Giving an Player Control over an NPC Token

[Mytherus]

Good Afternoon. So I've read before that in Fantasy Grounds , in the 5e ruleset, if the DM takes an NPC token from the CT, drags it over and then drops it on a player's portrait -- that player should then be able to control the token of that NPC. Is this accurate? If it is, its not working for me.

Here's my actual scenario from my Rime of the Frostmaiden campaign... one of my players has , acquired an owlbear as her pet of sorts. So I want to give said player control over the creatures token so I don't have to move it around for her each time. In fact I'd like for her to be able to do the attacks for the owlbear if possible as well (but I don't know if I'm stretching beyond the capabilities of FGU or not with that one, I'd settle for her having token control for now).

Another player in the same game reminded me of what I wrote above (dropping the npc token on the player portrait) but as stated I did this and nothing happens at all. The "owlbear player" still says she has no control over it.

Am I missing something? What is the PROPER way for a DM in a 5e game to grant control of an NPC to a specific player?

Secondary question -- and should I finally accomplish this is it set "forever" or only for that session, so each time I reload fantasy grounds I'd have to re-set it for the player to have control of the NPC?

Thank you,

Tom (Mytherus)

[LordEntrails]

"Party Vision & Movement"
You either need to turn on the option which effects all friendly tokens, or you have to right mouse over the owlbear token and add it individually. That token will then be moveable by all players, and the vision will be visible to all players. If you don't want that, then you need to create a PC for the owlbear and have the player own it.

[Mytherus]

Thank you for the fast reply.

[RustyInRT]

or you have to right mouse over the owlbear token and add it individually.

Is this still true? I can't find a way to give my players control of an NPC other than turning on "Party Vision and Movement" and that just seems contrary to the whole concept of LOS. Yes, theoretically a party member in another room could shout to his group to tell them what he see's, but... And right clicking on a token to add or remove that token from party vision when Party Vision & Movement is turned on doesn't seem to have any affect at all. What am I doing wrong? Is allowing every party member to see what every other party member sees really the only way to give a PC control of an NPC?

[Laerun]

Yes, that is right, it is still a thing. I believe there is not a way currently to isolate each actor in the combat tracker and to the maps. It is sort of like it can mainly be "on" or "off", and not much of any way to do so in between. Perhaps they will soon have an answer for this. This was not an issue in FG Classic because we did not have LoS back then. Early on with Unity, this was not even possible to have control over an NPC during beta if I recall. I have resigned & designated myself to control ALL of the NPCs myself as the gamemaster. At least this way, the NPC is not going to just become another extension of the character. I sometimes make homebrew will-checks or a check roll for the NPC's, and I sometimes challenge the player's wishes based on the NPC type, and I do this if the option is being abused or neglected, even as inconvenient as it might be for myself. Having two characters is not optimal for a player in most cases, but I do realize edge-cases and for when people do not show up. Again, I end up playing the missing PC as best I can. I try to run most of the game myself, I do not usually let FGU or my players run it for me. I figure that most players have enough on their hands than trying to run multiple pets, NPCs, and characters. It is all subjective to how much work you want to do and the style of GM that one is. Adding more confusion, extensions, and player tracking is okay in some cases, but not at the expense of adding too much complexity or more reliance on additional PC-facing things. I imagine that most other rulesets do not even touch this topic too much except for the more core-based systems that are akin to DnD. I also added a token vision off and on to the shortcut keys to toggle the party vision and movement so that it is done on a case-by-case basis, and not for the entire game.

[RustyInRT]

Thanks for the reply, Laerun. It’s disappointing but at least I know I haven’t been overlooking something. And I hope this issue will be addressed soon.

I understand you’re reasoning for not wishing the players to have too much control of too many NPCs but that’s really a feature (bug?) of 5e. And if they don’t have the hassle of keeping up with all their pets and familiars, there is nothing to discourage them from just piling an ever increasing load on the shoulders of the dm. But like I said, I understand what you’re saying. In my case, my group’s Paladin has cast find steed and it just seems ridiculous that I have to control his mount for him, particularly considering their instinctive bond and telepathic link.

That said, can you point me to a link or video that explains how to convert say, a celestial elk, into a PC?

[LordEntrails]

There are extensions that give other ways to control NPC for companions, summons, familiars etc. I don't use any so can't point you to them.

[Valyar]

For D&D 5e the extension is called Friend Zone: https://www.fantasygrounds.com/forums/showthread.php?70026-5E-Friend-Zone

[Zacchaeus]

Is this still true? I can't find a way to give my players control of an NPC other than turning on "Party Vision and Movement" and that just seems contrary to the whole concept of LOS. Yes, theoretically a party member in another room could shout to his group to tell them what he see's, but... And right clicking on a token to add or remove that token from party vision when Party Vision & Movement is turned on doesn't seem to have any affect at all. What am I doing wrong? Is allowing every party member to see what every other party member sees really the only way to give a PC control of an NPC?

The reason why this is still a thing is that the player does not own the NPC - the DM does. So certain aspects of the control of the NPC lies with the DM and not the player. Hence the need to turn party vision on to allow the player to move the token which otherwise needs to be done by the owner of the token i.e. the DM.

[RustyInRT]

For D&D 5e the extension is called Friend Zone: https://www.fantasygrounds.com/forums/showthread.php?70026-5E-Friend-Zone

Thanks for the link. I've picked it up and will see how it works for my Paladin tonight

It's curious to me that something of this sort isn't included in the ruleset when obvious examples of its practicality are abundant. Having found more than one extension in the Forge that allows players NPC control tells me that the coding must not be that difficult. I may be wrong, but the responses I have received makes me think it is a design choice to exclude such a utility. As the DM I prefer to have the option to switch such a utility off or on. I understand that NPC stands for NONplayer character, but to be told that "we don't think the ruleset should allow this" rather than "the ruleset as built can't allow this" is a little galling.

[LordEntrails]

Just because something can be coded doesn't mean it should be built into the core code. Options are great, but the more options and features you have, the more difficult it is to up date the code and add more features. More options require more testing, and introduce more bugs. And at some point, options get lost/ignored by most users. (I support an application that has many thousands of user options, even people on my support team are often ignorant that a given option even exists.)

Also, think of it this way, if these functions/options that are available in the Forge are included in Core code, then those community devs who created the extension to support the FG community are under cut / rug pulled out from under them if they consider any income from that extension important to them. There are at least several individuals who actually make their living supporting FG extensions and modules. They have helped FG grow, and have turned it into a living. Pulling that living out from them might be seen to be not very nice.

In short, there are lots of possibilities why it might not be the right thing to do. But SmiteWorks has provided the Forge so it is easier for the community to get these types of capabilities.

[RustyInRT]

I understand. Its a design decision. Not one that I agree with, but I understand. A mere difference of opinion of no consequence, I remain a FG devotee.

But I would suggest we leave it at differing opinions on what to include. At least until a better explanation of such design decisions can be advanced other than the specious rationalizations of: a) "We would rather not give you too many options." Because the option is already there, just with the proviso that every player can control, and see through the eyes of, every other player. And b) "We want to leave something for the Forge developers to do." I believe the Forge is the second-best thing Smiteworks has done for the community, surpassed only by the development of Unity. But that's all I'll say on that subject.

As I said, I remain a loyal Fantasy Grounds user and supporter.

Keep up the good work. My players and I appreciate it.

[LordEntrails]

Just to make sure you know, I don't work for or speak for SmiteWorks. Just passing on my interpretation of what SW has said in the past on similar issues and the type of thought process that may be part of their decision making processes around these types of issues.

[RustyInRT]

Thank you, I did not know that. I have no knowledge of who does or does not work for SW.

So, to clarify, you're just running interference for SW, and have no insight into their design decisions other than your interpretations of their previous statements regarding similar issues and what you presume they might be thinking. That would account for the specious explanations.

Thank you for your input.

[LordEntrails]

Everyone/Anyone who actually works for SmiteWorks will actually have a title under their forum name indicating they are a SmiteWorks employee.

Interference? That is one way to look at it. I consider it help. Myself and some others have the Immortal and/or Moderator title because SW has found us over te years to be helpful to the community and to help keep the forums in open, friendly and helpful place it has been for decades. Not to speak for them or to run interference for them.

If you would like a response to a question directly/only from SmiteWorks, then you will need to ask via their support system linked at the top of the website under Help Contact Support. That is always the best channel for "official" answers. Asking on the community forums will usually get a community member response, which for most issues we can help each other out and reduce the support load on SW themselves, which leaves them more time to spend on development.

[RustyInRT]

Apologies for my presumption and naivete.

Whether you know it or not, when you respond to a forum post, you speak with the weight of SW. That's the point of the Immortal title, right? Perhaps a qualifier in your posts would be appropriate.

I replied to a forum post and you attempted to shut me down with a quasi explanation of why SW wouldn't consider my request reasonable/practical. Or, at best, an answer was unneeded.

I did not request an "official" answer. I posted a query on the forums. You chose to answer, I presumed, on behalf of SW and I held you to that. My mistake.

[LordEntrails]

No need to apologize and I understand why you made the assumptions you did I'm just not sure the best way to prevent such. I will certainly consider adding something to my signature to help prevent this. I know myself and other's try to be clear we do not speak for SmiteWorks when it appears that someone is making that assumption.

I'm sorry you felt like I was trying to shut you down, never my intention. My intention was to provide a view point that might help to explain why just adding the feature you suggested might not make business sense to do. i.e. to provide more information so you might see the issue from other perspectives. Not that any one perspective is the right one.

I don't think it was mentioned before and perhaps you are already aware, but their is also the Wish List https://fgapp.idea.informer.com/ that SW asks us to post feature enhancements/requests on. It's a good place to put any feature requests because they do not get lost as threads age and it allows everyone to vote on the ideas they find most valuable. Anyone is able to add and vote on ideas there.

[scotw1t]

In fact I'd like for her to be able to do the attacks for the owlbear if possible as well (but I don't know if I'm stretching beyond the capabilities of FGU or not with that one, I'd settle for her having token control for now).

Maybe you figured this out already since this was posted last year, but you can give NPC control to your players (token control is another thing altogether that I still haven't mastered, but this thread helps).

Here's my method for giving NPC control, which works in any game set I've played, not just 5e:
1) Put the NPC in the combat tracker
2) Drag the button that opens the NPC's character sheet from the combat tracker to your PC's portrait.

The player can now see the NPC's character sheet and should be able to interact with it to make rolls. The rolls will even show up in the chat box as the NPC doing the action and not the PC.

Recommend instructing your player to save the NPC's character sheet in a hotkey so they can easily access it if they accidentally close it.

[Zacchaeus]

Maybe you figured this out already since this was posted last year, but you can give NPC control to your players (token control is another thing altogether that I still haven't mastered, but this thread helps).

Here's my method for giving NPC control, which works in any game set I've played, not just 5e:
1) Put the NPC in the combat tracker
2) Drag the button that opens the NPC's character sheet from the combat tracker to your PC's portrait.

The player can now see the NPC's character sheet and should be able to interact with it to make rolls. The rolls will even show up in the chat box as the NPC doing the action and not the PC.

Recommend instructing your player to save the NPC's character sheet in a hotkey so they can easily access it if they accidentally close it.

The OP and others who posted know this; the original question was how could the player also move the NPC token as well as make attacks etc. Hence the answer in the second post to switch on Party Movement and Vision to make this happen. The following posts were all about why the ability of players to move NPC tokens hadn't been written into the ruleset.