So how do you play cohorts, familiars and animal companions?

[Dragon Vindaloo]

How do you usually go about roleplaying your 'extras' who aren’t PC's, NPC's or DMPC's?

If a player has a cohort or something similar (talking sword etc), do you as the DM speak for it and roll its checks, attacks etc? Do you let the player roleplay his/her own cohorts themselves and roll all their attacks etc?

As the DM I have always roleplayed the cohort or animal companion characters and my players and I have never thought to have it any other way, until recently that is.

Normally all the roleplaying for 'Jath the 3rd level fighter cohort' who 'belongs' to the wizard player is performed by me but I share the rolling of dice (attack rolls etc) for said cohort characters with the player, depending on the situation it is sometimes better for me to roll the listen checks, attack rolls and what have you. The character sheets for cohorts and others like them are shared between me and the players also, passing them back and forth as the game demands.

But lately one of my new players (playing a knight from PHB2) has taken the leadership feat and said he wants to get a squire to help him with his armour, sort out his horse etc and then he mentioned that he couldn’t wait to play him (as his secondary character) and proceeded to tell me how his cohorts mannerisms are going to be really cool, contrasting and much different from his knight and there may be some friction between them.

I don’t really know what to say as I have never had a player be his own cohort before, the other players think it’s weird to and his announcement to play his own squire was met with blank stares and confused looks all round one guy said its like the new players going to have two characters. And yes he is.

I always play the extras; players have always only ever actually roleplayed their own characters personalities in every game I’ve played in or DMed. Although with a familiar in particular I think there’s a grey area (as the spellcaster and animal are sharing a mind/personality/soul kind of.) so I do let players have final say with familiars in regard to their actions and things, unless they were to do something silly or OOC like have the animal commit suicide in which case I would say no way in most circumstances and there would have to be a very good story reason for such behaviour.

Anyhow, while I am intrigued and open to the idea of the new player playing both his PC and his PC’s cohort I think it’s a bit odd. I feel like its DM's job to be the world around the PC's and that includes all the folk they meet in the game world.
The new player feels that the cohort is 'his character' and that seeing how he has had to take a feat for it so he should be allowed to play it fully and that the book seems to suggest cohorts and companions are the players wholly, otherwise what’s to stop him from just asking some NPC squire (played by me) at the next village to serve him as his personal man servant/cohort instead.

So I am going to let the player roleplay his own cohort as he wishes but it does feel a little...um, strange... On one hand it’s rather liberating and I like this interpretation of the rules and new angle of looking at cohorts and playing them, it feels like my world is growing, more alive but at the same time it’s awkward, scary and feels like something is wrong with this. Maybe I’m just frightened of change.

The new player has been gaming with us for about six months now in a new campaign using Dungeons Shackled City adventure path and it’s his first ever go at any role play game ever apart from WoW online (which got him into fantasy etc) he’s enjoying the D&D hobby immensely and as none of the other players in this campaign are playing characters with cohorts, animals or ‘extras’ the new guy just thought that cohorts, familiars etc were a players thing to play. Weird but understandable, this has led to me wondering if its maybe my players and I that are the weird ones and lots of other groups out there players play their own cohorts all the time…

Well?

 

[lukelightning]

I firmly believe the player should run and control the familiar/cohort/animal companion. After all, it is the character's class feature or feat which "bought" the thing. If the DM gave you a tag-along NPC for free, fine, the DM can run him, but that's not the same a cohort.

Besides, as a DM I have more than enough NPCs to run, I don't need to worry about a talking horse as well.

 

[Aristeas]

I also always let my players play their own cohorts/familiars/whatevers. Three reasons:
a) they may have a specific concept in mind for the character, which obviously I can't pull off as well as they can.
b) I've got enough work to do, and any time I have to spend running a fixture NPC is time I can't devote to other things.
c) it's more fun to get to play your own side character, because it allows you to inject a little more variety into the roleplay, for instance by having a bubbly, enthusiastic squire for your dour, somber knight. Or at least by having your ferret bite people that your wizard doesn't like but is too civilized to actually harm.

The only time I step in is when a cohort is being treated too much as a resource rather than a person, e.g. being used to check for traps, being told to do things which are against his religion, being cavalierly volunteered for unpleasant or degrading tasks.

 

[GoodKingJayIII]

My answer depends on the particular type of extra.

- Animal companions and familiars I hand-wave, because generally they can't speak.
- Intelligent weapons are NPCs AFAIC, so I would run those
- Cohorts I would generally let the players run, with a caveat

That caveat being that the cohorts generally remain background characters. A cohort hangs around to provide support, whether that be through additional combat skills, spells, crafting abilities, whatever. I think it's great when cohorts have very distinct personalities, mannerisms, and so forth, but that should not be in disregard of the character's personality and "face time" in the game. In other words, I don't want a player sitting around having a conversation with himself.

If a player insists the cohort be a prominent personality in the party, I'd play it as an NPC, albeit following his guidelines for personality, etc.

 

[DonTadow]

I'm a firm believer that the PC created ONE charachter and they should role play out that one character. It's not fair to the other players for a PC to get to role play 2 to 5 additional characters because of his class or a feat. All npcs are controlled by the DM and are usually in the background unless commanded. I've always felt that the spotlight should be on the PCs, not npcs, player or DM controlled.

 

[Bardsandsages]

Familiars and animal companions, unless they are awakened or intelligent, are under the control of the PC. It's up to him to decide if he orders his pet to attack, hide,

Cohorts, awakened animals, and intelligent weapons are always under my control. These are distinct, separate beings with their own needs, wants, and goals, not an extension of the player's character. Too often, players look at cohorts as an excuse to get extra attacks or actions. Particularly when they start equiping said cohort with gear the cohort would not logically have, but the player wants as a 'back up".

Remember the key of the leadership feat, you don't get to decide exactly who you attract. You don't say "gee, I'd love to have a cleric cohort with a staff of healing" While I will work with the character to insure that the cohort is a logical one (no CE necromancers for a paladin), I handle them. Depending on the party, the cohort will simply hang in the background and handle the horses while the party explores the dungeon, or will act as a full supporting member of the party. But regardless, he or she will have a distinct personality and interact in a certain manner with the group.

I've had party's get very attached to NPC cohorts and willingly risk themselves to save them, and a lot of that has to do with them having their own independent personality from the PC they are following.

As a DM, I like cohorts because they give me more fodder for story ideas. A cohort may express dissappointment when a character acts outside of his alignment (such as a paladin bullying a bystander for information). Or a cohort may end up in danger because of the party's actions. But you just have to be careful that they don't just become another piece of equipment for a PC.

 

[lukelightning]

I'm a firm believer that the PC created ONE charachter and they should role play out that one character. It's not fair to the other players for a PC to get to role play 2 to 5 additional characters because of his class or a feat.

I don't see that as a compelling argument, since generally these secondary characters aren't role played at all. Or if so, just in a minor aside which doesn't detract from the game at all.

GM: You come to a fork in the road. Do you go left or right?
Cleric: My faith gives me a feeling that left is the way.
Fighter: Arrr! My dwarven bones tell me treasure is towards the right...in the mountains!
Rogue: Let's flip a coin! Left it is!
Wizard: Um, hey, Binky, which way looks better to your feline eyes? *meow meow meow* Left, you say? OK, I say left!

I doubt the other players feel that they are being cheated out of any role playing. Of course, not that the familiar doesn't really have a say in what happens, it's just an extension of the wizard.

 

[Tamlyn]

My answer depends on the particular type of extra.

- Animal companions and familiars I hand-wave, because generally they can't speak.
- Intelligent weapons are NPCs AFAIC, so I would run those
- Cohorts I would generally let the players run, with a caveat

That caveat being that the cohorts generally remain background characters. A cohort hangs around to provide support, whether that be through additional combat skills, spells, crafting abilities, whatever. I think it's great when cohorts have very distinct personalities, mannerisms, and so forth, but that should not be in disregard of the character's personality and "face time" in the game. In other words, I don't want a player sitting around having a conversation with himself.

If a player insists the cohort be a prominent personality in the party, I'd play it as an NPC, albeit following his guidelines for personality, etc.

This is typically how my group handles this. We actually have two cohorts in the group and are actively recruiting followers. The two cohorts were developed by both the players and DM with the understanding that the players handle the day-to-day choices (spell selection, combat activities, levelling choices) but the DM has ultimate veto power on their activities. It also helps that the group has mostly kept the cohorts in the background. They fill the niches they were recruited to fill, but they don't give a player an additional vote in group choices.

 

[pogre]

I allow cohorts, but they stay at home. It does make the Leadership feat less attractive, but adding more characters to the party has been cmbersome for our group in the past. The PC controls the cohort and I have one player who plans on having his cohort run his fief. I generally just tell the player to level up the cohort occassionally.

Familiars and animal companios are run by the Player.

 

[interwyrm]

I say let the player control the cohort/companion, but only in combat.
Also, the player gets to build it.

Basically, the class feature should unerringly follow orders from the character. They still have a personality though. I really don't think it should be decided by the player, unless through a process of trial and error. I mean really, when a character picks up leadership, does he put a classified ad out for a squire with a snarky personality and a penchant for purloining faberge eggs?