Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Li Shenron" data-source="post: 7662467" data-attributes="member: 1465">Personally I think it's DM's problem, and I am kind of happy that the game actually doesn't suit that well when the DM allows such thing, since I loath pet-heavy games.That is, the game doesn't certainly break apart if you do... the Ranger's companion is already boosted compared to normal animals, and if the DM thinks it's not enough for his Pokemon-like setting, then it's up to him to houserule the Ranger's companion and boost it even more. I just don't think it's a good idea to build a class feature around the fact that some DMs want a game where everybody has essentially the same feature (and even in that case, the Ranger might get TWO pets, always one more than the others). And no matter how many DMs, because pets highly complicate and slow the game down, which is something that 5e was specifically designed to avoid by default. So even if the majority of DMs want a game like that (which they don't), for me it's good that the game still isn't built around the assumption of everyone getting a pet. Once again notice that the game doesn't prevent you to allow that, it's just that it's not assuming it.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Li Shenron, post: 7662467, member: 1465"] Personally I think it's DM's problem, and I am kind of happy that the game actually doesn't suit that well when the DM allows such thing, since I loath pet-heavy games. That is, the game doesn't certainly break apart if you do... the Ranger's companion is already boosted compared to normal animals, and if the DM thinks it's not enough for his Pokemon-like setting, then it's up to him to houserule the Ranger's companion and boost it even more. I just don't think it's a good idea to build a class feature around the fact that some DMs want a game where everybody has essentially the same feature (and even in that case, the Ranger might get TWO pets, always one more than the others). And no matter how many DMs, because pets highly complicate and slow the game down, which is something that 5e was specifically designed to avoid by default. So even if the majority of DMs want a game like that (which they don't), for me it's good that the game still isn't built around the assumption of everyone getting a pet. Once again notice that the game doesn't prevent you to allow that, it's just that it's not assuming it. [/QUOTE]

Verification