So, one of my friends is taking over my usual position of DM, and has advertised he is gonna let everyone have pets. Anyone have some sort of good argument of why just adding tons of new pets to the battlefield is not a good idea?
EDIT: To make the question more clear, basically what’s your opinion on giving PCs pets?
So, one of my friends is taking over my usual position of DM, and has advertised he is gonna let everyone have pets. Anyone have some sort of good argument of why just adding tons of new pets to the battlefield is not a good idea?
I'd ask your friend is he meaning actual pets or proper animal companions. Animal companions would be more understandable as those usually are creatures that can defend themselves. But he'd need to come up with a pretty good excuse for just having cats and dogs running around the battlefield. Or if he just plans to kill them all again and again.
So, one of my friends is taking over my usual position of DM, and has advertised he is gonna let everyone have pets. Anyone have some sort of good argument of why just adding tons of new pets to the battlefield is not a good idea?
I'd ask your friend is he meaning actual pets or proper animal companions. Animal companions would be more understandable as those usually are creatures that can defend themselves. But he'd need to come up with a pretty good excuse for just having cats and dogs running around the battlefield. Or if he just plans to kill them all again and again.
I’m pretty sure he’s running pets like one death and they are out.
That sounds really weird....I'd feel bad for constantly having to kill off my player's pets as they would no doubt get in the way. I guess unless the pet was like a mouse who you could hide in your pocket while the fight rages on.
Honestly, I’d be surprised if he killed one, as my players all seem attached to having pets now. Likely going to have extreme plot armor or something...
Up to you if you plan on taking over as DM in the future really.
My players have pets and the like. We never use them in combat. Pets are no concern to most enemies. But a witty player could use them to change things.
Nothing wrong having pets. Expect them to die. As a DM I would not hold back on killing them if they are bugging my mobs or get caught in an aoe.
If it’s just flavor, and everyone wants their own miniature giant space hamster, have it. It’s a lot of fun. If everyone is trying to have a dire wolf, that can be a pain. If they are acting on their own initiative and taking full turns, it will greatly slow down combat. If players are giving them orders, you are turning everyone into a partial beastmaster Ranger. My issue isn’t with offending the ranger, it’s with giving out a class ability (weak as it is) for free.
If it’s just flavor, and everyone wants their own miniature giant space hamster, have it. It’s a lot of fun. If everyone is trying to have a dire wolf, that can be a pain. If they are acting on their own initiative and taking full turns, it will greatly slow down combat. If players are giving them orders, you are turning everyone into a partial beastmaster Ranger. My issue isn’t with offending the ranger, it’s with giving out a class ability (weak as it is) for free.
The problem is it’s not flavor, all of them are extra attackers in battle...
Well, after a session or two either people will realize they are unwieldy and slowing things down, or it will turn out not to be too big a deal. I guess the only thing to do is play along and find out. Hopefully the DM is accounting for the extra help when he designs the encounters.
Yea, a pet is below a familiar which specifically can't "attack" although they can deliver a spell by touch. An animal companion is generally higher in the order of things as is a "mount". Pets would be just flavor in my game. I currently have a familiar as a Bard, which I understand isn't RAW. My mink, nicknamed W&L (an abbreviation of two Elven words with more vowels than consonants), does some scouting for us and occasionally delivers spells with the touch to our Rogue when he goes on an advanced scouting excursion. He never goes into combat, yet. Other times he is part of my act as a Bard. He's got some moves ...
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Cum catapultae proscriptae erunt tum soli proscript catapultas habebunt
Yea, a pet is below a familiar which specifically can't "attack" although they can deliver a spell by touch. An animal companion is generally higher in the order of things as is a "mount". Pets would be just flavor in my game. I currently have a familiar as a Bard, which I understand isn't RAW. My mink, nicknamed W&L (an abbreviation of two Elven words with more vowels than consonants), does some scouting for us and occasionally delivers spells with the touch to our Rogue when he goes on an advanced scouting excursion. He never goes into combat, yet. Other times he is part of my act as a Bard. He's got some moves ...
In this campaign they are being treated as familiars, but without the revival, and with like 30 health and 18 armor class.
Yea, a pet is below a familiar which specifically can't "attack" although they can deliver a spell by touch. An animal companion is generally higher in the order of things as is a "mount". Pets would be just flavor in my game. I currently have a familiar as a Bard, which I understand isn't RAW. My mink, nicknamed W&L (an abbreviation of two Elven words with more vowels than consonants), does some scouting for us and occasionally delivers spells with the touch to our Rogue when he goes on an advanced scouting excursion. He never goes into combat, yet. Other times he is part of my act as a Bard. He's got some moves ...
In this campaign they are being treated as familiars, but without the revival, and with like 30 health and 18 armor class.
Pets always slow down the game and are often forgotten about. I actually have a rule that there would be no pets that were not mechanically present in the class they chose. Making them familiars??? Does that include all the abilities that they get with them? That would seem way over powered.
That will make things a lot different. The non-spell casters will not get too much from it, but it will depend on the familiar's intelligence. If the familiars are their normal INT, the telepathic communications up to 100 ft can be to pass short to medium range messages. It is a little difficult, but it can easily work with a larger group. I cannot remember how our party of low-level mages got it to work in 3e, but we relayed the message with a combination of telepathy and using the familiar's eyes and ears.
The any spell caster would be able to deliver touch spells using the familiar. Though really, that is a good way to have the familiar die. That sort of thing can be used well by an infiltrator or a Rogue class. They would not have to use an ASI to buy the ritual caster feat.
That said, it is a one-time boost. It may well work with the group as a whole. Goes back to talk it out with the DM and see what the rest of the group has to say about it.
So, one of my friends is taking over my usual position of DM, and has advertised he is gonna let everyone have pets. Anyone have some sort of good argument of why just adding tons of new pets to the battlefield is not a good idea?
EDIT: To make the question more clear, basically what’s your opinion on giving PCs pets?
I'd ask your friend is he meaning actual pets or proper animal companions. Animal companions would be more understandable as those usually are creatures that can defend themselves. But he'd need to come up with a pretty good excuse for just having cats and dogs running around the battlefield. Or if he just plans to kill them all again and again.
I’m pretty sure he’s running pets like one death and they are out.
If he gives them death saves I’m gonna lose it...
That sounds really weird....I'd feel bad for constantly having to kill off my player's pets as they would no doubt get in the way. I guess unless the pet was like a mouse who you could hide in your pocket while the fight rages on.
Honestly, I’d be surprised if he killed one, as my players all seem attached to having pets now. Likely going to have extreme plot armor or something...
Up to you if you plan on taking over as DM in the future really.
My players have pets and the like. We never use them in combat. Pets are no concern to most enemies. But a witty player could use them to change things.
Nothing wrong having pets. Expect them to die. As a DM I would not hold back on killing them if they are bugging my mobs or get caught in an aoe.
Pets are cannon fodder. They sure will die.
If it’s just flavor, and everyone wants their own miniature giant space hamster, have it. It’s a lot of fun. If everyone is trying to have a dire wolf, that can be a pain. If they are acting on their own initiative and taking full turns, it will greatly slow down combat. If players are giving them orders, you are turning everyone into a partial beastmaster Ranger. My issue isn’t with offending the ranger, it’s with giving out a class ability (weak as it is) for free.
The problem is it’s not flavor, all of them are extra attackers in battle...
Well, after a session or two either people will realize they are unwieldy and slowing things down, or it will turn out not to be too big a deal. I guess the only thing to do is play along and find out.
Hopefully the DM is accounting for the extra help when he designs the encounters.
Yea, a pet is below a familiar which specifically can't "attack" although they can deliver a spell by touch. An animal companion is generally higher in the order of things as is a "mount". Pets would be just flavor in my game. I currently have a familiar as a Bard, which I understand isn't RAW. My mink, nicknamed W&L (an abbreviation of two Elven words with more vowels than consonants), does some scouting for us and occasionally delivers spells with the touch to our Rogue when he goes on an advanced scouting excursion. He never goes into combat, yet. Other times he is part of my act as a Bard. He's got some moves ...
Cum catapultae proscriptae erunt tum soli proscript catapultas habebunt
In this campaign they are being treated as familiars, but without the revival, and with like 30 health and 18 armor class.
Pets always slow down the game and are often forgotten about. I actually have a rule that there would be no pets that were not mechanically present in the class they chose. Making them familiars??? Does that include all the abilities that they get with them? That would seem way over powered.
Yes it does include their abilities, that’s why I’m worried for my friend who’s giving them out like presents.
That will make things a lot different. The non-spell casters will not get too much from it, but it will depend on the familiar's intelligence. If the familiars are their normal INT, the telepathic communications up to 100 ft can be to pass short to medium range messages. It is a little difficult, but it can easily work with a larger group. I cannot remember how our party of low-level mages got it to work in 3e, but we relayed the message with a combination of telepathy and using the familiar's eyes and ears.
The any spell caster would be able to deliver touch spells using the familiar. Though really, that is a good way to have the familiar die. That sort of thing can be used well by an infiltrator or a Rogue class. They would not have to use an ASI to buy the ritual caster feat.
That said, it is a one-time boost. It may well work with the group as a whole. Goes back to talk it out with the DM and see what the rest of the group has to say about it.
How do you pronounce that? "Wandle"?
Dub-ya and Ell, - it actually stands for Washington and Lee University and it is an inside joke.
Cum catapultae proscriptae erunt tum soli proscript catapultas habebunt