Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.
Rocket your D&D 5E and Level Up: Advanced 5E games into space! Alpha Star Magazine Is Launching... Right Now!

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Lord Pendragon" data-source="post: 1691555" data-attributes="member: 707">It's never a good idea to balance a mechanical benefit with a roleplaying penalty.They imply nothing of the sort.  My point is that you cannot ignore the combat capability of an animal companion, for roleplaying purposes.  Roleplaying is not a valid justification for a huge mechanical combat advantage.Absolutely. I do this by not approving a non-core feat to allow an extra animal companion.I would never pull this kind of stunt as a DM, because the next line out of the player's mouth would be:"Wait a second, I have a +14 in Knowledge (Nature), Search (with the Tracking feat), Handle Animal, and Survival.  I just rolled a 20, and you're telling me I can't find a wolf in the forest?"Ugh.  Be aware of an option's consequences and either allow it into your game, or disallow it.  But don't use heavy-handed DM chicanery to rein in an ability that never should have made it into the game in the first place.But back to the topic at hand, Psimancer I think you're making the right decision.  If in six months or so, after you've gotten some experience with an animal companion under your belt, you still want to allow an extra companion, go for it.  At least at that point you'll know what you're giving the player, and have a good idea of what you'll have to give to all your other players to balance it. <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":)" title="Smile    :)"  data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" /></blockquote>

Verification