Druids - wildshape and controlling an animal companion

[Wippit Guud]

Well, does the empathic link work both ways? Wouldsn't an animal companion know its druid if they're emotionally connected? Just a feeling of "don't worry, I'm not going to hurt you" would be enough to allow an animal to submit to its master in that situation.

 

[shilsen]

Well, does the empathic link work both ways? Wouldsn't an animal companion know its druid if they're emotionally connected? Just a feeling of "don't worry, I'm not going to hurt you" would be enough to allow an animal to submit to its master in that situation.

Actually there is no empathic link between druids and animal companions. Familiars and a paladin's mount have empathic links (Su) with their masters, which allows them to "communicate empathically". But the special ability which is gained between a druid and an animal companion is different. It's an (Ex) ability, not (Su), and it is specifically called Link, not Empathic Link. There is no empathic communication at all.

 

[Wippit Guud]

Ugh.
They should've picked a different word then, to avoid such confusion.

 

[Rel]

I've had someone playing a druid over the entire course of my long running campaign (he's now 10th level). I tend to be fairly generous about interpreting what his AC will and won't do. This is primarily the result of two perceptions I have about their relationship:

1) The animal companion is used to being around the Druid 24/7, even while they're not adventuring. The companion is accustomed to having the Druid turn into many other forms and I'm willing to stipulate that the Druid may not always be in human form when they practice various tricks and commands.

2) The Druid has a BIG trump card to play in the form of Speak With Animals. Since he can explain things to the AC in ways that a typical trainer could never dream of. He can essentially say, "If I ever move my head in a circle like this...you MUST follow my next commands because your life may be in danger. Even if it means crawling into my reptilian mouth and being dragged under water."

That said, I still require Handle Animal rolls when the action seems questionable and we use the "player to the left of you makes the final decision on what your Animal Companion/Familiar/Warhorse would or wouldn't do" rule. One one occasion, the Druid wanted to use the Feathers spell to transform the whole party into birds to escape from pursuing enemies. I ruled that his animal companion (a Dire Moutain Lion) might freak out if he suddenly found himself in another form and the results could be unpredictable. The Druid used Speak With Animals in conjunction with Handle Animal and convinced the companion to give it a try. Nothing bad resulted from it and the Dire Lion got to tranform back to his own body relatively soon, so he is more willing to do the same action in the future.

 

[Pielorinho]

I agree it should be allowed, for the reasons stated above, plus one more reason:

It's fun and not overpowering.

My absolute least favorite parts of the game are the logistics moments -- "Let's see, we've got seven people we're trying to get to location X. Is your animal companion considered part of your equipment? What about your familiar? With teleport I can get five people, and a familiar but not an animal companion. Paladin, can you dismiss your warhorse until we get there? Wizard, what happens if your toad gets in the bag of holding -- does it count against the teleport limit? Druid, you can get there by yourself with transport via plants, right? Blah blah blah!"

Unless you're playing Mass Transit: the Game, this shouldn't be where your play time is focused. It's not exciting, it's not interesting, it's not fun.

It seems to me that getting the characters through that watery tunnel was going to happen one way or another. You can either take the first semi-reasonable idea that comes along (badger in druid's mouth), or you can reject it and let the players bicker for another half hour until someone realizes that you can cast sleep on the badger, place it in an airtight bag with a bubble of air, weight the bag down with stones, and transport it that way.

If you wait until the perfect solution comes along, all you've done is fritter away game time that could otherwise be spent smiting ogres or debating cultists or chatting up city guards or unravelling mysteries.

I tend to be very generous on rules interpretations for boring stuff, and stricter on rules interpretations for exciting stuff. Getting through a watery passage is probably boring stuff.

Daniel

 

[jgsugden]

That is not so. Under the rules, "pushing" is specifically defined as having the animal do something it isn't trained for, but is physically capable of performing. That's the roll for making a warhorse play fetch, even if it has never seen that trick before in its life.

I said *understands*. Not *trained to do*. There is a huge difference. If you can't communicate to the animal what it is supposed to do, you can not push it to do that action.

Think of it this way: You go to work and your boss calls you into his office. The boss asks you to flidger his gidget because the time is right for gidget flindering. Although you've never trained in gidget flindering, it is a task you can perform once you understand what he wants. Because the concepts in gidget flindering are so foreign to you, it takes a little while for him to pass along the proper instructions. Once you understand what he wants, you can perform the task for him. You're not a trained gidget flinderer, but you can do it for him this time under the particular circumstances that he has presented to you.

That is the same process that an animal and druid needs to go through to get across unusual ideas to an animal companion. Pushing an animal animal companion to jump through a loop of fire should probably take a move equivalent action. Pushing an animal companion to climb into the mouth of a dead T-rex, climb down the throat, sniff out the Golden Loaf of Triton hidden in the pack of the dead assassin in the T-rex's belly and then return out of the T-rex with the loaf would take more than a move equiavlent action. Climbing into the throat of a dead T-rex would not be something that the animal would instinctively understand as a good thing. Sniffing around in an acid filled stomach would seem bad to an animal companion (not understanding that you've cast protection form acid on it).

Is this expressed in the rules? No. Neither are the rules for drinking water. But, if something arises where we need to know how a PC dsrinks water, we need to figure out how it should be handled using common sense. The rules cover the basics. We, as DMs and players, need to deal with the fine details.

 

[Rel]

The boss asks you to flidger his gidget because the time is right for gidget flindering.

This may be nudging right up against the "Grandma Rules".

IYKWIMAITYD

 

[AuraSeer]

jgsugden, perhaps we're talking past each other. I'll try to more clearly explain what I'm talking about.

In terms of commanding a D&D animal companion, there are only four possibilities:
1) a trick the animal already knows, like "Fetch" for a pet dog. You Handle the animal as a free action.
2) a simple trick for which the animal is not trained, such as "Fetch" for a warhorse. You Push the animal as a move action.
3) a combination of multiple simple tricks, such as "Come" followed by "Defend." You give a separate command for each individual trick, probably over the course of multiple rounds.
4) a complex behavior that cannot be assembled from simple tricks, like that T-Rex stomach retrieve you describe. Under the rules, it appears that you can't use the Handle Animal skill to make the animal do this at all. (Let's leave speak with animals aside for now.)

To put it another way: either you can order the task as a specified number of actions, or you can't do it at all. There's no reason to invoke complicated, subjective comparisons to real-life training time.

Does this make sense?

 

[jgsugden]

jgsugden, perhaps we're talking past each other. I'll try to more clearly explain what I'm talking about.

In terms of commanding a D&D animal companion, there are only four possibilities:...

To put it another way: either you can order the task as a specified number of actions, or you can't do it at all. There's no reason to invoke complicated, subjective comparisons to real-life training time.

Does this make sense?

Yes and no. Sense from the 'easy to play' category. It often leads to anti-sense in the 'real world in a fantasy setting simulation' category. A DMs job is not only to process the rules, but to handle situations where the rules do not currently venture. The interaction between PC and animal companion is, to an extent, the same as any interaction between PC and NPC in the game. The rules can cover certain aspects of it (handle animal checks, wild empathy checks, diplomacy checks, etc ...), but in the end, the DM has to decide when the situation goes beyond the rules.

There is a reason to invoke complicated, subjective comparisons to real-life training times: it adds to the realism. Some players really like that aspect of the game. Some people say you can't win in D&D. I say you win every time someone has more fun. If a player wants to have his animal do something really complex and it will add to his fun if he can find a way to get it done, I'll stretch the rules as far as reason will allow to increase that player's fun.

D&D can be played with most interaction covered by a dice roll. Instead of role playing out the exchange between the merchant and the PC, you could just have the PC roll a diplomacy check to see how well he can negotiate a price without ever role playing the interaction.

Similarly, you can break down interactions with animal companions into the handle animal rules, or you can expand upon them when it furthers the story or enjoyment of the game.

The rules are never more thean a framework. We, as DMs, must exapnd upon them when necessary.

In other words, if a druid tells me he wants to have his badger climb down the throat of a deceased T-rex, sniff out a golden loaf and return with it, I'm not going to say, "No!" Instead, I'll say, "Put on your pants! Then tell me how you plan to go about instructing your badger in the fine art of T-rex Belly Diving." Then I'll figure out how long it will take (after he puts on his pants).

 

[Ridley's Cohort]

There is a reason to invoke complicated, subjective comparisons to real-life training times: it adds to the realism. Some players really like that aspect of the game. Some people say you can't win in D&D. I say you win every time someone has more fun. If a player wants to have his animal do something really complex and it will add to his fun if he can find a way to get it done, I'll stretch the rules as far as reason will allow to increase that player's fun.

If it adds to the realism and fun, okay. But sometimes DMs go overboard by putting mundane skills under the microscope in a way they would never bother to with magical abilities. IMHO any (N)PC with a skill over 15 has a "magical" ability defying the common sense and experience of the average joe on the street.