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="Driddle" data-source="post: 1692935" data-attributes="member: 3447">Oh, give me a break. You're using the rules as a crutch for common sense -- you just don't realize it.There is no "imbalance" unless the GM allows a situation to become imbalanced. Even without writing down the pros and cons on paper, it's apparent that the multiple-companion PC is going to have a *potential* combat advantage over his partners ... but ONLY IF he actually brings all his animals into combat at the same time and ONLY IF the gamemaster allows it.The simplest solution is to say, "Sure, you can have another animal companion (by expending a feat). But it would be a little unfair to game balance if you used both of them in combat all the time. So if you're going to have a second companion, you've got to hold him back out of the scene somehow. ... I'll let him come in at the last minute if the first animal is killed in action, but that's about as far as we can stretch it." Alternately, you could explain, "I hope you realize that if you're going to bring multiple animal companions into combat, I'm going to have to take those challenge levels up a notch, too."(re-shrug) Which is pretty much what you're suggesting, I think, but without all official rules jargon.The GM can tweak anything he bloody well wants to tweak behind his screen without justifying it to the players. So if the scenario needs another zombie to keep the druid's wolf busy ... well, make it happen.</blockquote>

Verification