Sentient pets... an idea

[Lupis]

I'll be honest, anything that includes taming dragons gets my veto. That's where I draw the line on tamables. No dragons. For crying out loud, we get undead eagles and worms, will we ever be happy? :-/

The idea itself, on face value, is a good one. I just don't think hunters need any more than they already have.

[Ziarre]

Yeah, I suspect the closest we'll get to taming a dragon will be Chromaggus, who's only partially a dragon (he looks like Nefarian played with a core hound and various dragon bits).

[Qraljar]

I don't get that. Aren't we allowed to suggest anything or any additions? We're not exactly forcing Blizzard to do anything, but just making suggestions, or would you rather hunters would never get any new pet family or model because we're spoilt as it is?

I don't get that. Sure, whining and crying because you want something is entitled and spoilt and obnoxious, but we're just suggesting things, not ranting for them. :\

[Gimlion]

Sentience is a product of intelligence and runs on a spectrum.
This is obvious in the real world, and is evident in the WoW universe as well.

I view hunter pets as pets in real life.
Some people treat their pets like an equal, some treat them like a piece of furniture or worse.
Like this there will be hunters that view their pet as a tool, like a bow or a gun, that they carry around with them until they need it for something and others will view it as a friend and companion that shares in their adventures.

Because of this viewpoint I have no problem with hunters creating a bond of friendship with any beast, dragonkin, or race for that matter.
However my hunter running around with a tauren companion might be a bit .... off...
(Snickers at the thought of my goblin riding around on the shoulders of a tauren warrior)

I guess for this reason Blizzard has made some decisions about what "we" can and cannot tame.
What method they are using to determine what can and cannot tame is a mystery, as has been pointed out previously, raptors are intelligent, create structures, tools and jewelry, so "sentience" apparently is not the deciding factor, or raptors are the exception.

My musings on the matter....

This post is almost exactly what I was going to say, so I'll just quote it rather than type my own.

Also, I really wish they didn't remove class quests, they were very fun, and helped explain the class. I'd like it if there was a class quest for some sort of special reward every 10, 15, or 20 (I'm not sure which will be best) levels. Each class could have their own, that's not mandatory, but would be worth the reward, as well as interesting insight into the class mechanics and lore.

[Ziarre]

Suggesting is fine as long as one keeps in mind that Blizzard may have reasons to keep some things untamable that one may not agree with.

[Meggers]

I don't get that. Aren't we allowed to suggest anything or any additions? We're not exactly forcing Blizzard to do anything, but just making suggestions, or would you rather hunters would never get any new pet family or model because we're spoilt as it is?

I don't get that. Sure, whining and crying because you want something is entitled and spoilt and obnoxious, but we're just suggesting things, not ranting for them. :\

And as much as you have a "right" to suggest something, someone else has a right to voice their dislike of it. Goes both ways.

[cowmuflage]

I'll be honest, anything that includes taming dragons gets my veto. That's where I draw the line on tamables. No dragons. For crying out loud, we get undead eagles and worms, will we ever be happy? :-/

The idea itself, on face value, is a good one. I just don't think hunters need any more than they already have.

Haha hunters are never happy.

[Albain]

I'm of the point of view that the only things 'like' slavery are .. slavery. So~

But barring that, in spite of the great variety of pets we already have, I'd still like more. Fenstriders I'd give my eyeteeth for, for example. Hydras are nice but their hissing drives me crazy.. I'd probably get one anyway. Basilisks, etcetera. There's a lot of gorgeous beast models out there we can't touch, and knowing we can tame some but not others can leave some hunters chewing on their desks in frustration. I won't shed a tear if we never get another type of pet to tame, but it doesn't mean I don't occasionally wish for it.

Dragons might be a bit too BIG, which is my only draw-the-line there, but I'd be okay with a whelp. As much as I like chimeras, their wingspan is the reason I never use one. I don't like having to use the move button on my pet bar just to get the pet out of the way so I can gather a node. Drakes would probably be even bigger, possibly even ground/walking versions.

But gimme a fenstrider. ;-; I have one as a tiny pet, I want one as a big pet!

[Andine]

While dragons might be a bit too far for a combat pet for a hunter, I'd welcome gryphons, wyverns etc - because if they're even semi-sapient, they're not sapient enough to be considered people, and about as much sapient as a creature one can treat as partner.

For the record, on the beta I've got a Pandaren hunter I levelled from 1 to 82 (so far), and I'm considering re-doing him on live. I'm thinking of him as a bug-catcher person and having him be rather introverted and having more contact with his animals (his bugs, really) than other people. That wouldn't do wonders for RP, but it can played, especially with a pet I'm planning on his main partner - silithid tank boss with Buru's model (not actual Buru, because getting a regular elite of the same color from UnGoro is much easier and faster). Given those things were bosses in AQ, I'm thinking of that guy as more than meets the eye - rather smart, independent, and with quite a personality - but capable of communicating only with hisses, chirps and bugg-y "songs".
Tl;dr - I was talking about a hunter character who has his pets for more of a partner than a "pet". So yeah, half-sentient beasts should be tameable but dragons are where I call stop.

[Slickrock]

So yeah, half-sentient beasts should be tameable but dragons are where I call stop.

But there are half-sentient dragons...

Proto-drakes, feldragons, etc, likely fall into that category. Full dragons? Nah, I'll even agree there, if they can shape-shift, taming is out of the question. But there's a lot of grey area lower than that.

Now there's another aspect to this, that certain creatures are simply too strong mentally to "fall under the taming spell".

[Andine]

But there are half-sentient dragons...

Proto-drakes, feldragons, etc, likely fall into that category. Full dragons? Nah, I'll even agree there, if they can shape-shift, taming is out of the question. But there's a lot of grey area lower than that.

Now there's another aspect to this, that certain creatures are simply too strong mentally to "fall under the taming spell".

Proto-drakes, probably yes - if Nessingwary can hunt it, you can probably tame it. Fey drakes... (I assume you meant them, as I don't know of any feldragons other than the TCG mount) they talked to me in Common, it would feel kinda weird. They're on a child level of intelligence if anything.

[Qraljar]

I don't get that. Aren't we allowed to suggest anything or any additions? We're not exactly forcing Blizzard to do anything, but just making suggestions, or would you rather hunters would never get any new pet family or model because we're spoilt as it is?

I don't get that. Sure, whining and crying because you want something is entitled and spoilt and obnoxious, but we're just suggesting things, not ranting for them. :\

And as much as you have a "right" to suggest something, someone else has a right to voice their dislike of it. Goes both ways.

But it wasn't voicing a dislike, it seemed more like a subtle jab at hunters being entitled.

Saying "we have had too much" isn't an opinion.

[Silivren]

I wouldn't be surprised if Spirit Beasts are sentient.

^ Loque'nahak anybody? I'm pretty sure he's sentient or very close. Hes the consort of a talking goddess..