Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="GnomeWorks" data-source="post: 9623415" data-attributes="member: 162">So the (main) problem with doing it by CR is that WotC really likes giving high-level spells to low-CR creatures, or giving low-CR creatures weird abilities that let them do things only high-level characters would be capable of. It's incredibly aggravating and impedes a number of class fantasies from working properly.<a href="https://drive.google.com/file/d/1B1JDLARn7-YLZkIXHdRwwgH9DLrNaB3j/view?usp=drive_link" target="_blank">One of my takes on a pet class</a>, though, restricts pets by CR. In the main text, it has a bunch of specifications and limitations on what sorts of creatures can be controlled in this manner, and it (mostly) avoids any absurdly problematic creatures. However, it is really designed with <a href="https://www.pirategonzalezgames.com/pokemon-dd-conversion" target="_blank">these monsters</a> in mind (and this is called out in a sidebar).This class has been playtested up to 8th or 9th level, and worked fine with the intended list. There is pending errata that maintaining control of the pet no longer requires concentration, you just have to be conscious on your turn for it to do things.Sidenote -- the casting subclass uses a homebrew casting system.In the playtest, the player wound up making the character something of a face, and it worked out really well. With my pet classes I've generally tried to ensure that the character is somewhere from 1/3 to 1/2 of a normal class: that way if you are in a situation where you don't have your pet, you can still do something, even if you're not as good or effective at it as another class might be. I also think there's a bit of an expectation that since having the pet is part of the class fantasy, not having it will weaken your effectiveness.</blockquote>

Verification