| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Get your micromanaging pain off my mummy flanking snake.
You guys seem to have it out for James for some reason....
Whether you agree with him or not, those are the rules. There's no need to even argue about them in the Rules forum.
It does seem that a lot of the hostility about control of AC's and such is from people who just "don't like the idea". As with everything else if its in a home game then there's no reason for you to be stating a case on the Rules forum since you can just ask your GM how he wants to run it.
I actually count myself lucky that my GM plays by the rules on AC's and other NPCs...and yet I have had no issues with anything that happens, weird huh? My AC hasn't died by some crazy accident or anything (it did almost kill someone we wanted kept alive though, thank god for the "down" trick)
Unless you have a mental link of some kind that allows telepathy then you have to direct ANY NPC that is given to you, whether it be through class levels (druid,ranger,cavalier, ect.) or through feats like Leadership
If you were suppose to have total control over your AC or other animals you could buy or whatever, then there would be no "tricks" or handle animal DC's or anything...but yet there they are to be used.
If you have a dog/cat/whatever, go sit next to it...just sit there...and think as hard as you can "(name of animal) I want you to jump up and down on the floor"...not say it, just think it. Now post the results, what happened? My best guess is NOTHING because you have no control over the creature with your mind. Try again with just speaking, no movement of any kind, just speaking. Again, maybe nothing but a possibility of a well trained animal to do such (lower handle animal check?). Try a third time, this go at it with gusto, use movement or toys or jump around with the animal, does it work now? With a dog probably (maybe not so much with a cat, try lasers), and there ya go, you passed your handle animal check
Same thing with a mount, go ride a horse. When you hop in the saddle just sit there, don't say anything or move and in your head direct the horse. Again, unless you are telepathic your just gonna sit there, and if the horse is newly broken and maybe not used to being ridden a lot its more than likely going to just do what it wants until directed. Now use your legs and reins to direct the horse, does it follow now? If you kick it does it speed up? Unless it threw you to the ground for not knowing what your doing then probably yes it followed your commands and direction AS IT WAS TRAINED to. It didn't do those things on its own, you had to HANDLE THE ANIMAL (I take no responsibility for those hurt in the above test, your actions and injuries are your own)
Yes this is me arguing reality over a game, but the people arguing control of their AC are arguing the RULES of the game against the game itself, houserule and move on
For PFS players, the GM is suppose to run the AC, if he feels that its too much for him along with everything else then he may just give control to you, but he still has the right to let you know if you are trying to get your AC to do something far beyond the comprehension of what it knows
As for summons, james already spelled that out, in the spell it tells you what they do, unless you can communicate with them you have no control, they attack until the spell ends or you dismiss it
Off-topic quick question..isn't there a spell that can wrestle control of summoned creatures away from the original caster?
|
In the case of the animal companion, it does not communicate and understand as well as a human (or the like) would. This is the same limitation that extends to bought/trained animals (as that is what the companion is). The class ability improves this, but not to the extent that skills are not necessary. That is a game limitation.
Hurm... that raises an interesting question. Summon Nature's Ally also makes it clear that your summon attacks your opponents to the best of it's ability, but you need to be able to communicate with it in order to get it to not attack, attack particular combatants, or to perform other actions. What tricks to summoned animals have? What's the Handle Animal DC to get the Nature's Ally to do something other than Attack or Defend?
What constitutes communication with a summon? Clearly, if it's intelligent and they have a language in common, that's not an issue. But what happens when the Wizard summons a Celestial Bison, when he clearly does not have Handle Animal?
By the rules, it would seem that Bison would go on the same round as the Wizard, and it goes off and attacks whichever of the wizard's enemies that it chooses. Since he has no way to communicate with the Bison, well...
Which is never how I've seen it played, but it's pretty clear that's how the rules are written. *goes off to think*
|
|
As for summons, james already spelled that out, in the spell it tells you what they do, unless you can communicate with them you have no control, they attack until the spell ends or you dismiss it
Off-topic quick question..isn't there a spell that can wrestle control of summoned creatures away from the original caster?
Yup, Control Summoned Creature.
You seize control of a summoned creature by disrupting the bond between it and the caster who summoned it. If the creature fails its save, you may command it as if you had summoned it. The original caster can attempt to regain control of the creature as a standard action by making an opposed Spellcraft check against you. When your spell ends, control reverts to the original summoner. If the summoning spell ends before this spell ends, the remaining duration of this spell is lost.
So, I take control and it follows the same rules as before... unless I can communicate with it in some manner, it just attacks my enemies until the spell runs out.
In the case of the animal companion, it does not communicate and understand as well as a human (or the like) would. This is the same limitation that extends to bought/trained animals (as that is what the companion is). The class ability improves this, but not to the extent that skills are not necessary. That is a game limitation.By the rules, it would seem that Bison would go on the same round as the Wizard, and it goes off and attacks whichever of the wizard's enemies that it chooses. Since he has no way to communicate with the Bison, well...
Which is never how I've seen it played, but it's pretty clear that's how the rules are written. *goes off to think*
That's how I've run (an am running) summons. Had a player summon an animal to check for traps, and tell it go into a trapped area. Results:
"The animal looks at you funny, because you don't have a way to talk to animals."
At which point he remembered he did have Handle Animal and pushed it. If he couldn't have, someone else in the party could have.
More interesting question. What happens if the enemy uses handle animal on your summon or DC? There's an 'exclusive' trick now that limits who they'll obey, but not everything will have it.
To get an animal to do something it doesn't know, the DC is 25
For summons, theres a bond between the caster and the summoned creature, hence the spell that allows you to take control away
For an AC I would say they have to be friendly first, I'm actually looking into that right now
|
|
For summons, theres a bond between the caster and the summoned creature, hence the spell that allows you to take control away
For an AC I would say they have to be friendly first, I'm actually looking into that right now
What would make sense to me is that the summon is friendly to the caster. If anyone else in the party wanted to give it orders, it would kind of make sense that they'd need to bring it around to helpful first. Again, critters with language skills would be far less of an issue.
This entire assertion that the "rules" say that the GM runs animal companions, paladin mounts, eidolons and familiars is based on the interpretation that these are all "NPCs."
I consider that interpretation to be simply an assertion, not a rule. It is based on the idea that anything that isn't a "PC" is an "NPC." However, if you read the NPC section in the GM's Guide it is clear that the context of the term "NPC" is always about creatures that the GM creates as part of his world.
All of the above creatures are created by the player, not the GM.
It is clear to me that these creatures fall into a "gray area" between "PC" and "NPC" and that means there is probably a need for clarification on how they are run in the campaign.
Which is exactly what the devs have said they are doing. So we will see how they describe them when those 8 pages come out.
|
This entire assertion that the "rules" say that the GM runs animal companions, paladin mounts, eidolons and familiars is based on the interpretation that these are all "NPCs."
I consider that interpretation to be simply an assertion, not a rule.
Exactly. It's "proof by assertion". There's no point in trying to argue about it - you'll never get anyone to change their position.
|
|
To get an animal to do something it doesn't know, the DC is 25
Sure, but summoned animals have what tricks? We can extrapolate that they have Attack (and likely Attack Anything) since Summon Nature's Ally states that they attack your enemies, but do they have Down (for instance). Getting them to NOT kill an opponent is, what, a DC10 or a DC25 check?
|
|
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 there's nothing that says they DON'T. Go to any PFS table in any convention in the bloody planet. Everyone I've seen in conventions from Dexcon to Gencon have been running things this way since the days of D20.
Because it's one of the ways we get scenarios done in 4 hour time blocks.
And again as I've said before this game can't be run entirely on RAW. That's why we need GM's instead of just bookreaders.
In general, exceptions to the rules are called out... in this case, there is no such call out, so the fact that it doesn't say that they don't is immaterial.
I'm okay with it being a house rule, or done to keep the game moving but there's little support for animals not getting their own initiative in RAW.
I think I was pretty clear already James. Characters or companions created by the player as part of their base character are qualitatively different than characters that the GM makes as part of populating his/her world.
I am not saying that because the player makes them, that the GM has no control over them. I am saying that because the player makes them they are not the same as GM created NPCs. And as such there is a clear gray area about how they should be played in game. If the player created the character/companion, statted him/her/it out, chose feats and abilities and wrote the backstory, then that means the player likely knows the character/companion's motivations, personality and ambitions better than the GM.
Does that mean that the player should always control that character/companion?
Probably not, but it sure as heck seems to suggest strongly that the player should have a whole lot more input into playing that character/companion than they would for the shopkeeper running the general store.
I think this is self-evident to the vast majority of players. And I suspect strongly that this is exactly what the 8 pages will address.
I think your position and others who say that the GM is in total control is an extreme position that is not supported by the rules no matter how much you try to claim that it is.
I think I was pretty clear already James. Characters or companions created by the player as part of their base character are qualitatively different than characters that the GM makes as part of populating his/her world.
I am not saying that because the player makes them, that the GM has no control over them. I am saying that because the player makes them they are not the same as GM created NPCs. And as such there is a clear gray area about how they should be played in game. If the player created the character/companion, statted him/her/it out, chose feats and abilities and wrote the backstory, then that means the player likely knows the character/companion's motivations, personality and ambitions better than the GM.
Does that mean that the player should always control that character/companion?
Probably not, but it sure as heck seems to suggest strongly that the player should have a whole lot more input into playing that character/companion than they would for the shopkeeper running the general store.
I think this is self-evident to the vast majority of players. And I suspect strongly that this is exactly what the 8 pages will address.
I think your position and others who say that the GM is in total control is an extreme position that is not supported by the rules no matter how much you try to claim that it is.
This.
I've been reading and trying to sum up this argument in my head. This is it.
|
|
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 there's nothing that says they DON'T. Go to any PFS table in any convention in the bloody planet. Everyone I've seen in conventions from Dexcon to Gencon have been running things this way since the days of D20.
Because it's one of the ways we get scenarios done in 4 hour time blocks.
And again as I've said before this game can't be run entirely on RAW. That's why we need GM's instead of just bookreaders.
It's also, it seems, implicitly supported by the rules. In at least one example in the rulebooks - the brief excerpt on page 27 of the Game Mastery Guide on the section on "Running a Game" - the druid and his animal companion go on the same sequence. Not only that - it's pretty obvious there that the druid is the one determining what the animal companion will be doing; the GM is just calling for appropriate rolls.
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
The animal companion is not your character. It is an animal that is separate from your druid (et al).
You get to play one character, no more (and no less).
-James
I get to play my character and all of its class benefits. No more, and no less.
Do you pick the wizards spells for him everyday? Do you tell the cleric when they can or can't cast their spells?
Do you tell the fighter when he can or can't swing his sword? Dictate what bonus feats he takes? Inform him when you'll apply his power attack and when you won't?
Of course you don't. (I hope.)
Why does an animal companion or familiar then enable the DM to suddenly step in and start controlling the class feature?
Answer is simple. It doesn't.
It follows the rules given in the books for it. I.e. the animal does what its told (under the rules for it) not whatever the DM randomly decides for it to do.
You are well within your rights to change that for your games. Houserules are varied and plentiful, to be sure. Just inform your players during character creation that you get to play part of their class for them. They'll need to know that information in order to make an informed decision about what to play.
-S
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 there's nothing that says they DON'T. Go to any PFS table in any convention in the bloody planet. Everyone I've seen in conventions from Dexcon to Gencon have been running things this way since the days of D20.
Because it's one of the ways we get scenarios done in 4 hour time blocks.
And again as I've said before this game can't be run entirely on RAW. That's why we need GM's instead of just bookreaders.
It's also, it seems, implicitly supported by the rules. In at least one example in the rulebooks - the brief excerpt on page 27 of the Game Mastery Guide on the section on "Running a Game" - the druid and his animal companion go on the same sequence. Not only that - it's pretty obvious there that the druid is the one determining what the animal companion will be doing; the GM is just calling for appropriate rolls.
I forgot about that excerpt. Not only are the druid and animal companion on the same initiative turn, they're making interleaved actions--the druid commands the companion first, next the companion moves, makes a perception check (that the player makes the roll for), then non-verbally communicates back to the druid, and then the druid makes his move action.
|
Unless you have a mental link of some kind that allows telepathy then you have to direct ANY NPC that is given to you, whether it be through class levels (druid,ranger,cavalier, ect.) or through feats like Leadership
If you were suppose to have total control over your AC or other animals you could buy or whatever, then there would be no "tricks" or handle animal DC's or anything...but yet there they are to be used.
When you say "you" are you referring to the player or their character, because there is a huge difference!
If you meant:
If your character were suppose to have total control over your AC or other animals you could buy or whatever, then there would be no "tricks" or handle animal DC's or anything.
Then I agree, and so because we do have Handle Animal it can't be the case that the character has total control over the AC.
However if you meant:
If you the player were suppose to have total control over your AC or other animals you could buy or whatever, then there would be no "tricks" or handle animal DC's or anything.
Then I would disagree, players are capable of separating their knowledge from their character's knowledge and so are quite able to have total control over their animal companions without making the Handle Animal rules irrelevant.
The fact that some players may metagame and thus try to ignore those Handle Animal rules doesn't mean that all players will do that and therefore that Animal Companions all have to be run by the GM.
Anyway, that is a discussion fro two other threads!
On the issue of initiative I think ACs and characters should have separate initiatives unless the the player is happy to combine or its laid out as a house rule well in advance. In PFS the GM should ask the player if they are willing to merge initiative because some players may have chosen Improved Initiative etc for their animal companions.
Sure the animal does what its told, but he has to be told, doesn't he? The DM then handles that, just as he handles all Non Player Characters that are either independent of the PCs, or beholding to them.
Perhaps you subscribe that the animal will delay indefinitely without an order to do anything like some form of construct. I, personally, say it is an animal and without orders not to behave normally it will do so.
-James
An AC is technically a trained animal and many trained animals will delay until commanded to perform. I guess the question is, what is "normal" behavior for a trained animal?
I get to play my character and all of its class benefits. No more, and no less.
And if you are a nobility domain cleric, do you get to play your cohort?
Meanwhile if you are not, but just take it via feat then you have the DM run them?
Likewise you let the DM run the creatures you summon via summon monster spells, but not if your PC uses their SLA to summon one?
The DM runs a bought animal that your PC has trained, but not one another got by virtue of a bond?
This is a strange line in the sand to draw.
The class ability for druids gives them a better connection to an animal. It does not make the animal under the direct control of the player, nor even under the perfect control of the PC.
You get the benefit of the bond, but you don't run the Non-Player Character.
Many class features are things that is under direct control of the PC. The animal companion is indirect control, as the PC has to communicate their desires to the companion. Without that communication the animal acts independently.
Likewise there are class abilities that a player may not want to activate, but occur at random or on certain triggers. The player does not get to decide this.
Finally..
It follows the rules given in the books for it. I.e. the animal does what its told (under the rules for it) not whatever the DM randomly decides for it to do.Sure the animal does what its told, but he has to be told, doesn't he? The DM then handles that, just as he handles all Non Player Characters that are either independent of the PCs, or beholding to them.
Perhaps you subscribe that the animal will delay indefinitely without an order to do anything like some form of construct. I, personally, say it is an animal and without orders not to behave normally it will do so.
-James
The only person in any campaign I've ever been in who was allowed to take Leadership (or get any "cohort" like creature at all) the PC built him and ran him entirely. (He was the captain of a ship we acquired. He took the feat to acquire the captain and crew.. It worked wonderfully.)
But I would imagine the answer would be yes, of course the PC would run it. Or does the DM take control of all the other domain abilities the PC's get? Why single this one out? Do you pick what domain spells they get that day? or when to cast them? If they have domain abilities used X number of times a day do you dictate when they happen?
No, you don't. Why? Because its part and parcel of the PC and by taking that way from them you are taking from them part of their character.
The DM doesn't handle the creature being told. The PC does. The PC tells the order, and then the AC does what it was told. Simple.
That isn't to say a DM wouldn't have veto power though if the PC were playing it incorrectly. (such as by not ordering the AC around but having the AC act as though it had, and such.) The DM always has the ability to enforce the rules.
I would allow that if a PC *never* follows the rules then the DM should just disallow the PC that particular class. (or classes like it).
"Sorry Jim, you never follow the rules with it and I have a billion and a half other things to deal with in combat. "
But thats the same for any other rule governing the PC's.
If a PC goes around sayign fireball does 20d6 and a 100ft spread but ignores the PC's then the DM of course steps in and corrects the problem and if the problem continues then there are other issues at work. (PC cheating or just being ignorant of their class, continually, and refusing to fix it).
But Any part of the character is part of the character. Things granted by the class or the feats are for the Player of that character to control just like every other aspect of it.
As to what I subscribe to.. I subscribe that if the DM required it I'd just tell my companion at the start of the day to guard me, and after every combat I'd just.. do it again. "Fido: Guard me." that way when combat started he'd guard me by default until given some other command.
If the DM allowed me to direct him to delay then he'd do that too (or instead of) but either way he'd be well trained and under orders any time we were in combat. Any anytime we weren't, too.
And if the DM decided my companion wasn't following my orders anymore and wasn't under magical compulsion or something then I'd talk to him about it and if that didn't fix it I'd kill myself and make a character without such an issue to be had.
-S
James, have you, or anyone else, actually posted a rule from the rule book that explicitly states that GMs ALWAYS run ALL NPCs?
While you are at that, can you find a rule which states that an eidolon, animal companion, familiar or paladin mount is explicitly defined as an NPC?
I mean since you're so quick to come up with "the rules say" and all that. Let's see what the rules actually say. Just for fun.
MrTsFloatinghead, the problem is not really about RP. It is about power. People take Leadership (one of the most abusable feats in the game) and then want to make the perfect cohort.
But, how does the player get this perfect cohort? Was he cloned? If not then why should the player be allowed to create the cohort. Instead, the GM and Player should be working out something akin to a job interview or a more organic 'this is the person you have been befriending for some time now' type thing. Both of those situations take the cohort out of the PCs hands and puts it (where I think it belongs) in the GMs hands but keep the PC in the loop.
If you really want a second PC, ask your GM for a second PC, not a cohort. It seems that is what you really want.
With that said, I believe that after creation it is fine for a cohort to be ran by the player up until the GM feels a need to step in to correct something or to roleplay an interaction between Player and Cohort.
Regarding animal companions, I also believe that they belong under 'primary' control of the Player but if they are trying to do something which is out of line the GM should reign them in. I have seen players try to have an Animal Companion do things which an animal with a 2 intelligence cannot possibly comprehend or accomplish.
One of the most obvious:
Player: I send my Animal Companion to scout around in the room ahead.
GM: You cannot see him there.
Player: That is fine.
GM: Ok, he scouts around and comes back.
Player: What did he find?
GM: How are you acquiring this information?
Player: Uhhhh....
After this begins an exchange where the player tries to use Speak with Animals to get information from an animal that doesn't understand human concepts like 'ogre' etc. The AC speaks in terms of big, scary, smelly, etc. Eventually the player gets annoyed that his pet isn't the scout he thought it was.
This type of exchange happens quite a bit unfortunately. Some players like to think that the Animal Companion is somehow an extension of themselves with an intellect to match. In combat this misconception of what the AC should be able to accomplish is even worse when the GM tries to explain the AC is really just an animal while the player tries to explain how an AC should understand all of this.
This is why some GMs take control of Animal Companions. It simply prevents much of the problem.
Note: I feel it is better for ACs to stay under control of Players (with some caveats) and for Cohorts to be run in combat by Players (with some caveats) simply to make my job easier but that does not mean I will give a player carte blanche to do what he wants with creatures that are not the PC.
/end ramble
- Gauss
|
|
James, have you, or anyone else, actually posted a rule from the rule book that explicitly states that GMs ALWAYS run ALL NPCs?If this hasn't been quoted on this thread (and I believe that it has), then it was quoted on the PFS thread on the subject of animal companions.
It's not that hard to find, just search for 'NPC' in the core rulebook. Or go to the table of contents and look for NPC.
In the PFS Animals and their tricks Blog Jeffrey Fox in this post showed strong evidence that, by RAW, Animal Companions are neither PCs or NPCs but Monsters.
He also stated that unfortunately as there is no RAW rule about who controls Monsters we are still left with an unclear situation.
So james maissen, I think if you want people to come around to your opinion that animal companions are NPCs and NPCs are always controlled by the GM you will likely need to given explicit references of the RAW.
|
I wonder if the rules for who controls the Animal Companion was left intentionally vague, so that DMs could choose.
As evidenced in this thread, the issue is one preference, that is often strongly felt one way, or another.
Logically, one could see that Developers saw this possible outcome, and simply left it vague.
|
|
But, how does the player get this perfect cohort? Was he cloned? If not then why should the player be allowed to create the cohort. Instead, the GM and Player should be working out something akin to a job interview or a more organic 'this is the person you have been befriending for some time now' type thing. Both of those situations take the cohort out of the PCs hands and puts it (where I think it belongs) in the GMs hands but keep the PC in the loop.
But when a player wants to create a PC, doesn't he work with the GM to create a character that fits within the concept of the campaign, and the context of the rest of the party "Gee Dave, I know you like the new Gunslinger class but gunpowder doesn't exist in my campaign world, so I'm going to have to ask you to choose another class".
So how does that differ to how a GM and player could collaboratively come up with a concept and build for a cohort?
Just allowing the GM to have veto power over certain choices, and input and advice on what sort of character would fit in well, does not mean that cohorts are "in the GM's hands" anymore than it means the player's character is "in the GM's hands".
Anyway, even if we agree that cohorts are NPCs and that means they are thus under GM control, that actually has no definitive ruling on who controls animal companions. Looking at the 3.5 SRD of the Leadership feat, cohorts were never explicitly called out as NPCs, though Followers are "Followers are similar to cohorts, except they’re generally low-level NPCs."
So as Paizo explicitly added the text in the Pathfinder version of the Leadership feat to make cohorts NPCs as well, that would actually imply that such a being needs to be spelt out as an NPC to make it so, and animal companions are of course not spelt out as such.
EDIT: Changed last paragraph to begin "So as" rather than "So if"
Paizo does state that cohorts are NPCs:
Benefits: This feat enables you to attract a loyal cohort and a number of devoted subordinates who assist you. A cohort is generally an NPC with class levels, while followers are typically lower level NPCs. See Table 5–2 for what level of cohort and how many followers you can recruit.
When a PC dies, his player no longer has any input into the game (unless he has a cohort or other allied NPC he can start playing).
Rogue: When this card is drawn, one of the character’s NPC friends (preferably a cohort) is totally alienated and made forever hostile.
Cohorts are most certainly NPCs and the only reason I would ever let a player run one in combat is to make my life easier. In my games the cohort is not an extension of the player. The player should not be allowed to define every facet of the cohort although the player should have his choice of types of cohorts. Ie: if he doesn't like the cohort, fire him and find another.
In any case, as I stated regarding Animal Companions, I leave them up to the Player except in cases where the Player tries to expect too much out of the AC. That really boils down to 'no you cannot do that' rather than 'and I am taking away your ability to give it orders'.
- Gauss
Ahhh ok, that makes more sense now DigitalMage. :)
- Gauss
Note that when I asked about a rules reference for NPCs, I did not list cohorts or followers, I listed animal companions, eidolons, familiars and paladin mounts. Cohorts and followers are NPCs, and by RAW the GM should actually even create them, not just run them.
As a courtesy and because I've got other things to do with my time I generally will allow a player to create and run a cohort, but if they cheese it up, I'll step in.
But I still have not seen a rules reference stating that ACs, eidolons, familiars and paladin mounts (and probably a few others I am missing) are NPCS by RAW.
The reason I point this out is that there are some who keep insisting that "RAW says GMs run NPCs!" and I simply don't believe this is true on two levels. First I don't think RAW says GMs ALWAYS run ALL NPCs ALL the time. Secondly I don't think the creatures I have listed are described as NPCs. So that entire line of argument fails on two levels.
Unless you can show me the actual RAW that says it is so.
And listing PFS "rules" doesn't count. PFS is essentially a house ruled version of Pathfinder. PFS rules are useful for identifying certain boundaries, but a PFS rule is not a "rule" unless it is also RAW.
James, I have played many, many campaigns where I have played more than one PC at a time. Most of my early gaming was in a situation where at least one player was playing two PCs at a time.
I've never seen anything in the core rulebook that says a player can only play one creature. It might be suggested that they do so, but unless you can find a specific statement, I believe that is left up to the play group's discretion.
In the end I believe that I have proven my point. There is no rule that says animal companions, eidolons, familiars or paladin mounts (or other similar creatures) are NPCs. Nor is there any rule that says only GMs can run NPCs even if they were NPCs.
My guess (for the umpteenth time) is that my interpretation of these "pseudo-NPCs" is going to end up being very close to what Paizo provides in their 8 pages of guidance coming out.
Oh, one other point. Your assertion that if a paladin dies, he no longer has any input into the game (assuming that is the only PC he is playing) is not a convincing argument that the same player, while the paladin is alive, does not control his mount. It only means that when the paladin dies, the mount is then treated as an NPC. In many cases (most in fact, I expect) the GM would allow the player to continue to control the mount (or AC or whatever) for some reasonable period just because the GM already has plenty to do and there's not a whole lot the mount of a dead paladin could do anyway except maybe go after whatever killed the paladin.
|
|
Again, the Game Mastery Guide can be of some help here. In the section of advice on how to integrate new players, it suggests they might experiment by playing one of several secondary characters in the party. In particular there are the distinct classifications of "Allied NPCs, familiars, or animal companions". There would be no real need for all these categories to be listed if they were all NPCs.
There is also another explicit distinction made a little later in the book (when discussing roles) between "Helper" NPCs (created and run by the GM) and "bonded creatures" (animal companions, familiars and mounts).
Finally, the section discussing Leadership and cohorts suggests that these provide the most likely situation in which a player could (at the GMs discretion) be allowed to run more than one character. I've rarely seen a cohort, but I've seen quite a few bonded creatures. The fact that these aren't identified as the most likely candidates certainly suggests that they are already assumed to be under player control.
|
It certainly seems to be all about power. James wants to run that NPCs the monsters and as much of the PCs as he can control.
So we agree that there are creatures that are tied to PCs by feats and class abilities, that nevertheless are under the control of the GM.
Do you also assume control of wizards and direct them when and where to cast spells? What other class abilities do you like to take away from your players and weaken?
An animal companion is a class feature of a player character. It falls on that player to direct his characters actions and his companions actions. Throwing down GM fiat that a companion is an NPC and under the GMs control is an abhorrent judgement tantamount to randomly taking away a wizard's spells in terms of game mechanics. You're stripping a player of a class feature for no reason other than being a petty GM.
The same goes for mounts and eidolons. They are class features, and under the control of the player.
There are already enough limitations on mounts and companions. You don't need to dig up more, control a Druids wolf and decide that it runs away the entire first round of combat before it receives an order.
If I were a player in one of your games, I would quickly leave. If you were a GM for me at a convention I'd stand up and walk away from the table on principle and report your antics to a VL.
If someone has decided to play a Druid or a Summoner, a Paladin with a mount or any other class with a companion, mount or follower, taking control of their pet should require exactly that: dominate, dominate animal, etc. not DM whim.
|
|
These were straight quotes from the core rule book, could you please do likewise with your position?
-James
i don't have to. two other posters ahead of me quoted several passages from the core book that did that for me. likewise, can i see your notes on passages where it directs the GM to take away a Player's class features?
James, the paladin is the PC. The mount is not a PC, it is a PC class feature. You are the one continuing to assert that the mount is an NPC, in spite of no RAW support for this position.
My comment about the mount potentially becoming an NPC on the death of the paladin is not about rules, but about common sense. If the paladin dies, and the player comes up with a new PC, then the mount is now no longer a PC's class feature. It's not truly an NPC either, but of all the people at the table to take control of it in that circumstance, I think most gamers would agree that the GM is the most logical choice.
My argument has never been about the rules James, yours has been the one claiming over and over again to be based on the rules. That's why I keep asking you to provide the rules that you claim support your side.
The quotes you have posted are either out of context or clearly don't apply to this situation. They are merely portions of the rules that you have grabbed onto in desperation.
It is clear to me (and others here) that you can't provide explicit support for your key assertions, because they don't exist. I have no need nor desire to try to find rules that say your phantom rules don't exist. You're the one saying the rules support your position, all I have to do is point out that they don't. Which I've done.
Bottom line, again, is that this is precisely the reason that Paizo has devoted 8 pages to clear this up. If your position were accurate, that would not be needed.