Animal companions - reducing the cost

[Barwickian]

OK, I have a player who wants a big animal companion. Her first choice was a tiger, but since we're up in the Westerlands she's set her heart on a bear. She thinks wolves and hawks are lame. I am going to offer her a miniature dragon.

 

But it's difficult to pay for the points of a 300-point companion at a standard heroic level. The obvious solution is to reduce the cost with limitations.

 

So what limitations could you apply? I'll give my ideas, but I'm looking for other cool ideas as well.

 

1) Requires a skill roll: Animal Handling (-1/2; a 300-point animal will take a -6 to the control roll, but you could reduce the cost to -1/4 for a -3 penalty or increase it to -1 for a particularly hard-to-control beast with a -12 penalty, such as a housecat).

2) Gestures (-1/4) and Incantations (-1/4) to tell the beast what you want it to do.

3) Ranged (varies) if you have to be close to the beast to tell it what you want it to do.

4) Expendable focus (varies) if you must give the beast a treat like a bit of food or a medal (Muttley! Do something!) before it'll do what you want.

 

Limitations of the beast itself:

1) Hibernates (-1/4) - hibernation is generally for 3-4 months of the year, but is regular and predictable. Longer hibernation could increase the value of the limitation (-1/2 for 6 months). If the campaign isn't the kind of thing that would run long enough to go into winter, this would be a -0 limitation.

2) Nocturnal (-1/2) or diurnal (-1/2). Predictable, but you can't call on the beast for roughly half of any 24-hour period.

3) Sleeps after eating (varies) - a snake might sleep for days after eating. Other animals might sleep for an hour or more. I'd include killing and eating monsters or bad dudes in this...

 

Complications to add to the animal's template

Distinctive Features: Wild beast (-15/-20/-25 depending on how fearsome the beast is).

 

 

So my player wants a 300-point bear. It would cost her 60 points she doesn't have (having spent her allowance on being hot and being an expert tracker, woodswoman and archer).

 

But if she has to make an Animal Handling roll (at a -3 penalty, -1/4), and make gestures (-1/4) and incantations (-1/4) to control the bear, which has to be close enough to hear and see her (range 300m, -1/4) which hibernates for 4 months in winter (-1/4), the cost is now only 18 points. That she may be able to afford with a bit of point-juggling - or be willing to pay off with XP if I give her a chance to acquire the bear in-game.

 

Anybody have any other cool limitations which could work for animal companions?

[Christopher]

Re: Animal companions - reducing the cost

 

Regarding folowers I am partial to a combination of Required Roll (flat roll, no Skill roll) and Time Limit wiht variable Duration (6E1 347).

This works especially well for a "moody" bear.

 

Alternatively a bear could simply be beyond her normal abilities, so she needs a Focus to controll him. In essence you buy a the Follower as a Item, so it is free as with normal equipment (and the item is bound to thsi bear, if either is destroyed it is lost).

 

I am also uncertain why you would give a heroic (I asume 175-225 points) a 300 point animal. The animal companion/knave/follower should never be more powerfull than the PC and especially not by a 50% higher total points.

If the companion get's more powerfull than the hero, the player might end up playing a 300 point Bear with a DNCP.

[Barwickian]

Re: Animal companions - reducing the cost

 

Regarding folowers I am partial to a combination of Required Roll (flat roll, no Skill roll) and Time Limit wiht variable Duration (6E1 347).

This works especially well for a "moody" bear.

 

Oh, that's good. Yeah, I can see that working not just for moody animals, but animals that have to be given regular commands - think of a shepherd controlling a sheepdog.

 

An alternative might be Requires Concentration.

 

Alternatively a bear could simply be beyond her normal abilities, so she needs a Focus to controll him. In essence you buy a the Follower as a Item, so it is free as with normal equipment (and the item is bound to thsi bear, if either is destroyed it is lost).

 

I'd thought about that for some creatures, but as a limitation rather than a buy the animal as equipment. To control a camel you need a camel stick, etc.

 

But I couldn't think of a (mundane) reason why such is not part of the regular equipment for a regular animal. I mean, you don't take a limitation on a horse of Requires Saddle and Bridle. It's assumed (and you can, if you need to, ride and control one without - I can, or I used to be able to in my riding days).

 

I am also uncertain why you would give a heroic (I asume 175-225 points) a 300 point animal. The animal companion/knave/follower should never be more powerfull than the PC and especially not by a 50% higher total points.

If the companion get's more powerfull than the hero, the player might end up playing a 300 point Bear with a DNCP.

 

Because it fits the concept, it fits the source material and, with enough of the right limitations, it doesn't overshadow the PC. It becomes part of the PC's schtick.

[Christopher]

Re: Animal companions - reducing the cost

 

I'd thought about that for some creatures, but as a limitation rather than a buy the animal as equipment. To control a camel you need a camel stick, etc.

 

But I couldn't think of a (mundane) reason why such is not part of the regular equipment for a regular animal. I mean, you don't take a limitation on a horse of Requires Saddle and Bridle. It's assumed (and you can, if you need to, ride and control one without - I can, or I used to be able to in my riding days).

Is this world completely mundane, or is there magic?

[Barwickian]

Re: Animal companions - reducing the cost

 

No, there's magic - lots of it. It's the Turakian Age. Gamer-standard high fantasy.

 

But there's a difference between having a Wand of Controlling Bears and having a bear as a companion, both in build and in the concept.

[Christopher]

Re: Animal companions - reducing the cost

 

No, there's magic - lots of it. It's the Turakian Age. Gamer-standard high fantasy.

 

But there's a difference between having a Wand of Controlling Bears and having a bear as a companion, both in build and in the concept.

Not a "Wand of Controlling bears", a "Wand of controlling Snuffy, the bear".

It could also be that the wand somehow "empowers" the friendship between the two.

 

Two different, totally mundane reason:

Maybe the "Focus" is a teddybear. The character (or somebody who trusts the character to take care of the bear) raised the Bear from small on, using the teddy bear whenever feeding him. So the teddybear (or who has it) is his mother.

In the game Outcast there was a riding creatue called Two-Ha. Everyone could command it as long as he had the GUI for that Twon-Ha - wich was "a piece of leather soaked in thier mothers sweat". It was very specific for each Twon-Ha.

[L. Marcus]

Re: Animal companions - reducing the cost

 

You could consider giving the player a loan of character points towards the Follower -- say, fifteen points out of, say, thirty, that she has to pay back with, say, half or three-quarters of character points earned every session. An average of three points per session has the bear paid off in five sessions.

[NuSoardGraphite]

Re: Animal companions - reducing the cost

 

Some ideas:

 

Charges: Utilize Continuing charges. The animal will only appear a certain number of times per game session, and when it does, it only sticks around for a limited amount of time. This makes for a companion that is useful for combat or certain limited specializations (Presence attacks etc) but not much in the area of role playing. Appropriate for animal companions that come and go as they please and are not always present unless they are called.

 

Concentation: This limitation will create an animal companion that is hard to control. When the animal companion is nearby, the character must spend his/her time controlling the companion and can do little else in the meantime.

 

Extra Time: The animal companion normally keeps it's distance from the characters and his/her companions. Thus, when needed it usually takes a bit of time for the companion to come to the characters aid.

 

Gestures: the character must utilize gestures to give the animal companion commands. If the character is unable to gesture, then the animal companion will be confused and act according to its nature, not according to it's training.

 

Incantation: as gestures above, but requires vocal commands.

 

Limited Power: This creates an animal companion who is only available to you in certain circumstances. For example a Dolphin that is in the ocean. If the character is not in or near the ocean, the animal companion is simply unavailable and this limitation will apply. Can also apply to an animal that is available only during certain times. Nocturnal animals should gain this limitation if they only appear at night etc.

 

Side Effects: Perhaps the character is allergic to his animal companion. I know plenty of cat owners who are mildly allergic to cats! It happens. In this case, this limitation would be appropriate. Perhaps a mild Change Environment effect or Negative Skill Levels to represent reduced effectiveness (sneezing, watery eyes etc) when near the animal companion.

 

Can any one else come up with some more effects?

[Barwickian]

Re: Animal companions - reducing the cost

 

Not a "Wand of Controlling bears", a "Wand of controlling Snuffy, the bear".

It could also be that the wand somehow "empowers" the friendship between the two.

 

Two different, totally mundane reason:

Maybe the "Focus" is a teddybear. The character (or somebody who trusts the character to take care of the bear) raised the Bear from small on, using the teddy bear whenever feeding him. So the teddybear (or who has it) is his mother.

In the game Outcast there was a riding creatue called Two-Ha. Everyone could command it as long as he had the GUI for that Twon-Ha - wich was "a piece of leather soaked in thier mothers sweat". It was very specific for each Twon-Ha.

 

That's a very interesting idea. I think the first example I'd definitely still keep as a focus to the perq.

 

The second... maybe still a focus. We're falling into one of those grey areas there, where a power can be built different ways.

 

I really, really like the two-ha mother's sweat idea. Filed for later use.

[Hyper-Man]

Re: Animal companions - reducing the cost

 

Another option to help bridge the gap until the character can afford the full Follower cost might be Summon with appropriate limitations. Is there a limitation for Unique Being?

[Christopher]

Re: Animal companions - reducing the cost

 

Side Effects: Perhaps the character is allergic to his animal companion. I know plenty of cat owners who are mildly allergic to cats! It happens. In this case' date=' this limitation would be appropriate. Perhaps a mild Change Environment effect or Negative Skill Levels to represent reduced effectiveness (sneezing, watery eyes etc) when near the animal companion.[/quote']

Side Effect: Tends to play with owner.

And the definition of "plying" for a 400 pound grisly bear is not that save for humans.

 

I really' date=' really like the two-ha mother's sweat idea. Filed for later use. [/quote']

Thank Infrogames for that. If they hadn't gone bankrupt.

 

Another option to help bridge the gap until the character can afford the full Follower cost might be Summon with appropriate limitations. Is there a limitation for Unique Being?

Actually it's a Advantage. But I could see it beign a Limitation for a Animal (as long as he is a normal bear, not a modified/hand made one).

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: Animal companions - reducing the cost

 

So, basically, the player thinks that 60 points is just too much to pay to have a second character with 300 points of combat power? Perhaps the bear should begin smaller, maybe a partially grown cub, and the player should spend xp as it is earned to build up to a full 300 point bear. It is the player who is insistent on a huge, powerful follower. Why should the points not reflect the power level the character insists on?

 

Limitations? Sure - but they must limit the power. If you take an OAF, expect it to be taken away with some frequency. Continuing Charges will mean there will be times you need, but can't get, that follower. With the -1 1/4 of limitations you suggest, expect there to be issues where the bear will not be available or will not do as requested due to those limitations.

[Escafarc]

Re: Animal companions - reducing the cost

 

I use the Resource Point System for Followers. I could see using Side Effects( Reputation/Distinctive Feature and Social Comps.) as a Limitation on the Follower cost.

[Lucius]

Re: Animal companions - reducing the cost

 

I could have SWORN I already responded to this thread.

 

2) Gestures (-1/4) and Incantations (-1/4) to tell the beast what you want it to do.

3) Ranged (varies) if you have to be close to the beast to tell it what you want it to do.

4) Expendable focus (varies) if you must give the beast a treat like a bit of food or a medal (Muttley! Do something!) before it'll do what you want.

 

These strike me as kind of....munchkinny. I think it should be assumed that to be obeyed, an order must be given.

 

Complications to add to the animal's template

 

Consider a house rule that the player only pays for the Base Points, not the points covered by Complications.

 

So my player wants a 300-point bear. It would cost her 60 points she doesn't have (having spent her allowance on being hot and being an expert tracker, woodswoman and archer)....

 

Other options, some of which have already been mentioned:

 

Look into Summoning. The animal could be assumed to always be physically present, or nearby, but only making itself useful when the Summon Power is active.

 

Start with a cub, grow it with XP over time.

 

For a really cheap alternative, buy the bear as a Contact. This leaves it a Non Player Character who may be hanging around but mostly doing its own thing, perhaps even occasionally causing problems rather than solving them, but on balance more helpful than not.

 

For a totally free (and arguably munchkin) choice, make the bear a very useful Dependent Non Player Character for zero points. To justify this, you have to emphasize the problems of having a bear for a companion. How do horses respond to it for example?

 

Lucius Alexander

 

Did the palindromedary eat my first post?

[Barwickian]

Re: Animal companions - reducing the cost

 

So' date=' basically, the player thinks that 60 points is just too much to pay to have a second character with 300 points of combat power? [/quote']

 

Actually, no. The player is new to tabletop RPGs, never mind Hero System. She'd like her ranger PC to have an animal companion, and considers animals like hawks and wolves cheesy cliches. I'm not sure combat potency and point costs enter her thinking (it might; she is a former Warcraft guild leader, and she insisted her elf ranger be super-hot like Angelina - and in the first session has already twisted castle guards round her little finger by flashing them).

 

No, the person who thinks the costs for an animal companion can be very high is me, the GM. I have no problems applying limitations to reduce the availability of the beast, which should in turn bring the costs down. But those limitations will have an effect.

 

The party will not always be in wilderness areas - in fact, so far they've been based around a castle and got into one bandit fight. A bear can be a distinct hindrance in an urban setting. And if I use Christophe's suggestion of a Time Limit (say of one hour) then ordering the bear to "stay here" will only last for an hour while the party's in town. A few ales in the pub, and someone's likely to wander in complaining of a bear roaming around the peasants' gardens. What's she going to do if they stay in town overnight? Maybe she'll have to go and sleep in the woods with the bear, at which point she and the bear will likely find themselves facing an overnight encounter.

 

If I apply incantations and gestures, then at some point she'll find herself bound and gagged (or Entangled and sound Darknessed). If I apply my hibernation limitation, then I will arrange the campaign to be episodic and set some episodes in winter.

 

 

Perhaps the bear should begin smaller, maybe a partially grown cub, and the player should spend xp as it is earned to build up to a full 300 point bear. It is the player who is insistent on a huge, powerful follower. Why should the points not reflect the power level the character insists on?

 

That's something I hadn't thought of. I'll give her a bear-cub opportunity in game and see if she bites.

 

Limitations? Sure - but they must limit the power. If you take an OAF, expect it to be taken away with some frequency. Continuing Charges will mean there will be times you need, but can't get, that follower. With the -1 1/4 of limitations you suggest, expect there to be issues where the bear will not be available or will not do as requested due to those limitations.

 

Of course. This is not about simply making the bear cheaper to buy but keeping its full effect. A limitation that has no effect is a -0 limitation.

[Barwickian]

Re: Animal companions - reducing the cost

 

These strike me as kind of....munchkinny. I think it should be assumed that to be obeyed' date=' an order must be given.[/quote']

 

I'm not so sure. A character who's paid full points for a bear, with no limitations, might make a case that even bound and gagged she could mumble, point her fingers twitch her head or roll her eyes in the direction of something she wanted the bear to do (gnaw the ropes, attack the guard, etc).

 

A character who takes the limitations Incantations and Gestures is not only ruling out that possibility, no matter how creative she gets trying to justify how she can possibly give an order, but virtually ensuring it will happen at some stage.

 

And I will make sure the player is aware of that.

[Barwickian]

Re: Animal companions - reducing the cost

 

Multiple post. Move along, nothing to see here.

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: Animal companions - reducing the cost

 

Actually' date=' no. The player is new to tabletop RPGs, never mind Hero System. She'd like her ranger PC to have an animal companion, and considers animals like hawks and wolves cheesy cliches. I'm not sure combat potency and point costs enter her thinking (it might; she is a former Warcraft guild leader, and she insisted her elf ranger be super-hot like Angelina - and in the first session has already twisted castle guards round her little finger by flashing them).[/quote']

 

One of the first things many players learn about tabletop RPG's is that you can't be everything. So if you want to be a super-hot expert tracking archer, you may be unable to afford an animal companion, or you may have to tone down some of your starting abilities, be it the power of the animal companion or some other aspects of the character, and build them up as xp allows.

 

No' date=' the person who thinks the costs for an animal companion can be very high is me, the GM. I have no problems applying limitations to reduce the availability of the beast, which should in turn bring the costs down. But those limitations will have an effect.[/quote']

 

I have no fundamental disagreement with this approach. I do, however, wonder whether you would be as accommodating if the desired ability were, say, 0 END desolidification or a 4d6 HKA. There is a reason a 300 point follower costs 60 points, after all. The biggest balance issue I would be concerned with is ensuring the character is not overpowered with the bear or underpowered without it. Of course, encounters where the bear will be around can always be made tougher, but that seems like the points from the bear aren't really gaining anything.

 

The party will not always be in wilderness areas - in fact' date=' so far they've been based around a castle and got into one bandit fight. A bear can be a distinct hindrance in an urban setting. And if I use Christophe's suggestion of a Time Limit (say of one hour) then ordering the bear to "stay here" will only last for an hour while the party's in town. A few ales in the pub, and someone's likely to wander in complaining of a bear roaming around the peasants' gardens. What's she going to do if they stay in town overnight? Maybe she'll have to go and sleep in the woods with the bear, at which point she and the bear will likely find themselves facing an overnight encounter.[/quote']

 

So she'll get more spotlight time, and that will be the major hindrance? Or will she or the bear likely be seriously injured or even killed by this additional encounter, such that this is actually detrimental? [ASIDE: A wolf would have been OK, though?]

 

If I apply incantations and gestures' date=' then at some point she'll find herself bound and gagged (or Entangled and sound Darknessed). If I apply my hibernation limitation, then I will arrange the campaign to be episodic and set some episodes in winter.[/quote']

 

Here again, though, will winter encounters simply be weakened so the bear's absence isn't that much of a hindrance, or set at a level that the characters likely fail because the bear isn't there?

 

That's something I hadn't thought of. I'll give her a bear-cub opportunity in game and see if she bites.

 

The lower powered bear seems like the better approach. Since it sounds like other aspects of the character are fully fleshed out, dropping a few things a minor bit to buy the cub, getting those back with early xp and then focusing on growing the bear seems like a reasonable character plan.

[ghost-angel]

Re: Animal companions - reducing the cost

 

Another approach is a "payment method" to acquire the animal fully.

 

She needs 60 points, but maybe only has 10 right now, 1/6 of the cost. She gets the animal follower, but only a 16% chance it'll help her in a truly dangerous situation (7- on 3D6). In other words, it trusts her, they're friendly, but haven't worked up that true bond yet. You, as the GM, decide when to roll to have the animal-follower help her and if you want to modify it due to a successful Animal Handler Roll, and other factors, or not.

 

Until she's paid the full 60 points as time goes on, there's always a chance the follower doesn't help, follow, obey, or whatever. It could be the follower went off to hunt during that adventuring session and isn't around to help. When she's paid all 60 points they have, through time, role playing, etc, formed that Companion Bond common in fiction.

[bluesguy]

Re: Animal companions - reducing the cost

 

This sounds a lot like the character my daughter ended up building for the game I have been running. She wanted her character to be something like a cross between a Mongol/Native American (archery & horseback riding) and a druid. She also wanted to have an animal companion. There just were not enough points to build that character to start with. So she started out with a couple of basic spells, good CSL w/ a bow and an excellent riding skill. Over time she has bought an 'archery style martial art', learned to shot from her horse (no penalties and some fancy 'movie' style riding & shooting skills) and got an owl for a animal companion.

 

For the owl she started out with a juvenile owl. I basically lowered a number of stats and abilities from the standard owl write up. She has been adding points to the owl along the way. First the owl matured, then the owl got smarter, then she got a mind link with the owl, and she is saving up so she can see/hear what the owl hears. If she had tried to start out with the end result, she would still be saving points and be pretty dang frustrated.

[Barwickian]

Re: Animal companions - reducing the cost

 

OK, I'm getting the distinct impression that everyone else thinks using several limitations to reduce the cost of the bear is a Bad Idea. That's enough warning for me to reconsider.

 

Having checked up the various costs of bears in the bestiary, I find the brown bear is 153 points, not 300 as I misremembered. The cost for the companion at that level is therefore 30 points, not 60.

 

Eurasian browns are among the smaller brown bears, so I may reduce the stats and bring the cost down a little.

 

I really like the idea of raising a juvenile animal, starting with even lower stats and raisig them as time goes on. Blueguy's daughter sounds like she's been after a very similar character to my player. I still need to ask the player if she's OK with it.

 

While using multiple limitations of the kind I suggested has been well and truly frowned on, I still think requiring an Animal Handling roll would be appropriate as a sole limitation.

 

If I stat out an adult Eurasian brown at something around 130 points, that'd be 26 active points, real cost 17 points. I think that's achievable even if she rejects the juvenile idea (and since it might take several years for a juvenile to reach maturity, she might).

[Lucius]

Re: Animal companions - reducing the cost

 

Another idea: Buy the bear as a Contact, as I suggested, and be saving points to buy it as a Follower. Allow the Contact points to be 'folded into' the Follower cost when it's paid.

 

The bear doesn't start out less powerful, but starts out less "connected" to the character.

 

I can think of one Limitation to stack with the Skill Roll: Side Effects. Fail the roll, the bear still acts, but not the way you wanted....

 

Lucius Alexander

 

Animal Handler: Palindromedaries

[Christopher]

Re: Animal companions - reducing the cost

 

Another idea: Buy the bear as a Contact, as I suggested, and be saving points to buy it as a Follower. Allow the Contact points to be 'folded into' the Follower cost when it's paid.

 

The bear doesn't start out less powerful, but starts out less "connected" to the character.

 

I can think of one Limitation to stack with the Skill Roll: Side Effects. Fail the roll, the bear still acts, but not the way you wanted....

 

Lucius Alexander

 

Animal Handler: Palindromedaries

In the later case, the growth could be to buy of the Limitations - first Side effect, then the Skill Roll

[Barwickian]

Re: Animal companions - reducing the cost

 

Another idea: Buy the bear as a Contact' date=' as I suggested, and be saving points to buy it as a Follower. Allow the Contact points to be 'folded into' the Follower cost when it's paid. [/quote']

 

I can't really envisage a bear as a contact. It doesn't fit my mental picture of a contact - someone who may do you favours, or find you information or equipment.

 

Maybe I'm wrong. How do you see it as a contact?

[bluesguy]

Re: Animal companions - reducing the cost

 

I really like the idea of raising a juvenile animal' date=' starting with even lower stats and raisig them as time goes on. Blueguy's daughter sounds like she's been after a very similar character to my player. I still need to ask the player if she's OK with it. ... and since it might take several years for a juvenile to reach maturity, she might.[/quote']

 

So my daughter picked an owl and I figured it would mature pretty quickly because my daughter was willing to put points into the owl at a regular basis.

 

Having said that why does the bear have to take 'years' to mature? Couldn't the bear have a 'radiation accident' and grow up faster when the player has the points? Didn't I read you are running a high fantasy campaign, so a 'magic accident' should work.

 

As for the contact thing.. I don't get that one either. I understand having a sentient contact who becomes a follower over time. I just don't see how that works for an animal.

 

Although I just thought of a possible example. In the movie Dance's with Wolves, Dunbar encounters a wolf who eventually becomes a contact (8-). The wolf is a contact because on occasion the wolf provides useful hints (like when the Indians show up or when he distracts the soldiers). If the wolf had lived longer and Dunbar had stuck around longer maybe the wolf could have become a follower.

 

Personally I wouldn't have any limitations.