Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.
Enchanted Trinkets Complete--a hardcover book containing over 500 magic items for your D&D games!

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="steeldragons" data-source="post: 6702070" data-attributes="member: 92511">You did actually say [an animal companion] needs to be a part of the class, "even if optional", and I missed that in my read of your zealous advocacy of a beast companion. So, mea culpa. I apologize. I would still argue that it doesn't "need" to be part of the class. Not by a long shot. And citing, multiple times, "but in <video game>..." and other derivatives of D&D and saying "look see, they do this" does not make it a mandate for D&D to have to match those media/genre "versions" of what a D&D ranger was/is supposed to be.I would have no problem at all with it being a spell/ritual a la Find Steed or Familiar. There is, already, Animal Friendship in the ranger spell list. If that's what you want/"need", as with the druid, there ya go. Get an animal companion if you want. But for "beastmaster" advocates that doesn't seem to be obvious or enough? Why not?The issues for people with the existing beastmaster and any other words about/against it, is that people don't want an "animal companion." They want "Where's my extra DPR? My extra bag o' hit points/attack sponge? My ranger's 10th level now, why doesn't my wolf now have three times as many HP as any other wolf? Why can't it hit as hard as my swords? Where's my Gwynhwyfar!?" Because some drow had a Figurine of Wondrous power in some mediocre D&D novel once upon a time, the game been cursed for decades with "the animal companion is a part of the ranger."Then people played some poke-yugi-digi-cards and had a saber-toothed blue ice tiger "pet" in their MMO and so D&D just has to let my ranger have a beast. "It's so kewl [in this other not-D&D place]! It's definitive!" I find that ridiculous, that what came after gets to mandate/redefine what came before.But that's the world we live in. So, as long as it's optional. Have at it.I'm totally pro having people play what they want. I'm totally pro having them play HOW they want. I'm totally pro having multiple avenues to get to a similar character concept.Make it a feat? Sure. Make it a spell? Sure. Make it a set of "Having an animal companion [for the love of Lolth stop referring to them as "pets"]" mechanics/guidelines for any class? Great! The game should have had them already, afaic.Make it a subclass feature with FAIR mechanics? Sure! Which means, if you are getting something -like, say, a potential 3 additional attacks on your turn and separate HP pool/target that falls under "your character"- you have to give something -like, say, your action. That seems fair to me. But from the word go, there has been great woe and gnashing of teeth.I think we're all agreed on all of that.I am con saying "This other game does this. I like that. Ergo, D&D -the game, the official-for-everybody system- needs to be like that, let me do/have that, now." I am VERY opposed to that. Intended or not, a lot of what you are saying, to me, sounds like just that. 'Cuz WoW, cuz Diablo,...Jack and the Beanstalk? Really?Jack as a ranger, first of all...I've never understood why 2e included that. That's how desperate they were for an example that wasn't Aragorn/deal with the Tolkien estate, apparently. But his goose animal companion? C'mon. You know that was a stretch bordering on the comical, right? So, again, apologies for not recognizing your attitude/willingness for optional...<img src="http://www.enworld.org/forum/images/smilies/erm.png"  class="smilie" loading="lazy" alt=":erm:" title="Erm    :erm:" data-shortname=":erm:" />...options. But I am not really buying the defense/justifications for why/how it needs to be capable of or in the game in the first place [specifically, as a part of the ranger class]. But if/since it will be in the game, a spell or feat or general game element option for any class are all perfectly doable and fine by me.</blockquote>

Verification