| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The problem with the argument that the DM has absolute control unless he gives that control to the PC due to it not being explicitly stated otherwise is because.. well, the rules don't explicitly state that about /alot of the class abilities/ that you get.
The game assumes we're smart enough to figure out that our clerics choose their spells and that our wizards choose what spells to memorize and that our barbarian chooses whether or not to select the power attack feat or something else.
The game assumes that our class features are going to be used by the character- and player- who selected that class and opted into that feature.
The entire Class section is about options for players to use for their own benefit. (and for DM's when making NPC's, of course).
This isn't the section on Player and DM character collaboration. Its the PC section for making PC's.
If you start off with the assumption when you read the class section that the DM controls it unless it says otherwise then you just invalidaded most of the class features.
The barbarian and rage for example just says they can rage. It never says the player gets to pick when. Darn. Does that mean the DM gets to randomly decide the character rages? or does it PC choose?
A wizard can choose a familiar or bonded object (thank heavens it gives the wizard that choice!) but if they select the object it doesn't say he gets to pick which object- it just gives a list of whats available.
Guess that means its the DM's choice unless he decides to give it to the player, right?
The asme is true for the one freebie spell they get to cast. It doesn't say the wizard gets to pick what and when so that means the DM gets to.
I mean, do we really have to go through the entire list of things for each class and figure out whether the player or the DM gets control? Let me tell you something- the designers did not go through and write "The wizard" "the druid" "the cleric" specifically for every single ability. Go read through them all for yourself.
If you are going to read it at /that/ level looking for /those/ things in order to get your argument for the familiar and AC not to be under the control of the PC then the DM just gained a *ton* of optional abilities that they can choose if and or when they get utilized by the party.
(fighters get a leg up though- all of their abilities specifically say that the fighter gets the choice.. yay fighters!)
(monk's ki pool doesn't say he gets to pick when though. More fun for the DM! yay!)
(only the sorc's spells at 1st level get chosen by the sorc, the rest are the DM's playground.)
Do I really have to go through the rest of them?
No, they didn't bother to explicitly state for every part of every feature who gets control. Why not? Because the DM gets to pick? the DM gets control? No. Because they assumed we were smart enough to figure out for ourselves that we get to make our class choices for ourselves. That we are in control of our characters, and of our character's abilities- except where the rules state othewise.
(druids have to roll for their AC's and whatnot).
But this isn't "the DM gets control and passes it to the PC's if they want to".
This is "Its the PC's, and if the DM wants to usurp control and go haywire with it, then its a houserule".
If you rule otherwise, that its not a class feature or that its somehow really in the DM's control that they lend to the PC- then you need to go through and give the same treatment to the rest of the class' features that don't bother to waste word count spelling it out that who controls it.
They didn't need to spell it out. It was assumed by putting it where they put it.
-S
Nope but gods do so Clerics should have to negotiate why they need any spell that isn't covered under a dietys portfolio I think.
And i'm fine with the arguement that the AC is under the GM's control as long as those advocating it own that arguement and pick the feats/skills/ability increases as the AC levels up and the nice ones at least consult the player.
The argument that animal companions and familiars are class features and thus not under GM control has been made for page after page.
The rebuttal that animals have minds of their own has been offered pages and pages ago.
If it didn't convince the other side then, it's probably not going to convince them the next dozen times either.
Of course for many of us that's an obvious "duh" moment.
But not for all of us.
So it boils down to game group choice. That's all you can say on the subject.
He can if he decides the bonded item contests the players EGO if it then wins it can have the player sell/throw itself away and thus no longer be a Bonded Item.
I don't know if anyone will care... but the argument that the GM has final say even if he allows the PC to run the pet is winning by shear volume of supporters.
But really, how far can this minority of vocal "PC has total control" few keep a thread running? The GM control side has specific rules and fluff that directly supports GM control. So far the PC control people have produced no such support.
No horse in race: none of my GMs has ever done anything but ask me what I have my familiar do after we chat back and forth (GM role playing the imp).
But, I have to stick in an oar here, Aranna: I've seen you quote a lot of mechanics about animal handling and ACs... but none of them 'directly support GM control' in anything but your interpretation of those mechanics=GM control.
The mechanics for animal handling DO allow for PC failure... in which case the GM would have to decide what happens as a result of that failure.
But nothing in the mechanics you're using to support your assertions actually supports your assertions. It's like blindly thrusting a holy symbol at a vampire and expecting channel energy to happen...
Would someone please point out to me where the rules say that the int score matters? Cuz I've read the bit about the paladin (who get a mount) and the druid (who get an AC) and the ranger (who get an AC) and the summoner (who get an eidolon) and the wizard and witch who both get a familiar.. and I can't find where it says "unlike most class abilities- the DM controls this one" and absent such a clause, they fall under the same control as the rest of the abilities for any given class- the guy who took the class.
You are the ones trying to say that the norm is changed- that the PC doesn't control his class feature.
Please show where in the rules it says that those are different.
-S
Would someone please point out to me where the rules say that a pet being a class feature matters? Cuz I've read the bit about the paladin (who get a mount) and the druid (who get an AC) and the ranger (who get an AC) and the summoner (who get an eidolon) and the wizard and witch who both get a familiar.. and I can't find where it says "unlike all creatures other the than the PCs- the player controls this one" and absent such a clause, they fall under the same control as the rest of the creatures in the game- the GM
You are the ones trying to say that the norm is changed- that the GM doesn't get to control these creatures.
Please show where in the rules it says that those are different.
There aren't actually rules that say that. A lot of people just prefer to play that way.
A summoner's eidolon has a direct link, and shares languages right from the start, so those are essentially controlled by the PCs from the beginning. Most of the other familiar/mount/animal companion features don't actually provide that control.
If you want to play true to RAW then players would have to wrestle for control of their familiar/mount/animal companion class feature at times, using skills such as Handle Animal, until either talking to (and being understood by) the creature is possible, or until Handle Animal gets high enough to work regardless of circumstances.
That's a level of complexity that not everyone's comfortable with using though, and it takes away a fair bit of control that not all players will think deserves to be taken away. Hence why control is sometimes just given to the players.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
A class feature is a class feature. They are part of your character. You get to control your character and all of his class features, the companion is a class feature.
Your character may find in the early days his class feature can be hard to control and have unintended consequences, however once your character has advanced enough they can autopass their handle checks and now have complete control within the limitations of the AC.
If your player LOSES CONTROL of the class feature, through botched roll etc, then the GM can determine what the consequence of this is - just the same way as you missing a to hit roll with a bottle of Alchemist Fire. You are still the one that determined you were going to throw it, who at, and when, and how, and you are the one who makes the roll to do it. The GM does not get to make those choices on your behalf. You are the one who runs your pet, as it is your class feature, up until you 'miss'.
If you can show me a line of RAW that says the GM controls the AC then please provide it, otherwise it is the players Companion to roll with (until he drops the ball and fails to control it mechanically)
There is also ample evidence that the black blade is in fact under the DM's control, not the player's. It is generally accepted that the DM has at least some control over a cohort. So we see that there is ample precedent for "pets," loosely defined, to be controlled by the DM. We also see that this is not an iron-clad case. And thus, we should see that it comes down to the table.
The fact that they had to call out the Black Blade in such a way and so clearly define the point, even down to giving it a mechanic actually implies it is an exception to the rule.
That the Black Blade has such a body of text, and yet AC do not is pretty cut and dried.
The Black Blade is thus an exception or such a body of text would have been redundant.
Except in my favour the AC appears under the details of the class, and is a class ability. Class abilities belong to the owner; where there is deviation from this there is explicit text to say so, like the Black Blade that you took the time to highlight.
You can have your views, and I can have mine.
You want to stand there and claim the answer is X, you aren't for a moment accepting any contrary view. Perhaps some of us are blinkered as you so churlishy assert on your way out, but perhaps had you actually fielded a solid argument I might have a bit more sympathy with your position.
I think in the end it was brininging up the deviation from the norm with the Black Blade Magus really undid your case though.
I think the breakdown there thejeff comes from the OP which stated that the GM just told the PC what the companion was doing.
Couple that with the premise of the AC being an NPC, as was stated often, and some of us came to a conclusion that your side was arguing that handle animal was simply the diplomacy of the AC and unless you rolled the check the GM was telling you what you AC did in much the same way he tells you what the guard at the inn is doing.
I agree that once I fail a roll we are left in GM hands as to what happens.
I thought you were arguing that even when the character failed the Handle Animal roll, or didn't make one for whatever reason, the player still controlled the pet?
If you can show where I said that I would be MOST INTERESTED.
The player controls the pet, in line with the mechanics. This has been a constant all along.
At no point have I ever said anything about ever deviating from exactly what the mechanics say they do.
The mechanics do not state the Pet is the GM's control.
There are mechanics in place that might lead to the GM controlling the pet for a short time, in just the same way there are mechanics for why the GM might end up controlling the CHARACTER (domination spells etc) however failing those mechanical deviations, the pet is the players to do with as they will.
I haven't deviated from this one iota.
I think the breakdown there thejeff comes from the OP which stated that the GM just told the PC what the companion was doing.
Couple that with the premise of the AC being an NPC, as was stated often, and some of us came to a conclusion that your side was arguing that handle animal was simply the diplomacy of the AC and unless you rolled the check the GM was telling you what you AC did in much the same way he tells you what the guard at the inn is doing.I agree that once I fail a roll we are left in GM hands as to what happens.
Pretty much this.
That the pet is an NPC, that the pet can have its own personality that the GM can do 'stuff' with, or that the GM gets to tell you what your class feature was doing.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Would someone please point out to me where the rules say that a pet being a class feature matters? Cuz I've read the bit about the paladin (who get a mount) and the druid (who get an AC) and the ranger (who get an AC) and the summoner (who get an eidolon) and the wizard and witch who both get a familiar.. and I can't find where it says "unlike all creatures other the than the PCs- the player controls this one" and absent such a clause, they fall under the same control as the rest of the creatures in the game- the GM
You are the ones trying to say that the norm is changed- that the GM doesn't get to control these creatures.
Please show where in the rules it says that those are different.
Wait, wait. the stuff listed under each class's headings aren't its class features?
How do we know what you get for each class then? Is it random? Is there a list somewhere for the wizard or paladin that we choose from?
Because if its not what's listed under the Wizard heading that a wizard gets, then you are right- it's not infact a class feature.
But no, the Class chapter is listed exactly that way. Each one details a class and everything that /that class/ gets for selecting that class- or the options they have to choose from.
Among those are the familiar (for some) or the AC (for others) or the Eidolon, or what have you.
Is it not in the class chapter? listed for some classes and not others? Just like for instance- spells or Weapon Training or Rage or the Ki Pool and all that?
I'm not trying to be a smartass here. But seriously- you are arguing that something in the class chapter under each class's listing that's detailed right beside the descriptions for /every other class option/ that the class has, is somehow REALLY a DM tool and not part of the character class. And thats just absurd.
If the DM can take control of the familiar with no chance for the PC to intervene or of the AC with no chance of the PC to intervene then the DM also gets to declare when the cleric's channel burst goes off, or that the druid spontaneously shape changes into (or out of) any given shape.
If they intended for it to work differently then they would have said so explicitly instead of listing it just the same as every other option that someone who choses those classes gets. There is no "DM control" side bar or section or sentence or paragraph or half- sentence or anything. Not in the whole freaking chapter. Shouldn't there be, for so important a subject? If the DM gets to control AC's, familiars, eidolon, paladin mounts, and so on then one would think somewhere in all that writing there would be some clause about the DM doing the controlling.
But its not there. Its not there because that chapter is about the options a class has and the things that class gets for electing to be that class. The DM has no more right to control my familiar than he does to tell me what spells I can memorize that day or whether I spontaneously spout fireballs when I decide to cast haste or fly.
-S
|
Would someone please point out to me where the rules say that a pet being a class feature matters? Cuz I've read the bit about the paladin (who get a mount) and the druid (who get an AC) and the ranger (who get an AC) and the summoner (who get an eidolon) and the wizard and witch who both get a familiar.. and I can't find where it says "unlike all creatures other the than the PCs- the player controls this one" and absent such a clause, they fall under the same control as the rest of the creatures in the game- the GM
You are the ones trying to say that the norm is changed- that the GM doesn't get to control these creatures.
Please show where in the rules it says that those are different.
Pretty sure that the Blackblade entry states something close to "unlike all other creatures in player class features, the player doesn't control his Blackblade"
If the DM can take control of the familiar with no chance for the PC to intervene or of the AC with no chance of the PC to intervene then the DM also gets to declare when the cleric's channel burst goes off, or that the druid spontaneously shape changes into (or out of) any given shape.
It's not no chance. The player's chance is their handle animal roll.
As for the other random, unrelated class features you used as arguments, no, those are unrelated. A channel energy won't randomly go off on its own whenever the GM wants it to because a channel energy isn't an intelligent creature, emphasis on intelligent. It's simply an ability.
Familiars, animal companions, etc. may be class features, but they aren't mindless abilities to be pointed at a target and fired on command like channel energy is. They have their own intelligence and are physically and mentally separate beings from the PC who has them as class features, hence why the player doesn't necessarily have total control of them.
The exception is eidolons. Unlike familiars, animal companions, etc. an eidolon isn't something that the PC convinced to lend its services, it's something the PC has created. A summoner controls their eidolon because the eidolon is more akin to a construct, whereas an animal companion (etc.) is more like a hireling who can be affected by Handle Animal.
If the player had automatic and total control of their companion there would be no text accompanying the animal companion explaining that the companion can be handled as a free action, pushed as a move action, and that the PC gets +4 to handle animal and wild empathy in regards to their animal companion. Such text would be a waste of space.
Pretty sure that the Blackblade entry states something close to "unlike all other creatures in player class features, the player doesn't control his Blackblade"
A black blade is independently conscious but features some personality traits reflecting its wielder. A black blade always has the same alignment as its wielder and even changes its alignment if its wielder does. The blade typically works toward its wielder’s goals, but not always without argument or backlash. Each black blade has a mission, and while sometimes two or more black blades will work in concert, each mission is singular in purpose (the black blade’s mission is usually up to the GM and the needs of the campaign or the adventure, or a GM can determine the weapon’s purpose randomly using Table: Intelligent Item Purpose). Some black blades are very open about their missions, but most are secretive. Certain sages have speculated that an invisible hand or arcane purpose moves these weapons.
---
Ego: A black blade starts with an ego of 5, and that ego increases as the blade becomes more powerful, as per Table: Black Blade Progression below. In cases where a wielder and the black blade come into conflict, like any intelligent item, a black blade can attempt to exert its dominance (see Intelligent Items). Due to its flexible and powerful nature, a black blade has a nonstandard ego progression.
Nothing about other classes having total control of their stuff, just that the black blade has a mission which is up to the GM, and that it can attempt to take control of its wielder.
I don't see the distinction you're making. Are you claiming that the GM can determine what happens on a failed Handle Animal roll, but if you don't make one at all the player gets to control?
What he is fairly clearly stating is that the day to day actions of the AC are for the player to control, with a 'failure' meaning the GM has to work out what that failure means.
What he is arguing against is the AC doing its own thing of its own (GM) volition if and when it chooses with the player having to continually try and wrest control back.
In it's normal day to day state, the control of the AC actions rests with the player - not the GM, until a mechanical reason arises for that control to temporarily transfer.
The player controls his character.
OK lets step by step it.
Q: What is the character?
I think the breakdown there thejeff comes from the OP which stated that the GM just told the PC what the companion was doing.
Couple that with the premise of the AC being an NPC, as was stated often, and some of us came to a conclusion that your side was arguing that handle animal was simply the diplomacy of the AC and unless you rolled the check the GM was telling you what you AC did in much the same way he tells you what the guard at the inn is doing.
I agree that once I fail a roll we are left in GM hands as to what happens.
Right. When you fail a roll or don't attempt to, or can't, make one, then the GM can override.
I don't see the distinction you're making. Are you claiming that the GM can determine what happens on a failed Handle Animal roll, but if you don't make one at all the player gets to control?
Like shifty said I shouldn't wake up to find that Fluffy has wandered off into the woods for food even though I always feed him in the mornings.
Fluffy shouldn't decide that since he hates goblins he went on his own into the goblins lair while I was sleeping because I couldn't roll against it.
As an exception either of these might be fine if actually being used in a storytelling method IE Fluffy is just off camera where we can easily here him chewing on the body of a Goblin Assassain that managed to cast sleep on our guys on watch.
However not making the check is not making it. You don't get a free pass on a skill by simply not rolling.
As long as the oppourtunity to make the check is there(assuming that I'm in a condition to make one) fine but when the GM simply dictates the AC actions regardless of the check a line is crossed.
An example would be upon meeting the Goblin disuise as a gnome earlier.
Simply telling me that fluffy attacks and rolling would be bad but letting me know he is baring his teeth and growling at the creature is a good tip off. (And could easily be noted as the GM rolling behind the screen)
Much like if a player didn't bother to roll sense motive when dealing with a trusted NPC who has been replaced by a doppleganger the GM might roll secretly for the PC and if high enough tell him something was off. This isn't controling the PC but using things the PC would notice that the player might to futher the story.
So the only remaining question is what happens when the pet is left to its own devices? If no commands are given by the character, who has final say on what the pet does? This is most likely to happen out of combat, but could also be in combat, if the character is separated, unconscious or otherwise not giving orders.
When left to its own devices the pet should be following the last successful command it was issued - ie Stay/Guard etc.
If no commands are given, the pet is probably just sitting about unless training provides an over-ride, such as the Defend Trick which requires no outside direction.
As an exception either of these might be fine if actually being used in a storytelling method IE Fluffy is just off camera where we can easily here him chewing on the body of a Goblin Assassain that managed to cast sleep on our guys on watch.
Except there's mechanics for that too, it is 100% supported by the Defend trick which does not require the AC to be instructed to Defend you, it does so as a default.
:)
I know this is assuming that Fluffy doesn't know that trick for some odd reason.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
What insanity drove me to read all of this thread.... It's left me wanting to smash people's heads together.
Though it has also left me further in the DM should have control camp than I was before hand - which is a mild surprise.
Mechanical question that I came across while rereading Handle Animal:
For Druids and Rangers handling their companions, Handle Animal is a free action. If they fail their roll can they try again? How many times?
Related question: What kind of communication is necessary for Handle Animal? Verbal, sight/gesture, both, neither? Can you give orders to your companion while silences and/or in darkness?
Oh man, really?! You are going to point that out now? ;)
Like this argument wasn't bad enough, now we have to try and figure out under which specific game situations the druid or ranger has the capability of providing proper direction to the AC?
Okay, here goes
In a normal round, you can perform a standard action and a move action, or you can perform a full-round action. You can also perform one swift action and one or more free actions. You can always take a move action in place of a standard action.
"One or more free actions." Awesome! That's not vague at all, it's totally clear that you can take either one free action, or more than that. It does not prescribe a top-most limit of free actions. Obviously this means that the GM is in control of how many free actions you can take. I'd say 13, yes, 13, a baker's dozen, that's how many free actions you can take. So, can the druid or ranger try again? Yes, but only 12 times.
As to the second question, a few years of pet ownership tell me that when training an animal, facial expression, gesticulation, and verbal components are all necessary (shart, now it sounds like I'm casting a spell). However, once the animal is trained, many times just the verbal is necessary, though a gesticulation can help with clarity (such as "go" and a pointing finger). So, if you are in darkness, the verbal command should do. If you are in silence a gesticulation should do. If you are in darkness and silenced, for the most loyal of companions, sometimes a facial expression could serve, though I'd raise the DC for the check in that situation.
Once again, I'd like to point out, that in the 3.5 ruleset in regards to animal companions it says: "Left to its own judgment, an animal follows a character and attacks creatures that attack her (or that attack the animal itself)." So, if in combat, the animal would more than likely follow its last given command, or attack if no command had been successfully given. If out of combat it would more than likely just follow its master.
Also, just to make clear what my new position on this is: I believe the actions of the animal companion should be directed by the rules. This means that "Left to its own judgment, an animal follows a character and attacks creatures that attack her [in this case the "her" means the animal's master] (or that attack the animal itself)" should be the first and foremost thought of both the player and the GM. In most situations where the handle animal skill is appropriately high enough (which for druids should be happening by 2nd level, and for rangers, if they've built their character well enough, should be happening as soon as they form the bond, since they'll be 4th level), the PC should be able to direct the animal according to its known tricks at will. In the presence of extraordinary circumstances where both the GM and the player realize the animal might not behave as normal, the PC should get to make "one or more free action" rolls to control the animal. In those cases where the repeated rolls fail, the GM should then direct the animal in the best interests of the PC while still keeping the verisimilitude of their campaign world, and remembering the last command given to the animal, and the direction "Left to its own judgment, an animal follows a character and attacks creatures that attack her (or that attack the animal itself)."
How's that?