Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Mistwell" data-source="post: 7477682" data-attributes="member: 2525">You are conflating two disparate things I was commenting on. Different topics. The cantrip idea was an alternative to using many companions, not something I'd combine with that concept. It's the opposite, as you noted. So...did you have a thought on it?&nbsp;Enchanters would differ. Necromancers often kill the things they animate, so I am betting their animates would differ as well. Regardless, this is again down to tone and alignment, not rules questions. You don't seem to have a rules objection to what I wrote?I do find it odd that people seem perfectly comfortable with the idea that a nation would recruit young humans to fight and die to protect that nation, replacing those who fall with new troops on a routine basis, but the idea that you'd do the same with animals is somehow not a fair concept for a fantasy game?&nbsp; The animal knows there will be risk of death, and routinely fighting in highly dangerous situations. Why is that so dissimilar to a General recruiting new toops and replacing them as their previous ones fall? Why is the concept of fungibility of animal companions so anathema to the Ranger concept?</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Mistwell, post: 7477682, member: 2525"] You are conflating two disparate things I was commenting on. Different topics. The cantrip idea was an alternative to using many companions, not something I'd combine with that concept. It's the opposite, as you noted. So...did you have a thought on it? Enchanters would differ. Necromancers often kill the things they animate, so I am betting their animates would differ as well. Regardless, this is again down to tone and alignment, not rules questions. You don't seem to have a rules objection to what I wrote? I do find it odd that people seem perfectly comfortable with the idea that a nation would recruit young humans to fight and die to protect that nation, replacing those who fall with new troops on a routine basis, but the idea that you'd do the same with animals is somehow not a fair concept for a fantasy game? The animal knows there will be risk of death, and routinely fighting in highly dangerous situations. Why is that so dissimilar to a General recruiting new toops and replacing them as their previous ones fall? Why is the concept of fungibility of animal companions so anathema to the Ranger concept? [/QUOTE]

Verification