Animal Companions, Familiars and Mounts - DM or PC? [Archive] - Wizards Community

Animal Companions, Familiars and Mounts - DM or PC? [Archive] - Wizards Community

Post/Author/DateTime Post
_plucky
11-25-06, 06:00 PM OK class, barring ‘Cohort Mounts’, who should (and/or in your game does) actually RP (and if different, takes care of in combat) the Animal Companions, Familiars, and mounts? Discuss.

-plucky
KurenaiYami
11-25-06, 06:20 PM OK class, barring ‘Cohort Mounts’, who should (and/or in your game does) actually RP (and if different, takes care of in combat) the Animal Companions, Familiars, and mounts? Discuss.

-plucky

I say the player for the sole reason that the DM normally has enough to deal with. If the DM wishes to deal with it, I feel it would be a more fulfilling roleplay experience for the party.
Sir Ferdinand
11-25-06, 06:44 PM I always play my mounts' turns (usually acts at the same time as my character), be it a normal warhorse or something, or Paladin's mount. Of course with Paladin's mounts, there's much more to do than with a normal mount due to the PM's higher intelligence, and the mount's understanding of some normal commands. And it's my character giving the commands afterall, so it's just fair that I do all the work.

With normal mounts, it's basically just rollplaying them anyway, so DM doesn't need to work with them either.
Fencerboy
11-25-06, 07:48 PM It seems pointless to have the DM try to run the mounts along with any NPCs, monster and the like. It could distract them from other matters. As long as the player doesnt do anything totally silly (i suddenly change my mind from the red lever to the green one as my familiar finds a note saying red will ignite a fireball) thats not a very good example but it will do.
I was playing Star wars not long ago, with the GM playing my Droid cohort. I was stunned, and it killed my attacker, then shut down since it "couldn't see any more enemies", even though another guy had leapt into cover when the combat started. This is unrealistic, since anything with a heuristic processor any several levels of soldier is aware of other enemies.
I say it varies between DMs and their campaigns. personally, my players play their cohorts, familiars, animal companians and the like forever.
Seeker95
11-25-06, 10:35 PM These are NPCs, officially controlled by the DM. However, most DMs that I know leave it to the player, as long as the player keeps things reasonable. If the player oversteps "reasonable", the DM usually gives a gentle reminder. If the player still oversteps "reasonable", then the DM might have to step in and take over briefly.
_plucky
11-25-06, 11:03 PM These are NPCs, officially controlled by the DM.

I was wondering if someone would take the 'this is the official' line. Can you state where this is written (I'm curious, I couldn't find it anywhere). In fact, I assumed this WOULD be the 'official' answer, and thought 'cohorts' would be a good bridge to show that, but apparently 'cohorts' are controlled by the PC as another character (which I found extrordinarily strange).

I say the player for the sole reason that the DM normally has enough to deal with. If the DM wishes to deal with it, I feel it would be a more fulfilling roleplay experience for the party.

This is my view on the topic as well (at least currently).

-plucky
Seeker95
11-26-06, 12:24 AM Can you state where this is writtenNope. Other than the ruling about what a Player *does* control. A player controls the PC. The DMG also explicitly states that a player controls the cohort. That it explicitly says so is a good indication (precedence) that anything "not the PC" is played by the DM unless otherwise explicitly stated.

It is, however, a reasonable argument that animal companions, mounts, and familiars are essentially "PC gear", since each of these elements appear in the class write-ups.
KurenaiYami
11-26-06, 03:35 AM Nope. Other than the ruling about what a Player *does* control. A player controls the PC. The DMG also explicitly states that a player controls the cohort. That it explicitly says so is a good indication (precedence) that anything "not the PC" is played by the DM unless otherwise explicitly stated.

It is, however, a reasonable argument that animal companions, mounts, and familiars are essentially "PC gear", since each of these elements appear in the class write-ups.

Well, if you look under the definition of "NPC" it is defined as a character controlled by the DM. This was brought up several times in that one kind of thread that is currently not allowed and we shall never speak of.
Myree
11-28-06, 01:24 AM I'm a little more neutral here. I let the player control it as long as it falls into the "reasonable" category -- i.e. has been trained to "attack" and such and the character has a method of communicating their desires. But, as soon as the line of communication is broken (whether the player and/or character realizes it or not), then I take over and set in with "what would something with this intelligence level REALLY do on it's own in this kind of situation". So, when Timmy the Ranger falls in the well, would Lassie the Wonder Wolf REALLY go for help, or merely whimper and whine while circling the pit trying to figure out what to do to help the "Alpha" that is stuck.

Post/Author/DateTime	Post
_plucky 11-25-06, 06:00 PM	OK class, barring ‘Cohort Mounts’, who should (and/or in your game does) actually RP (and if different, takes care of in combat) the Animal Companions, Familiars, and mounts? Discuss. -plucky
KurenaiYami 11-25-06, 06:20 PM	OK class, barring ‘Cohort Mounts’, who should (and/or in your game does) actually RP (and if different, takes care of in combat) the Animal Companions, Familiars, and mounts? Discuss. -plucky I say the player for the sole reason that the DM normally has enough to deal with. If the DM wishes to deal with it, I feel it would be a more fulfilling roleplay experience for the party.
Sir Ferdinand 11-25-06, 06:44 PM	I always play my mounts' turns (usually acts at the same time as my character), be it a normal warhorse or something, or Paladin's mount. Of course with Paladin's mounts, there's much more to do than with a normal mount due to the PM's higher intelligence, and the mount's understanding of some normal commands. And it's my character giving the commands afterall, so it's just fair that I do all the work. With normal mounts, it's basically just rollplaying them anyway, so DM doesn't need to work with them either.
Fencerboy 11-25-06, 07:48 PM	It seems pointless to have the DM try to run the mounts along with any NPCs, monster and the like. It could distract them from other matters. As long as the player doesnt do anything totally silly (i suddenly change my mind from the red lever to the green one as my familiar finds a note saying red will ignite a fireball) thats not a very good example but it will do. I was playing Star wars not long ago, with the GM playing my Droid cohort. I was stunned, and it killed my attacker, then shut down since it "couldn't see any more enemies", even though another guy had leapt into cover when the combat started. This is unrealistic, since anything with a heuristic processor any several levels of soldier is aware of other enemies. I say it varies between DMs and their campaigns. personally, my players play their cohorts, familiars, animal companians and the like forever.
Seeker95 11-25-06, 10:35 PM	These are NPCs, officially controlled by the DM. However, most DMs that I know leave it to the player, as long as the player keeps things reasonable. If the player oversteps "reasonable", the DM usually gives a gentle reminder. If the player still oversteps "reasonable", then the DM might have to step in and take over briefly.
_plucky 11-25-06, 11:03 PM	These are NPCs, officially controlled by the DM. I was wondering if someone would take the 'this is the official' line. Can you state where this is written (I'm curious, I couldn't find it anywhere). In fact, I assumed this WOULD be the 'official' answer, and thought 'cohorts' would be a good bridge to show that, but apparently 'cohorts' are controlled by the PC as another character (which I found extrordinarily strange). I say the player for the sole reason that the DM normally has enough to deal with. If the DM wishes to deal with it, I feel it would be a more fulfilling roleplay experience for the party. This is my view on the topic as well (at least currently). -plucky
Seeker95 11-26-06, 12:24 AM	Can you state where this is writtenNope. Other than the ruling about what a Player does control. A player controls the PC. The DMG also explicitly states that a player controls the cohort. That it explicitly says so is a good indication (precedence) that anything "not the PC" is played by the DM unless otherwise explicitly stated. It is, however, a reasonable argument that animal companions, mounts, and familiars are essentially "PC gear", since each of these elements appear in the class write-ups.
KurenaiYami 11-26-06, 03:35 AM	Nope. Other than the ruling about what a Player does control. A player controls the PC. The DMG also explicitly states that a player controls the cohort. That it explicitly says so is a good indication (precedence) that anything "not the PC" is played by the DM unless otherwise explicitly stated. It is, however, a reasonable argument that animal companions, mounts, and familiars are essentially "PC gear", since each of these elements appear in the class write-ups. Well, if you look under the definition of "NPC" it is defined as a character controlled by the DM. This was brought up several times in that one kind of thread that is currently not allowed and we shall never speak of.
Myree 11-28-06, 01:24 AM	I'm a little more neutral here. I let the player control it as long as it falls into the "reasonable" category -- i.e. has been trained to "attack" and such and the character has a method of communicating their desires. But, as soon as the line of communication is broken (whether the player and/or character realizes it or not), then I take over and set in with "what would something with this intelligence level REALLY do on it's own in this kind of situation". So, when Timmy the Ranger falls in the well, would Lassie the Wonder Wolf REALLY go for help, or merely whimper and whine while circling the pit trying to figure out what to do to help the "Alpha" that is stuck.