The first session I finally got a pet through interaction with said creature, was the last session of said campaign due to unrelated reasons. I hadn't even named them yet! 😥 Here's hoping I eventually get that imaginary pet experience. On another note, I don't understand the angry DM bit. Like you know you can just let the player control it and most people would be okay with that arrangement, right? It's a weird stance to take from the DM's side of "only I get to control it because it's an NPC but also I don't want to!" I've seen plenty of rangers and the like control their animal companions just fine and whenever the DM wanted to say "hey, player, your animal found this while they were away" or "hey, player, your animal knows something you don't" they could do that without breaking the pace of the game at all because it was no different from when a PC would know something the player doesn't and the DM acts to bridge the gap.
That sucks that you didn't get to play longer. The angry DM bit is more of a joke, but really it's just that sometimes pets can get in the way, and if a bunch of people have them then combat takes twice as long especially if you're balancing out action economy. It's really just implementation and how you want to play things out while having a pet in the party. Like Trinket in Critical Role campaign 1 did get in the way a lot with travel, and that was a good deal of the reason why Sam/Scanlan had beef with Trinket as far as I understand. And then there is a lot of emotional stakes with keeping them alive, and they're often the weakest link if they aren't otherwise on the opposite end of the spectrum and OP.
Oh shit, I'm so sorry Ryker. Hope everyone is doing alright boss.
The first session I finally got a pet through interaction with said creature, was the last session of said campaign due to unrelated reasons. I hadn't even named them yet! 😥
Here's hoping I eventually get that imaginary pet experience.
On another note, I don't understand the angry DM bit. Like you know you can just let the player control it and most people would be okay with that arrangement, right? It's a weird stance to take from the DM's side of "only I get to control it because it's an NPC but also I don't want to!" I've seen plenty of rangers and the like control their animal companions just fine and whenever the DM wanted to say "hey, player, your animal found this while they were away" or "hey, player, your animal knows something you don't" they could do that without breaking the pace of the game at all because it was no different from when a PC would know something the player doesn't and the DM acts to bridge the gap.
That sucks that you didn't get to play longer.
The angry DM bit is more of a joke, but really it's just that sometimes pets can get in the way, and if a bunch of people have them then combat takes twice as long especially if you're balancing out action economy. It's really just implementation and how you want to play things out while having a pet in the party. Like Trinket in Critical Role campaign 1 did get in the way a lot with travel, and that was a good deal of the reason why Sam/Scanlan had beef with Trinket as far as I understand. And then there is a lot of emotional stakes with keeping them alive, and they're often the weakest link if they aren't otherwise on the opposite end of the spectrum and OP.