Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="DEFCON 1" data-source="post: 6404342" data-attributes="member: 7006">I presume the shared actions were due to trying to keep a lid on the action economy.  While RotGrub is right that a single familiar should be able to act independently and not cause any additional difficulty over other types of creatures that get actions... it's the idea that you can have a party of several different PCs ALL having these additional creatures that could cause rounds to just expand into overblown messes with every player controlling two or more figures.Thankfully... the game is such that if a table has just like a single familiar or ranger's animal companion amongst the entire party... a player and DM can easily try to expand the creature's autonomous abilities to see if it causes any issues at the table (and if it ultimately does, the DM and player can agree to remove them.)Thus... some options would be to let a PC use their Bonus Action to let the familiar/animal companion take an Action... give the creature its own Action, but no move (so that if the creatures needs to move around the battlefield, it has to use Dash-- resulting in it only getting to make attacks when not deciding to move in a particular round)... or even treat the creature as a full-on member of the party and allow it a complete suite of move, Action, and on the off-chance it ever gets a feature that would use it-- Bonus Action.Try them out, see if they cause issues, and if not then let them go with it.  After all... the only two things that might result in a problem are the one PC taking too much time having to manipulate two figures, and the DM having to slightly re-align encounter strength to compensate for the additional "party member".</blockquote>

Verification