Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.
Rocket your D&D 5E and Level Up: Advanced 5E games into space! Alpha Star Magazine Is Launching... Right Now!

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Glade Riven" data-source="post: 5250167" data-attributes="member: 86468">Cohorts, companions, mounts...I never seen anything in 3.5 or Pathfinder that cleared up who controlled them on the field of battle. Some of the wording indicates the DM, at other times indicates the player. With the group that I had played with, the DM just let the players control them in battle, and he otherwise controlled them in role-playing situations (mainly conversations). That's all fine and dandy from the standpoint that it is one less thing for the DM to keep track of during the battle, but it can pull back on the immersion a bit (and gives an individual player more actions per round). The alternative is that the DM controls the cohort/companion/mount (when the mount is not being ridden). Slap in some skill checks that need to be made by characters to get their orders across (and since skill checks take up time and space in a round) what was in one circumstance where it gave a player additional actions in around now takes time out of of their busy schedual of pummeling things into the ground. It also increases immersion and allows the DM to prevent cohort abuse. I think in my next campaign I'll try the second method (DM control & skill checks), with the skill checks to communicate to the sidekick being 10 - the intellegence modifier of the animals (AKA a druid talking to his animal companion has to beat a check of 13) & something based on the leadership score for the cohorts and followers. Thoughts?</blockquote>

Verification