Animal Companions

[Geiger Counter]

(both in 3.5 a 4e) Whenever I've played a game with a druid or ranger they always seem to control their animal companion as though it's a second character. Correct me if I'm wrong, but aren't you supposed to teach the animal tricks and control it with the handle animal skill? How common is this?

[Goonthegoof]

In 4E you can control it perfectly, with the rider that it has to stay next to you if you're unconscious. In 3.5E you're supposed to use tricks to decide the creature's actions, but I've never played with anyone who bothers to enforce this. If your DM enforces the need for tricks just remember since the companion is loyal to you you can just give it bonus int, which makes it intelligent enough to not need tricks to be commanded.

[Quirp]

In 3.5 teaching it tricks is no issue since you get those extra tricks that take no time to learn. And in 3.5 a Druid (or Ranger) can use the handle animal skill faster with his animal companion (command as afree action , push (command to do something it wouldn´t normally do) as a move action).

[PinkysBrain]

You get bonus tricks which take no checks, so moving him around (seek) and making him attack (attack) is quite trivial.

[HunterOfJello]

The only concepts or rules that I've ever had to enforce were reminding the player that their animal companion is indeed a wild animal that has been tamed to a degree. It can understand concepts like enemies and all sorts of simple commands, but won't be able to go do anything a very intelligent animal couldn't.

Also, if you have an eagle animal companion, it will try to eat your party sorcerer's familiar if it's a small furry magical beast.

[Samm]

The only concepts or rules that I've ever had to enforce were reminding the player that their animal companion is indeed a wild animal that has been tamed to a degree. It can understand concepts like enemies and all sorts of simple commands, but won't be able to go do anything a very intelligent animal couldn't.

Also, if you have an eagle animal companion, it will try to eat your party sorcerer's familiar if it's a small furry magical beast.

Though I would imagine if you taught the animal the trick down, that wouldn't be a problem... Or if you fed the animal properly it wouldn't even get hungry...

[Yora]

Have you ever seen a dog that would not eat something it finds, regardless of how much it ate just moments before? :smallbiggrin:

[mikej]

(both in 3.5 a 4e) Whenever I've played a game with a druid or ranger they always seem to control their animal companion as though it's a second character.

It's been working for me and I almost exclusively play character that use Animal Companions.

I play my companion like another character. Just like a loyal animal and not something that "oddly" can think of complex stradegies. Soo it's just another character that can only really "attack" or "defend" or simply " fetch." My DM never enforced commanding my pet via Handle Animal. Though I'm the type that likes to make sure I do everything legally. Soo I write down the tricks I taught it and the appropriate DC just in case. RAW, you do techically have to spend time ( Training an animal for fighting takes three weeks ) training your companion. Although, I don't think a lot of DM's would enforce this either.

While using Handle Animal you can teach your pet 6 tricks already ( most succeed the DC ) while the Druid's AC learns a total of 7 more. More than enough if you ask me. Even for those that need two like training to fight undead.

[taltamir]

Have you ever seen a dog that would not eat something it finds, regardless of how much it ate just moments before? :smallbiggrin:

heck, thats a problem for humans too... raise your hand if you are not your ideal weight and sometimes eat things you know you shouldn't?
*raises hand*

OP, as far as control goes, while it is another character, it can understand basic commands easily enough. Its when it comes to it taking initiative and doing things on its own things get hairy, but even then its just a question of who is controlling it. It can be a separate character but still controlled by the same player because he is the one that knows its personality and traits best. I don't like having the DM controlling companions or familiars because they drastically alter their personality and behavior from what you imagine, and they are your second character, not an NPC.

[Samm]

Have you ever seen a dog that would not eat something it finds, regardless of how much it ate just moments before? :smallbiggrin:

Well, that small fury familiar isn't really just food. It's a lot harder to acess, additionally. If the animal companion was full enough, he'd just not really bother. You don't see a cat trying to kill every bird it sees.

[taltamir]

Well, that small fury familiar isn't really just food. It's a lot harder to acess, additionally. If the animal companion was full enough, he'd just not really bother. You don't see a cat trying to kill every bird it sees.

actually its a scientific fact [j/k] that cats are evil, and DO kill every bird, bug, and small furry thing they can. A single cat caused the extinction of a unique bird in an island in under a year, and in places where people have cats there is a massive amount of small animals and bugs killed by them "just for fun".

[cheezewizz2000]

Though I would imagine if you taught the animal the trick down, that wouldn't be a problem... Or if you fed the animal properly it wouldn't even get hungry...

Harder to do with birds of prey IRL. People who hunt with birds have to bring better meat with them than what the birds have caught to tempt them away. Usually this takes the form of freeze-dried, day-old chicks that have been gutted. And saying "if you fed it properly, the [bird] wouldn't ever go hungry" is an oversimplification. Birds will eat and eat and eat and once they are full, they refuse to fly until they are hungry again. No amount of training or coaxing will get it to do otherwise. This means that a falconer has to moniter the bird's weight very very carefully if he wants to use it to keep it just on the brink of starvation, but never too far either way.

Want to use your bird for combat? Keep it away from the wizard's familiar, or it will eat it. Want your bird to not eat the wizard's familiar? Feed it too much, but it won't fight for you.

This is, of course, all just fluff as far as game mechanics are concerned, and most sane DMs won't go in to that much detail (fun way to piss off your Druid and Wizard in one fell swoop, though). Also, be aware that my experience with birds is limited, so take anything I say with a pinch of salt. Unless what I say is geology related; then you can take it with a pinch of halite.

[taltamir]

your wizard shouldn't be taking a familiar that looks like food anyways :P
and you could say that the MAGIC of the familiar makes it unsavory, or the magic of the animal companion makes it more obedient then normally possible.

[Riffington]

It's not quite as bad as this.
Yes, the animal companion wants to eat the familiar. But the familiar is much too smart to be eaten. Your rat can hide, interpose people, or swat that dire tiger right on the nose (note that this technique may work better in a story than in real life).

[cheezewizz2000]

your wizard shouldn't be taking a familiar that looks like food anyways :P
and you could say that the MAGIC of the familiar makes it unsavory, or the magic of the animal companion makes it more obedient then normally possible.

I dunno. The familiar is a magical beast, so I'll grant you that it could be unsavoury to your standard bird of prey, but I don't that should stop a wild BOP from swooping in a killing it. Actually, I very much like the idea of wild animals being a serious threat to a Wizard's familiar...

Your point about an animal companion being magical I'd have to disagree with, though, at least based on RAW. There's nothing that I can see in my (adimitedly hurriedly skimmed) reading of the animal companion that would suggest it's an otherwise exceptional wild animal. It doesn't even gain an int bonus, so I would argue that it could not comprehend the difference between a small squeeky thing that can deliver touch spells and small squeeky things that can die and then be eaten when you land on it.

[taltamir]

It's not quite as bad as this.
Yes, the animal companion wants to eat the familiar. But the familiar is much too smart to be eaten. Your rat can hide, interpose people, or swat that dire tiger right on the nose (note that this technique may work better in a story than in real life).

your familiar has massive bonus to natural armor... the animal companion is going to break his teeth on the magically fortified fur.

[cheezewizz2000]

your familiar has massive bonus to natural armor... the animal companion is going to break his teeth on the magically fortified fur.

:smallbiggrin: LOL! That shouldn't stop him from trying!

Actually, what does anyone think of animal companions and familiars being under the control of the DM? Play them like you would a DMPC, but much more complient, less likely to take the lime-light and not overpowering? It gives wizards a chance to talk to their ravens without the player talking to themselves...

Edit: and jerk-ass DMs a chance to play an animal companion as a wild animal, rather than them being played as a handy spare fighter.

[Riffington]

:smallbiggrin: LOL! That shouldn't stop him from trying!

Actually, what does anyone think of animal companions and familiars being under the control of the DM? Play them like you would a DMPC, but much more complient, less likely to take the lime-light and not overpowering? It gives wizards a chance to talk to their ravens without the player talking to themselves...

If there's more than one, put them under the control of other players.

[Ashiel]

:smallbiggrin: LOL! That shouldn't stop him from trying!

Actually, what does anyone think of animal companions and familiars being under the control of the DM? Play them like you would a DMPC, but much more complient, less likely to take the lime-light and not overpowering? It gives wizards a chance to talk to their ravens without the player talking to themselves...

Edit: and jerk-ass DMs a chance to play an animal companion as a wild animal, rather than them being played as a handy spare fighter.

I don't think I'd like this very much. As a GM it means I'll have more to deal with per character that has a cohort or companion of some sort. Furthermore, I see this as having a lot of potential abuse from a GM/Player perspective. :smallconfused:

I've met many, many GMs who would try to use your companion to screw with you. That doesn't seem like a good idea to me. I think it just complicates things. :smallsigh:

Furthermore, no, animal companions aren't just wild animals or they wouldn't do anything. They're tamed and reared beyond the usual limitations of the handle animal skill. Forcing a player's eagle, for example, to attack the wizard's familiar is just asking for problems and conflicts I'd say. :smallannoyed:

[taltamir]

Most of the GMs I've played with have insisted on playing familiars, homunculi, animal companions, steeds, etc. And of those DMs, most have played them annoying.

ha, I know what you mean. There were some exception to the annoying part, but rarely.

[Hand_of_Vecna]

Most DMs I've played with haven't been interested in running various pet class features and those who were did so only when prompted by the player trying to interact with it like an NPC.

Myself I leave players class features alone except in my 0-level games because characters gain the ability to summon an animal and the event has extra fluff added and is roleplayed so the creature is introduced as an NPC. Also in these games players often get extraordinary pets without investing feats or gold.

One of my alltime favorite familiars given this treatment in a friends game was an owl that used to be the familiar of a very powerful mage he was crotchety, highly intelligent and hated being a familiar.

[Tinydwarfman]

This is one of the big reasons people take Celestial Companion in my games, so that their animal companion can execute complex strategies and act on it's own away from it's master.

[Samm]

Harder to do with birds of prey IRL. People who hunt with birds have to bring better meat with them than what the birds have caught to tempt them away. Usually this takes the form of freeze-dried, day-old chicks that have been gutted. And saying "if you fed it properly, the [bird] wouldn't ever go hungry" is an oversimplification. Birds will eat and eat and eat and once they are full, they refuse to fly until they are hungry again. No amount of training or coaxing will get it to do otherwise. This means that a falconer has to moniter the bird's weight very very carefully if he wants to use it to keep it just on the brink of starvation, but never too far either way.

Want to use your bird for combat? Keep it away from the wizard's familiar, or it will eat it. Want your bird to not eat the wizard's familiar? Feed it too much, but it won't fight for you.

This is, of course, all just fluff as far as game mechanics are concerned, and most sane DMs won't go in to that much detail (fun way to piss off your Druid and Wizard in one fell swoop, though). Also, be aware that my experience with birds is limited, so take anything I say with a pinch of salt. Unless what I say is geology related; then you can take it with a pinch of halite.

Well, not all animal companions are birds of prey... And most carnivores will not try to hunt every piece of possible prey they see. You don't see lions initiating a mad rush at buffalo every time the see them. It just doesn't happen. Basically that's my point. I've heard stories of brids teasing cats and living to tell the tale.

[Starbuck_II]

Have you ever seen a dog that would not eat something it finds, regardless of how much it ate just moments before? :smallbiggrin:

Yes, we trained my dog if he does that he can be kicked out the pack. He drools but doesn't steal: unless we drop it than not ours.

[Oslecamo]

Well, not all animal companions are birds of prey... And most carnivores will not try to hunt every piece of possible prey they see. You don't see lions initiating a mad rush at buffalo every time the see them. It just doesn't happen. Basically that's my point. I've heard stories of brids teasing cats and living to tell the tale.

Don't be too overconfident on this. Altough most predators indeed won't go after prey if they are filled (dolphins are known to play with orcas after they had a snack), some predators are truly vicious and will indeed try to eat anything that comes close.

I remember in particular a certain fish that eats as much as it can, and then if it finds more prey, it vomits what's in his stomach so he space to eat more!

[Samm]

Don't be too overconfident on this. Altough most predators indeed won't go after prey if they are filled (dolphins are known to play with orcas after they had a snack), some predators are truly vicious and will indeed try to eat anything that comes close.

I remember in particular a certain fish that eats as much as it can, and then if it finds more prey, it vomits what's in his stomach so he space to eat more!

Yes, but that is the exception and not the rule. That's what I'm trying to say