I can't find any hard guidance on this in the rules. A Bonded Animal is not a Minion, so that sentence doesn't apply. It's just a standard Animal that is Friendly to the Bonder. Basically, if it's not being Commanded, the GM determines what it does.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
On it is entirely GM judgement, not a strict rules definition. I believe the best answer is definitely NOT to make the animal act conveniently all the time. You don't want "move the animal into danger, and ignore it so that it will fight for free" to become a viable tactic.
On it is entirely GM judgement, not a strict rules definition. I believe the best answer is definitely NOT to make the animal act conveniently all the time. You don't want "move the animal into danger, and ignore it so that it will fight for free" to become a viable tactic.
At the very least, that would trigger the "The animal is permanently helpful to you, unless you do something egregious to break your bond." clause of Bonded Animal.
Ordering your faithful dog into a horde of Zombies and then ignoring it is pretty egregious.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Yeah, but the "how dangerous is technically dangerous enough to be a violation?" or "Technically I'm not ignoring it, bease I'm fighting the zombies, too, I'm just not using actions to command it" and equivalent arguments that could come out if that are REALLY not something that would improve the game.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
My approach as a GM is simple. An animal companion does NOT like getting hurt. Its default reaction (unless commanded or a Mature+ Druids companion) is to run away when it is hurt.
If it is cornered then it will fight.
It will also often defend the body of its unconscious person. Depending on how nice I feel like being :-).
As a GM, I reserve the right to get to decide what that Mature+ Druids companion will do on its turn if the Druid doesn't order it. If the Druid wants to be sure the companion does what he wants, then he spends an action.
I'm not silly about this. Normally the animal will do what the druid wnts. But, to take examples that have come up, a grappled Animal Companion is going to try to either escape or shred its opponent. Its not going to attack the person next to it even if that would tactically be the right thing to do.
Unless commanded. The druid spends an action, they pretty much ALWAYS get to decide what happens and how.
My approach as a GM is simple. An animal companion does NOT like getting hurt. Its default reaction (unless commanded or a Mature+ Druids companion) is to run away when it is hurt.
If it is cornered then it will fight.
It will also often defend the body of its unconscious person. Depending on how nice I feel like being :-).
As a GM, I reserve the right to get to decide what that Mature+ Druids companion will do on its turn if the Druid doesn't order it. If the Druid wants to be sure the companion does what he wants, then he spends an action.
I'm not silly about this. Normally the animal will do what the druid wnts. But, to take examples that have come up, a grappled Animal Companion is going to try to either escape or shred its opponent. Its not going to attack the person next to it even if that would tactically be the right thing to do.
Unless commanded. The druid spends an action, they pretty much ALWAYS get to decide what happens and how.
This is about the approach I would take, though I might allow the animal to make an attack in certain contexts.
The mount in my one campaign is extremely ornery and will usually go for the attack of his own volition as a Mature compainion, but if the rider wants him to do something less aggressive and more tactical, like move next to an ally to be healed rather than attack the nearest foe, that requires a command.
Animals might recognize the party as non-enemies and the PC as a friend, but will have little insight into other NPCs unless they're making obvious attacks against the animal or the boss PC. The party may see a horde of Orcs, but the animal sees more humanoids, perhaps to play with, like in a city.
If a PC wants an aggressive animal, that could easily backfire when there are civilians on the battlefield (or in aforesaid city). The animal may even misinterpret what other PCs are doing to their beloved PC (much like an overprotective guard animal might) especially if it involves blood or flashy spells ("fire"). There's a reason many attack dogs can't mingle with random people. Many more, to do so, need their trainers standing by easing them (often w/ commands).
I'd also say that taking an offensive action wouldn't be the first on a list of "defense", especially not moving forward.
Intimidating (perhaps w/ a Ready to run), hiding, taking cover, running, and such would come first.
Yeh, I think the intent is that the player should never get to decide what those actions are, and they should generally be rather limited, as mentioned, to getting away from danger (moving for instance) or doing some kind of blocking or parrying action if it can, or if truly cornered, yes, it might attempt some attack or attacks, but wouldn't count on it to work in conjunction with the player's higher tactics in mind.
I don't really like the idea of just standing there, I'd imagine perhaps attempting to hide or simply dodge out of the way.
Might, depending on the size of the foe, might have it occasionally attempt to intimidate a foe, growling or hissing to try to scare it away if there might be reason the creature might think it could scare it. (again, this action might actually be useful, but it would be something the GM would decide, and it shouldn't be something that is something the player can count on the animal doing, if left alone)
One thing I personally like however, is giving the GM the ability to actually keep the potential of the animal choosing to utilize a reaction if it makes sense with respect to defending itself. I really don't care for is the fact that minions never get to use their reaction if they have one.
Bump