|
I think the tricks are fairly self explanatory. You say what your character instructs your AC to do, make your roll if necessary (DC 10 with a +4 bonus is pretty easy for a class skill).
You can negotiate what the pet does as a result of that command as it is open to interpretation, but they are fairly apparent. You can point at a target, but does your AC charge? When commanded "down" does it withdraw or simply move away?
Even an INT of 3 does not mitigate against these situations as I understand...
I don't see why an animal would know to avoid AOOs from reach, however.
Wouldn't this be based on what they are taught? If a dog can be taught to avoid a bear's reach in real life for example, why couldn't they be taught to avoid pole arms by circling around in a larger circle?
I think the way an animal deals with a situation should also be influenced by the tricks and skills it has developed.
As for who controls the animal, I admit I am not sure what RAW meant to happen, but on my table the player does for the most part.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
"I think I should run my own animal companion, after all it's a class ability and the GM has too much to do anyway."
"Blasphemer! I invoke the curse of player entitlement upon you! Attempt to thwart my wishes and I shall banish you from the game!!"
And so it begins.
"Tell the player, 'Ok, you can do that, but you won't like the implications of it.'"
That's probably the advice given to GM's in a good portion of threads dealing with wacky player behavior.
I don't really see the problem with a player taking actions within his purview under the same philosophy.
|
Nowhere in the RAW for summons or AC does it say the player controls them. Since there's no specific rule given, that means the general rule is in effect. The general rule in this case being that the DM controls all NPCs.
Strict RAW interpretations can be a double bladed sword. If it comes to the point where RAW > FUN I won't start a fight at the table.
What I will do is make sure the ruling that is destroying fun is taken to the extreme. If the DM demands control, he will have it. In fact, I gladly hand him more to control than he can hope to handle.
I see you have made your decision, now let's see you enforce it.
Thing is though: this is not a strict RAW interpretation. It is a grey area that the vast majority of DM's rule in the players favor. Only a DM obsessing over control is going to take a player's class feature away from him.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Wow Brun, how do you get a trivial Handle Check by 5th leve1? (My druid would like to know)
If CHA is not a dump stat (lets say it is 12) we get a skill of +9 at 5th.
From link we get +4
From Training Harness we get +2
From Skill Focus we get +3.For a total of +18 … the DC to push a trick is 25 (27 if they are wounded … which is likely in combat).
If you train your animal companion tricks that are most likely to be used in combat, and leave the non-combat tricks untrained, you can Take 10 to push for those latter tricks. I now regret training my animal companion the Perform trick, as now my druid could Take 10 and push him to perform that trick automatically.
|
|
All that I said doesn't apply,
Okay, let me re-state what you wrote but replacing "character" for "animal companion":
the player /de facto/ runs the character /most of the time/, but that the GM retains the right to over-rule things if they don't match up or are 'out of character', even if the action is physically possible or within the normal combat rules on it's own.That pretty much sums up to me how the state of play is with PCs IMHO.
If a player has their character act in a way that breaks credulity the GM should be able to over-rule that.
E.g. a player narrates how his character Tarn with Charisma 6 and no ranks in Diplomacy or Bluff, strides into the tavern gaining admiring glances. The player then proceeds to make a really great series of seduction lines to seduce the handsome barman. In this case the GM should be able to over-ride that and say "Gee, that was a great speech Dave, and would probably work for you in real life, but I really can't see Tarn being able to say all that so eloquently or with such confidence. Plus how would Tarn know about the Casenova guild, that is something only Janet's rogue knows about?"
I'm pretty damn certain there are lines implicating the player controls their PC (as in can dictate the character's self-directed actions/desires), which isn't true for Animal Companions, Familiars, or Leadership NPCs.
What do you mean by "lines implicating the player controls their PC", do you mean lines of text in the rulebook? if so, no there may not be such explicit words for Animal Companions, but neither may be such explicit words to say the GM controls the AC.
To be honest, I think we are on the same page - we are happy for the players to control the animal companions but want to allow the GM to reserve the right to over-ride the player if they appear to be having the AC act in a way that breaks credulity.
What I really don't want is a rule that explicitly states GMs control animal companions that would restrict me as a player injecting a bit of personality into the animal companion.
|
|
I certainly don't agree with that limitation :-)
Neither do I :)
It doesn't matter if it is a 'class feature', a class feature can fairly be 'an NPC loyally follows you around'. This is the same as for Leadership, which nowhere says that players 'control' their Cohorts/Followers, or even choose their starting gear or Feats, or anything else.
Maybe I am bringing my prejudices from other games like FATE, but for me, if an NPC is a mechanical part of the character build (like FATE's Companions and Minions) the player does get to run those NPCs, but with the proviso that the GM can over-rule them if needed (just like he can over-rule how the player runs the character).
If the player is in ultimate control of the animal (because it's a class feature, because they bought it, whatever), then the player is deciding WITH NOBODY ABLE TO OVER-RULE THEM exactly how they want to implement any commands given, as well as what the animal 'wants' to do without any given commands. That is the entire point of controlling a character/creature, you can dictate what it 'wants' in any given moment - something for which there is absolutely no rules for, and thus nothing for a GM to rule on.
But I specifically said that the GM could step in if he felt the animal companion was being run in a way that breaks credulity.
Like I said, I think we are generally on the same page, we want the GM to have the ability to veto specifics of how a player runs the animal companion. However for me that isn't the same as a RAW ruling that the GM runs animal companions, which to me implies they run them completely, not allowing the player to describe how the animal companion acts in or out of combat at all.
|
|
How it works when I dm is if a player is being a passive aggressive dick because I've decided to follow the rules as written, they don't get invited back.
Nowhere in the RAW for summons or AC does it say the player controls them. Since there's no specific rule given, that means the general rule is in effect. The general rule in this case being that the DM controls all NPCs.
While I sort of agree, if what you say is RAW (i.e. that by default ACs are NPCs and thus controlled by GMs) and a GM uses that to deny me the chance to roleplay the personality of my own animal companion as I envision it, then IMHO that GM could well be being a dick too.
In PFS where I could play under a different GM each scenario, having the GM run my animal companion would likely result in either his personality being forgotten:
Player: "What is my dog doing while I talk to the inn keeper? You said there is plenty of food about, does that distract him?"
GM: "What's your dog doing? Oh yeah, your dog, um, he just sits there while you talk to the innkeeper"
Or the different GMs will have the dog behave different;y resulting in inconsistent and erratic behaviour.
GM1: "Hee, whilst you talk to the innkeeper your dog cocks his leg up against the bar, the inn keeper isn't too happy about that and shouts 'Get that dog out of here if he ain't house trained!'"
Player: "But he is house trained and I successfully told him to Stay"
GM1: "Yeah, well he has stayed by your side, but he wanted to pee so he did, hee hee"
GM2: "Whilst you talk to the innkeeper an elf approaches the bar looks down at your dog and goes to pat it. But your dog growls and snaps at the elf. The elf pulls back his hand in shock while the innkeeper says "Hee, good dog I don't much like elves either"
Player: "Um, I never envisioned Barrow as being an aggressive dog, indeed he was performing tricks to entertain the street urchins earlier in the scenario"
GM2: "Well maybe he just doesn't like elves"
Player: "But we have an elf and a half-elf in the party? Does he growl at them too?"
GM2: "Yeah, yeah he does actually!"
Player: <rolls eyes>
Now these are extreme examples, but equally players abusing ACs may be the extreme cases as well (I have never witnessed it, but then I don't get to play much PFS).
If a Paizo ruling came through that GMs did run animal companions and it led to situations like the above rather than be passive agressive I would likely just not have my Druid's animal companion accompany him on any missions - even if that meant making my character not as competent for his level as he should be.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Option 1:
My cat charges the goblin *moves mini*, your aoo misses, clatter of dice damage. Goblin dies. Yay!
Option 2.
Player: I tell Tony to attack that goblin.
Dm: this one?
Player: No that one. Third one on the left.
DM: You can tell it to attack the third one on the left?
Player: no, but i can specify a target.
Dm, Ok, roll handle animal
Player: well i have a +9 with Tony and the dc is 10 so i can't miss...
Dm: well whats the roll?
Player... rolls die "16"
DM: Look up the dc of the attack trick
Player: Those dc's are just for training. The dcs are 10 if the animal knows it, a 25 if it doesn't.
Dm: Ok, then its charging, the goblin with the longspear attacks, hits ac 20 so your animal takes...
Player: What about the mobility feat?
Dm: Your tiger has the mobility feat? *looks through pile of papers for tigers feats "ahh ok, so I guess that misses". Then the tiger does a bite...done.
Player: and pounce ? He gets to make a full attack when he charges.
Dm ahh.. ok, so then claw claw ...
Player: And the back claws, you rake on a pounce too.
Dm: ok, claw, and claw... finishes him off.
Now, we're going with option 2 because.... ?
Option 1:
My cat charges the goblin *moves mini*, your aoo misses, clatter of dice damage. Goblin dies. Yay!
Option 2.
Player: I tell Tony to attack that goblin.
Dm: this one?
Player: No that one. Third one on the left.
DM: You can tell it to attack the third one on the left?
Player: no, but i can specify a target.
Dm, Ok, roll handle animal
Player: well i have a +9 with Tony and the dc is 10 so i can't miss...
Dm: well whats the roll?
Player... rolls die "16"
DM: Look up the dc of the attack trick
Player: Those dc's are just for training. The dcs are 10 if the animal knows it, a 25 if it doesn't.
Dm: Ok, then its charging, the goblin with the longspear attacks, hits ac 20 so your animal takes...
Player: What about the mobility feat?
Dm: Your tiger has the mobility feat? *looks through pile of papers for tigers feats "ahh ok, so I guess that misses". Then the tiger does a bite...done.
Player: and pounce ? He gets to make a full attack when he charges.
Dm ahh.. ok, so then claw claw ...
Player: And the back claws, you rake on a pounce too.
Dm: ok, claw, and claw... finishes him off.
Now, we're going with option 2 because.... ?
Because A) just becase something is slightly more convenient than something else, doesn't make it correct.
And B) That is complete and untter hyperbole. A GM that doesn't know the first thing about the PCs especially the parts that he is taking direct control of has no business being a GM. Pointing at a specific mini on the mat is not nearly as hard as you make it sound.C) You cannot rake on a pounce. In order to rake something you have to start the round already in a grapple with it.
I play with a group of three players, one of them a druid with a bear companion. I always take control of the bear, and it actually makes the bear's turn faster than any player, because once the druid player has given a command, i can just move the miniature accordingly, do all the rolls without having to correspond over every single result and then move on.
|
|
A GM that doesn't know the first thing about the PCs especially the parts that he is taking direct control of has no business being a GM.
I guess I should withdraw from GMing Pathfinder Society games then as often the players come with characters using material from books I don't own or haven't read so I don't know how they work - "Gunslinger eh?"
You don't read their character sheets and look up what their abilities do on an SRD either?
Then maybe, yes.
But I'm talking about basics. Not about knowing every single thing by heart.
|
|
You don't read their character sheets and look up what their abilities do on an SRD either?
At a convention I sit down with potentially a bunch of complete strangers with characters created from sources ranging from Advanced Race Guide to Ultimate Combat, I have 4 hours in which to run a scenario including time for introductions, a mid game break and the paperwork at the end.
Apart from asking players if they have some unusual races (Kitsunes etc) there really is not time to review everyone's character sheets and often I won't have internet access so the PRD is not available to look anything up (though of course the players should have the books or PDFs for me to review specifics).
I tend to inform players that I trust them to run their characters according to the rules of their race and class. If something comes up that seems odd or the player isn't sure about I will review the spell / feat/ weapon / class feature / rule, but largely I let the players to get on with it.
Then maybe, yes.
Okay I will bear that in mind and when I run my next game at PaizoCon UK I will ask the players whether they feel I shouldn't be GMing and see what feedback I get.
But I'm talking about basics. Not about knowing every single thing by heart.
Handle Animal rules and how animal companions I wouldn't consider basics IMHO, stuff like movement, AoOs, spellcasting etc are basics, specific class features (especially if modified by supplements like Animal Archive) I would not necessarily consider basics that every GM should know off by heart.
So you play at conventions in a time window of 4 hours. That hardly seems to be the norm for roleplaying games, obviously exceptions have to be made in exceptional cases. But when you play with a regular group you should be prepared for their characters.
|
|
So you play at conventions in a time window of 4 hours. That hardly seems to be the norm for roleplaying games, obviously exceptions have to be made in exceptional cases. But when you play with a regular group you should be prepared for their characters.
Pathfinder Society is the only time I play Pathfinder RPG and pretty much all of my PFS games are at conventions, so its pretty much always how I play PF.
This whole issue was originally brought up because of issues some people are seeing in PFS where players are apparently playing their animal companions without using tricks to have their characters command them etc.
|
Yes, this doesn't need to be addressed for homebrew because homebrews are not strictly RAW. A homebrew DM could choose to ban pets, even. Something I would consider actually except that I can just pile in more NPCs for the PCs to fight if there are pets involved. That and I find cleave to be a great equalizer on templated fighters and barbarians. Nothing like a raging barbarian or three with cleave to keep pets in check. But PFS is kinda weak sauce in that respect and they don't often include such equalizers. So instead, both the DM and the other players in the game just get WTF owned by the pet classes.
It is tiresome seeing pets being played as 2nd PCs for the sake of time in PFS. It's bad enough that I think ACs stat blocks are too generous for a society with a 20-point build system, but then they don't have any kind of limitations, either in practice.
I'd say about 2/5 of my PFS games have been ruined by munchkins. Overpowered PCs really easily break PFS scenarios. My contention is that hand-waved pets are already making a character half the way to broken without the PC even optimizing feats or anything. They are half way to broken because of raw hp bloat and number of attacks.
Low level martial characters often get their one lousy swing. But not pets! They often get access to multiple primary attacks. This overshadowing of the PC classes can not be prevented because it is a mathematical consequence of the combat rules. But the rules for controlling the pet can be clarified and maybe a little bit of fairness can be brought back in.
Case in point: I played Mists of Mwangi last night. We followed the trick system rigourously and the druid pet *still* outdamaged and out performed all of our martial PCs. I don't think its asking too much to have the pet not function as a 2nd PC, when it is already outperforming other people's PCs in combat.
The 3/4 bab pet with low str and no pounce until lvl 7 is outperforming the other pcs? Gosh, my experience with my druid is much different. Animal was just there to trip foes. I could see a lvl 7 druid and his big cat maybe having a short moment of glory, but especially at later levels his pet falls behind.
Summoners Eidolons get pounce from lvl 1 and don't have any issues with being controlled. I don't think animals being under PC control is a balance issue at all. The PC isn't going to do much different than the DM most likely. Unless the PC wants their cat to know how to operate machinery or the DM wants the cat to run through fire/AoOs because its a stupid animal to him.
For convention play i would as a GM let the player control his AC, but moderate what it does sharply. á la "No if you tell it to attack, it will charge directly and not loop around to get into perfect flanking position"
C) You cannot rake on a pounce. In order to rake something you have to start the round already in a grapple with it.It surprises me how many people go out of their way to contradict others on this when they apparently haven't read the text for pounce, themselves.When a creature with this special attack makes a charge, it can make a full attack (including rake attacks if the creature also has the rake ability).
i stand corrected then.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
C) You cannot rake on a pounce. In order to rake something you have to start the round already in a grapple with it.It surprises me how many people go out of their way to contradict others on this when they apparently haven't read the text for pounce, themselves.When a creature with this special attack makes a charge, it can make a full attack (including rake attacks if the creature also has the rake ability).
Wait... wasn't it Threeshades who said it was "hyperbole" to suggest that a GM would misinterpret the AC rules and need to be corrected by the player in game?
Hm......
All this debate here on the boards is entertaining and all, but I'm quite confident that 95% of games will be run with players controlling their druid's AC, their paladin's mount, their wizard's familiar and their summoner's eidolon.
Why do you suppose that's the case? I suspect because it just works better that way.
|
|
All this debate here on the boards is entertaining and all, but I'm quite confident that 95% of games will be run with players controlling their druid's AC, their paladin's mount, their wizard's familiar and their summoner's eidolon.
Why do you suppose that's the case? I suspect because it just works better that way.
I agree. In my area this has yet to be an issue and I hope it never is. My only experience with the problem was many years ago in AD&D. There were a great many conflicts between myself and another person, both as player and GM. Many of my scorched earth solutions to overbearing characters/GM's come from that point in time. Sad to say it, but they actually worked back then.
You don't even want to go there with the results of his edict that I was no longer permitted to play a wizard. Needless to say, I was barred from playing fighters in his games afterwards while once more being permitted to play wizards.
C) You cannot rake on a pounce. In order to rake something you have to start the round already in a grapple with it.It surprises me how many people go out of their way to contradict others on this when they apparently haven't read the text for pounce, themselves.When a creature with this special attack makes a charge, it can make a full attack (including rake attacks if the creature also has the rake ability).Wait... wasn't it Threeshades who said it was "hyperbole" to suggest that a GM would misinterpret the AC rules and need to be corrected by the player in game?
Hm......
No i suggested that it was hyperbole that the GM would get every single step wrong.
Also that the player would do his AC's actions completely flawlessly.Also I would like to add, that I never claimed to be a good GM. I only do it because I'm usually the one around people i know with (sadly) the best grasp of the rules and the lore.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Threeshades, getting rake on a pounce is a common enough practice that if you don't know that rule, I suspect there are other animal control rules that you would also be unclear on. So my point stands.
All this debate here on the boards is entertaining and all, but I'm quite confident that 95% of games will be run with players controlling their druid's AC, their paladin's mount, their wizard's familiar and their summoner's eidolon.
Why do you suppose that's the case? I suspect because it just works better that way.
But do you think a GM should adjudicate that an AC won't try to position itself to purposely flank without either knowing that trick or being pushed to do it? Or that a GM should adjudicate that appropriate Handle Animal checks be made to control the animal to do those tricks?
Because A) just becase something is slightly more convenient than something else, doesn't make it correct.
Then make an argument that B is more correct.
And B) That is complete and utter hyperbole.
Its (almost) everything that can go wrong. Usually it doesn't all happen at once, but almost all of it will happen.
A GM that doesn't know the first thing about the PCs especially the parts that he is taking direct control of has no business being a GM.
In a home game its something the players can work out. In a society game the dm probably can't memorize 4-7 characters and their pets at a glance.
C) You cannot rake on a pounce. In order to rake something you have to start the round already in a grapple with it.
Usually players are more familiar with the rules for their crtter than the DM is. Case in point...
But do you think a GM should adjudicate that an AC won't try to position itself to purposely flank without either knowing that trick or being pushed to do it? Or that a GM should adjudicate that appropriate Handle Animal checks be made to control the animal to do those tricks?All this debate here on the boards is entertaining and all, but I'm quite confident that 95% of games will be run with players controlling their druid's AC, their paladin's mount, their wizard's familiar and their summoner's eidolon.
Why do you suppose that's the case? I suspect because it just works better that way.
Honestly as a GM I would probably not make an issue of it. Animals are smarter about combat than most people think. Wolves flank as part of their basic group attacks. So do lions. I suppose if it were an animal without group attack instincts (maybe a tiger, for example) I might tell the player that they'll have to use the "flank" trick in the future, but I probably wouldn't do much more than that.
But then I'm not a RAW junkie either as a player or a GM. I mostly just want to do what is the most fun for the group.
|
|
Animal companions are a class feature, not an NPC.Incorrect.
[url=http://paizo.com/pathfinderRPG/prd/classes/druid.html]
Nature Bond (Ex): At 1st level, a druid forms a bond with nature. This bond can take one of two forms. The first is a close tie to the natural world, granting the druid one of the following cleric domains: Air, Animal, Earth, Fire, Plant, Water, or Weather. When determining the powers and bonus spells granted by this domain, the druid's effective cleric level is equal to her druid level. A druid that selects this option also receives additional domain spell slots, just like a cleric. She must prepare the spell from her domain in this slot and this spell cannot be used to cast a spell spontaneously.The second option is to form a close bond with an animal companion. A druid may begin play with any of the animals listed in Animal Choices. This animal is a loyal companion that accompanies the druid on her adventures.
Emphasis mine.
Very clearly stated in simple english. The Animal Companion is granted under class features.
I'd have to agree that pets are NPC's. No point in reading any posts to the contrary, huh? The class feature is the ability to bond such an NPC, not the NPC itself.
So where does the AC itself come from if not the class feature?
Would it be wrong for the guy who crafted the backstory for fluffykinz the adorable cat and best friend of the humble party druid to control what fluffykinz does and thinks?
So where does the AC itself come from if not the class feature?
Ultimately, it doesn't matter. Being a class feature doesn't immunize the animal companion from instances of GM control. It isn't the PC, it's the PC's animal - the PC's control, like with trained animals in the real world, is never 100%.
Normally, I have the player of the PC also play their animal companion - the presumption I have is that any combat training or practice they engage in is quite sufficient to assume the animal companion and PC fight in a reasonably coordinate manner. But in instances in which circumstances aren't normal, I take control of the animal companion.
For example, if the PCs are fighting zombies in a crypt and the animal companion has the two-trick attack training, the PC can control him and attack the zombies with him normally. But if a spectre starts to approach, given its unnatural aura, the companion may be able to sense it before the other PCs. I'll take control of that companion to move it out of the aura radius and into relative safety - even if that means breaking off combat with the zombies. Astute players may recognize that's a sign that something worse than zombies is on the way. I'll similarly take control to have the animal communicate with the PCs based on what I feel the animal should be able to perceive, plus I try to give it a little personality.
I pretty much do the same with cohorts from the leadership feat as well.
But your comment (which he stated was incorrect) was: "Animal companions are a class feature, not an NPC. "
Saying that is incorrect does not depend on ACs not being a class feature, the incorrect aspect may just as much be your NEGATIVE assertion that AC's are not NPCs. How have you 'clearly and plainly' established the NPC/PC status of the AC? You've only done so by fiat declaration that such status exactly correlates to 'class feature status. You've also declined to follow up james' exploration of that logic for many other things which are 'class features'.
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
There's an 8-page section in Ultimate Campaign that talks about various companion creatures (hirelings, animal companions, cohorts, eidolons, special mounts, charmed creatures, and so on) and jurisdiction over who controls the creature.
There's an 8-page section in Ultimate Campaign that talks about various companion creatures (hirelings, animal companions, cohorts, eidolons, special mounts, charmed creatures, and so on) and jurisdiction over who controls the creature.
Ultimate Campaign isn't out for another 2 months (???), though.
GM discretion until then?
Huh, that sounds like something that should be in core to me.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
"The way you've been doing it for the past 4 years" would also work for those 2 months while we wait (im)patiently.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Huh, that sounds like something that should be in core to me.
Well, Ultimate Campaign is a book in our core line...
But anyway, if "that should be in the core book" was the deciding factor, the Core Rulebook would be about 1,200 pages...
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Huh, that sounds like something that should be in core to me.Well, Ultimate Campaign is a book in our core line...
But anyway, if "that should be in the core book" was the deciding factor, the Core Rulebook would be about 1,200 pages...
Would that be enough to qualify it as a two-handed weapon?
Yeah, sorry if I came off as insulting. I was thinking of core as Core Rulebook + DMG.
I think its a hand and a half btw. All DMs have proficiency and its Munchkin Bane.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
There's an 8-page section in Ultimate Campaign that talks about various companion creatures (hirelings, animal companions, cohorts, eidolons, special mounts, charmed creatures, and so on) and jurisdiction over who controls the creature.
Interestingly, my immediate reaction on reading this wasn't "Yay!" or "Darn, I have to wait." My reaction was:
"Eight freakin' pages?"
|
|
There's an 8-page section in Ultimate Campaign that talks about various companion creatures (hirelings, animal companions, cohorts, eidolons, special mounts, charmed creatures, and so on) and jurisdiction over who controls the creature.
Oh thank the heavens. That's all I needed to know. I will of course abide by whatever this section has to say about this particular situation. /thread
|
|
There's an 8-page section in Ultimate Campaign that talks about various companion creatures (hirelings, animal companions, cohorts, eidolons, special mounts, charmed creatures, and so on) and jurisdiction over who controls the creature.Interestingly, my immediate reaction on reading this wasn't "Yay!" or "Darn, I have to wait." My reaction was:
"Eight freakin' pages?"
Yes, these are muddy waters, and PFS in particular needs a RAW interpretation of how this is supposed to work.
Well, with eight pages on who gets to say "The AC charge/pounces" I hope there's at least a paragraph or two on how the heck you're supposed to deal with "charm person".
There's an 8-page section in Ultimate Campaign that talks about various companion creatures (hirelings, animal companions, cohorts, eidolons, special mounts, charmed creatures, and so on) and jurisdiction over who controls the creature.
Hm... 8 pages vs. 'is it a class feature? then it is solely under player control'.
I assume Familiars are in there also. Certainly there's particular considerations for them,besides being intelligent NPCs you can communicate with normally, there is the empathic link (sharing general emotions).
(AFAIK, nothing says Familiars must always loyally follow all of your commands with good intentions, and indeed some of them have fluff saying they have their own agenda which could be seen as antagonistic to the 'Master'... even if the term 'Master' does set up some expectation of following orders. If you don't like one Familiar, you can always get another that follows orders better.)
Unless all PFS GM's are to be required to purchase Ultimate Campaign, it may end up being a good idea for the PFS Guide to give some sort of 'cheat sheet' to synopsize how these types of 'Class Features' are controlled. I don't think good GM's are so much a dime a dozen that PFS wants to turn away GMs who only own the CRB and are familiar with the rules within.