Who adjudicates what happens when a skill check occurs?
At your table or mine?
Who adjudicates what happens when a skill check occurs?At your table or mine?
If you can tell me what happens at my table, I would love to meet you unless, Erik, is that you?
Use your table as this is a General Discussion if you'd like. If you want to get all RAW up in here, lets use the Rules.
Not relevant, also the rules adjudicate what happens the DM merely decides the circumstances where skill checks may occur and dispenses the appropriate information subsequently.
Who adjudicates what happens when a skill check occurs?
Perfectly relevant as Handle Animal is a skill check and requires adjudication. And what do you mean by "...dispenses the appropriate information subsequently"?
As gnomersy pointed out the rules adjudicate what happens after a failed skill check. In the specific case addressed, at my table, I'd let the PC decide what that means, since, at my table, the control of the animal companion is their territory. If their decision went against the "Left to it's own judgment, an animal follows a character and attacks creatures that attack her (or that attack the animal itself)." I may offer some more appropriate suggestions, but in the end, as long as what the player described wasn't completely outside the realm of verisimilitude, I'd go with it.
Also, to put it a different way using a different skill. If a PC has a wand with a spell that is not on their class list, and they are trained in Use Magic Device, they can use UMD check at a DC 20 to trigger the wand. If they fail the check who decides what happens? Nobody, the rules say it doesn't work and a charge is not expended. If I, as the GM at my table, suddenly said, "the wand explodes" because I felt like that particular wand had a personality and would explode in retribution for being mishandled, I went outside the scope of the rules. The rules adjudicate, the players and the GM collectively describe what happens, that's role playing! :)
As gnomersy pointed out the rules adjudicate what happens after a failed skill check. In the specific case addressed, at my table, I'd let the PC decide what that means, since, at my table, the control of the animal companion is their territory. If their decision went against the "Left to it's own judgment, an animal follows a character and attacks creatures that attack her (or that attack the animal itself)." I may offer some more appropriate suggestions, but in the end, as long as what the player described wasn't completely outside the realm of verisimilitude, I'd go with it.
Also, to put it a different way using a different skill. If a PC has a wand with a spell that is not on their class list, and they are trained in Use Magic Device, they can use UMD check at a DC 20 to trigger the wand. If they fail the check who decides what happens? Nobody, the rules say it doesn't work and a charge is not expended. If I, as the GM at my table, suddenly said, "the wand explodes" because I felt like that particular wand had a personality and would explode in retribution for being mishandled, I went outside the scope of the rules. The rules adjudicate, the players and the GM collectively describe what happens, that's role playing! :)
Not to be all nitpicky but "Rules" can't really adjudicate anything because it is an action that requires a sentient creature to perform. It is like saying, "the rules swam the lake today." So, unless you or him have a dude (or dudette) known as "Rules" sitting at your table your use of the word in that manner wouldn't apply. (I am poking fun :P). I am also unclear on what gnomersy meant by the back half of his sentence and the front half was nonsensical.
Adjudicate:
1.Make a formal judgment or decision about a problem or disputed matter: "the committee adjudicates on all disputes".
2.Act as a judge in a competition: "we asked him to adjudicate at the local flower show".
So how does that work at your table? I mean how does the player know of the DC involved? How do you handle modifiers that they aren't aware about?
That's funny...
I can use the dictionary too.
1.to pronounce or decree by judicial sentence.
2.to settle or determine (an issue or dispute) judicially.
In my estimation the rules sans any dude-ery, can absolutely settle and or determine what happens. Why? Because sentient creatures created the rules to make the judgments in their absence. Without one of the developers playing in every game, we are to take the rules as the final judge. So your attempt to somehow take away the ability to "judge" from the rules based on their lack of sentience doesn't really hold water.
That's funny...
I can use the dictionary too.
1.to pronounce or decree by judicial sentence.
2.to settle or determine (an issue or dispute) judicially.In my estimation the rules sans any dude-ery, can absolutely settle and or determine what happens. Why? Because sentient creatures created the rules to make the judgments in their absence. Without one of the developers playing in every game, we are to take the rules as the final judge. So your attempt to somehow take away the ability to "judge" from the rules based on their lack of sentience doesn't really hold water.
No we take our interpretation of how we read the rules and express that to world as our judgement of what the rules mean. The rules are passive in this process and can't take an active part, hence why rules can't adjudicate. This why when you have a society governed by laws, written by sentient creatures, there are individuals, such as judges, who are there to act as the final arbitrator as what those rules mean. They can't pronounce or make a decision. We all are hindered by our perception. I am sorry, but your use of the word in this manner is nonsensical.
@Guy Kilmore - Dispensing the information means he tells you what happened but he doesn't decide what...
Again 99% of the time there won't be a difference. No one here has advocated not letting players ever roll dice or hiding all information, but there are times when it's better to. It's no fun trying to figure out the secret plot, if it's all spelled out beforehand.For me metagame issues aren't usually a matter of trust, but of letting the player think like his character, which is what it's all about for me. If the GM tells me "Sparky behaving oddly towards Lord Jim, who he's always liked before. His ears are back and he's showing teeth." I can then try to figure out if there's something wrong with Lord Jim or with Sparky or what is going on, since I know roughly what my character knows.
If OTOH, the GM tells me "Sparky notices that Lord Jim smells like a doppleganger", I can now describe Sparky's actions myself, but I have to engage in a kind of doublethink to try to figure what my character thinks is going on. Does he have enough information to guess what I know for sure?
I think that is what he means, but I want to be sure. I think people are confusing themselves, when this isn't really all that confusing of an issue. This is leading to a clouding of the issue that shouldn't be there. It is important to understand the language that is being used, espicially when it is being twisted to every nuance.
Well I think the point is that you don't actually need adjudication the rules are clear where they apply, where ever they do not apply things do not happen as per game rules. Sometimes DM's will pull things out of their hats in said areas of non rules but this is simply the application of Rule 0 and shouldn't be considered normal game function nor should it be considered adjudication.I think that is what he means, but I want to be sure. I think people are confusing themselves, when this isn't really all that confusing of an issue. This is leading to a clouding of the issue that shouldn't be there. It is important to understand the language that is being used, espicially when it is being twisted to every nuance.
I haven't really stated my views on the subject accept that I think this is a trust issue and not a rules issue. I think a view point is being transfered to my questions that I have yet to express. Everyone who has taken the time to answer the question, it appears to either be attempting to discount it or use words in ways that do not make sense. It is a fairly straight forward question.
So there is never a disagreement over the rules on the tables you play? Excellent. I do not have that experience, nor do posts on this board bare it out. I have notice that term used by alot of people for GMs is calling them Judges or Referees. To Judge is To Adjudicate, it is just that when the rules are simple, the adjudication is really easy as everyone agrees. There are times though when their is a conflict of those interpretations, that is where the process of adjudication becomes important. People have many different ways of going about it and, except for PFS, the rules are quite flexible on how you want to go about it and allow people to follow whever social agreement they have set-up.
I do think the rules are written with a certain viewpoint on how adjudication should occur, but they don't want to be sending ninjas around to deal with disagreements on this issue, so they also leave it a little vague as there is no right way to play.
I doubt that the familiar speaking a language you learn through linguistics is RAI, though it may well be RAW. Not sure what I'd do with it.There is really no doubt.
It has any skill ranks that you have.
It also has an int of 6.
If you take linguistics (draconic) then it can understand draconic.
Note- that doesn't mean it can speak it. Just that it can understand it.
That- and any other language you take as a linguistics point.If you take a skill point for 1 languauage- any one you want really- they can understand it. Now at level 5 they can talk back to you (though not in that language).
But the point is- if you have Linguistic (orc) you can tell them in orcish "leave that squirrel alone, we have better things to do" and it'll...Again, I agree that it may to be RAW, though I suspect it's an unintended consequence, thus not RAI.
Here's my argument against it being RAW:
Whenever you put a rank into this skill, you learn to speak and read a new languageandFor each skill in which either the master or the familiar has ranks, use either the normal skill ranks for an animal of that type or the master's skill ranks, whichever is better.<snip>Some skill may remain beyond the familiar's ability to use.The last line gives the GM carte blanche to refuse to allow this. Even without that, you get a language when you put a rank in linguistics. The familiar is not putting ranks in linguistics, but using the master's ranks to make checks, therefore it does not get the language.
If it does get the language, by RAW it can speak and read it. A GM could rule that it can't speak, but I'm not sure what the RAW justification would be. I also don't see any requirement that they be the same language. Obviously having one in common makes sense, but if you put more ranks in, you might as well choose different ones, getting almost twice the value out of linguistics since the familiar can translate...
By RAW there are some skills a familiar may not be able to use.
I can see him disallowing a frog to disable a try, or to use your fly skill- for example.But what rationale to disallow him to understand the language?
they have *int 6* just for being a familiar.
Thats like, 1 point lower than the average fighter. :P
Can it speak it? Most likely not. Not because it can't understand the language but because nothing about the familiar allows it to speak if it otherwise can't do so. (until level 5, anyway).
So you take a frog, you learn Orc with Linguistics, your ranks in the skill are imparted to it- presto it knows orc, and you can talk to it. it can understand anything you say up to and including whatever an int 6 would allow it to comprehend.
It can read it, it can understand it, ot could speak it (if it could talk- most can't.) and if it has the capability to write then it can write in it too. (DM adjudication there- i probably wouldn't push it as a player but in theory anything with a digit can draw/write in the dirt or dip a paw in ink and scratch out a message though as I said- that could be pushing it).
A Dm can disallow it, sure. he can houserule anything. But its not exactly some far fetched use of the skills. Its exactly what it says you can do.
Take a skill, impart skill to the familiar.
Houserules are all well and good but its clear that by raw it works just fine.
-S
I have, indeed, been tempted to point out that if your druid wants a mindless automaton with no personality or ability to act on its own, he doesn't want an animal companion, he wants a construct, a zombie, or a fighter.But what rationale to disallow him to understand the language?
they have *int 6* just for being a familiar.
Thats like, 1 point lower than the average fighter. :P
Well, I'm mainly talking about the familiar in this specific instance, as it was argued that they somehow don't get the benefit of the base class's linguistic ranks. (to understand the languages of course, not to speak them).
And that with int 6 base line there's no reason other than houserule why they couldn't understand any language you took a skill point in.But really- if the player wants to RP their familiar as relatively quiet and shy, then thats their business.
Myself- I do. for two reasons: one, the familiar I selected isn't a combat jock and prefers to work from behind the scenes rather than jump into the thick of things. And two- its my spellbook and replacing it is super expensive and annoying so its first action in combat is <-- run that way and hide- usually while flying out of reach.
I'm not against RPing her during the down times- its just not come up. We usually spend time trying to further the story than to Rp things that don't.
-S
At this point, I am going to bow out of the discussion because work calls and my case notes won't, unfortunately, write themselves.
I haven't really stated my views on the subject accept that I think this is a trust issue and not a rules issue. I think a view point is being transfered to my questions that I have yet to express. Everyone who has taken the time to answer the question, it appears to either be attempting to discount it or use words in ways that do not make sense. It is a fairly straight forward question.
So there is never a disagreement over the rules on the tables you play? Excellent. I do not have that experience, nor do posts on this board bare it out. I have notice that term used by alot of people for GMs is calling them Judges or Referees. To Judge is To Adjudicate, it is just that when the rules are simple, the adjudication is really easy as everyone agrees. There are times though when their is a conflict of those interpretations, that is where the process of adjudication becomes important. People have many different ways of going about it and, except for PFS, the rules are quite flexible on how you want to go about it and allow people to follow whever social agreement they have set-up.
I do think the rules are written with a certain viewpoint on how adjudication should occur, but they don't want to be sending ninjas around to deal...
Ah I assumed from your question that your point of view was opposite mine instead of just asking for clarification, my bad.
As for disagreements well yes sometimes but usually we sit and talk it over I suppose you could nominally call the DM the Judge in that he has final say but generally if there's proof for the argument being made instead of nitpicking and it doesn't break the game it's allowed. But the reason I don't call the DM the Judge except maybe in PFS is that his role is far larger than simply interpreting rules disputes and that those roles are more important than the judging one.
I wanted to give you the respect you deserve and reply before I scuttled off to be responsible. I do think that a GM is more than a judge as well. It is part of his role, but not the largest part. I work in social services, so my perspective is colored by this, but I always see the GM as a community leader. It is his job to make sure that collaboration and communication happen and that the values of the community are represented and that the objective of the community are met. In this place, it is facilitating a fun and fair game based on expectations of those at the gaming table.
I don't think that this issue is about rules, but it is about trust. I do think that anything that is not a PC is an NPC and does fall under the GM's purview. However, I think it is counter productive for a GM to run a famliar or animal companion in most situations and that he can trust the players to follow the rules with the appropriate handle animal checks and whatnot. I only think that this distinction is important is when there is abuse at the table occuring and a means is needed to handle said abuse. How he steps in is up to the community, but that is why he exists (I.E. Judge Role). When a PC selects an Animal Companion and a Famliar it is important to set-up those expectations.
I had a witch join my campaign and stated that her familiar is hers to do with as she wishes. However, in the case of a perception check, I expect her to roll both herself and her creature. If she fails, but her creature passes. I will say something like, "You notice that Snap Dragon is peering intently in the bushes, his claws dig into your shoulder." I would never do that for another PC, but I wouldn't see that as inappropriate for the familiar.
The reason for my question was because I don't really see people arguing because of a difference in a point of view, but because there is a difference between table culture and word usage.
I had a witch join my campaign and stated that her familiar is hers to do with as she wishes. However, in the case of a perception check, I expect her to roll both herself and her creature. If she fails, but her creature passes. I will say something like, "You notice that Snap Dragon is peering intently in the bushes, his claws dig into your shoulder." I would never do that for another PC, but I wouldn't see that as inappropriate for the familiar.
Our group handles this differently but overall I wouldn't disagree with this.
I do see a marked difference though between your DM using RP to have your familiar detail to you something it knows, compared to your DM deciding to have your familiar or AC just go careening off without you even having a chance to prevent it.
I think its the "without having a chance to prevent it" that would irk me more than anything.
Sure, if I was a druid and had a bear that bear might just try to do its business where it sees fit. But, assuming I'm a good druid, I'm paying attention to it and should get an attempt to stop it.
If my wolf does try to jump ahead and pee on the princess' shoe its not so much the attempt that would have me glaring daggers at the DM. Its the absence of opportunity to stop it.
If I roll HA to have my animal stay by my heel during a specific time frame (while wandering through the palace) and the DM decides the animal in question is going to break free it shouldn't get all that too far away before I get to at least try and reign it in. Now the raw steak in the pocket of the princess might just be a circumstance penalty to my roll vs the wolf tackling her or something but I should at least get the attempt.
If my familiar or AC (or whatever) is so poorly trained that I don't at least get the attempt to stop it, then that creature isn't intelligent or well trained enough to accompany me in places where thats an issue.
So to me it *should* be:
DM: "you notice your wolf moving towards the princess."
PC: "I tell it "Heel, Wolfie" and *rolls dice, adds mods* I get a 32"
DM: "Ok he tucks his tail and comes back to your side, though he still looks at the princess with some angst and low growls"
verses
DM: "your wolf runs over and pees on the princess"
PC: "GAH! but I told it to HEEL!"
If the DM wants to use any given AC, familiar, Eidolon, or even just a trained animal, for RP then really- thats fine. But they need to remember we took our skills and class features for a reason and we expect at least the opportunity to use them as we deem fit.
(i.e. the opportunity to make rolls where appropriate or issue commands where appropriate, depending on the creature in question).
And assuming the creature hasn't been dominated or otherwise magically compromised, we have the expectation that the rules will allow those commands or rolls to work. (assuming yuo roll high enough- if applicable).
-S
[...]
Now the rules don't explicitly state who controls the familiar or the AC.
However, they are the class features of the character.
[...]
Being able to pick an familiar or and AC is a class feature, true, but that doesn make the actual AC or familiar a class feature.
^Seconded.
I'm curious how they 'aren't a class feature'.
Familiar =/= AC =/= Cohort, which is also important.
Thirded...
How is something that is directly inherent to a specific class, and not inherent to other classes, not a class feature. Animal Companions and Familiars are as much a class feature as are domains to a cleric, and bloodlines to a sorcerer.
As long as people realize that differences in opinion exist, and that in the end, it comes down to having a discussion with your GM about it, there is not more that can be said except opinion.
With that said, here are some questions:
What is the difference between:
1) a player saying "Drommy runs to the door and opens it!", "[DM] and why would he decide to do that?" "Because we asked him to!" "[DM] and what was your handle animal roll when asking him?" "27" "[DM] Drommy pounces on the doorknob, wrenching the door back"
2) a DM saying "Drommy runs to the door to open it!" "[PC] Why would he decide to do that?" "Right before he started to run, he sniffed the air, maybe he smelled something?", "[PC] I roll handle animal to ask him to heel as soon as he starts moving! ...27" "Drommy stands by your side, looking longingly at the door handle.
As far as I can tell, assuming good will between the DM and the PC, the familiar will be doing everything the players need, everything the DM wants, all while respecting the rules involving controlling an Animal Companion. The players can give commands to the Animal Companion, but the DM does the storytelling with the Animal Companion, and each side can use the rules to make sure the result is more or less what they wanted.
Another question: how strong is the empathetic link? If I see Drommy run towards a good friend with eyes blazing, and I feel very strongly about not wanting either he or my friend to die, would he not feel the same sadness and unwillingness? That might stop him from taking actions against my will unless he had a very good reason to do so (He rolled higher on the Perception check to see through the BBEG's disguise). Seems again like good will is needed on both parts. If the DM says he still attacks, and you ask but wouldn't he know it would cause me sadness, and the DM replies he still attacks, and you feel a very strong wave of suspicion, maybe that would be enough. Certainly if you as a player knew he had passed a hidden perception check against disguise, you would have different plans, but there is no way you can know this in game. Discussing how strong this bond is and what it means for your companion might also help with roleplaying out of combat scenes.
In combat, how is there a problem, given that you as their controlling should be giving them commands every round that you think they should change their action, and that it is a free action if they have the right skills trained? There is no chance for the DM to roleplay, since your actions (as per the rules) are already controlling the companion.
Finally, would a druid bring a wild wolf into the court of a dainty princess without making sure he could control the animal. Maybe there are small attractive royal dogs, or a very good-smelling kitchen. It makes sense that a druid would have stay or heel as tricks to use on a wolf in that situation, and if they did not think of it, then they very well could lose control. Maybe having opposing will checks for the empathy? Regardless, I would leave my wolf guarding faithfully with a passed Handle Animal check while I put on my court clothes to talk to a princess unless I knew I could auto-pass an Handle Animal check for inside :)
AFAIK, there is no explicit rule that states pets are class features.
Except that they appear as such under their respective classes, like any other class feature you would care to name.
@John Kerpan: Excellent points all around.
To all in general. My intent here is not to say, "I'm right." That has never been my intent. All along, my discussions have been based off of my understanding of the rules, and then fleshed out with my opinion. I'm not trying to convince any one to change their mind. I'm just trying to convey my point of view so that purveyors of the thread can see all angles.
@thejeff
Does it matter?
Does anything on any of these threads really matter in the grand scheme of things? Not really. Every table is going to run it the way they decide. For me the message boards is a place to inform my opinion.
Getting bogged down in terminology and trying to prove RAW by fitting things into categories and trying to derive general rules for these categories is a waste of time.
You are entirely correct sir. I would not argue that, but, what you might fail to realize, is that wasting time is expressly why I visit these messageboards. They are a diversion from my everyday life. So wasting time here is my prerogative is it not? If you feel it is a waste of your time, I'd encourage you to avoid the messageboards, or the threads that you consider to be wasting of your time.
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32, 2010 Top 8
|
AFAIK, there is no explicit rule that states pets are class features.
AFAIK, there is no explicit rule that states all class features are under the player's control at all times.
thejeff: Ok, I go to cast heal on our fighter.
GM: Ok, I need reflex saves, a maximized flamstrike comes roaring down hitting everyone in the party. thejeff, mark off one of your 8th level spell slots.Fighter's player: Great! Even if I make the save, that's enough damage to kill me. Way to go!
thejeff: What? I said I was casting heal!
GM: AFAIK, there is no explicit rule that states all class features are under the player's control at all times.
Lets face the facts, there is ambiguity in the rules. No has "control over class features". At certain levels, you get certain abilities, and all of those abilities have rules explaining how they work. Sometimes the abilities do not have pages and pages of legal definitions on how they work, with each statement weighted for importance, and all of the options listed.
A player does not 'choose' whether or not he has an animal companion (except for possibly choosing a domain instead), he simply gets one according to the rules. A wizard does not choose to gain spells each level, he simply does, and the rules describe how the spells are used etc. The rules do make it clear that casting Fireball and casting Heal are different, and that the Wizard gets to use the spells he chooses.
With an animal companion, having one does not mean treating it like a second PC, nor does it say in the ability that it is an NPC. What you are given is rules a player can take to make the animal do what the PC wants it to do. You have to discuss a way of playing it with your GM, and find a solution that works for both of you.
Matthew, do you honestly think statements like yours are going to A:
convince anyone that you are right, B: change thejeff's opinion, or C contribute positively to the discussion?
Actually, insofar as Pathfinder RPG is a reinterpretation of 3.5, the rules do state what a pet will do. "Left to it's own judgment, an animal follows a character and attacks creatures that attack her (or that attack the animal itself)."
|
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32, 2010 Top 8
|
Matthew, do you honestly think statements like yours are going to A:
convince anyone that you are right, B: change thejeff's opinion, or C contribute positively to the discussion?
A) I am right, at my table.
B) I don't really care about thejeff's opinion, I was showingC) How absurd it would be to take his comment at face value.
D) Do you agree with Jeff that 'class features are not under a player's control at all times'? If yes, then what's wrong with my example? Spells are class features.
E) Do you think your attempt to lecture me contributes positively to a discussion?
If a GM subsumes a character in any way from a player, there needs to be a reason to serve the game. Whether it be mechanical (Dominate) story driven (you can't do that, charm person makes him your best friend, remember?) or plot driven. "Your goblin hating bear is growling at the gnome." Even the last example is a 'fluffy' action. "Your Goblin hating bear lunges at the gnome, mauling him for 57 points of damage." is exactly the same as "your heal spell actually is a maximized flamestrike"
|
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32, 2010 Top 8
|
The rules do explicitly describe how the heal spell works, what it takes to cast it and what the effects are. IOW, the spell works as it does because there are rules describing it, not because it is a class feature and thus under the player's control.
So now you're arguing that spell casting is not a class feature? Really?
Saying "Your familiar goes off and starts a conversation/attacks/plays classical music." is exactly the same as saying "Your spell goes off in a completely different way than you intend." Both are class features, both are being ursurped by the GM w.o player control.
Even if said familar was dominated there is still a mechanical reason. Even if the goblin hating bear is going to lunge at the goblin-everyone-thinks-is-a-gnome, there's a mechanical way to control it.
I agree Matthew, but that has nothing to do with whether or not it is a class skill, and all to do with whether the GM or the players are following the rules given to guide them in the rulebook, and whether or not the players have worked together with the GM to come up with a system for fun and fair play where the rulebook does not give explicit guidance. Your stance, and the one that you use at your table, seems to be on the animal companion is an extension of the PC. This is fine, and clearly all of your players agree with it.
Online, not every table plays the way your table does, and not everyone needs to. You can explain your opinion, and show how it has helped your players enjoy the game, but it does not change the fact that the rules does not say how an animal companion should behave when not given commands. If your group prefers role playing in response to GM provocation, they might love the possibility that an animal companion will act like an animal until it is Handled. If they like exciting combat and clear rules, they will not. There is no need to convince others that your way is right when you are online, because they are not you players.
If you wish to take my opinion as a lecture, you may. If you wish to continue to post negative comments about others opinions you may as well. Some people probably only read these threads for the flame wars, so we can give them something enjoyable to see. But the most important rule on the forum is? Every time you press submit you have a chance see it :)
With an animal companion, having one does not mean treating it like a second PC..."
True, because an animal companion is, whether explicitly stated in the rules or not, a designed mechanical advantage FOR a PC. The rules assign that mechanical advantage to the specific class in order to maintain balance between that class and other classes.
|
They are independent creatures. They'll do their own thing. They'll work for you, help you and do what you tell them, but they still have minds of their own. You even need animal handling to get companions to do things.
Not so it isn't an extension of my character but rather one of my characters. That does mean that they won't always agree on things but at the same time it means that the one who decides those things as a player is me.
Or if it isn't me then they aren't my characters and I see no reason to put in the extra management work because the DM is too lazy to do it for something which is an NPC.
That's why in the developed world, we're allowed to sell our children to the first bidder, if they misbehave.
But that class advantage isn't controlled by the PC, except through handle animal checks as the rules state. The GM still has control of the animal and the animal will behave as the rules direct it to. If a side case pops up the rules don't cover then the GM has the only say on what the animal decides to do, unless she passes that authority to the player. Ultimately it is a decision every GM has to make when someone brings a pet into the game. Most role player game masters keep control to allow you maximum benefit of role play. Many combat game masters pass that control to allow the PCs more options in combat. There is no wrong way to do it, but it IS the GMs call.
But that class advantage isn't controlled by the PC
Except in the cases where it is.
The GM still has control of the animal
You keep saying that like its a definite fact, that no one could possibly disagree with it. I think after 293 (now 294) posts in a thread that asks the very question "who controls it?" You'd realize that not everybody believes that to be the unerring and explicit truth.
No more than the people who keep saying "The PC has control of the animal."
That does seem to be the other side of this debate. :)
At this point I would think everyone could agree that the rules are ambiguous and each table needs to decide how they are going to run it. Ultimately of course, as a community, many people will say "where the rules are ambiguous it's up to the GM," but hopefully as many people, or a large percentage of those originals even, will say, "but the GM should discuss it with the table to see how everyone wants to handle it."
Tonight's session I am going to replace my player's undefined, unnamed Eidolon with a diabolical creature of my own design so I can control it like an NPC...
|
|
Tonight's session I am going to replace my player's undefined, unnamed Eidolon with a diabolical creature of my own design so I can control it like an NPC...
If he's never named it, and never defined what it's like, why in the blue blazing hell would he want to play a Summoner?
The whole point of the class is the freedom to be creative.
Tonight's session I am going to replace my player's undefined, unnamed Eidolon with a diabolical creature of my own design so I can control it like an NPC...If he's never named it, and never defined what it's like, why in the blue blazing hell would he want to play a Summoner?
The whole point of the class is the freedom to be creative.
Well, my guess is he saw the awesome mechanical potential of a hulking stomping four-armed.. ermm.. gorilla.. like.. beast.. I added that bit to give it some shape to go with at least..
I would feel guilty crushing a players creative input really, but since there isn't much of that going on here I have considerably less issue with it. I rather recreate his summon into something I can picture and just hope I can do it in a way that doesn't bother him.