Basically the title, a friend of mine says that the GM chooses what the companion does, that makes the feat completely unfunctional, Is that true?
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
When an ability states that the GM makes a decision for something pertaining to a player, that is generally stated outright. Given that it's the player who makes the decisions regarding the animal companion, there's no reason here why the GM would decide what the companion would do.
But also, let's just humor this: suppose the GM were in fact to control your animal companion on your turn, deciding when they use their action and what to do with it. How is the GM going to make your companion behave? Because if they make that companion act wildly out of character by wasting their action and doing stuff you really didn't want your animal to do -- and also preventing you from Commanding your companion in the first place -- then that's just antagonistic GMing. By contrast, if your GM wants to roleplay your companion properly, they'll probably want your companion to have a strong bond with your character and a good enough instinct to know when and how to act -- which would inevitably mean deferring to you on how your companion would act based on your battle plan for the turn. Thus, all valid roads here lead to the player, not the GM, deciding how the animal companion acts.
Your animal companion has greater independence. During an encounter, even if you don’t use the Command an Animal action, your animal companion can still use 1 action that round on your turn to Stride or Strike. It can do this at any point during your turn, as long as you aren’t currently taking an action. If it does, that’s all the actions it gets that round—you can’t Command it later.
That's the only thing in the rules about this, and nothing in that says the GM controls it.
In the absence of that, the player is assumed to control their own stuff. Otherwise, how is the GM supposed to know when you want the action taken, since the rule says explicitly that the action can be at any time during your turn?
When an ability states that the GM makes a decision for something pertaining to a player, that is generally stated outright. Given that it's the player who makes the decisions regarding the animal companion, there's no reason here why the GM would decide what the companion would do.
But also, let's just humor this: suppose the GM were in fact to control your animal companion on your turn, deciding when they use their action and what to do with it. How is the GM going to make your companion behave? Because if they make that companion act wildly out of character by wasting their action and doing stuff you really didn't want your animal to do -- and also preventing you from Commanding your companion in the first place -- then that's just antagonistic GMing. By contrast, if your GM wants to roleplay your companion properly, they'll probably want your companion to have a strong bond with your character and a good enough instinct to know when and how to act -- which would inevitably mean deferring to you on how your companion would act based on your battle plan for the turn. Thus, all valid roads here lead to the player, not the GM, deciding how the animal companion acts.
This Is the exact same thing i Said to them! Aka "if this worked the way you wanted to it'll literally be a useless trap feat, especially for mounts" and they replied using the "well, It works like this for familiars" where It's specified in that case
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The fact that the Independent familiar ability specifies: "Typically, you still decide how it spends that action, but, the GM might determine that your familiar chooses its own tactics rather than performing your preferred action" I'd say reinforces the notion that the GM controlling one of your minions is an exceptional case. I'd go as far as to say that this specific component to the Independent ability is also generally disregarded at most tables, who just let player characters control their familiars at all times.
Can Someone help me find a rule-wise justification? Cause i'm not gonna play a magus if he'll be gutted because the GM giving a very peculiar interpretation of the rules
The burden of proof is not on you, though. If your friend or GM wants to control your minion, they need to find the rules text that says they can first. It is not up to you to disprove a claim that seems, by all rights, completely made-up and unsupported by any rules text.
Can Someone help me find a rule-wise justification? Cause i'm not gonna play a magus if he'll be gutted because the GM giving a very peculiar interpretation of the rules
There's not going to be a rule on this. While "you control the action" is certainly going to be the common interpretation, the rules are clear enough that it's the companion making the decision rather than the character. A mount knowing exactly where to go with no actions isn't necessarily more rules-accurate than the GM deciding. It's just, well... having your companion do what you intend is usually the more fun interpretation, while also being less work for the GM. I would perhaps point out that an undirected minion can already take some actions at the GM's discretion (fleeing or defending itself), and that the familiar's version still mainly lets the player decide.
I would also ask if this is a balance concern, or if the GM would rather you not use companions. If it's a free archetype game, a companion is one of the stronger power boosts available, especially as an undirected mount that equates to a free movement every turn. I don't know your GM or the situation, so that's just a possibility.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Haven't we had a similar discussion re: who controls minions in PF2? I thought the rules answer had been GMs ultimately do, but that the default was to let the players run them for ease (or more specifically determine how their minion interprets their PC's commands). So the GM might step in to nix suicidal or overly complex commands, but seldom would/should otherwise. Of course I may be misremembering and have zero citations. :-)
Which means I've had this same question too because it seems the minion (esp. a simple-minded one) acting on its own accord probably wouldn't do anything particularly tactical. Strike least-spiky enemy if it can, and if it can't, Stride through non-hazardous terrain to next obvious enemy (unless the duo usually hangs back), and that enemy might not be the one the PC would prefer. Heck, if some enemy were attacking the minion's second-favorite PC, it might go attack there. And as a player, I would not like that randomness, so yeah, clarify it with your GM!
That said, playing a Magus I would not invest in a mount. The free movement isn't so free with all the investment in actions and gold to keep your mount alive. Unless there's a Druid in the party w/ Heal Animal or a generous Cleric. Maybe not even then since the Magus will get access to some cool movement spells that won't work w/ the mount.
Haven't we had a similar discussion re: who controls minions in PF2? I thought the rules answer had been GMs ultimately do, but that the default was to let the players run them for ease (or more specifically determine how their minion interprets their PC's commands). So the GM might step in to nix suicidal or overly complex commands, but seldom would/should otherwise. Of course I may be misremembering and have zero citations. :-)
The ones I remember going round-and-round about were summoned creatures who don't speak or understand a language. Does the player still determine what they do since the summoning character isn't able to give them commands?
Personally, I don't think the game rules are there to pit player vs GM. There is a level of trust and respect in both directions that is needed in order to have fun playing PF2. I don't see any balance reason needed to further nerf Animal Companions or Summoned creatures by having the GM control their actions when the PC can't or doesn't.
The GM has enough stuff to control, track, and worry about. When I am being GM, I certainly don't want to take over control of a player's summoned creatures or animal companions too. That sounds like a lot of extra work.
Why would a GM want to do that? Legitimate question. What is the intent and purpose?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Basically the title, a friend of mine says that the GM chooses what the companion does, that makes the feat completely unfunctional, Is that true?
There is no indication this is the case. As a DM I let the player decide as I assume the player and companion have been together a long time, thus they have a strong tactical relationship that allows them to operate efficiently together.
It's an AC or other companion for a reason. It's not there to do what it wants and be annoying humor for the DM. It's there as part of the character to execute what the character wants it to do.
If the character is down, then I exert some control over the companion usually have it act as guardian to the character.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Why would a GM want to do that? Legitimate question. What is the intent and purpose?
I figure some GMs reflexively deny requests for a more generous interpretation of the rules because they assume the player is trying to get an unfair advantage. Of course, this is partly because some players really are constantly trying wring every possible advantage out of the rules, but it certainly sucks for other players who just want to correct an unfair interpretation.
For Fabios, there unfortunately doesn't seem to be any cut-and-dried statement in the rules about it. The most convincing argument to me is that the equivalent ability for familiars specifically allows the player to define their actions in most situations. You could also bring up Player Core page 206 which states "An animal companion is a loyal comrade who follows your orders."
If rules arguments are just making the GM buckle down harder, then maybe you could go for a diplomatic approach and suggest a trial run? The GM might agree for you to run the companion using the more generous interpretation for a set number of encounters (say three) and then review the results. If the GM still considers the results too powerful then they switch to the less-generous interpretation and let you instantly train out of the companion feats (or even switch characters).
If the GM doesn't agree to any of this, then unfortunately this character might have to wait for a more flexible GM...
You could also bring up Player Core page 206 which states "An animal companion is a loyal comrade who follows your orders."
That is a good quote. Another one for the related problem is the Summoned trait: "It generally attacks your enemies to the best of its ability."
If the GM does insist on playing the turn of uncontrolled minions, and plays them in a way that is not helpful to the PC whose minion it is, then they aren't playing the minion in good faith.
Yeah, the problem should never be the "class ability of the PC" isn't helpful. And when the PC gives commands, that represents spending a decent amount of focus leading the minion through various steps, like to flank rather than just pounce. Plus if one has established a pattern of commands (like always go flank before attacking), or even just had a last command that it makes sense for the minion to continue doing, there shouldn't be problems there either. I think the only issues are when commands get too sophisticated where the minion would have difficulty even if they wanted to do it or can't discern differences; or when there are no commands and the player wants the minion to read the mind of the PC based on nothing the minion would know, like attacking the non-obvious threat or switching to non-lethal when they've never captured anyone before. (Again, that's w/ no commands as with commands both of those should occur at will.) For example I think a (non-ice) minion would jump through a (never seen before) Wall of Fire if ordered, but not if acting on its own, especially if they're adjacent to another enemy.
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
If this is specifically about mounted combat though, there might be a different problem;
You can ride some creatures into combat. As noted in the Mount specialty basic action, your mount needs to be willing and at least one size larger than you. Your mount acts on your initiative. You must use the Command an Animal action to get your mount to spend its actions. If you don't, the animal wastes its actions. If you have the Ride general feat, you succeed automatically when you Command an Animal that's your mount.
For example, if you are mounted on a horse and you make three attacks, your horse would remain stationary since you didn't command it. If you instead spent your first action to Command an Animal and succeeded, you could get your mount to Stride. You could spend your next action to attack or to command the horse to attack, but not both.
Basically, if you're mounted and want to move anywhere, you must command your mount to move. Doesn't matter if the companion is mature or not. You're not getting free movement by being mounted and offloading the action cost to the mount.
However, when you Command, the companion gets two actions, and mount companions tend to have high speed. So you could get really far for that action.
Also, since you share your multiple attack penalty with your mount, that mobility and the specific support benefits are really the main thing you'd be using the mount for. (A mount being mostly for mobility? Groundbreaking.)
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Basically, if you're mounted and want to move anywhere, you must command your mount to move.)
This is pretty much contradicted by the mature Animal Companion text and is definitely a place where different GMs disagree (even in PFS I've had different rulings made). Not worth arguing about (it really genuinely is unclear), just ask the GM their interpretation and move on.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
This is pretty much contradicted by the mature Animal Companion text
Basically, if you're mounted and want to move anywhere, you must command your mount to move.)
Which makes it a textbook case of Specific Overrides General.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Which makes it a textbook case of Specific Overrides General.This is pretty much contradicted by the mature Animal Companion text
Basically, if you're mounted and want to move anywhere, you must command your mount to move.)
No. Does the Specific text on animal companions override the General text on mounts? Or does the Specific text on mounts override the General text on Animal Companions? I've seen people argue both and it is totally unclear to me which wins.
But it's not worth having the discussion here. It's very unlikely a resolution will be reached and, even if it was, it wouldn't affect other tables.
It is, in practice, something that IS handled differently at different tables. No argument will change that fact.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Which makes it a textbook case of Specific Overrides General.This is pretty much contradicted by the mature Animal Companion text
Basically, if you're mounted and want to move anywhere, you must command your mount to move.)No. Does the Specific text on animal companions override the General text on mounts? Or does the Specific text on mounts override the General text on Animal Companions? I've seen people argue both and it is totally unclear to me which wins.
But it's not worth having the discussion here. It's very unlikely a resolution will be reached and, even if it was, it wouldn't affect other tables.
It is, in practice, something that IS handled differently at different tables. No argument will change that fact.
EDIT: lol I typed out an almost identical post and I noticed yours.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Does the Specific text on animal companions override the General text on mounts? Or does the Specific text on mounts override the General text on Animal Companions?
In one corner claiming specificity we have the general rules for mounts which apply to anything other than sentient beings who are being ridden: Animal Companions, rented horses, and Summoned creatures to name a few.
In the other corner claiming specificity we have the rules text for a Mature Animal Companion which applies only to a subset of Animal Companions - only the ones who have the feat upgrade to make them Mature.
Yes, I'm sure there are people who claim that the rules are ambiguous and that they can't determine which of these rules is actually more specific than the other. I'm not entirely convinced that such people are arguing in good faith. If one of these hypothetical people wants to convince me by presenting their argument for why the general mount rules are more specific, they can certainly do so. I would be interested in seeing it.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
It seems that having the Mount Trait would make an Animal Companion worse due to that rule about inaction (at least when Mature and having that single action which it'd lose). Seems backward.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
For a more valid argument to prevent a Mature Mount Companion from being a huge action economy boost, I would use a balance argument to that effect and support it with the errata to the Independent Familiar ability.
Page 146: There's been some confusion over whether an independent familiar can use abilities that require a command, like valet, or whether the independent ability overrides the normal rules for mounted combat. To make clear that neither is the case, add "This doesn’t work with valet or similar abilities that require a command, if you’re capable of riding your familiar, or similar situations."
A Mature Companion can't use its independent action while mounted just like a Corgi Familiar can't.
That is an RAI argument that I can see different GMs being on different sides of.
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I'm not entirely convinced that such people are arguing in good faith.
So, you suspect people who disagree with you are automatically arguing in bad faith. All righty then.
And before you accuse me of being defensive or the like, I have no mount in this race. I think the rules are ambiguous. I think that anybody who says that they are clear is flat out wrong.
As a GM I've ruled both ways depending on the group or my whim at the time.
As to the explicit change to the familiar mount rule, again there are two contradictory interpretations
1) Familiar mounts are similar to Animal Companion mounts so this rule CLEARLY applies.
2) They went out of their way to specify this rule applied to Familiars and so CLEARLY did NOT intend it for Animal Companions
But I'll try and shut up now. As I say, it is totally irrelevant who "wins" on this thread. There still absolutely IS table variance on this subject.