Initiative for Companions

[Murdock Mudeater]

Came up recently, bothered me a bit.

Bit of background, locally, GMs seem to have Animal companions, eidolons and so forth, all act on your initiative. This nerfs creatures with decent initiative, but doesn't really create problems otherwise and is mostly easier than having a bunch of different intiatives in the party. I understand this to be a PFS legal houserule.

Not sure how exactly (can be done lots of ways), but one of the PCs in my party had ability that allowed his mount (an animal companion) where he got to use the best of his intiative and that of his companion. Is he allowed to do this? I mean, he's benefiting from rolling intiative on a creature that doesn't get roll initiative due to the above houserule.

Irks me because I often play low dex builds, so my companions/familiars would normally be denied the benefit of their naturally high intiative due to the houserule of acting on my intiative. Especially annoying with creatures that innately have improved intiative, which is useless with this houserule in effect.

Not looking to screw over the GM or the player, I'm asking for personal reference on my future characters. It bugs me, but ultimately, I want to know if I can do this in PFS with future characters, because it is a helpful loophole in the common PFS legal houserule above.

[Gary Bush]

I have always played ACS to go on my initiative just to make it easier.

[Deighton Thrane]

Technically an animal companion should roll it's own initiative, unless it's acting as a mount. But initiative is one of those things that GMs seem to be pretty okay with fudging, even in PFS. I mean technically, every enemy is supposed to roll it's own initiative, but rarely have I seen a GM roll 10+ initiatives for fights with a lot of mooks, instead of just making smaller groups and combining rolls.

Generally an animal companion needs direction on what to do in combat, so that's why a lot of GMs combine the two, because the only difference would be the animal companion not being flat-footed while waiting for its master to give it direction.

If you feel like your character is being adversely affected by the combination of initiatives, maybe talk to the GM before the session to see if they will separate the two.

Also, since there's no official rule for combining initiatives, there's no rule against being able to roll for both the master and the companion, then using the better of the two. Unless, of course it's acting as a mount, which does have a rule that says it acts on your initiative. So good tactic, but unless he's starting combat on foot, he should get one initiative roll. Although getting on the mount as a free action is only a DC 20 ride check, so at higher levels can be an automatic.

[Belafon]

Murdock Mudeater wrote:

Not sure how exactly (can be done lots of ways), but one of the PCs in my party had ability that allowed his mount (an animal companion) where he got to use the best of his intiative and that of his companion. Is he allowed to do this? I mean, he's benefiting from rolling intiative on a creature that doesn't get roll initiative due to the above houserule.

I suspect he was using the Trade Initiative teamwork feat and then using the rule from the Mounted Combat section of the Core Rulebook that specifically says:

Quote:

Your mount acts on your initiative count as you direct it. You move at its speed, but the mount uses its action to move.

Is it legal? Eh, I guess so. It doesn't specifically say that your mount doesn't get an initiative roll, just that it acts on your initiative count. Kinda gimmicky, but it does use a feat and doesn't work if for some reason he isn't mounted.

The "real rule" is that each creature that isn't serving as a mount gets a separate initiative roll. A mount may or may not get one but it usually doesn't matter since it acts on the rider's initiative regardless.

Both as a GM and as a player (unless my GM wants to do otherwise) I roll initiative separately for the master and for non-mount companions, familiars, and summoned creatures. In practice this often means that one or the other delays to get on the same initiative count. And that's why most people don't mind the "houserule" you mentioned above. It's not (as far as I know) an "officially sanctioned houserule" but it's something that can speed up the game so it falls into the category of "If everyone is OK with it, why worry?"

[Andy Brown]

I'll generally ask what an AC's default command/trick is when not in combat (usually heel or defend), and get a separate initiative for PC & AC (bonuses tend to be different for one thing). If the AC has a higher initiative, the default trick will decide what it does until the PC has a chance to give a different command. A lot of the time this results in the AC waiting until after the PC's first turn to be able to do anything other than react to an attack.

[Quentin Coldwater]

They technically go on their own initiative, hence Improved Initiative being a legal feat for them, but it's such a hassle to keep track of in initiative. Say I have a companion and go on different initiatives:
I win initiative: Companion, attack creature A!
Everyone else is first, creature A is already dead. Companion's turn is wasted.

Companion wins initiative: Doesn't have a meaningful action to take, so just stands there until he's directed. Will usually delay until he gets a command.

In the second instance, your companion is usually tied with your initiative. In the first example, it can be outright unhelpful. So the common practice around here is to just have it act on your own initiative. There's one guy who specifically asks his eidolon to act on its own initiative, as it's smart enough to think on its own, and I understand his rationale, but it's still much more convenient to have them act on the same count.

[andreww]

I require companions to roll their own initiative. I also allow people to set a default trick, usually defend. If the companions gets better initiative it will generally delay unless something sets off its default. Otherwise it goes after its master.

I also require people to remember to actually give their companions commands rather than treating them as substitute second PCs which I see a lot and it drives me nuts.

[SCPRedMage]

Most agree, andreww, but basic animal intelligence is enough for it to defend itself if attacked, and the Defend trick means the animal will defend its master "even without any command being given"; you only have to give a command to "defend" to get it to defend a specific other creature.

[andreww]

SCPRedMage wrote:

Most agree, andreww, but basic animal intelligence is enough for it to defend itself if attacked, and the Defend trick means the animal will defend its master "even without any command being given"; you only have to give a command to "defend" to get it to defend a specific other creature.

I wouldn't have any issue with that either. Basically, animal companions act like animals, not PCs.

[Murdock Mudeater]

Kevin Willis wrote:

Murdock Mudeater wrote:

Not sure how exactly (can be done lots of ways), but one of the PCs in my party had ability that allowed his mount (an animal companion) where he got to use the best of his intiative and that of his companion. Is he allowed to do this? I mean, he's benefiting from rolling intiative on a creature that doesn't get roll initiative due to the above houserule.

I suspect he was using the Trade Initiative teamwork feat and then using the rule from the Mounted Combat section of the Core Rulebook that specifically says:

Quote:

Your mount acts on your initiative count as you direct it. You move at its speed, but the mount uses its action to move.

Is it legal? Eh, I guess so. It doesn't specifically say that your mount doesn't get an initiative roll, just that it acts on your initiative count. Kinda gimmicky, but it does use a feat and doesn't work if for some reason he isn't mounted.

The "real rule" is that each creature that isn't serving as a mount gets a separate initiative roll. A mount may or may not get one but it usually doesn't matter since it acts on the rider's initiative regardless.

Both as a GM and as a player (unless my GM wants to do otherwise) I roll initiative separately for the master and for non-mount companions, familiars, and summoned creatures. In practice this often means that one or the other delays to get on the same initiative count. And that's why most people don't mind the "houserule" you mentioned above. It's not (as far as I know) an "officially sanctioned houserule" but it's something that can speed up the game so it falls into the category of "If everyone is OK with it, why worry?"

Hmm...Does sound gimicky, especially if the other companions/familiars aren't allowed to act on their own initiative.

So, if there is no such "houserule" could I insist that my intelligent companion (Eidolon, Phantom, or Familiar) acts on his own initiative? As far as I know, there's no mechanical reason that such a creature would need to wait for my intiative to act.

But I also agree that if there is no issue, no logic in creating one. I think it's unfair that their companion can act on it's initiative while mine is unable to. But at the same time, I don't seek to impair their character, I just want to be able to use mine as the rules suggest. I also don't want to make a big deal of this, but it also strikes me as a big deal. So conflicted...I hope this paragraph makes sense to others.

[andreww]

Eidolons, Familiars and Phantoms are all sentient and more than capable of making decisions for themselves. There is no reason why they shouldn't act on their own initiative.

[BigNorseWolf]

One of my questions for animal handlers is "in the unlikely event that __fluffy___ has to act without you what is their personality like. Because they are a second character, not a computer program with 7 settings.

[Murdock Mudeater]

andreww wrote:

Eidolons, Familiars and Phantoms are all sentient and more than capable of making decisions for themselves. There is no reason why they shouldn't act on their own initiative.

I agree, but in the past, in PFS, I have been denied the option have my familiar go at it's own initiative and it's one of a few reasons that I haven't run many Unchained Summoners or Spiritualists, since having them act on your intiative nerfs one of the key advantages to having "two characters" as a class focus.

So, is the PFS GM allowed to force both my character and their companion/familiar/eidolon/phantom to act on my character's initiative?

And if so, do abilities/feats (like Trade Initiative) function when the GM is denying the option for the Companion to act on it's own intiative?

I will add, that I do think it does work for expediency.

[Mekkis]

The last time I played under the Campaign Coordinator (Mike Brock), he made the animal companion, and the eidolon, run on their owners' initiative.

That's good enough for me.

[Ascalaphus]

I think strictly speaking the GM can't force you to play against the rules.

For many people the "same init" house rule is just more convenient, so if you want to go against it, make sure you're a model of efficiency.

[supervillan]

I agree with Lau on this. I always ask GMs how they prefer to run initiative when I have a pet in play. Most of them, I find, prefer to run both on my PC initiative. Often they ask if there's a big difference between the PC and the pet's scores. If I had a character with significantly different initiative scores for himself and his pet I would point that out first, and suggest that they should run on their own separate counts. This is also how I handle pets when I GM.

[Swiftbrook]

I am currently playing a hunter. Generally, we both roll initiative. If my Animal Companion's is higher than mine, on his initiative, he's no longer flat footed but delays until my turn. Also, he could take AOOs as appropriate because of the Defend trick. If my initiative is higher, generally, I go and my AC would basically delay until my turn on the next round.

[Murdock Mudeater]

Lau Bannenberg wrote:

I think strictly speaking the GM can't force you to play against the rules.

For many people the "same init" house rule is just more convenient, so if you want to go against it, make sure you're a model of efficiency.

That does seem like a good way to handle it.

[BigNorseWolf]

Swiftbrook wrote:

I am currently playing a hunter. Generally, we both roll initiative. If my Animal Companion's is higher than mine, on his initiative, he's no longer flat footed but delays until my turn. Also, he could take AOOs as appropriate because of the Defend trick. If my initiative is higher, generally, I go and my AC would basically delay until my turn on the next round.

That's losing a lot of action economy in a short fight, and the most important chunk of it too.

[Farrindor]

For me, and most of the GMs I've been around, we generally run on the PC's initiative unless the player with the companion wants to keep them separate (our companion users and GMs kind of race to ask how the other prefers it most of the time). Determine the table/player/GM preference, all agree to this way or that, and move on. Does this give some leniency to a player with widely different initiative mods? Sure, but we don't sweat it and don't -require- one or the other. Most of our GMs in this area are /happier/ on the same initiative, but we don't try to make that the only way.

The big thing? Make sure it's agreed at the start of game which way is in play, and stick with it.

[pH unbalanced]

As a GM I prefer to run on separate initiative, but the player base prefers same initiative, so I've gotten to where I just roll with that, unless the player specifically requests it.

Of course, I'm crazy and like to have all the monsters on separate initiative, too.

[TriOmegaZero]

I tend not to pay much attention to it. I will have separate initiatives or shared initiatives based on the experience of the player and the rest of the table. I do remind the player to roll Handle Animal for untrained tricks and when they are just starting out and do not autopass trained tricks.

[Swiftbrook]

pH unbalanced wrote:

Of course, I'm crazy and like to have all the monsters on separate initiative, too.

No, not as crazy as the GM who runs all the monsters on the same initiative!

At this point my hunter has the Lookout feat, so initiative issues are generally mitigated.

[andreww]

pH unbalanced wrote:

As a GM I prefer to run on separate initiative, but the player base prefers same initiative, so I've gotten to where I just roll with that, unless the player specifically requests it.

Of course, I'm crazy and like to have all the monsters on separate initiative, too.

I use separate initiatives. I also roll individual monster initiative. Online it works easily. Face to face I pre-roll my initiatives to save time.

[Rosc]

BigNorseWolf wrote:

One of my questions for animal handlers is "in the unlikely event that __fluffy___ has to act without you what is their personality like. Because they are a second character, not a computer program with 7 settings.

Strongly agree. The rules are fuzzy, (no pun intended,) but the idea of an animal sitting there and doing nothing while it's beloved owner gets hammered into a fine paste is kind of silly.

Murdock Mudeater wrote:

andreww wrote:

Eidolons, Familiars and Phantoms are all sentient and more than capable of making decisions for themselves. There is no reason why they shouldn't act on their own initiative.

I agree, but in the past, in PFS, I have been denied the option have my familiar go at it's own initiative and it's one of a few reasons that I haven't run many Unchained Summoners or Spiritualists, since having them act on your intiative nerfs one of the key advantages to having "two characters" as a class focus.

So, is the PFS GM allowed to force both my character and their companion/familiar/eidolon/phantom to act on my character's initiative?

And if so, do abilities/feats (like Trade Initiative) function when the GM is denying the option for the Companion to act on it's own intiative?

I will add, that I do think it does work for expediency.

While I disagree that having your two halves act on the same turn is a major downside, I acknowledge that -forcing- it isn't how the rules work. A lot of GMs do it to save time, and as a Summoner player, that tends to boost the Eidolon's effective initiative, so I never complain.

I'm surprised at the idea of this ruling being a major deterrence to Summoner/Spiritualist players. Sharing initiative can be good for coordinating your efforts, even if it does double-down on one do-or-die initiative roll.

[Chris Mortika]

A lot of fights are won or lost on initiative.

Many GMs aren't aware of the rules about animal companions acting on their own initiative count. (Fair enough; nobody knows all the rules to the game.) But if someone does know how things are supposed to run, then there are no "PFS-legal house rules".

There are times when I will re-interpret some rules as a GM. (For example, if I'm running a Special with 10 combats, I'll seat the players around the table in initiative order, and we'll run fights as if everyone had rolled a "10.5" on initiative, with me rolling to place where the opponents fall during that cycle.) My guiding principles are (a) never make life harder for the PCs, (b) in this particular, if someone invests in a high Initiative, let her gain the benefits of that investment, and (c) there should be a substantial pay-off for the rules violation.

And, as a PFS GM, it's my responsibility to teach the game to my players, so I'll make it clear that I am breaking a rule, and my reasons for doing so. If a player objected, I'd go back to RAW.

[RealAlchemy]

For normal animal companions (as opposed to eidolons, familiars, and others that are as smart as some PCs) the usual practice I've seen is to ask what default command the companion is following and then roll seperate initiative. This will determine when the companion is flat footed. Then if it was commanded to defend or guard it will start doing that on it's initiative until the owner tells it differently on the owner's initiative.