How much control does a player have over their companion creatures?

[Lemmy]

Purple Dragon Knight wrote:

Lemmy wrote:

If you don't want it done with summons (understandable, though I must point out that animal are often pretty weak summoning critters anyway), just say it's only possible for Animal Companions because they share a deep, mystical bond with the PC.

...or peanut butter.

I rather avoid an Animal Companion/peanut butter discussion... That's bound to go somewhere icky. XD

[Purple Dragon Knight]

Lemmy wrote:

Purple Dragon Knight wrote:

Lemmy wrote:

If you don't want it done with summons (understandable, though I must point out that animal are often pretty weak summoning critters anyway), just say it's only possible for Animal Companions because they share a deep, mystical bond with the PC.

...or peanut butter.

I rather avoid an Animal Companion/peanut butter discussion... That's bound to go somewhere icky. XD

Lighten up... it's Friday! :)

[Claxon]

Choosy companions choose JIF

[Ravingdork]

Diego Rossi wrote:

Ravingdork wrote:

I suppose I got confused when Paizo developers openly stated something to the effect of "Of course you can make and control your own cohorts, they are a product of your character's feat--not an NPC; you wouldn't have your GM control when you benefited from Point Blank Shot, would you?" <-- Paraphrasing from memory.

I just kind of figured that logic would apply to all companions; else why complicate the game with inconsistent logic in the rules?

I think that your memory is at fault. Can you find that text?

Pretty sure this was it.

Sean K Reynolds wrote:

When a PC takes Weapon Focus, does the GM choose what weapon it's with?

When a druid's animal companion gains a new feat, does the GM choose what that feat is?

When a player takes Improved Familiar, does the GM choose the familiar?

If the answer to these questions is "no," then why should the answer be different for Leadership, or any other decision on managing resources the player makes about his or her character?

[thejeff]

Ravingdork wrote:

Diego Rossi wrote:

Ravingdork wrote:

I suppose I got confused when Paizo developers openly stated something to the effect of "Of course you can make and control your own cohorts, they are a product of your character's feat--not an NPC; you wouldn't have your GM control when you benefited from Point Blank Shot, would you?" <-- Paraphrasing from memory.

I just kind of figured that logic would apply to all companions; else why complicate the game with inconsistent logic in the rules?

I think that your memory is at fault. Can you find that text?

Pretty sure this was it.

Sean K Reynolds wrote:

When a PC takes Weapon Focus, does the GM choose what weapon it's with?

When a druid's animal companion gains a new feat, does the GM choose what that feat is?

When a player takes Improved Familiar, does the GM choose the familiar?

If the answer to these questions is "no," then why should the answer be different for Leadership, or any other decision on managing resources the player makes about his or her character?

From slightly later in that discussion:

Sean K Reynolds wrote:

Jagyr Ebonwood wrote:

So, yes, the player should be able to design his cohort. But the GM needs to be mindful of how the player is using the cohort. For example, how many GMs actually require a ranger or druid to make Handle Animal checks, or keep track of what tricks an animal companion knows? None that I've ever seen. Consequently, the animal copanions in the games I've been in have been more powerful than they should have been.

Then we agree.

I never said the GM shouldn't be involved. I'm just saying the PC is spending a resource--a feat--and should get to make the decisions about that resource. If you create a potion-making cleric cohort, that's fine, he's unavailable for adventuring much of the time, and it's not like the PC couldn't have taken Brew Potion on his own. If he makes a meat-shield fighter, and that fighter dies (which, given the 2-levels-lower limit, isn't a surprise), then that dings the character's leadership score (as does the "moves around a lot" penalty, and others).

Your point about Handle Animal is an excellent one--there are brakes in the game to keep some things from getting out of control, and if the GM doesn't use those brakes, it's his fault.

[Ravingdork]

I disagree with the Leadership score reduction for the fighter dying. If a cohort follows you on an adventure, and dies, you didn't cause his death. He did. Causing a cohort's death would be more akin to stabbing him, or pushing him off a cliff.

[Chengar Qordath]

Ravingdork wrote:

I disagree with the Leadership score reduction for the fighter dying. If a cohort follows you on an adventure, and dies, you didn't cause his death. He did. Causing a cohort's death would be more akin to stabbing him, or pushing him off a cliff.

SKR wasn't just talking about the fighter dying though, he specifically mentioned using the fighter as an expendable meatshield against opponents who were out of his league. I would say that if your companion dies because you treat them as expendable or generally show no concern for their survival, that merits a -2 to your leadership score.

[Chess Pwn]

I feel if they die period. They are under you, you're their leader, if people die when you are the leader it's going to be harder to get people.

[Diego Rossi]

Ravingdork wrote:

Diego Rossi wrote:

Ravingdork wrote:

I suppose I got confused when Paizo developers openly stated something to the effect of "Of course you can make and control your own cohorts, they are a product of your character's feat--not an NPC; you wouldn't have your GM control when you benefited from Point Blank Shot, would you?" <-- Paraphrasing from memory.

I just kind of figured that logic would apply to all companions; else why complicate the game with inconsistent logic in the rules?

I think that your memory is at fault. Can you find that text?

Pretty sure this was it.

Sean K Reynolds wrote:

When a PC takes Weapon Focus, does the GM choose what weapon it's with?

When a druid's animal companion gains a new feat, does the GM choose what that feat is?

When a player takes Improved Familiar, does the GM choose the familiar?

If the answer to these questions is "no," then why should the answer be different for Leadership, or any other decision on managing resources the player makes about his or her character?

But this was the question:

Ira kroll wrote:

I'm running my group through the Kingmaker adventure path, and now they want to use the leadership feat to get someone who has a positive CHA bonus (Three dwarves and a half-orc... the half-orc has the highest charisma at 10) to fill in as the Ruler.

The leadership feat, as written, doesn't say who chooses the NPC to become the cohort. My players argue that they should be able to design the NPC, but I suspect they will get someone with a CHA 16 or better, just to fill the position. I argue that I should randomly create an NPC, and they can choose to accept it or not. I would be willing to provide a, let's say, 20-percent chance per month of someone approaching them to join.

Any ideas?

i think that very few GM will not allow you to get a high charisma cohort if you are searching for one, or a sorcerer if that is what you are searching for, and so on.

That is very different from dictating the exact skill and spell (spells know/spell written into the spellbook) allocation or all feat that the NPC will have.

Note that with that I mean that if you initially searched for a fighter that was a master of trip attacks you have all the rights to get a fighter with the appropriate feats and skillset, but you can't pretend that he will later learn master craftsman because you want a helpful crafter. He will go on being a master of his attack stile and take feats and skills that complement it (or change his focus if there are in game reasons for him to do so).

[Kayerloth]

Chess Pwn wrote:

I feel if they die period. They are under you, you're their leader, if people die when you are the leader it's going to be harder to get people.

Agreed to a point. It'll will be even harder, however, if you get a reputation for placing your cohorts, followers and others under your command in over their heads, without proper equipment and care than if you do so and lose them with such support.

[Diego Rossi]

About the follower dying.

I think it is if they died a permanent death. If the cohort was raised at the leader expenses, without compensation, it would remove the penalty and even give the "Fairness and generosity" bonus.

Circumstances can change that, but my interpretation is that the expectation is that your cohort will survive if you survive. if that don't happen the NPC will be less willing to risk their lives for you.

[Chengar Qordath]

Kayerloth wrote:

Chess Pwn wrote:

I feel if they die period. They are under you, you're their leader, if people die when you are the leader it's going to be harder to get people.

Agreed to a point. It'll will be even harder, however, if you get a reputation for placing your cohorts, followers and others under your command in over their heads, without proper equipment and care than if you do so and lose them with such support.

Pretty much this. We can debate which exact penalties apply in which situations, but I think we can all agree that a leader who shows callous disregard for the lives of their cohorts and treats them as expendable minions should take a bigger penalty than one who makes every effort to keep said cohort alive, only to lose them to the vagaries of fate.

I'd also modify the penalty for stuff like, say, the cohort's family being paid a death benefit or the PC doing something especially heroic to try and save their cohort's life.

[Ravingdork]

I suppose it depends on the relationship (as it should).

If you are their leader (that is, are in a position to give them orders), and you send them on a reckless suicide mission--especially if it is for spurious reasons--then I can totally see your Leadership score getting docked.

However, if the cohort is a childhood friend or a sycophant who decides to follow you on your adventures because they love you or are a fan, and they just happen to get killed as a result, that should not reflect negatively on your Leadership score at all.

[Diego Rossi]

Ravingdork wrote:

I suppose it depends on the relationship (as it should).

If you are their leader (that is, are in a position to give them orders), and you send them on a reckless suicide mission--especially if it is for spurious reasons--then I can totally see your Leadership score getting docked.

However, if the cohort is a childhood friend or a sycophant who decides to follow you on your adventures because they love you or are a fan, and they just happen to get killed as a result, that should not reflect negatively on your Leadership score at all.

You are seriously arguing that you should have complete control of a NPC but at the same time your PC should be totally non-responsible of what happen to him on the basis of some "background" that you, as the player that control the NPC, invented?