RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16
|
I've run into an issue of gaming that I found interesting enough to merit discussion. "Who runs the NPCs?"
Now, I'm not talking about when the party meets a storekeeper or the captain of the city. The DM runs those NPCs. And I'm not talking about the hobgoblin commandos or the wicked princess with 5 levels of Rogue. Again, that's the DM's purview.
But what about the PC sorcerer's henchman / cohort? What about the druid's companion bear?
I've found there are two schools of thought on this, and that each assumes theirs is the only decent way to play.
--+--+--
The 1st Edition AD&D DMG was explicit: the DM runs the henchmen, because it is a rare player who can honestly run a henchman as a distinct character with his own goals and aspirations.
Subsequent editions of the rules are completely silent on the matter.
One school of play not only allows players to stat up the NPCs and play them, but thinks it's perfectly all right to treat cohorts as an extention of their PC, willing to do whatever the PC asks without complaint. This school also lets a druid's player run the animal companion as an extention of the druid's will, removing the need for all those tricks the animal would otherwise need to learn.
This is the school that everybody at Paizo plays, and to hear people tell, it's the style that Monte Cook uses with his players. (Of course, I imagine that one has to be a pretty decent player to get a seat at Monte Cook's table, so maybe that self-selects for players who can indeed play cohorts as individuals...)
The other school of play has NPCs run by the DM. (That's what the "NP" stands for.) For simplicity and sanity, the player usually assumes some control over the character during combat, although the DM usually reserves veto rights, but the DM moves the NPCs at other times. (Sometimes, the player has acces to the cohort's statblock; other DMs keep that private.)
--+--+--
In home games, I've run into both. At convention games where the DM is providing the PCs --that is, non-"Living X" events-- I've only seen the NPCs kept and held by the DM. (In one case, this was necessary because the cohort was, it stood revealed, the Big Bad.) In Organized Play, where the player brings his character, and all his cohorts, with him from DM to DM, it's been my experience that the player runs the NPC.
--+--+--
I introduce this thread, not because I want to sway people from one style to the other, but because I've run into people from each camp that are flabbergasted that the other playstyle even exists. I introduce this thread to make people aware that there are other playstyles.
I brought up the topic on the DM Tools on-line chat, and people were fairly explosive in their reactions.
"I paid a Feat for my cohort, and I'd walk away from the table if the DM tried to run him," said one Paizo staffer, speaking only for himself.
"So I'd just tell my cohort to do something dangerous, and she'd do it?" asked someone from the second school. "No, ammend that. My chohort would just do it, and I'd never even have to tell her. Where's the fun in that? Why don't we just run the city guard, too?"
--+--+--
This matters now, with the onset of the "Advanced Players Guide", because the Summoner's Eidolon is not a psychic construct of the caster's will made flesh and bone. It's an NPC, an aspect of an alien Outsider.
James Jacobs has said that the Summoner is "the class to play when you want to play the monster." Not if you're in the second camp. Then it's the class to play, if you want to see two monsters fight.
--+--+--
As the original poster, I'm going to request civility in this thread. If you catch yourself saying anything like "It doesn't matter if you're having fun, you're doing it wrong," you're probably posting against the spirit of camraderie I'm hoping for.
I use a mix.
If the PC is interacting with his cohort, I run the cohort. I am the source of what the cohort knows and, if sent off to run some errands, I am the source of what the cohort does and reports back to his boss.
In combat, I have the player run the cohort as long as the PC isn't abusing the cohort's loyalty. Then I'll be sure to let him know the cohort isn't happy about it. Having the cohort do blatantly self-sacrificial things is a sure way to have no cohort for a good long time (word gets out about how a PC treats his cohorts) and thus have a feat that's doing the PC no good. Ultimately, I assume that, as far as combat goes, the PC and his cohort are coordinated enough in their efforts that being played by the PC is a good way of handling it.
The way I see it, the PC has invested a feat and that's significant. But a cohort is WAY better than the benefit given by most other feats. And it's a free-willed individual not an automaton, so some DM involement is warranted and necessary. The cohort is inclined to agree to the PC's wishes, so I play it that way when I'm playing the cohort. But he's not stupid.
|
I think that you bring up some intersting topic.
I too would not want to have my cohort run by a GM.
I think that it is assumed that that familiars/animal companions/cohorts/summoned creatures are always the purview of the player. They are IMHO an extention on the player who invoked them. The player has an asumption that they know what they can do and have, and depend on them accordingly. I have always assumed that the social contract between the player and the player's NPC to be such that the player NPC would lay down it's life for the player if needed. Conflict could arise for an animal companion that is put into a difficult situation that is needlessly risky and a chorts relationship could be put at risk for any number of reason such as alignment issues, ect.
So basicly the familiars/animal companions/cohorts/summoned creature is what i'd call a Player Owned Nonplayer Character. (PONPC). A creature that is not the focus from the story and one that is removed if the player is removed.
Now I know that other GM styles will not want to go down that road and I will not call that wrong. I have heard of PCs dieing and the player taking up the Cohort as a new character and if that fits someone's style good for them.
However, for standard play, I believe that the PONPC is standard to the PRG rules. I'm not even trying to base this of of RAW, as I don't have the time at this minute to do so, so take this as my opinion.
|
I use a mix.
If the PC is interacting with his cohort, I run the cohort. I am the source of what the cohort knows and, if sent off to run some errands, I am the source of what the cohort does and reports back to his boss.
In combat, I have the player run the cohort as long as the PC isn't abusing the cohort's loyalty...
This is more-or-less what I do.
When I DM I work with the player on building a cohort. In order to provide a sense of cohesiveness, this NPC has to fit into the story/campaign world somehow and I need to have some input into its creation.
For animal companions its easier. I usually help provide a list of setting appropriate animals and more-or-less let the druid take control. Most people I've played with who have druids treat their animal companions better than they treat their other PC companions. Once the companion is picked I let them take the reigns, and unless something particularly unusual happens, I don't get involved.
NPC leadership companions are a little more complex. Usually these people have more complex motivations than animals, and who they are will be heavily influenced by the type of campaign I'm running. Typically I talk to the player and see what they want and then try to work within that framework to create an NPC with them (it is not a one-sided player only run affair). Last time I worked with the player and created a planar-slave who he had rescued from a demonic summoning attempt. In appreciation she started to latch onto him because of his instrumental role in saving her. The character was a bard, and I let the player pick half the spells, while I picked the rest from a much longer list of spells he picked. Same went for feats. The end result was a character that worked as a really good amalgam of his ideas, and my needs.
From that point on, I let players run their own PC companions within reason. I sometimes use them to doll out information, while at other times I take control while they do "side work" away from the PC in question. Generally though, in my groups at least, players are very cautious of what they do to their NPC companions (that -2 penalty on your leadership feat for causing the death of a companion is nasty).
It has not come up very frequently in games I have run. I have a PBP right now where a PC has a Minion. I am allowing the player to run the Minion.
I believe a Follower/Minion/Sidekick would lay down their life for the PC in the right context. I also believe a lot depends on the situation and the type of individual the Follower/Minion/Sidekick is.
I play it by ear. Usually let the players run extra NPCs except when they're clearly just using them as 10' poles. I'll take over when needed. I'd let them run cohorts/followers as desired (oddly, this never comes up in our games) but would indeed step in if I felt they were pushing the limits of what that NPC would do in-game.
I'm no expert though, still getting my bearings on this and have had a number of backfires: e.g. prisoners in the cellar of Ft. Rannick as window dressing but they get healed up and Shanghai'd into battle causing a major slowdown with little extra benefit to the game.
M
I use a mix.
If the PC is interacting with his cohort, I run the cohort. I am the source of what the cohort knows and, if sent off to run some errands, I am the source of what the cohort does and reports back to his boss.
In combat, I have the player run the cohort as long as the PC isn't abusing the cohort's loyalty. Then I'll be sure to let him know the cohort isn't happy about it. Having the cohort do blatantly self-sacrificial things is a sure way to have no cohort for a good long time (word gets out about how a PC treats his cohorts) and thus have a feat that's doing the PC no good. Ultimately, I assume that, as far as combat goes, the PC and his cohort are coordinated enough in their efforts that being played by the PC is a good way of handling it.
The way I see it, the PC has invested a feat and that's significant. But a cohort is WAY better than the benefit given by most other feats. And it's a free-willed individual not an automaton, so some DM involement is warranted and necessary. The cohort is inclined to agree to the PC's wishes, so I play it that way when I'm playing the cohort. But he's not stupid.
This, I even do it for animal companions, who often have more personality than their Int would indicate in my games.
|
I enforce the rules for handle animal at my tables. They're very nice, straight forward and honestly I just like them a lot. It really irks me when people make druids and don't even read how the damn skill works mind you.
Personally I like to decide how characters that aren't PCs will act. The PCs themselves are obviously quite capable of telling those types of NPCs what they'd like done, but I dislike the idea of simply giving the player complete control over a cohort.
Then again I'd also build the cohort. >.>;
I like when my players look for outside help. I like the old war game feel of the older editions of D&D.
|
RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16
|
Then again I'd also build the cohort. >.>;
Mysef, I work together with the player. The player tells me what kind of character his character is looking to hire, and I give him a rough sketch of some of the most likely candidates and how they present themselves. He hires his cohort from the selection, or else continues to look, and when he's happy, I build the stat block for the NPC.
If I'm busy, I will sometimes assign that NPC to another player to run, if there's somebody who can spare the attention and brain cells.
I'm old school... NPC's are just that.
I've never had any problems from my players on this though. It allows them to focus their energies on RPing their char.
In games I've ran where players controlled NPCs I've notice a more Rollplay feel than a Roleplay feel.
|
For me, it really varies. Sometimes (when I'm GMing, of course) I let the players run cohorts/familiar/animal companions/etc., and sometimes I run them. I base it partly on the experience and roleplaying ability of the player, and partly on the nature of the companion.
For example, my wife is currently playing a gnome druid, with a dire badger animal companion. She's been running the badger exclusively. On the other hand, when we played through CotCT, I ended up playing her character's familiar (once the character acquired one).
In general, I think, I tend to lean toward letting the players control their associates. Unless they start abusing the priviledge. If nothing else, I tend to figure the GM has enough to worry about already. 8^)
|
I'm with the both camp.
Summoned creatures, including things like elementals, I generally leave to the PC. If there came a situation where they were able to summon a highly intelligent, sentient creature like a Genie or other outsider, I'd like to control it within the context of the player's request.
For followers and cohorts I define only a few limits; Alignment must be compatible, all their gear is chosen from the default in the bulding NPC chapter of the DMG/PFRPG, and I come up with "how far will I go before I die (HFWIGBID)" limit for the cohort.
Otherwise, I let the players control them, and if they ever get to the HFWIGBID limit and try to exceed it, I pull rank. It's at those times when a cohort is likely to look at the character with a WTF expression.
Seems to work out well, particularly when the players are able to develop their own little synergies with their cohort making them actually feel like little dynamic duos.
|
|
One thing that occurs to me (and I'm not taking sides or manuvering for the one true way.) is that many players have very specific ideas about how thier character is, and that can extend to how the players relationships workout.
This puts me in a situation of two minds, I can see where player can get really worked up if the cohort doen't jive with the concept of his character. So I really tread lightly around that.
On the other hand, sometimes you can drop subtle hints to a player by how his cohort reacts to his actions, and not all of those reactions have to be verbal.
You can extend that to animal reactions to aberations, and the like.
I never want to discourage roleplaying.
Perhaps player who have a Player Owned Nonplayer Characters should be incouraged to roleplay then, or be prepaired to have the GM do so, if for nothing else but to fleshout the environment.
|
|
Personally I am more old school in this regard. I work with the player to create the NPC cohort. Much the same way of making a PC, but with a few more restrictions. Then when it comes to play time, in combat I let the PC control the NPC as long as they don't have the NPC do something I obviously don't think they would do. Like say jumping in a pool of acid to grab the wizards staff he dropped to throw it out while the NPC just dies.
In non combat I tend to run the NPC's. Though at times I let the players do it, especially if the party splits up and the NPC and PC are in different groups.
Of course I should note that i tend to seed my games with NPC's that the party can convince to join them for awhile or maybe permanently without taking the feat too. They just have to RP out convincing the NPC to come with them and then keep them along.
|
RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16
|
FWIW, I think the idea Chris referenced from the 1st Ed. DMG that Players can't run henchmen with distinct personalities is ridiculous. If Player's can't do it, what makes them think a DM can?
Hey, Rezdave. Thanks for your considerations.
As I read the DMG, I'm led to understand that players might be able to role-play the henchmen as individuals, but would be unlikely to want to do so.
And I've seen that myself.
Player - "I have my cohort stay back and brew healing potions for everybody, same as usual."
DM - "To sell to the party at regular market price?"
Player, boggled - "No, to give to us. He doesn't need money."
--+--+--
I think summoned monsters and nature's allies are a different case, because they come as a spell effect, and vanish back into the wider world after chewing on a troll for a few rounds. Letting the player direct them is akin to letting her direct her PC's spectral hand or unseen servant.
But then I turn again to the Summoner's Eidolon, which is, as the rules are currently written, an NPC, rather than a spell effect or supernatural power. If you want to run NPCs, what are you going to do about the Eidolon?
The DM/GM always as the final say as to the actions of the NPCs.
The GM can delegate the task of running a NPC henchmen but it is, in the end, the GM's Character.
Simple as that.
This has rarely come up in any of my games. I don't think I've ever seen anyone take the leadership feat, though a friend of mine ran an all evil campaign where we were each given henchmen as we leveled up. Most of the players in that were actually pretty protective of their henchmen (the player was allowed the run the henchmen, though the DM told us he would take over if he felt the need). I think a lot of it stemed from the fact that though we weren't the A typical cut-eachothers-throats-for-a-copper evil party, we were obviously not friendly toward eachother...so your henchmen were your only loyal allies...so abusing them was viewed as burning the bridge you were standing on.
Though it hasn't come up yet in my current Pathfinder group, this is my thoughts on the following.
Summoned Creatures - I will read the spell word for word. If it doesn't say you gain complete controll over the creature...then you don't have complete control. In essence, I control the animal, and make decissions based on animal level intelligence (coming more from the standpoint of a familiarity with animal behavior, rather than the animal having a 2 in Int), spell description, and circumstances. Summon Monster works far different in my game than it seems to in most of the others who post here.
Cohort - This creates a full NPC, with hopes, dreams, goals, and prejudices of his/her own. Being that you are spending a feat on this ability, most of those hopes and dreams and whatnot aren't going to be made contrary to your own, but the cohort will need to be treated like a person, and not a trapb@$!!. I'll run the cohort outside of combat, though the owning player can take over in certine circumstances (the party splits up, wizard bob goes with group A, wizard bob's cohort rob goes with group B...I'll let the player run both, so long as we're not in a circumstance where I actually seperate the two groups of players).
Followers - Followers gained through leadership will be run similar to cohorts...only they are much more background characters. They will be somewhat fleshed out, and will need to be treated well to keep their loyalty. It's preferable to keep followers out of combat, as NPC classes don't hold up well to monsters, but if it happens, the player will make their decisions. Out side of combat, I'll run the followers so the player can interact with them.
Mercenaries - It doesn't happen often, but sometimes the party will pay an NPC to go dungeon delving with them. This will be a full blown NPC, ran by me, with motives and goals that you likely know nothing about.
Animal Companions and Eidolons - In combat the player will control these creatures within the bounds of the specific class abilities. Outside of combat the player will mostly control the creature, with me being able to step in at any time I see fit. Though the eidolon doesn't really die when the run out of hitpoints, it still feels pain, and will need to be convinced to do things that are excedingly reckless. Thogh the lion understands that the party's horses aren't aceptable to eat, the lion will still go hunting from time to time...and may bring down someone's cattle, someone's child...someone's goat familiar.
I have to say I'm in the let the player do the hard work in combat camp..if I'm trying to run 4 or 5 creatures in an encounter I dont want the added burden off having to play the wizards familiar and the ranger's/druid's companion and the summoners eidolon..and all the summoned creatures and the paladins followers from his leadership feat..
|
|
We've had a shocking lack of Leadership type stuff, over the decades, but plenty of Druids, multiple Sorcerers and Wizards with Familiars, and a couple of Clerics that went Command / Rebuke happy (as well as the usual suspects casting Summon Monster or Summon Nature's Ally like it's on sale).
Mindless or unable-to-talk-back minions, like Summoned critters or Rebuked undead (air creatures, fire creatures, earth creatures, water creatures, plants, scalykind, spiders, whatever...), get run by the player, with no real issue. (Not that rebuke / command builds are viable in Pathfinder, without some house rules and custom feats, making it a moot point, these days.)
Druid's companions and Wizard's familiars take their directions from the PC, but will occasionally have 'attitude' or balk at unreasonable demands, which seems to be the universal assumption among the three of us who DM regularly. If someone were to take Leadership, the 'minions' would react the same way, which is pretty much how we've run it since way, way back, with Henchmen and Hirelings and that passle of weird creatures Rangers got at 9th level (as well as all of the Followers that Clerics, Fighters, etc. got at 'name' level if they established a temple or built a keep or whatever).
That being said, my gaming group loves nothing more than 'pet classes' in the various MMOs we play, such as EQ Necromancers & Magician / Conjurers, DAoC Bonedancers, Cabalists, Spiritmasters, Enchanters, Druids, etc, SWG Creature Handlers, WoW Warlocks & Hunters, AoC Demonolists & Necromancers, CoH Controllers, CoV Masterminds, etc. My first exposure to online gaming was as part of a guild that consisted of almost a hundred Necromancers (a guild that was the first ever to be banned en masse for being egregious dicks, which I somehow escaped, being one of the few members to not have been reported for extreme dickishness...), as well as being a founding member of a City of Villains super-group that consisted entirely of Robotics Masterminds (so much role-playing goodness! We were out to make the world a better place, with no disease or crime or hate or fear, or pesky free will or independent thought...). I'm pretty darn used to mindless minions that obey me without question, explaining my love for Rebuke / Command Clerics and 3.5 Conjurers, etc. who could speak Infernal / Celestial to their critters and order them around.
I'd imagine that gamers coming to D&D from these sorts of backgrounds, even if it's single-player stuff like Diablo, are going to expect to be able to order their 'pokemon' around without back-talk, and I'd want to reinforce the difference to them between Summoned critters and a Druid's furry friend, or, especially, an intelligent familiar that may well have it's own agenda and likes and dislikes and alignment like a Pseudo-dragon or Imp.
We may never have seen the Wicked Witch of the West's flying monkeys telling her that something was too dangerous and to go stuff it, but an animal companion or familiar is less 'flying monkey minions' and more 'BJ & the Bear' or 'Grizzly Adams.'
In my Freeport game, the Transmuter's raven familiar struck up a friendship with the parrot familiar of a mage on a ship they were travelling, and had to be shooed off to sit high up in the rigging, so that their 'profound' Int 6 conversation didn't get on everyone's nerves, since they were both delighted to find another talking bird and wouldn't stop blathering on. Then again, they saved the ship from running aground, flying overhead and navigating the ship through sandbar-riddled shallow waters while being pursued, so they earned their keep (the parrot was trained to do this, the raven just shouted louder when the parrot croaked 'Sandbar! Turn left!' in an attempt to be like his brightly colored buddy).
So, I roleplayed the raven, but the PC got to boss it around, even if it would occasionally give some sass, such as the time when the Fighter needed to shrug out of a spiked chain wrapped around his lower body before he drowned and the Mage shouted 'Take off your pants!' and the entire table stopped and looked at the player, and I held up the 'talking bird' hand and said in my talking-bird-voice, 'Awkward.'
I'm in the both camp. More on the DM side though. The closer the NPCs relationship is to the PC the more the PC runs the character in joint activities (i.e. combat, exploration, etc.). It's a gradual thing. My PCs are pretty good about keeping it fair with NPCs and I step in as needed to help things along and give the NPCs opinions as needed. The PCs never have 100% control though. It's an NPC, not an extra PC. Sometimes there are things going on with NPCs that the players have little control over (i.e. NPC breaks up with significant other and goes on a bender...). Keeping up a "life" for the NPCs helps the PCs deal with them as "real people", not just card board cut outs. As an aside, I spend quite a bit of time on my NPCs personalities and goals. The more important the NPC is, or becomes, the more time I spend working on that.
I use a mix.
If the PC is interacting with his cohort, I run the cohort. I am the source of what the cohort knows and, if sent off to run some errands, I am the source of what the cohort does and reports back to his boss.
In combat, I have the player run the cohort as long as the PC isn't abusing the cohort's loyalty. Then I'll be sure to let him know the cohort isn't happy about it. Having the cohort do blatantly self-sacrificial things is a sure way to have no cohort for a good long time (word gets out about how a PC treats his cohorts) and thus have a feat that's doing the PC no good. Ultimately, I assume that, as far as combat goes, the PC and his cohort are coordinated enough in their efforts that being played by the PC is a good way of handling it.
The way I see it, the PC has invested a feat and that's significant. But a cohort is WAY better than the benefit given by most other feats. And it's a free-willed individual not an automaton, so some DM involement is warranted and necessary. The cohort is inclined to agree to the PC's wishes, so I play it that way when I'm playing the cohort. But he's not stupid.
Exactly the way I handle it in my games. The PC generally runs the cohort until the cohort is out of sight on an errand or whatnot, or until I feel the need to step in and veto any action I think a cohort would refuse to take. They are living, thinking individuals, not robots. It is easier on me (and more satisfying to the player who spent a feat on it) to let the player run the NPC, but I will occasionally take over for the reasons mentioned, or if it would be fun from a RP perspective (comic relief, grumbling at unsavory tasks, etc.).
It seems like my philosophy is similar to a lot of people's here. Let the players mostly run them and do all the grunt work, but the DM takes control occassionally to add flavor or do something the Player doesn't know about. Personally, I think this helps make the cohort, companion, or whatever more unique.
I don't see any reason the GM should have control of a summon or animal companion except through the obvious course of action - magical takeover. Cohorts have a bit more leeway, they would be more PC than your average NPC but more NPC than your average PC. But something you conjured out of thin air or is given you by a class feature, I don't see why a GM should have control of it. Having the GM be the arbitrary controller of a summon or animal companion is unfair to the player. I had one game with one of those crazy GMs who ran PCs-v-Game and while he didn't control the animal companion, he made arbitrary rulings concerning what it would do. More often than not, the Druid had no animal companion because it would run away.
|
RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16
|
Cartigan,
The animal companion is the one player-connected character that has specific rules about who controls it: animal companions are restricted by the number of tricks they know, and by the ranks in Animal Handling the PC invests.
It's been my experience that PC druids and rangers who are given free rein to run their animal companions will eventually ignore these restrictions and assume that the companions have a full-time telepathic bond with their masters.
I sympathize with you about the guy with poor GMing skills.
I allow the player to run such NPCs, but reserve the right as DM/GM to take control of said NPC at any time for any reason.
Cartigan,
The animal companion is the one player-connected character that has specific rules about who controls it: animal companions are restricted by the number of tricks they know, and by the ranks in Animal Handling the PC invests.
It's been my experience that PC druids and rangers who are given free rein to run their animal companions will eventually ignore these restrictions and assume that the companions have a full-time telepathic bond with their masters.
I sympathize with you about the guy with poor GMing skills.
Thats my experience as well, regardless of whether or not the PCs intend to do it. My GM forces players to bump the int up if they want to do that, at the very least.
I allow the player to run such NPCs, but reserve the right as DM/GM to take control of said NPC at any time for any reason.
This is my MO as well. And mostly I invoke my right as DM when the PC makes the NPC act entirely out of character. I've even had a player who tried to dictate the actions of another player's Familiar. Ballsy.
Cohorts: DM run until battle, then the PC can make decisions for them assuming he isn't a prick about it.
Followers: DM run, I've never had them get into battle. Assumably if they did, they'd probably run the hell away and hide.
Summoned monsters: PC run. They brought them into this world, and besides, it's just for one battle, and it's too much of a headache to try and give them personalities and such for one fight. If the player likes to summon the same thing over and over again, they might develop a bit of a quirk for humor.
Summoned animals: DM run. They're animals. Can't really be given a personality.
Animal companions/familiars: Treated as cohorts, for the most part. Again, the unwritten rule is to have the creatures act as they normally would.
Eidolon: Special case, PC run fully. It's a PART of the summoner, after all.
Gated or planeshifted in creatures: Treated as cohorts.
Cohorts: DM run until battle, then the PC can make decisions for them assuming he isn't a prick about it.
Followers: DM run, I've never had them get into battle. Assumably if they did, they'd probably run the hell away and hide.
Summoned monsters: PC run. They brought them into this world, and besides, it's just for one battle, and it's too much of a headache to try and give them personalities and such for one fight. If the player likes to summon the same thing over and over again, they might develop a bit of a quirk for humor.
Summoned animals: DM run. They're animals. Can't really be given a personality.
Animal companions/familiars: Treated as cohorts, for the most part. Again, the unwritten rule is to have the creatures act as they normally would.
Eidolon: Special case, PC run fully. It's a PART of the summoner, after all.
Gated or planeshifted in creatures: Treated as cohorts.
I disagree with you on the Eidolon. I see it as the same as an AniCom. It is its own being, you just summoned it into this world. It does not share thoughts with the PC inately.
I disagree with you on the Eidolon. I see it as the same as an AniCom. It is its own being, you just summoned it into this world. It does not share thoughts with the PC inately.
Yet at every turn it is described as intrinsically linked to the Summoner and molded by its thoughts and desires. So how do you propose it is the same as an Animal Companion?
In fact, it is described as an "aspect" of the outsider the Summoner made a pact with. Unless I am missing my definitions, it is basically defined as created uniquely by the Summoner
Yet at every turn it is described as intrinsically linked to the Summoner and molded by its thoughts and desires. So how do you propose it is the same as an Animal Companion?
I disagree with you on the Eidolon. I see it as the same as an AniCom. It is its own being, you just summoned it into this world. It does not share thoughts with the PC inately.
Thats true. They have link, and so are sharing thoughts. I would still say that sometimes the GM can grab the reins away for some good RP, like revealing something that is going on in his home plane, or b*&!*ing about him getting killed too much.
|
RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16
|
Yet at every turn it is described as intrinsically linked to the Summoner and molded by its thoughts and desires. So how do you propose it is the same as an Animal Companion?
In fact, it is described as an "aspect" of the outsider the Summoner made a pact with. Unless I am missing my definitions, it is basically defined as created uniquely by the Summoner
The issue here is that the Paizo staff plays the game such that the PCs cohort, animal companion, familiar, etc. are always controlled by the player. (When the cohort sorcerer rises in level, who picks out the NPC's new spells and feat? The player, of course.)
So is the Summoner's Eidolon, so they run it that way, too. (When the Summoner rises in level, who picks out the Eidolon's evolutions?)
But the Eidolon is not an aspect of the PC. It's an Outsider, and a fragment of an impossibly vast Outsider, at that. The PC can banish it at will, and at sufficient levels can teleport it to his side. But he can no more control it than he can an animal companion. (It's thoughts are probably even farther from human.)
This issue first struck me when James Jacobs commented that the Summoner was for "players who want to play the monster". And our reply was "no, it's for players who want to watch the GM run monster-versus-monster battles." Subsequent chat discussions with Paizo staff convinced me this was an issue of play-style.
|
|
Ya know, it IS really interesting seeing people's responses to your post. Me, I've always been of the belief that my PC's can control their companions/summons/cohorts pretty much as they see fit. Now, most of my PC's never TAKE the leadership feat because they think it's too cheesy, but as far as the whole animal companion/summoned creature thing goes, I don't see why they CAN'T control them. Often times, my players will choose to play a summoner or druid BECAUSE they get a cool companion that isn't normally available to the player.
Now, I can see both sides to the argument. Having the players control their own companions and cohorts seemingly telepathically DOES kind of mess up roleplaying a little bit, and it even circumvents some of the rules (Handle Animal and Companion Tricks). However, my group has a lot more fun without those rules in place, and I that's why I don't use them. I'm currently running a very rules-strict game with a friend of mine online, because we enjoy having to find ways to use the rules as implemented and find a way to make them effective. But, for the most part, my group doesn't care for things like Handle Animal, so we don't use it.
|
RPG Superstar Season 9 Top 32
|
Mysef, I work together with the player. The player tells me what kind of character his character is looking to hire, and I give him a rough sketch of some of the most likely candidates and how they present themselves. He hires his cohort from the selection, or else continues to look, and when he's happy, I build the stat block for the NPC.
If I'm busy, I will sometimes assign that NPC to another player to run, if there's somebody who can spare the attention and brain cells.
This is how I like to handle it too! I like it.
In one regard, though, I have finicky players who don't like "running somebody else's henchman". I'll keep working on them to be better role-players.
To amend what I said earlier - in all cases where the cohort, companion, etc, has access to feats, the PC chooses them.
When I say the DM controls them, I mean as far as their in character behavior goes. So a cohort outside of combat is controlled by the DM - they act however the character in question would act. When that cohort levels up, the PC chooses what feats to go with.
As for Eidolons, I maintain that they're completely connected to the summoner, who controls them - you guessed it - completely. They are an outsider, but they're not one who's just been tamed like an animal companion, but one that's been bound completely to the summoner - if not outright created by said summoner, given his ability to shape the outsider to his will.
I used to rely heavily on random charts to produce personalities for cohorts/henchmen...I used to do it for intelligent weapons too..which gave mr a sword that had hematophobia once..that was fun
|
|
Neither myself when I DM'd nor my current DM have much interest in running another player's Cohort. The player paid for it, after all, and the DM has their hands full running the actual game.
The only restrictions we put on cohorts is that they can't take Item Creation Feats and any treasure they get is part of the player's stash.
Cohorts are explicitly NPCs and thus by definition NON player characters. The DM controls their actions in game, although the players get to define the character (mechanics and personalities).
Nonsentient "pet" class features, such as a basic animal companion, are jointly controlled by the DM and the Player. The player has a defined set of interactions with the "pet", ie Tricks and the Handle Animal skill. Using a trick signals the DM to have the creature perform the trick. Using Handle Animal signals the DM to adjudicate whatever the player is trying to get the "pet" to do. Otherwise, it acts like a somewhat tame and domesticated animal of its type.
Sentient "pet" class features, such as a familiar, paladin mount, or Eidolon, are totally player controlled. They are part of the PC, mechanically, and are intelligent enough for the PC to tell them exactly what to do and for them to follow through on that.
---
That's all IMO, of course. I don't allow cohorts to adventure with the party in my tabletop games, and we don't get many druids or rangers. In play by post games, I have all the time I need to play the players' cohorts and pets as well as my own NPCs.
I let the players run them. It is one less thing I have to worry about. If the players ever abuse the privilege then I would step in, but so far it has not been an issue.
In the games I've DMed I use a mix as well. In combat I let the player control the cohort/companion/whatever, but in roleplaying/social situations I'll play the NPC.
In combat I've already got enough to do, and like people have said if a player has expended a feat to get a cohort or has a psychological investment in their companion then they should feel that they benefit from it more than anyone else and controlling it gives them that sense.
I remove leadership from the game and thus cohorts are more organically gained. Indeed over the course of a career the heroes are often sought out by fledgling adventurers to learn from the PCs. As such I generally don't have issues with mindless cohort diplomancers and healbots unless I really want their presence in the game.
In actual play the cohorts generally do what the PCs tell them to, assuming that one or more PCs are shouting out commands with free actions. In situations where the PCs can't direct them, they tend to adopt moderately defensive yet still logical strategies.
Animal Companions are fanatically loyal to their masters and in general in tune to their master's intent. Even though they are animal intelligence I typically assume that the "team" has worked together enough that handle animal checks are assumed to pass except in high degrees of duress.
Summoned creatures are typically run by the PC caster, IMC they exist more as reflections of actual creatures rather than the creature itself.
Followers definitely tend towards defensive postures in any sort of combat situation. Mercenaries will form defensive lines while lantern bearers will cower or run.
Some very interesting points have been raised and a darn good read.
As for me summoned critters are under the player's control to the limit of communication, ie Handle Animal, etc.
However I would like to pick people's brains on the eidolon. In my game there is a LE summoner and his friend. By the rules the eidolon is also LE. So what happens when the eidolon has had enough of being pushed first down the nasty possibly trap filled corridor just to save the "weakling rogue" or the "racially inferior half-orc gets the goodies but I get jack". As far as the eidolon goes he is sentient, intelligent but gets treated like sh!t, a slave. And a LE sentient creature ain't just going to take it, IMO.
Would the eidolon hold a pillow over the sleeping summoner's face only to let him go at the last minute saying "the only reason you're alive is because without you I'm nothing!" or is that going too far? Would he "just take it like an NPC" like any other summoned critter?
Um, it would be the opposite.
The eidolon stops existing without the Summoner. He is basically a god to him. Even if evil, I don't think stop existing is something the thing wants.
Plus, why would the eidolon see the PC sleep? Wouldn't he be sent back since Eidolon isn't needed to sleep?
As both a DM and player, I opt for the joint efforts of both player and DM when it comes to cohorts. The DM should run the personality and interactions between player or other entities. The player can roll attacks, etc., give commands (a cohort, has afterall, chosen to join himself to the PC), give suggestions, etc. Because it is a seperate personality, it's easier for the DM to run it, but that said, if a ersonality is written out and set for the cohort, a PC could just as easily play the cohort in interactions not including the PC to whom he is the cohort. Interaction between PC and his/her cohort should be run by the DM, or possibly, another PC in group might work too.
Here's some more relevant bits:
The Player Takes Over
...
However, the player should have enough information to role-play the henchman adequately. It is hard to run a character properly without such basic information as Strength, Intelligence, race, or level. Ideally, the player should not have to ask the DM, "Can my henchman do this?"
...
Establishing the personality of the henchman allows the DM to say "No, your henchman refuses to do that," with reason. The astute player will pick up on this and begin playing the henchman appropriately.
Role-Playing Henchmen
The player is responsible for deciding a henchman's actions, provided they are in character for the NPC. This is one of the advantages of the henchman over the hireling. The DM should only step in when the player is abusing or ignoring the personality of the NPC.
...
Clearly, there are times when the DM can step in and overrule a player decision regarding henchmen. There are things a henchman simply will not do.
I cut my RPG teeth on AD&D 2nd. As a GM for Pathfinder, I tend to follow the policy given above. I find it is the best balance between GM workload, Player expectation, and overall game fun.