When it comes to mounts, familiars, and minions, who gets to control them at your table, the player or the GM?

What's wrong with having a familiar explore an entire adventure area? Isn't that what a familiar is for? Heck, currently, our group wizard animates zombies, has the zombie carry the familiar and a torch, and wander about 100 feet ahead of the group.

Seems a pretty good idea to me.

Fauchard1520 said:

My table seems to be a mix. As a chain-lock, my imp familiar is more or less mine to command in battle. Out of combat, however, he seems to have a mind of his own. Some fun stories about the li'l guy over here.

I am curious about how the rest of you guys handle it though. When it comes to mounts, familiars, and minions, who gets to control them at your table, the player or the GM?

Click to expand...

It really is a question of circumstance.

Is the mount mindless, of animal intelligence, or dominated?
Let the player control it.

Is the mount of humanoid or greater intelligence?
If the creature trusts and is allied with the PC, let the player control it.
If the creature is serving under duress, has motivations contrary to those of the PC, or doesn't trust the PC implicitly, I'll control it (as the DM).

Hussar said:

What's wrong with having a familiar explore an entire adventure area? Isn't that what a familiar is for? Heck, currently, our group wizard animates zombies, has the zombie carry the familiar and a torch, and wander about 100 feet ahead of the group.

Seems a pretty good idea to me.

Click to expand...

I think, because a lot of people want this to happen with zero risk to the familiar.

Nothing I like more than killing an animal companion/familiar/cohort/follower that has been sent ahead. Of course it really only feeds the party necromancer buuuuuuut I can only do so much.

Familiars aren't NPCs. Nor are Beast Companions or anything of that ilk. NPCs are created by the GM to fill certain roles in advancing the game. Familiars and companions are class features. Sentient or not they are a feature of the character class, and should thus be run by the player unless the rules state otherwise. The job of the GM is to adjudicate actions chosen by the players based on the character's skills, abilities and features of their race and class. So the player calls the actions, and the GM says yes - roll X on difficulty y, or no, no gonna happen.

The above is entirely a separate question from who narrates the companion's actions of course. The GM narrates lots of things the players do, combat results for instance, and narrating the companion's action falls into this same area. That is vastly different than calling the companion an NPC though, and thus arguing that the companion is under the GMs control.

Immortal Sun said:

I think, because a lot of people want this to happen with zero risk to the familiar.

Nothing I like more than killing an animal companion/familiar/cohort/follower that has been sent ahead. Of course it really only feeds the party necromancer buuuuuuut I can only do so much.

Click to expand...

I think I see your problem. The familiar should be feeding the monsters, not the necromancer. Oh wait, on second thought necromancers are frequently monsters. Never mind.

Hussar said:

What's wrong with having a familiar explore an entire adventure area? Isn't that what a familiar is for? Heck, currently, our group wizard animates zombies, has the zombie carry the familiar and a torch, and wander about 100 feet ahead of the group.

Seems a pretty good idea to me.

Click to expand...

I disapprove of this action.
Signed
Stubbs.