-
The VOIDRUNNER'S CODEX is LIVE! Explore new worlds, fight oppressive empires, fend off fearsome aliens, and wield deadly psionics with this comprehensive boxed set expansion for 5E and A5E!
Animal Companion abuse (?)
- Thread starter scruffygrognard
- Start date
I'm going to go a different route, and say that while using your animal companion so callously would be an evil action, it wouldn't necessarily be non-druidic. A "nature, red in tooth and claw" style druid, who views his animal companion as less a trusted friend and ally, and more of a minion to enforce his will upon, would make a pretty nasty villian. The pc's in question aren't going against nature, they're simply being cruel.
It's one thing to push your animal hard and have it die. it's another for the druid to kill the animal needlessly. Now he could argue some survival of the fittest mentality (the chicken wasn't fit), but he's the idiot who tried to make a combat chicken, rather than a combat dog.
Seeing that your from NY, I'm going to guess most of you don't have a lot of exposure to animals. As such, lack of exposure breeds lack of empathy, especially for an imaginary game animal.
In real life, a good rule of thumb is, don't be friends with anybody who doesn't like animals (i'm not saying hates, cats, I mean does not like ANY animals). There's just something off in somebody who doesn't like any kind of animal.
the PC is certainly fitting that bill.
a real druid or ranger is generally somebody who prefers nature over humans or society. If an animal companion and fellow PC were drowning in a swimming pool, the druid wouldn't miss the PC.
Your player doesn't seem to understand that. He's playing a class with a pretty basic constraint, be nicer to animals/nature.
He's already on his second companion, so whack his animal companion power as the start of loosing his class. He's tainted the friend of animals thing.
Pentius
First Post
You know, after thinking the toad was the first one, I was going to suggest either not giving him another companion or maybe adding a familiar style xp penalty, but after this chicken thing, blast him. That sounds odd to say, since I've been arguing against alignment restrictions on paladins lately, and this is similar, but this is neither out of the blue nor a grey area. Given the circumstance, it isn't really harsh to strip him of druidism.
Croesus
Adventurer
The problem you're having with your players is one reason why I never played a druid or ranger in 3.x. I just never could come up with acceptable reasons why my character would be constantly risking the lives of his companions, just for his own benefit. A druid/ranger can only rationalize dungeon crawling so many times before it becomes pretty silly.
Which begs the question, would your game benefit from changing the concept of animal companions? What if, instead of actual living creatures, the druid's animal companions were simply manifestations of the druid's magic? They aren't really living creatures, and can be replaced (after suitable time and effort/cost) if destroyed. One possibility is requiring the druid to sacrifice a spell slot, the higher the slot, the more powerful the companion. So long as the companion is with the druid, the druid cannot use the sacrificed slot.
Your players could continue to treat the "companions" as cannon fodder, you can place some limitations on how often and easily a companion can be replaced, and everyone is (reasonably) happy.
Just my two cents'...
Which begs the question, would your game benefit from changing the concept of animal companions? What if, instead of actual living creatures, the druid's animal companions were simply manifestations of the druid's magic? They aren't really living creatures, and can be replaced (after suitable time and effort/cost) if destroyed. One possibility is requiring the druid to sacrifice a spell slot, the higher the slot, the more powerful the companion. So long as the companion is with the druid, the druid cannot use the sacrificed slot.
Your players could continue to treat the "companions" as cannon fodder, you can place some limitations on how often and easily a companion can be replaced, and everyone is (reasonably) happy.
Just my two cents'...
scruffygrognard
Adventurer
Neat idea. I might just use it to solve this without further DM-player strife.
I can understand your frustration with players like this. I am a strict DM when it comes to familiars and companions. If they are not taken care of then bad things happen.
I am not saying a druid would not ask his companion to do something dangerous but he would do everything in his power to save that companion.
I have a house rule in my game druids and rangers who have animal companions suffer an XP penalty one half that of a wizard if their companion dies and I do not allow another one for a period of six months.
I am not saying a druid would not ask his companion to do something dangerous but he would do everything in his power to save that companion.
I have a house rule in my game druids and rangers who have animal companions suffer an XP penalty one half that of a wizard if their companion dies and I do not allow another one for a period of six months.
Oryan77
Adventurer
One thing players seem to overlook (I admit, as a DM I overlook it to) is that you need to roll handle animal checks whenever you give your animal a command. Well, for 3e anyway. I don't know how other editions do it.
I hate when players use their animals as nothing more than meat shields, but then, I never seem to do anything about it. I just forget about it.
If you send an "animal" into combat, it doesn't mean it will want to fight. Especially if it is something like an aberration. What should probably be happening is that the player should roll a handle animal check, and if the animal is frequently being put in harms way, that handle animal DC check should skyrocket.
And what is to say that an animal being used as a meat shield over and over wouldn't simply cease to be an animal companion. It might just run away one day and never come back.
I hate when players use their animals as nothing more than meat shields, but then, I never seem to do anything about it. I just forget about it.
If you send an "animal" into combat, it doesn't mean it will want to fight. Especially if it is something like an aberration. What should probably be happening is that the player should roll a handle animal check, and if the animal is frequently being put in harms way, that handle animal DC check should skyrocket.
And what is to say that an animal being used as a meat shield over and over wouldn't simply cease to be an animal companion. It might just run away one day and never come back.
Similar Threads
