Now and then, players in my games will decide that they'd like to capture animals (such as drakes) or simple constructs (such as iron defenders) and put them to use as allies. With players being allowed to knock out enemies easily, rather than kill them, taking such monsters alive is plausible, so I don't think there's a good rule basis for just saying "No," and anyway I prefer to try to say "Yes" to things like this.

However, I don't think the game is designed to handle the PCs having extra allies at their side. I think most standard monster encounters would tip pretty far over to the players' advantage, especially if their inventiveness extended to using the monsters in creative ways.

So, without saying "No" and without making the process so difficult and the benefit so minor as to discourage the players, how would you handle something like this?

Turning something with a Hostile demeanor into a Friendly demeanor is hard. A single Nature or Diplomacy check doesn't do it. So, while it can be easy to capture a foe, keeping them from escaping while you teach them the magic of friendship (or training the animal or reprogramming the construct)  should be a long-term challenge instead of a roll or three.

If the players are willing to put forth that effort, then reward them with that psuedo-quest they are asking for and make the NPC one with a personality, its own goals, and its own set of resources/contacts that the PCs can ask them to tap on their behalf. Don't just let them be a background dressing that the players throw into traps or combat to soak damage.

I generally agree, though it's easy to see that as me essentially negating the idea, by making it too hard to bother with.


That sounds like a good idea for an intelligent creature, but less easily for something like a drake or construct, which might already have been "domesticated" and, once trained, wouldn't be any more likely to turn on or run from the PCs than they were from any previous owner.

In reply to engine (msg # 3):

*Shrug* If the effort and time required to get to know a potential ally (firmer enemy or not) feels like more trouble to the players than that ally is worth, then maybe it just is. Maybe that is fine. Role-playing can be full of tough choices about how to utilize your time, both in-game and out.

What my brother and I have done when "allies" are recruited is offer that, to prevent combat from slowing down, (since every new unit in initiative makes a longer combat) roleplay out the new ally's turn instead of doing it mechanically. This does two things:

1) it takes the mechanics out of the equation.

2) prevents loss of experience. Remember that every new ally means the xp gets split up even more.

Alternatively (or additionally), you can just add more enemies in future encounters. :)

I'm not sure that rule really exists in 4th Edition. PC allies get a share of the experience, but NPC and monster allies might not, simply because the rules don't really address that.

But, now that you mention it, that does seem like a fair way to handle it. I could say that I would subtract the experience value of a monster ally from the experience gained in an encounter, on the basic assumption that a monster on one side cancels out a monster on the other side. Obviously, it's not that simple, but a reduction would seem reasonable.


I don't like doing that in general, because it feels like simply negating an advantage they created for themselves. But, if I followed your advice and reduced their experience reward, they might seek out tougher encounters themselves, in order not to slow their advancement. Good thought.

I thought of another thing, but I'll put it in a different post.

All fair points! :) I look forward to seeing your other thought.

In reply to Timothius (msg # 7):

What I was thinking was that they essentially be given a bonus, embodied in an NPC or creature.

For instance, for the group that wanted to capture iron defenders, once they'd "reprogrammed" the creatures, I'd give a defensive bonus to the creature they were "attuned to," something like a +2 to all defenses against melee attacks, as long as the PC is adjacent to the creature. That "simulates" the defensive nature of the construct, without giving them an entire extra member of their party.

For the spitter drakes, I thought I would give a bonus of 2 acid damage on any ranged attack made while adjacent to the drake, to simulate the drakes being trained to attack their masters' targets. It's a relatively small boost, but with a lot of potential if a target is vulnerable to acid.

The creatures would still have defenses and maybe even their full HP, but could still be attacked, and wouldn't have more than a single healing surge. They could be given minor tasks, but wouldn't have much ability to operate independently.