One of my players wants to take almost every beast he sees, tame it, and keep them as pets. How would you go about this? Would you allow, say a displacer beast, to be tamed? any checks? is it possible at all?
I would say it depends on the creature. How intelligent is it? Alignment if any? Natural aggression or compliance? Animal handling check - or are they going to do combat and then nurse it back to health so it bonds with them? It's one thing to subdue it, it needs to bond to you so it recognises you as its pack, and then you have to train it sufficiently to be a pet. Subduing is easy - combat or a check. The rest is downtime activity - several weeks to months depending on the animal and what it's being trained for. Sending an animal into combat is an action (unless the ranger has it as a bonus action, IIRC), if they want to do that.
I'd allow it, if they can subdue the creature and use downtime to train it. And none of the other PCs have allergies.
I'll also add to it that I think any creature that has an alignment (read: isn't listed as unaligned) should be trickier to get to obey because they have a specific sort of hierarchy built into their behavior as a result of their alignment - like a displacer beast, being lawful evil, is going to expect strict and vicious (tyrannical) rule and would likely not accept anyone not brutally forcing it to stay in line and obey as anything other than food.
I'd also highlight that this is a thing which takes significant amounts of time (if not using magical short cuts), and has a much lower success rate if you aren't starting with a creature that is still young - an adult bear you come across isn't going to not act like a wild bear just because you toss a piece of fish to it and talk in friendly tones.
1) real life is replete with examples of supposedly tamed animals suddenly going berserk and killing/mauling their owners/trainers/etc. Heck, there's always the odd story of dogs doing this. There should always be the possibility that a really bad roll will result in the tragic end of the animal-PC relationship. 2) significant amounts of time = months and years, without the aid of magics and suspension of disbelief
Displacer beasts are quite the curious example, because they are, in fact, "domesticated" by the fae and bred into super-predators. They're literally born to hunt and kill for pleasure even as they obey their owners. If anything was possible to tame, it would be these guys, simply because they've already been domesticated as a speicies. But very likely they wouldn't get along with any others - displacer beasts kill for pleasure, so likely they'd kill every other beast that's being kept as a pet.
Which brings up a very good point that I think needs to be addressed if a character tries this. We're talking generally wild animals. Even if you socialize them to be around people, they tend to have instincts that say, nah, that person over there looks like lunch. Many wild critters are friendly with people if they offer food, avoid offering themselves during meal time, and are non threatening. But that's not to say that such drowns out their instincts. If hungry, they will hunt. If adjusted to humanoids, they will also hunt humanoids as food. Don't expect patience or them to fit your schedule. Especially an adventurer's schedule of wandering around - animals tend to want to be around food sources, and avoid unnecessary fights.
The Lion and the Lamb will indeed lie down together... if the lion isn't hungry. If it is? All bets are off. If the lion was a displacer beast? The lamb would be dead, period.
I'll also add to it that I think any creature that has an alignment (read: isn't listed as unaligned) should be trickier to get to obey because they have a specific sort of hierarchy built into their behavior as a result of their alignment - like a displacer beast, being lawful evil, is going to expect strict and vicious (tyrannical) rule and would likely not accept anyone not brutally forcing it to stay in line and obey as anything other than food.
With all due respect, why would displacer beasts expect tyrannical rule just because they're LE? Alignment is supposed to reflect the personality of the creature, not what the creature expects out of its owner. Especially in the case of coeurl here- they're kind of living on their own after the whole Summer Court driving them off, no? Why would there be any expectation?
With all due respect, why would displacer beasts expect tyrannical rule just because they're LE? Alignment is supposed to reflect the personality of the creature, not what the creature expects out of its owner.
Because it would, as it's alignment shapes it's personality, rule it's pack in a particular way - so it in turn must be ruled in that way or it won't submit and be the ruled rather than the ruler.
There's some guidance about raising monsters as pets found in the Tomb of Annihilation adventure:
The kamadans fight tooth and claw to protect their three young cubs. Kamadan cubs are noncombatants that look like baby leopards and grow to adult sizewithin a year. The cubs' snakes won't sprout from their shoulders for another 6 months. Characters can capture the cubs and spend months trying to domesticate them, but the kamadans turn on their would-be masters once they reach adulthood in a year.
I'm pretty sure there's something about trying to tame a Giant Strider if the players manage to subdue one and want to use it as a mount. Basically it will be very temperamental and prone to causing trouble and spitting fire at things that are not Fire Newts no matter how well the players try to train it.
There's also options for training winged snakes and winged monkeys, but they are weak enough monsters to not really offer too much of a statistical advantage to players.
Basically, the smarter and more evil the monster, the more likely it will betray them no matter how friendly the players are trying to be with it.
Because it would, as it's alignment shapes it's personality, rule it's pack in a particular way - so it in turn must be ruled in that way or it won't submit and be the ruled rather than the ruler.
Not really? I mean, that's like saying that... lets go with the corrupt human noble as an example. Our noble is lawful evil, and takes advantage of their territory to grow rich and powerful. But the noble's pack (ie family) isn't the subject of that behavior. Instead, they're generally loved, showered with gifts, and often taught to look down on their serfs together as a family. An evil, decadent family, perhaps, but they do care for each other and don't mistreat each other. Evil people generally don't act evil towards their friends and family.
A displacer beast's pride could very well be similar. They're still a functional family group that, as a whole, are evil. Alignments are extremely broad strokes, not very good at detailing individual relationships.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
One of my players wants to take almost every beast he sees, tame it, and keep them as pets. How would you go about this? Would you allow, say a displacer beast, to be tamed? any checks? is it possible at all?
I would say it depends on the creature. How intelligent is it? Alignment if any? Natural aggression or compliance? Animal handling check - or are they going to do combat and then nurse it back to health so it bonds with them? It's one thing to subdue it, it needs to bond to you so it recognises you as its pack, and then you have to train it sufficiently to be a pet. Subduing is easy - combat or a check. The rest is downtime activity - several weeks to months depending on the animal and what it's being trained for. Sending an animal into combat is an action (unless the ranger has it as a bonus action, IIRC), if they want to do that.
I'd allow it, if they can subdue the creature and use downtime to train it. And none of the other PCs have allergies.
I'll second what Barbarulo has said.
I'll also add to it that I think any creature that has an alignment (read: isn't listed as unaligned) should be trickier to get to obey because they have a specific sort of hierarchy built into their behavior as a result of their alignment - like a displacer beast, being lawful evil, is going to expect strict and vicious (tyrannical) rule and would likely not accept anyone not brutally forcing it to stay in line and obey as anything other than food.
I'd also highlight that this is a thing which takes significant amounts of time (if not using magical short cuts), and has a much lower success rate if you aren't starting with a creature that is still young - an adult bear you come across isn't going to not act like a wild bear just because you toss a piece of fish to it and talk in friendly tones.
In addition to the great advice above,
1) real life is replete with examples of supposedly tamed animals suddenly going berserk and killing/mauling their owners/trainers/etc. Heck, there's always the odd story of dogs doing this. There should always be the possibility that a really bad roll will result in the tragic end of the animal-PC relationship.
2) significant amounts of time = months and years, without the aid of magics and suspension of disbelief
Displacer beasts are quite the curious example, because they are, in fact, "domesticated" by the fae and bred into super-predators. They're literally born to hunt and kill for pleasure even as they obey their owners. If anything was possible to tame, it would be these guys, simply because they've already been domesticated as a speicies. But very likely they wouldn't get along with any others - displacer beasts kill for pleasure, so likely they'd kill every other beast that's being kept as a pet.
Which brings up a very good point that I think needs to be addressed if a character tries this. We're talking generally wild animals. Even if you socialize them to be around people, they tend to have instincts that say, nah, that person over there looks like lunch. Many wild critters are friendly with people if they offer food, avoid offering themselves during meal time, and are non threatening. But that's not to say that such drowns out their instincts. If hungry, they will hunt. If adjusted to humanoids, they will also hunt humanoids as food. Don't expect patience or them to fit your schedule. Especially an adventurer's schedule of wandering around - animals tend to want to be around food sources, and avoid unnecessary fights.
The Lion and the Lamb will indeed lie down together... if the lion isn't hungry. If it is? All bets are off. If the lion was a displacer beast? The lamb would be dead, period.
There's some guidance about raising monsters as pets found in the Tomb of Annihilation adventure:
I'm pretty sure there's something about trying to tame a Giant Strider if the players manage to subdue one and want to use it as a mount. Basically it will be very temperamental and prone to causing trouble and spitting fire at things that are not Fire Newts no matter how well the players try to train it.
There's also options for training winged snakes and winged monkeys, but they are weak enough monsters to not really offer too much of a statistical advantage to players.
Basically, the smarter and more evil the monster, the more likely it will betray them no matter how friendly the players are trying to be with it.