You're out of the rules area and into house rules.. and sure it distorts the game.
Something you can't find a rule against. Legitimate interpretation (and the most common interpretation at that). Not a house rule (if you find those mutually exclusive).
James Maissen, if you are so concerned with grouping do the following:
AC rolls initiative. Druid rolls initiative. Whoever got higher now delays until the lower one. Seems pretty simple to me.
Now, if they do not want to delay that is fine, but actions that do not make sense will begin to occur. If the pair wants to synch up their actions then one of them will need to wait for the other. In the end, you wind up with the same thing. Whoever is slower is when they both go.
Now, I as a GM do not feel like penalizing players for the AC rolling low so I allow them to roll a single initiative at the Druid's initiative bonus. House rule? Sure. But it prevents the situation above. If you are a purest (which you apparently are) then both need to roll and then they need to delay until synchronized or deal with odd order sequences.
- Gauss
|
It gets wonkier if the GM wants to roll initiative individually for other 'minions' of a PC, such as summoned creatures, mounts, animated skeletons, cohorts, familiars, eidolons, etc. For a druid or summoner conjuring multiple lower level summons (such as 1d3 lantern archons or 1d4+1 stirges) or a necromancer or cleric with a half dozen skeletons, it would be a huge waste of time to roll individual initiative for each of them.
It just saves time to have them all go on the PCs turn, so that no one PC is getting actions spread all throughout the round and monopolizing even more of the game time.
That, of course, assumes that the GM allows the PC to run their gumbies actions. If the GM rolls the companion / summoned critters / etc. attacks, which sounds like an option mentioned upthread, where the companion was defined not as a class feature of the PC, but an NPC run by the GM, and said GM is fine with the added work of interspersing them throughout the round, more power to him!
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Okay, up thread there was a discussion of the difference between Fido the AC and Bob the NPC being played poorly.
Here is the difference as I see it:
Bob the NPC was designed by the GM. The GM knows what Feats, skills, and equipment he/she choose for Bob and why. Therefore the GM is less likely to use tactics that are sub-optimal. Also Bob is not the result of a character creation choice. If Bob is used suboptimally it does not necessarily affect a specific party member. If Bob dies no player has lost something that is directly related to their character.
Fido the AC was designed by the Player. The Player knows what Feats, skills, and equipment he/she choose for Fido and why. The GM was not as intimately involved in those choices and therefore is more likely to unintentionally use sub-optimal tactics and choices. Fido is the direct result of a character creation choice. If Fido is used suboptimally, especially if this results in its death, there is a decidedly affects a specific party member. If Fido dies, a very specific player has lost something that is directly related to his/her character.
That is an explanation of the difference, as I see it.
James,
Options available to AC: Act like an animal or defend druid. Acting like an animal will, in most cases, mean that they typically only attack when threatened, hunting for food, or defending territory/young.
Most creatures that PCs fight do not qualify as an AC's typical food source. Adventuring (most of the time) does not involve the AC's own territory so that is usually out. Defending young is also out since I doubt the Druid brought the AC's young. That leaves being threatened which, works just fine.
But again, that is probably a delaying action to wait until either it, or the Druid (if Defend is a known trick) is threatened. So what qualifies as threatened? Someone coming at the Druid or AC with the clear intent to harm. A battle going on 20feet away is probably not enough.
Here the options are many, but the problem is relatively simple. The Druid gives the AC a command and then has to wait most of the turn for that command to be carried out. The command may no longer make sense or be tactically disadvantageous to perform at the time it is performed.
If the Druid tells the AC to 'kill target X' and target X is dead, what does the AC do? Nothing. See scenario 1.
The Druid may tell AC to 'kill target X' thinking that PC allies will be there to support (or be supported by) the AC. By the time the AC does so, the situation could have radically altered.
In short, the Druid should delay until the actions are synch'd up.
Making both the Druid and the AC roll is basically telling the Druid player that his initiative is going to be the worst of the two since the best option is for the two creatures to synch their actions up. While it is a house rule that the druid and AC go on the same initiative I think it is probably a very common house rule. It just makes sense.
One other note: Do you make a Construct (whos actions are clearly dictated by the one in control of the construct) also roll initiative?
- Gauss
|
Every time combat goes from one person to another.
It takes a little time to get their attention, for them to look at the board, decide what to do, etc. So that Bob, Dm, Carl's critter, Don, Carl, Sarah will take longer than Bob, Dm, Don, Carl& carls critter, Sarah
It sounds like 'Carl' needs a kick up the arse, to be honest.
If he's letting his mind wander, so often that he needs to reacquaint himself with the current events every round, for the sake of a bite/claw/claw routine, then that's not the fault of the animal rules.
What would he do if his PC had a spellcaster cohort? Or even four warrior followers, with more than one fighting style?
"Oh, maaan, I don't know whether they should use Power Attack or Expertise this round....hmmm, number one could move and Cleave, I suppose. Hey guys? Would Power Attack be worth doing? I think I need to roll between natural 11 and 14 to hit, so I don't know if that would make me miss? What's the chance on that, hmmmmm?"
"F*** sake Carl, just take your damn turn!"
|
|
If the Druid tells the AC to 'kill target X' and target X is dead, what does the AC do? Nothing. See scenario 1.
Depends. Is it clear that Target X is dead?
If he got decapitated, or disintegrated to a pile of smoking ash, then sure, but if he just got hit and fell over, who's to say he's not still alive, and worth a bite?
t sounds like 'Carl' needs a kick up the arse, to be honest."Oh, maaan, I don't know whether they should use Power Attack or Expertise this round....hmmm, number one could move and Cleave, I suppose.
Thats every player, ever. Even the ones that think they're too l33t for that.
|
|
[EDITED FOR CLARITY]
You need to roll the animal's initiative.
Even if your group has an understanding, that animals will delay their first round to wait for orders, there are so many events that can happen prior to an order being given, which could give the animal reason to act, or even compel them to act, without waiting for that order.
For the following examples, assume Animal rolls 20, Master rolls 10, Enemies roll 15.
Using individual initiative:
20 - Animal delays
15 - Enemy dominates Animal
15 - Animal bites flat-footed Master
10 - Master has to decide whether to break the domination, or attack Enemy, while suffering attacks from Animal.
20 - Animal delays
15 - Enemy drops fear effect
15 - Animal fails save and flees (probably out of sight)
10 - Master has no Animal present, to give orders to
20 - Animal delays
15 - Enemy sets the room on fire, or other dangerous ongoing effect
15 - Animal leaves the area, asap
10 - Master has no animal present, to give orders to
20 - Animal delays
15 - Enemy archer Rogues pepper Animal with arrows. Fortunately, Animal can survive the damage, as none of these count as Sneak Attacks
15 - Animal may wait for orders, or run for cover, or charge the people who just shot it (depends on the psych profile of this animal, as previously agreed between the player and GM, and set by earlier precedent)
10 - Master may need to heal Animal, chase after Animal, give Animal a different order, or may not even need to give an order, as Animal is already doing what Master would have ordered.
Using joint initiative:
15 - Enemy dominates Animal
10 - Master breaks the domination. Gives free/move action command
10 - Animal acts normally. Enemy domination wasted.
15 - Enemy drops fear effect
10 - Master bolsters Animal's Will and/or grants a reroll. Gives free/move action command
10 - Animal acts normally. Enemy action wasted.
15 - Enemy sets the room on fire, or other dangerous ongoing effect
10 - Master dispels dangerous effect, or casts protective buff on Animal. Gives free/move action command
10 - Animal acts normally. Enemy action wasted.
15 - Enemy archer Rogues pepper Animal with arrows. Animal dies from Sneak Attack damage, or is so shot up, it can't risk combat.
10 - If Animal is still alive, Master heals Animal. Gives free/move action command.
10 - Healed Animal leaps into combat.
As you can see, using individual initiative results in far more dynamic and unpredictable encounters, where the Master cannot predict the Animal will be alive and present, or that it will not have already acted under its own instincts or self defence.
These make far more memorable and satisfying encounters, than the joint initiative alternative, where the Master has the option of hindsight, to remove troublesome conditions before the Animal has the opportunity to suffer the consequences.
If some posters (in this or other threads, posting 'antipet' posts) are finding that animal companions are often dominating encounters, I'm willing to bet their group is using the joint initiative shortcut.
Because if you're upset, that PCs and companions are routinely acting as a hive mind with two physical bodies, then doesn't it make sense not to give them a get-out on initiative, which allows them to act like a hive mind with two bodies?
These make far more memorable and satisfying encounters, than the joint initiative alternative,
For the DM. Not for the player who's having half their ability micromanaged by someone else.
Breaking up the initiative will do NOTHING to stop an animal companion from dominating a group if that's what they're already doing. The critters ability to do this is based on their build and in all likelyhood, a poor build on the part of the other players. You're not nerfing the character you're annoying the player.
0 - Animal delays
15 - Enemy archer Rogues pepper Animal with arrows. Animal dies from Sneak Attack damage, or is so shot up, it can't risk combat.
This is incorrect, the animal has gone. It delays. An initiative action is an action.
Snorter, I'm assuming that in your joint initiative examples all the "20 - Animal delays" are simply reminders of where the animal would have been from the non joint examples and the animal is flat-footed until 10. You should clarify as your example is already causing confusion.
|
|
It sounds like 'Carl' needs a kick up the arse, to be honest."Oh, maaan, I don't know whether they should use Power Attack or Expertise this round....hmmm, number one could move and Cleave, I suppose.
Thats every player, ever. Even the ones that think they're too l33t for that.
Then it sounds like 'every player you've ever played with' needs a kick up the arse, as well as Carl. My point still stands; you shouldn't need to reconsider or debate tactics during the round, especially for an animal. Pick something basic that an animal would likely do, then roll for it.
If that means they bite the nearest annoying stranger, then so be it; roll the dice and move on.As far as PC/cohort options go, I have known people who would dither over whether to apply Expertise or Power Attack adjustments, and they took even longer, in 3.0/3.5, when these were an optional scaling mod.
I've never got out an Excel sheet or mobile app, to squeeze out the last 0.0001% optimum DPR. I've always treated Expertise/Power Attack as a roleplay issue. How worried am I that I'll be killed vs How angry is this opponent making me?
If using a 3.0/3.5 sliding PA, I'd assess the annoyance factor of the opponents and pick a number that fit. Give the GM standing instructions, like "I'll always open with 1 point of PA, unless I say different.", and work up or down from there.
DO I GOTTA GO UPTA FOUR ON YA?"
|
|
Snorter, I'm assuming that in your joint initiative examples all the "20 - Animal delays" are simply reminders of where the animal would have been from the non joint examples and the animal is flat-footed until 10. You should clarify as your example is already causing confusion.
Yes, they're reminders/placeholders left in from cut'n'paste. I'll go edit it.
In the individual initiative scenarios, the animal isn't flat-footed, because it rolled 20 initiative, so any attacks coming in between 20 and 10 should have to roll vs full Dex, and don't apply Sneak damage.
Only if you disallow the animal to roll its own initiative, and force it to act with its slower master, does the animal get unfairly nobbled, between when it could have acted, and when it actually acted.
Let's refocus. This is Rules Question post, not Suggestions/House Rules/Home Brew one. Animal Companions are still animals. Animals get their own initiative. Nothing in the AC description says they now get their master’s initiative. And having Improved Initiative on their Feat list is also a pretty clear indication that they still have their own. If you don’t like that because combining them streamlines things, your group has always combined, etc that is fine, but those arguments don’t belong here.
If you still think RAW that combining is fine, then create a new post under Rules Questions about why you think that is, as that still doesn’t belong on this thread. That’s not what Dungeon Master S asked.
Your animal companion beats your initiative, what happens on their turn?
Also who controls the AC is different from whether the inits get combined. Who controls it is not clear RAW as far as I can tell. It’s between the GM and players. But regardless of whether it’s the player or GM they should be aware of what RAW will affect the options/behavior of the AC. That’s what we should focus on to answer the question Dungeon Master S asked.
Okay, I see your point but I definitely parse it differently,The reference to no command being necessary is in regards to the parenthetical text under the trick.
Defend (DC 20): The animal defends you (or is ready to defend you if no threat is present), even without any command being given. Alternatively, you can command the animal to defend another specific character.Does that help?
Grammatically, You should be able to take the everything within the the parentheses away from the sentence and still have it make sense. if the caveat only applied to the information inside the Bracket - the closing bracket would be after the caveat, as in the following example.
Defend (DC 20): The animal defends you (or is ready to defend you if no threat is present, even without any command being given).
As written - it means that the animal will defend automatically, if it sees fit.
I agree, the Defend command is only needed to change it back from another command or to make it defend another creature.
|
|
For the DM. Not for the player who's having half their ability micromanaged by someone else.
I am assuming the GM running this is also giving the animal the benefit of the doubt, and allowing it to act on its own instincts.
If you're with a GM who rules that animals have no ability to do anything but lick their bits, unless actively commanded (see 'The Silent Guard Dog' examples from the other thread), then you will have a net nerf, as sometimes the animal will roll low.
But usually animals have higher Dex than their masters, and fewer feat options, so Imp Init would be a good buy (if the GM uses individual initiative).
At my tables, the animals are usually at the top end of the initiative count, more often than not, and since I allow them some autonomy, for instinctual behavior, what usually happens is that they are able to take AoO vs enemies invading their personal space, or take their own rage out on enemies who they already hate, who've already hurt or scared them or their master.
By the time Master's initiative comes round, he often doesn't even need to issue a command, as the animal is already tearing someone up.
Very useful for a PC whose animal didn't come from a Divine Bond, and doesn't have the option of free action commands.
I just recently started playing a druid, and so far this is a non-issue. If my AC beats my initiative in battle then he goes first. I always have him either defending me for general purposes, or if I have reason to suspect combat then I order him to defend our party witch until I have the lay of the land. I use wild shape in combat so do not get to give him continual orders...he continues to do whatever it is I ordered him last.
Last battle we were fighting skeletons, I knew that they have DR/B but my cat does not...so at the start of battle I ordered him to grapple and pin them instead of just attacking. After me shaping and attacking the one he grappled first, killing it, he continues to do what he was last ordered. He picks the closest one and grapples it.
Do I "control" the AC? Yes, to the extent that I can "handle" him. But I do not have total control over what he does. He acts as he is ordered until otherwise given orders. I do roll his attacks and such but again he is just an animal, there's not a lot of choices he has so this in NO WAY slows down combat.
As a side note, everyone at your table should be paying attention, and after one round should not have to be reminded when its their turn, or have to have their attention gotten for them to make their turn. If they are not paying attention out of game enough that you have to yell at them then I'd say their character is now daydreaming and loses the turn (that would teach them eh?)
|
|
As a side note, everyone at your table should be paying attention, and after one round should not have to be reminded when its their turn, or have to have their attention gotten for them to make their turn. If they are not paying attention out of game enough that you have to yell at them then I'd say their character is now daydreaming and loses the turn (that would teach them eh?)
'Your PC is Delaying' is usually sufficient. It's enough of a reminder that time doesn't stand still for them, but they can still get to act later that turn, if they can get their act together.
I don't mind delays, if they're asking questions about things that would be clearer to their PCs ("Did we establish if that rocky area is difficult or impassable?" or "What's the visibility distance in this cloud?"), but not for attempts to reverse-engineer enemy stats, or start a tactics debate.
Well yes if they are asking about something "for the game", totally acceptable, and hopefully others can even help with that...what I was talking about was someone sitting back when its not their turn on a tablet or phone looking at pictures or my most hated FACEBOOK
It is amazing to me how such simple things can become such complex and convoluted arguments. Now we've got d20 tables to roll against for the GM to micromanage a players' AC.
The insanity just escalates as the discussion continues on down a path where virtually no actual player group is ever going to go.
I wonder if the 8 pages of "who runs the pseudo-NPC?" clarification will address initiative too.
My rule of thumb ....
If the AC has higher init it will defend the druid if he was recently attacked until druid gives him a command on druid initiative. Otherwise it delays for a command dropping its iniative to druid's -1
It druid has higher initiative, spend appropriate action to command AC. AC carries out command on its initiative.
|
It is amazing to me how such simple things can become such complex and convoluted arguments. Now we've got d20 tables to roll against for the GM to micromanage a players' AC.
The insanity just escalates as the discussion continues on down a path where virtually no actual player group is ever going to go.
I wonder if the 8 pages of "who runs the pseudo-NPC?" clarification will address initiative too.
It's because PFS needs a consistent way of handling ACs and the trick system. If so many tables hadn't hand-waived the trick rules away, this might have never been brought up. Or maybe it would have. I don't know.
People have been playing as if they know everything the AC does, even if they don't even have a way to communicate with the blasted thing. It may be a "class feature" but I don't see mind link in the description anywhere.
For example, if a player sends their AC around a corner to scout, why should I tell that player what the AC sees? They themselves can't see it. And they aren't "playing" the AC. So how are they supposed to keep running the AC when they don't know the situation?
|
For example, if a player sends their AC around a corner to scout, why should I tell that player what the AC sees? They themselves can't see it. And they aren't "playing" the AC. So how are they supposed to keep running the AC when they don't know the situation?
Well, you could always try trusting your players.
Until I am presented with evidence to the contrary I'll assume that any player at my table is capable of separating in-game and out-of-game knowledge. I'll tell them what the AC sees, and ask them what the AC would do in that situation; after all, they know the AC a lot better than I do.
I'll also have them roll the dice for the AC. While mathematically there is (or at least should be) no difference whose dice are used, and who gets to roll them, we all know that there is a big difference emotionally.
So the player is handling much of the strategy, and rolling the dice. If you want to say they aren't really playing the AC, just helping out the GM, I don't really care - mechanically the effect is the same.
|
|
"So the player is handling much of the strategy, and rolling the dice. If you want to say they aren't really playing the AC, just helping out the GM, I don't really care - mechanically the effect is the same."
It's not a matter of trust, per se. It's the fact that in most PFS games, and even home games, the habit is to meta game based off what the AC sees. So this is an evidence based concern, because I have seen it over and over.
I think the right thing to do is still allow player "control" but within the constraints of the trick system and DM policing.
|
|
it falls down on what the player an GM want to do, I know if someone was playing a master summoner I would not want watch all the init of the summoned monsters, but I do see your point james. It is not fair to the party if all the Badguys go at the same time. My players had said that any animal companions, summoned monsters, cohort, and charmed or dominated people go with their pc turn, now if someone charmed someone in combat I said that it keeps its init until next battle when it would start going with the pc that charmed. But thats what they like so thats what I do
Summoned monsters are a bit different though. Unless they were summoned before combat started and initiative was rolled, they DO go on the same init as the caster, because that's the round they'll appear (assuming caster was not disrupted).
I in general rule the AC goes on the player's init. It is simpler...it makes sense as there is a mystical bond between the two that goes deeper than a trained animal. I also generaly let the player roll for the AC. It is his/her class feature after all. Though I will RP the animal in certain cases that I think the druid is abusing their AC.
On the other hand if a character wants a trained animal beyond a AC than yes they do go on separate inti rolls and such.
This is just my two cents....run it however you want.
|
|
These make far more memorable and satisfying encounters, than the joint initiative alternative,For the DM. Not for the player who's having half their ability micromanaged by someone else.
Breaking up the initiative will do NOTHING to stop an animal companion from dominating a group if that's what they're already doing. The critters ability to do this is based on their build and in all likelyhood, a poor build on the part of the other players. You're not nerfing the character you're annoying the player.
0 - Animal delays
15 - Enemy archer Rogues pepper Animal with arrows. Animal dies from Sneak Attack damage, or is so shot up, it can't risk combat.This is incorrect, the animal has gone. It delays. An initiative action is an action.
Who's saying that the pet will be micromanaged by the GM? Pet delays, pet comes back on clock at same time as Druid. Druid continues to manage pet.
Managing to land a status effect like fear on the pet isn't 'micromanaging', it's part of combat. I don't see anyone *in this thread* arguing that the GM makes all decisions for the pet.
"So the player is handling much of the strategy, and rolling the dice. If you want to say they aren't really playing the AC, just helping out the GM, I don't really care - mechanically the effect is the same."
It's not a matter of trust, per se. It's the fact that in most PFS games, and even home games, the habit is to meta game based off what the AC sees. So this is an evidence based concern, because I have seen it over and over.
I think the right thing to do is still allow player "control" but within the constraints of the trick system and DM policing.
Then you need to teach and instruct your players (PFS or otherwise) that Metagaming in this fashion isn't acceptable.
For players in a home game its alot easier to enforce. They get to play the Ac until they show they can't. Then You do it for a session and let them try again next time around. Messing with AC's, familiars, Eidolon's, henchmen and Cohorts can be very good way to teach folks about the difference between PC knowledge and Player knowledge- since they /have/ to separate the two to play such critters appropriately.
If you just keep doing it yourself though they'll never, ever learn.
And that works in PFS too. Tell someone with such a creature how you expect it to be played by them (i.e. no metagaming) and if they can't or won't handle it *then* you can step in to prevent it.
I am against a DM not trusting *me* though because of what some screwball did. I can differentiate between my knowledge and my PC's knowledge. Been doing so for several editions now- since I have the books and love to read them.
Give your guys a chance to grow. Let them make the mistakes and show them how they are mistakes and how to correct it. Don't just ban it or alter the rules to prevent it.
You'll both be happier in the long run.
-S
|
|
I'm just going to let Paizo be the heavy on this. They get paid for this, I don't. I really think James's interpretation of the situation is more accurate, but that doesn't really matter as soon as Ultimate Campaign comes out.
I think that:
A) The fact that ACs can take improved init shows that they should have their own init roll
B) The trick system and the dilemma I posed above show how the PC does not have direct control over the AC. Whether this makes it an NPC or a "class feature" that they have to run through the GM doesn't make much difference mechanically. But I don't even like to open the door to metagaming when I don't have to.
Why listen to you when you continue to concede this point and then immediately go back to it? Its like talking to a jello mold.
They're not hand waving the handling of ACs. By the rules, handling them is so easy that its a non issue at the table. No one needs to "hand wave" which is a polite way of saying cheating.
No one is cheating, hand waving, or ignoring any of the rules they need to have fido out damage your special snowflake "But I am smart!" fighter. The solution is not to nag the pet classes player to death.
|
|
I'm specifically referring to tasks which would require pushing that were not rolled for. Most low level druids can't make the DR 25 an automatic success. I'm not talking about "sic em". I'm talking about manipulation of objects, complex task chains, being sent off for minutes and hours at a time to do tasks independently.
I'm now talking about procedural issues, not balance issues. They are completely different. I will admit that my earlier attempt to address the balance issues through the procedural issues was in error. I see no way in PFS to balance ACs through RAW, and just accept this. I just have to hope for lots of enemies with DR if I'm stuck in a group with a pet class I guess.
However, on the topic of procedural consistency for PFS, I do find james's arguments more compelling than the "class feature" arguments. Am I going to run right out and take over an AC? No. But I will attempt to watch what kinds of commands they're being given. The old "tricks enumerated on the index card" should work well for this. It's just gonna get a bit sticky with players who don't own animal archive.
|
|
If you're going to ask for the tricks to be enumerated on the index card, then why not ask for all the abilities, skill levels, etc. to be listed there too? In fact it would just be simpler to take over the whole character sheet, and run the character yourself - that way you know those pesky players won't be cheating!
Of course this means the players won't be having any fun, but the important thing is that the GM will know that he's running a fair table.
|
|
I'm not talking about "sic em". I'm talking about manipulation of objects, complex task chains, being sent off for minutes and hours at a time to do tasks independently.
This isn't a problem with the system - it's a problem with your GMs. But the solution isn't to have the (apparently not all that knowledgeable) GMs take over the ACs - it's for the GMs to learn (and apply) the existing rules.
Around here I've never seen anyone with an AC attempt anything like that. I've seen a fair number of players not bother to make dice rolls for a simple trick, but I'm pretty sure they've all got a high enough "Handle Animal" skill to make a DC10 (or DC12) skill check an automatic success.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I almost never see any of the actions that posters complain about on these boards in actual games. Again, every time I visit these boards I come away thinking I must be one of the luckiest gamers on the planet. Things that are treated as commonplace are rare or have never happened in our group. And that, I suppose, is why our GMs rarely take any draconian arbitrary action to stop the players from doing these things.
We just play to have fun. Nobody's trying to "win D&D".
Lucky me.
|
|
I'm not talking about "sic em". I'm talking about manipulation of objects, complex task chains, being sent off for minutes and hours at a time to do tasks independently.This isn't a problem with the system - it's a problem with your GMs. But the solution isn't to have the (apparently not all that knowledgeable) GMs take over the ACs - it's for the GMs to learn (and apply) the existing rules.
Around here I've never seen anyone with an AC attempt anything like that. I've seen a fair number of players not bother to make dice rolls for a simple trick, but I'm pretty sure they've all got a high enough "Handle Animal" skill to make a DC10 (or DC12) skill check an automatic success.
I'm willing to consider that the possibility that my region has a much higher munchkin concentration coefficient.
Tell someone with such a creature how you expect it to be played by them (i.e. no metagaming) and if they can't or won't handle it *then* you can step in to prevent it.
I am against a DM not trusting *me* though because of what some screwball did. I can differentiate between my knowledge and my PC's knowledge. Been doing so for several editions now- since I have the books and love to read them.
This is a reason why you want to make clear that the animal companion is run by the DM.
The DM can give you (or another player) an NPC to run, but if they do not it is not them not trusting you, but rather that they can handle it.
If you see the default as the player of the druid (et al) runs the companion, then you have conflict and insult when the DM needs someone else to do it. Suddenly the DM is not trusting you, or you are in an argument over metagaming, etc.
The animal companion is NOT the PC. The player gets to run his/her PC, but nothing else. That's the level of entitlement that we have here. When a player expects direct control over multiple creatures, then you are going to have problems. Not always, but you will have them. And for no reason.
-James
I make it clear that if the DM plays part of my character for me then I'm not hanging around. Or- at absolute best- I'm ditching that class and playing another.
Not interested in watching the DM play half or 1/3 of my character class for me. Them's my decisions, not his. (or hers).
-S
I almost never see any of the actions that posters complain about on these boards in actual games. Again, every time I visit these boards I come away thinking I must be one of the luckiest gamers on the planet. Things that are treated as commonplace are rare or have never happened in our group. And that, I suppose, is why our GMs rarely take any draconian arbitrary action to stop the players from doing these things.
We just play to have fun. Nobody's trying to "win D&D".
Lucky me.
I agree with you completely here AD.
-S