| 3 people marked this as FAQ candidate. 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
There is a fight brewing with my gaming group over starting animal companions, in regards to whether or not the player gets to choose its starting feats and skills.
I personally am of the opinion that the player should get to choose because:
a1) The character can choose whether or not to accept a particular animal, and animals like people, are not homogeneous.
a2) The core book came out well before the beastiary, so for some time players had no alternative but to make choices for their first level companion anyway.
a3) The human alternate racial trait "Eye for Talent" causes a change in the animal companion because the character has a talent for picking favorable abilities.
a4) It just seems more fun.
On the other hand, the GM disagrees:
b1)While the animal's status as a companion will obviously change its developement, a starting companion has yet to deviate from racial norms.
I am hoping for a direct mechanical mention of starting companions and their skills and feats, either from published material or "the Word of Dev". Failing that, please sound off on your opinions on the issue.
|
the player gets to design the animal as per animal companion rules. it gets what ever skills the player wants, and the player picks the feats. the animals dont get any bonuses not listed in the druid section.
you dont use the bestiary at all for animal companions, except the few entries that are non-core options(like roc)
Animal companions are not the same as their bestiary equivalents. Obviously, a Roc at level 1 does not have Flyby Attack, Improved Critical (talons), Improved Initiative, Iron Will, Lightning Reflexes, Power Attack, Skill Focus (Perception), Weapon Focus (talons).
The rules specifically state that animal companions select their feats. How your GM chooses to run this is essentially up to him - he can either have the animals select their own feats as GM-controlled NPCs or he can allow the druid/cav/pal/ranger to select the feats. Personally, I would allow the player to select the feats, and that includes the level 1 feat for a level 1 druid's starting animal companion.
But really, your GM would also be justified in ruling that he selects all the feats for your animal companion, since it's your animal companion picking the feats and it's an NPC.
I don't think there's a good basis for saying that the level 1 feats are static for a specific type of animal companion but the player gets to pick all the rest, though. If that were true, the rules would include a list of what feats the companions start with at level 1, which is not provided. The bestiary entries for the normal versions of the creatures also don't tell you what feats they should have taken at level 1.
Ah, good point with the more powerful choices. I was so busy considering the horse (the arguement is actually over a cavalier's mount), that I didn't consider some of the nastier animals and their starting feats/skill points.
Omelite is correct although my personal opinion is that the player should be allowed to build his animal companion as he wants and that's because the animal companion is essentially a class ability.
Player. The DM doesn't get to pick whether the paladin gets a mount or a magic weapon does he?
Player. The DM doesn't get to pick whether the paladin gets a mount or a magic weapon does he?
No, because that decision is one the paladin himself makes.
Feats, on the other hand, are decided not by the paladin but by his mount, if he has one. His mount is not a player character, it is an NPC.
"Animal companions can assign skill ranks to any skill listed under Animal Skills." and "Animal companions should select their feats from those listed under Animal Feats." The druid/other master does not select the feats/skills, the animal does.
Almost any GM would allow the players to make the decisions for the animal, but since it's an NPC the GM would not be unjustified in saying he gets to make its decisions.
No it's not an NPC, it's a class ability that disguises itself as an NPC.
And do you really want to have players do nothing but dismissing their animal companion and calling a new one since they get one with the feats they want? Since calling a new animal companion doesn't cost you anything but time.
The player would control what the Animal Companion's is trained in. It is all there under the Druid class which other classes that get an animal companion would refer to. As long as the animal companion meets requirements, it can be selected by the player. The player has a LINK to the animal companion. It is like an extention of the Druid (or other class) just like a familiar is to a Wizard. There are limits though if the character cannot directly speak to the animal (for example combat flanking). Look at Bonus Tricks and Handle Animal skill.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The player would control what the Animal Companion's is trained in. It is all there under the Druid class which other classes that get an animal companion would refer to. As long as the animal companion meets requirements, it can be selected by the player. The player has a LINK to the animal companion. It is like an extention of the Druid (or other class) just like a familiar is to a Wizard. There are limits though if the character cannot directly speak to the animal (for example combat flanking). Look at Bonus Tricks and Handle Animal skill.
For bonus tricks, it specifically states that "The druid selects these bonus tricks." Handle animal also allows the trainer to teach the animal tricks of the trainer's choice, not of the animal's choice.
However, for feats and skills it says that the animal companion gets to choose what it takes, not the druid. Certainly it could be argued that the animal companion's bond with its master is strong enough that it will choose to take whatever feats and skills the druid wants it to. However, that is not laid out in the rules - it could just as well be that they will take whatever skills and feats they fancy, which is up to the GM and not the player.
HAVING an animal companion is a class feature. Getting to make its decisions for it is not. You can control its actions via tricks just like you could with any animal you've trained, but other than that you don't make any decisions for it.
|
|
The player would control what the Animal Companion's is trained in. It is all there under the Druid class which other classes that get an animal companion would refer to. As long as the animal companion meets requirements, it can be selected by the player. The player has a LINK to the animal companion. It is like an extention of the Druid (or other class) just like a familiar is to a Wizard. There are limits though if the character cannot directly speak to the animal (for example combat flanking). Look at Bonus Tricks and Handle Animal skill.For bonus tricks, it specifically states that "The druid selects these bonus tricks." Handle animal also allows the trainer to teach the animal tricks of the trainer's choice, not of the animal's choice.
However, for feats and skills it says that the animal companion gets to choose what it takes, not the druid. Certainly it could be argued that the animal companion's bond with its master is strong enough that it will choose to take whatever feats and skills the druid wants it to. However, that is not laid out in the rules - it could just as well be that they will take whatever skills and feats they fancy, which is up to the GM and not the player.
HAVING an animal companion is a class feature. Getting to make its decisions for it is not. You can control its actions via tricks just like you could with any animal you've trained, but other than that you don't make any decisions for it.
that would be like picking a sorcerers spells for them. its not the intention of the ability.
|
|
that would be like picking a sorcerers spells for them. its not the intention of the ability.The player would control what the Animal Companion's is trained in. It is all there under the Druid class which other classes that get an animal companion would refer to. As long as the animal companion meets requirements, it can be selected by the player. The player has a LINK to the animal companion. It is like an extention of the Druid (or other class) just like a familiar is to a Wizard. There are limits though if the character cannot directly speak to the animal (for example combat flanking). Look at Bonus Tricks and Handle Animal skill.For bonus tricks, it specifically states that "The druid selects these bonus tricks." Handle animal also allows the trainer to teach the animal tricks of the trainer's choice, not of the animal's choice.
However, for feats and skills it says that the animal companion gets to choose what it takes, not the druid. Certainly it could be argued that the animal companion's bond with its master is strong enough that it will choose to take whatever feats and skills the druid wants it to. However, that is not laid out in the rules - it could just as well be that they will take whatever skills and feats they fancy, which is up to the GM and not the player.
HAVING an animal companion is a class feature. Getting to make its decisions for it is not. You can control its actions via tricks just like you could with any animal you've trained, but other than that you don't make any decisions for it.
+1
It's a class ability. Druid chooses them.
Arguing otherwise is like saying that the Fighter can't choose his bonus feats since those too are a class ability.
I actually agree with Omelite here. It's less like choosing the sorcerer's spells and more like adjucating the result of the player's choice. For example the sorcerer chooses to have prestidigitation as a cantrip, he even chooses when he casts it and what he wants the effect of those choices to be, but ultimately the GM is responsible for determining the result of those choices.
The player can choose to have an animal companion, he can even choose what kind he wants, but the player does not control the results of that choice.
That being said, my group has decided to allow the player to choose skills and feats, with the typical executive veto granted to the GM.
+1that would be like picking a sorcerers spells for them. its not the intention of the ability.The player would control what the Animal Companion's is trained in. It is all there under the Druid class which other classes that get an animal companion would refer to. As long as the animal companion meets requirements, it can be selected by the player. The player has a LINK to the animal companion. It is like an extention of the Druid (or other class) just like a familiar is to a Wizard. There are limits though if the character cannot directly speak to the animal (for example combat flanking). Look at Bonus Tricks and Handle Animal skill.For bonus tricks, it specifically states that "The druid selects these bonus tricks." Handle animal also allows the trainer to teach the animal tricks of the trainer's choice, not of the animal's choice.
However, for feats and skills it says that the animal companion gets to choose what it takes, not the druid. Certainly it could be argued that the animal companion's bond with its master is strong enough that it will choose to take whatever feats and skills the druid wants it to. However, that is not laid out in the rules - it could just as well be that they will take whatever skills and feats they fancy, which is up to the GM and not the player.
HAVING an animal companion is a class feature. Getting to make its decisions for it is not. You can control its actions via tricks just like you could with any animal you've trained, but other than that you don't make any decisions for it.
+1
"As you gain levels, your animal companion
improves as well, usually at 4th or 7th level, in addition
to the standard bonuses noted on Table 3–8. Instead
of taking the listed benefit at 4th or 7th level, you can
instead choose to increase the companion’s Dexterity
and Constitution by 2."
If the Player (which is you above) can make the choice here then it goes for the rest. There is no place it says the DM or GM makes these choices. Everything is selectable (skills, feats, etc.) based on meeting requirements, just like a player would his own. The only areas the DM or GM decides is if the animal can do a certain action that the player is asking the animal to do based on comunication. Handle Animal only covers so much. This is reason why there is the Speak with Animals spell.
For those saying "animal companion is a class ability, therefore you choose," it's not that simple.
Yes, you get to choose WHAT your animal companion is, assuming you can locate one. You do not automatically make all leveling decisions for it, except those it says you can make, because it is a separate entity with its own mind whose decisions you don't make. Though with you as its master, it's likely to level itself up how you want it to unless you're making it do something stupid. However, it's still ultimately the animal companion's choice whether it wants to take feat X or Y.
It's like saying Leadership lets you custom-build a level X NPC. Some GMs allow you to do that, but others will simply say "here's the list of NPCs that you attract as possible cohorts and their stats/feats/etc." The ball is left in the GM's court because cohorts, like animal companions, are NPCs. A GM who tells you that the animal companion you found took Weapon Focus Bite as his first feat, rather than letting you customize it, is not overstepping his bounds.
If the Player (which is you above) can make the choice here [choice of whether to do +2 DEX and CON or the normal level advancement] then it goes for the rest.
No. The rules DO say the druid chooses whether his animal companion gets the +2 DEX +2 CON option or the normal option. The rules say that the animal companion, on the other hand, chooses its own skills and feats. Just because the druid can shape part of the companion's leveling does not mean he has full control. He has as much control as the rules say he does, and any additional control the GM chooses to give him on top of that.
Please FAQ this.
If my GM kept on trying to argue that I couldn't choose the feats, I would just keep on changing animal companions at every opportunity. That is 110% RAW.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Yes, you get to choose WHAT your animal companion is, assuming you can locate one. You do not automatically make all leveling decisions for it, except those it says you can make, because it is a separate entity with its own mind whose decisions you don't make.
ANd how pray tell does the animal decide to get faster, more agile, etc, or decide to train with light/medium/heavy armor without you?
Yes, you get to choose WHAT your animal companion is, assuming you can locate one. You do not automatically make all leveling decisions for it, except those it says you can make, because it is a separate entity with its own mind whose decisions you don't make.ANd how pray tell does the animal decide to get faster, more agile, etc, or decide to train with light/medium/heavy armor without you?
How do you get it to become faster? Do you have to dedicate your time to speed training exercises every day until you finally get it high enough level to take that feat? No. There's no requirement that a druid must allocate his time for this purpose. Likewise, a druid who obtains a brand new 9HD animal companion does not have to train his companion in all 5 of its feats before it actually gets to take feats. He communes with nature for 24 hours, he gets the animal companion, and it gets 5 feats immediately.
Likewise, there's no requirement that an animal companion must be practiced in the art of wearing light barding in order to wear it proficiently. In fact, usually they don't wear armor UNTIL they're proficient with it. Sure, it doesn't make a whole lot of sense, but that's why you shouldn't put rules under the realism microscope. The rules are the rules, and any additional rules you want to add for realism is houseruling. As it is, to take armor proficiency light all a creature has to do, animal or not, is choose it as a feat.
I'm with Omelite on this one. Since the rules have two very specific entities choosing abilities; "you" and "animal companion", we have to assume those are different, or they would all say "you". When it says "animal companion", it's the companion that makes the choice - whether the DM allows the player to do this is up to him, just like the rest of the AC's actions.
It's not like the DM picking the sorcerer's spells, it's like the DM picking the feats for the creatures the sorcerer calls with Planar Binding.
Please FAQ this.
If my GM kept on trying to argue that I couldn't choose the feats, I would just keep on changing animal companions at every opportunity. That is 110% RAW.
That's exactly the behaviour i see happening when a DM insists that he selects the feats and skills for my animal companion.
And that's exactly why in my group we have a house rule that you can change all of the feats, skills and the granted ability score increases of your animal companion everytime you gain a level, that way you get what you want from your class ability and it doesn't hurt the game by having the druid/ranger/whatever say we sit here and we wait until i can call a new animal companion.
The player plays both the druid and the animal companion.
"The druid chooses" == the player chooses.
"The animal companion chooses" == the player chooses.
The language in the rules is designed to make it clear that these feats/skills are the animal companion's rather than the druid's. There is no reason to believe that the animal companion, unlike every other entity created/controlled by the players, is not designed by the player.
How do you get it to become faster?
Running Jogging etc.
Do you have to dedicate your time to
speed training exercises every day until you finally get it high enough level to take that feat? No. There's no requirement that a druid must allocate his time for this purpose.
Other characters are assumed to be training on their downtime as well.
Likewise, a druid who obtains a brand new 9HD animal companion does not have to train his companion in all 5 of its feats before it actually gets to take feats. He communes with nature for 24 hours, he gets the animal companion, and it gets 5 feats immediately.
I'm not remotely arguing to the contrary.
Likewise, there's no requirement that an animal companion must be practiced in the art of wearing light barding in order to wear it proficiently. In fact, usually they don't wear armor UNTIL they're proficient with it. Sure, it doesn't make a whole lot of sense, but that's why you shouldn't put rules under the realism microscope. The rules are the rules, and any additional rules you want to add for realism is houseruling.
Like the rule for the DM picking the animal companions abilities?
The player controls his character. Either the character or the player controls the the animal. Either Bob the player says "Fluffy is learning light armor proficiency" or the Oaknut the Druid trains fluffy by putting him in armor every day.
|
Raw, you don't get to pick skills/feats. The companion does, which means it's up to the DM to determine how much control he wants you to have over the creature.
In an actual game as a dm, I would let my players pick those skills and feats, with the possible exception of that particular kind of player who is going to create some cheese-filled ridiculous monstrosity. For that player... well, he gets a rabid chihuahua. :p Ok, maybe not, but I'll definitely be watching what he's trying to do with that companion and if necessary I'll change feats out.
He can keep calling all the new animal companions he wants. The dm can restrict the choice to what's in the area, and basically just keep handing him the same animal companion sheet if he really wants :/
If the dm is being particular about what you get, you can ask him to change. If he doesn't want to, you can accept it or you can find another table to deal with. Trying to hit the "reset" button by summoning new companions doesn't work very well if your dm is already trying to shoehorn you into a particular creature.
An animal companion fills the same nebulous area as cohorts. They assist the player, but aren't the player. It's up to the dm to determine how much control the player has over these in between characters. Oftentimes, the dm's I've played with have had another person at the table run the creatures/cohorts for the player in question.
Note that I'm not advocating trying to shoehorn a player into something, just that it's not something the player is going to really be able to resist in the context of the game.
I could see someone doing it to stop specific combinations from reaching play, but in general, it would only annoy people to do it all the time.
He can keep calling all the new animal companions he wants. The dm can restrict the choice to what's in the area, and basically just keep handing him the same animal companion sheet if he really wants :/If the dm is being particular about what you get, you can ask him to change. If he doesn't want to, you can accept it or you can find another table to deal with. Trying to hit the "reset" button by summoning new companions doesn't work very well if your dm is already trying to shoehorn you into a particular creature.
You know where this leads right?
To someone leaving the game (either player or DM) because the DM wanted, for some reason, to make the character weaker by having a worse animal companion than the player can get.And anyway if you follow the rules about animal companions you really can't do something omgtoopowerfull!!!!!! with that.
He can keep calling all the new animal companions he wants. The dm can restrict the choice to what's in the area, and basically just keep handing him the same animal companion sheet if he really wants :/If the dm is being particular about what you get, you can ask him to change. If he doesn't want to, you can accept it or you can find another table to deal with. Trying to hit the "reset" button by summoning new companions doesn't work very well if your dm is already trying to shoehorn you into a particular creature.
You know where this leads right?
To someone leaving the game (either player or DM) because the DM wanted, for some reason, to make the character weaker by having a worse animal companion than the player can get.
And anyway if you follow the rules about animal companions you really can't do something omgtoopowerfull!!!!!! with that.
The situation is already going that direction full tilt when the player started throwing out Animal Companions to try to force the GM to give in. You could argue that by returning the same ACs that the GM isn't helping, but he's not making it any worse either.
Instead what either the player, the GM, or anybody else including but not limited to their kindergarden teacher should do is step in and have them discuss it like adults instead of trying to browbeat each other into submission.
As it turns out, it has a much better end result; as my own situation can attest.
Let's say a 1st level Druid summons his animal companion, a horse, fresh from the woods. Is there any logical reason why a wild mustang, which has never worn a saddle before let alone barding, would have any kind of armor proficiency just because the player wants it to?
Let's say a 1st level Druid summons his animal companion, a horse, fresh from the woods. Is there any logical reason why a wild mustang, which has never worn a saddle before let alone barding, would have any kind of armor proficiency just because the player wants it to?
Magic, divine intervation, god's will, fate, nature bond take your pick.
Omelite is correct by raw. It works almost exactly like the Leadership feat, you don't get to choose your cohort or make it's sheet. Unless of course, the DM lets you do it.
Likewise, there's no requirement that an animal companion must be practiced in the art of wearing light barding in order to wear it proficiently. In fact, usually they don't wear armor UNTIL they're proficient with it. Sure, it doesn't make a whole lot of sense, but that's why you shouldn't put rules under the realism microscope. The rules are the rules, and any additional rules you want to add for realism is houseruling.Like the rule for the DM picking the animal companions abilities?
The player controls his character. Either the character or the player controls the the animal. Either Bob the player says "Fluffy is learning light armor proficiency" or the Oaknut the Druid trains fluffy by putting him in armor every day.
The animal companion is an NPC, so by RAW it is under the GM's control. To give control of the animal companion to the player would be a houserule.
The way players interact with their animal companions should make this crystal clear. You tell the animal companion what to do using tricks, just as you would any other trained animal. If the player simply got to control the companion, then it wouldn't need tricks as the player could simply choose to make it do whatever he wanted, but that's not the case.
The animal companion is not a PC. It is an NPC. A reasonable GM is going to give the player a good amount of control over what the animal takes because the animal wants to serve its master, but it's still the animal/GM choosing, not the player or the druid. I would even go so far as to say it's not unreasonable for a GM to give the player no say in the feats an animal has when the druid first meets it, since the druid's wishes were not important to the animal during those first X feats.
I would even go so far as to say it's not unreasonable for a GM to give the player no say in the feats an animal has when the druid first meets it, since the druid's wishes were not important to the animal during those first X feats.
Its completely unreasonable. It takes control of a players class feature out of their hands. How you build your animal companion is just as important to the player as how they build their character. The animal companion belongs to the player. It may act up once in a while, but the rules that were quoted to you repeatedly say "the player" or "the druid" for picking feats. That's the raw. You want to call another ruling a house rule then you find some wording in the books that supports your assertion.
What i want to know is WHY a dm would want to do this? It would be like every time a fighter wanted to buy arrows saying "nope, they won't sell you arrows, no arrows for sale, i controll the NPC shopkeepers.. mUAHAHAHAHA!" It serves no purpose except for being a prat.
The other problem is that you're assuming that the Druid attained first level the day before he starts, and had no contact with the animal companion before then. I can see it now.
Merlin: AHhh.. the time has come young one You are to attain first level
Apprentice: Why is that master?
Merlin: a ragtag group has assembled in the local in. A stranger has just walked in and tacked a notice for kobold hunters onto the board. Quickly, bond with this guinea pig. He has skill focus: perform. Absolutely adorable.
Aprentice: Hey, can't i wait till tommorow and get a differe....
merlin: GO!
You would think that since the druid's animal companion class feature is a large part of the druids class, that the druid has had some actual training with an animal companion in his 16 + years of life
BigNorseWolf, you see the way the game was meant to be played. The character's background, how he or she came to that character class, how the yound Druid came to pick that type of animal based on reasonable terrian around that character is growing up in, how the young Druid went out to study some animals of that type until the young Druid decided that was the one and then calls/bonds to that animal, Druid trains that animal as its matures in and out of adventuring, the animal gains a devotion of the Druid, etc.
Again, the DM/GM has the job of deciding what is reasonable for the animal companion. How the animal can act based on the communicate between the Druid and the animal via handle animal/speak with animals spell. As DM/GM, this is how I see it. I have enough to worry about on my end then trying to control an animal companion.
This is all part of Role Playing and how a set of game rules blends into that which is what we call the best Role Playing game ever created called Pathfinder (D&D 3.75).
+1 to blackbloodtroll comment.
|
|
Wow, this is a ludicrously drawn-out discussion... RAW says that the NPC picks out their own feats - and since an NPC is obviously not an actual person (ie. cannot literally pick their own feats) it falls to the players.
Most GMs will allow you to select your companion's feats (perhaps on the justification that you raised this animal yourself, for instance) just as they allow you to pick the classes, skills, feats etc. of a cohort obtained via the Leadership feat.
While I agree that it may also be a reasonable argument to say that 'it's a normal animal so it shouldn't be special' this seems unnecessary - taking choice away from the players is usually a bad thing.
I know of no current, or past game, run by anyone, including society play, that runs animal companions like that. I see no reason, whether RAI or RAW to do so. Taking away such choices from a player is a very cruel thing in my opinion.
Thank you.
BigNorseWolf, you see the way the game was meant to be played. The character's background, how he or she came to that character class, how the yound Druid came to pick that type of animal based on reasonable terrian around that character is growing up in, how the young Druid went out to study some animals of that type until the young Druid decided that was the one and then calls/bonds to that animal, Druid trains that animal as its matures in and out of adventuring, the animal gains a devotion of the Druid, etc.
Oh, for sure I can see your point for the first level druid with his starting animal companion. At the very least, he could have mechanically kept looking for new animal companions until he got one with the stats he wanted.
However, let's say a level 20 druid's animal companion dies. He decides to commune with nature for 24 hours in a creature's natural habitat to find a new one. He finds the replacement, which he just met today, but which has 8 feats. Does he get to choose what feats it has? By RAW, he does not, and by realism he should not either.
Most GMs will allow you to select your companion's feats (perhaps on the justification that you raised this animal yourself, for instance) just as they allow you to pick the classes, skills, feats etc. of a cohort obtained via the Leadership feat.
While I agree that it may also be a reasonable argument to say that 'it's a normal animal so it shouldn't be special' this seems unnecessary - taking choice away from the players is usually a bad thing.
For sure I agree that it's a bad way to GM. It causes the GM more trouble and could make the players disgruntled. However, it's RAW.
Likewise, by RAW you don't get to custom-design your own cohort. You do if your GM lets you, and many do for ease of play and player satisfaction, but it's not something that's in the rules. It's an NPC, so by RAW the player does not make any decisions about what classes he happened to take, what feats, what skills, etc. As a GM, I would allow my players to custom-build their cohorts according to certain creation standards, but that's my adjudication and not part of the rules.
BigNorseWolf, you see the way the game was meant to be played. The character's background, how he or she came to that character class, how the yound Druid came to pick that type of animal based on reasonable terrian around that character is growing up in, how the young Druid went out to study some animals of that type until the young Druid decided that was the one and then calls/bonds to that animal, Druid trains that animal as its matures in and out of adventuring, the animal gains a devotion of the Druid, etc.Oh, for sure I can see your point for the first level druid with his starting animal companion. At the very least, he could have mechanically kept looking for new animal companions until he got one with the stats he wanted.
However, let's say a level 20 druid's animal companion dies. He decides to commune with nature for 24 hours in a creature's natural habitat to find a new one. He finds the replacement, which he just met today, but which has 8 feats. Does he get to choose what feats it has? By RAW, he does not, and by realism he should not either.
But when a druid "communes with nature," remember that for a druid, nature is god, so that druid is communing with his god. It's not that he is just sitting down and then grabbing the first animal that crosses his path, he is calling out to the spirit of nature to send him a champion to aid in his quest. It makes sense that nature would respond with something helpful to the druid, which is to say, something which has the feats the druid wants. (The only reason here I would change a player's animal's feats is if I KNOW that what he wants and what he needs based on what is coming up are different, and even then I would be very careful about it).
If we are talking about a 20th level druid, then they are getting a 16HD creature. Let's say the druid asks for a dog. There aren't any 16HD dogs wandering around, so nature is already custom making the dog to begin with. Why shouldn't nature also give the dog the abilities the druid really wants/needs it to have?
If we are talking about a 20th level druid, then they are getting a 16HD creature. Let's say the druid asks for a dog. There aren't any 16HD dogs wandering around, so nature is already custom making the dog to begin with. Why shouldn't nature also give the dog the abilities the druid really wants/needs it to have?
It could provide just what the player wants, but that's up to the GM, not up to the player. The player does not decide how specifically nature caters to his/her wishes, the GM does.
If we are talking about a 20th level druid, then they are getting a 16HD creature. Let's say the druid asks for a dog. There aren't any 16HD dogs wandering around, so nature is already custom making the dog to begin with. Why shouldn't nature also give the dog the abilities the druid really wants/needs it to have?It could provide just what the player wants, but that's up to the GM, not up to the player. The player does not decide how specifically nature caters to his/her wishes, the GM does.
Emphasis mine.
By that logic any divine spellcaster gets what spells his deity wants and not what the cleric/oracle/ranger etc. wants.
If we are talking about a 20th level druid, then they are getting a 16HD creature. Let's say the druid asks for a dog. There aren't any 16HD dogs wandering around, so nature is already custom making the dog to begin with. Why shouldn't nature also give the dog the abilities the druid really wants/needs it to have?It could provide just what the player wants, but that's up to the GM, not up to the player. The player does not decide how specifically nature caters to his/her wishes, the GM does.
I'm with you that by RAW the DM controls the animal companion, but also think -- and I think you are slightly agreeing with this? -- that the animal companion should be left by and large in the hands of the player. As leo points out, the end result of this logic is that clerics and druids no longer get to select their spells. I don't think you'll find a table that'll last long if the DM is being this controlling.
I was specifically making an argument in response to your "by realism he should not either" argument about the 20th level druid getting a new companion. By realism, the druid shouldn't get a 16HD dog. But he does. So as long as nature is making him this custom super-dog, why can't nature make him the custom super-dog that he wants?
|
|
You know where this leads right?
To someone leaving the game (either player or DM) because the DM wanted, for some reason, to make the character weaker by having a worse animal companion than the player can get.
And anyway if you follow the rules about animal companions you really can't do something omgtoopowerfull!!!!!! with that.
Yep, hence why I mentioned leaving the game in my post :P It's pretty clear that you've got a dm in this situation who feels a particular way about animal companions, and another one who feels the opposite way about them. If resolution cannot be found, then the only option left is for one or the other to leave the game.
Right now, I might not know about any omgtoopowerfull things for animal companions. But that doesn't mean they don't exist, or won't exist in the future with all the new splat being released by pazio. And so I reserve the right to make those decisions as necessary, as all good DM's reserve the right to make changes to maintain balance.
You can make an argument about a dm making ANY class feature weaker. Not many traps? Then trapfinding is less valuable.
Low ac enemies? Then weapon training is less valuable. Low hit point creatures? Then weapon specialization is less valuable. With the animal companion, it only seems weaker if you're used to giving the player extra value beyond what the CRB specifies. When the dm determines what feats the animal companion has, it's no different than when he stats up a cohort, or a helpful npc, or even a villain.
Try looking at this from the other side.
The dm has this specific world he has created. In this world, the ecology is pretty set. His monsters all use the stats from the bestiary. His logic goes that feats aren't training for creatures so much as the natural abilities they develop as they mature.
So, to him, it seems ridiculous that a creature wouldn't get the abilities that others of its' kind naturally develop. Just because it's walking behind a druid doesn't mean that it's suddenly no longer a *insert animal here*. The idea that creatures of the same type have different abilities really doesn't make sense! Summon monster 1 doesn't let you pick the feats of the creature you summon. You don't have the option of summoning a creature with a nonstandard feat allocation, ever. Why wouldn't that remain true through animal companions?
He might even be trying to use the animal companion as part of a specific storyline. We don't know. We only have one side of the argument to evaluate.
Maybe the OP wanted to make a baboon in full plate wielding a greatclub, and the DM felt like that violated the precepts of his world. Maybe the OP wanted to select really terrible feats and the DM was trying to keep him from killing the usefulness of his companion.
We don't have the whole argument, but I don't see that as a reason to be biased against the player just because he was the poster :P
Remember...
Always look on the bright side of your life... *walks away whistling*
If we are talking about a 20th level druid, then they are getting a 16HD creature. Let's say the druid asks for a dog. There aren't any 16HD dogs wandering around, so nature is already custom making the dog to begin with. Why shouldn't nature also give the dog the abilities the druid really wants/needs it to have?It could provide just what the player wants, but that's up to the GM, not up to the player. The player does not decide how specifically nature caters to his/her wishes, the GM does.Emphasis mine.
By that logic any divine spellcaster gets what spells his deity wants and not what the cleric/oracle/ranger etc. wants.
The rules specifically say that you pick your own spells. They do not say you get to configure everything about your animal companion, and in fact they specifically say the animal chooses its own feats and skills.
You might be arguing that fluffwise it's similar to a diety not allowing a cleric to cast certain spells whimsically, but this isn't the fluff forum. The rules text is quite clear that you pick your spells and your animal companion (whose mind you do not inhabit) picks its feats.
Fluffwise, though, it makes complete sense that a diety might not allow you to cast a certain spell in a certain situation, for instance if you were using the spell for ends antithetical to the diety's purpose.
Honestly, there aren't many cases where a GM would typically exercise his control over what feats the animal companion took, or fluffwise that nature would provide a pet different than the druid wants. As I've said, I wouldn't ever exercise that control, and I'd leave the animal companion's feats and skills in the player's hands. I'm just pointing out that the GM in the OP has some amount of rules backing his decision, even if his ruling was made for a different reason.
However, let's say a level 20 druid's animal companion dies. He decides to commune with nature for 24 hours in a creature's natural habitat to find a new one. He finds the replacement, which he just met today, but which has 8 feats. Does he get to choose what feats it has? By RAW, he does not, and by realism he should not either.
Considering the druid is 20th level he should be so one with nature that he can go to the right spot pretty much anywhere on the planet and get the right critter that matches what he needs/wants.
By raw, the animal companion uses the animal companion rules. The animal companion rules ignore the skills and feats of the creature as it appears in the bestiary. ALL of the animals abilities not directly based on species, including the feats for racial hit dice, derive from it being the druids companion and thus from the druid. Hawk companions don't come with weapon finesse for example.
|
|
Most GMs will allow you to select your companion's feats (perhaps on the justification that you raised this animal yourself, for instance) just as they allow you to pick the classes, skills, feats etc. of a cohort obtained via the Leadership feat.
While I agree that it may also be a reasonable argument to say that 'it's a normal animal so it shouldn't be special' this seems unnecessary - taking choice away from the players is usually a bad thing.
For sure I agree that it's a bad way to GM. It causes the GM more trouble and could make the players disgruntled. However, it's RAW.
Likewise, by RAW you don't get to custom-design your own cohort. You do if your GM lets you, and many do for ease of play and player satisfaction, but it's not something that's in the rules. It's an NPC, so by RAW the player does not make any decisions about what classes he happened to take, what feats, what skills, etc. As a...
So what's the effective difference? If doing [x] makes you a bad GM, [x] should obviously not be done. If taking choice away from the player is agreed to be a mark of bad GMing, the GM should not take choice away from the player -- an obvious truism. In any reasonable game (the assumed default state), then, the player should receive the choice of what abilities their animal companion has - and this question is rendered entirely semantic.
|
|
Hah, taking choices away from the player is not necessarily bad GMing. That's a broad overstatement. There are plenty of situations where fewer choices create a more interesting world.
For example, do you allow your players to play any character in the bestiary? Why not? Isn't taking choices away from the player the mark of a bad GM?
Well, the core book says players don't get those choices normally in the first place. And it also says players don't normally choose skills/feats for their animal companion. The creature itself makes those choices.
This argument seems to be broken down to two elements now.
Argument 1: The book says no, so your dm gets to make the choice and determine the amount of control you have.
Argument 2: I should get to choose regardless of what my dm says because my dm should let me choose since it's a class feature.
It's pointless to argue that you should get to do something in spite of the rules. Your dm gets to decide whether you can override specific rules, so either way you're back to asking your dm.