Autonomy of Familiars/Cohorts/Etc.

[Curmudgeon]

I don't know whether this would count as "odd", but I ban direct player control of familiars, psicrystals, animal companions, cohorts, followers, hirelings, mercenaries, etc.
What's odd about following the RAW? That's laid out on page 103 of Dungeon Master's Guide:

EVERYONE IN THE WORLD
It’s your job to portray everyone in the world who isn’t a player character. I've never even considered using the house rule you "ban". :smallconfused:

[ryu]

What's odd about following the RAW? That's laid out on page 103 of Dungeon Master's Guide:
I've never even considered using the house rule you "ban". :smallconfused:

Are they a part of the party? Do they count for party CR calculations? Are their stats recorded out directly on a players sheet? If yes they're a player character. A player character that just happens to be a secondary controlled by the person with the feat/class feature/spell/whatever that spawned them. Now if the DM brought in an actual NPC to get involved you'd have every right to control them with that clause. Not the case in the examples provided.

[Evandar]

I'm actually going to give that a go today when we play in the evening, just because I'm sure it'd improve the pacing of our combat tremendously. My players spend a lot of time attempting to figure out what tactics are going to be optimal and blah, blah, blah, combat takes forever and we don't even get to roll that much.

[AuraTwilight]

A player character that just happens to be a secondary controlled by the person with the feat/class feature/spell/whatever that spawned them.

Hahahaha no. Hirelings and cohorts atleast don't just do whatever the hell you tell them. They're SUPPOSED to have enough autonomy to go "screw this I'm going home" if abused.

[ryu]

Hahahaha no. Hirelings and cohorts atleast don't just do whatever the hell you tell them. They're SUPPOSED to have enough autonomy to go "screw this I'm going home" if abused.

And then there's the ones that don't. Not every helper is payed for with gold or brought on by charisma. As a matter of fact the vast majority of minions I bother to get are directly linked to me by spell effects or various forms of class feature. Autonomy? Don't make me laugh.

[Curmudgeon]

Are they a part of the party?
What does that have to do with anything? NPCs can be in an adventuring party, and all NPCs are run by the DM.

[ryu]

What does that have to do with anything? NPCs can be in an adventuring party, and all NPCs are run by the DM.

First of the three important questions. If all are answered with yes than, no, they are not NPCs by any reasonable standard.

[AuraTwilight]

And then there's the ones that don't. Not every helper is payed for with gold or brought on by charisma. As a matter of fact the vast majority of minions I bother to get are directly linked to me by spell effects or various forms of class feature. Autonomy? Don't make me laugh.

Yea, but those aren't 'hirelings and cohorts'. And oh hey they passed their will save to shake off your mind control and then go home because screw this.

The NPC controls everyone and everything that isn't an actual PC. He just has certain NPCs act in line with a player's will when the story says they should, such as a loyal animal companion.

[ryu]

Yea, but those aren't 'hirelings and cohorts'. And oh hey they passed their will save to shake off your mind control and then go home because screw this.

The NPC controls everyone and everything that isn't an actual PC. He just has certain NPCs act in line with a player's will when the story says they should, such as a loyal animal companion.

What squib of a spellcaster bothers with mind control that offers a save at anything but the lowest of levels? If in the long run the minion should also be permanent and completely immune to being dispelled or disjuncted out of existence. Also that's a VERY powerful NPC to be controlling all other NPCs. Must be the BBEG. Either that or you didn't read through your post after typing it.

[Kelb_Panthera]

Are they a part of the party? Do they count for party CR calculations? Are their stats recorded out directly on a players sheet? If yes they're a player character. A player character that just happens to be a secondary controlled by the person with the feat/class feature/spell/whatever that spawned them. Now if the DM brought in an actual NPC to get involved you'd have every right to control them with that clause. Not the case in the examples provided.

In order: sometimes, yes, and no.

Only familiars are statted in their entirety by the class feature that grants them. All other companion creatures are outlined but never explicitly stated to be fully kitted out by the player that gets them. Nothing says that the feats granted to psicrystals, animal companions, or special mounts (and other such creatures) are chosen by the player. Nothing in the entry for leadership in the DMG even -suggests- that the player gets any say in the building of his cohort and followers and nowhere is it stated that -any- of these supporting characters are under the direct control of the players. These characters are NPC's.

The DM allowing such detailed and ongoing control over these supporting characters is a suggested and often granted courtesy to speed play and increase fun. It is -not- RAW.

[pwykersotz]

What squib of a spellcaster bothers with mind control that offers a save at anything but the lowest of levels? If in the long run the minion should also be permanent and completely immune to being dispelled or disjuncted out of existence. Also that's a VERY powerful NPC to be controlling all other NPCs. Must be the BBEG. Either that or you didn't read through your post after typing it.

Just about every one? As far as I'm aware offhand, only Thrallherd fits that bill, and while it's a very nice PrC, not even close to every caster is one. Or are you thinking of other options?

Oh, and I just realized, Vampire Spawn. But also, common enough to be used once in a while, but not nearly all encompassing.

[Yawgmoth]

I personally prefer it when the DM actually RPs the familiar/cohort/your mom/animal companion/whatever, but as far as picking class/feats/etc. and running them in combat (if they are a combatant), I'll do that thanks.

[AuraTwilight]

What squib of a spellcaster bothers with mind control that offers a save at anything but the lowest of levels? If in the long run the minion should also be permanent and completely immune to being dispelled or disjuncted out of existence.

Good luck with that. Not even artifacts are completely immune to Disjunction.


lso that's a VERY powerful NPC to be controlling all other NPCs. Must be the BBEG. Either that or you didn't read through your post after typing it.

Sorry, my parser must've corrected a typo as the wrong acronym. I meant GM.

[ryu]

Just about every one? As far as I'm aware offhand, only Thrallherd fits that bill, and while it's a very nice PrC, not even close to every caster is one. Or are you thinking of other options?

Oh, and I just realized, Vampire Spawn. But also, common enough to be used once in a while, but not nearly all encompassing.

My personal favorites are ice assassins of various high HD creatures. By definition they're incapable of disobeying my commands, no save is involved in creating or using them, there is no limit to how many you can have, and polymorph any objected permanently fine can be hid in your wizard robe by the thousands. They also make great craft contingent spell fodder. Also undead, and constructs are bloody common and shadowsteel golems are easy to make in obscene numbers quickly. You know what goes well with those golems and their negative energy pulse? Lots and lots of decently made undead.

Aura: Ice assassin. Forcibly mind-raped whatever strikes my fancy that character. Oh and of course good old fashioned infinite supply of artifacts planted on every minion from spell component pouch.

[Deophaun]

My personal favorites are ice assassins of various high HD creatures. By definition they're incapable of disobeying my commands...
The problem is they still need to interpret what is said, and they still have freedom in terms of figuring out how to do what you've instructed them to do. So unless you're there telling them "right foot, left foot, swing sword at opponent's knees, don't forget to breathe!" it's not something you have direct control over. As soon as they're out of communication with you, they're in pure NPC mode. Faithful, slavishly loyal NPC mode, but NPC mode nonetheless.

[ryu]

The problem is they still need to interpret what is said, and they still have freedom in terms of figuring out how to do what you've instructed them to do. So unless you're there telling them "right foot, left foot, swing sword at opponent's knees, don't forget to breathe!" it's not something you have direct control over. As soon as they're out of communication with you, they're in pure NPC mode. Faithful, slavishly loyal NPC mode, but NPC mode nonetheless.

They're never out of communication though. Constant telepathic link. Further simply define exactly what certain words and phrases you expect to use at any point after creating it. Also define several you don't intend to use as precautions. Also give definitions for new terms you're forced to use every time you use them. Want to have any control over my army of solars DM? Well I'mma make you work harder for it than you're likely willing to.

[Curmudgeon]

I personally prefer it when the DM actually RPs the familiar/cohort/your mom/animal companion/whatever, but as far as picking class/feats/etc. and running them in combat (if they are a combatant), I'll do that thanks.
You won't do anything of the sort if your DM plays by the standard rules. You can release your animal companion or cohort if they're not to your liking, and that's about it.

[hymer]

@ minions as NPCs: Isn't the definiton of an NPC a character which isn't controlled by a player, but by the DM? So if you play the minion as controlled by a player, it's a PC, and if not, it's an NPC.
Granted, some may cross the line back and forth as needed, but it seems to me you're arguing semantics more than rules. It's the control that adds the label, not the label that governs control, in my opinion.

[TuggyNE]

@ minions as NPCs: Isn't the definiton of an NPC a character which isn't controlled by a player, but by the DM? So if you play the minion as controlled by a player, it's a PC, and if not, it's an NPC.
Granted, some may cross the line back and forth as needed, but it seems to me you're arguing semantics more than rules. It's the control that adds the label, not the label that governs control, in my opinion.

Curmudgeon's argument is that players never get to control their minions in general, in any sense (and that they are therefore properly NPCs).

[hymer]

@ Tuggy: I know. I'm saying that in such a situation, the minions, cohorts, familairs, companions, mounts, etc. are NPCs, since they're not controlled by players. If the players control them, then they are PCs by definition. They get their labels from being controlled by DM or players, they don't get controlled by one or the other because of their labels.

[nedz]

You won't do anything of the sort if your DM plays by the standard rules. You can release your animal companion or cohort if they're not to your liking, and that's about it.

Frankly, as a DM I have far too much else to do than run the parties sidekicks. Now I may step in very occasionally, but if your players are any good then they will run these things properly.

This is a style of play thing rather than hard RAW, IMHO. Yes the DM is responsible for running them, but delegation is a thing.

[Deophaun]

Want to have any control over my army of solars DM? Well I'mma make you work harder for it than you're likely willing to.
Bolded for emphasis. What you have presented is completely unfeasible for this many units. One unit, sure. Two? Perhaps. But try having five people constantly vying for your attention, telling you their current situation and asking for orders before they change their current tasks in a dynamic environment. Now try controlling an army like that. It. Will. Get. Slaughtered. There is a reason that, even in this day of instant communications, we do not have generals micromanaging grunts. You'd be hard pressed to find even a sergeant that would try to do that with his squad.

You basically have a choice: give the army objectives and broad tactical moves (e.g. "advance along the ridge and siege the north wall"), allowing the DM to actually play it out, or your army sits there, picking its nose, while you directly control a couple units (and your actual character does largely nothing else)

[ryu]

Bolded for emphasis. What you have presented is completely unfeasible for this many units. One unit, sure. Two? Perhaps. But try having five people constantly vying for your attention, telling you their current situation and asking for orders before they change their current tasks in a dynamic environment. Now try controlling an army like that. It. Will. Get. Slaughtered. There is a reason that, even in this day of instant communications, we do not have generals micromanaging grunts. You'd be hard pressed to find even a sergeant that would try to do that with his squad.

You basically have a choice: give the army objectives and broad tactical moves (e.g. "advance along the ridge and siege the north wall"), allowing the DM to actually play it out, or your army sits there, picking its nose, while you directly control a couple units (and your actual character does largely nothing else)

Which would be true if they weren't in my robe with explicit standing orders of normal state and a hilariously complex code of immediate orders that can mobilize the entire army to specific actions if need be. I'm already writing up hundreds of thousands of contingent spells, their individual points of activation, and keeping constant stock of them. You don't think I'd be similarly diligent with how I train the minions all those spells are attached to?

[Abaddona]

Also every decent mage by the point he can do this will be having minimum over 30 points in inteligence, which is more than double the inteligence of inteligent human. Also spells kinda work here like modern communication devices, which can make such task quite a lot easier.

[Xervous]

Am I the only one who read this as "Anatomy of..." ?

Its been too long since I last stretched my Evil DM claws...

[Coidzor]

Reposted from the original thread.


What's odd about following the RAW?

I've never even considered using the house rule you "ban". :smallconfused:

Well, there's bits of RAW, like Multiclass XP penalties, where a hefty portion of tables have decided to do without them, to the point where it becomes unusual to hear of someone using them rather than the reverse.

Some people enjoy playing chess against themselves. Some don't. *shrug*

Edit: Not sure what the big shocker here is, honestly. You've come into contact with this idea before, haven't you? :smallconfused:

[Yawgmoth]

You won't do anything of the sort if your DM plays by the standard rules. I wouldn't be playing with a DM who plays by strict RAW so you can take your overly aggressive attitude about my preferences, make a craft (broom) check, and sit on it.

[Clistenes]

Hahahaha no. Hirelings and cohorts atleast don't just do whatever the hell you tell them. They're SUPPOSED to have enough autonomy to go "screw this I'm going home" if abused.

Or you could properly roleplay your cohort so your DM don't have to do it for you. Roleplay it as a person, not as a mindless class feature, and there won't be any reason for the DM to steal it from you.

Sometimes the cohort will do things that aren't what the main PC wants it to do. That doesn't mean that it's out of your control,...hell, you can use the cohort to do things that YOU want it to do, but that would be out of character for the main PC to order.

A rogue cohort could for example, search the pockets of a slain enemy even if the cleric PC is repulsed by that and would never do it.

[Deophaun]

Which would be true if they weren't in my robe with explicit standing orders of normal state and a hilariously complex code of immediate orders that can mobilize the entire army to specific actions if need be. I'm already writing up hundreds of thousands of contingent spells, their individual points of activation, and keeping constant stock of them. You don't think I'd be similarly diligent with how I train the minions all those spells are attached to?
Now I have to assume you're trolling.

[Coidzor]

I have to admit, we don't often play with cohorts, and most animal companions are mounts, so DM control over the mount wouldn't be evident anyway except for situations where the DM was clearly screwing the player over, but I have always been intrigued by the idea that crops up every now and then of having one another's familiars/cohorts/X RP'd and controlled by different players than the one controlling the main character.


Now I have to assume you're trolling.

They're talking about an arms race with a DM.

Over the top is where you *start.*

[Slipperychicken]

Personally, I'm fine with the GM taking control of hirelings, familiars, summoned creatures, and other such minions. They are NPCs after all, they have free will, etc. Of course, if he doesn't want the hassle, I'm fine with controlling them too.

I would prefer some kind of "loyalty roll", like ACKS has, which would use game mechanics to encourage fair treatment and establish the extent to which allied NPCs were loyal.

[ryu]

Now I have to assume you're trolling.

Nope. I play hilariously high-op games for fun. The entire party is usually rocking T1 status using whatever tricks we like without holding back. The only limitation, which we occasionally excise for giggles, is no pun-pun shenanigans. Why does this dynamic work so well? The DM is fully prepared and happy to retaliate in kind. I prefer my D&D more complex than Steel Battalion and several orders of magnitude more silly.

[Deophaun]

They're talking about an arms race with a DM.

Over the top is where you *start.*
There is no way a player shows up with a list of the hundreds of thousands of contingencies he has on himself. There is no way a player shows up with what would have to be a tens of thousands of page document that contains the "program" that their army runs by. This does not happen, and if it did happen, the other players would likely kick the one the first time he eats up an entire session figuring out just which of his hundreds of thousands of contingencies just went off at the start of the first encounter.

As I said, it's trolling.

[ryu]

There is no way a player shows up with a list of the hundreds of thousands of contingencies he has on himself. There is no way a player shows up with what would have to be a tens of thousands of page document that contains the "program" that their army runs by. This does not happen, and if it did happen, the other players would likely kick the one the first time he eats up an entire session figuring out just which of his hundreds of thousands of contingencies just went off at the start of the first encounter.

As I said, it's trolling.

The word document didn't happen all at the same time. It was built up after years of playing with this group with each and every person notified at the time of any relevant changes. The high-op psion, and planar shepherd druid have similar documents for powers, planes, and various forms of minion that see common use. The DM also has several different home-made worlds with active continuity that he keeps tabs on with his own documents. Some groups DO play straight-up tier 0, and I resent the accusation that groups like us cannot exist.

[Deophaun]

The high-op psion, and planar shepherd druid have similar documents for powers, planes, and various forms of minion that see common use.
Wow, whole powers and planes and minions? Why, that's exactly like "hundreds of thousands of contingencies." Next you'll be telling me that the fighters in your groups list the feats they have!

Some groups DO play straight-up tier 0, and I resent the accusation that groups like us cannot exist.
I don't deny that groups like yours do not exist. I deny that you are anywhere in the vicinity of truthful in description of how you actual group is. If you are to resent something, resent that.

But please do post a link to your army's rules of engagement. Should take you five minutes.

[ryu]

Considering that that the vast majority of those contingencies are redundant copies? Considering that more than 75% of them are greater teleportation effects, anti-divination precautions, and defensive buffs which can be denoted with numbers after singular entries? The other 25% or so are simple BFC effects and the odd bit of force damage. Yeah really difficult to maintain and show to a party in simple fashion.

As for the document of rules of engagement, main copy is kept at the DMs house, But if you care that much I'll update one of my backup copies to latest standard and have it google document form with a day if you like.

[Reinkai]

This escalated quickly...

I'm curious about that tier 0 level of play though.

[Deophaun]

Considering that that the vast majority of those contingencies are redundant copies? Considering that more than 75% of them are greater teleportation effects, anti-divination precautions, and defensive buffs which can be denoted with numbers after singular entries? The other 25% or so are simple BFC effects and the odd bit of force damage. Yeah really difficult to maintain and show to a party in simple fashion.

As for the document of rules of engagement, main copy is kept at the DMs house, But if you care that much I'll update one of my backup copies to latest standard and have it google document form with a day if you like.
That would be quite illuminating. I would appreciate it.

[nedz]

I have to admit, we don't often play with cohorts, and most animal companions are mounts, so DM control over the mount wouldn't be evident anyway except for situations where the DM was clearly screwing the player over, but I have always been intrigued by the idea that crops up every now and then of having one another's familiars/cohorts/X RP'd and controlled by different players than the one controlling the main character.

In an old AD&D 2E game we had two players swap their Henches. It played well for a while, the Henches had much more personality, but then ended hilariously as one of the Henches overthrew the PC :smallbiggrin:

[Thanatosia]

If you are seriously concerned that you only have control of 99.99999999999% of the game universe instead of 99.9999999999999%, you might have a control freak issue.

Let the PCs control their minions, IMO. Hirelings bought from gold or into their service by role-play or on short terms contracts, sure - control them. But if the PC actually paid for their services in terms of character development resources, such as Class features (Familiars, Animal Companions), or Feat slots (Leadership Cohorts) - they should be considered an extension of their character. Obviously you can step in if they are abusing it outragiously by just treating them as mindless automaton tools and harming them callously... but seriously, as the DM you already control every other NPC in the universe, ISN"T THAT ENOUGH??? let the PCs have this one.

[molten_dragon]

What's odd about following the RAW? That's laid out on page 103 of Dungeon Master's Guide:
I've never even considered using the house rule you "ban". :smallconfused:

I generally let players control their animal companions/familiars/cohorts/thralls/summoned undead/etc, as long as they're not abusing the privilege (making cohorts do suicidal things, animal companions acting much smarter than they should etc). It saves me a lot of trouble, I've got enough things to control.

On the other hand, I wouldn't have a problem with the DM controlling my familiar or cohort or whatever as long as they were doing it appropriately.

[Kelb_Panthera]

FWIW, I generally do let the players command these characters in combat situations with the caveat that they will ignore anything obviously suicidal, barring extraordinary circumstances, and that they're still NPC's that I reserve the right to take control of at any time for reasons that I don't have to justify on the spot, though I will certainly be willing to explain after it's no longer spoilery.

[Bigbeefie]

I do have a problem with a DM who controls my Edilolin, Familiar, or Animal Companion.

The reason why is because those 3 things above are class features....thus they are part of the Character who rolled them up with his base class. There is a reason they are given abilites, stats, feats, skills, tricks, evolutions, ect ect to customize for the player who is suppose to use them with his Class.

Lets say i was playing a Witch and I want to keep my familiar safe and sound but the Jackass DM wants it to run headlong into combat as well as constantly target it with his encounters because he is controlling it and not taking the person playing the class control it like it suppose to be done as an extension of the class they chose. It would make me so mad I'd probably never play with that DM again.

As far as summoned Creatures that is all up to the DM. The way we handle summoned creatures is they are under Verbal control of the one who summoned them......If you cant speak to it or handle the animal the DM will then let it fight to the best of its own abilities....But if you share a language with the Summoned creature you can tell it something like, "Use lighting bolt on _______." The GM will do the Movement of the creature based on its intelligence and the player will roll the Dice for the Summoned creature. But the DM doesn't interfere with the concept of the player too much on summoned creatures.

The DM how ever has complete control over NPCs, Cohorts, or Hirelings. He gets to be there personalities, He allows the players to suggest actions to the NPCs, Cohorts, or Hirelings but he controls all actions and rolls for them. If the player's suggestion sits and sounds good to the NPC he will usually follow the suggestions but sometimes you could get a big, "No I'm doing X" from him as well depending on the situation and request.

[Jakodee]

The definition of Npc is "non-player character" so anything, even with class levels, that the players do not control is an Npc.

[Kalaska'Agathas]

The definition of Npc is "non-player character" so anything, even with class levels, that the players do not control is an Npc.

How very illuminating.

Fundamentally, I think the issue is what divide (if any) there is between a non-player character and a class feature, feat, or spell based creature or character. If the creature or character is there because of a class feature or feat I have, do I have control over them? If so, to what extent?

Personally, I think that there is a difference between a non-player character wholly under the DM's control and a creature or character present due to a class feature, feat, or spell. Similarly, I think that the player must have some level of control over creatures and characters which are present because of a class feature, feat, or spell they possess, in order for those class features, feats, and spells to work, on a fundamental level. It is not clear, to me at least, what the extent of that control should be, based on the rules alone. In some cases (Ice Assassin, Thrallherd, Psicrystals) complete control seems possible, whereas in others (Summon Monster, Summon Nature's Ally, Animal Companions) giving orders seems to be the extent of possible control, and others are somewhere between those extremes. Therefore, before play begins, it is useful for the player(s) and DM(s) to come to an agreement regarding just how much control the players will have. By matching up people's expectations, considerable friction may be avoided.

[Kraken]

Minions result in combat being slow enough when players control them. I can already envision the arguments between a player and DM bringing things to a crawl over what a familiar or animal companion would do, even in the face of instructions. Edit: and I don't really think anybody sends animal companions or familiars out suicidally, so that's not an issue in my experience.

[Kelb_Panthera]

I do have a problem with a DM who controls my Edilolin, Familiar, or Animal Companion.

The reason why is because those 3 things above are class features....thus they are part of the Character who rolled them up with his base class. There is a reason they are given abilites, stats, feats, skills, tricks, evolutions, ect ect to customize for the player who is suppose to use them with his Class.

Lets say i was playing a Witch and I want to keep my familiar safe and sound but the Jackass DM wants it to run headlong into combat as well as constantly target it with his encounters because he is controlling it and not taking the person playing the class control it like it suppose to be done as an extension of the class they chose. It would make me so mad I'd probably never play with that DM again.

That sounds more like you have a problem with jackass DM's. Most people do, myself included.

A familiar is an extension of the character that summons it to a certain extent so having its personality be drastically different from the master is odd, at best. It should be something akin to a cross between the master's personality and the personality traits typical of the creature it was before becoming a familiar.

Animal companions on the other hand are independent animals that simply like the druid/ranger that they follow. They're simply not capable of complex tactics and their personality should probably be little more than driving instincts and traits typical of the creature. A player can issue trick orders or can try to push the creature via handle animal but how the creature executes those commands isn't something the player should control at all.

I honestly don't know much about the eidolon, since I only very rarely use pathfinder material but as I understand it they're a summoned creature too. Why wouldn't they be governed by the same rules as other summoned creatures?

[Bigbeefie]

That sounds more like you have a problem with jackass DM's. Most people do, myself included.

I honestly don't know much about the eidolon, since I only very rarely use pathfinder material but as I understand it they're a summoned creature too. Why wouldn't they be governed by the same rules as other summoned creatures?

Yes to the first part.

Yes they are summoned creatures with a few differences as being linked to the summoner,and that they are not sent back to their home plane until reduced to a number of negative hit points equal to or greater than their Constitution score

But as a player would you want one of the main functions of your class to be controlled by the DM? For a summoner they get up to 6th lvl spells and get a very selective list....no armor and simple weapons. Your Eidolon is kind of your physical side...he does what you need to get done. I really don't see why the DM needs to control the major aspect of my entire class.

[unseenmage]

Now I have to assume you're trolling.

I assumed he was referring to the concept of characters who are smarter than their real world analogues.

Sure any human in our world would have trouble managing a supercomputer's worth of raw tactical data, but the heroes are heroes. They have commensurately heroic mental stats too. And with those mental stats they get to perform heroic feats of mental wonderment, like commanding many minions with just their mind, or slaying a dragon with a spell.

[Kelb_Panthera]

Yes to the first part.

Yes they are summoned creatures with a few differences as being linked to the summoner,and that they are not sent back to their home plane until reduced to a number of negative hit points equal to or greater than their Constitution score

But as a player would you want one of the main functions of your class to be controlled by the DM? For a summoner they get up to 6th lvl spells and get a very selective list....no armor and simple weapons. Your Eidolon is kind of your physical side...he does what you need to get done. I really don't see why the DM needs to control the major aspect of my entire class.

I understand there's an archetype(?) that lets you fuse with the eidolon. This neatly sidesteps the issue.

Anyway, let me counter your question with a question: if you knew the DM was of a mind to run all summoned creatures, or like me to simply reserve the right to take over, would you choose a class whose primary feature is a summoned creature?

At the very least I'd wager you'd have a discussion about the matter instead of just assuming that this one is different. I'd certainly advise you to if that's not the case.

[Coidzor]

Yes to the first part.

Yes they are summoned creatures with a few differences as being linked to the summoner,and that they are not sent back to their home plane until reduced to a number of negative hit points equal to or greater than their Constitution score

But as a player would you want one of the main functions of your class to be controlled by the DM? For a summoner they get up to 6th lvl spells and get a very selective list....no armor and simple weapons. Your Eidolon is kind of your physical side...he does what you need to get done. I really don't see why the DM needs to control the major aspect of my entire class.

It does seem like it'd encourage Synthesist Summoners.

[unseenmage]

@ minions as NPCs: Isn't the definiton of an NPC a character which isn't controlled by a player, but by the DM? So if you play the minion as controlled by a player, it's a PC, and if not, it's an NPC.
Granted, some may cross the line back and forth as needed, but it seems to me you're arguing semantics more than rules. It's the control that adds the label, not the label that governs control, in my opinion.

This got me thinking.

That yes, this is a very semantic argument. If we're not discussing the semantics of NPC vs PC then we'll dig into the specifics for the text of the various "minions" and discuss the semantics of what 'completely loyal', 'obeys every command', or 'will die for you' and etc truly means.

There's the possibility that we might see some actual RAW terminology eventually somewhere along the way but by then we'll be so fed up we'll gladly take the simpler RAW citation Curmudgeon originally cited and run with it as a welcome alternative to bodily hunting the WotC team down and physically forcing them to make us that fabled non-existent document, 'The Big Book of Official D&D 3.5 Lexicon of Terminology'.

Don't get me wrong, I'll thoroughly enjoy the journey with you all. I have been quite curious about this topic since my first foray into the RAW Q&A thread with a "minion" question found me staring down the barrel of a, 'This is not a RAW question.', response.

[Bigbeefie]

I understand there's an archetype(?) that lets you fuse with the eidolon. This neatly sidesteps the issue.

Anyway, let me counter your question with a question: if you knew the DM was of a mind to run all summoned creatures, or like me to simply reserve the right to take over, would you choose a class whose primary feature is a summoned creature?

At the very least I'd wager you'd have a discussion about the matter instead of just assuming that this one is different. I'd certainly advise you to if that's not the case.

Actually no I wouldn't play the summoner if the DM ran the entire ediolon. I would avoid it completely as I would feel I was only playing the sucky half of my class.

Now if the DM reserved the right to "take over" I would want his ruling to under what circumstances he would be taking over and weight my options. If it seemed too "controlling" i would still avoid the summoner.


would you choose a class whose primary feature is a summoned creature?
Not really ever to be honest. I have avoided a Summoner like the plague as I think it really one of the weakest classes in PF. Strong from levels 5-7....then they go right back to sucking.

[NemoX]

My DM only controls cohorts when he is using the narrative to justify them following us. After that, they are ours to control, provided we role play properly. This includes arguing with ourselves when said cohorts refuse to do whatever they are told to do which leads to some very entertaining times and pushes us to be better at roleplaying.

As far as animal companions go, its a 50/50 thing. Depends on the complexity of what we want the animal to do, we roll our handle animal checks and go from there. Basically its a case-by-case desicion, in which he steps in if it looks like we will abuse it.

I think that since we choose the animal companions we want to aquire and we create the cohorts we are going to recruit, it makes sense to consider them PC and not NPC's.

[Raven777]

Allow me to interject some Pathfinder RAW (http://www.d20pfsrd.com/classes/core-classes/wizard/familiar#TOC-Animal-Companions-Familiars-and-Followers-per-Ultimate-Campaign) for consideration :


Sentient Companions: a sentient companion (a creature that can understand language and has an Intelligence score of at least 3) is considered your ally and obeys your suggestions and orders to the best of its ability. It won't necessarily blindly follow a suicidal order, but it has your interests at heart and does what it can to keep you alive. Paladin bonded mounts, familiars, and cohorts fall into this category, and are usually player-controlled companions.

Emphasis mine. So roleplaying familiars and cohorts is in the player's hands, not the GM's.

[NemoX]

Emphasis mine. So roleplaying familiars and cohorts is in the player's hands, not the GM's.

Is there something like that recorded for 3.5? Not everybody incorporates all sources or pathfinder after all. Makes sense, but ultimately the DM has the final say for their own campaigns I suppose.

[Kelb_Panthera]

I can say with some certainty that no such rule exists in 3.X. It's a uniquely pathfinder rule and even then the quoted text says "usually."

[Deophaun]

Sure any human in our world would have trouble managing a supercomputer's worth of raw tactical data, but the heroes are heroes.
Here's the thing: a supercomputer plays chess, which has a finite amount of moves and, thus, is a mathematical problem that can be solved. Even with that, it took a very very long time before we got a supercomputer that could play chess better than the best human chess player. And our best programs (which is what we're building here) still can't hold a candle to humans at a simple game of go.

War, meanwhile, is not chess, or even go. War has infinite scenarios, infinite moves, infinite possibilities. There is no solution to it.

And we've had thousands of very bright people working on this for decades, building on one another, whether at MIT, Valve, or DARPA. Thousands of people, aiding another, over decades, and we still haven't cracked AI. What do you think the DC on the Int check for that is? 10,000?

[unseenmage]

Here's the thing: a supercomputer plays chess, which has a finite amount of moves and, thus, is a mathematical problem that can be solved. Even with that, it took a very very long time before we got a supercomputer that could play chess better than the best human chess player. And our best programs (which is what we're building here) still can't hold a candle to humans at a simple game of go.

War, meanwhile, is not chess, or even go. War has infinite scenarios, infinite moves, infinite possibilities. There is no solution to it.

And we've had thousands of very bright people working on this for decades, building on one another, whether at MIT, Valve, or DARPA. Thousands of people, aiding another, over decades, and we still haven't cracked AI. What do you think the DC on the Int check for that is? 10,000?

I was referring to the volume of data as a nigh unimaginable amount, not the capability of modern world AI.

My apologies for any misunderstanding.

[Reinkai]

Here's the thing: a supercomputer plays chess, which has a finite amount of moves and, thus, is a mathematical problem that can be solved. Even with that, it took a very very long time before we got a supercomputer that could play chess better than the best human chess player. And our best programs (which is what we're building here) still can't hold a candle to humans at a simple game of go.

War, meanwhile, is not chess, or even go. War has infinite scenarios, infinite moves, infinite possibilities. There is no solution to it.

And we've had thousands of very bright people working on this for decades, building on one another, whether at MIT, Valve, or DARPA. Thousands of people, aiding another, over decades, and we still haven't cracked AI. What do you think the DC on the Int check for that is? 10,000?

But in this case we're talking about a human with superhuman intelligence, not a computer. A human with intelligence so high that it's a god at a game of go.

[Raven777]

But in this case we're talking about a human with superhuman intelligence, not a computer. A human with intelligence so high that it's a god at a game of go.

So, basically, a Mantat from Dune jacked up on Spice and Sapho :smalltongue:

[Kalaska'Agathas]

So, basically, a Mantat from Dune jacked up on Spice and Sapho :smalltongue:

I've had characters, pre-epic, with Int scores to rival Odin (Int 44, according to Deities and Demigods). I suspect that even the most grizzled, be-eyebrowed Mentat would pale in comparison.

[NemoX]

BTW, speaking of cohorts, what's the official RAW on how fast they level? one DM made it 1/4th of the xp gained by main PC, another one rules 2/3. A third one flat out half. I haven't been able to find the answer on the DMG or PH?

[Slipperychicken]

BTW, speaking of cohorts, what's the official RAW on how fast they level? one DM made it 1/4th of the xp gained by main PC, another one rules 2/3. A third one flat out half. I haven't been able to find the answer on the DMG or PH?

They get ([Cohort Level]/[PC Level]) of the XP. It's all in the Leadership feat description.

[NemoX]

They get ([Cohort Level]/[PC Level]) of the XP. It's all in the Leadership feat description.

Thanks, must have missed it

[Coidzor]

I can say with some certainty that no such rule exists in 3.X. It's a uniquely pathfinder rule and even then the quoted text says "usually."

I guess we can hold it up as an example of them seeing a lack of any elucidation on the subject in 3.5 and deciding to put at least something there.

[Dr. Azkur]

Am I the only one who read this as "Anatomy of..." ?

Oh my god I didn't think someone else would have made that mistake. I was very confused after reading a few posts and not finding anything related to their bodily structure.

[Coidzor]

Oh my god I didn't think someone else would have made that mistake. I was very confused after reading a few posts and not finding anything related to their bodily structure.

Well, dissecting and even vivisecting them would be much less controversial. Practically expected, really. :smallamused:

[Deophaun]

But in this case we're talking about a human with superhuman intelligence, not a computer. A human with intelligence so high that it's a god at a game of go.
We're not interested in a person being god at a game of go. We are interested in a single person being a god at programming a machine to play a game of go, because that's at issue here with the rules of engagement. And not only does the machine have to be good at playing the game, but the creator must also know exactly what the machine will do, otherwise the player has no grounds to hedge out DM control.

That last part is particularly problematic, because there's no character archetype for it. In fiction, when you have someone attempting the above, ghosts emerge in the system and control invariably slips from the creator's grasp; Skynet becomes self aware.

[unseenmage]

We're not interested in a person being god at a game of go. We are interested in a single person being a god at programming a machine to play a game of go, because that's at issue here with the rules of engagement. And not only does the machine have to be good at playing the game, but the creator must also know exactly what the machine will do, otherwise the player has no grounds to hedge out DM control.

That last part is particularly problematic, because there's no character archetype for it. In fiction, when you have someone attempting the above, ghosts emerge in the system and control invariably slips from the creator's grasp; Skynet becomes self aware.
Emphasis mine.

I think that you've struck on a good point here, just perhaps not the one you were aiming for.

That glitches will occur. That problems will arise. For some reason or another they need to occur for the situation to retain suspension of disbelief.
Which is where the DM comes in and where the RPG part of our game enters the equation too.

One cannot get to the Skynet or Ghost in the Machine trope without the mad genius programmer trope to precede it. And that can be a good thing. It's an adventure hook. It's a plot point. Some groups may gloss over that and enjoy a power fantasy (I have, it can be it's own kind of fun). Other groups might do one before the other or vice versa.

I've read a lot of posts about how 'DMs shouldn't let' or 'players shouldn't want' and I suspect that both camps are right. (Now these views of course have zero bearing on a RAW discussion but merit inclusion anyway as this is a largely social game.) The plan shouldn't go as planned. That's part of the fun. For some. For others it's about the theoretical optimization and the Rules as Written. Which is fine too.

I do not mean to imply that anyone does not already know the above. I just find that that being clear on the terminology helps keep the issues at hand clear. For me mostly. I totally claim this post for my own sanity. :smalltongue:

[Tedective]

I would allow the player who's responsible for the NPC to role play it as a second character, but only if the player is willing to, and is able to emulate such a being, like a greedy raven familiar or a devout cleric hireling.
DM intervention would still be possible though, the cleric taking a feat the player didn't want upon leveling or the raven stealing from an obviously powerful person.
This allows both player and DM to have fun with a follower, cohort, familiar, hireling, summoned monster, etc. and enables the follower to synchronize as well in a party as the actual PC's.

[Psyren]

I do have a problem with a DM who controls my Edilolin, Familiar, or Animal Companion.

I think they're talking 3.5 in this thread. Pathfinder gives much more explicit guidelines (http://paizo.com/pathfinderRPG/prd/ultimateCampaign/campaignSystems/companions.html#_aspects-of-control) around who controls what and when.

For example, Eidolons generally follow your commands to the best of their ability, but the DM can step in if you order it to suffer needlessly and make it refuse.

[geekintheground]

Considering that that the vast majority of those contingencies are redundant copies? Considering that more than 75% of them are greater teleportation effects, anti-divination precautions, and defensive buffs which can be denoted with numbers after singular entries? The other 25% or so are simple BFC effects and the odd bit of force damage. Yeah really difficult to maintain and show to a party in simple fashion.

As for the document of rules of engagement, main copy is kept at the DMs house, But if you care that much I'll update one of my backup copies to latest standard and have it google document form with a day if you like.

i would actually love to see said document, as i've been really interested in contingencies lately. but only if youre gonna do it anyway, i wouldnt want you to go out of your way just for me :smallredface:

on topic: while i agree with crumudgeon on the RAW, i agree with the posters that say "if its a class feature, let the player control it". the wizard can bend reality to his will, but cant tell his raven where to sit? and OBVIOUSLY if the player abuses it, the DM can over rule it. just like everything else. a feat based companion should still be controlled by the player, but the DM should keep a tighter leash, since leadership explicitly says that your cohort/followers can leave. hirelings should be almost all on the DM, since almost no significant resources go into getting them.
another way to do companions would be have the player give a very simple, short explanation of WHAT theyre doing ("attack that enemy", "find traps", etc.), and the DM determines how (what weapon they use, which squares/how fast they search, etc.)

[Curmudgeon]

the wizard can bend reality to his will, but cant tell his raven where to sit?
The Wizard can tell the Raven where to sit (assuming they're within speaking distance), but can't be sure the Raven will comply. The Raven is an NPC and is expected to have individual desires and preferences. For instance, Ravens don't actually sit much; they prefer to perch using their claws instead. Player control of NPCs means that they're using the same brain as their associated PC. :smallannoyed:

[Coidzor]

Player control of NPCs means that they're using the same brain as their associated PC. :smallannoyed:

I can only see two interpretations of this statement, neither of which makes much sense.

Interpretation 1: You mean that the player is doing the thinking for both. So what? :smallconfused: You're complaining about players controlling creatures and characters with similar aims but don't see any potential issues with DMs having to play chess against themselves by playing the party's animal companions/familiars/mounts while also running the creatures trying to murder the party in the face.

Interpretation 2: You think this means that somehow both characters are using the same brain in-game. In which case I don't even.

[Larrx]

the wizard can bend reality to his will, but cant tell his raven where to sit?

Of course the wizard can tell his raven to sit. The question is does the player say 'my raven sits' or does he say 'I tell my raven to sit'. Whether the raven is a PC or an NPC would likely make no difference in this scenario.

Consider a more complex example. The PC's are in the depths of a dungeon and things are going badly. The wizard sends his raven flying back to town to talk to a friendly NPC wizard and ask for an extraction. Unbeknownst to the PCs the town has been razed and the NPC wizard is deceased. Do the players learn this information immediately or is the wizard's player only told that he feels panic and sorrow through his empathic link? In this example it matters a great deal whether or not the familiar is a PC or an NPC.

[Drachasor]

Of course the wizard can tell his raven to sit. The question is does the player say 'my raven sits' or does he say 'I tell my raven to sit'. Whether the raven is a PC or an NPC would likely make no difference in this scenario.

Consider a more complex example. The PC's are in the depths of a dungeon and things are going badly. The wizard sends his raven flying back to town to talk to a friendly NPC wizard and ask for an extraction. Unbeknownst to the PCs the town has been razed and the NPC wizard is deceased. Do the players learn this information immediately or is the wizard's player only told that he feels panic and sorrow through his empathic link? In this example it matters a great deal whether or not the familiar is a PC or an NPC.

It's not that different from one PC going back to town. Usually the DM isolates such information. If a player controls two PCs, it is quite reasonable for the DM to isolate the information from the player or at least take them aside and tell them to act like they don't know.

[Togo]

When it comes to summoned creatures, of course, this is the situation more often than not. Bring a summoned creature into combat, often one of low intelligence, or with which you don't share a language, and you don't have time to give it anything more than basic instructions. Having two individuals controlled by the same player may give them a level of coordination that's far in excess of what is reasonable under the circumstances. If you regularly see, for example, a summoned wolf moving through multiple threatened squares and ignoring several soft targets in order to set up a flank with another party member, or going to the edge of combat to avoid being caught in the radius of an upcoming fireball, it's worth asking how it knows exactly what to do.

[Slipperychicken]

If you regularly see, for example, a summoned wolf moving through multiple threatened squares and ignoring several soft targets in order to set up a flank with another party member, or going to the edge of combat to avoid being caught in the radius of an upcoming fireball, it's worth asking how it knows exactly what to do.

While this example might not be reasonable exactly, wolves and other pack-hunters do have an instinctual understanding of group tactics, and take great efforts to cooperate and prioritize vulnerable prey long before attacking. If they evolved/adapted in a world containing magic-using creatures (doubly so for celestial/fiendish wolves), I would expect wolves to have somewhat altered tactics to account for magic. Of course, while those tactics might be "run the f*** away if you see a fireball", it would be useful for long-term survival.

[Reinkai]

While this example might not be reasonable exactly, wolves and other pack-hunters do have an instinctual understanding of group tactics, and take great efforts to cooperate and prioritize vulnerable prey long before attacking. If they evolved/adapted in a world containing magic-using creatures (doubly so for celestial/fiendish wolves), I would expect wolves to have somewhat altered tactics to account for magic. Of course, while those tactics might be "run the f*** away if you see a fireball", it would be useful for long-term survival.

I play with players who haven't mastered "run the f*** away if you see a fireball" bit.

[Togo]

While this example might not be reasonable exactly, wolves and other pack-hunters do have an instinctual understanding of group tactics, and take great efforts to cooperate and prioritize vulnerable prey long before attacking. If they evolved/adapted in a world containing magic-using creatures (doubly so for celestial/fiendish wolves), I would expect wolves to have somewhat altered tactics to account for magic. Of course, while those tactics might be "run the f*** away if you see a fireball", it would be useful for long-term survival.

Sure, but they shouldn't have advanced warning that it's coming, simply because they're in the same party as the people casting it. Parts of D&D are a tactical wargame, positioning your forces to take best advantage of their varied capabilities, and making sure they don't get in each other's way. It's very hard as a player not to do this with summoned monsters, allies, etc., even if they have no experience of fighting with your group, no effective means of communication, and no way to anticipate the kinds of things that your group would do.

[Curmudgeon]

Interpretation 1: You mean that the player is doing the thinking for both. So what? :smallconfused: You're complaining about players controlling creatures and characters with similar aims but don't see any potential issues with DMs having to ...
DMs volunteer to take on a harder job: creating and running an entire world, with many inhabitants of that world having individual, often conflicting, motivations. Players normally have a single role to play, and many (most?) players aren't up to the challenge of playing different characters individually as opposed to playing them as extensions of the same consciousness. Individuals will have differences of opinion, of understanding, and of coordination. A player who isn't accustomed to running multiple individuals will tend to treat the familiar as an extension of their PC, using the same shared brain for both characters.

To deal with an obvious point of rebuttal, many DMs also have a hard time treating various NPCs as fully realized individuals. That is, they'll have a group of enemies in an encounter act on the same initiative count, fight in a coordinated fashion without any commands or status reports being exchanged, and often die en masse or flee en masse rather than as solo acts of sacrifice/cowardice. That they're not executing their job well may be used as a justification for off-loading some of that work onto players. However, that's not the way the game is designed, and it's a justification akin to the child's complaint of "Susie didn't get punished for <whatever>, so I shouldn't, either!"
EVERYONE IN THE WORLD
It’s your job to portray everyone in the world who isn’t a player character. That's the RAW of it: the way the game is designed. And when it works, it's a much better (more immersive, realistic) experience than the delegated responsibility house rule which got this discussion started.

[Psyren]

This thread is why I'm glad Pathfinder went into such detail on this topic :smalltongue:

[Slipperychicken]

Sure, but they shouldn't have advanced warning that it's coming, simply because they're in the same party as the people casting it. Parts of D&D are a tactical wargame, positioning your forces to take best advantage of their varied capabilities, and making sure they don't get in each other's way. It's very hard as a player not to do this with summoned monsters, allies, etc., even if they have no experience of fighting with your group, no effective means of communication, and no way to anticipate the kinds of things that your group would do.

This is the main reason why I'm okay with a trusted GM taking control of them (or otherwise vetoing proposed actions on grounds of insufficient intelligence).

[Person_Man]

I've noticed that players and DMs (myself included) almost never follow the Handle Animal rules - ie, you have to teach animals specific Tricks (which are narrowly define), and Push them (which takes an Action and a DC 25 check) to perform a task that they don't currently know as a Trick. So you end up with animals that use intelligent tactics, and perfectly coordinate with their masters.

Beyond breaking verisimilitude, this isn't really a problem per se. (Although I dislike the fact that it grants a big action advantage that is not similarly available to all classes). It just gives characters with animals a bigger advantage in the game then they would gain from animals in the "real" world.

[Deophaun]

I think that you've struck on a good point here, just perhaps not the one you were aiming for.
No, this is exactly what I'm aiming for. The goal is to hedge out DM control while simultaneously having a tactically flexible army. I'm saying: choose one.

This is the main reason why I'm okay with a trusted GM taking control of them (or otherwise vetoing proposed actions on grounds of insufficient intelligence).
That's primarily how I run minions as a DM. I let the PCs do the work, but will step in to veto when they decide to let their animal companion pick out the right Holy Grail or some such nonsense.

[unseenmage]

DMs volunteer to take on a harder job: creating and running an entire world, with many inhabitants of that world having individual, often conflicting, motivations. Players normally have a single role to play, and many (most?) players aren't up to the challenge of playing different characters individually as opposed to playing them as extensions of the same consciousness. Individuals will have differences of opinion, of understanding, and of coordination. A player who isn't accustomed to running multiple individuals will tend to treat the familiar as an extension of their PC, using the same shared brain for both characters.

To deal with an obvious point of rebuttal, many DMs also have a hard time treating various NPCs as fully realized individuals. That is, they'll have a group of enemies in an encounter act on the same initiative count, fight in a coordinated fashion without any commands or status reports being exchanged, and often die en masse or flee en masse rather than as solo acts of sacrifice/cowardice. That they're not executing their job well may be used as a justification for off-loading some of that work onto players. However, that's not the way the game is designed, and it's a justification akin to the child's complaint of "Susie didn't get punished for <whatever>, so I shouldn't, either!" That's the RAW of it: the way the game is designed. And when it works, it's a much better (more immersive, realistic) experience than the delegated responsibility house rule which got this discussion started.

Except that by RAW it cannot work because the DM can no more portray an entire world than the player can. No one can. Even the best writers on their best days in their greatest novels do not do this. They can't either.

Instead we get snippets. Pieces of information that hint at a larger world. Because that is what a human is capable of. From writers, from DMs, from film etc.

The DM portrays scenes with a few characters in them. A "few" being more or less depending on the DM. But at no point does or should any given DM be expected to or able to portray an entire world and all of the characters in it.

Even in the outside chance that we could construct or produce an example of a whole world's worth of preprepared characters the DM won't be able to portray them all at once. They'll be used in scenes.


You idea that there is some perfect form of implemented RAW in this case is, honestly, preposterous. Yes some DMs portray groups in their scenes better or worse than others. And yes some players are better or worse at the same.

That the rule shoves all of the work on the DM neither makes it right nor better just because it's a rule. The designers were people too and they can be wrong. And that's okay. That's what houserules and forum discussions are for. To divine how best to still achieve the shared goals of fun and cooperative storytelling etc despite flaws in the ruleset. Despite flaws in the RAW.