Animal Companions Turning On Their Masters?

[Brauron]

One of the players in my current Pathfinder campaign is playing a druid. When she was making her character, we had a bit of an argument because I told her that a tiger is not going to be welcome in most establishments in the town where the campaign was starting, and no, there is not a "Special Animal Companion Kennel" where she can put up her tiger while she's in town, because druids so rarely come to town. Ultimately, we compromised (or I gave in), and she has a Wondrous Figurine companion that turns into a tiger for up to six hours a day upon a command word being spoken.

She wrote in her character's backstory that she grew up with this tiger, that it was originally the animal companion of her adopted father/druidic mentor, and the tiger was her best friend since she was a little girl.

Now, in actual play...she hit level 7 last night, and she has not summoned the tiger since level 5 (which was where the campaign began). Half the time I think she forgets she even has it. It's definitely not "her best friend and lifetime companion" in play.

I'm thinking the next time she tries to summon the tiger (if it ever happens again), the tiger is going to be fairly upset about being neglected for so long, and probably try to resist being summoned, or if summoned, sulks and refuses to obey commands.

Would I be being unfair in doing so?

[Mr.Moron]

Well, how long has 2 levels in been in "in-game" time? It's totally fair if you're looking at more than a couple weeks. If two levels has been a relatively short amount of time despite being a lot of sessions, it's probably uncalled for.

I like the sulking/disobeying commands options, as that gives a clear chance at little character development in trying reconcile.

[Othesemo]

I'd personally suggest just giving her a reminder oog to start using her animal companion. If you've already tried that, or if it doesn't work, then you'd be completely justified in have the tiger sulk, at the least.

[Brauron]

It's been about a month and a half in the game.

I've tried reminding her about the tiger, but she just says, "Ehhh...I don't want to use him in this fight, I'll just Wild Shape into a bear instead."

So I think if she ever decides to summon the tiger again, he's going to sulk.

[Tiki Snakes]

How unfair? Very, very unfair. The only reason it isn't around all the time is because you talked her out of being able to have a real flesh and blood Tiger, which would have been around all the time receiving pettins or so on. For probably valid mechanical reasons she hasn't actively endangered her Friend so far, that's all.

I see two valid options here; Either it is assumed that, once camp has been made she has been using the Wondrous Figurine at the end of the day for quality time.
Or alternatively, just because the Companion is a Figurine most of the day doesn't mean that it's general awareness is any less real. Why wouldn't such a creature be contented merely to be with and on the person of it's long-term friend and companion? After all, it's a magic item that is presumably designed for combat, protecting it's master or attacking it's master's foes.

As long as the Master is safe, surely it's all good?

[Savannah]

Ya know, I routinely leave my animal companions outside of the city with orders to avoid people until I call them or take them into the city and deal with freaked out citizens. First you force her to have not-an-actual-animal-companion, and now you want to punish her because since you forced her to have not-an-actual-animal-companion she's not obliged to use her companion in battles, and she's choosing to protect her companion from harm by not summoning him/her (and to save the companion for if she really needs it -- 6 hours isn't terribly long!). Yes, this would be unfair. In fact, I'd go as far as to say that your original "compromise" was unfair -- if you don't want a druid to have a tiger companion, ban it outright instead of giving some crappy tiger statuette that doesn't even thematically fit with what a druid's animal companion is and is significantly less useful than a real companion!

[hobbitkniver]

Why does she want to be a druid in a purely urban campaign? Isn't there some kind of urban druid substitution she could use instead?

[Brauron]

Hobbitkniver: It is not purely an urban campaign, it's about 50-50 urban and wilderness, though the first four sessions were strictly urban. Also, she refuses to play any class but Druid or Evoker Specialist Wizard, because clerics are boring and the other classes can't destroy whole city blocks in a six-second span of time.

Savannah: Before she and I discussed the possibility of a figurine, I had made the suggestion "there are woods outside of town, could you have your tiger hang out there while you're in town?" She refused on the grounds that the last time she did that (in a different campaign, under a different DM) the animal companion was attacked and killed while she wasn't there. Please understand, this was not a case of me arbitrarily saying "well, I don't want you to have a tiger in town, so here's a wondrous figurine." This was a case of her and I sitting down and discussing how we could arrange for her to have what she wanted (and she specifically wanted the tiger for combat purposes) without sacrificing what I wanted (a city unused to being visited by druids).

Her explicitly-stated reasoning for not using the tiger is also not "I want to protect my friend" it is "Call Lightning deals more damage then the tiger would."

I can see that I didn't show adequate foresight in laying out the terms of the tiger, and when I next talk to her I'll discuss it with her and see if she wants to change anything about it; I should be absolutely clear that the limitations on the tiger have in no way hampered her enjoyment of the game. But please, getting irritable with me over my mistakes does neither of us any good.

[Savannah]

She refused on the grounds that the last time she did that (in a different campaign, under a different DM) the animal companion was attacked and killed while she wasn't there.

Oooh, that's never a good sign. Especially if she didn't trust you if you said you wouldn't pull that kind of trick...


when I next talk to her I'll discuss it with her and see if she wants to change anything about it

You might also want to mention that the tiger is more than just a class feature; it's an NPC that willingly follows her. That way she's got some warning when it gets annoyed that it hasn't been called. (A wizard doesn't expect his uncommonly used spells to sulk, so she may not have even considered that her companion may sulk.)


But please, getting irritable with me over my mistakes does neither of us any good.

My apologies; I've seen quite a few DMs who come here before sufficiently talking things through with the player, and I assumed the worst of you.

[Brauron]

Thank you, Savannah, you just gave me a really good spark. I'm going to mention that the tiger is, as you said, an NPC that follows her around before I do anything else.

This player is bad with NPCs in general; she tends to treat them as either an obstacle to make explode or an annoyance at best; for example, in last night's game she asked me what an NPC's STR was, as she wanted that NPC to carry her over a dangerous area. She then got huffy when I suggested she ask the NPC nicely to try and carry her.

She's an occasionally fantastic roleplayer -- she really seized on to an opportunity to shine a couple sessions ago when the party was asked to track down a monster that had escaped from a wizard's laboratory. Rather than simply attacking it, as I'd expected, she decided to talk to it and discovered (and here I started pulling material out my backside) that it was actually a dopey, good-natured slob who just wanted to eat some fish. So the rest of the players and I are trying to gently encourage her to do more of that and less, "Eh, I don't care who this NPC is, and I've gotten all I wanted out of him anyways. I walk away."

The other thing is, when we made the Tiger Figurine, there was a spoken agreement that this thing would be a Plot Hook for her character, and what she decided on was that a rival druidic student was jealous that she'd received the Tiger, and was going to try and steal it from her.

Well, she missed two sessions in a row and when I asked her to come up with something to explain where her character had been (since we'd agreed that I would not run her character as an NPC in her absence), her explanation was, "Eh, I went and killed that rival student who was trying to steal my tiger."

That's mutable, however, as she never really announced that at the table when the other characters met back up with her and said, "Oh, hey, where have you been?" and I think she would be amenable to retconning that a little bit in favor of having an epic in-character duel with the rival during an upcoming session.

[ClockShock]

It would be unreasonable for a druid to use her animal companion in combat if it either a. unnecessary (druid can do just fine alone), or b. a great risk to the companion verses a minimal benefit that they might bring (tiger vs. flying enemies).

This is especially true when the companion only gets 6 hours a day of being alive.

Advise that her companion (her lifelong best friend) wouldn't enjoy being cooped up as a figurine all the time, and that she should seek to use those six hours as often as she can. Get her to describe what she's using the tiger for in her downtime.

Even in towns there are places where you can get away with letting the tiger out of the figurine. If you're staying at an inn for the night, keep your room door closed and let the tiger out for the evening. Snuggling up with a loyal tiger sounds like a good night's sleep to me.

If the tiger is just a tool that has to be used in combat every now and then, the player will only ever see it as a tool.
Since you're encouraging the player to treat NPCs less like tools/obstacles, start be fostering a bond between druid and companion.

If the druid has some spare time in town - ask what the tiger's favourite food is. Then encourage the druid to find said food and remember to treat her companion when the opportunity arises.
The player needs to care about the companion before the threat of it being stolen is of interest.

[Omnipotent_One]

Her explicitly-stated reasoning for not using the tiger is also not "I want to protect my friend" it is "Call Lightning deals more damage then the tiger would."

Give her the ability to summon the companion as a free action. After all, a real companion would be in play from the start of the encounter, without any actions required from the druid. As others have said, you're already penalizing your player by giving them a gimped companion. Don't make the situation even worse.

[Captain Six]

Her explicitly-stated reasoning for not using the tiger is also not "I want to protect my friend" it is "Call Lightning deals more damage then the tiger would."

The problem is that the tiger has no way of knowing this either, whether it is true or not.

I would continue talking things over to find the cleanest middle ground but avoid In Game ramifications without a serious warning first. The two of you are playing different game styles and you're going to need to compromise to co-exist. As a DM it is in your power and in your right to force her to either accept your way or leave but as two people trying to enjoy some time as a group sometimes it's best to turn a blind eye to the little things. Wait until she is actively disruptive before trying anything.

[blackjack217]

I believe this situation requires a reference to a certain drow. After the next fight have the tiger sleep on the druid.

[hewhosaysfish]

Is this player not using her animal companion a problem?

Do you believe it is making the game less fun for her?
Do you believe it is making the game less fun for the other players?
Is it making the game less fun for you?
Are you enjoying the game fine but you just have this vague impression that she's playing the game "wrong" somehow?

If you just say to this player "You've got to start jumping through this hoop now, even though it provides no value to anyone; If you don't I'll start arbirtraily making life more difficult for you" then she's either going to either
A) call bulls*** or
B) start acting up in-game (following the precedent that you've set for "resolving" playsytle in this manner). And then you'll have to come here again, looking for new "punishments" that will hopefully "correct" these new "problem" behaviours.

[Madeiner]

I'm assuming you got the idea from Guenhwyvar, Drizzt's companion.

Druids in my game have discovered ages ago how to send their animal companions to the Beastlands, with a figurine focus. They can call their companion 3 times a day. I decided this because i also was bored with druids entering cities with dire tigers, because either you play out the freaked citizens, wary guards and so on all the time you enter a city, or you basically gloss over the fact that there is a giant tiger along with you.

I suggest you to:
- change the figurine to 3 times per day calling of the animal.
- the animal can decide NOT to enter the figurine if he doesn't wish so
- when inside the figurine, it is actually in the Beastlands so he is happy.

Maybe require a small ritual to change the nature of the figurine.
That said, next time he summons the animal, just tell him that he can feel the tiger's emotions through his empathic link and that the tiger feels lonely and ignored, but don't give penalties just yet.
If the player continues to ignore his companion, then make him not follow commands and act pissed. Third strike the companion goes away.

Oh and, i don't know about druids in your campaign, but if i had a druid character treat his companion just as a tool, i'd soon be telling him to find an atonement... Actually, the druid PC in my game often sends his tiger away when there's too much danger around, or when they enter a dungeon and thinks the tiger wouldn't like the environment. Not to mention when he awakened his bear as an act of friendship...

Also, i dont get the whole call lightnign vs animal companion... surely you can have both active?

[Vladislav]

Have the tiger act normally next time it is summoned. And by 'normally', I mean 'rend his enemies with great enthusiasm'. However, when she tries to change him back into a figurine, then it will resist; instead of going back to figuring form, it will playfully run around, nibble his mistress (not painfully), and generally be a mild nuisance for a while, before finally acquiescing.

This way, you can bring the point to the Druid without screwing them over.

[Aidan305]

I would suggest altering the statue to have the tiger capable of summoning itself.

"I've always been able to do it, I've just never had reason to before now" is always a great line, as long as you're careful how you bring it about. What you need to do, rather than show her the animal is more than just a bunch of stats by having it turn on her, is show her that it's more than just a bunch of stats by bringing it to life yourself; giving it a personality and encouraging other members of the group to interact with it.

My suggestion would be this: Corner the party; get them low on spells, low on health, then threaten the druid and have the tiger come to her rescue. She may not (OOC) feel the same loyalty to the tiger, but that doesn't mean that the tiger isn't loyal to her. Having to tiger come to her rescue, while potentially a cheap deus ex machina (depending on how you do it) will force a degree of interaction wherein the player and the tiger can interact and the tiger can find out why it's been given the cold shoulder.

[Shpadoinkle]

Wow, this is an awesome idea! I wonder how else players could be punished for not using all their abilities? The one that comes to mind right off the bat is simply losing the ability if you go for too long without using it, but that's boring.

How about, if you try to cast a spell you know but haven't cast in a long time, there's a chance it misfires? Wild magic tables (the 2e-style ones) would be great for this.

A fighter who goes without using Power Attack for too long might end up taking the same amount of damage he dealt if he went without using it for a couple levels, because he forgot the intricacies of how to avoid that.

A rogue who doesn't use evasion might end up dodging the wrong way when it finally does come up, and instead of taking no damage he takes max possible damage from diving into the worst possible spot.

Obviously, a paladin who tries to smite after not doing it for a few levels will instantly and permanently fall.

A bard using bardic knowledge for whatever reason will remember something important, but not why it was important, which of course will lead him and the party charging headlong into disaster.

[MesiDoomstalker]

Collar of Adorableness
Cost: 1 DM Fiat
Weight: 0.5 lbs.
Activation: Swift (Mental)

This simple leather band, adorned with a silver bell, wraps around the neck of a Druid's feline companion.

As a swift action, a Druid may activate Collar of Adorableness attatched to her feline Animal Companion. When so activated, the feline becomes a Tiny sized, house-cat, (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/monsters/cat.htm) except with a Cha of 18. The Animal Companion has a +100 to Disguise checks to act like a regular, adorable, kitty. The effects of Collar of Adorableness are negated and end whenever the Animal Companion iniates a charge action or by another swift (mental) action by the Animal Companion's Druid.

[Coidzor]

Would I be being unfair in doing so?

Considering you're the one who forced her to go through that convoluted muck in the first place, yes.

I'm honestly surprised you guys didn't work on some better compromise.


I should be absolutely clear that the limitations on the tiger have in no way hampered her enjoyment of the game.

Clearly the limitations on the tiger have caused her to not use it and this has caused you some kind of duress or you wouldn't want to screw her over for it...

I can see why your player wouldn't want to use the tiger, since it eats up a standard action to get it on the field at all as opposed to the free action druids have to direct their animal companions to attack a foe.

Druids have a lot of things they can be doing with their standard actions, between wildshape and spellcasting. Her words to you on the matter touch upon this truth, where putting out a Call Lightning makes more sense to her than spending the better part of a turn getting out a single tiger instead of focusing on applying murder to the faces of her foes.


Thank you, Savannah, you just gave me a really good spark. I'm going to mention that the tiger is, as you said, an NPC that follows her around before I do anything else.

Well, there's your first problem. You made the animal companion into an item instead of an NPC that follows her around. Now you want to undo this but not really.


Well, she missed two sessions in a row and when I asked her to come up with something to explain where her character had been (since we'd agreed that I would not run her character as an NPC in her absence), her explanation was, "Eh, I went and killed that rival student who was trying to steal my tiger."

I believe the appropriate response here is either, "Well, you certainly tried," or "Pull the other one," for when they try to just out and out declare they've accomplished plot-significant events outside of the game.


Also, i dont get the whole call lightnign vs animal companion... surely you can have both active?

Command word items are a standard action to use (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/magicItems/magicItemBasics.htm#commandWord), but don't ask me how saying a word is a standard action when talking is a free action. So the player has the choice between spending a standard action and casting a spell and spending a standard action and getting the tiger which, depending upon how the DM is playing it, will either take a turn that round or next round. If it's next round, then the player is effectively setting her first turn in combat on fire by summoning the tiger, and the first round is generally the most pivotal, especially for full-casters, who can shape the outcome of the entire battle with one spell.

And the player's analysis was that the animal companion was worth less than blasting, the least effective technique in the spell caster's arsenal.

As to why the player isn't activating the item when she's suspecting that a fight's coming close or they're going through a dungeon, you've got me there, the only guess I can hazard is either the encounter design discourages this or the idea hasn't occurred to her. The latter is made slightly more likely by the bit where apparently wildshaping before combat hasn't occurred to her either... or the group doesn't function properly if they can't talk to the druid...

[flumphy]

Given the nature of the campaign, I think you would have been justified in disallowing the tiger at all or even banning the druid class altogether. However, coming up with a "compromise" that nerfs a class feature to the point a player won't use it isn't really right.

I'd give her a chance to reevaluate her choice of companion, and if she still insisted on the tiger or something else equally un-urban I'd just let her summon the creature at will as long as she was x distance from civilization.

[Madeiner]

Command word items are a standard action to use (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/magicItems/magicItemBasics.htm#commandWord), but don't ask me how saying a word is a standard action when talking is a free action. So the player has the choice between spending a standard action and casting a spell and spending a standard action and getting the tiger which, depending upon how the DM is playing it, will either take a turn that round or next round. If it's next round, then the player is effectively setting her first turn in combat on fire by summoning the tiger, and the first round is generally the most pivotal, especially for full-casters, who can shape the outcome of the entire battle with one spell.

And the player's analysis was that the animal companion was worth less than blasting, the least effective technique in the spell caster's arsenal.

As to why the player isn't activating the item when she's suspecting that a fight's coming close or they're going through a dungeon, you've got me there, the only guess I can hazard is either the encounter design discourages this or the idea hasn't occurred to her. The latter is made slightly more likely by the bit where apparently wildshaping before combat hasn't occurred to her either... or the group doesn't function properly if they can't talk to the druid...

What i meant was that since it has a duration of 6 hours, you can call it outside of combat. I have never seen anyone cast mage armor in combat when it lasts 6+ hours. Still, most mages have it active almost permanently.
Your typical adventuring day is way shorter than that.

As for the player analysis of blasting vs having a pet out, it clearly can be noticed that the player isn't a tactician or is very new.
There's no way in the world a 3d6 call lightning is better than a large tiger attacking monsters (and doing more than 3d6 damage per round) plus grappling them and defending you when needed.

[Basket Burner]

*snip*

This. We have a winner.

[Khatoblepas]

How to undo this:

1) Have the tiger become an NPC of it's own right rather than an item. The druid will use it more if it's there all the time. The figurine vanishes and mister tiger is there all the time, reminding her that he's there.

2) The tiger remains as her animal companion.

3) Remind her that directing the animal to attack is a free action or at worst a move action and would not interfere with her casting spells.

4) Remind the party that they're level 7, and by this time, their presence in a town is something special, and heck, a druid walking with a perfectly tame tiger is akin to the circus coming to town. It's impressive, it's not scary. Especially if the druid is NG. Would you object to a fighter with a big sword who could cut you down in one stroke coming into town? Only if he's evil? There you go. That tiger isn't going to cause any problems with your townsfolk. Heck, they've probably never seen a tiger before. And these are heroes, not random guys with dangerous animals. Heroes have tigers. (Just ask Beastmaster!)

5) Apologise for making her companion a limited resource. (seriously, what's up with that)

[Mustard]

Why does time appear to pass for the animal companion in statuette form, anyway? Shouldn't it be instant suspended animation? Or at the very least, like sleep?

[Hiro Protagonest]

Considering you're the one who forced her to go through that convoluted muck in the first place, yes.

I'm honestly surprised you guys didn't work on some better compromise.

The party already has an evoker, she refuses to play anything else, and expects cities to have animal shelters for all the druids that pass through (even though druids would much rather sleep in the woods). "Good, simple compromise" was lost some time ago.

[Coidzor]

The party already has an evoker, she refuses to play anything else, and expects cities to have animal shelters for all the druids that pass through (even though druids would much rather sleep in the woods). "Good, simple compromise" was lost some time ago.

Depends on how common adventurers and adventurer druids are, really. And mounted halflings. And other characters with exotic mounts. Though if you're part of the group as you seem to insinuate, then it certainly seems like there's some disagreement about what druids are and how they're seen in this campaign world.

Whether or not the party has an evoker is largely irrelevant though.

That she refuses to play anything else would indicate problems outside of the game, and so acting out in game against her isn't the appropriate response anyway, so as a negative to saying to not act out against her in-game it leaves much to be desired.

You'll note I never said "good, simple compromise," I said "better compromise," like pointing her towards another animal and then not spending the time hassling her about it that the DM didn't want to spend in the first place which is why we got this borked situation with the statue.

[ThatLovin'Elan]

TL; DR: Either let her have her tiger or let her redo her Nature Bond to get a Cleric Domain. Don't make an NPC hard to get to and then punish her for not roleplaying with it.


First you force her to have not-an-actual-animal-companion, and now you want to punish her because since you forced her to have not-an-actual-animal-companion she's not obliged to use her companion in battles

I agree with the above quote on a metagame level: You made it difficult to use a class ability, so the player doesn't want to use that ability.

The problem I think you're running into is that you're trying to create a realistic world where actions have consequences. In the real world, if you bring a tiger down the middle of town, someone is going to call the police. In the real world, if you neglect a friend or a pet long enough, they'll resent it.

In real life, if someone is known to go into a furious, frothing rage and start hitting people with an axe, they get locked up in a mental hospital. In real life, if someone can cure minor wounds or disease with a touch, they could start a cult (or at least a TV show). In real life, just about any of the class features a PC gets would set them far above the world around them and mark them as strange, different, frightening...

In a game world in which Druids and Rangers are known to exist, a tiger would be the least of most villagers' worries. Sure, they should get strange looks, the innkeeper might refuse to stable it with the horses, they have to go to the butcher to get proper raw meat for the animal, and the local Cleric might turn up their nose at someone who worships nature instead of their god, but this a world (I'm assuming) in which a Half-Fiend Troll or a horde of zombies might be over the next hill.

If that's not the campaign world her character lives in, just let her take a Cleric domain and get rid of the thing. If she likes casting spells more than having a tiger, where's the harm?

[Hiro Protagonest]

Depends on how common adventurers and adventurer druids are, really. And mounted halflings. And other characters with exotic mounts. Though if you're part of the group as you seem to insinuate, then it certainly seems like there's some disagreement about what druids are and how they're seen in this campaign world.

Whether or not the party has an evoker is largely irrelevant though.

I'm not in the group, the OP said that in another thread.