Granting companion animals, pets, familiars

[Keenberg]

It seems in the majority of games I have DM'ed, one character or another wants a companion animal/pet/familiar that their class does not normally give to them.
What my concern here is that it will give that player an advantage over the others, which will detract from the fun of the game for them. Then they will get jealous and want something for their PC's. I don't want the game balance and size of combats will spiral out of control because of something like granting one pc a companion animal.

Case at hand is a sorceress who snagged a kruthik egg while the party was eradicating a kruthik hive. She wants to raise it as her own, and I told her that if she could master it when it was born, she would be able to have it.

I don't like handing out boons to PC's at little or no cost, but I think it would be cool for this sorceress to have a kruthik as a pet to add a new flavor to the PC. So how can I give her something that will give her a benefit, yet not one so wild as to unbalance her from the other PCs?

One thought I had was that she could give the kruthik commands, and I would control it from there. That way, it could do minor things, while more major things would be out of it's capabilities (most the time.) This would give me delegating powers.

What do you think? How do you handle "extra" pets/companion animals/familiars in your game?

 

[pauljathome]

What do you think? How do you handle "extra" pets/companion animals/familiars in your game?

If the pet is basically fluff then I just allow it, especially if the pet is acquired in a normal way in play. Basically fluff means that it can definitely still be useful from time to time but it is primarily there to make everybodys time (including the GMs) more fun.

I also make it clear to the player that the animal more or less has script immunity so long as it remains mostly fluff. If it starts to seriously impact the game or seriously do things like scouting ahead then it runs the normal risks of being squashed flat (and most pets are VERY, VERY squashable).

I also absolutely reserve the right to take over pets when appropriate (and amusing). For example, last night the PCs bat familiar (low enough level to only have empathic communication) "Told" the PC that it had detected something very dangerous when it left some guano on his shoulder as it went flying away as far as possible. When the PCs finally saw the picture of the monster they had no problem with that ruling

If the "pet" is actually going to be something significant on a regular basis (eg, druids animal companion) then the PC absolutely has to pay for it with whatever currency seems best (multiclassing plus feat in D&D, experience points in Champions, whatever)

And I reserve my right to remove them later if they start to bring play down to a crawl as everybody has a menagerie to manage.

 

[Croesus]

It seems in the majority of games I have DM'ed, one character or another wants a companion animal/pet/familiar that their class does not normally give to them.
What my concern here is that it will give that player an advantage over the others, which will detract from the fun of the game for them. Then they will get jealous and want something for their PC's. I don't want the game balance and size of combats will spiral out of control because of something like granting one pc a companion animal.

Case at hand is a sorceress who snagged a kruthik egg while the party was eradicating a kruthik hive. She wants to raise it as her own, and I told her that if she could master it when it was born, she would be able to have it.

I don't like handing out boons to PC's at little or no cost, but I think it would be cool for this sorceress to have a kruthik as a pet to add a new flavor to the PC. So how can I give her something that will give her a benefit, yet not one so wild as to unbalance her from the other PCs?

One thought I had was that she could give the kruthik commands, and I would control it from there. That way, it could do minor things, while more major things would be out of it's capabilities (most the time.) This would give me delegating powers.

What do you think? How do you handle "extra" pets/companion animals/familiars in your game?

I don't see this as fundamentally different from acquiring a magic item that gives a PC additional abilities or power. And in the case of the sorceress above, she'll have to invest time, money and possibly skill points in making best use of the creature. If the character is willing to make such an investment, and having that specific creature around doesn't seriously impact balance between the characters (I have no idea what a kruthik is), then go for it. This sounds far more interesting than having her snag just another wand of whatever.

 

[Keenberg]

I don't see this as fundamentally different from acquiring a magic item that gives a PC additional abilities or power. And in the case of the sorceress above, she'll have to invest time, money and possibly skill points in making best use of the creature. If the character is willing to make such an investment, and having that specific creature around doesn't seriously impact balance between the characters (I have no idea what a kruthik is), then go for it. This sounds far more interesting than having her snag just another wand of whatever.

The difference between items and pc's having a minions of sorts to me has been that the latter is sentient. The players expects it to be able to accomplish some portion of what their character can, which requires tight holds on the reins, so to speak. I fully agree that granting a companion is more interesting, it is just a bit difficult to micro-manage without upsetting the player.

The sorceress currently commands a wisp that she doesn't use much or like, so one cost is going to be breaking het bond with that familiar. I think beyond that, I'll write up a stat block for the kruthik (something like a semi-skeletal lizard/spider hybrid, BTW,) and it will have the capabilities of the monster listed.

 

[Keenberg]

I drew up a stat block for the familiar using the familiars in 4e's Arcane Power as guidlines (Didn't mention is before, but I'm DMing 4e) Attached is the block with the back side below for anyone that is interested. Feedback and variant powers are welcome advice, it's almost of a copy of the spider from Arcane Power.

 

[Ringlerun]

I have never had any issues with players having pets or familiars.
I dont play 4th edition so not sure how they are handled with that system.
But in old 1st and 2nd edition it was quite common for a mage to have a small animal as a familiar and also have a trained war dog at his side.
I have even had players train a small monkey to act as spy and thief for them.
Most pets are only there to add flavor to the character to make it different and memorable.
And when you think about it, even if the players tries to rely on a menagerie of trained pets, I see it as creative roleplaying on their behalf

 

[Keenberg]

[MENTION=6668496]Ringlerun[/MENTION], familiars/pets/etc have never functioned differently in any editions I've played either. And I have no problem with them being used creatively. However, I have often seen them become a problem when a player spends double the time of other players in battle because he/she is strategizing and describing the actions of the familiar. It gets annoying and even frustrating for the other players. In my current case I don't think that should be a problem, the player is more responsible than that. And like you said, I think it will provide something memorable about the PC and add nice flavor.

 

[pauljathome]

[MENTION=6668496]Ringlerun[/MENTION], familiars/pets/etc have never functioned differently in any editions I've played either. .

There is a MASSIVE difference between the way that Animal Companions play in 4th edition and other editions. I think this difference also applies to Familiars but I honestly forget.

In 4th Edition having an Animal Companion does NOT break the "action economy". The PC either uses actions to cause the animal to act or uses powers that cause both the animal and PC to act in tandem.

In contrast, in 3rd edition the animal companion gets its own set of actions. This is precisely why they are such a potentially powerful and disruptive feature.

 

[Keenberg]

I think this difference also applies to Familiars but I honestly forget.

Having recently read up on them, I can confirm that familiars also do not break the action economy. In fact, to even begin receiving its active bonuses/abilities, the pc has to use a minor action. after that, you use move actions to move your familiar, etc.

 

[Lwaxy]

Familiars/companions/pets get their own character sheet and act as sub-characters (and are sometimes later elevated to full characters).

I've never limited the type of animal someone could get. But with few exceptions when it is normal stuff (cats, dogs, horses, goats, cows...) finding them must be part of the story. If they can't pull it off, bad luck. Generally, they can, but we had a few failures here and there.

And sometimes I just shove some animal at them and that works, too