Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="I'm A Banana" data-source="post: 7686939" data-attributes="member: 2067">The point is that if the next ranger iteration imagines that your pet is a fundamental aspect of the class's power, any character who might want a pet to be a fundamental aspect of their class's power might then be kludged into a version of the ranger. That's part of why pet mechanics should be more broadly applicable - if I want to play a bard whose loyal groupie is a fundamental aspect of their power, rather than just a hireling, I don't want to have to go through the ranger to do that just because the ranger is the one holding the rules for it. Stuffing them in a class isn't a great place to locate that character option; it's a mechanical fob, not an archetype. As an aside, maybe the pet-having ranger can fit the warlord-commander space, too...imagine a class who (a) had a powerful NPC ally that (b) they buffed with spells or &quot;commands&quot; and that (c) they could heal and encourage.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="I'm A Banana, post: 7686939, member: 2067"] The point is that if the next ranger iteration imagines that your pet is a fundamental aspect of the class's power, any character who might want a pet to be a fundamental aspect of their class's power might then be kludged into a version of the ranger. That's part of why pet mechanics should be more broadly applicable - if I want to play a bard whose loyal groupie is a fundamental aspect of their power, rather than just a hireling, I don't want to have to go through the ranger to do that just because the ranger is the one holding the rules for it. Stuffing them in a class isn't a great place to locate that character option; it's a mechanical fob, not an archetype. As an aside, maybe the pet-having ranger can fit the warlord-commander space, too...imagine a class who (a) had a powerful NPC ally that (b) they buffed with spells or "commands" and that (c) they could heal and encourage. [/QUOTE]

Verification