Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Faolyn" data-source="post: 8418804" data-attributes="member: 6915329">I'm not saying Fighters can't have a dragon pet. There's plenty of room for a dragon knight, whether it's a fighter or a paladin. However, of all the classes that have pets that can actually attack (find familiar familiars can't), the ranger is the most visibly obvious. Fighters and paladins have mounts. It's not as thematic for them to have a pet and raise it over the course of its life, and it's even less thematic for them to have a pet that they have to give up a bonus action each turn to get it to fight. Now, a dragon-riding fighter would be cool, but also powerful--unless, like with the drakewardens, they couldn't fly on their dragon until they were high level, which rather defeats the purpose. It honestly would make more sense for the fighter to take the cavalier archetype and belong to an order that rides wyverns or some other dragon-like creature. Because a dragon-rider fighter or paladin on a non-flying dragon feels less than cool to me. Obviously, this is all IMO.</blockquote>