Granting companion animals, pets, familiars

[Hand of Evil]

I sort of let it happen BUT you have to think what the alternate animal will do in game. The campaign setting will establish the standard companion but once the players start going out of that standard they become more they become disruptive to the campaign setting.

Your example: Kruthik are lawful evil in alignment; will that change? I am not sure. Also, how are they viewed in the setting; odds are not good and IF anything strange happens, they would be the first target of the law and or mob.

 

[steeldragons]

I guess it was 3.x and the SRD that suddenly made having "animal companions" the norm. Every druid is walking around with lions and tigers and bears (go 'head, say it. Ya know you want to ). Every ranger is walking around with wolves or mastiffs or cougars. Mages have any conceivable creature under the sun as a famliar, instead of toads or cats or owls.

Where do you draw the line as to what a "normal" companion/familiar/pet is?

I recall things like pseudo-dragons and quasits were on some older familiar lists. I've seen games where a "familiar" might be a brownie or sprite, imps or minor devils/demons and (sometimes not so minor) elementals.

It goes to what your DM/game will allow. How "normal" is it for mages to have "non-normal" familiars or pets? What creatures will attract fawning ("Awww. Look how cute it is!") or curiosity or all-out fear/aversion or panic?

I am always irked when I hear about a group entering a town, while the druid (or other PC) has a wolf or bear in tow, and the players become annoyed when the villagers/townsfolk go nuts over a "wild animal" wandering their streets/around their homes and businesses...."But it's ok. It's with the druid, he's harmless." or "Oh, don't mind the necromancer's animated skeleton valet. It's under her complete control." Still wouldn't cut it, it seems to me, for the law enforcement or average folks. Forget about having some unnatural "devil" or something!

But, this isn't my game. haha. So, as I (and Hand of Evil) said, it's really up to what "makes sense" and is "normal" for your world, as well as the maturity of how the player will use the "extra character", that will determine how it plays out.

On a related note, special and/or magical mounts...Does every Paladin (or any PC who wants to find/train) just get a "divinely intelligent" warhorse? Elephant? Unicorn? Giant stag or hawk?

What do/have you used for PC mounts?
--SD

 

[El Mahdi]

In my houserules, I allow anyone to have an animal companion. But unlike a wild version of such animals, they only attack on command, and then only specific attacks (not full bite/slash/slash/grapple every round, etc.). Giving a command to an animal companion to attack is an action (in my game, an attack action - 3E houseruled system). It helps keep combat balanced, so I no what to expect, rather than having to factor the animal companion in almost as if it's another party member.

 

[Li Shenron]

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 have no problems with "extra" pets, the rules in fact support buying a guard dog or warhorse and train it for battle.

But the players should know that they come with costs (e.g. some money for their food, time until they are usable, investing in Handle Animal skill), limitations (especially if they are non-fantasy animals, the vast majority of which cannot be trained enough to be useful in a dungeon or a battle), and liabilities (especially if they are fantasy creatures, training them may be hard and may always behave erratically).

Also consider that special creatures (I don't know what a kruthik is, but think e.g. a pseudragon or wyrmling!) have special requirements. No way it should be easy to raise a dragon wyrmling, and guess what's going to happen if the neighbors find out?

The most important things however are IMXP:

(1) the player shouldn't be allowed to play the pet as if it was a second character... it's tempting to do so (the player will like it, the DM will have less work to do) but IMXP it's best if the DM plays the pet as a complete NPC, with the owner player interacting with it through verbal commands (some creatures like Familiar could have a much stronger bond, but in fact they have additional costs like the XP burned if they died)

(2) let the player know that owning a pet does not guarantee a 100% loyalty or reliability: e.g. it will certainly not launch himself in a suicide attack just because it is tactically convenient for the owner

If you make sure to warn the players in advance, then afterwards nothing prevents you to be pretty generous with regard to pet's usefulness. But first you'd better put yourself as DM in a defensive position, without promising anything

 

[Li Shenron]

I guess it was 3.x and the SRD that suddenly made having "animal companions" the norm. Every druid is walking around with lions and tigers and bears (go 'head, say it. Ya know you want to ). Every ranger is walking around with wolves or mastiffs or cougars. Mages have any conceivable creature under the sun as a famliar, instead of toads or cats or owls.

Yeah but the problem comes from gaming groups that allow such walking around.

I think it was quite fair to allow a little bit of freedom to sometimes take that wolf companion into the tomb/dungeon/caves, at least originally the druid/ranger's animal companion was befriended with a spell. It was not a "normal" pet like everybody can buy and train with the skills. But not into a tavern, palace or marketplace...

Mostly I think the problem comes from the fact that most players see their animal companions and familiars as "battle helpers", they only have combat in mind. If players were a little more ingenious, they could find enough usefulness for their pets in many out-of-combat situations that they would not feel nerfed if they aren't taking them in combat.

 

[Keenberg]

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

I'm strongly against this approach. It has been my experience as a DM and player that one Character sheet is enough to handle; giving the player another complicated character to manage slows down the game and over-complicates things. I instead prefer the 4e approach where the pet is simplified to a monster stat block with limited capabilities.

 

[Keenberg]

So, main points that have emerged from this thread:

• For granted familiars, pets, and companion animals, make sure they don't destroy the action economy of the game.
• If handed out easily, encourage and reward use of pets, companion animals, and familiars mostly for flavor and RP purposes, not for utility.
• If earned at a cost, such as a feat or gold, the pet, companion animal, or familiar should also have utility in game terms.
• Set firm limitations on what the pet/familiar/companion animal can and can't do, and stick to them.
• Consider an upkeep cost, such as an XP toll if a pet/etc. dies.
• Consider how the social environment (NPC's, town guards, and normal townsfolk) would react to the party due to the presence of the pet, specifically if it is a beast/monster that is normally feared.

*These points are intended for granted pets, not those that are part of a class. Be more lenient with characters whose class is centered around companion animals/pets/familiars/summons/etc. Enforcing these rules strictly on them would simply hamper the playability and enjoyment of the PC.

​

 

[Lwaxy]

I'm strongly against this approach. It has been my experience as a DM and player that one Character sheet is enough to handle; giving the player another complicated character to manage slows down the game and over-complicates things. I instead prefer the 4e approach where the pet is simplified to a monster stat block with limited capabilities.

That is one reason to hate 4e for us. Seriously. How boring.

Considering that in some of the campaigns here, everyone has at least 2 characters, familiars aren't hard to update and don't slow anything down at all.

 

[Keenberg]

That is one reason to hate 4e for us. Seriously. How boring.

Considering that in some of the campaigns here, everyone has at least 2 characters, familiars aren't hard to update and don't slow anything down at all.

So a system being streamlined is a reason to hate it? Really?

Note that I never said that a pet/familiar/companion animal should be a rigid set of rules. Look at that list above. I said creative use of the underling should be encouraged and rewarded. Sounds boring, right?

The only thing I suggested was I personally prefer simplifying the games I DM and play in. I like to play rules-light, no matter what edition I'm playing. That sounds like a great reason to hate on a system to me: focusing on fun and immersion rather than rules-lawyering.

 

[Lwaxy]

I said that's one of the reasons For us 4 e has many no nos. Minus the adventures, we actually like a lot of them and may use them in adaption in the future.

We are pretty rules light, or rather rules adaptive, actually. We don't have a single rules lawyer. Just a rules encyclopedia on two legs.