Messing with the Animal Companion

[BowStreetRunner]

Hypothetically, what would your reaction be if you were playing a character that had an Animal Companion and the BBEG managed to capture your A.C. and Awaken it. Keep in mind that this means your A.C. can now no longer be your A.C. and it is now friendly toward the BBEG and serves him in specific tasks or endeavors if he communicate his desires to it.

On the one hand, I feel that this ploy is no worse than stealing an item or capturing a follower. On the other hand, I know some players get really, really attached to their Animal Companions - even though they can be replaced. Do you believe this is crossing a line, or not?

[Palanan]

I'd see it as a powerful motivator rather than crossing a line.

For me, it opens up questions of both morality and game mechanics. In mechanical terms, is there any way to "recapture" the animal companion? Is there any way to return it to its previous role, or to "liberate" it from the villain?

And morally, of course--if restoring an animal companion means de-awakening it, is that a violation of its free will, and in some way an evil act? Is is justified to wrench the animal companion away from its new master? Is it in any way right to "restore" an awakened being to its previous lower degree of sentience? Would there be any way to reason or sway the former animal companion back to its original person, perhaps in a different and expanded capacity, perhaps as equals?

I find all this a fascinating prospect, and if this happened to my animal companion, I'd be asking all these questions and more. And assuming the DM was doing this as part of a broader storyline, I'd be glad of the challenge and the RP opportunity.

[daryen]

You had better make sure you’re player is onboard with this. From the player’s perspective, you have, for all intents and purposes, permanently mind raped the player’s companion. It is now an enemy that you can’t get back. Players that expect to have disposable companions will deal with it just fine, but someone who s attached and has taken care to keep it alive all this time is probably gonna be pretty pissed.

In Pathfinder this is avoided by making sure your companion’s first unassigned attribute increase is intelligence.

[SangoProduction]

I mean... it would depend greatly. If it really is just treated as "just a class feature", and a not neccesarily vital one at that, then it'd be...well, not sure. I probably wouldn't raise too much of a fuss, I guess. Then again, that's probably not the reaction you want.

If my build was based around my AC...then I'd be rather ticked off, especially mid-fight, but then call another in 24 hours, forgetting about the abduction until 6 sessions later when we fight it...possibly.

If it was like my puppy in my current campaign that was captured and raised from the wilds in game...then I'd be rather ... Well, I certainly would not appreciate it. But would probably right it off as dead, and summon generic AC #237, and get on with my day. After coming across it, and it being for all intents and purposes being an entirely different creature...I probably wouldn't notice, until you straight up mentioned it, and then probably roll my eyes behind the screen.

The AC *is* dead and has been replaced with an effective undead, but this time can't be raised when defeated. A bit of a **** move.

[BowStreetRunner]

...It is now an enemy that you can’t get back...
I don't think that's actually the case. Nowhere in the Awaken spell does it imply an alignment change on the part of the animal, nor a change in its attitudes toward those it already knows. It is now friendly toward the caster, although the spell doesn't state that is an attitude that cannot be changed. It also states that the animal 'serves him in specific tasks or endeavors if he communicate his desires to it.' But the animal still has a mind of its own and isn't under any form of compulsion.

What is more likely is that the newly awakened creature feels some sort of sense of debt of gratitude to the one who awakened it. This doesn't anywhere imply that the BBEG can instantly make it turn to the dark side and start attacking its former companions. In fact, attempting to interrogate the former A.C. might actually create an internal conflict for the creature, as it would still feel a certain affection for its former master.

[dps]

You had better make sure you’re player is onboard with this.


There have been a lot of other good points raised in this thread, but as a practical matter, I'd say this is the key point.

[Falontani]

I say ask your player. If they are okay with it then great. If they are not okay with it then don't. Another option would be to replace his animal companion class feature with Leadership for this specific animal, and if this animal dies/leaves they get their animal companion feature back

[redwizard007]

Do you also steal your wizards' spellbooks, sunder the paladin's ancestral blade, rust monster the cleric's holy symbol, and curse the rogue with bells of negate class ability? Then sure. Why be a **** to just one player?

[BowStreetRunner]

Do you also steal your wizards' spellbooks, sunder the paladin's ancestral blade, rust monster the cleric's holy symbol, and curse the rogue with bells of negate class ability? Then sure. Why be a **** to just one player?Actually...yes. I do.

If a player has a valuable resource and makes not effort to protect it, then it is a liability open to exploitation. When the rust monster you mention above was added to the game, I don't recall the developers ever mentioning that any possessions your players deemed valuable were protected by plot armor. I have never seen any mention of Animal Companions, Special Mounts, Familiars, Cohorts, or the like being immortal and impervious to the devious schemes of your enemies. I have never once read where spellbooks were automatically immune to damage from fire, water, theft, and all of the myriad of other dangers to books being dragged around a fantasy world. When my party ran into a huge creature that had a sunder attack as one of its special abilities we either protected our most valued items or risked having them sundered.

As a DM, I've never hand-waved the loss of such a valuable resource. I've made my villain's plans, and let success or failure be determined by the roll of the dice. But if the players don't make efforts to keep their characters' things safe, those are fair game.

What surprises me is the attachment I've seen to Animal Companions, however. Many times I've watched a caster deal with the loss of a familiar with a grumble or two and then go about replacing it and protecting the next one better. Players with paladins seem to go about the replacing of their mounts with epic stoicism. But for some reason the player of the Ranger with his animal companion always seems to whine the most, which mystifies me. Why not just rescue it...or get another?

Considering I've played a Spiked Chain Tripper with an Ancestral Dwarvencrafted Adamantine Living Chain (the good version from the Miniatures Handbook, not that cheap MIC knockoff) whose entire build was centered around this one weapon, who went to great pains to protect it from all sorts of hazards, and who still watched it destroyed, reforged, destroyed again, reforged again, over and over with a particularly vicious DM and never considered it unfair, I don't get the special place some people have for their animal companion.

But then I grew up in a house full of people with allergies and pets never stayed long. So maybe it's just that people are projecting their attachment to their own pets onto these.

EDIT: Oh, and thanks for the 'cursed with bells' idea. I am totally cribbing that for a future campaign! In fact, I know just the player to use it on. She would totally find this to be a fun challenge and laugh in my face as she managed to come up with a way to work around it and still be the most awesome rogue you've ever seen. :smallamused:

[redwizard007]

Actually...yes. I do.

If a player has a valuable resource and makes not effort to protect it, then it is a liability open to exploitation. When the rust monster you mention above was added to the game, I don't recall the developers ever mentioning that any possessions your players deemed valuable were protected by plot armor. I have never seen any mention of Animal Companions, Special Mounts, Familiars, Cohorts, or the like being immortal and impervious to the devious schemes of your enemies. I have never once read where spellbooks were automatically immune to damage from fire, water, theft, and all of the myriad of other dangers to books being dragged around a fantasy world. When my party ran into a huge creature that had a sunder attack as one of its special abilities we either protected our most valued items or risked having them sundered.

As a DM, I've never hand-waved the loss of such a valuable resource. I've made my villain's plans, and let success or failure be determined by the roll of the dice. But if the players don't make efforts to keep their characters' things safe, those are fair game.

What surprises me is the attachment I've seen to Animal Companions, however. Many times I've watched a caster deal with the loss of a familiar with a grumble or two and then go about replacing it and protecting the next one better. Players with paladins seem to go about the replacing of their mounts with epic stoicism. But for some reason the player of the Ranger with his animal companion always seems to whine the most, which mystifies me. Why not just rescue it...or get another?

Considering I've played a Spiked Chain Tripper with an Ancestral Dwarvencrafted Adamantine Living Chain (the good version from the Miniatures Handbook, not that cheap MIC knockoff) whose entire build was centered around this one weapon, who went to great pains to protect it from all sorts of hazards, and who still watched it destroyed, reforged, destroyed again, reforged again, over and over with a particularly vicious DM and never considered it unfair, I don't get the special place some people have for their animal companion.

But then I grew up in a house full of people with allergies and pets never stayed long. So maybe it's just that people are projecting their attachment to their own pets onto these.

EDIT: Oh, and thanks for the 'cursed with bells' idea. I am totally cribbing that for a future campaign! In fact, I know just the player to use it on. She would totally find this to be a fun challenge and laugh in my face as she managed to come up with a way to work around it and still be the most awesome rogue you've ever seen. :smallamused:

I would hate you as no other DM has ever been hated, but I'd be ready every Thursday at 6 with a pizza and 12 pack.

As long as you spread it around I have no issues. The impression I got was that you were screwing with the AC exclusively.

[BowStreetRunner]

I would hate you as no other DM has ever been hated, but I'd be ready every Thursday at 6 with a pizza and 12 pack.

As long as you spread it around I have no issues. The impression I got was that you were screwing with the AC exclusively.

When I DM, I am an equal opportunity SOB (son of a bugbear). I read every player's character sheet over carefully and make sure there is no skill, nor lack thereof, that is not challenged at some point during the campaign. Every object they bring with them is likely to be critical at some time and every one they left at home regretted terribly. The challenges the party faces will be diverse and both require teamwork to overcome and sometimes they will need to split the party and each deal with some challenges on their own. I attack every weakness they possess and create opportunities for every one of their strengths to shine.

And if by the end there is any member of the party who feels they were neglected and not offered a sufficiently challenging experience, then I haven't been doing my job.

As to the Animal Companion, the more I think about it the more it does seem to be a matter of those feeling more like their real life pets. Not many of the paladin players have grown up around horses and the casters' familiars tend more toward the exotic. An ancestral blade is still, after all, just an object. But an animal companion tends to strike a chord with the pet owners and I think that is where the sensitivity likely lies. If this discussion is any indication, I'll need to tread carefully around this particular issue.

[Bronk]

As to the Animal Companion, the more I think about it the more it does seem to be a matter of those feeling more like their real life pets. Not many of the paladin players have grown up around horses and the casters' familiars tend more toward the exotic. An ancestral blade is still, after all, just an object. But an animal companion tends to strike a chord with the pet owners and I think that is where the sensitivity likely lies. If this discussion is any indication, I'll need to tread carefully around this particular issue.

Also, remember that the Awaken spell is instantaneous, but that can still be undone with a Break Enchantment. That'll give the druid a chance to get their AC back if they want.

[BowStreetRunner]

Also, remember that the Awaken spell is instantaneous, but that can still be undone with a Break Enchantment. That'll give the druid a chance to get their AC back if they want.I think Palanan addressed the issue with this approach quite admirably, in fact.


...For me, it opens up questions of both morality and game mechanics. In mechanical terms, is there any way to "recapture" the animal companion? Is there any way to return it to its previous role, or to "liberate" it from the villain?

And morally, of course--if restoring an animal companion means de-awakening it, is that a violation of its free will, and in some way an evil act? Is is justified to wrench the animal companion away from its new master? Is it in any way right to "restore" an awakened being to its previous lower degree of sentience? Would there be any way to reason or sway the former animal companion back to its original person, perhaps in a different and expanded capacity, perhaps as equals? ...

[Uncle Pine]

Do you also steal your wizards' spellbooks, sunder the paladin's ancestral blade, rust monster the cleric's holy symbol, and curse the rogue with bells of negate class ability? Then sure. Why be a **** to just one player?
Because all of those have a direct monetary value, whereas an animal companion is literally free? I mean, I'm surprised it hasn't brought up more vigorously but disintegrating an animal companion doesn't cripple a druid nearly as much as casting disjunction on the weapon on which the fighter spent 3/4 of his WBL. In fact, it doesn't cripple a druid at all.


@OP: I personally would love this idea, especially as the druid in question. Glossing over the fact that yes, I can indeed call a second animal companion 24 hours later to help me rescue my beast friend from the BBEG and thus not be meaningfully crippled from a mechanical point of view (although it could be a bad idea depending on the odds of my previous animal companion seeing this as "replacing" him), having the villain Awaken my animal companion introduces the exact same scenario of an opponent charming or dominating an ally but:
1) no player at the table is either constrained in what he can do during the boss fight (if charmed) or outright stripped of the control of his character (if dominated);
2) you as a DM are challenging my druid character in a way that underlines the fact that yes, I am a druid. If I had just been a barbarian who loved forests I wouldn't have had an animal companion around, and as a ranger it would've been much weaker. This reinforces my immersion as a player, and it is good;
3) the temporary debuff that has been applied to my character, essentially negating one of my class features, hasn't been pulled out of your DM's pants by fiat but is the result of an opponent coming up with a brilliant plan tailored against our group that works thanks to existing rules that are often not taken into account.

I find awakening a PC's animal companion a fantastic way to introduce the possibility of a dramatic diplomatic encounter within a boss encounter and meaningfully explore the way this particular druid feels about many moral dilemmas that are generally uncommon in a d&d session, such as those mentioned by Palanan. Again, "friendly towards the villain" doesn't necessarily mean "hostile towards the party", and an awakened animal companion can either be reverted to normal with break enchantment or turned into a powerful ally which doesn't cost a class feature nor 250 xp.

[Bronk]

I think Palanan addressed the issue with this approach quite admirably, in fact.

I know, I was doing a lot with my short note... speaking to your idea, as well as answering his question.

[redwizard007]

Because all of those have a direct monetary value, whereas an animal companion is literally free? I mean, I'm surprised it hasn't brought up more vigorously but disintegrating an animal companion doesn't cripple a druid nearly as much as casting disjunction on the weapon on which the fighter spent 3/4 of his WBL. In fact, it doesn't cripple a druid at all.


I would argue that the emotional impact would be similar, and that many players are particularly sensitive to emotional attacks.

What I was trying to get at is that the Animal Companion is a class feature. A feature that a fair number of characters are based around. That singling out and attacking a class feature is kind of a jerk thing to do, particularly if it is limited to a single class.

OP satisfactorily explained that this is not what he does, so now I am happy and have moved on to other things.