You Don’t Have To Leave Wolfy Behind... In 'Pets & Sidekicks' Your Companions Level Up With You!

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="EzekielRaiden" data-source="post: 8287045" data-attributes="member: 6790260">The only problems I have with this proposal--which I support, to be clear--are that it unfortunately implies some combinatoric explosion, and that it's going to be a lot harder to balance the class as a result.That is, we had 3 pacts and 3 patrons to start with. That means 9 unique features from day 1. Every time you add a new patron, you need to add as many features as there are existing pacts, and vice-versa. Even if we only consider the official 5e pacts and patrons thus far, that's 7 patrons and 4 pacts for a total of 28 unique features. If we add in the Star Chain pact and (say) 3 of the UA patrons just to represent the rolling "this is an idea we have, it might not happen," you're looking at 50 distinct features overall. Any time anyone wants to draft a homebrew pact, it'll need at least 7 extra patron-unique features, and any time you make a patron it needs at least 4 pact-unique features.And as the number of these features rises, the possibility of some of them being (or becoming) garbage or overpowered rises.Again, I don't say this because I oppose it, exactly the reverse in fact. Instead, I say it because if you want to go about this, you'll want to set down rules in advance for how potent and/or far-reaching these features are permitted to be. If we're using the Hexblade/Blade Pact interaction, this is something that can be build-defining, but which isn't necessarily a huge power boost. That is, the difference between a longsword and a greatsword is 1d8+CHA vs. 2d6+CHA, a difference of only 2.5 average damage.The trickier part is going to be making sure that the things you introduce are reasonable, but not weak.</blockquote>

Verification