|
Well it seems to me that there are two camps of thought. Some say no the GM cant controll my Animal companion, Eidolon/ familiar only I the player can decide what the companion does.
I suppose I am of the school of thought where the GM can use the animal companion/ Familair/ Eidolon to further the plot of the story.
Ie the wolf digging up a corpse, so the PCs get involved in a murder mystery,
Or the Imp familiar engaging in playful bantor with the PCs and others, and of course doing what the Imp is ultimately there to do, to tempt others towards the path of damnation, and making sure his master is firmly on that path by subtlely encouraging him to do morally questionable things.
But during a combat situation, I let the PCs have complete control of their Animal Companion/ Familiar / Eidalon.
I'm going to split a hair, just to show where, to me, the difference is:
1) DM "your wolf is digging in the ground and has discovered a corpse."
2) DM: "you notice your wolf has stopped and is pawing at the ground, as though starting to dig. what do you do?"
#1 is playing your companion for you.
#2 is using an action to show you that your companion has found something. He'd doing this instead of just saying "hey your companion found something under the ground with scent". it leaves /you/ the player, with the choice: investigate? call off the hound and ignore it? or whatever you want to do. The choice is yours.Compare:
A)the DM says "you see a secret door there and when you try to open it you find a trap and it hit you and does 32 damage"
B) DM: "you find a secret door here *marks it on the map* what do you do?"One is giving information. One is giving information and depriving you of the ability to choose how- or even if- to act on that information.
I don't think folks have an issue with the DM using the companion (or familiar) to inform them of something the AC or familiar has found using their senses that the master/owner/character has failed...
Selgard,
you have made a good point. I will have to keep that in mind for the future. It is always a good idea to keep the players involved....and that would be an even better way to draw them in. Thank youElyas
@ thejeff: Totally agree.
As a GM, I will occasionally control a familiar or animal companion at low levels, but the players will know ahead of time that this is a possibility.
Generally once they acquire the ability to speak with their companion my control stops, and passes entirely the player. For familiars, that's generally 5th level.
For animal companions I'll always allow a player to handle or push (depending on the situation) their companion to not do something if they don't want it to do what I'm making it do. A failure represents a failure on their part to control the companion. It's not a mindless tool to be ordered around after all.
Eventually their handle animal skill will get high enough to be an auto-success. At that point I generally stop taking control of animal companions altogether.
As a GM, I will occasionally control a familiar or animal companion at low levels, but the players will know ahead of time that this is a possibility.
Generally once they acquire the ability to speak with their companion my control stops, and passes entirely the player. For familiars, that's generally 5th level.
For animal companions I'll always allow a player to handle or push (depending on the situation) their companion to not do something if they don't want it to do what I'm making it do. A failure represents a failure on their part to control the companion. It's not a mindless tool to be ordered around after all.
Eventually their handle animal skill will get high enough to be an auto-success. At that point I generally stop taking control of animal companions altogether.
It is good to note though that for familiars anyway- assuming the master has a rank in any language skill (linguistics: draconic, for example) that the familiar automatically has it too.. and thus the master at least can talk to the critter even if it can't talk back yet.
And with a 6 int, it understands the commuication as well..(sadly the int issue with AC's has been FAQ'd into the ground)
-S
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32, 2010 Top 8
|
My two C-bills,
The player controls the AC (with rolls) and Familiar/Eldion, etc. with a GM veto. But then the GM always gets a veto. It's akin to the 'crap he rolled low, everyone search!' thing.
PC: Fluffy the wolf is going to leap through the window and rescue the kids! (rolls poorly on AC check)
GM: Fluffy recoils from the big scary window.
PC: Fluffy is going to charge into the life draining aura that repells animals because he loves me so much and drag the kids to safety.
GM: Fluffy gives you a look of 'frak no'.
PC: I attack the golem to make a called shot to wipe the first letter from its head.
GM: Ok, explain to me how your knight from Krynn a) speaks Hebrew, b) knows the legend of the golem of Prauge and c) knows enough to recognize it as a Jewish Golem to even try this stunt.*
PC: I check for traps (rolls a 20)
GM: There are no traps you find.
Other PC: I open the door then.
PC: I check for traps (rolls a 1) uh-oh...
GM: There are no traps you find.
Other PC: Um, we all check for traps then.
GM: As soon as you can explain why your actions changed from every other time he doesn't find traps, sure.
PCs: Mutter.
*
PC: I check for traps (rolls a 1) uh-oh...
GM: There are no traps you find.
That's why most PCs in my games, when not under duress, will take 20 on their perception checks. It prevents the "oh crap I rolled a 1" metagaming.
|
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32, 2010 Top 8
|
That's why most PCs in my games, when not under duress, will take 20 on their perception checks. It prevents the "oh crap I rolled a 1" metagaming.PC: I check for traps (rolls a 1) uh-oh...
GM: There are no traps you find.
When I GM, players HATE the words "Looks like" "Appears" and "seems". :-)
When I GM, players HATE the words "Looks like" "Appears" and "seems". :-)
Add in "as far as you can tell..." and "to the best of your knowledge..." my players hate all of the above. :D
When I GM, players HATE the words "Looks like" "Appears" and "seems". :-)That's why most PCs in my games, when not under duress, will take 20 on their perception checks. It prevents the "oh crap I rolled a 1" metagaming.PC: I check for traps (rolls a 1) uh-oh...
GM: There are no traps you find.
Isn't there an actual rule that specifically states the GM makes trap searching rolls in secret so that the player's can't metagame like this?
It amazes me how many perceived problems aren't actually problems, just people not fully grasping the rules.
I believe that's only for disabling it, although I'd have to read thru the trap rules again.
I don't think so, because the take 20 rules specifically mention taking 20 on Perception checks and then again specifically in regards to searching for traps.
|
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32, 2010 Top 8
|
It's only a problem if you and your players *make* it a problem.
As a GM I like my players rolling as much as sensible. If the players metagame the roll. "You rolled a what? I'm searching too!" then it's a chance to talk about *why* that's the wrong thing to do.
It helps give them the illusion of control. I can easily say "The DC was too high, the trap explodes," no matter who rolls the die.
Of course as my inner sadist demands, I will also call for 'thematically appropriate' perception rolls, will saves, etc etc. even if they don't affect the game. If the players never know when that perception check is 'real' then they get used to making them and not preparing for combat every time I call for one. (OR, they burn resources every time I call for one, and it's a win/win.)
I don't think so, because the take 20 rules specifically mention taking 20 on Perception checks and then again specifically in regards to searching for traps.
Please quote the relevant rules where you claim is makes such a statement "in regards to searching for traps."
I just don't see how that can be the case, seeing as there is a real consequence for failure, and you are assumed to fail 19 times before you get that 20.
I don't think so, because the take 20 rules specifically mention taking 20 on Perception checks and then again specifically in regards to searching for traps.Please quote the relevant rules where you claim is makes such a statement "in regards to searching for traps."
I just don't see how that can be the case, seeing as there is a real consequence for failure, and you are assumed to fail 19 times before you get that 20.
In searching for traps?
Disarming them, certainly, but not looking for them.
I have never been a fan of the take 20 or take 10 rules but I do agree, take 20 is essentially like looking to find a trap 20 times in a row if it wont blow up by looking at it then there is no consequence.
|
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32, 2010 Top 8
|
Agree with theJeff
There's no rule saying failing a perception check in and of itself sets off the trap.
In fact...
Since taking 20 assumes that your character will fail many times before succeeding, your character would automatically incur any penalties for failure before he or she could complete the task (hence why it is generally not allowed with skills that carry such penalties). Common “take 20” skills include Disable Device (when used to open locks), Escape Artist, and Perception (when attempting to find traps).
So there's your rule reference.
I don't think so, because the take 20 rules specifically mention taking 20 on Perception checks and then again specifically in regards to searching for traps.Please quote the relevant rules where you claim is makes such a statement "in regards to searching for traps."
I just don't see how that can be the case, seeing as there is a real consequence for failure, and you are assumed to fail 19 times before you get that 20.
Relevant text
Since taking 20 assumes that your character will fail many times before succeeding, your character would automatically incur any penalties for failure before he or she could complete the task (hence why it is generally not allowed with skills that carry such penalties). Common “take 20” skills include Disable Device (when used to open locks), Escape Artist, and Perception (when attempting to find traps).
Edit: Ninja'd
Thanks everyone. Seems I was getting Perception and Disable Device mixed up.
It having its own personality doesn't mean that personality isn't in the control of the PC it belongs to though. And if a DM wants that enforced they need to let the PC know it. (then if the PC refuses to, or just flat out doesn't ever do it, then the DM can enforce it by doing it himself or by whatever other means come to mind.. just like enforcing any other rule).
But hey, maybe I want my familiar's personality to be shy and quiet and outta the spot light.
Shy, quiet, and not bothering everyone all the time /is/ a personality type too- afterall.
-S
A class feature is a class feature, and operates by RAW. Regardless of our opinions about it being its own creature, it is ultimately an extension of the character as a class feature. That it has its own 'personality' is simply fluff - and like any fluff should neither have a mechanical advantage OR disadvantage.On the flip side: that a PC has a "personality" is simply fluff, too, and yet that fluff has effects all the time - it's what differentiates a RPG from a tactical combat simulator. I see no hard and fast rule that the existence of a personality is completely meaningless, which is what you seem to be arguing.
In my experience, most of my players want to role play with their familiar/animal companion/cohort, which generally means control of it falls to me... right up until the dice come out, when control reverts back to the player.
That's a strawman if I've ever seen one. At what point did Shifty say personality was completely meaningless? If you reread the post carefully you'll see that Shifty simply says the personality of an animal companion should not provide any mechanical advantage or disadvantage, which it shouldn't. At no point did he say it was "completely meaningless."
Shifty's argument is completely valid, because the only time that how you roleplay a character's personality should provide any mechanical advantage is if an NPC particularly likes that kind of personality and it gives you a circumstantial +2 to a diplomacy skill check or something along those lines.
Also, your experience is perfectly valid, but that does not mean it is the sum total of every gaming group on the planet. You must be open to the idea that not every group enjoys it, or even runs it, the way that your group does. Perhaps some people like to roleplay their character and his/her animal companion both. For those people "control" is an all time thing, and their GM (assuming they were aware of that desire ahead of time) should be okay with that, since there is no RAW that states the GM must be in control of that particular class feature.
|
That just pushes people from playing those classes or choosing that part of the class feature. I was recently driven from playing a druid in a new campaign(level 1) because the DM said a druid will not start with a companion and I would have to get one through a side solo adventure. I went fighter ;p
That's a strawman if I've ever seen one.Perhaps I should spell out the logic more clearly?
- Assumption: We all understand that personality generally doesn't provide a mechanical advantage or disadvantage.
- Assumption: Shifty has a non-trivial point to make.
- Assumptions 1 and 2 are incompatible if Shifty is talking about pure game mechanics.
- Inference: Shifty is talking about something else.
- Observation: No one has argued for mechanical advantages or disadvantages per se. The entire conversation is really about who makes the choices.
- Inference: Shifty is really talking about the effects of choices made by the pet.
- In which case, not a straw man.
Also, your experience is perfectly valid, but that does not mean it is the sum total of every gaming group on the planet. You must be open to the idea that not every group enjoys it, or even runs it, the way that your group does.Indeed. That's why I qualified everything with "in my experience" in the first place.
I'm sorry, at what point in your assumptions and inferences did you address the fact that you said the words "completely" and "meaningless" one right after the other in reference to his argument about the mechanical ramifications of the personality of a class feature?
It is good to note though that for familiars anyway- assuming the master has a rank in any language skill (linguistics: draconic, for example) that the familiar automatically has it too.. and thus the master at least can talk to the critter even if it can't talk back yet.-S
True, but I've only ever seen one player (other than me) take linguistics ranks. :P
On the flip side: that a PC has a "personality" is simply fluff, too, and yet that fluff has effects all the time - it's what differentiates a RPG from a tactical combat simulator. I see no hard and fast rule that the existence of a personality is completely meaningless, which is what you seem to be arguing.
Pretty much well argued above.
The pet owner has the full utility of the pet the same way he does his own character - you want to give him one jot less than that then you need to start compensating that player for nerfing him.
The personality of the pet should provide no mechanical advantage or disadvantage to the game play. The GM should not reduce the utility of the pet by attributing it 'personality' as he sees fit no more than the player should attribute it a 'personality' that provides him a mechanical advantage. The GM should not be able to veto a players control of the pet because he thinks "Oh that horse totally wouldn't do that" - thats implementing a mechanical disadvantage to the player by enforcing a 'fluff' subjective judgment call - which is wrong.
Mechanically, the 'personality' should make no appreciable difference to the gameplay in any way shape or form other than maybe the cat plays with balls of string in its off time. When the dice start hitting the table then all personality should be simply put aside as the pet is now acting as a class feature, not part of the roleplay tapestry of the campaign.
I assume you can tell the difference between a 'fluff' argument and a 'crunch' one?
As above...
Went back to edit it.
The pets 'fluff personality' has no place in a 'crunch' outcome, and where 'crunch' decisions are being made the personality of the pet would be meaningless. You can call it a 'Longsword of my peoples, handed down from generation to generation' and even draw an awesome picture of it, but when you swing it, the thing still does 1d8 like the rules say.
The GM should not decide out of the blue that it now does D6. The player cant say it does 1d8+1 'because it is awesome'.
True, but I've only ever seen one player (other than me) take linguistics ranks. :P
Wow. Games that I've been in seem to turn in to contests of who can have the most languages not spoken by others in the group. Different tables, different styles - I guess.
Edit: And the the actual question of the thread. I'm used to GMs having partial control, particularly in non-combat situations. Playing them as NPCs. Sometimes to cause minor annoyance (in the name of comedy value), but never to actually cause problems. Though I will admit when I'm the GM I tend to leave them up to the players as I have enough work to do already.
Whilst I agree that at the end of the day it make sense that a pet/creature should have its own personality and habits from which it would derive its in game personality and responses, the situation we have here is that 'in game' the horse ALSO happens to represent the mechanics of a particular class in that it is a feature - just like the ability to swing a sword, cast a fireball etc, and as a feature it has a set of mechanics that work a certain way.
When the 'personality' is used as a reason to deviate from the 'mechanics' then the class feature is being altered, for better or for worse, and this isn't fair or correct.
When the GM denies the player the action they want their class feature to take for a reason outside RAW, they are applying the 'creatures personality' (which the GM has applied by fiat) mechanically. This should never happen.
When its game time, the horse does indeed become robot horse, as combat is very much a game of mechanics - and that horse is part of the machinery.
The players (character) personality certainly does affect their in game decision making. The pet, however, is not a player.
Do your character's personalities ever have any effect on their combat actions?
thejeff, I've found I agree with you above, but I think you might be looking at this particular part slightly askew. There's a difference between, my raging half-orc barbarian charging the nearest gnome because he hates gnomes, and the bonus to hit provided by the mechanics of rage. You see what I mean? Of course your "choices" as a character affect what happens in combat, but they should never affect how easy it is to hit, or how much damage you do.
I'm pretty sure that's what Shifty has been saying all along. Also Glendwyr, looking at your most recent post, I think we actually agree with each other on most of this, except the separation of roleplay and crunch. Again, reference the argument above. My ranger may stroll back and attack from range or wade in and go melee weapons (that's a roleplay choice), but if he's fighting his favored enemy, the mechanics provide a bonus to hit and damage. That's the difference between roleplay choices, and mechanical operation of a character.
What Shifty is arguing, and what I would be inclined to agree with, is that the animal companion is designed as a mechanical benefit to the player character whether that is in or out of combat. A wizard can cast share memory in or out of combat, his motive for casting it could be personality or combat advantage, either way the operation of the spell is the same.
Agreed Mended.
Agreed Mended.
Good, I didn't want to be putting words in your mouth, or making assumptions about your argument incorrectly. ;)
Yet we have a lot of posts earlier suggesting that the Bear is in the control of the GM or the GM has the right to impose his worldview at any time to dictate the bears actions.
It is this hardline stuff I disagree with.
Now as a player, I *DO* consider the nature of the pet and what its attitudes might or might be, and as a consequence I might impose what could be seen as disadvantages to myself (in that sometimes the animal might act in a way less preferential to me, or my ranger wouldn't risk his beloved companion getting killed) - but those decisions should rest with me the player, not the GM and his Fiat.
It is good to note though that for familiars anyway- assuming the master has a rank in any language skill (linguistics: draconic, for example) that the familiar automatically has it too.. and thus the master at least can talk to the critter even if it can't talk back yet.-STrue, but I've only ever seen one player (other than me) take linguistics ranks. :P
really? wow. I think half my current group speaks at least one other language. Between the lot of us I don't think there's a language we don't speak.
Regardless though- any one taking a familiar should learn at least one language if for no other reason than to be able to chat with it prior to level 5.
And the more the merrier. If you are the type to use a familiar as a scout- (I'm not) then the more languages you/it knows, the more effective it is.
it being able to actually listen to the orc guards can be quite useful.
-S
Yet wolves in the wild flank (by game definition), as do hyenas, as do a lot of 'pack' hunters.
It was interesting when we had this all come into play at our table - the opinions varied widely on what an animal would or wouldn't do, right down to whether the animals would fight or flee - or whether animals use 'held actions' (which they do, saw an awesome stand off between a cougar and a bear on youtube), however who has the 'right answer'?
At that point we decided to defer to the Vet, his answers were more knowledgeable than ours.
True, but I've only ever seen one player (other than me) take linguistics ranks. :PWow. Games that I've been in seem to turn in to contests of who can have the most languages not spoken by others in the group. Different tables, different styles - I guess.
That's what happened the one time I saw someone else taking Linguistics. I was a player in that game, and it ended up being a contest between his wizard and my fighter to see who could know the most languages. He won, though he was a playing a tengu, who are suited to being linguists.
We ended up knowing 20-something languages by 4th level. Rarely needed to use comprehend languages or tongues in that campaign.
But a lot of the players I know will assume that any NPC worth talking to will speak common, and anything "not smart enough" to speak common is clearly a monster to be killed.
...I've got to turn that against them one of these campaigns...