Total control over animal companions

[danzibr]

I know there are rules involving giving your AC or special mount commands in battle for them to attack and whatnot, but we usually houserule that the person just controls their character and their companion with no actions or anything.

Is this too bad of an abuse of the rules?

[ryuteki]

I know there are rules involving giving your AC or special mount commands in battle for them to attack and whatnot, but we usually houserule that the person just controls their character and their companion with no actions or anything.

Is this too bad of an abuse of the rules?

Nah, it's minor and common, though I prefer if the player at least makes an RP nod to the character giving commands. We *do* use the rules for mounts though, unless the mount is an animal companion or summoned steed.

[opticalshadow]

we normally just allow you to control the companion, but in the game im currently in, the dm actually control the companion (i control all my summons) but i have to actualy command the dog around, and make the HA checks, its actually alot more fun i find, because i have to have the level of thought to order with proxxy.

in farther games i think ill dm it this way, or suggest my dm's do it.

[Coidzor]

Is this too bad of an abuse of the rules?

Don't believe so. Varies by individual feelings and tolerances, but it helps streamline play.

[Hand_of_Vecna]

I give absolute control unless an animal has developed an interesting personality over the course of the game then their an NPC rather than just a class feature.

[faceroll]

"Link (Ex)

A druid can handle her animal companion as a free action, or push it as a move action, even if she doesn’t have any ranks in the Handle Animal skill. The druid gains a +4 circumstance bonus on all wild empathy checks and Handle Animal checks made regarding an animal companion. "

As long as you teach the AC the relevant trick, it's a free action to "mind control" it.

[Amphetryon]

"Link (Ex)

A druid can handle her animal companion as a free action, or push it as a move action, even if she doesn’t have any ranks in the Handle Animal skill. The druid gains a +4 circumstance bonus on all wild empathy checks and Handle Animal checks made regarding an animal companion. "

As long as you teach the AC the relevant trick, it's a free action to "mind control" it.
Emphasis mine. I cannot tell from context whether the OP's group uses the rules for teaching tricks to the AC or not; it's not a major issue, but ignoring the limits on tricks is a houserule that ramps up the power on one of the most powerful base classes in the game.

[faceroll]

Emphasis mine. I cannot tell from context whether the OP's group uses the rules for teaching tricks to the AC or not; it's not a major issue, but ignoring the limits on tricks is a houserule that ramps up the power on one of the most powerful base classes in the game.

Meh, an int 2 animal already gets plenty of tricks, bonus tricks for being a druid covers pretty much all your bases, and if you STILL need more tricks, there are spells.

[tyckspoon]

Unless specifically mentioned otherwise I will assume a companion has been trained for 'attack that', 'guard (party member)', and 'use special attack method on that' when relevant (eg, a bear is taught to grapple and pin down a target) which means most of your standard combat applications will be free action. Outside of combat you may actually have to use the move action with Handle Animal, but most of the time when you're not in combat it's not especially important how many actions you take to do something, so it works out.

[Zaq]

On the subject of tricks . . . I forget, is it a variant rule or RAW that you have to teach an animal the specific trick "attack unnatural creature" or something weird like that? I remember that if this rule is in play, an animal won't attack anything that's too far removed from what they know (no telling your riding dog to go bite that gibbering mouther, say). For the life of me, though, I can't remember if it's a standard rule or a variant rule, and I don't feel like putting in the effort to try to find it again.

For what it's worth, at my table, we generally act as though you have total control over your pets, just because doing otherwise adds even more rolls and slows down play even further, which no one wants.

[Greenish]

On the subject of tricks . . . I forget, is it a variant rule or RAW that you have to teach an animal the specific trick "attack unnatural creature" or something weird like that?It's RAW. Well, technically, you have to teach them the same trick twice to get them to attack those.

[PirateLizard]

we normally just allow you to control the companion, but in the game im currently in, the dm actually control the companion (i control all my summons) but i have to actualy command the dog around, and make the HA checks, its actually alot more fun i find, because i have to have the level of thought to order with proxxy.

in farther games i think ill dm it this way, or suggest my dm's do it.

In our game I make Handle Animal checks, and have had a similar experience. I really like it as a game mechanic. I order my wolf to attack the CR9, and it cowers behind me, waiting for us to make the bad man go away (ex. of a failed roll). Hilarious. :smallbiggrin:

[opticalshadow]

In our game I make Handle Animal checks, and have had a similar experience. I really like it as a game mechanic. I order my wolf to attack the CR9, and it cowers behind me, waiting for us to make the bad man go away (ex. of a failed roll). Hilarious. :smallbiggrin:

its also nice to see them behave somewhat unexspectedly because of the wya they understand the order, ive always been a fan of the dm pumping fluff into everything the wolf does when its moveing (i actuall have a war trained riding dog, way better then wolves)

[danzibr]

For what it's worth, at my table, we generally act as though you have total control over your pets, just because doing otherwise adds even more rolls and slows down play even further, which no one wants.

Yeah, I hear ya. And everyone else that responded, but that in particular.

Any comments on Wild Cohort instead? It seems like this'd be worse as you can't control them with free actions.

[Coidzor]

Yeah, I hear ya. And everyone else that responded, but that in particular.

Any comments on Wild Cohort instead? It seems like this'd be worse as you can't control them with free actions.

I mostly just ride mine to get around that restriction...and have it kill on sight unless I tell it not to... <_< >_> I swear I'm not an evil halfling ranger...

But that's probably an RP/houserule thing that my group allows that solution to the problem.

[Curmudgeon]

I go the other way entirely: animal companions are entirely run by the DM. After all, Handle Animal checks and their associated tricks only give general commands like "Attack". The DM decides where the AC moves, which enemies it attacks, and how it does so. A Handle Animal check can set a new command, but not the details involved.

[Greenish]

After all, Handle Animal checks and their associated tricks only give general commands like "Attack". The DM decides where the AC moves, which enemies it attacks, and how it does so.You may point to a particular creature that you wish the animal to attack, and it will comply if able.

[Curmudgeon]

You may point to a particular creature that you wish the animal to attack, and it will comply if able.
I understand this. However, most players fail to teach their AC the "Down" trick:
Down (DC 15): The animal breaks off from combat or otherwise backs down. An animal that doesn’t know this trick continues to fight until it must flee (due to injury, a fear effect, or the like) or its opponent is defeated. So if it gets into a fight with any other creature, lack of knowledge of "Down" means it's unable to comply with "Attack" vs. any other enemy pointed to.

[Greenish]

I understand this. However, most players fail to teach their AC the "Down" trick: So if it gets into a fight with any other creature, lack of knowledge of "Down" means it's unable to comply with "Attack" vs. any other enemy pointed to.That doesn't say it continues to fight a particular enemy, so I don't see why you couldn't command it to attack someone else.

And even if you couldn't, well, it's still not the DM who decides which enemy the AC attacks when commanded, but the player.

[Curmudgeon]

And even if you couldn't, well, it's still not the DM who decides which enemy the AC attacks when commanded, but the player.
That assumes the player gets a turn to make their Handle Animal check before the AC gets into a fight. A surprise attack will get combat going without any such checks.

[Greenish]

That assumes the player gets a turn to make their Handle Animal check before the AC gets into a fight. A surprise attack will get combat going without any such checks.Right.

So if there's a surprise attack, and the AC beats the master in initiative, and the master for some reason hasn't taught the AC a very useful trick, the DM gets to pick which target the AC attacks.

That's not the same as claiming that Handle Animal can only be used to command an animal to attack with the DM determining the target.

[Curmudgeon]

So if there's a surprise attack ...
That's all that's required, if the AC gets attacked. Without "Down" the animal companion won't back down from an ongoing fight, even one that it didn't start, and even if it hasn't had a turn yet.

[Greenish]

That's all that's required, if the AC gets attacked.I see another "if" there, and it still doesn't mean that the DM always decides which target the AC will attack.