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

[AuraSeer]

IMC, we play all the different hench-types differently.

A cohort or familiar works like an extension of his parent character, subject to DM veto. The player gets to fill out the character sheet, decide on combat actions, and even roleplay him, but the DM gets to override any decision that is totally unreasonable in context. ("No, your second-level wizard cohort does not try to bull rush the Great Wyrm. Pick a different action.")

Followers are treated as independent NPCs. The PC has a special relationship with them and gets to give them orders, but the player doesn't have any direct control; the DM decides whether and how the orders are followed. If you order your Expert2 follower into combat, he'll probably refuse. Put him in danger too often and he'll probably leave you-- and be replaced by a Warrior follower of equivalent level.

Animal companions are also different because they don't have human minds, and communication is harder. Most of the time, the PC needs to make Handle Animal checks to make the animal do anything specific, and that's limited to the "tricks" that skill can accomplish. If the PC is wildshaped or can otherwise speak directly to the animal, he can order it around like a follower, but its intelligence still limits it to simple tasks.

 

[lukelightning]

Most of the time, the PC needs to make Handle Animal checks to make the animal do anything specific, and that's limited to the "tricks" that skill can accomplish.

I'm really lax with this and think the whole "tricks" thing is lame. Basically I find it easiest if I just let the druid have full control of the animal as long as he's realistic about it and only do handle animal checks to get it to do strange things in combat (break off from a melee in order to attack someone else, attack undead, etc.)

 

[sniffles]

Our group does a little bit of everything, depending on the player and the GM.

In one former campaign my ranger PC had a dire wolf companion. The GM usually took charge of the wolf, but when we were in combat (and later when we were higher level, most of the time) I ran the wolf because the GM was busy with NPCs and monsters. Currently in another game run by that same GM my PC just acquired a familiar, an animated book. The GM has given me some limited stats, but so far he's done most of the running of my familiar.

In another game run by a different GM, one of the players has a cohort, which he runs himself. But he tends to treat the character as pretty much a non-person except when he needs a flanking buddy or the party could use an extra pair of hands. He deliberately made the cohort a mostly non-speaking role, I think so the cohort wouldn't outshine his main character. The GM doesn't object to the player running the cohort; he'd rather have the player do it than do it himself.

I ran two full-fledged characters myself once. It was in RuneQuest, which doesn't really have a cohort mechanic. The GM was a little uncomfortable with me running two PCs, so he ran my second character in non-combat situations and I ran the PC during combat.

I've also been in games in which animal companions or familiars were practically invisible, including one game in which my PC had a familiar that I constantly forgot to do anything with.

 

[lukelightning]

I've also been in games in which animal companions or familiars were practically invisible, including one game in which my PC had a familiar that I constantly forgot to do anything with.

That's a sacred pact between DMs and players. "Don't let your critter get in the way of the game and I won't target it."

 

[DonTadow]

Moreover, a DM taking control of the cohort makes interactions go slower. Instead of just tagging along and obeying the PC, suddenly the players have to spend time interacting with or persuading the cohort.

What? PCs role playing with NPCs? Unthinkable.

I can't believe this kinda thing happens in a Role Playing Game.

Seriously, that is part of my problem with some players and the cohort. The cohort is not an ability, he's a part of the world. Even in my game, they might be in the background during a player encounter, but everybody reacts to the world, not just the players.

 

[AdmundfortGeographer]

I, basically, am stuck using the Living Greyhawk cohort rules, its what I can get around to play. You could say that there are decent benefits a cohort can bestow, however, in LG a table has a maximum size of 6 players. A cohort can't be brought along unless there is an open seat, i.e. 5 players or 4 players total. Quite often there is a full table of 6 players so the Leadership feat us effectively useless. Unless one could expect to regularly play at non-full tables the Leadership feat is a waste.

In LG, PCs are built with a 28 point build while cohorts are built with a 25 point build and are limited to having no more treasure than the DMG's NPC treasure chart.

In my own experience, I have a character who did take Leadership. The cohort was generally built around maximixing the main character. A wizard whose main trick is to quicken enlarge the PC and then polymorph PC into a troll or an annis hag, followed by moving very far away and working as artillery. Occassionally I would pump in the spells for the spell storing off-hand weapon. Makes my PC very nice all for a single feat. However about 3 out of 5 tables I have played with this PC were filled and I couldn't bring the cohort... effectively making the Leadership feet a wasted feat 60% of the time. *shrug*

 

[thedungeondelver]

Well what a goof I am, I neglected to mention the "cohorts" part - the party currently has one henchman (a linkboy) who actually drove the plot of a recent adventure when they were "resting up" in town. I played him as a full on NPC type. The party also has a thief hireling whom I haven't really given much personality to, but I'm going to start working on that soon enough...

 

[AuraSeer]

I'm really lax with this and think the whole "tricks" thing is lame. Basically I find it easiest if I just let the druid have full control of the animal as long as he's realistic about it and only do handle animal checks to get it to do strange things in combat (break off from a melee in order to attack someone else, attack undead, etc.)

Yeah, now that you mention it, I suppose that's how things normally run for us too. Technically the druid issues a command on her turn each round, but since that's a free action and rather hard to fail, we tend to handwave it. It only gets enforced in unusual cases, like the one you mention, or when the druid is incapacitated and somebody else has to try and control the rabid wolverine.

 

[Merkuri]

I feel like this depends a lot on the player in question. I have leadership, but I dislike controlling more than one PC at a time (like when a player is absent and somebody else takes over his PC temporarily) and I do not mind that my cohort is DM-controlled.

My boyfriend (Awayfarer) in the same campaign however, is in a different boat. One of the greatest things the DM did in our current campaign is give Away's character, a strong-as-an-ox-and-just-as-smart orc barbarian, an inteligent axe. The DM gave Away a short description of the item and its personality and told him that with his will save the axe can essentially take him over at any time, and from that moment on it became an essential part of the character.

Blackrazor (the axe) cannot speak by itself, but uses Thugdar's (the orc PC) voice whenever he feels the need, and Away plays their personalities completely differently. Even when he forgets to use the different font for Blackrazor (we play online) you can certainly tell who is speaking. Blackrazor has a much larger vocabulary and is more bloodthirsty, and Thugdar is remarkably similar to Thog from Order of the Stick (my PC was once trying to describe illusions to him, and said that if he could put his hand through it it was an illusion... so Thugdar put his hand through the cloth he was holding with a great tearing sound and declared it an illusion). Away loves the chance to play the lovable dumb guy and the bloodthirsty I'm-sticking-with-you-just-because-you-kill-things axe simultaneously, and he does a great job of it.

Since the DM has so much other stuff to do, I feel like Blackrazor would become just another powerful item if the DM had retained control over it. But with Away playing it, it's a living, breathing pseudo-PC with a distinct personality all its own. We had another inteligent item early on, this one DM-controlled, but it would only pipe up when it needed to give us plot information or we asked it questions. Blackrazor doesn't hesitate to give us his opinion. He's much more fascinating being controlled by the player who puts his whole heart and soul (well, half of it) into the character, as opposed to the DM.

 

[FreeTheSlaves]

I'm currently playing a DMPC for just 1 more session, but we're talking about his cohort & co - he has a wizard cohort, her familiar and his called mount... Quite a bit eh?

The mount is typically called for 2 reasons, aerial scouting and night-time guard duty. A pegasus has good enough spot, listen and scent, and it is awake. The Bat familiar is used in the same way except with different specialties. The night-time blindsense is pretty sharp and the little guy can scout without drawing much attention. Add those two to the night watch and assassins have a hard time.

At the meta level, I control them completely regardless of when I dm and play. However there is the constraint of time in the spotlight. I can have all the companions in the world but they come at the expense of my main guy's spotlight time, so they need to have rather simplistic personalities.

The cohort is a magic item crafter, spell buffer, caster of fighter-hindering spells & source of extra knowledge skills. Essentially she fills the gaps where the main character is deficient.

Again at the meta level she has a purposely defined low maintenance personality and straight-forward combat routines.

We just let the player control as many aspects of their character as they can.