D&D 5E UA interviews: The possible future for Pet Subclasses in 5e.

[RSIxidor]

Just to brainstorm, what about a ranger that starts with the idea of character + purchased pet? In other words, a ranger who doesn't get a pet but enhances what they have. It wouldn't even need to be a subclass - we already have Hunter's Mark as what should be a feature that they reused the spell mechanics for, we could do the same. Several until-end-of-long-rest spells that can buff a pet, which upcast to keep the pet on level, and some bonus action spells that could be used during combat. So a ranger keeps all of their martial goodness, trading the majority of their casting for a pet. And if there is no pet for whatever reason, they have their casting back (starting the next day).

This is an interesting way to go. While I think it makes sense to have these as spells that are just available to any ranger, a sub-class could exist that gets some mixture of "these spells are known by you and don't go against limits" and "you get to cast this or these spells X times a day equal to your wisdom mod." Plus expertise in animal handling.

 

[oreofox]

Also, large races deal an extra die of damage with weapons. A large PC wielding a longsword deals 2d8 damage instead of the normal 1d8. So there's more stuff to deal with by having a large PC race that I am sure WotC just doesn't want to hassle with.

 

[Twiggly the Gnome]

Also, large races deal an extra die of damage with weapons. A large PC wielding a longsword deals 2d8 damage instead of the normal 1d8. So there's more stuff to deal with by having a large PC race that I am sure WotC just doesn't want to hassle with.

Yeah, that's what I was talking about. Screw the idea of PCs and monsters using the same rules. Just treat large PCs like they have a permanent Enlarge.

 

[Blue]

Also, large races deal an extra die of damage with weapons. A large PC wielding a longsword deals 2d8 damage instead of the normal 1d8. So there's more stuff to deal with by having a large PC race that I am sure WotC just doesn't want to hassle with.

That's the point - none of the existing races get things "as cool" as an extra die of damage regularly. There isn't enough design space to have a large sized creature. But there is player interest in one. Any hassle is of their own making due to short-sighted initial design that just looked at the starting races and not others that players have liked to run historically.

 

[CapnZapp]

I agree with your logic about a beastmaster can't be less than a normal character plus a purchased pet. But a purchased pet, once you hit 5th levels, is like 10% or less of a normal character. And that gets less and less as you level.

So I wouldn't see the balance point at 1.5, I'd see it at 1.1. Near enough the other classes that it's still on the same curve, just in the front side of it.

No, no... a regular character with a purchased pet might be a 1.1 but that is plainly not enough for a Beastmaster-type of dedicated pet class.

The point is that until WotC admits (to themselves) they will never satisfy the archetype with a "balanced" design they will keep writing content that gets an unhappy reception!

They can admit it is not inherently possible to create a balanced Beastmaster design, and publicly give up on that, restricting themselves to design that offer glorified "familiar and master" designs (where "familiar" is any insignificant NPC, such as a purchased guard dog). Or they can (as I would prefer) just note in a sidebar their Beastmaster design is by design stronger than other classes, and that it should only be used in those groups where the DM agrees to have them, and where the other players recognize their comrade will direct two "playing pieces", two cherished and valuable party members.

 

[Parmandur]

No, no... a regular character with a purchased pet might be a 1.1 but that is plainly not enough for a Beastmaster-type of dedicated pet class.

The point is that until WotC admits (to themselves) they will never satisfy the archetype with a "balanced" design they will keep writing content that gets an unhappy reception!

They can admit it is not inherently possible to create a balanced Beastmaster design, and publicly give up on that, restricting themselves to design that offer glorified "familiar and master" designs (where "familiar" is any insignificant NPC, such as a purchased guard dog). Or they can (as I would prefer) just note in a sidebar their Beastmaster design is by design stronger than other classes, and that it should only be used in those groups where the DM agrees to have them, and where the other players recognize their comrade will direct two "playing pieces", two cherished and valuable party members.

They seem to have solved the issue with the design on display with this Druid and the Battle Smith Artificer in the upcoming Eberron book.

 

[bedir than]

If the pet gets to the point where it is worth 1/2 to 3/4 of a PC then there must be penalty for that pet dying. It's the only way to approach balance. The pet player already will get almost twice as much "screen time" as a standard player. Making them significantly more powerful with no weaknesses is a mistake.

Have the pet's death cost HP and/or HD. Don't make them mere summonable spirits to be treated like trash, rations, or ammunition.

 

[Undrave]

A Beast companion, one that is meant to be meaningful and level up, should basically be an extra PC and be treated as such by both players and DM balancing their encounters.

They seem to have solved the issue with the design on display with this Druid and the Battle Smith Artificer in the upcoming Eberron book.

It's easy when your class feature doesn't really DIE. A Beast companion's death shouldn't be treated as casually.

 

[Parmandur]

A Beast companion, one that is meant to be meaningful and level up, should basically be an extra PC and be treated as such by both players and DM balancing their encounters.



It's easy when your class feature doesn't really DIE. A Beast companion's death shouldn't be treated as casually.

Why?

 

[Blue]

No, no... a regular character with a purchased pet might be a 1.1 but that is plainly not enough for a Beastmaster-type of dedicated pet class.

Why is it "plainly not enough"? It's already at the front side of the power curve at 110% of your median class power.