Animal Companions - how do you handle them?

[snailgosh]

When you have a player with an Animal Companion in your group, or are this player yourself, how do you handle them in combat?

Do you play strictly by the rules and play the AC as an NPC, with DM authority on what it does and how?
Do you give your players authority over its actions as if they were playing a second character?

How would that change, in your opinion, if the Companion in question gained an INT score of 3+?



I for myself would let my DM govern its actions, according to my orders (handle animal checks).
If it had INT 3+ I'd deem Handle Animal checks unnecessary and treat it like a cohort.
I figure that's pretty much RAW, but how do you do it?

[FocusWolf413]

I let them control it as long as they don't abuse it. If they abuse it, I have it run away or lash out.

[pyrese]

As DM, I generally allow my players to control their animal companions. However, if I feel that the animal is behaving too intelligently, I'll ask them justify the behavior. Usually, I'll get a smirk, an admission of "guilt", and the animal goes back to being played more reasonably.

[Naez]

Let them control it unless it does something an animal would not or cannot do. animal companions follow basic orders but if it's too complicated they can't do that.

[Urpriest]

As a DM, I'd delegate control to the player, but try to make sure they're only giving it commands that they purchased as tricks, and otherwise making the proper checks to push it. As a player, I wouldn't have a problem with the DM insisting on control as long as they had a reasonably sane view of the breadth of tricks.

[snailgosh]

Interesting how unified your opinions are.

Do you find managing the Companion as the DM an unneeded hassle that doesn't add much to the game in return?

Would you as a player be appalled by your DMs decision to treat it as a NPC?

How do you run cohorts? At they under player or DM control?

[Amphetryon]

Interesting how unified your opinions are.

Do you find managing the Companion as the DM an unneeded hassle that doesn't add much to the game in return?

Would you as a player be appalled by your DMs decision to treat it as a NPC?

How do you run cohorts? At they under player or DM control?

As a DM, I find that controlling, essentially, every other thing in the world is sufficiently challenging, such that I do not feel the need to wrest control of one of my Player's Class features or Feat choices away from that Player. As above, if the Player shows a tendency to abuse this privilege, I'll intervene to the degree necessary to make it clear that the Animal Companion or Cohort is not, in fact, an automaton without motives or a free second PC.

[Dunsparce]

All of the DMs I've had let me control my Animal Companions/Wild Cohorts/Special Mounts/Familiars freely. One of my dms doesn't let people control leadership cohorts because they can pretty much do anything a PC can but other companion types are fine.

[Troacctid]

Would you as a player be appalled by your DMs decision to treat it as a NPC?

Given that the player is entitled to issue commands with Handle Animal as a free action, yes, it would be pretty unreasonable for the DM to take that control away.

[snailgosh]

Given that the player is entitled to issue commands with Handle Animal as a free action, yes, it would be pretty unreasonable for the DM to take that control away.
Well, the animal would act according to the commands and the results of the corresponding die rolls of course.
I would not see that as taking control away.

I can see the argument how the DM would essentially play a players' class feature however.

[Coidzor]

Usually just run 'em as under the control of the player for speed of play as long as they don't get too complex, since that extra bit of rolling and remembering to roll handle animal checks can be annoying. Sometimes run 'em as a DM-controlled NPC ally without handle animal checks for speed of play instead, but that's rarer, and would simulate some kind of situation where control has been weakened or that is especially stressful in comparison to normal combat. Actual Handle Animal checks are reserved for narratively/dramatically appropriate times, training the animal, or to highlight just how messed up an encounter is.

Once the animal companion or what have you has human-like intelligence/sapience, a lot of restrictions ease off, too, though I'm not fond of using realism to constrain an animal that is magically bonded to a spellcaster.

[endur]

I for myself would let my DM govern its actions, according to my orders (handle animal checks).
If it had INT 3+ I'd deem Handle Animal checks unnecessary and treat it like a cohort.

The PC does not get to run the animal companion or the familiar. The PC role plays their character giving orders or making requests. GM adjudicates what the animal companion or familiar actually does.

For example, duid that trained an animal with the attack trick (but not the special attack trick) can call out attack against a skeleton, but the GM can decide that the animal doesn't attack the skeleton.

[Galen]

When you have a player with an Animal Companion in your group, or are this player yourself, how do you handle them in combat?

Do you play strictly by the rules and play the AC as an NPC, with DM authority on what it does and how?
Do you give your players authority over its actions as if they were playing a second character?

How would that change, in your opinion, if the Companion in question gained an INT score of 3+?



I for myself would let my DM govern its actions, according to my orders (handle animal checks).
If it had INT 3+ I'd deem Handle Animal checks unnecessary and treat it like a cohort.
I figure that's pretty much RAW, but how do you do it?Uhm, "strictly by the rules" would be a DC 10 Handle Animal check to have the animal do anything it's trained to do. Presumably, it's trained to fight, and a DC 10 check is easy for any character with an animal companion. So I just have them fight under the player's control.

If the player tries to use his companion for more nefarious purposes, such as sending it ahead to spring traps, that's another matter.

If an animal gains an Int score of 3+, it's no longer an animal but a Magical Beast, and cannot be an Animal Companion anymore. It's an NPC totally under DM's control. DM's control may result in "he sticks around to help the party because he likes you", but also may result in "he chooses to go his own way".

[Naez]

Exalted Companion feat allows you to have a Celestial animal as an AC. It's a magical beast with an Int of 3 and still qualifies as an AC.

[snailgosh]

Uhm, "strictly by the rules" would be a DC 10 Handle Animal check to have the animal do anything it's trained to do. Presumably, it's trained to fight, and a DC 10 check is easy for any character with an animal companion. So I just have them fight under the player's control.
Yes I know that. I was simply to lazy to get into detail in that paragraph. I referenced the Handle animal checks in the part where I said how I'd do it myself.
So you'd simply assume the player succeeds all the rolls necessary?


If the player tries to use his companion for more nefarious purposes, such as sending it ahead to spring traps, that's another matter.
So you draw the line based on intent, rather on the actual tricks learned?


If an animal gains an Int score of 3+, it's no longer an animal but a Magical Beast, and cannot be an Animal Companion anymore. It's an NPC totally under DM's control. DM's control may result in "he sticks around to help the party because he likes you", but also may result in "he chooses to go his own way".

As pointed out above theres the Exalted Companion feat for example, or the Devoted Tracker feat to treat your Paladin Mount as your Companion.

[Urpriest]

Yes I know that. I was simply to lazy to get into detail in that paragraph. I referenced the Handle animal checks in the part where I said how I'd do it myself.
So you'd simply assume the player succeeds all the rolls necessary?


Strictly by the rules it's a free action with no listed penalty for failure, so...

[lsfreak]

Okay, just to be clear, I don't think the OP is talking about completely controlling the animal companion. But if the animal companion is directed to attack X, is it the player or the DM who chooses which exact square the animal companion moves to and attacks from? The player or the DM who decides how far an elephant tramples, or if it tramples in a straight line or curves around as it goes? Ideally as DM I'd prefer to do it so there's no miraculous elephants with knowledge of tactics enough to know that a particular angle or endpoint will let them trample an extra target the next round, but realistically I'm busy enough as DM and generally let it slide.

[snailgosh]

Strictly by the rules it's a free action with no listed penalty for failure, so...

heh, now we're being silly :smallbiggrin:
And yeah, once the DM's in control of your pets' interpretation of your check, you might be getting another check before it darts off.


Okay, just to be clear, I don't think the OP is talking about completely controlling the animal companion. But if the animal companion is directed to attack X, is it the player or the DM who chooses which exact square the animal companion moves to and attacks from? The player or the DM who decides how far an elephant tramples, or if it tramples in a straight line or curves around as it goes? Ideally as DM I'd prefer to do it so there's no miraculous elephants with knowledge of tactics enough to know that a particular angle or endpoint will let them trample an extra target the next round, but realistically I'm busy enough as DM and generally let it slide.

Yes exactly this.

[Galen]

Okay, just to be clear, I don't think the OP is talking about completely controlling the animal companion. But if the animal companion is directed to attack X, is it the player or the DM who chooses which exact square the animal companion moves to and attacks from? The player or the DM who decides how far an elephant tramples, or if it tramples in a straight line or curves around as it goes? Ideally as DM I'd prefer to do it so there's no miraculous elephants with knowledge of tactics enough to know that a particular angle or endpoint will let them trample an extra target the next round, but realistically I'm busy enough as DM and generally let it slide.
Honestly? I have a game to run. I can't be bothered with every square of an animal companion's movement. The Ranger has the animal companion, he deals with it. It's not like he's asking the animal companion to cast a spell, brew a potion, or do anything else that's blatantly against the rules. As long as it's not more complicated then "move" and "claw/claw/byte", the DM should keep out of it, for everyone's sake.

Saying "he can't move to this square, that would be too smart, he moves to that square instead", is the epitome of a meddling, overbearing DM.

[Coidzor]

And yeah, once the DM's in control of your pets' interpretation of your check, you might be getting another check before it darts off.

Yes, but then I know the DM is just deliberately ****ing with me, and that's not fun or amusing, it's just generally sort of childish.