Shattered Kingdoms

I agree with this statement. I know I'm a horrible player and all and suck at PK, but having a lion keep my GM bard bashed so a priest could harm me to death with no chance of fleeing whatsoever (I even recited an ethereal scroll. I saw the recite command yet I still died) sucks. It wasn't just the Harm the lion was tearing through my bard in mood neutral like a hot knife through butter and he had mastered dodge and max con. I know Half-elves aren't sturdy, but zerking pets that do that kind of damage to light armor wearers is a bit over the top.

Let's see how the change plays out. I think that warlocks definitely needed to be given store bought pets. I'm not sure scouts needed it, but I definitely DON'T think this makes them OP. I guess we'll see.

D, if you get the chance, could you take a look at the saving throw for charm person? If you could make it much easier to resist, that would do a TON for game balance, and it would also enhance many people's enjoyment of the game. Charm person is largely responsible for why many people feel it is necessary to get their suits enchanted to 30+wp, a process which is not fun. The problem with this spell is that it is very difficult to resist, and instantly wins any fight when it lands successfully.

I feel the same way. I think that pets from the store should lose almost all of their value in combat once you get to Veteran status.

I think it would be great if people were less reliant on store-bought pets. However, I must urge the IMMs not to try to solve this problem by simply nerfing store-bought pets. Implementing a significant nerf on store-bought pets would have drastic and far-reaching effects on game balance, and must be approached with caution, with all the possible effects considered. For example, if store-bought pets couldn't tank a couple rounds against PCs, then priests, rogues, and bards would become much weaker and more fragile.

I have one reason for buying a store bought pet and that is to get a bonus to exp due to having a group. I didn't even bother to go with the best, most powerful pet. I did, however, go for one that actually fit in with my character's persona. I know, I'm not twinking it enough. Shame on me.

But shouldn't adventuring classes be more squishy? Warriors should be Warriors. They should be the ones to take the beating, and not the golden-maned lions and other fancy pets out there. Pets will still be able to do fine against low level NPCs when leveling, but higher level NPCs should tear pets up.

BTW: I am pretty sure bought pets do not help you gain more xp. The group xp code only applies to PC's. Correct me if I am wrong.

I was always told group was a group, so I have no idea. Save me a small fortune in game if not!

Actually, it sounds like you are doing unnecessary (or even harmful) twinking. The group XP bonus is there to promote people playing together not to promote group combat. There has never been an XP bonus for having pets in your group, only other players.

Perhaps. I was just urging Dulrik not to give a huge nerf to pets without first considering all the effects that would have. If those effects are deemed desirable, then that's great. It would just be easy for someone to go through the most popular pets and nerf them without realizing that doing this would have a very serious impact on gameplay and game balance.

The impact of such a change is difficult to pin down, exactly. It would definitely make some classes tougher to level, some classes stronger, and some classes considerably more fragile, however. I would encourage discussion of all these factors before any change is made to pets.

All these years of misinformation! Glad that I kept my pets behind me rather than in front where they do damage.