It's obvious the other way if you've always played that way.
It's an assumption clash.
If it was really only obvious from the GM's perspective then everyone would have already hashed it out and no one would be surprised that people thought the other way.
This is the major problem. There are, essentially, three different assumptions of how it is supposed to work (as indicated by this thread anyway). Each assumer has probably only ever played it one particular way, and liked it. Therefore they assume that is the correct way to do it.
As Selgard pointed out earlier, the RAW is fairly well silent on who is "in charge" of animal companions and familiars, so we are all left to our own devices. Further complicating the matter is the fact that, apparently, some people have, in assigning player control of animals, disregarded the Handle Animal mechanics altogether, and just let the player dictate the animal's behavior unrestrained. This is why there is such a murky water where "control" is concerned.
In the end, as with most of the arguments here. The best advice is to get clear with your GM how their particular game is going to run in regards to this issue, so that there are no surprises later on.
Also, @Selgard: I knew what you meant, I was just being cheeky. ;)
While the ongoing discussion about the "technical" correctness of the GM running an AC or familiar is fun to read, there is another issue in this case that interests me. And that is all about setting GM/Player expectations.
I'm not talking about "I might run your familiar for role playing purposes" expectations. I'm talking about something more fundamental than that.
I'm talking about "As the GM I might occasionally do something that surprises you. You need to trust that I am doing it for a good reason and that it is not because I am on some power trip."
For example... I play a druid. As with most druid players I routinely control my animal companion. I almost never make a "handle animal" check, the GM and I just naturally assume that the tiger is going to do what my druid wants.
One game we were playing the GM suddenly took control of my tiger. It wasn't even some unusual situation. We were just moving through an area. Suddenly my druid's animal companion refused to proceed.
My immediate reaction? "Hey, look guys, something's strange, Thorn doesn't usually act like this."
Now, it turned out that the tiger had gotten a sniff of dragon smell. The GM decided that, based on a very borderline roll, the tiger had sniffed something that raised the AC's hackles, but was not specific enough to say "dragon." So he just role played the tiger for a few rounds until we figured it out.
Was I upset?
I thought it was awesome.
To me, the DM is just figuring a way to communicate the message to you that the tiger smelled out something.
I think (though you can feel free to correct me) that if your tiger had gone careening off into the underbrush to solo the dragon (without your say so, or even getting a skill check to avoid it) or if it had just gone wandering up to some unknown creature to nuzzle it (assuming it hadn't cast some spell or had some other special effect of that nature to take control away) you would have been abit more upset.
Personally I have no issue with what you posted- either for an AC or a familiar. the DM has leeway to contrive interesing ways for your AC/familiar to say "yo, boss, somethin's up". thats just good atmosphere and far more interesting than "your familiar detects something with scent but you don't know what".
But having your AC actually /doing/ something to some other person or creature without you having so much as a "hey wait a minute, don't I even get a say before he goes charging off into nowhere" is what I think most people have an issue with.
There is a difference to me between your DM having your critter interact with you to tell you something (whether thats it talking to you, stopping and growling or "behaving oddly towards you") and your DM having your animal run off to do things /to someone else/ without any ability on your part to so much as take a free or move action in attempt to prevent it.
There is a marked difference between your pet growling to alert you of a Scent hit, and your familiar hiking its leg on the princess's pointy shoe because the DM thinks that makes for an interesting story tell.
-S
To me, the DM is just figuring a way to communicate the message to you that the tiger smelled out something.
I think (though you can feel free to correct me) that if your tiger had gone careening off into the underbrush to solo the dragon (without your say so, or even getting a skill check to avoid it) or if it had just gone wandering up to some unknown creature to nuzzle it (assuming it hadn't cast some spell or had some other special effect of that nature to take control away) you would have been abit more upset.
Personally I have no issue with what you posted- either for an AC or a familiar. the DM has leeway to contrive interesing ways for your AC/familiar to say "yo, boss, somethin's up". thats just good atmosphere and far more interesting than "your familiar detects something with scent but you don't know what".
But having your AC actually /doing/ something to some other person or creature without you having so much as a "hey wait a minute, don't I even get a say before he goes charging off into nowhere" is what I think most people have an issue with.
There is a difference to me between your DM having your critter interact with you to tell you something (whether thats it talking to you, stopping and growling or "behaving oddly towards you") and your DM having your animal run off to do things /to someone else/ without any ability on your part to so much as take a free or move action in attempt to prevent it.
There is a marked difference between your pet growling to alert you of a Scent hit, and your familiar hiking its leg on the princess's pointy shoe because the DM thinks that makes for an interesting story tell.
-S
Selgard, I just used the most recent "hey, what are you doing with my AC?" moment. There have been others. My AC never peed on a princess's leg, but my GM has had my AC "run off without my leave" on more than one occasion. He also sometimes has me roll handle animal checks with hidden circumstance bonuses when he thinks it is appropriate.
I'm trying to think of an instance where he "took control" of my AC and I felt violated or angry. Nothing is coming to mind. Back when my AC was a wolf (before getting eaten by a giant crocodile) the GM would sometimes have him interact with other wolves or even dogs "without my leave."
I wonder where my line would be. Clearly peeing on a princess's leg would make me assume he had been mind-controlled by an evil wizard or something, and if that wasn't the case, I would not like that. But careening off into the underbrush to attack something without my leave? I dunno... Heck, our barbarian does that, and he's not even an animal...
I think a case can be made for a GM "making" an animal move away from its master if it sees, smells, or hears a familiar prey and is eager to eat it. If the player watches it go, and or follows it to see what it is getting after, that, to me, seems like a creative use of "the world" to get the players involved in it. A GM doing that, though, has to realize that if the player rolls a successful Handle Animal check and yells "heel!" the animal is going to stop. That's RAW mechanics of how animal companions work. To do otherwise is to disregard the player's right to a game adjudicated by the rules.
I would be down with it going either full, partial or no DM control...provided the DM clearly outlined the rules before the game started and there was trust between myself and the DM that my own class feature wouldnt be used as a punishment device in his possession.
I really like the idea of DM control for RP with player combat control. I have never played that way but it sounds like a lot of fun to have an animal companion with a personality to interact with, rather than one thats an extention of my own character.
I find full DM control to be at least a little daunting however. To make rolls to finesse my class feature into executing tactics I invested feats in seems a bridge to far. I would try it and in the hands of a trustworthy DM it could be a good time...but it could be a deal breaker in the wrong hands.
Full Player control is what I am used to and is my comfort zone. It may not be optimal for RP..but it does allow complete control of concept and execution.
By Full Player control you mean using your animal companion without teaching it tricks and making the Handle Animal rolls described in the rules?
I'm not sure you should expect the GM to clearly outline before the game that he was following the RAW in this case.A lot of these issues are assumption clashes, particularly between experienced players who haven't played together (or dealt with a particular rule together). Neither is trying to
cheat or screw the other over, both just assume that the way they've played is the right
way and don't even think anyone would expect different.
No that's not what I meant and there is no need to put words in my mouth or be condescending. Clearly there is a difference between a wolf failing to execute a trip attack on command in the heat of battle because you failed a roll and having it bite a city guard just to put a player in difficult situation just because you feel like it and the pet is " an npc"
To me, the DM is just figuring a way to communicate the message to you that the tiger smelled out something.
I think (though you can feel free to correct me) that if your tiger had gone careening off into the underbrush to solo the dragon (without your say so, or even getting a skill check to avoid it) or if it had just gone wandering up to some unknown creature to nuzzle it (assuming it hadn't cast some spell or had some other special effect of that nature to take control away) you would have been abit more upset.
Personally I have no issue with what you posted- either for an AC or a familiar. the DM has leeway to contrive interesing ways for your AC/familiar to say "yo, boss, somethin's up". thats just good atmosphere and far more interesting than "your familiar detects something with scent but you don't know what".
But having your AC actually /doing/ something to some other person or creature without you having so much as a "hey wait a minute, don't I even get a say before he goes charging off into nowhere" is what I think most people have an issue with.
There is a difference to me between your DM having your critter interact with you to tell you something (whether thats it talking to you, stopping and growling or "behaving oddly towards you") and your DM having your animal run off to do things /to someone else/ without any ability on your part to so much as take a free or move action in attempt to prevent it.
There is a marked difference between your pet growling to alert you of a Scent hit, and your familiar hiking its leg on the princess's pointy shoe because the DM thinks that makes for an interesting story tell.
-S
Selgard, I just used the most recent "hey, what are you doing with my AC?" moment. There have been others. My AC never peed on a princess's leg, but my GM has had my AC "run off without my leave" on more than one occasion. He also sometimes has me roll handle animal checks with hidden circumstance bonuses when he thinks it is appropriate.
I'm...
To me, the difference is that..
the barbarian is controlled by his player. Not you. Now you may talk to him afterwards "bad Ug! no run off without talking to us first! no treat for you!" or whatever but you never really expected to have control over him in the first place. "Barbarian" isn't on the wizard's list of class features, afterall.The familiar is.
Just as the AC is listed for the ranger or druid.
Contrast those to say, a riding dog or a horse- even a war horse, that you buy at the store.
These are things that aren't class features. They are just.. animals that you buy.
While I'd not be happy (in character) of a dog I bought went careening off into the wilderness, in the end I bought a dog. A dog does what a dog does.
AC's are supposed to be more than that though. They are magically empowered creatures who come to assist you and help you in battle and they are a part of what balances (or imbalances, dependign on your pov) your class against the other classes.
Your DM deciding that your AC is bored and goes to pee on the red dragon's favorite painting or something is effectively taking control of a class ability that you have, and using it to screw you.
Just like if he suddenly declares that the cleric decides now is a good time to channel energy.. or not channel energy.
Sure, Dominate spells and all that are fair and apart of the game- but the discussion I think isn't about those. its just about the DM taking it into his head to decide to take control of someone's class feature. Not to give information on behalf of the AC (it whimpering or standing point or something) but to actually take off and do smoething contrary to the will of the class and character that created it.
Thats the issue I think most folks are having with it.
How much leave does the DM have to control your animal companion or familiar?
About as much as he has to tell you what spell you have to put into your spellbook when you level up, or which specialization you take at first level, or which feat you have to take, or how or even if to take any given skill when you level up or whether or not you cast a spell this round, swing a dagger or run away or whatnot.
I'll try to be concise here, but I'm not very good at it here on the message boards. :)
When a PC selects a class, they expect to have full control over the hows, ifs, and ands, of each of those abilities- within the bounds of the rules. Yes, you have to use handle animal for AC's and no, your familiar can't talk to you before 5th level- but as long as you are following the rules and not cheesing it out then you have the full and ready expectation that your class features are at your control.
Just like the cleric's channel energy or the barbarian's rage or the bard's music.
Now there is some give and take involved here. The DM has to have some method to convey information from the AC/Familiar to the player. A whimper, bark, growl, going on point, refusing to go forward momentarily are all welcome ways for the DM to do this.
I think there is a line though when you go from using Rp means to convey the senses of the AC/familiar onto the PC's to using the AC/familiar to taking control away from the player to have the AC/familiar do something contrary to the wishes of the player without giving that player any means to stop it.
So to me:
Acceptable.
Barking, pointing, growling, etc.
Acceptable:
"Your Ac seems to be getting antsy at something and looking towards a nearby tree as though to spring."
PC: "I look at the tree"
DM: *rolls perception/asks the PC to do it, whatever* Yuo see a squirrel in the tree.
PC: I make a HA roll to have it attack/stop it from attacking/whatever
Unacceptable:
DM: "Your AC goes ape)(*@$# and leaps up into a tree, ripping into a squirrel."
You say "its a squirrel, who cares".. sure. but it it'll do it to a squirrel it'll do it to a goblin or gnoll or .. well, whatever.
The point being-
the DM envolving the AC/Familiar in Rp is good. but it also need to be remembered that they are just as much a part of our character as every other thing listed for our classes. Sure, there is some fudge room since they are creatures but the DM ought not to just snatch total control away from us because they think it'd make a nice scene.
the DM may see "hey, it was a cat, it ate a squirrel" while the PC is thinking "crap, I have to kill/incapacitate/collar/tie up my familiar/AC to make sure it doesn't go attacking anything else I may not want slain since apparently I don't even get a skill check or time to say HEY DON'T DO THAT".
-S
|
Well it seems to me that there are two camps of thought. Some say no the GM cant controll my Animal companion, Eidolon/ familiar only I the player can decide what the companion does.
I suppose I am of the school of thought where the GM can use the animal companion/ Familair/ Eidolon to further the plot of the story.
Ie the wolf digging up a corpse, so the PCs get involved in a murder mystery,
Or the Imp familiar engaging in playful bantor with the PCs and others, and of course doing what the Imp is ultimately there to do, to tempt others towards the path of damnation, and making sure his master is firmly on that path by subtlely encouraging him to do morally questionable things.
But during a combat situation, I let the PCs have complete control of their Animal Companion/ Familiar / Eidalon.
Well it seems to me that there are two camps of thought. Some say no the GM cant controll my Animal companion, Eidolon/ familiar only I the player can decide what the companion does.
I suppose I am of the school of thought where the GM can use the animal companion/ Familair/ Eidolon to further the plot of the story.
Ie the wolf digging up a corpse, so the PCs get involved in a murder mystery,
Or the Imp familiar engaging in playful bantor with the PCs and others, and of course doing what the Imp is ultimately there to do, to tempt others towards the path of damnation, and making sure his master is firmly on that path by subtlely encouraging him to do morally questionable things.
But during a combat situation, I let the PCs have complete control of their Animal Companion/ Familiar / Eidalon.
I'm going to split a hair, just to show where, to me, the difference is:
1) DM "your wolf is digging in the ground and has discovered a corpse."
2) DM: "you notice your wolf has stopped and is pawing at the ground, as though starting to dig. what do you do?"
#1 is playing your companion for you.
#2 is using an action to show you that your companion has found something. He'd doing this instead of just saying "hey your companion found something under the ground with scent". it leaves /you/ the player, with the choice: investigate? call off the hound and ignore it? or whatever you want to do. The choice is yours.
Compare:
A)the DM says "you see a secret door there and when you try to open it you find a trap and it hit you and does 32 damage"
B) DM: "you find a secret door here *marks it on the map* what do you do?"
One is giving information. One is giving information and depriving you of the ability to choose how- or even if- to act on that information.
I don't think folks have an issue with the DM using the companion (or familiar) to inform them of something the AC or familiar has found using their senses that the master/owner/character has failed to find. The issue is the action that invariably goes along with it- that failure of the DM to allow the PC to take whatever action they deem appropriate.
-S
|
Any animal companion who has been trained for combat is going to know how to flank, since it is one of the essentials of melee combat. One would think that would be the first set of tricks an adventuring druid would teach his melee focused companion.
I respectfully disagree with that. The attack trick allows you to 'order' you AC to attack a particular enemy, nothing more, nothing less.
This is role playing game mechanics, nothing more and nothing less. Flank is a mechanic that abstractly describes something that happens in combat. It is not something you have to understand the benefits of to use, any more than you need to understand the benefits of running to move somewhere faster than double moving.
Perhaps you don't understand the situation that is occurring, I'm not suggesting that the animal can never set up a flank, in the right situations it's fine. But if the AC doesn't understand that taking a 5ft step to the right would give it a +2 to attacks, then why would it 5ft to the right? If there was another foreseeable reason why the AC would do that, fine, it can take the 5ft step.
It's on the same level of stupidity as saying that an animal is too stupid to understand what attacks of opportunity are, for example. If something can take actions and has even the most rudimentary survival instincts, it will be able to use most if not all combat actions.
Your suggesting that not letting a player make his/her AC do something that the GM feels the AC does not have the intelligence/understanding to do without a trick or handle animal check is as akin to taking away all and any AoOs the AC could take.
Of course, you can certainly role play mechanics, play as if the grid exists across the whole game world, have characters roll Int checks when they are selecting feats at level up to see if they can make a good choice or if they have to select a feat that's bad for their character, etc. It might be fun for certain groups but it will not work if you suddenly implement it in a normal campaign.
Now you're being absurd
|
I let my players control their animal companions and familiars because it's easier for me and I have very little interest in doing it myself with all the other stuff I have going on. I also don't want to be accused of nerfing an animal companion for no reason, etc. That said, I don't let PCs do ridiculous things with animal companions or familiars, particularly when they make decisions for them that would require intelligence higher than those creatures would rightfully possess.
Some things depend on the Animal Companion. As an example: Wolves are pack predators. 'Flanking' is pack predator behavior, therefore a Wolf AC instinctively acting to flank with their 'companion' makes perfect sense. Getting them to not fight that way might actually be the hard part, which could wind up with times where they don't attack at all one round because they are still maneuvering into position to flank. Opposing example: Tigers are not pack predators, getting them to maneuver into flanking position would probably require HA checks, at least the first several times.
While the ongoing discussion about the "technical" correctness of the GM running an AC or familiar is fun to read, there is another issue in this case that interests me. And that is all about setting GM/Player expectations.
I'm not talking about "I might run your familiar for role playing purposes" expectations. I'm talking about something more fundamental than that.
I'm talking about "As the GM I might occasionally do something that surprises you. You need to trust that I am doing it for a good reason and that it is not because I am on some power trip."
For example... I play a druid. As with most druid players I routinely control my animal companion. I almost never make a "handle animal" check, the GM and I just naturally assume that the tiger is going to do what my druid wants.
One game we were playing the GM suddenly took control of my tiger. It wasn't even some unusual situation. We were just moving through an area. Suddenly my druid's animal companion refused to proceed.
My immediate reaction? "Hey, look guys, something's strange, Thorn doesn't usually act like this."
Now, it turned out that the tiger had gotten a sniff of dragon smell. The GM decided that, based on a very borderline roll, the tiger had sniffed something that raised the AC's hackles, but was not specific enough to say "dragon." So he just role played the tiger for a few rounds until we figured it out.
Was I upset?
I thought it was awesome.
Pretty much this.
I know that when I DM, I let my player's control cohorts, familiars and ACs. I do take control like AD's DM on occasion. I have no issues with my players.
I guess if people really want a RAW answer they should look in the core rules under creating an NPC. Anyone that is not a player is an NPC. I think this is a discussion about preconceptions and trust. RAW isn't really going to provide it straight.
|
|
There is no right or wrong way to handle this.
At my table: Characters have autonomy over the way they control their familiars/companions/eidolons or hirelings, but the GM has veto rights and can ask the player if he/she may take control of the secondary character (players don't say no, because it's implicit that the GM will not betray the player by putting the familiar/companion/eidolon/hireling into irretrievable harm's way).
My reasons for this are:
1) I have 6-7 people at my table, and I try very hard to make diverse NPCs with opinions that will chime in during the player's conversations. Tracking companions on top of that is more work for me, and I'm pretty lazy.
2) Players know their companion's abilities far better than I do, and will be able to get the most from their companions. All I do is take note of things the companion is unlikely to do (if animal attack undead/aberrations for example)
Animal companion doesn't know what a flank is?
even with thier animal intellect, i'm sure they would fairly easily realize that thier foes are morely distracted and more vulnerable from specific angles when working with allies
even if they don't know the technical term, they would know, "hey, this foe is easier to hit from this position. thanks hairless meatsack with shiny tool." i'm sure even a tiger would instinctively perofrm this.
Animal companion doesn't know what a flank is?
even with thier animal intellect, i'm sure they would fairly easily realize that thier foes are morely distracted and more vulnerable from specific angles when working with allies
even if they don't know the technical term, they would know, "hey, this foe is easier to hit from this position. thanks hairless meatsack with shiny tool." i'm sure even a tiger would instinctively perofrm this.
I would probably have it move into flanking voluntary in either case, but they wouldn't be likely to do that with anyone else but their master, a wolf might cooperate with another party member that way if he manages to get a favorable reaction from the animal, maybe another druid or ranger, considering them packmembers with their master as the alpha, a tiger probably would be less inclined to accept others being a less social animal, but might still come to protect someone he is fond of.
I just do not think the familiars or ACs are meant to be controlled in the first person, when they get separated for instance my players won't be playing their familiars but they stick with their characters, they can tell it what it has to do within reason and they almost always listen, though possibly requiring a charisma check to convince it sometimes or plainly refusing to do it if it is entirely unreasonable, if the player isnt directing them I decide how it responds within reason. Mostly my control will be limited to descriptive behaviour and interaction with the player(s).
In the OP's sample I might actually have the familiar play with a stranger though it is likely to have the players take an interest in him/her, possibly give a hint about the nature of the stranger, these things are meant to enhance play not limit the player.
|
|
For those people who are adamant that a GM should never take control of an Animal Companion - if you were GMing and a player had their Animal Companion do tricks without bothering to roll Handle Animal (maybe they didn't even bother putting ranks into that skill) what would you do? Nothing?I wouldn't let the animal act without a successful check from the player. That's part of the mechanical game.
Cool. Looking back at your posts in this thread, you seem to be one of those people who would as a GM overrule a player on how an Animal Companion would act if you thought it against their nature, and thus not one of "those people who are adamant that a GM should never take control of an Animal Companion".
|
|
even if they don't know the technical term, they would know, "hey, this foe is easier to hit from this position. thanks hairless meatsack with shiny tool." i'm sure even a tiger would instinctively perofrm this.
Would they realize the difference between attacking the same target as the 'hairless meat sack with shiny tool' and flanking? To the AC both would yield similar results, ie, enemy downed and less wounds on them (due to enemy going down quicker)
The AC is a class feature, and as such should be left in the players hands.
There would want to be a really good reason for the GM to intervene and micro-manage the players resource.
Why should 'pets' be fair game and all other abilities protected? Should the GM control the Clerics channel? Barbarian rage?
Not to beat the point into the ground, but because pets are creatures with their own minds and the Cleric's channel and the Barbarian's rage aren't?
Sure, but the Companion is a mechanical class feature.
I get the 'creature with its own mind' point, however once teh GM starts modifying how a class feature might or might not work it changes how 'balanced' that feature is. In order for it to be 'balanced' it has to simply work as the player directs - if not then it is being 'nerfed'.
In MMO speak, the 'Companion' is simply a pet.
Anything less and you have to start giving the Companion class compensation for the loss of their utility.
RAW doesn't say anything about the pet picking and choosing how it acts on the DM's whim any more than any other class ability does.
Whose character sheet is the familiar/companion on?
That's right. The player's sheet. Not a DM's NPC statblock, not in an adventure path, not in the module. It's not the DM's purview, period.
That said, I won't hesitate to put words in their mouth (if they can speak), but I never act.
Grey area: if a PC buys a mount and that mount is brought into a dangerous area, the PC dismounts, then goes adventuring... I might let the mount run away or something appropriate. But that's the extent of it, and that only happens if there's a concrete inarguable reason. I generally let the PCs then find their mounts afterward, safe.
The player contols the pet, through the character, within the limitations of the RAW and statblock.
A class feature is a class feature, and operates by RAW. Regardless of our opinions about it being its own creature, it is ultimately an extension of the character as a class feature. That it has its own 'personality' is simply fluff - and like any fluff should neither have a mechanical advantage OR disadvantage.
Cool. Looking back at your posts in this thread, you seem to be one of those people who would as a GM overrule a player on how an Animal Companion would act if you thought it against their nature, and thus not one of "those people who are adamant that a GM should never take control of an Animal Companion".
You are right that I would not qualify myself as "adamant" that a GM should never take control of an animal companion. I would, though, qualify myself as someone that thinks an animal companion or familiar is a class feature of the player character, and as such should only be overruled in action where logic and or mechanics dictate. As a GM we, of course, have the right to veto anything we don't see as fitting with the logic, or as LazarX pointed out, the verisimilitude of the game. This is true of character's actions as well as animal companion's actions. However, if an action is vetoed, or if an action is purported to have been undertaken by an animal companion or familiar at the behest of the GM, it should always be in the best interest of the players. As those entities are an extension of the character, and part of their strategy for survival. I like what two people have said previously.
1) The AC or Familiar is as much a part of the character as its own arm.
2) On whose sheet is the information for the AC or Familiar? The player's sheet.
The player contols the pet, through the character, within the limitations of the RAW and statblock.So what does the pet do, when the character can not or does not control it?
Sit there like a lump, because it's no longer being controlled?
Act on it's own, trying to follow the last orders or help it's master as best it can, but probably less effectively since it's not getting specific orders?
Continue to do exactly what the player wants?
Great questions. I believe the best answer is that the player should role play what they believe the animal would do according to its last given direction, its instincts for survival, its loyalty to its master, and its limited intelligence. Which is, of course, what role playing is. Trying to figure out what a supposed entity would do in any given situation based on what you know about it. In these situations the GM can help guide the decisions based on what they know about the world, but should still let the player direct the actions of the animal within the scope of all the things I listed above.