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="irdeggman" data-source="post: 2580866" data-attributes="member: 16285">First off I think the DM ruled well in attempting to reward role-playing without encouraging in party combat and dissension.Now I would rather not tell a player how to run his character - in fact dismiss this as you will, it is your character.  But I do have to question how much was meta-gaming and how much was in-character roleplaying.  My logic is if the character felt strongly enough over the situation that she "attacked" the ranger and "asked' her animal companion to do the same - then why the attempt at non-lethal damage that was only switched after the sorcerer intervened? Just doesn't sit well with me, but I wasn't there nor do I know the character histories/past behaviors.Now something else I have noticed over the years is the misuse of animal companions.  What I mean is that they are not the same as familiars, they do not get greater than animal intelligence and perform as a "normal animal of their type"From the SRD:Basically the animal companion works just like a normal animal of its kind with the exceptions listed in the PHB for an animal companion (e.g., extra HD, AC, bonus tricks {this one is important and is often overlooked}, etc.) but the animal doesn't automatically gain an increase in Intelligence (like a familiar does).I have played in too many games where the player just has his/her animal companions perform things without bothering to follow any of the rules on teaching them tricks (which is the game mechanic to be used).</blockquote>

Verification