A lot about the animal companion confuses me. First of all, according to the RAW, is an animal unable to so much as attack an enemy if it doesn't have the "attack" trick? Do GM's enforce this?
Also, who should control the companion? Common sense says that a player should control his pet but if it truly is as unintelligent as an animal, should the player be allowed to use it to set up flanks and do cunning tactical tricks? Should the GM just control it and have it charge headlong into danger?
I'm lost.
The animal will only attack apparent enemies. What that means varies by GM. If it were me it would mean that until the animal sees its master attacked it won't fight.
GM's normally do enforce it, but you can always push an animal to perform a trick it does not know.
As far as who should control the animal, there are no rule for that. That is up to the GM. I let my players control their own AC's. I have enough things to do as a GM. The animal should not be smart enough to flank intentionally. Now if a player wants the animal companion to move to a particular square he can command it to do so. I would require a move action since telling an animal to go to a specific spot in an unfamiliar area probably wont be too easy.
Animals are not completely stupid. They just are not as smart as people. I expect for them to use acrobatics if possible.
I also like use my stat boost to give an animal an intelligence of 3 so I can justify more feats, and better tactics.
The animal should not be smart enough to flank intentionally.The wolf has a bone to pick with you Wraith :P
Yeah I know pack tactics and all, but that is an exception. I was trying to give a general answer since not all GM's know enough about real life animals to know how to portray them.
edit:That is instincts more than intelligence. :)
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
A lot about the animal companion confuses me. First of all, according to the RAW, is an animal unable to so much as attack an enemy if it doesn't have the "attack" trick? Do GM's enforce this?
Also, who should control the companion? Common sense says that a player should control his pet but if it truly is as unintelligent as an animal, should the player be allowed to use it to set up flanks and do cunning tactical tricks? Should the GM just control it and have it charge headlong into danger?
I'm lost.
Don't forget that in addition to the attack trick there is the improved attack trick which you need for the AC to attack things that would normally scare the bejeezus out of normal animals. Undead for example.
Typically for an AC i suggest its starter Trick allotment to be Combat Training +1 extra trick for attack unusual foes and then add in extras from there as you level.
I usually let the PC control their own AC but will speak up if i think an action is out of bounds.
Generally I allow characters with an animal companion to choose a type of training and allow them an additional trick. If they wish to train the animal to do more, they have to do it while the campaign is progressing.
If a character has their animal companion put a stat point into INT though, I rule the animal is now supernaturally intelligent compared to most animals and understands verbal commands while within earshot of the PC, essentially training it in all tricks.
This might be broken, but it's understandable. Thus far, I haven't had a PC who wanted an animal companion.