Dinosaurs as Animal Companions - Gamebreaker?

[Mallus]

Brining the wahoo is a playstyle preference. If the game one is playing isn't about dinos suddenly showing up and characters outdoing each other with their Kewl New Powerz, then Bob's character might not be a good fit.

Context again, RC. We're talking about 10th level characters. Even if we were talking about a 1st edition campaign, 10th level characters would be steeped in enough wahoo that dinosaurs would appear mundane.

He might be better off running a solo campaign for Bob, if Bob hasn't mastered the simple art of helping his fellow players create/run a game they enjoy playing.

It dawns on me that what we have is a philosophical difference. All my game-running strategies revolve around making it easier for people that want different things out the game to all game together. This is a practical position, seeing how it can be hard to find groups of really like-minded people.

 

[Drowbane]

It does seem like an odd reason to quit... sounds like there was more going on.

That said, the dinosaur does seem to be singularly optimal as an animal companion from a powergaming perspective. I have only seen one in play once (played by DrowBane, in a campaign we were both in, in fact) and it was extremely effective. I was a wizard in that campaign, but I might have felt rather useless had I been playing a fighter.

Ken

Ahh... Razorshard. He was a Clawfoot from the Eberron CS. All said and done, Razorshard *was* the party fighter (we had a gimp paladin and a semi-effective archer-ranger).

More recently (some months back) I was able to revisit Pesci & Razorshard... this time with Razorshard as a Fleshraker from M3. Huge power increase... and this time Pesci was high enough level to Wildshape into one as well. Its a good thing that party didn't have any dedicated fighter-types...

I've yet to use a Bloodstriker though.

 

[Raven Crowking]

Context again, RC. We're talking about 10th level characters. Even if we were talking about a 1st edition campaign, 10th level characters would be steeped in enough wahoo that dinosaurs would appear mundane.

Context again, Mallus. You mistake a preferred gamestyle for "what D&D is". Not everyone runs 10th level characters as "steeped in enough wahoo that dinosaurs would appear mundane". That is not what everyone wants from the game. Moreover, many people like "wahoo" that might make dinosaurs appear mundane, but still don't want dinosaurs (or drow, or orcs, or whatever).

I don't understand why it is that you cannot understand this.

RC

 

[Raven Crowking]

It dawns on me that what we have is a philosophical difference. All my game-running strategies revolve around making it easier for people that want different things out the game to all game together. This is a practical position, seeing how it can be hard to find groups of really like-minded people.

Then why is it that, given either Bob creates a different character, or Sarah quits because the game you are providing no longer supplies what she wants, you support Bob and think Sarah is a prick? Especially given that you had already undertaken running a game that provided Sarah what she wanted?

RC

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

I somehow have the feeling that (once again) a discussion fundamentals of different play styles. maybe that was appopriate to the topic, but somehow it seems to lead astray.

In the context of the game described, it appears as if only one specific player couldn't come to terms with a Dinosaur. The DM (= OP) nor the other players seem to be surprised by it or considered it something worth worrying about.

So in my view, what ever we can say on general terms on play styles, in this case there is definitely a mismatch in play styles between the group and the player in question.

 

[Mallus]

You don't even concede that a choice of animal companion might change playstyle by necessity?

Considering the level of the characters in question: no.

Again, if I am playing an Eskimos game and you demand to have a cheetah companion, I would say that forces a fundamental change in the game -- and throws out any form of serious playstyle.

The cheetah is a spirit animal from a distant, yet related pantheon which leads the Eskimo PC's on a quest to the far south where are ancient evil is rising unchecked.

See what I mean about choosing to expend effort making a concept work, rather than expending effort to negate it?

So, I can dress my character in +10 plate at 1st level in your world?

Having a little trouble distinguishing between mechanical advantages and aesthetics, I see.

Or do you have the right to tell me how to dress my character? It has no effect on your serious campaign if I consistently call my elf a Vulcan, dress him in a Starfleet uniform, and play him like Spock?

It's a question of degree. Dinosaurs are in the MM, and on the druid's summon lists. Vulcans aren't. As an aside, I created an entire religion in my homebrew to handle players that want to names themselves "Spock" and pretend their wands of magic missiles are phasers. Really, I think of everything.

And pardon me if I am wrong, but I thought that the character in question was riding the dino, not wearing it.

You not wrong, just painfully literal. Since a dinosaur mount doesn't represent a significant mechanical advantage to a 10th level PC, I was discussing it as if it were a fashion accessory, which, in fact, it kinda is.

First off, there is no evidence whatsoever that this was an innocuous choice in terms of the campaign world. It certainly wasn't for the player who quit.

Yes, but based on what we've be told, I think that guy's a prick.

Moreover, if you are playing in a campaign based around Pirates of the Carribean, and I decide to play a Warforged Ninja...

The setting for PotC is such a delerious mess, a clockwork Asian pirate-ninja would be appropriate... which oddly, kinda ties in with my point about dinosaurs being par for the course in high-level D&D.

 

[Rackhir]

You don't even concede that a choice of animal companion might change playstyle by necessity? Again, if I am playing an Eskimos game and you demand to have a cheetah companion, I would say that forces a fundamental change in the game -- and throws out any form of serious playstyle.

What about a cheetah is so inherently unreasonable for an Eskimo campaign? Aside from the fact that they don't live in the arctic in our world? Are you incapable of "filing off the serial numbers" a bit and giving the player a creature functionally identical to a cheetah, with slightly different flavor text? And if it looks like a cheetah, acts like a cheetah does calling it a cheetah, really piss in your cereal to the point where you can't enjoy the campaign?

So, I can dress my character in +10 plate at 1st level in your world? Or do you have the right to tell me how to dress my character? It has no effect on your serious campaign if I consistently call my elf a Vulcan, dress him in a Starfleet uniform, and play him like Spock?

+10 plate at first level is a balance and power issue. Not a flavor one. I can easily envision a campaign where the DM could deal with a first level character has an item like that. A really good DM can deal with almost anything.

As far as a vulcan in a starfleet uniform goes. Is that really that much more bizarre than a lot of fantasy outfits? The classic chain-mail bikini springs to mind.

I'd like to point out some of my favorite quotes.

"The difference between reality and fiction. Is that reality doesn't have to make sense."

In other words, if reality can pull stuff you wouldn't accept from fiction, why is it so unreasonable to have something that really isn't unreasonable?

"Not only is the universe stranger than we imagine. It is stranger than we can imagine."

And pardon me if I am wrong, but I thought that the character in question was riding the dino, not wearing it.

Hmmm, Dino armor riders. Sounds like an interesting campaign to me. Now if I could just find a decent set of rules for mecha.

Oh, I disagree. First off, there is no evidence whatsoever that this was an innocuous choice in terms of the campaign world. It certainly wasn't for the player who quit. Moreover, if you are playing in a campaign based around Pirates of the Carribean, and I decide to play a Warforged Ninja, you can be certain that my character choice (unless curtailed by a DM who is doing his job) is going to have a huge impact on how you can define and play your PCs.

There's a fundamental difference between explicitly excluding something that violates the precepts of a setting and including something that isn't explicitly forbidden. In a pirates of the Carribean setting, obviously if you are using a real world setting, throwing in something like a warforged that wasn't present in that real world setting at all and is fundamentally impossible in that setting violates it. However, you could quite easily justify having a ninja in a pirates setting. There might not have been any in reality, but contact with Japan had been established centuries before PotC and there's no real reason why a Ninja couldn't show up.

I can guarantee it. And if you run a play-by-post, I can prove it.

I doubt either of us really wants to inflict a game we'd want to play in on the other.

(1) No setting is "default D&D" past the first few sessions. All settings move from the general to the specific. Thus, at 1st level, the setting rules might not be established; by 10th level the players have a right to feel they know at least a strong overview of how the natural world around them works.

(2) The players must understand enough of the world in order to envision it and to be able to make rational choices about what they can expect. The more the world diverges from the one we know, the more information the DM must make available. Otherwise, the DM risks the players suddenly feeling as though they cannot make ration decisions about the world; they cannot trust the DM not to suddenly include other (to them) bizarre elements that make their plans/choices moot (as well as potentially destroying player immersion).

So you want a fantasy world where everything is inscribed in stone and every detail is determined by 10th level? How does the presence of dinosaurs SOMEWHERE in the world prevent you from making rational choices or planning your actions. They don't do anything game breaking. They don't alter the laws of reality. They're just (potentially) large creatures.

(3) The more a creature would affect the local area, the more its inclusion should be telegraphed.

(4) At least one player suddenly discovered that he didn't understand the natural world in that campaign, and misunderstood it enough to be a game-breaker for him.

(5) Therefore, it is my conclusion that the DM failed to properly communicate what was possible in the campaign world. Certainly, at least one player didn't know that "dinosaur-riding druid" was a PC option that he could use.

Except that at no point did the druid insist on having just picked up the dino from around the corner at "George's used Dino Emporium". He's a 10th lvl druid from potentially ANYWHERE in the world, who could have gotten the Dino ANYWHERE in the world. Are you really incapable of imagining a way that a 10th lvl druid couldn't have gotten a dino animal companion from SOMEWHERE in the world?

Nowhere in the post was there an indication that the DM excluded this dino option for the other players. It simply wasn't one that anyone else had thought of. Does this have to preclude anyone from using something?

 

[Brother MacLaren]

Dinosaurs are in the MM, and on the druid's summon lists.

Maybe it's because I've played a druid that I am failing to grasp this argument. I recall emailing the DM to ask what animals I might be able to find as a companion, what forms I had knowledge of for Wildshape, and what creatures I could summon from the list (as well as what I knew about their abilities). It wouldn't seem right to me for my druid, if he had never seen nor heard of a rhino, to call upon the spirit of such a creature. Viewing my PC as part of a setting, and not just part of a game system, is very important to me.

You are setting up a strawman argument that has nothing to do with the OP.

Since you have repeatedly misinterpreted my argument, perhaps it is my fault for presenting it poorly. Here is the same sentiment in different words:

"I don't know how clearly-defined your world was, and how much the players' conception of it should have been shaken by the introduction of a tame dinosaur. But EVEN IF your setting was so clearly defined that a tame dinosaur would be seen as incredibly strange -- as in this example -- it need not be a deal-breaker for an immersed player who is finding his immersion ruined. The key is how you handle this introduction (assuming that it's really the breaking of immersion that is troubling your player).

What I would encourage you to do is to engage him with in-game acknowledgments of just how exotic and unusual this creature is. And have an in-game explanation for how it came to be. Have NPCs react to the strangeness. This approach will not keep all such players happy, but it might work, and is better than offering no in-game explanation or no reaction to the strangeness. I would advise you against the argument that so-and-so is allowed by the rules; 'game rules' and 'world rules' are different things."

Is that better?

 

[Mallus]

Then why is it that, given either Bob creates a different character, or Sarah quits because the game you are providing no longer supplies what she wants, you support Bob and think Sarah is a prick? Especially given that you had already undertaken running a game that provided Sarah what she wanted?

Because Sarah's rights end were Bob's begin. You have the right to enjoy the game in the manner of your choosing, up until the point your start telling other players what they can and cannot do. Sarah has no right to demand that Bob's character conform to her wishes. If she needs to control other people's choices in order to enjoy the game herself... well, then it's sayonara, Sarah.

It's the J.S. Mill approach to D&D. Wait, I said that already...

 

[Mallus]

I doubt either of us really wants to inflict a game we'd want to play in on the other.

My World of CITY would make RC cry. To be fair, what he'd do to/in it would probably make me cry...