As an avid player and gamesmaster of Dungeons & Dragons, from 2nd Edition till today, I have noticed since 3.0 a tendancy (at least in my group that I run) a sort of anti-familiar/animal companion mentality has arose in the players, they feel the familiars or companions slow them down, drain the party resources, or as one player cited 'are just plain annoying' because ss a DM I allowed my Druid player to roleplay situations where her and her wolf companion interacted with other characters.
Perhaps its down to the type of gamers I have, they tend to have this 'munchkin - everyone for themselves' mentality believing they have to plan an escape from each and every fight first and foremost in any battle. So they dont use familiars/animal companions and instead plump for the alterative options instead but they tried to entice the Druid player to ditch the animal companion, and when she didnt, well, when a situation arose such as when the players had to climb a wall (at low level, nobody had potions of levitate or fly) the Druid elected to leave the companion behind somewere safe, and all the other players did was complain about what a waste it was since they took an option they couldnt at that moment use.
I believe Familiars and Animal Companions have as much right to be part of the party as the players themselves, they can be invaluable in a fight, and so sue a player if they treat their 'expendable, re-summonable 24 hrs later' companion as a valued friend and they dont want to put them in harms way before say, a rampaging Ogre just to slow it down. I wonder, have any other players and/or DM's had to endure arguements like this in their groups?, let me know of your experiences.
Ciao.
Personally I like them but there is a definite tendency for them to be baggage at mid to high level.
The Druid Animal companion is perhaps an exception to this but for the most part animal companions/familiars lose a degree of utility after a while.
Pathfinder did make the ranger animal companion more useful but it's still pretty much limited to providing a useful flanking bonus and blocking charge lines after a while.
Paladin mounts are good for some charger builds, but they are extremely situational. Most mounts suck for underground use for instance.
Familiars are useful for stealth/spying but their in-combat functionality is extremely limited beyond giving some slight buffs and alertness.
Summoners show a good deal of promise to be a good "pet" class. I'm not sure that Eidolons won't get nerfed to hell but currently it's definitely a worthwhile (if overpowered) option.
If there are a ton of cohorts/companions/familiars/summoned creatures on the battlefield combat can definitely slow to a crawl but as long as people are good about having their actions planned out ahead of time it's really not that bad.
The two big issues with most familiar/animal companions is 1) its extra work to keep track of, and 2) its an extra body in a fight that needs protecting.
Whenever I've had an animal companion or familiar (not counting a paladin's mount which was a whole different ballgame), I usually end up leaving them at home and using them strictly for role playing purposes. For druids I always take birds and have them fly away when a fight breaks out. For wizards I keep them in my home and have them look after things. Especially for prepared spellcasters, you have enough to worry about--especially at higher levels--just figuring out what spells to prepare and what they all do then keeping track of an extra character sheet.
I mean, I've had high level wizards that literally took ten pages of material to keep track of, with spell books and spells known and magical items and various spells and what not. And druids have to keep track of wildshape changes, which usually means keeping separate stat sheets for different forms. Add an extra sheet for an animal companion and it gets to be a little much.
Most are pretty fragile too. Especially familiars. One failed reflex save and thats it a lot of the time. Even a druid's animal companion, unless shes putting a fair amount of resources into it, will go down quick if a tough monster targets it.
|
I've never seen a druid's animal companion or a familiar as a drain on the party resources or heard anyone complain about them in a lot of the games I've played in. I know some people wish that the pouncing animal companion's players would hurry up with their dice rolling at times but they don't blame the tiger for the delay.
I enjoy playing a spell caster with a pet or familiar, adds a lot to the game for me.
Alot of fair points, I suppose it breaks down to the elements of combat and roleplaying - one group of my players put alot of emphesis onto combat and tool their characters appropiately and some others view their characters as roleplaying opportunities as well and they use their pet for combat and roleplaying, perhaps it could be the two groups dont always mesh.
I try to create games where the characters roleplay as much as if not equal to the amount of combat that can take place, since I want my characters to develop a comradrie and attatchment to one another and the animal companion is no different, to me anyways, it isnt an expendable resource to block a charging foe, its like a trusted friend and part of the character - a druid is supposed to develop a sort of attachment to their companions after all, same with rangers, wizards and paladins though the Druid and Ranger can simply replace it with minimal effort it should still pain them to lose a trusted friend and I encourage my Druid players and such to try and regard their familiars and companions appropiately but I do let them have free will to do with their characters what they wish.
I do know its always a bit of extra work to keep track of, but with a bit of co-coperation (I myself love the druid class and help players of such fast track their understanding of how the class works) I help my player create and run a companion with little effort on their part.
I do know that you should in reality, split some resources to give your companion some trinkets and items that'll beef it up somewhat at later levels and that in turn puts a drain on the character itself. I am glad for everyones input though, and appreciate any more insight other people have into it.
Ciao.
in 3.0/.5 there was a spell called "Familiar Pocket". it allowed an arcane caster to enchant their cloak to basically become a habitation for their familiar. The familiar could enter/exit it themselves.
Once I found it, all my arcane casters took the means to find it, and use it. (i think the duration was 1 day/level). After that, familiars were for me just something fun to Rp with. Halfling wizard with a pseudo dragon familiar was fun :)
-S
There's one annoying aspect to animal companions: they count as an extra creature.
When it's time to dimension door in or out of somewhere important, or teleport at 9th level, or wind walk or several other spells, the animal companion breaks the expected party-of-four, non-smoking mechanic. At low levels, it doesn't matter much because most travel is done on foot. At high level, caster-level has gone up enough to allow an extra body. But between 7th and 12th there exists an annoying range (25% of the game!) where that extra body is a hindrance. Which is a shame.
Familiars seem reasonable to hand-wave, or shove in an extra-dimensional space for a few seconds. It's just unrealistic to expect the pseudo-feral weasel or the pretending-to-be-tame lion to crawl into a handy haversack.
in 3.0/.5 there was a spell called "Familiar Pocket". it allowed an arcane caster to enchant their cloak to basically become a habitation for their familiar. The familiar could enter/exit it themselves.
Once I found it, all my arcane casters took the means to find it, and use it. (i think the duration was 1 day/level). After that, familiars were for me just something fun to Rp with. Halfling wizard with a pseudo dragon familiar was fun :)
-S
I've played in lots of games where most wizards seemed to have that spell permanently applied. The familiars only existed when the wizard thought to use them; any other time they were conveniently forgotten (for those of you not reading Order of the Stick, check out the wizard Vaarsuvius in the older strips).
I enjoy familiars but I don't expect too much from them.
Looking over a wall. Delivering a message. etc....
The problem is that at medium levels summonings can accomplish the same thing with less risk.
I'm generally pretty kind to familiars when I DM too. As written they are a huge weakness to exploit.
Sigurd
Dont get me wrong, I agree that familiars have limited ability to fight, except to deliver a nasty touch spell of some sort (Shocking Grasp at lower levels can be devastating vs a metal armored target).
But the Paladins Mount and the Animal Companions can be almost as valid as an extra character (and while it does create a slight drain in healing and other costs) it can be invaluable in a fight, though at higher levels I do agree the companions usefulness becomes more limited unless you actively pursue prestige classes that give you more companions (such as the Beastheart Adept from 'Dungeonscape') that gives you several new companions of the dungeon dwelling variety and which this can be a pain in the butt to control and monitor, if played in the hands of someone experienced with running familiars/companions it can be very rewarding and can create some awesome battles.
Dont get me wrong, I agree that familiars have limited ability to fight, except to deliver a nasty touch spell of some sort (Shocking Grasp at lower levels can be devastating vs a metal armored target).
True. But all familiars are/were tiny or smaller creatures. Meaning they'd provoke an AoO for entering a targets square in order to deliver a touch spell, and again for leaving said square. Given the typical HPs and AC of most familiars, using them to deliver touch spells was a risky proposition in most cases--especially given the XP loss associated with a dead familiar, although I'm not sure if thats still the case in PF.
I remember one session where a DM tried to use familiars like this. He had a group of kobold sorcerers casting Invisibility on their bat familiars then sending them off against the PCs to deliver touch spells. He thought it quite clever that Invisibility was denying the AoO for entering the PCs squares. "Ah yes, but they also provoke as they LEAVE our threatened squares!" said the combat reflexing Ranger. And the familiars were no more.
|
None of my players bother with familiars anymore because they seem to meet bad ends, though when I mentioned the "witch" playtest there was some interest in the concept of a "living spellbook" familiar (just seemed in the spirit of a true familiar). In 2nd edition, it was even worse as a familiar was just an accident waiting to happen to cost you XP.
However, in 2nd edition, we really got some use out of the "Familiar Enhancement" line of spells, which (starting at 2nd level spells I think and going to 9th) allowed the caster to, as a one-time shot, permanently imbue his familiar with random spellcasting ability. Nothing that would break the bank, but enough that having a familiar became useful, researching the enhancements became a must, and keeping the familiar around became a priority for the caster.
As far as animal companions, so long as players remember bears don't have plate mail underneath all that fur, they seem to scale extremely well for druids and are just decorative for rangers imo.
True. But all familiars are/were tiny or smaller creatures. Meaning they'd provoke an AoO for entering a targets square in order to deliver a touch spell, and again for leaving said square. Given the typical HPs and AC of most familiars, using them to deliver touch spells was a risky proposition in most cases--especially given the XP loss associated with a dead familiar, although I'm not sure if thats still the case in PF.
Ordinary familiars are very limited. Improved Familiars have many more uses. Mephits are not tiny (they're small) and avoid those tiny AoO's, they Fly and have 1/2 the caster's hp's, have proficiency with all simple and martial weapons (composite longbow!) and utilize your skills (Use Magic Device - wands!). There's no longer any XP loss for the death of your familiar (you can wait a week and call another for 200gp/level). It's nice to have another pair of hands every once in a while.
Playing a Ranger, I've often felt like bringing the animal companion along was a death sentence if it tried to participate in any encounter CR-appropriate to the party. Without focusing on it, the companion can be killed in a moment by things that would be only moderately threatening to PCs.
I generally don't involve my familiars in combat. Most games blink on the familiar unless you're kitting him out for combat.
Perhaps familiars should simply be a sustained summoning. A diminutive servant you can dismiss and recall at will?
After the Eidolon it seems less far fetched.
Sigurd
|
|
I often DM for players who have Animal Companions, Familiars et al.
One of my players loves LOVES her tiger companion (he's never been what I'd call fragile), having torn a red dragon a new one.
Another player always plays with a familiar, who makes a brilliant scout/second set of eyes.
Players are always happy to have an extra body to help in fights, or an extra method to prevent ambushes.
I like the idea of familiars/companions. When well done, they can add to a party without drawing attention away from them.
I did have a problem in a 3.5 core game around levels 5-7, where the strength of the Paladin's mount and the Ranger's Warhorse companion were dramatically driving down the challenge of any fight they were in. There were a number of factors in this... that mounted combat rules in 3.5 were vague and scattered all over the book, the fact that fighting while mounted requires an insanely low difficulty number, that the Ranger player was great at finding ways of maximizing both his and his horse's attacks, that I might not have understood certain rules as much as I should have... etc. Now, we hit a point where they had to go into an indoor area where horses could easily go... but entirely taking their class features away from them isn't what I'd call a solution to the problem. That's more of a specific issue of the mounts and some issues with 3.5, though I still have some mounted combat house rules in place in Pathfinder to avoid some of the problems I had.
As a GM, I am terrible at remembering to deal with familiars/companions. I always forget my wizard player's familiar exists and forget to do anything with him or remind the player to do something with him. Working on improving that. (I don't think he remembers either to be honest... much like poor Varsuuvius's raven.)
I was also DREADFUL at remembering any of the familiars my spellcaster/druid/etc. bad guys have, especially if I was tracking multiple NPCs to begin with. Upon conversion to Pathfinder, EVERYONE now has arcane/hunter's/nature's/divine bond. ;)
Now, a player just picked up a cohort--an extraplanar horse of sorts (which she is not planning to engage in mounted combat with ;) ). The nature of the creature is I will need to play her, which my player is cool with, but I need to remember to play her and play her well!
Now, a player just picked up a cohort--an extraplanar horse of sorts (which she is not planning to engage in mounted combat with ;) ). The nature of the creature is I will need to play her, which my player is cool with, but I need to remember to play her and play her well!
Remind the player to remind you to put the cohort on the initiative chart.
Remind the player to remind you to put the cohort on the initiative chart.
Now, a player just picked up a cohort--an extraplanar horse of sorts (which she is not planning to engage in mounted combat with ;) ). The nature of the creature is I will need to play her, which my player is cool with, but I need to remember to play her and play her well!
I planned on that, but reminders never hurt.
I've never had a cohort before, in any edition, so this will be a first for me. I definitely don't plan on engaging in mounted combat: I have no ranks in Ride yet, have an AC of 24 and just barely enough HP to dodge power word-kill when at full strength. On the other hand, my cohort can walk on air and plane shift, so I'm quite happy with the increase in mobility I'm getting. Also, the role-playing opportunities are going to be potentially a lot of fun too; my new friend is the only other servant of Death my PC's met.
|
Great thread! I'm a big fan of the Ranger class and I LOVE having an animal companion!
Speaking of which ...
Many of you have probably seen this already, but for those of you who have not:
Kobold Quarterly Bonus Animal Companion / Ranger Tracking Sheet
One side is the Ranger Tracking Sheet, the other is the Animal Companion sheet ... basically a character sheet for your animal companion, familiar, paladin mount ect.
Check it out if you like!
My bard went out of his way to pick up a familiar. Delivering attack spells sucks. Delivering cure spells, on the other hand, is pretty fantastic. Also nice is the second set of rolls on stuff like Perception, the presence of a fine scout, and the fact that the feat gave the bard a +3 to perform, which is just wrong with Versatile Performance.
I also saw another game where it was rather useful - 3.5, but still. This character took Extra Familiar with every feat, becoming a remarkable and hilarious cat lady. Then someone threatened her cats. May I just say, Polymorph and Tenser's Transformation should _not_ be able to be shared across six recipients...
|
I have had characters with familiars/animal companions and definately play them as more role-playing as most are too squishy to be in combat.
However, from a recent experience I would be very relucant to have a 'pet' class in larger parties anymore as they tend to just be clutter. We had a situation on the weekend where the fighter couldn't get into battle because of the Druid's Animal companion (7 person party).
In my games, I've seen familiars used only for the skill bonuses they provide. Players always felt that having the little buggers actually fly/walk around was too much of a risk, considering the CON loss penalty for familiar deaths.
On the other hand, animal companions have seen some use (mainly to provide flanking situations). However, we've always had to kind of metagame to rationalize their existence and use (yeah, I'm a druid, I care for animals - so I send my best friend into battle to soak up damage. Riight. That always reminds me of that one Mt. Zogon comic: 'Your new name is Meat Shield #1' :-)).
In my games, I've seen familiars used only for the skill bonuses they provide. Players always felt that having the little buggers actually fly/walk around was too much of a risk, considering the CON loss penalty for familiar deaths.
What CON loss penalty?
(I don't think he remembers either to be honest... much like poor Varsuuvius's raven.)
snip
Now, a player just picked up a cohort--an extraplanar horse of sorts (which she is not planning to engage in mounted combat with ;) ). The nature of the creature is I will need to play her, which my player is cool with, but I need to remember to play her and play her well!
If one likes the idea of another party member, IMHO, I think this is the best way to handle them all (i.e. as NPCs). Otherwise, they just become another weapon/wand in the toolbelt to pull out when useful, forget when not needed (like V's raven haha) and exploit without a thought.
Personally, after seeing a lot of (truly funny) silliness, proposed or in game, with mounts/monster cohorts/familiars (e.g. Caelic's supermount, the ape companion familiar who can cast spells and wear armor and use weapons and use sign language, familiars using the ride skill to negate attacks on their master, and so on), the mechanical issues created by having these "PC accessories" outweigh the benefits. I think it is just overall better to allow players to have more than one character than to grant them a quasi-character/stooge/bodyguard.
the role-playing opportunities can be great, but again, I think much better if the DM gives it its own personality to avoid exploitation and just make it interesting.
but moreover, the group dynamics tend to be a problem as well, as the spotlight goes to the intimate bond between one character and their pet, and every round the PC gets more actions, than anyone else, etc. A party mascot? sure. a personal pet? nah, unless it is a solo adventure.
|
|
There's one annoying aspect to animal companions: they count as an extra creature.
When it's time to dimension door in or out of somewhere important, or teleport at 9th level, or wind walk or several other spells, the animal companion breaks the expected party-of-four, non-smoking mechanic. At low levels, it doesn't matter much because most travel is done on foot. At high level, caster-level has gone up enough to allow an extra body. But between 7th and 12th there exists an annoying range (25% of the game!) where that extra body is a hindrance. Which is a shame.
Familiars seem reasonable to hand-wave, or shove in an extra-dimensional space for a few seconds. It's just unrealistic to expect the pseudo-feral weasel or the pretending-to-be-tame lion to crawl into a handy haversack.
This is exactly my problem. We're playing Pathfinder and I have a 14th level druid with a great cat animal companion but he seems to becoming a liability when it comes to magical travel. I have the Wind Walk spell, but we've ruled that it won't work on the creature as with an animal intelligence of two, the creature just can't simply will itself to move around rather than using its instinctual motorized means of walking and so will just flail about in a confused manner.
Obviously, Druids don't have access to Dimension Door and Teleport, but do you know of any spells available to a druid to allow their familiars to move around as easy as the rest of the party?
Since your group has ruled that the spell will not work for the animal companion due to his 2 INT, you might consider increasing his INT to 3 at the next ability boost level. A 3 INT is human (or humanoid) level and is enough to allow the animal to actually understand verbal comands etc., so it certainly should allow the animal companion to use his intelligence over his instinct enough to take advantage of the spell. Upping the INT to 3 is a pretty sound thing to do anyway, but in this case it could be even more benificial!
In my personal experience, familiars have added rather than detracted from the game experience. I run a largish 3.5 group (6-7 players) with two wizards and a druid. The druid's snake doesn't have much of a defined personality other than being a snake, and the player is cool with that. In fact, that's pretty much how she plays it: she has a very low-maintenance, non-social AC because her character is the same way. They fit each other nicely, add some cool options in combat (HUGE grapple bonuses mean one less spellcaster to worry about), and don't slow the game down with RP.
The wizards, on the other hand, are at opposite ends of the familiar spectrum. One, the gish (spellsword PRC), is like early Vaarsuvius. She has a bird that appears only when she bothers to mention that she wants her falcon to do something. Otherwise, it 'circles overhead' a lot. She's never really RP'd with it, and doesn't seem to care to.
The other wizard, the primary arcane spell-slinger, has a celestial flying squirrel named Chikka that has enough personality to be a cohort. She has had conversations in-game, used the familiar in almost every (reasonable) circumstance, and even bullied royalty into paying for a raise dead when the squirrel went down in a fight. She is practically the group mascot. She has made good use of all the familiar's advantages, and even surprised me on occasion. Recently, in a fight against a defending force of misguided elves (they had been lied to by their evil commander), she assigned Chikka the task of stabilizing all those fallen elves that weren't totally dead. Since she had the Heal skill, Chikka was able to save the lives of over half-a-dozen dying elves.
My final two cents? If played right, familiars and AC's can add to a game immensely. It really takes the right players to make that work.
...Recently, in a fight against a defending force of misguided elves (they had been lied to by their evil commander), she assigned Chikka the task of stabilizing all those fallen elves that weren't totally dead. Since she had the Heal skill, Chikka was able to save the lives of over half-a-dozen dying elves.
This is freakin EPIC :)
While it was in 3.5 rather than Pathfinder, I was happy to have a familiar right up through 15th level (when the campaign ended). At low levels, Sarku, a hawk, was utilized for touch spells and the occasional damaging attack, and at that level his AC was as good as many in the party.
Towards middle levels I would buff him up as needed, and even with potential AoOs he was effective in combats (not with the huge bad guys, but mighty fine against popcorn).
Round about 8th level I used a spell from WOTC's website, Planar Familiar, and got him turned Axiomatic...suddenly, he was vastly useful flying over the battlefield and providing me virtual immunity to flanking.
Oddly enough, I never really RP'd with him much. I was more likely to RP with the increasingly neurotic Homunculous that I had to keep leaving behind...they hate that :)
One house rule we used that did well for us (considering there were multiple magicians in the group) was that Bonded companions (Familiar, Animal Companion) counted as a single creature with the Master for purposes of magical travel (Teleport, Dim Door, Shadow Walk).
It's amusing that the OP's group would view familiars as a waste of space. In the urban campaign I'm playing in, I view my character's thrush familiar (3E DMG, familiars for smaller races -- my character is a gnome illusionist) as arguably overpowered. She can fly and scout, she can speak Gnomish and she allows my character to see around walls, follow people in a crowd (at least, gives me a substantial bonus to same), deliver messages and more.
It would be one thing if I had to give up a feat slot or two for her, but as it is, she was incredibly potent, right out of the gate.
Obviously, it's all about matching the familiar to the expected milieu, but a creative player can do a whole hell of a lot with a familiar and a DM not determined to kill the little bugger the moment it appears.
...a DM not determined to kill the little bugger the moment it appears.
This is a theme I'm appalled to see over and over here. Maybe I'm a softie, but I have never set out to outright kill and animal companion or a familiar in 10+ years of DMing 3.x. Some have died due to poor player choices or bad saves, but never because I targeted the little buggers.
Animal Companions, and familiars are in my mind as far as pathfinder is concerned, better then their alternaitve class features if compared in a vacuume. The difference is that Animal Companions and Familiars come with Risk and Inconvenience.
Familiars are vulnerable. They are not as well defended as their wizard counterpart nor as hardy. And using a familiar to it's fullest potential put them in danger. It is however less of an issue in my mind then Animal companions since their benefits and the cost of losing them are relatively few.
Animal Companions, particularly at low levels are quite powerful. They make a big impact, and are missed if they are not there. I have plenty of first hand experience where and Animal Companion could not follow the party because of size (or the fact that bears are rarely invited to the royal ball).
I have also come across situations where the animal companion has caused major headaches. For instance, ever have a large bear fall down into a pit trap? If the animal companion lacks opposable thumbs it can easily be left behind/get trapped somewhere, irregardless of size (which also presents a problem for large or bigger animal companions). Player falls in a pit, takes some damage, survives, is thrown a rope and is hauled out. A 800lb bear requires some additional work there.
My group tends to include traps as part of encounters. Apes and birds do fine here, but any 4 legged animal companions can have some real problems with this kind of a situation.
For me it all depends on the kind of campaign. If its an urban campaign with alot of politics and sneaking around, unless you have the right animal companion it can be a real problem. Hawk or dog, great, tiger, bear...not so great. Wilderness campaigns on the other hand like Kingmaker for instance, is where the druid really gets to cut loose with all its abilities with very few issues.
I guess in the end it depends on how much of a vulnerability/inconvenience an animal companion or familiar will be vs how much of boon they are.
|
|
Animal Companions, particularly at low levels are quite powerful. They make a big impact, and are missed if they are not there. I have plenty of first hand experience where and Animal Companion could not follow the party because of size (or the fact that bears are rarely invited to the royal ball).
It's hard to find glass slippers in their size.
I personally despise having to keep track of a familiar.
I take options that allow me to be rid of them, and I loved it in 1st and 2nd edition where familiar was a spell you had to learn and if you didn't want to, so be it!
My two cents: I think that a "tight" group of PCs (and NPCs) usually makes for a more interesting story than a large group. So a druid with an animal companion is more tolerable in a group of 4 than in a group of 10.
I can't keep my ranger animal companion alive. 1 failed save to a cone of cold and his 3 HD are gone. Probably not gonna spend the time to get a new one, as it has consistently been more of a liability.
|
|
I am one of those players that loves LOVES his animal companions. Most of the time I don't get to play one though as few enough of our campaigns follow decent D&D or Pathfinder progression. I will say that playing original D&D it was very difficult to keep a companion alive, though not quite so much as the druid himself. Later versions have helped with this a lot and the new rules seem to help out a lot. I'm never one to play a wizard, but I've eyeballed the Eidolon a lot lately.
What I find is that groups that are actually role-playing groups love the versatility and possibly comic relief that a companion or familiar brings. A hack and slash group is going to roll their eyes and call you a tree-hugger. Needless to say, I truly enjoy the roleplaying group a lot more. It is well worth it to have a familiar that can talk (even if you have to wait till level 7 to do it) so that you can have a different voicing for them. The voice I used from my gnome cleric in a long dusty forgotten game felt right at home in the pseudodragon of my mixed class elf. Just remember to plot out your funny bits ahead of time (or remember to keep it concise if the idea hits you) since most people don't like you taking up a lot of extra time arguing with yourself in different voices. Using a familiar to make fun of other characters can be very entertaining though and your character can throw up his hands and claim the "it wasn't me" defense. As long as you are remembering that you are trying to tell a good story with your character and familiar or companion, other people are usually pretty good about having them in the game. If you can make them laugh and you don't delay things, then they will start to interact with the beast on their own and you know that it was worth it.