Arena rules for allies

[ImperatorK]

I need an in-character justification for allowing allies that are class features (like animal companions, eidolons, mounts, familiars, etc) in arena matches, but not allies from spells, payed mercenaries, bought/trained animals/monsters, etc.

[snakeman830]

Familiars, eidolons, and paladin mounts are easy.  Eidolons are recognizable (usually), familiars are far more intelligent than normal critters, and paladin mounts get summoned.

Animal companions are trickier.

[ImperatorK]

Uhm, yeah, but what justification is there for allowing this creature, but not that creature?

[ketaro]

The special and/or magical bonds actually linking the two creatures to eachother (i.e. class features)

[linklord231]

Well, what is the in-character motivation for allowing certain minions but disallowing others?

[ImperatorK]

The special and/or magical bonds actually linking the two creatures to eachother (i.e. class features)

I guess that could work. I always interpreted Animal Companions to be something completely mundane, at least in the Ranger's case. But I see there could be some misticism involved. I can just handwave it as a diviner wizard working for the arena makes it sure that an ally is "part of the fighter", not just hired help.

Well, what is the in-character motivation for allowing certain minions but disallowing others?

The arena owners want to be fair and give a chance to everyone. It wouldn't be fair to deny someone his most important abilities.

[StreamOfTheSky]

Arena matches will never be fair.  They favor single target affecting stuff generally, give much greater importance to ability to play up a crowd w/ perform (weapon drill) than real life struggles of course (you do use that, right?), policy on use or banning of expendable items will favor some over others, and any amount of prep rounds for buffing or allowing to walk into the match pre-buffed will inherently help or disenfranchise one person or another (two rounds to buff does diddly squat for a Fighter, but a gish would love it).  Plus, any attempt to let primarily mage types battle primarily fighter types will inevitably end in tears and bitterness.

I'm of the opinion that pets and minions *shouldn't* be allowed in an arena match, unless both people have one and want them included.  Arena will never accommodate every build equally, and the reason you're having a hard time finding a good justification to allow one side to outnumber the other -- but only in these specific ways and certainly not by means of any of those ways! -- is because there is no such thing.  You're giving one side a blatant advantage in action economy, probably about double the actions of the other side.  It looks unfair because it is unfair.

[ImperatorK]

Arena matches will never be fair.

Perfect fairness doesn't exist and I never said that's what I'm going for. If you'll notice, I said it's an in-character thing, not a metagame thing.

They favor single target affecting stuff generally

Well, then you'd better have that if you want to win.

give much greater importance to ability to play up a crowd w/ perform (weapon drill) than real life struggles of course (you do use that, right?)

No, I don't. This isn't a spectacle. More like a tournament.

policy on use or banning of expendable items will favor some over others

If you rely on magic items too much, you're not really fit for arena combat.

and any amount of prep rounds for buffing or allowing to walk into the match pre-buffed will inherently help or disenfranchise one person or another (two rounds to buff does diddly squat for a Fighter, but a gish would love it)

There's no pre-buffing.

Plus, any attempt to let primarily mage types battle primarily fighter types will inevitably end in tears and bitterness.

I'm aware. I'm slowly working on it.

I'm of the opinion that pets and minions *shouldn't* be allowed in an arena match, unless both people have one and want them included.

And I'm of the opinion that if the guy without an ally wanted one, he should have gotten one. But he didn't. He choose a different path.

 

Arena will never accommodate every build equally, and the reason you're having a hard time finding a good justification to allow one side to outnumber the other -- but only in these specific ways and certainly not by means of any of those ways! -- is because there is no such thing.

Uhm, Ketaro already provided a good answer for my inquiry.

You're giving one side a blatant advantage in action economy, probably about double the actions of the other side.  It looks unfair because it is unfair.

Except that's not the type of fairness we are talking about.

This thread served it's purpose. Thanks to all of you for help.
Stream, if you want we can continue this friendly conversation, maybe it'll help me with my work on this arena game, but honestly I'm not that interested in arguing.

[Tonymitsu]

I seem to recall a line somewhere, at some point in history, that a familiar is created by a mage investing part of his soul into the creature, and that was the reason for the Constitution drain (in 2E at least) when it died, and why you had to wait so long to replace it.  Animal companions had similar rules.

Based on that you can argue that they are literally part of their master.

No idea about paladin mounts.  In 3E they are just celestial creatures that paladins call upon for aid.  They use similar rules as animal companions, but I don't think the mechanics are the same.