How should pets and companions be incorporated in a game? A little minion or full blown elemental for a Necromancer? Should Rangers have only small pets or massive bears? What about mounts?

I mean, any of the above is valid. I don't see a reason to throw any of them out. The best companions, in all cases, expand your kit. My favorite kind of critter in any game is a bird

Guy fleeing? An eagle grappling and clawing him ought to slow him down.

Same for if you need to throw someone off and distract them in melee.

You can even turn grenades from an imprecise thrown weapon into artillery with a bombing run.


All of the above works in any system (unless it's shit). Having a small, mobile companion is goated. I guess if I had to single anything out, I'd caution against including a minion that's just pure brawn and numbers, because that just bloats initiative combat and doesn't do much else.

>>95942261 (OP)
As the other anon said, all of those are valid.
There are no shoulds here, it'll certainly depend on a lot, including the system.
For example, in this D&D 3.5e campaign I'm playing, the technomage sometimes summons a bunch of robots, and that grinds the combat to a halt when he does due to all the extra resolutions steps needed and stuff to keep track of.
In turn, my Cleric has a Celestial Raven companion, and I seldom ever even mention the critter or use it in combat, even if the character has maneuvers where he does shit in tandem with the bird, and when I do, the DM just handwaves the initiative and stuff since the bird doesn't participate in combat besides moving and being part of those maneuvers, and even that adds a tiny bit of overhead to my rounds.

>>95942261 (OP)
>full blown elemental for a Necromancer
>elemental for a Necromancer
what

>>95943219
It’s a staple of games that Necromancers have imps or shadow elementals

>>95942261 (OP)
Depends on the game.

>>95942531
>and that grinds the combat to a halt when he does due to all the extra resolutions steps needed and stuff to keep track of.
skill issue
just have that shit prepared in advance, from then on it's just glancing at numbers

>>95942261 (OP)
I would make it a character option that overrides certain class traits and abilities and gives you equivalents that work toward your familiar.

It should be an investment worth taking with the appropriate level of power and associated risk.

No such thing as should.

>>95943232
Name twenty five games in which necromancers have shadow elementals.

>>95947024
World of Warcraft

Twenty four remaining.

>>95947184
http://spheresofpower.wikidot.com/shadow-familiar

>>95943232
No, those are for Warlocks

>>95942261 (OP)
Depends on the game. A certain game I play has extremely simple rules so it doesn't really account for friendly NPCs. However, it does have a friendly NPC as both an item and a weapon option. The item option gives you free bonus damage three times a session and the weapon comes with all sorts of fun weapon "mods" that let you deflect damage or reduce movement of enemies. It has a similar weapon option for vehicles/power armor too. Another game I play treats NPCs and vehicles/mounts completely differently because it has a more involved ruleset.

No I'm not telling you which games because you're a nogames cuck.

Twenty three remaining.

>>95942261 (OP)
>The summoner who does most of the heavy lifting and fighting, but gets support or utility benefits from his minions.
>The summoner whose minions do all the work, while the PC just gives commands and lends occasional support.
>The summoner who can only summon one powerful minion at a time.
>The summoner who can call a whole army of weaker minions, rather than just one big minion at a time.
>The summoner who summons an entirely new minion every single time he needs a minion for something, and whose options of summoning might change depending on the time of day, environment, and other factors.
>The summoner who only every summons the same minions who become his friends and grow alongside him over time.
All of these options should be valid. If not, your game is lame.

No such thing as should.