|
The pet stays in its POKE-BALL until summoned to help in the fight. Everyone knows this!!
Seriously, as a GM, I would have allowed the player to role-play the situation as his pet. IF he played as his CHARACTER I would have told him he is not going to be able to control his pet any more, because the pet should have an animal's personality and not a human's. If he failed to understand this the next battle might result in a dead pet. Because let's face it, letting a PC play TWO CHARACTERS was nowhere in the setup.
As a side note: I had a player playing a half-dragon cat in 3.x/4.x (I forget). He did extremely well at it. And I would have no qualms about him having a cat or a dragon AC.
PS> people who fail to comprehend the difference between PC and NPC sometimes need to be reminded. I would make the character roll EVERY TIME from then on to control it if they gave me grief. RAW STICK!
...saw an awesome stand off between a cougar and a bear on youtube...
Ooh! Ooh! Link it!
|
|
That's why most PCs in my games, when not under duress, will take 20 on their perception checks. It prevents the "oh crap I rolled a 1" metagaming.PC: I check for traps (rolls a 1) uh-oh...
GM: There are no traps you find.
OK, so you got 20 and saw the trap... the disable device is still a roll or take 10 at best... Also, how much longer does take 20 take than normal?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I reckon there's room here for a little clarification:
Companion - extension of the player - class ability/mechanic - NOT a 'natural' version of the normal animal, but something else entirely different. Is the players asset, is NOT an NPC.
Cohort - NOT an extension of the player, is by RAW an NPC.
Wild/domesticated pet - NOT an extension of the player, is by RAW an NPC.
It is good to note though that for familiars anyway- assuming the master has a rank in any language skill (linguistics: draconic, for example) that the familiar automatically has it too.. and thus the master at least can talk to the critter even if it can't talk back yet.-STrue, but I've only ever seen one player (other than me) take linguistics ranks. :Preally? wow. I think half my current group speaks at least one other language. Between the lot of us I don't think there's a language we don't speak.
Regardless though- any one taking a familiar should learn at least one language if for no other reason than to be able to chat with it prior to level 5.
And the more the merrier. If you are the type to use a familiar as a scout- (I'm not) then the more languages you/it knows, the more effective it is.
it being able to actually listen to the orc guards can be quite useful.-S
Lots of people know more languages through higher int. Taking linguistics is rarer.
I doubt that the familiar speaking a language you learn through linguistics is RAI, though it may well be RAW. Not sure what I'd do with it.
There is really no doubt.
It has any skill ranks that you have.It also has an int of 6.
If you take linguistics (draconic) then it can understand draconic.
Note- that doesn't mean it can speak it. Just that it can understand it.
That- and any other language you take as a linguistics point.
(myself, I love learning languages that way but not due to the familiar thing. My familiar speaks all languages anyway. Imp familiar is awesome- the ones in the Bestiary II especially so).
If you take a skill point for 1 languauage- any one you want really- they can understand it. Now at level 5 they can talk back to you (though not in that language).
But the point is- if you have Linguistic (orc) you can tell them in orcish "leave that squirrel alone, we have better things to do" and it'll 100% understand you.
-S
True, but I've only ever seen one player (other than me) take linguistics ranks. :PWow. Games that I've been in seem to turn in to contests of who can have the most languages not spoken by others in the group. Different tables, different styles - I guess.That's what happened the one time I saw someone else taking Linguistics. I was a player in that game, and it ended up being a contest between his wizard and my fighter to see who could know the most languages. He won, though he was a playing a tengu, who are suited to being linguists.
We ended up knowing 20-something languages by 4th level. Rarely needed to use comprehend languages or tongues in that campaign.
But a lot of the players I know will assume that any NPC worth talking to will speak common, and anything "not smart enough" to speak common is clearly a monster to be killed.
...I've got to turn that against them one of these campaigns...
Thats.. so sad :(
I'm not sure about the fighter or cleric in my current group but I know between myself, the rogue, and the wizard, that we have a ton of languages covered.We found a book recently written in 3-4 languages and it took the lot of us to decipher the dang thing. Was fun- and made the languages useful.
-S
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Eh?!
Just because it is on your sheet doesn't mean you control it as if it were your own character. It's insane logic. Do you expect to control the cohort gained through Leadership as if he was an extension of your PC? No obviously not. But it is on your sheet. You don't get any more control than the ability says you do. The rest is up to the GM to control.
Is it ok for the GM to allow you that control? Sure, but it's the GM's decision whether she wants to cede control of this NPC to you. And if she wants to have it do side stuff... that's her call for better or worse.
If the GM wants to have Fluffy the Animal Companion wet the princesses shoe then that is perfectly ok. It might be bad GMing (unless there is a darn good reason for the misbehavior) But it's still her call. Since it is an animal companion you would get a roll vs Animal Handling to prevent it... unless you weren't able to notice before the misbehavior. But again this IS bad GMing but not for the reasons you claim.
Eh?!
Just because it is on your sheet doesn't mean you control it as if it were your own character. It's insane logic. Do you expect to control the cohort gained through Leadership as if he was an extension of your PC? No obviously not. But it is on your sheet. You don't get any more control than the ability says you do. The rest is up to the GM to control.
Is it ok for the GM to allow you that control? Sure, but it's the GM's decision whether she wants to cede control of this NPC to you. And if she wants to have it do side stuff... that's her call for better or worse.
If the GM wants to have Fluffy the Animal Companion wet the princesses shoe then that is perfectly ok. It might be bad GMing (unless there is a darn good reason for the misbehavior) But it's still her call. Since it is an animal companion you would get a roll vs Animal Handling to prevent it... unless you weren't able to notice before the misbehavior. But again this IS bad GMing but not for the reasons you claim.
I don't think people that argue for player control will feel any different about a cohort. Otherwise on a personal basis I do agree with you, I feel the game is to be played from a 1st person perspective and acting in that role not switch from one character to another like a computer game might, it seems games like that take a big step away from roleplay. Just My Opinion ofcourse, as always.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Cohort is specifically called out as an NPC.
Companion is not, it is a 'class feature' and a hardwired part of the players abilitites.
See the difference?
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32, 2010 Top 8
|
Similarly, in combat, whether your bear hates goblins or not, the DM doesn't get to say "your bear won't attack that goblin dog, he goes after the goblin instead."
But if, for example, your bear "hates goblins" and the party encounters goblins in a non-combat situation, I see nothing wrong with expecting your bear to react. That's no different than expecting the ranger who "hates goblins" to react to them... and the reason I don't think we can completely separate "fluff time" from "crunch time" is that "fluff time" determines when, where, why, and how you enter "crunch time."
Actually, I could see another Handle Animal check for the bear if he attacks the goblin dog and is affected by the dander. Most animals, IIRC will go after an easier target than the one they just bit and it made them sneeze.
OTOH, if the dog bit the bear, all bets are off.
And if the player makes an issue of 'goblin hating bear' and doesn't make an 'in game effort' to control Yogi when negotiating with the Goblin King, then I feel, as the GM, I have a right to 'roll initiative' with the bear vs Druid to see if he can stop said bear from attacking said king.
That is a case where the player has defined the animal's trait, and suffers the consequences.
Now this could also work to the party's advantage. If the goblin is disguised as a gnome, and the bear makes a perception check based on scent, his lunging at the goblin-as-gnome would be a clue that something's wrong.
This is different than "Oh, and your raven familiar flies off to have a familiar to familiar chat with the pseudodragon, no you can't call him back."
|
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32, 2010 Top 8
|
OK, so you got 20 and saw the trap... the disable device is still a roll or take 10 at best... Also, how much longer does take 20 take than normal?That's why most PCs in my games, when not under duress, will take 20 on their perception checks. It prevents the "oh crap I rolled a 1" metagaming.PC: I check for traps (rolls a 1) uh-oh...
GM: There are no traps you find.
I'm not sure what your point is here.
1) Taking 20 takes two minutes. It also only consumes 'time' as a resource. Not taking 20 can consume a lot more.
2) Disable device has three states.
a) Success, trap is disarmed.
b) Failure by less than 4, trap is still active and you may try again.
c) Failure by greater than 4, trap goes off.
No metagaming required.
I've been patiently, eagerly awaiting and reading all the posts since page 1 wondering how this discussion would blossom and grow.. It's still primarily role players vs roll players. Every mechanical advantage must be stretched to and beyond it's limits.
There have been some really good restatements and re-wordings of previous arguments but nothing I would call refinement.
As long as people remember the top Pen and Paper myth that the GM is out to kill you and turn anything you try and do into painful, fun-squashing failure.
Try and make your bear acrobatically tumble past dozens of armed soldiers to get to the invisible sorcerer in the back and attack the thin air? Just too epic, the GM makes some lame excuse and doesn't let you so you fight back saying it's a class feature and he's nerfing you!
Approximately 15 of the 200+ posts are people saying that the GM cannot EVER interfere with RAW,to have a game governed by the rules is paramount. Then go on to, in the same post, say that the RAW is wrong and that you don't make meaningful Handle Animal checks, or if you do it doesn't matter because the Animal Companion is you, we are legion, it is us, you are me, we are you.
You can have it both ways, it's a fantasy game, you can have it both exactly 100% one way, and 100% not that way based on your current want. The rules are modular and every person is dysfunctional in our own way.
I spoke briefly 200 posts ago about how it is assumed in the creation of the classes and in their "balancing" that the animal companion is a separate entity, hence all of the wording and specific rules listed extensively above and in the Core Rulebook. Yet this was just brushed aside and not once disproved except for in an uneven comparison with the summoner saying in essence "Well then it wouldn't be exactly the same"
It's okay to disagree, it's okay to Think that's not okay. But Does it make sense to argue that the people RAW focused are wrong or doing something against the rules?
Does it make sense when you state your opinions as facts with no explanation whatsoever, again and again and again? Especially after all of the effort I can see people putting into their posts.
Does it make sense to throw out the term Straw Man because you saw someone use it in a post earlier, then it becomes contagious and someone else throws it out because they saw you use it.. it's a vicious cycle. IT makes the thread smell of regeneration 5 (acid or fire) so strongly.. so strongly I'm ranting pointlessly, my posts are always too long for people to respond too. tl;dr.
There have been some really good restatements and re-wordings of previous arguments but nothing I would call refinement.
Welcome to the interwebz, land of stating the same thing over and over again, with ever increasing boldness and in order to make sure everyone in the thread thinks you have the most important thing to say.
Hey, hey everyone! Animal Companions are companions that are animals! Ha, ha! Nobody mentioned that previously. I win the interwebz! :D
Edit: Also, I think the RAW for who is in control of the AC or Familiar is really the crux of the argument. The Core Rulebook seems to be, unfortunately, silent on whose "job" it is to "control" the animal companion or familiar. Thus the continued arguments. Some people think the RAW is the GM, others think by definition as a class feature RAW is the character. So the argument goes on and on. In the end, what is said here will matter little, each group will decide for themselves how they want to run it. It's still fun to argue though. Especially because I respect everybody in this community so much. Even if my acerbic diction sometimes belies that truth.
|
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32, 2010 Top 8
|
Wait really? I always assumed taking 20 was 20 minutes XD ... you learn something every day.I'm not sure what your point is here.
1) Taking 20 takes two minutes. It also only consumes 'time' as a resource. Not taking 20 can consume a lot more.
Well I was incomplete in my reply. Taking 20 takes the time of 20 attempts. So to search an area (normally standard action) takes 1 round (6 seconds) and 20 rounds is two minutes.
If a check took a minute, then it would take 20 minutes to take 20.
Cohort is specifically called out as an NPC.
Companion is not, it is a 'class feature' and a hardwired part of the players (abilities*). *spelling fixed
See the difference?
You do realize that in addition to calling out the cohort as an NPC it also specifically calls it a "Companion". Can you see why relying on that word is not going to win any arguments?
Lets now look at animal companions. Other than willingly traveling with you the animal companion is still an animal and makes it's own decisions just like any other NPC animal. If you want it to do something else they put in place a SPECIFIC method for you to change what your animal is doing via wild empathy/handle animal. There would be no reason for this if the game was assuming the player had control of the creatures actions as you suggest. So it is plainly obvious the RAI was for GM control.
I'm going to disagree with you Aranna, and the following lengthy post, that took me a bit to put together, explains why. I warn everyone, this post is very long, but I think if you give it the time it takes to read it, you will find something new to add to your thinking on this issue.
Some interesting bits of language from the Core Rulebook. All the following quotes come from the Core Rulebook, so I’ll just be listing the page numbers. I will also be adding my own emphasis throughout.
In addition to characters and monsters, the world is populated by countless nonplayer characters (NPCs). These characters are created and controlled by the GM and represent every other person that exists in the game world, from the local shopkeep to the greedy king.
This could very easily be taken as a standard for designed control. It could also be taken as defining the three classifications of entities that inhabit the imagined world: characters, monsters, and NPCs. If that is true, it also says that these NPCs specifically “represent every other person.” Animals, are not people. Thus, by this bit of language they would not fall into the NPC category. In fact, if they were to fit into any category here, it would more than likely be monsters, if in fact they were not also directly discussed as features of given classes.
This categorical classification would be further corroborated by this
Creature: A creature is an active participant in the story or world. This includes PCs, NPCs, and monsters.
Again if this is true, animal companions seem to fall distinctly into the realm of monsters. Interestingly there seem to be different viewpoints about monsters within the book.
First this
While many of these monsters can be used to fight against the players, others might provide useful information or become powerful allies. Some might even join the group, with one of the players taking on the role of a monstrous character.Followed by this
Monster: Monsters are creatures that rely on racial Hit Dice instead of class levels for their powers and abilities (although some possess class levels as well). PCs are usually not monsters.
This is decidedly vague. It says PCs are usually not monsters, where earlier it says sometimes PCs take the role of monstrous characters. It does seem to make very clear that an animal companion or familiar is definitely part of the category “monster.” This is true because it mentions the fact that they don’t usually take class levels but rather rely on Hit Dice. Which is how AC and Familiars are “leveled.”
Now for a twist: This
If you are a Game Master, you control the world that the players explore. Your job is to bring the setting to life and to present the characters with challenges that are both fair and exciting. From the local merchant prince to the rampaging dragon, you control all of the characters that are not being played by the players.
This provides some ambiguity to what seemed clear before, the fact that the world is populated of three distinct entities: characters, monsters, and NPCs. The above quote seems to lump “the rampaging dragon,” which would clearly be a monster, into the classification “character.” It also further muddies the waters by making the statement that you, as the GM, have control of everything that is not “being played by the players.” In my mind, an animal companion or familiar is definitely “being played by the player.” It is part of their character’s creation process, and is affected by their character leveling up.
This is where the major crux of the argument comes in. Is the animal companion or familiar being played by the player? If it is, this language then makes that particular entity fall out of GM jurisdiction.
Now I’m going to even further muddy the waters. The summon monster spell says this
It appears where you designate and acts immediately, on your turn. It attacks your opponents to the best of its ability. If you can communicate with the creature, you can direct it not to attack, to attack particular enemies, or to perform other actions.
This language seems, at least insofar as the arguments I’ve seen in this thread, to give a wizard more “control” over their summoned creatures than some people are willing to give a druid over their animal companion. The spell doesn’t call for a handle animal check, it doesn’t say you have to be giving the monster directions it particularly likes. It, in fact, very ambiguously says that if you can communicate with it through a mutual language you can “direct it … to perform other actions.”
When a wizard summons a monster that it can communicate with, does the GM make it do what it thinks it would do? Or does the GM look to the player of the wizard character and say, “what are you going to tell it to do?” More murky territory, especially given the disparate views provided for monster control I listed earlier.
This post is a form of logical fallacy called a "straw man", you can read about it more here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man
I find it hilarious when someone who clearly doesn't understand a term also then posts a link to its definition. Perhaps Trikk should have read that link himself.
I was using Leadership as a point of commonality between the sides. To highlight the reasoning behind GM control and to refute the argument that "just because it's on your sheet you control it".
A couple of responses, snipped because it's just too big if I mix my replies in.
It looks to me that there are two different distinctions being lumped together in your quotes. Would it make sense to divide between monsters (things with racial HD, not (or in addition to) class levels) and characters (things that rely on class levels). And then to divide between PC and NPC, based on who's controlling it, particularly since they blur the line between PC and monster by saying "PCs are usually not monsters" and "with one of the players taking on the role of a monstrous character".
Perhaps, except that the book itself refers at one point to "the rampaging dragon" as a "character." So that provides a counter example to the PC/NPC being the "characters."
Which I would not read as referring to pets, but to actually playing a monster (racial HD) as a PC, for which there are optional rules.
Character also seems ambiguous here, with "monstrous characters" and it never actually says monsters are run by the GM.
Right and right. That's how I read it too, but the language spread across various pages is so vague that it becomes very difficult to, definitively and without any ability for counter-argument, make any clear distinction.
All of that is sort of a side argument though. The classification is interesting, but muddied enough not to be definitive, no matter where you decide the pet falls. You decide that pets are monsters, which could be controlled by the GM or the player.
Anyway, this entire argument comes down to this
In my mind, an animal companion or familiar is definitely “being played by the player.”Which is not a rule, but the exact thing we've been arguing about for days. You can't use that to prove your conclusion.
You're absolutely correct, and I was not meaning for my post to prove any amount of my correctness. Instead I was using it as a basis for providing further clarification about why there is such a, pardon the turn of phrase, debatable debate. That's why I prefaced the statement with "in my mind." I meant for that to specifically say, this is how I see it, but I absolutely see why other people see it other ways.
The ambiguity of the rules in regards to this particular argument, really ends up just pointing to Rule 0. Which then of course means that players who prefer "control" of their animal companions or familiars, must needs find a GM that rules it that way.
This is actually one of the things I hate about many RAW discussions. They often turn on legalistic attempts to use terminology as if it was precisely defined when it's clearly ambiguous and to derive rules out of detailed analysis of precise phrasing or omissions, when the rules were never written to support that level of scrutiny.
I could not have said it better myself, and completely agree.
I agree with thejeff here.
This is why when they give you clearly phrased RAW or RAI, as in the case with animal companions, you should be thankful and listen to it rather than ignore it.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I agree with thejeff here.
This is why when they give you clearly phrased RAW or RAI, as in the case with animal companions, you should be thankful and listen to it rather than ignore it.
Would you mind quoting that "clearly phrased RAW" as it pertains to animal companions? I for one, would love to see it.
Would you mind quoting that "clearly phrased RAW" as it pertains to animal companions? I for one, would love to see it.I agree with thejeff here.
This is why when they give you clearly phrased RAW or RAI, as in the case with animal companions, you should be thankful and listen to it rather than ignore it.
If it existed it would have been quoted 200 post ago.
A druid can handle her animal companion as a free action, or push it as a move action, even if she doesn't have any ranks in the Handle Animal skill. The druid gains a +4 circumstance bonus on all wild empathy checks and Handle Animal checks made regarding an animal companion.
Clearly written out method for directing your animal companion's actions. Since you have to roll to get it to do something you desire it to be doing it is obviously not the player who controls those actions. If it were the player controlling those actions then there would be no need at all for a method to control your animal. Since it isn't the player controlling those actions it must be the GM by default.
If it existed it would have been quoted 200 post ago.
I was a late comer to the argument or it would have been.
Wow. What a waste. Nothing published can hit an AC of 60 or so without rolling a natural 20.
That's 20 points of AC you don't need. That is what I call EXTREMELY poor resource allocation. Take all the things you used for those last 20 points and put those resources into things like higher saves, skills, hit points, and attacks.
RD, Wow, I didn't think of this discussion in those terms and I think I see things in a new light.
A druid can handle her animal companion as a free action, or push it as a move action, even if she doesn't have any ranks in the Handle Animal skill. The druid gains a +4 circumstance bonus on all wild empathy checks and Handle Animal checks made regarding an animal companion.Clearly written out method for directing your animal companion's actions. Since you have to roll to get it to do something you desire it to be doing it is obviously not the player who controls those actions. If it were the player controlling those actions then there would be no need at all for a method to control your animal. Since it isn't the player controlling those actions it must be the GM by default.
I'm going to argue with you on that one. Specifically harkening back to the Summon Monster language. A summoned monster has no such indications for what mechanical action it takes to get it to do anything. In fact the rules say that if the character that summoned it can communicate with it through a mutual language it can direct it to "perform other actions." That's a summoned monster, a temporary mechanical advantage provided by magic. Since there are not "clear" indications as to what mechanical steps a character has to do in order to "control" that summoned monster, does that mean it must be the player's to control as they would? According to your argument above it must. If specific mechanics to control demonstrate clearly that the GM is in control, absence of such mechanics must declare the opposite, right? So a summoned monster (when the PC speaks its language) is under player control but a class feature built into how a character advances is not?
I'm going to argue with you on that one. Specifically harkening back to the Summon Monster language. A summoned monster has no such indications for what mechanical action it takes to get it to do anything. In fact the rules say that if the character that summoned it can communicate with it through a mutual language it can direct it to "perform other actions." That's a summoned monster, a temporary mechanical advantage provided by magic. Since there are not "clear" indications as to what mechanical steps a character has to do in order to "control" that summoned monster, does that mean it must be the player's to control as they would? According to your argument above it must. If specific mechanics to control demonstrate clearly that the GM is in control, absence of such mechanics must declare the opposite, right? So a summoned monster (when the PC speaks its language) is under player control but a class feature built into how a character advances is not?A druid can handle her animal companion as a free action, or push it as a move action, even if she doesn't have any ranks in the Handle Animal skill. The druid gains a +4 circumstance bonus on all wild empathy checks and Handle Animal checks made regarding an animal companion.Clearly written out method for directing your animal companion's actions. Since you have to roll to get it to do something you desire it to be doing it is obviously not the player who controls those actions. If it were the player controlling those actions then there would be no need at all for a method to control your animal. Since it isn't the player controlling those actions it must be the GM by default.
There is a subtle difference. The summon monster spell gives an indication of how a person can control the creature, or if unable to, the creature attempts to attack the nearest target or some such. (My memory is hazy on the details of the spell.) Whereas the animal companion has rules built in based upon how to handle the animal. When you suceed or fail a skill roll the DM is typically the arbitrator of the outcome. The DM is the one who exposes the PC to the world.
I mean, you may not like how the designers set-up the AC verse the Summon Monster, but that doesn't necessarily make the arguement that you are trying to make.
There is a subtle difference. The summon monster spell gives an indication of how a person can control the creature, or if unable to, the creature attempts to attack the nearest target or some such. (My memory is hazy on the details of the spell.) Whereas the animal companion has rules built in based upon how to handle the animal. When you suceed or fail a skill roll the DM is typically the arbitrator of the outcome. The DM is the one who exposes the PC to the world.
I mean, you may not like how the designers set-up the AC verse the Summon Monster, but that doesn't necessarily make the arguement that you are trying to make.
Except for gnomersy's latest post shows a perfectly valid example of how a player could roleplay even that failed handle animal check.
Also, the only argument I was trying to make was that quoting the rules for how an animal companion is to be mechanically dealt with by a character does not, in and of itself, clearly mean that the GM controls the creature, which is what Aranna was asserting. If that were the case, the absence of such rules would then clearly dictate the opposite to be true, from a purely logical perspective.
MendedWall12?...
You are honestly saying you don't understand how summon monster works?
The GM controls the creature, but the PC can tell the creature to basically do anything the player wants. As long as they share a language the creature is magically compelled to follow the summoners instructions.
Without instructions the creature behaves as the GM wishes as long as it satisfies the spell "attacks the summoner's enemies to the best of it's abilities". If the GM wants it to attack the nearby orc then it does so or he could have it charge the caster in the rear. The GM controls it within the limits of the spell.
And Gnomersy? Really?
There are only two entities that can control anything at the table the player or the GM. I will eat my words the day my character can act of it's own free will and tell me what it wants to do. Until that day your argument is hollow.
RD, Wow, I didn't think of this discussion in those terms and I think I see things in a new light.Wow. What a waste. Nothing published can hit an AC of 60 or so without rolling a natural 20.
That's 20 points of AC you don't need. That is what I call EXTREMELY poor resource allocation. Take all the things you used for those last 20 points and put those resources into things like higher saves, skills, hit points, and attacks.
How did that get there? That's supposed to be in the 80 AC with no armor or shield by level 20 thread. *delete, repost*
There are only two entities that can control anything at the table the player or the GM.Good so far, but stop there. "A player" and "the player's character" aren't the same thing. Have you never, for example, seen a game where a player has two PCs?
Letting the player control his PC's animal companion surely makes it possible for the player to metagame... but if you trust your players not to do that, I don't see a reason not to give the player control.
I don't disagree Glendwyr. I have always maintained that it is perfectly good to allow your player to control his own NPCs. But ultimately the GM is just passing some of his own authority over to the player usually to lessen the RP load on his back. What I am arguing about is players who seem to think it is their right to have complete control without GM permission.
Aranna, I think the reason I keep getting cantankerous with you is that you keep making the claim that it is absolutely, without a doubt, unequivocally, certain that animal companions fall under the authority of the GM. When at least four other people have said the rules are "clearly" ambiguous about it.
Your claim that the mechanics for Handle Animal are a definitive and decisive rule that makes it obvious that the GM is in control is, at least insofar as other people on this thread don't 100% agree with you, false. You believe it to be true, but your belief does not make it true.
@Glendwyr, thank you for the logic lesson (sincerely, I'm not being sarcastic). Of course neither of the claims have any real validity.
Mechanical rules for how to handle something makes it certain the GM is in control.
Absence of mechanical rules for control means the GM is not in control.
Same as:
Because this is a square piece of fabric it is is flag.
Because this is not a square piece of fabric it is not a flag.
One interesting thing I found in my old 3.5 DMG
Edit: Another reason I get cantankerous with you Aranna is you say things like thisThe animal is still an animal. It's not a magical beast, as a familiar or a paladin's mount is. While it may have learned some tricks, it's still no more intelligent than any other animal of its kind, and it retains all it bestial instincts. Unlike intelligent followers or cohorts, animals can't follow complex instructions, such as "Attack the gnoll with the wand." A character can give a simple verbal command, such as "Attack" or "Come," as a free action, provided such a command is among the tricks the animal has learned. A more complex instruction, such as telling an animal to attack and pointing out a specific target, is a standard action. Animals are ill-equipped to handle unusual situations, such as combats with invisible opponents, and they typically hesitate to attack weird and unnatural creatures, such as beholders and oozes.
Left to it's own judgment, an animal follows a character and attacks creatures that attack her (or that attack the animal itself). To do more than that, it needs to learn tricks as described under the Handle Animal Skill..."
You are honestly saying you don't understand how summon monster works?
That's a statement but with a question mark at the end for dramatic effect. That also implies that I am not intelligent enough to understand the mechanics of the age-old spell Summon Monster. Perhaps if you addressed your audience with a bit more respect and bit less acid, you'd find us (well at least me) more inclined to argue with you, as opposed to against you. BTW, as I said earlier I greatly respect everyone in this community, including you. I might not agree with you, but I still respect you.
There is a subtle difference. The summon monster spell gives an indication of how a person can control the creature, or if unable to, the creature attempts to attack the nearest target or some such. (My memory is hazy on the details of the spell.) Whereas the animal companion has rules built in based upon how to handle the animal. When you suceed or fail a skill roll the DM is typically the arbitrator of the outcome. The DM is the one who exposes the PC to the world.
I mean, you may not like how the designers set-up the AC verse the Summon Monster, but that doesn't necessarily make the arguement that you are trying to make.
Except for gnomersy's latest post shows a perfectly valid example of how a player could roleplay even that failed handle animal check.
Also, the only argument I was trying to make was that quoting the rules for how an animal companion is to be mechanically dealt with by a character does not, in and of itself, clearly mean that the GM controls the creature, which is what Aranna was asserting. If that were the case, the absence of such rules would then clearly dictate the opposite to be true, from a purely logical perspective.
Who adjudicates what happens when a skill check occurs?