D&D (2024) How should a Summoner/Pet Class be implemented in 1DnD?

[Frozen_Heart]

So this is the next in a series of thread about how to implement certain commonly requested class concepts in 1DnD, in order to see how people want certain class/subclass concepts handled in the new system. I'm focusing on the most suggested and talked about classes first, and maybe I'll move onto some more obscure ones later.

The Summoner is a class concept which I see mentioned quite a lot, and from what I can see has its origins in Pathfinder rather than DnD. However rather than 'summoning' hordes of minions, it seems to focus on having a single 'pet' which provides the majority of the class power budget. This pet is then upgraded and improved over time with a large choice of abilities to give it. With different creature types being different 'subclasses'.

DnD 5e has several 'pet subclasses', but due to subclasses only being a small part of the power budget, the pet is never the focus of the classes power, leaving this archetype badly filled compared to Pathfinder, which is why it seems to be one I see pop up more often in class requests.

So in 1DnD, how should the concept of a summoner/pet class be handled? Continue to split it among subclasses, or give it a dedicated class?

Other Threads:

Artificer - https://www.enworld.org/threads/how-should-the-artificer-be-implemented-in-1dnd.696630/
Psion/Mystic - https://www.enworld.org/threads/how-should-the-psion-mystic-be-implemented-in-1dnd.697153/
Warlord - https://www.enworld.org/threads/how-should-the-warlord-be-implemented-in-1dnd.697300/

 

[LuisCarlos17f]

We could get some ideas from Pathfinder. Battle Zoo by "Roll for Combat" (a 3PP) is a good example of how a D&D Pokemon/Digimon version is possible.

My suggestion is to mix it with some ideas of the totemist shaman(Magic of Incarnum). The points of essence would be spend for a limited time to unlock special skills of the summoned ally (for example some effects working as metamagic feats). To change the summoned ally you would need a simpler version of the vestige pact magic. A ritual for a short time.

Other idea is one player controlling two PCs who share a telepatic link, a monster-tamer and the monster-ally. This second would work like the monster classes from 3rd Ed(Savage Species) but with the option of getting levels of a special class, the nahualt (like the shifter class from Pathfinder). Thanks this the monster could unlock new "monster traits", or "humanoid traits", for example opposable dumbs to use some simple melee weapons.

* I would bet Hasbro is very interested into this idea to can sell more toys of D&D monsters.

 

[CreamCloud0]

make it into it's own class, i want to take a look at wildfire druid, drakewarden ranger and warlock for how we're going to build this thing:
character has d6 hit die, simple weapons, light armour, no spell slots but a consumable class resource 'summon charges' (think wildshape or rage) to summon/empower your pet, you are not meant to be on the front line.
your 'pet' is basically a customisable summon, you build your base pet by picking traits from a table, different subclasses provide different base templates and traits for your summon as well as potential modifications to your main character (like a tag-team subclass might bump your HD, and give access to medium armour and some martial weapons so you can mix it up in melee with your pet).
there's also a pure 'summoner' subclass that instead of a pet gets access to the 'summon X' spells and uses their summoner charges in proxy of actual spell slots to 'cast' those spells.
in addition to the initial 'build your pet' there is also a secondary system of traits you can learn as you level up(think eldritch invocations) such as more powerful natural weapons on your pet, more summon charges, special techniques.
use your action and bonus action to command your pet to take actions on your turn,

 

[Retreater]

I'm of the mind that summoner/pet classes don't belong in the game. While it fits the fiction, it breaks at the table. It slows down play, overly empowers the group with augmentation of targets/actions/hit points/etc.
What is absolutely essential for it to function is that those powers MUST come from somewhere. The summoner MUST spend actions to grant her summoned creatures actions. This is to balance the game experience. Also, the HP of the creatures should come from the summoner's HP pool.
The only other way to balance it would be an extremely short duration, which would essentially be only flavor for a spell. "A lion materializes, rushes the opponent you designate, makes an attack, and immediately disappears."
I'm offended the instant anyone casts a summoning spell. Like "hey let me now contend with 15 wolves on your turn. Thanks a lot for adding 45 minutes to this encounter."
No player should have this level of power over the game experience.

 

[Minigiant]

1. 1d6 HD
2. Simple Weapons
   1. Light Armor No Shields
3. Half Caster
   1. Primal Spells
4. Channel Nature
   1. Call Beast: Summons a Beast of War
   2. Call Elemental: Summons an air, fire, earth, or water elemental.
5. Class Healing feature that heals allies and give bons heal to summons from Channel Nature
6. Subclasses
   1. Storm Caller:
      1. Buffs Call Beast and Call Elemental
      2. Channel Nature: Call Storm: Summons dust, thunder, or ice elemental
   2. Grim Summoner:
      1. Called Beast gets undead traits
      2. Called Elemental has bones
      3. Channel Nature: Rouse Dead: Summons a primal Undead
      4. Circle of Life and Death: Heal spells can deal damage to foes. Damage spells can heal nearby allies.
   3. Wild Whip: Allows Summoner to fight with Summons
      1. Martial weapon proficiency
      2. Channel Nature: Grasping Vines: Summons or enchants a whip to wrap around a foe
      3. Some kind of Dual strike attack
   4. Planebinder: Called Beast can get Aberration, Dragon, Celestial, Fey, Fiend, Undead trait
      1. Channel Nature: Primal Warrior: Summons Humaniod with Aberration, Dragon, Celestial, Fey, Fiend, or Undead traits

 

[Yaarel]

In my campaigns, I strongly prefer players who want a "companion", simply play two characters.

If the companion is a sibling or spouse, great.

If the companion is a pet, then create a normal character, choose applicable options for it, and flavor it as an animal. Separately, the Species has the Beast Creature Type (or Undead or whatever the companion concept is).

That way, it is better for the player, because the pet is survivable and appropriate to the level of the threat. As DM, it is easier for me to plan an encounter, simply by adding an extra player character to the calculations.

 

[Frozen_Heart]

I'm of the mind that summoner/pet classes don't belong in the game. While it fits the fiction, it breaks at the table. It slows down play, overly empowers the group with augmentation of targets/actions/hit points/etc.
What is absolutely essential for it to function is that those powers MUST come from somewhere. The summoner MUST spend actions to grant her summoned creatures actions. This is to balance the game experience. Also, the HP of the creatures should come from the summoner's HP pool.
The only other way to balance it would be an extremely short duration, which would essentially be only flavor for a spell. "A lion materializes, rushes the opponent you designate, makes an attack, and immediately disappears."
I'm offended the instant anyone casts a summoning spell. Like "hey let me now contend with 15 wolves on your turn. Thanks a lot for adding 45 minutes to this encounter."
No player should have this level of power over the game experience.

That's why I think that the pathfinder summoner class is badly named. It's not conjuring hordes of minions to slow the game to a crawl like a DnD character. It's got a single consistent pet, just like a beastmaster or battlesmith in DnD.

The only difference being that the pet is the majority of the class power.

 

[Frozen_Heart]

In my campaigns, I strongly prefer players who want a "companion", simply play two characters.

If the companion is a sibling or spouse, great.

If the companion is a pet, then create a normal character, choose applicable options for it, and flavor it as an animal. Separately, the Species has the Beast Creature Type (or Undead or whatever the companion concept is).

That way, it is better for the player, because the pet is survivable and appropriate to the level of the threat. As DM, it is easier for me to plan an encounter, simply by adding an extra player character to the calculations.

Isn't that what the Tasha's sidekick rules are for?

Can even use them on a horse.

 

[Yaarel]

Isn't that what the Tasha's sidekick rules are for?

Can even use them on a horse.

For many reasons, especially viability, balance, ease for the DM, and verisimilitude, I feel the best way to handle a "companion" is to play two characters.

Personally, I am less fond of Tashas "sidekick" rules.

 

[Warpiglet-7]

I think simplification is where it’s at:

Your summoned horde has so many hit points and is driven off after it takes so many in damage.

The area they can attack is defined like a radius of a spell effect as is the area they can attack.

Various groups or hordes could have special abilities like grapple or whatever but managing individual creatures is too much. Abstracting many small ones or a group of medium ones is the way for speed.

As to summoning one large creature? As said upthread, make the spell caster use some of his own action economy for it so time per turn is not multiplied.

The notion that you will micromanage many small creature or just many creatures and not bore others is I think, mistaken.

This may not satisfy some but the fun of the other players matters.