Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="ro" data-source="post: 7244167" data-attributes="member: 6890747">I think it would be better to do it the other way around, allowing Giant creatures but saying the DM can prohibit certain creatures at their discretion. This way the player doesn't have to ask permission by default, from a possibly un-permissive DM, but the DM can still stop problems.&nbsp;I see that, but we also don't want the companion to be wiped out super easily after a few levels. Even if you block ASIs, at least keep HP scaling. Otherwise, the companion will be mostly useless. This is a problem with the Find Familiar spell, also, that already-vulnerable-in-early-game familiars become nigh unusable near combat after a few levels. We need to find a balance between making the companion effective and making it a liability. &nbsp;I think the first is too much, as creatures of the same type tend to keep together. The second is much more viable, and usually more limiting than the version I suggested.&nbsp;Ah, ok. Yeah, that makes sense on the languages. If you did give a language, you could just specify that the language doesn't change, only the favored enemy.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="ro, post: 7244167, member: 6890747"] I think it would be better to do it the other way around, allowing Giant creatures but saying the DM can prohibit certain creatures at their discretion. This way the player doesn't have to ask permission by default, from a possibly un-permissive DM, but the DM can still stop problems. I see that, but we also don't want the companion to be wiped out super easily after a few levels. Even if you block ASIs, at least keep HP scaling. Otherwise, the companion will be mostly useless. This is a problem with the Find Familiar spell, also, that already-vulnerable-in-early-game familiars become nigh unusable near combat after a few levels. We need to find a balance between making the companion effective and making it a liability. I think the first is too much, as creatures of the same type tend to keep together. The second is much more viable, and usually more limiting than the version I suggested. Ah, ok. Yeah, that makes sense on the languages. If you did give a language, you could just specify that the language doesn't change, only the favored enemy. [/QUOTE]

Verification