|
The veto thing is fine until the AC is out of line of sight of the main PC. So if you send the bird or whatever to scout ahead, how is that handled?The same way the GM handles it whenever the party splits up into two or more separate groups. You don't suddenly get the GM taking over half (or all) the PCs because there's a risk that the players might get to know something that their characters don't.
As has been pointed out many times in this thread - if you can't trust your players not to metagame, then you've got a far bigger problem than who is calling the shots for an animal companion.
At our FLGS, where the time constraints are less tight, I might choose to take one or two players aside just to heighten the suspense. At a con with only a four hour slot (especially if I'm running a bit long, which is usually the case) I'll forgo that. If any player (not just the one whose character has the animal companion) tries to use non-player information I'm quite capable of asking "How do you know to do that?", and making them do something else. But I've never had to do that yet.
Except I still don't think that info should be fed directly to the controller of the AC. Their character does not know this information first hand. They should have to use abilities to get the info out of the AC.
So if you send the bird or whatever to scout ahead, how is that handled? Because there is a psychic link spell for ACs, and it is not available at lower levels.
That one's easy. If it's a bird it flies out and then flies back. The player asks, "What did he see?" I then say, "Your falcon looks at you and blinks."
Because birds don't talk and make lousy scouts.
Wolf or cat animal companion, if the druid player maintains line of sight, I'll say something like, "Your companion takes an aggressive posture and starts growling." Whatever makes sense based on the animal type. I watched a lot of nature shows on PBS as a kid so I let my imagination go wild.
It's up to the player to make of that what he or she will. Is it an ogre around the corner or just a rodent that looks like dinner? The companion can't say... 'Cause dogs and cats can't talk. That's why you send the rogue up ahead after casting message.
But no, there's no telepathic or psychic link to the animal. I don't think anyone in this thread is making the claim that druids somehow have some extra power other than what's stated in the core rule book.
|
Except I still don't think that info should be fed directly to the controller of the AC. Their character does not know this information first hand. They should have to use abilities to get the info out of the AC.
I've already mentioned the example in the Game Mastery Guide (p 27). The GM there tells the player how the animal companion reacts, not what it is reacting to. I'm not going to tell the player what the companion saw (or smelled), even when it returns to the party. But, similarly, I'm not going to tell a player that his PC has seen a troll; just that a giant long-armed creature with enormous tusks is confronting him (showing him a picture if I have one available). The player may very well know that this is a troll, but without a Knowledge skill check the character doesn't (unless the player can convince me that the character has a really good reason to know something about trolls; even then, though, I'm more likely to use that fact for a circumstance bonus on the check).
|
Additionally, from a balance perspective, I don't think it's fair at all for some PC classes to get to run multiple PCs, particularly in time-limited PFS scenario blocks.
I would imagine asking the GM to run an animal companion in addition to all the NPCs and monsters, especially an animal companion he is not familiar with, would actually take longer than the player doing it. So in time limited circumstances I think it would be better for the player to run it.
For it to even be remotely fair, each PC in question would have to be one-half a PC in terms of capability, but this is demonstrably untrue for druids in particular. Druid + pet >>>>> fighter PC of equal player skill and build quality.
That issue would be the same regardless of who runs the animal companion though.
I don't think giving up some control is too much to ask for that level of power.
Giving up control will likely lessen the fun of the player so basically it seems a bit mean-spirited "Oh you have a really powerful character, well I will continue to allow you to play that powerful character but make it less fun for you".
I have said it before, but if your issue is with the power level of Druids and Animal Companions, having GMs run those ACs is not the solution - instead petition your GM, or Mike Brock re PFS, to nerf the druids or not allow animal companions.
|
|
The veto thing is fine until the AC is out of line of sight of the main PC. So if you send the bird or whatever to scout ahead, how is that handled? Because there is a psychic link spell for ACs, and it is not available at lower levels.
The player doesn't need a psychic link to a fictional animal companion! You again seem to be confusing the player with their character!
If the animal companion goes off to scout ahead the GM relates to the player what the animal companion sees and the player then decides what the animal will do. Its that simple.
The when the animal returns the player may roleplay out how he learns anything of what the animal companion found out (maybe a Speak with Animals spell, maybe simply noting the animal companion does look frightened or having been attacked etc)
|
|
But I am happy that it seems that at the very least people are understanding that the animal companion is not a PC. Let us make sure that is unanimous, and then we'll move on to it having it's own initiative, and see if we can agree upon that.
Yep, I agreed previously that I don't view animal companions as PCs, though I do believe they are characters in the story that can be played by players.
However if you take your quote of page 12 "Player Character (Character, PC): These are the characters portrayed by the players" as the very definition of a PC, then yeah an AC could be considered a PC.
But then again, you yourself don't seem to feel that is enough of a definition (and I would agree) as you go on to talk about earning experience having class levels etc.
So really the core rulebook is contradictory on its definitions it would seem.
But anyway, lets assume ACs are not PCs, please continue with explaining how that means GMs control ACs.
|
|
Additionally, from a balance perspective, I don't think it's fair at all for some PC classes to get to run multiple PCs, particularly in time-limited PFS scenario blocks.I would imagine asking the GM to run an animal companion in addition to all the NPCs and monsters, especially an animal companion he is not familiar with, would actually take longer than the player doing it. So in time limited circumstances I think it would be better for the player to run it.
For it to even be remotely fair, each PC in question would have to be one-half a PC in terms of capability, but this is demonstrably untrue for druids in particular. Druid + pet >>>>> fighter PC of equal player skill and build quality.That issue would be the same regardless of who runs the animal companion though.
I don't think giving up some control is too much to ask for that level of power.Giving up control will likely lessen the fun of the player so basically it seems a bit mean-spirited "Oh you have a really powerful character, well I will continue to allow you to play that powerful character but make it less fun for you".
I have said it before, but if your issue is with the power level of Druids and Animal Companions, having GMs run those ACs is not the solution - instead petition your GM, or Mike Brock re PFS, to nerf the druids or not allow animal companions.
I know, I know. I probably shouldn't have posted that bit. There's no point really until Ultimate Campaign. Assuming it applies to PFS. I think there's zero chance that anything mathematical happens to the druid, so I see that as a futile exercise. Most people don't seem to any problems at all with that situation. It's just kind of a pet peeve.
(just watches james maissen go on with the mansplanation)
Dude, we can read the rule book just fine. Spare us.
A few people here have confused what a Player Character is
Really? Who?
Perhaps you can help them?
If they wanted my help, they'd ask for it.
|
|
I know, I know. I probably shouldn't have posted that bit. There's no point really until Ultimate Campaign. Assuming it applies to PFS. I think there's zero chance that anything mathematical happens to the druid, so I see that as a futile exercise. Most people don't seem to any problems at all with that situation. It's just kind of a pet peeve.David, to continue your tangent. I firmly believe from what you've said that your real problem isn't with animal companions or druids, but rather the lack of ability to find the right level of challenge.
Organized campaigns have had this problem from the outset. The sum of the levels of the PCs is not the end all be all to judging what challenges the table will find too tough or too easy. They tend to react by pushing the players into one mold or another, invariably alienating any that didn't already fit into it from the start.
But the issue isn't with druids and animal companions, or people not purposefully gimping their PCs, but with the choices that are taken from the table.
Like I said though, this is a tangent.. and really nothing to do with animal companions and the like.
-James
Not quite. There is still the problem of druid + pet >>>>>> fighter. This is not just a PFS problem. The sum of druid class features, and any class with an animal companion in general is too great I think. ACs either shouldn't get feats or have their hps calculated as a fraction of the PCs or *something*. They are too PC-like, and the classes that get them don't give up enough abilities for the privilege.
Not quite. There is still the problem of druid + pet >>>>>> fighter. This is not just a PFS problem. The sum of druid class features, and any class with an animal companion in general is too great I think. ACs either shouldn't get feats or have their hps calculated as a fraction of the PCs or *something*. They are too PC-like, and the classes that get them don't give up enough abilities for the privilege.
"I want to nerf a class" is hardly a position to use for adjudicating the rules.
"i will annoy the player!" to nerf the class isn't a way to play anything.
you're going to need to wait for pathfinder 2.0 for those kinds of radical changes.
|
|
The home campaign GM would be as familiar and competent with the animal companion as with every other creature that they are running.
Possibly, but possibly not. Is every GM going to be as familiar with all their player's characters as those players are (who get to choose the build and only have the one character build to worry about)?
That aside, it's not your call who runs it but rather that of the GM.
Actually, because it is not explicit in the rules either way, it should be a discussion between player and GM, and it should be a discussion had at character creation.
I suspect that the expectation most players would have is that they would get to control the animal companion (as it is after all part of their character build) and so if a GM intends to run them himself he should make that intention clear from the outset, and if a player disagrees the discussion can take place.
However that is a far cry from demanding that I run the BBEG instead of the GM! Competency of the GM in his/her playing is as tangential as the power level of the druid class below
Equally, if I have to leave a game early I may allow the GM to run my character for me, but that too is a far cry from the GM demanding he always plays my PC.
That issue would be the same regardless of who runs the animal companion though.
Consider here how many people have trouble understanding what a Player Character is!!!!
That is the most disturbing part of this thread. Things that are thought to be...
To be honest, I don't think most people have trouble understanding what in general a PC is - its only because we have got down to semantic word games in order to try to prove a point that things get tricky and people don't share the same exact and specific definition.
It is not that I needed all of the quotes I supplied, but rather I felt I would address the claims of lack of proof in the core rules by quoting many, many places where this claim that the AC is a PC falls flat on its face.
I don't necessarily think its that people feel animal companions are PCs just that they feel they can be characters that can be played by players. And so when someone tries to take the debate into the realms of strict definitions of PC and NPC, then yeah if pushed to classify animal companions in one of those two categories they (and I) could put them in the PC category.
The point is, there is no clear category for "characters controlled and portrayed by a player but not that player's Player Character" unlike in games such as FATE where you have Companions and Minions.
The only category animal companions seem to clearly fit into is Monsters, which are defined neither as PC or NPC, but rather capable of being either or neither. I.e. ambiguous!
Yet even this is still not enough for some, and they offer no rule quotes to counter it.
I am not actually sure anyone is trying to definitively prove that animal companions by RAW should be played by players, rather they are contesting that the RAW is silent on the issue - therefore they do not need to provide any rule quotes, the burden of proof is on those who contend the RAW states GM control.
I don't see the contradiction. Could you supply a quote or two that you feel contradicts this?
Here are a couple of quotes you used:
Player Character (Character, PC): These are the characters portrayed by the players.
So if the definition of a PC was this simple then any character they portray is a PC. So if a player was to portray his animal companion it would simply by this definition be a PC.
As player characters overcome challenges, they gain experience points.
This was a quote you used to try to indicate that animal companions are not player characters, because if they were they would earn XP, but they don't.
So by the first quote, an animal companion portrayed by a player would be a PC, but by the second quote they would not be.
What do you have in support of the animal companion being a PC?
I am not trying to contend that animal companions are PC, rather that they are characters that can be played by players (or they could be run by GMs), but that likely most players' expectations would be that they would get to play them.
Besides my next step is showing that the animal companion is a creature, and as such is required to roll its initiative when combat begins
While more pertinent to this thread than the discussion of who controls an animal companion, I thought you were going to provide evidence that, by RAW, animal companions are run by GMs. Are you no longer going to do that?
a change from 3.5 which would not have surprised creatures roll initiative until the first non-surprise round
As I still run 3.5 I am curious what you mean by this as I didn't quite understand.
|
|
Not quite. There is still the problem of druid + pet >>>>>> fighter. This is not just a PFS problem. The sum of druid class features, and any class with an animal companion in general is too great I think. ACs either shouldn't get feats or have their hps calculated as a fraction of the PCs or *something*. They are too PC-like, and the classes that get them don't give up enough abilities for the privilege."I want to nerf a class" is hardly a position to use for adjudicating the rules.
"i will annoy the player!" to nerf the class isn't a way to play anything.
you're going to need to wait for pathfinder 2.0 for those kinds of radical changes.
I agree, but I also agree with James's logic on the situation. I think ACs are indeed NPCs, but we'll know what the actual mechanism is soon enough.
|
|
The bottom line is that this is too difficult to elucidate from the current rules available. Which is why they are dedicating 8 pages to this topic in Ultimate Campaign.
Well, they are dedicating 8 pages to discussion of animal companions, familiar etc in Ultimate Campaign - I imagine only a paragraph of that will be specifically about who controls them. At least I hope its not 8 pages of rules to determine who controls them!!!! :)
How did this thread escalate into "The GM now controls your animal companion"?
|
|
How did this thread escalate into "The GM now controls your animal companion"?
In a way, it's a huge semantics issue.
Fundamentally, I see the issue as this. If an AC owner is using the trick system to control the pet, which I think most people agree should be the case, who is the final arbiter of what the pet actually does in the game? Ie, is the trick system an interface for the PC to issue commands to a pet that is ultimately under GM control, or does the player of the PC get to interpret the results of the trick roll?
Note that in many, many cases, these two situations are completely identical. But there are some cases where they are not the same at all.
How did this thread escalate into "The GM now controls your animal companion"?In a way, it's a huge semantics issue.
Fundamentally, I see the issue as this. If an AC owner is using the trick system to control the pet, which I think most people agree should be the case, who is the final arbiter of what the pet actually does in the game?
*raises hand* Oooh, I know! The dice!
Ie, is the trick system an interface for the PC to issue commands to a pet that is ultimately under GM control, or does the player of the PC get to interpret the results of the trick roll?
If both the PC and the GM are playing by the same set of rules, then it is irrelevant. They'll interpret it the same way. If there is a disagreement, the PC and the GM will discuss the matter, the GM will make a ruling, and the PC shall abide by it. Just like everything else in the game.
In the case of a PC that has difficulty with the rules, perhaps they have difficulty with system mastery, what I have done with my players is I reverse things around. I ask him or her, "What is it that you are actually trying to do? What effect do you wish to occur?" He or she will explain what it is they want to do and then I give them one or more rules they may follow that get as close as possible to their intention. This is a situation that comes up, not just with animal companions, but with all sorts of things in combat from trying to achieve positioning for sneak attack or attempting to withdraw from combat while avoiding as many AoOs as possible.
Arguing about who rolls what Handle Animal check or details like that is irrelevant because the outcome should be the same. The player and the GM both arrive at a solution that falls within the boundaries of the rules established for the game.
Player: I want Fluffy to attack.
GM: Roll a Handle Animal check.
Player: I get a 14.
GM: Fluffy moves into position and attacks. Roll to hit.
Player: I wanted Fluffy to attack from the other side.
GM: On your next turn you can issue the command to flank.
Alternatively, the GM could allow the player to take back that move and issue the flank command now. The GM can make that decision based on the player's history and level of system experience. It's a game, not a tournament so the rules allow such flexibility.
|
|
"If both the PC and the GM are playing by the same set of rules, then it is irrelevant. They'll interpret it the same way. If there is a disagreement, the PC and the GM will discuss the matter, the GM will make a ruling, and the PC shall abide by it. Just like everything else in the game."
That is my interpretation as well. But, to me, this implies that the GM gets to decide what the AC actually does because of the universal veto power. The GM has no such veto power of the actions of PCs to my knowledge. I guess control here is negative control, not positive control, like so many are opposed to.
"This is a situation that comes up, not just with animal companions, but with all sorts of things in combat from trying to achieve positioning for sneak attack or attempting to withdraw from combat while avoiding as many AoOs as possible."
That's true as well, but the AC rules have been mostly hand-waved at PFS tables I have been at and these other topics have not been.
That is my interpretation as well. But, to me, this implies that the GM gets to decide what the AC actually does because of the universal veto power. The GM has no such veto power of the actions of PCs to my knowledge.
The heck I don't!
GM: "Nice tactical plan, you seem to have covered all contingencies. Only problem, Bob, is when your barbarian with Int 7 tries to communicate this to your fellow companions, it ends up coming out as, 'Uh... I think I should just hit that guy like how I always do. That seems to work.'"
Bob: "How about, 'This plannin' crap's boring me!' And then I kick open the door."
GM: "Awesome."
Party: "WAIT! NO!"
edit: additional example
Bruce: "We should go left at this intersection. Clearly the hidden statue is down here around the corner."
GM: "Make a Knowledge (dungeoneering) check."
Bruce: "Huh? *rolls* Uh... 13?"
GM: "You are unable to ascertain the likely direction that leads to the chamber described to you earlier. That place you just pointed to is around two blind corners and completely obscured by darkness. While I have drawn the entire map out for convenience sake, please do not use metagame knowledge to shortcut the adventure again."
Bruce: "Right, sorry. How about 1-3 on a d6 for left and 4-6 for right?"
GM: "That sounds fine."
The GM gets to adjudicate the rules of the game.
PC: "I command Fluffy to attack the gray ooze on the right."
GM: "Fluffy's been hurt and *glances over at player's sheet; sees Attack Any Target isn't a learned trick* that ooze doesn't look tasty. Can you make the DC 27 to push?"
PC: "I dunno. *rolls* I get an 18. I guess Fluffy stays right here."
GM: "Yep, he makes a nervous growl while gingerly licking the wound on his left paw. Bob, you're next..."
Not...
GM: "Fluffy runs from the room, yowling."
PC: "Wait, what? Did he fail a Will save or something? When did he get panicked?"
Or...
GM: "Fluffy sees you're the true threat, always ordering him into dangerous situations and takes matters into his own... paws. Does a *rolls* 22 hit?"
That's true as well, but the AC rules have been mostly hand-waved at PFS tables I have been at and these other topics have not been.
The failure of other tables you've been at in the past not following the rules of the game has no bearing on this rules discussion. The solution to their failures isn't the addition of more rules or the wholesale nerfing of an entire class or class feature. Those tables and those GMs have that problem. We don't have that problem here. Here. This thread.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
How did this thread escalate into "The GM now controls your animal companion"?In a way, it's a huge semantics issue.
Fundamentally, I see the issue as this. If an AC owner is using the trick system to control the pet, which I think most people agree should be the case, who is the final arbiter of what the pet actually does in the game?
The "Animal Archive" seems to have been the catalyst for a lot of the recent interest in animal companions, tricks, etc. It actually says something about this issue:
Questions To Ask Your GM
3) Do I control my animal directly in combat the same way I control my PC, or is it treated as an NPC under the GM's control?
I assume that the authors, editors and developers of this Pathfinder Player Companion are not suggesting that you play "stump the GM" or start a debate at the table by posing a rhetorical question, but that there are different, legitimate play styles not covered by the rules.
Now that's great if the GM is moving Fluffy.. but if the Player is does the GM have to say 'no Fluffy moves like this instead' each time the Player moves them differently than they believe Fluffy should have moved?Player: I want Fluffy to attack.
GM: Roll a Handle Animal check.
Player: I get a 14.
GM: Fluffy moves into position and attacks. Roll to hit.
Player: I wanted Fluffy to attack from the other side.
GM: On your next turn you can issue the command to flank.
I trust players to play their characters and their animal companions correctly and do not trouble myself with such matters unless they betray that trust. The player can have Fluffy spin pirouettes on the way to the monster and I don't care, as long as the end effect is the same.
But... Let's say for the sake of argument the player moves Fluffy opposite the rogue who is already in position instead of directly ahead.
GM: "Did you want Fluffy to flank instead of attack?"
PC: "Uh... Yeah."
GM: "*knows the AC has flank learned* I'll retcon the attack command into a flank command and accept the roll of 14. Please remember to state that ahead of time next time."
PC: "*smacks forehead* Right! Understood."
Buuut... Let's say the AC doesn't know the flank trick.
GM: "Fluff-kins don't know from flank and you declared the Handle Animal check as a free action. You're new and your druid's turn was last so if you want to take back your move action and make the check to push--"
PC: "No, I'm dead meat if I stayed where I was. Fluffy just stays next to me then."
GM: "*the heel trick will auto-succeed so there's no point in pressing the issue further* That's fine. Bob, smashy smashy time?"
BUUUUUT... Let's say the player has metagame knowledge of a trap in the middle of the floor and deftly moves Fluffy around it. GOOD NEWS! You get to treat it the same way as if Bob the PC Barbarian did the same thing because the scenario is no different.
GM: "Why did Fluffy suddenly jump five feet to the left and then suddenly back to the right? *in a Dalek voice* EXPLAAAAAAIN!
PC: "Uhhh..."
GM: "Have you played or read this scenario and not inform me?"
PC: "..."
GM: "..."
PC: "Fine."
GM: "Make a Reflex save for Fluffy and we'll have a talk after the game."
Many people here argue that the Player decides that Fluffy, himself *happens* to want to attack from the other side all on his own. After all he has to attack from some direction, why not the one that makes the best sense for Fluffy?
And if the AC actually knows the flank trick and the druid PC can execute the Handle Animal check while "Taking 1" and can thus never fail, then who cares? The druid whistles, snaps his fingers, looks at Fluffy, points at Rachael the Rogue, yells, "Flank, good buddy!" and the animal takes up a flanking position because the rules say *waves arms in the air like a muppet* that's what the AC does. The GM is bound to the rules as much as the player and the AC are.
If, however, you're talking about those *points in the direction of... Oh let's say California* other tables and those GMs who fail to follow rules, well you can go argue against them when you see them. We are here in this thread and we're following rules here.
PC: "Both.. it only makes sense for Fluffy to attack from there"But... Let's say for the sake of argument the player moves Fluffy opposite the rogue who is already in position instead of directly ahead.
GM: "Did you want Fluffy to flank instead of attack?"
PC: "Uh... Yeah."
If the druid's AC has the flank trick learned and can "Take 1", grats, the AC does both because the druid can issue two free actions to flank and then attack.
edit: correction - the flank trick states the animal makes an attack as part of the trick so only one command need be issued--just the flank command will do.
GM: "Roll to hit."
Now that might be the case, or perhaps it makes more sense from the animal's perspective not to go to that square that perhaps opens them up to more attacks on them or opens up a path to their druid.
The AC follows orders if the Handle Animal check succeeds. Nothing in the rules state it second guesses you if you surpass the stated DC.
After all, how important is that +2 to hit? It's not worth those dangers unless of course you understand what the rogue can do with it.
The animal doesn't have to understand nothing. Druid orders pet to flank, rolls d20 (or doesn't if it'll auto-succeed), pet moves into flanking position.
Likewise perhaps the animal has a choice of two squares: one that blocks the barbarians charge lane and one that doesn't. Does this make sense to the animal or not?
I see I have to restate myself: I trust players to make decisions absent of metagaming and only intervene if they betray that trust.
Bob: "Oh! That blocks my charge lane!"
PC: "Ack! Can Fluffy have moved here *points* instead? Both are equidistant and neither spot is threatened."
GM: "'Equidistant?' Nerd! *holds up a d6* 'Say yes or roll the dice' I always say. 1-3 he ends up here, 4-6 he's there. *roll* Nope, sorry Bob."
If the players are more tactically minded:
PC: "Bob's planning on charging so I delay until after Bob's turn."
That solves the problem entirely.
This is before we get into situations where the animal sees something that no one else does, etc.
All too easy.
GM: "Roll a Perception check for Fluffy."
PC: "Oh no. *roll* 27"
GM: "Fluffy glances quickly to the northeast before turning his attention back to the goblin."
PC: "Guys! Can anyone else see what's in the shadows behind that stone pillar?"
Various: "Huh? What do I see? *looking eagerly at the GM and already rolling d20s reflexively*"
GM: "You can find out on your turn."
How many of these are you pulling back, and back until you go with exactly the situation that you described by having the DM move the animal companion. That is the DM having the animal companion react to the orders and then running the animal companion as following them. Also you have the DM saying what Fluffy's reactions are, right? Isn't that what the person playing fluffy gets to decide?
And therein lies the art of gamemastering: Describing, not driving.
You're like the instructor sitting in the passenger seat during driver's ed class. You can gently put on the brakes but you can't take the steering wheel out of the driver's hands.
An animal is a poor choice for a character (and an animal companion does not frankly fit the strict definition of one). They have limited communication ability with others and a different thought process.
That doesn't escape players. Start with the assumption that they know what they're doing until you are provided proof to the otherwise. You're all adults at the table and if you're not... Well, you'd be surprised at how mature, imaginative, and restrained children are.
Multiple characters are not a good idea in general. Combining the two is a big mistake.
"You'll have to wait until Pathfinder 2.0 to make those kinds of radical changes."
And frankly there is no need. There is nothing in the core rules to suggest that the player runs anything beyond their own character. In fact there are many things in the rules that back that up.
I provided a quote, page number, column number, paragraph even, of Paizo text stating explicitly that there is actually no rule that players cannot control multiple characters. Go find and read it. I'll wait.
So this topic was briefly approached in the AC blog post, but got swallowed by a deeper debate. So, I'd like to cover it here.
Your animal companion beats your initiative, what happens on their turn? For lack of any official ruling, I've simply ruled that if you don't need to push it, you can give it a command. If you need to push, it'll delay until your turn (but defending itself if necessary.)
Thoughts?
Nope. Your animal companion AUTOMATICALLY goes on your initiative count, as does any other assistant you might have to your main PC. Makes life easier for the DM.
As DM, I may or may not decide to run the NPC, depending on if I have a specific personality in mind, or if I have plotting I want to accomplish. It's a drama opportunity, and potential adventure hook.
You misunderstood me, the druid didn't order the companion to flank.. just attack. The companion has the choice of squares, who chooses if the companion flanks or doesn't? The player or the DM?The AC follows orders if the Handle Animal check succeeds. Nothing in the rules state it second guesses you if you surpass the stated DC.
In my games, the player. If the player has given the attack command, they move the animal directly towards the monster into attack position. If they can't reach the mini, another player usually reaches over and moves the animal's mini into position. Maybe I move it if no one else gets to it quickly enough.
Do you think my player doesn't move the mini directly towards the monster?
In the first thread you have the DM move the animal, but now you say the player is choosing.
The GM says Fluffy moves into position. He didn't physically pick up the mini and move it. There may not even *be* miniatures. Or a table.
And if they have the animal always flank for the rogue, but not always for others is that meta-gaming?I see I have to restate myself: I trust players to make decisions absent of metagaming and only intervene if they betray that trust.
If the rogue is the only one up there, who else is the animal going to flank for.
In the event that there are multiple allies, the flank trick makes no mention on who decides which ally to flank with. I, again, defer to the player, trusting that they'll not metagame. If they ask me for a suggestion, I'd recommend an ally that requires the least amount of travel but they could roll a die or maybe even choose the ally that the animal companion has the most affinity for.
If they betray that trust, I have a talk with them, either immediately or after the game.
Personally, I make it easier and only give players one character to play. I still trust them not to metagame, but only give them one perspective rather than multiple ones.
That's fine. If your players agree then who would argue against that?
Since there is no rule stating who controls the animal companion, it's up to the GM and the players to come to an agreement on that matter. My players and I have a different agreement and neither one is wrong or against the rules.
Did you read Quaternion's post above?
And if the player had the animal chose one path, why would it not do so because some PC speaks 'not there'? Roll a d6? Why?
Because someone or something has to decide. Ever see a GM running a skeleton with three available PCs to choose from to attack pull out a d6 and say, "You're 1-2, you're 3-4, and you're 5-6." If either outcome has equal likelihood of occurring then let the dice choose. They're fair and impartial and darn hard to argue against.
In that example, I would personally recommend to the druid to delay and let the barbarian get in first as it's a more tactically sound decision if the player has a habit of not utilizing the delay action. It guides, teaches, and gets the game moving quickly. That situation won't be likely to occur again in the future so everybody wins.
Perception checks are reactive, and not actions. PCs don't close their eyes in between their turns.Various: "Huh? What do I see? *looking eagerly at the GM and already rolling d20s reflexively*"
GM: "You can find out on your turn."
The other PCs would have to be a position where they can actually see behind the column and intentionally search for the stimulus (Daisy Druid did say there were shadows back there) as a move action. I described the reaction. No one knows if Fluffy caught someone by scent or actually saw something moving.
Not to mention:
GM: "Fluffy glances quickly to the northeast before turning his attention back to the goblin."In a large room with a dozen goblins, and one hiding goblin that the Fluffy sees.. Fluffy points him out to everyone? Really? I think we need to rename Fluffy as Lassie and find out that Timmy fell in the well again.
I never said Fluffy saw a hiding goblin. Maybe it's a barghest skulking in the shadows? Maybe it's an invisible cleric trying to make a getaway? Maybe it's a rolling boulder, triggered by the trap, that's barreling its way towards the loyal companion?
Also, "Lassie" is an insult. Fluffy is a snow tiger, fur sleek as the wind. Also, there's no well in this dungeon. That's just silly. The goblins would have eaten Timmy.
I provided a quote, page number, column number, paragraph even, of Paizo text stating explicitly that there is actually no rule that players cannot control multiple characters. Go find and read it. I'll wait.Funny all I see you is mentioning something about the gamemastery guide without a--
*interrupts* My readied action fires and I cast color spray. ZOT!
edit: forgot the last part of the post
I don't own the game mastery guide.
I highly recommend it. Not just because they have a whole page that completely and 100% backs up everything I've said but because it's actually really well written and offers a lot of sound advice for game masters of all levels of experience. The whole section on how to handle different player types (the "problem" ones) is gold. So much good stuff in that book.
And what does the animal do while you delay?
Whatever it was doing previously.
Nope. Your animal companion AUTOMATICALLY goes on your initiative count, as does any other assistant you might have to your main PC. Makes life easier for the DM.
So no one accuses me of playing favorites *pinches James's cheeks*, that's technically incorrect. The animal companion has an initiative bonus of its own and takes its own turn. That's technically RAW.
RAP, or Rules As Practiced (I'm just going to make that up right now... Who's with me?) is another thing. Practically speaking, the companion ends up delaying until the druid issues a command but there are situations where the initiative starts split and remains split or becomes split over time.
That's just messy, and generally impractical in the long run. Note however that I mentioned that as DM, I can take over any NPC at any time I wish.
"As DM, I may or may not decide to run the NPC, depending on if I have a specific personality in mind, or if I have plotting I want to accomplish. It's a drama opportunity, and potential adventure hook."
That's fine.
|
|
There is nothing in the core rules to suggest that GMs have a better understanding of animal behavior than player, or that GMs have a right to take over any character that the player brings to the table.The animal companion is not a character, just a monster. We've established this in this thread.
The player, by RAW, has only a single character and it is not the animal companion.
The DM, by RAW, plays everything else.
At least that's the core rules.
Nope. Those are your house rules.
The players play the PCs (possibly more than one PC per player).
The DM, by RAW, plays all the other characters.
RAW is silent on who plays non-character actors (monsters/companions), etc.
How many of these are you pulling back, and back until you go with exactly the situation that you described by having the DM move the animal companion. That is the DM having the animal companion react to the orders and then running the animal companion as following them. Also you have the DM saying what Fluffy's reactions are, right? Isn't that what the person playing fluffy gets to decide?
The critter has every reason to go around and flank, because that's what many of them naturally do.
And now there's a flank trick, which every combat critter will have, so the point is moot: fluffy doesn't flunk flank.