|
In a recent game that I was monitoring, the GM was telling/weaving the scene and had one of the PC's familiar approach and take an action with another of the scenes npcs. The player became incensed, believing that only they, the PC knew the mind of their creature, and that they had total control of the creatures actions. They were so hurt, that they were almost willing to quit the game.
Now the action wasn't a harmfull act nor an attack, but was just an interaction that the PC thought out of her concept for the creature. The GM had bee using the interaction as part of the scenes plot device and to further the story.
What are the rest of you guys belief about who can/should be able to speak/control a PC's AC/familiar? Is the PC in complete control (as if the AC/familiar was almost simply an appendage of the character), or can/should the GM be able to control/possess the AC/familiar, the same as any other npc in the scene to tell/advance the story?
Thanks for responses,
Robyn
| 7 people marked this as a favorite. |
The player only controls their character. Everything else, including animal companions, familiars, hirelings, cohorts, mounts, and so on are controlled by the GM. Most of the time though, its just easier to let the player control them, as the GM has enough to worry about just with the monsters.
(Druids even receive a bonus on Handle Animal and Wild Empathy checks with their animal companions. If the druid was totally in control of their companion, that would be totally unnecessary, implying the at least some of the time the companion does as it wishes not how the druid wants it to.)
As a GM I will leave the actions of them mostly in the hands of the players, but I reserve the right to take them over whenever needed.
An AC trained for combat will most likely follow it's masters orders anyway, so most actions would be "Ok, AC does what you just told it", so I just let them handle it right away.
And familiars after a few levels are smarter than half the PCs too :)
Taking them over is mostly out of combat actually, in RP scenes.
But I kinda agree with the player, he perhaps knows the mind of the familiar/AC best, so as long as it's just interaction between players for example, I really see no harm in it.
But I know there are GMs that like to always control them, and that's totally legit too.
|
Familiars and animal companions are not PCs. They may be a class resource, but given that they are not PCs, by definition, they are ultimately under the control of the GM.
Despite that, it is pretty traditional for the player to control familiars and animal companions the vast majority of the time. This clearly sounds like a case of a difference of gaming culture between the GM and the player that needs some degree of conflict resolution. Doing so really requires that they start from where they have common ground....in the fact that they want to game, and presumably that they want to game together.
Theres nothing wrong with it, they are NPC's, it jus tmakes things easier for the dm to let the Pc's control them usually. Ive seen DM's assert to have an Animal companion do something before usually to make it behave more like an animal (like be scared of something) and its never been an issue. Ive never actually heard of a Dm controling an familiar before, but i see nothing wrong with it.
Though given how rare it is i can see it catching somone by surprise int he case of a familiar.
Either way you would be catching the player by surprise unless you told them up front. Just like if you told the party wizard that his summoned wolf keeps attacking the low level goblinss instead of the bugbear fighter, because it feels thats the best of its ability.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Depends on one thing, Would everyone agree that it is well within the rights of the GM to decide that the Wizard has to memorize spells that he says or the the cleric has to use channel energy when he says? Because they are all class features of the character.
It seems to me taking control of a familiar is just like telling the cleric that he just used his channel energy to heal everyone. even if he had no intention of doing so himself.
Except spells and Channel Energy don't have minds of their own. There isn't a "Handle Magic" skill, but there is a Handle Animal skill, and druids get a bonus with it when dealing with their companions. That alone implies that the animal is not under the control of the druid.
|
|
Players control player characters. All others are NPCs. This includes familiars and animal companions. I will often have players roll for the companion to save me the time, but it's still up to the GM what they do. These creatures have minds of their own, they're not slaved to the mind of the PC.
Players also seem to often (conveniently) forget that it requires Handle Animal checks to direct their companions, and such directions are limited to the tricks that animal has been taught. This completely precludes the PC playing the companion as another character.
The GM is not taking away the class feature, he is controlling a sentient and living thing in the game. That's like saying that since you take the leadership feat you should have absolute control of anyone who follows you. The GM says you can't just send them to fight the dragon barehanded, they won't do it.. you say "That doesn't fit my vision of my cohort"
It's not arbitrary, it is assumed in the creation of that class and in the sheer strength of having an animal companion.
While he should follow the personality of the animal, he should also enforce that he player follow it as well and not just forget the animal outside of combat.
So summoners get a free pass on controling godzilla but that wolf or tiger yeah thats a lot sheer strength to be controlled.
I'm a bit more forgiving (towards a GM) when it comes to ACs, but familiars no where near as much.
This actually reminds me of an old RD thread where quite a few players kept saying the minute a wizard with an imp familiar used a spell that put his soul in an item the imp would whisk it off to its infernal master in the blink of an eye.
This would put an extremely bad taste in my mouth as the player, especially if the action which the DM imposed were out of character for the companion creature in question.
To me it is tantamount to imposing fluff on a character, which is not ok.
The DM might get a break from me on an AC, since there are actual mechanics for the possibility that an AC will not do what you want it to, although 99.9% of the time there is no problem with controlling your own AC. That said, every time I have seen a DM assert their control over an AC it wound up being petty and vindictive DMing.
So summoners get a free pass on controling godzilla but that wolf or tiger yeah thats a lot sheer strength to be controlled.
From PFSRD:
So where do you get the idea that Summoners get a free pass on commanding their sentient high-int Eidolon? It's never stated, though it may be implied under Summon Monster.
I, as a player, would simply avoid playing any class that provides a companion/familiar if the DM were known to take control out of the blue.
Would this same DM take control of a Magus's Blackblade?
What about a homunculus as a improved familiar?
A beast-bonded witch's familiar?
I concur wholeheartedly, BBTroll. Why play a class that can have a sentient companion, be it an item or beast, when it is actually able to think or act beyond my exact control? The idea is patently absurd.
Back around to the OP, I think everyone should remember that it is not a competition between players and the GM, it is a game for fun and if he uses an NPC in a in-story consistent way to advance the game... why would you rather he did such a thing poorly? I am fully in favor of a consistent, fun-paced game between friends.
Players who are new will learn to read their class abilities and know what they're signing up for, like a fun NPC companion. Especially after the shock of being denied what they Assumed was the way it worked.
Since they can speak to the as per the summon monster rules they get to direct them on their actions.
Meanwhile Fluffy might not get in the boat because the DM has decided after fighting those water elementals Fluffy is afraid of water.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
There is no need to be jerky Alydos. I simply stated how I, as a player, would react.
People who do not share your opinions are not lacking in intelligence, or bad people. They just have a different view.
Also, the "haha, looks like you are noob, squirrel familiar attacks you" way of going about it, is really the worst way.
In fact if we take the whole NPC route then the druid has no control over what feats or skills Fluffy takes since NPCs are created by the gm and he decides how he levels. Though I guess a nice GM might ask for your input.
In fact if we take the whole NPC route then the druid has no control over what feats or skills Fluffy takes since NPCs are created by the gm and he decides how he levels. Though I guess a nice GM might ask for your input.
I'm having fun, I'm glad there are people up this late to talk too.
Nowhere do the rules say the DM creates all NPC's, in fact, the animal companion is created by the rules and could even be said to be Trained in game by the player, meaning the DM does not choose what skills they take, but who is the arbitrator who decides if it's okay for the animal to be built that way?
Also, the Summon Monster rules say that it attacks to the best of it's ability, which RAI likely means it is your slave, even if it has intelligence and free will it cannot disobey you as you make it do anything. But that is still just as easily Rules as Interpretted as it is Intended.
BBTroll, I'm curious about your opinion on how the GM decides if your action is against your alignment or say.. paladin code! You would lose control of a huge portion of your character even on his whim! Are these also classes you would never play?
I'm sorry, I was assuming the worst because you have Troll in your name and wasn't being civil instead of snide. I also thought it silly to think that a Magus's blackblade could never work outside of their control and was sarcastic.
We're all making the assumption that the GM is a monster of a person, and this argument works best when you assume worst case scenario. However that does not mean that it's unreasonable to follow the rules and realize that an animal companion is still a tamed, trained animal.
The Rules for animal companions state that the companion(controled by the GM) chooses what feats/skills/ability increases it gains.
The only time it states the druid(The player) gets to choose anything is the bonus tricks. Meaning if my animal companion is treated in all respects like an NPC then other than his skill tricks its up to the GM what feats/skills/ability increases are gained.
As to summoned monster the next line talks about speaking to them which is no problem for a summoner since the eidolon knows all his languages.
This actually came up in my group the other day. One of my player's has a construct. While the construct is capable of following instructions he wanted the construct to do something he had not instructed it to do. I reminded him of this, the player didn't like it but agreed.
Of course, Familiars are intelligent. However, animal companions that are of animal intelligence would still be limited to command-response and animal type responses to things. As a GM I see no problem with allowing the player to run his pets.
However, I will be the arbiter if I feel the pet steps out of character.
- Gauss
The Rules for animal companions state that the companion(controled by the GM) chooses what feats/skills/ability increases it gains.
The only time it states the druid(The player) gets to choose anything is the bonus tricks. Meaning if my animal companion is treated in all respects like an NPC then other than his skill tricks its up to the GM what feats/skills/ability increases are gained.
As to summoned monster the next line talks about speaking to them which is no problem for a summoner since the eidolon knows all his languages.
I agree it says you can speak to them, but it doesn't specifically say they follow all commanders, just that they will attack enemies to the best of their abilities. While I agree with your interpretation, it is not stated outright as a rule.
Wow, I never realized the animal companion itself chooses it's training much like a player, this is very interesting and I did not notice that exact wording nuance before. That is a very odd way to think about animal companions but is also support for them not being psychic slaves to the Players... Though in-game your PC should be guiding the animal on it's choices of training with handle animal.
Any reasonable GM will happily let you decide what your animal takes as feats, but should still arbitrate anything too out of character as you describe your companion. (tiger trained with dwarven waraxe comes to mind)
This still doesn't answer my new questions about how I should feel about the DM being in control of my code. If I'm not comfortable with him controlling an NPC, how can I be comfortable with him as a Game Master who has any effect on my character at all? I am seeing this ending with the only way to play this situation in disagreement is not to play.
Or to assume 90% of GM's are really out to help everyone have a good time and not crush our feelings with a small, spontaneous event.
This is the reason most players avoid classes with easy to punish codes.
A lot of DMs have a built in need to see a paladin and suddenly turn a simple goblins attacking a village quest into a moral quandry by suddenly adding a nusery full of newborn goblins who are helpless and can't live on their own.
This is the reason most players avoid classes with easy to punish codes.
A lot of DMs have a built in need to see a paladin and suddenly turn a simple goblins attacking a village quest into a moral quandry by suddenly adding a nusery full of newborn goblins who are helpless and can't live on their own.
I don't have a lot of experience outside of the several places I've lived, and I am DM most of the time, so in my opinion the occurance of that kind of play is greatly exaggerated by the forums.
Having said that, I know that a lot of stereotypes are founded in truth. Some part of me thinks that this entire thread is about trusting the people you play with more than a rules question about whether players control animal companions All of the time.
To that, Handle Animal checks are a huge RAW against that, but convenience and normal game precedence are a huge for it.
I will admit I sometimes have an internal war between my sadistic need to burn my players just for my amusement and the need to provide a good game. I have found a balance though...I put one of those needs as a slave to the other. I'll leave it up to you to figure out which is which.
MUAHAHAH!
- Gauss
The player in combat, with DM veto (Oh hell no mammal I am NOT getting anywhere NEAR that thing) the DM out of it.
had one of the PC's familiar approach and take an action with another of the scenes npcs[/url]The approach may be the problem. If the familiar is going to run off like that it could get killed.
Animal Companion
It's a animal at all, so the player can give orders and it will (or will not) follow, like a hound.
E.g. it will not charge into a lava pit only because it's "master" tell it to do.
If no command is given it will fight/act like every domestic animal.
So here I will normaly ask the player to control it, but I will interfer in cases like the lava pit.
Familiar
Familiars are no normal monsters, it's somehow linked to the master. Here I would use the same rule as for animal companions, but wouldn't interfer if an action is against the familiars normal nature (like jumping througth a wall of fire).
In both cases I always like to add some flavour to the companion/familiar by describing special behaviour, but only if the pplayer is ok with it, at last the companion is part of his character.
Companion development (feats etc.) is all in the hand of the players.
I think it has to be all or nothing.
Either the GM always controls the player's pet or he never controls it.
Of course, you can still discuss with the GM or with the player if the action felt out of character or was weird for some other reason.
Why, in your opinion, does it have to be absolute; black and white?
I personally believe that the companion should act as an NPC out of combat, but in combat the players dice rolls are still the d20 being thrown out. The player makes the commands, he should follow through with them unless they are out of reasonable bounds at GM's discretion.
This allows for faster gameplay, more accurate accounting of damage/+attack mods, and more fun for the player. However, it enhances the bond of the player with his pet because it can respond to him.
|
|
As a player in PFS of a Druid with a dog animal companion I prefer to play my character but wouldn't be averse to the GM narrating some action of Barrow (that's the dog's name) as long as it wasn't wildly out of character for him.
For example, Barrow is more of a mutt and a scavenger than an attack dog and so while I would be fine with the GM declaring something like Barrow sniffing around the boot of an NPC and cocking his leg, or snapping at another animal if it comes too close.
I wouldn't be happy with a GM narrating that Barrow takes an instant dislike to an NPC the other side of the room and charges at them to attack - its just not how I picture Barrow's nature. If this sort of thing happened I would go with it but let the GM know immediately afterward that I felt it didn't fit Barrow's nature.
Mind you I have never had a GM take control of my character's Animal Companion - that may be because I always remember to roll Handle Animal checks to command him (although with the bonus I have now I cannot fail on trained tricks even if Barrow is injured etc, so I only roll for Pushing him).
Also my character never puts Barrow into overwhelming danger and calls him back if he looks like he is getting surrounded in combat etc, despite the fact that Barrow could probably handle it (he has more hit points than my character and 5 AoOs per round!)
Losing control is much worse than not having it from the beginning. It will be essentially arbitrary unless you do what you suggest and put an in-combat/out-of-combat divide between them. If you arbitrarily lose control of your pet, it feels just like if the GM strips away any other class feature without explanation.
Once again, you're presenting it as black and white, lost control or always controlling.
It's not without explanation if it's in-setting and in-character. You're not permanently losing control either, just allowing the animal companion to work as intended. Should you ever really have control of your friends or companions or servants? It following you is all based on it's training and Handle Animal checks in the first place.
It may very well choose not to follow you if you abuse and torture and maim it, when the GM says that it growls at you, what do you do if you've Never role played a single aspect of it's personality. "Sorry, Mr. Scruffles likes it when I make him bleed, so he licks my hand in appreciation with the half of his tongue he still has"
I could see someone describing their animal companion as doing something out of combat like greeting someone in a social interaction. But how often do people just forget they have an animal companion outside of its skills and in-combat use? Take the Raven from OOTS as a great example. It is inherently an NPC animal, even if one that is introduced to and will follow the druid/ranger/etc around as part of a class feature.
As I've said before, there is nothing wrong with the GM using an Non-PC to roleplay appropriately.
|
The PC is the Familiar's 'Boss', so their commands are usually something that I don't 'mess with' as a DM. However, the personality of the Familiar is something that I infuse (Just as you would with any other NPC).
The PCs in my game love this, actually. Same with their Cohorts (Since they all started as encountered NPCs, my players wanted me to continue 'playing their opinions,verbage,etc...).
http://paizo.com/forums/dmtz32dm?Leadership-Who-chooses#20
Someone else can pretty it up, but the player does choose the feats of the animal companion.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The GM isn't wrong to take over an animal companion, familiar or cohort in my opinion, nowhere is it stated that they are under their control, they are not additional player characters. The gm also controls the actions of summoned monsters and the like, though the GM should keep in mind that the monsters, AC, familiar or eidolon are under the character's control (as opposed to player, so they have to communicate their desires somehow.
As a GM I generally let the PC control the familiar, but often I control the familiar to do something random or even unwanted according to it's personality, an animal companion can be handled as a move action but generally it will just act as a loyal animal according to it's intelligence and personality, summoned devils follow their summoner's commnads to the letter though even that leaves room for interpretation, even if they fight for the summoner they will still be as cruel as any devil and might go out off their way to inflict suffering on the summoner's foes. Cohorts likewise are fiercly loyal, but ultimately not automatons under their control, mistreat your henchman too badly and it might turn away from you, or even turn on you in rare cases.
Don't like it don't select it, I think the features are quite powerful even without complete control, I also find it enhances rp if you dont give them full control.