D&D 5E druids don't get animal companions?

[Sunseeker]

I'm sure a pet druid will be in the first splatbook.

In 4e, druids were released in 2008 but didn't get a pet until Essentials in 2010. And I don't recall pets being a big part of druids in 1e/2e either.

I was under the impression that they got animal familiars, much like wizards but as small beasts in other editions, I can't recall a druid ever being a pet-class.

And personally I find pets to be REALLY weak in this edition.

 

[jgsugden]

A few options to consider:

Option 1: Let the druid give up wildshape and gain an animal companion of a power level equal to the wild shape that would otherwise be allowed. The animal is undetr the control of the DM, but follows basic commands from the druid like a creature from a Bag of Tricks.

Option 2: Multiclass ranger.

Option 3: Treat it like a magic item. Allow the druid to get an animal companion, but hold back on the treasure to account for the power it adds to the party - treat it as if the druid found a bag of tricks.

 

[Sword of Spirit]

I'm sure a pet druid will be in the first splatbook.

I don't expect to get any more pet classes, at least any that require your actions to use like the Beastmaster does (and I'm glad). The Beastmaster ranger has been the subclass that has gotten the worst feedback (actual survey feedback, not just us complaining about it on forums). The designers have mentioned the dissatisfaction with that subclass on a few occasions.

I just listened to the latest Mike Mearls interview, and apparently there was an option (by context, probably subclass or race) that the affiliate designers for the Sword Coast Adventurer's Guide wrote up, that Mike and the design team totally changed based on feedback on the PHB, because it apparently did something that people disliked about a class in the PHB. I'm totally speculating here, but I wouldn't at all be surprised if they had created a pet subclass of some sort* that used the kind of mechanic that the Beastmaster did, and that is what they changed.

* Please be sha'ir, as that would mean the adventurer's guide is broader in its crunch than just the Sword Coast, and crunch won't be so bloated that a single region of the Realms gets 8 to 15 subclasses

 

[Uchawi]

If we give the druid a pet, necromancers will be next ...

 

[Jefe Bergenstein]

I was just going to make a post asking this same question because I was reading the PHB and saw the Druid WITH A PET TIGER as a clear illustration in the Druid entry.

Dangit should have read the whole thread. The shapeshifted druid joke was already made.

 

[Jester David]

I don't expect to get any more pet classes, at least any that require your actions to use like the Beastmaster does (and I'm glad). The Beastmaster ranger has been the subclass that has gotten the worst feedback (actual survey feedback, not just us complaining about it on forums). The designers have mentioned the dissatisfaction with that subclass on a few occasions.

It has problems, but using your action is not one of them. Letting both attack at the same time breaks the action economy of the game and would be a mistake.

I just listened to the latest Mike Mearls interview, and apparently there was an option (by context, probably subclass or race) that the affiliate designers for the Sword Coast Adventurer's Guide wrote up, that Mike and the design team totally changed based on feedback on the PHB, because it apparently did something that people disliked about a class in the PHB. I'm totally speculating here, but I wouldn't at all be surprised if they had created a pet subclass of some sort* that used the kind of mechanic that the Beastmaster did, and that is what they changed.

Or it could be the monk, as they also commented that people weren't happy with so much using ki points rather than just letting you do cooler things.
Heck, there's a lot of things people didn't like that WotC might not want repeated.

 

[Corpsetaker]

I changed it to where the animal acts on it's own initiative and it doesn't require the ranger to use up any of his actions.

Works perfectly.

 

[Scorpio616]

Druids can mundanely befriend what ever animal they want to, they have the skills to do it. Shouldn't be any harder for a druid to convince a bear or tiger to come along on an adventure than it is to convince hirelings to come along on an adventure.

 

[Rukhage]

Druids can mundanely befriend what ever animal they want to, they have the skills to do it. Shouldn't be any harder for a druid to convince a bear or tiger to come along on an adventure than it is to convince hirelings to come along on an adventure.

The only issue is that you'd have to do a check every 24 hours to keep said bear/wolf/sharknado with you.

 

[Dausuul]

Honestly they should make it so spending a higher level slot (let's say 3rd) makes it Permanent (so long as you only have 1 such animal).

I disagree. This is the animate dead model; in exchange for the power boost of having a companion, you give up one of your spell slots. It's a very clever way to balance "permanent pets" for spellcasters. Higher-level slots should grant more companions or more powerful ones, but you should never be exempted from the need to devote slots to it.

However, animal friendship only charms a beast--it doesn't make it into a true companion. I think the way to go about making a "beastmaster druid" would be to create a new beast companion spell, modeled on animate dead, and a Beastmaster druid subclass modeled on the Necromancy tradition.