D&D 5E A Look At Companions (Animal & Otherwise)

[I'm A Banana]

I've spent too-much-time over the last week pondering ranger stuff in response to the UA article, and I've thought about looking at this from another perspective. Setting aside for the moment the lack of a schtick or how everyone can TWF now or the "crapstone" ability at 20th level, I want to dig into one particular aspect that's been banging around my head a bit:

Animal Companions.

5e has a pretty decent method for handling "extra party members" (DMG, pog 92-93), which kind of translates into "If you've got an NPC party member, they get XP, and the challenge goes up, but you don't need to spend your action to control them or anything." Presumably, if your party paladin wound up astride a unicorn or your druid befriended a giant weasel, they'd be handled under this rubrick: they're a party member. Maybe you as a player control them, but they're independent creatures with their own agendas and their own cut of the XP load (and they'll make combats more tough, often, if the DM takes them into account).

This seems to be kind of what a lot of folks who want a more robust animal companion - one that doesn't use the ranger's actions - kind of want. An independent party member who does their own thing. This might also apply to a noble's bodyguard, or a planar ally'd fiend or an intelligent paladin mount, as well as an animal companion. They get all their actions and features, and you just get a little less XP. They maybe even gain levels (so that they can increase their own proficiency bonus and hit point total).

What strikes me is that these kinds of companions aren't really class features. The druid can gain an animal companion for an adventure, and they gain abilities to make that more likely animal friendship, speaking with animals, etc. It's not part of their class per se, but certainly it's something they can do if the DM's cool with adding another part-time party member. You can summon a demon or ride a pegasus, and these creatures might join your party, but they are not features of you being a wizard or having a pegasi-wrangler background per se.

Thinking about companions like this makes me wonder if we really need a ranger who can control beasts independent from this. A subclass like "beastmaster" isn't any more essential for a ranger than it is for a druid, anyway, and countless character types - summoners, nobles, psionic mind-controllers, etc. - benefit from having a little NPC to control. So maybe one system for handling them ("they're a party member") is sufficient. If your ranger wants a bear friend, awesome, use Animal Handling and get one, and that bear gets XP and travels with the party and hangs out in the stables being chill around some panicky horses.

Okay, you say, but rangers need more than one subclass, right? Well, how about we rip out the half-spellcasting and instead give them the spell-less ranger features. Now, we can have a ranger subclass that works like a druidic eldritch knight - one that casts some spells. That gives us the Hunter (now completely spell-less), and the "Spell Ranger" (Sylvan?). And maybe with that framework, we can massage the other elements of the ranger class to perfection. That also means that hunters and spell rangers who wanted to could still get an animal companion, just like how anyone else gets an NPC party member - roleplay, skill use, and DMing.

So, what do you think - would it be cool to drop the idea of an animal companion as a class feature altogether, relying on general NPC party member rules for animal companions?

 

[CapnZapp]

No, since people want their ranger to be able to magically upgrade their animal companion.

 

[bedir than]

Things that don't have high intelligence are not going to act as if they do unless they are commanded to do so. That's why animal companions cannot act as if NPCs.

The simple answer I use (not going to plug my rules again) is that animal companions must be of lower intelligence and that commanding them takes a bonus action. So you can command your animal or do the pole arm smack, but not both. Plus if you command your animal to attack it keeps attacking until commanded to stop or it/opponent drops. This can be bad for a party trying to capture rather than kill.

 

[I'm A Banana]

No, since people want their ranger to be able to magically upgrade their animal companion.

"Magically Upgrade..."

...you can cast spells or give magic items to NPC party members, so you should still be able to play a ranger who magically upgrades their animal companion. AND they gain XP, so you should be able to mundanely upgrade them, too! (maybe even adding class levels? BEARBARIAN! )

Things that don't have high intelligence are not going to act as if they do unless they are commanded to do so. That's why animal companions cannot act as if NPCs.

There's no hard-and-fast requirement for a high Intelligence to be an NPC party member (and the existence of things like griffon mounts and the like would indicate that this is probably intentional). You could even use the Loyalty score to govern the things that a companion would do with more granularity!

 

[jodyjohnson]

Ranger Animal Companion is for when you want a pet that you are entitled to.

Companion as extra party NPC is dependent on the DM buying in to the idea.

Advancement is not especially hard to figure out. (HD equal to level, maybe some ASI)

You can buy a mount but you can't keep the DM from killing it or having it run off. Find Steed solves that.

Mearls tweeted the other day that Pet as NPC is his preference.

 

[bedir than]

There's no hard-and-fast requirement for a high Intelligence to be an NPC party member (and the existence of things like griffon mounts and the like would indicate that this is probably intentional). You could even use the Loyalty score to govern the things that a companion would do with more granularity!

griffons are about an 8 IIRC. Unicorns are actually high intelligence. I'd be fine with them operating fully independently. I would not be OK with a Blood Hawk doings so

 

[Minigiant]

depends.

The DM must know what the heck they are doing.

5 extra d8 HD on a Wolf isn't the same as 5 levels of fighter on a humanoid. I can argue that 10HD is not the same a 5 PC levels.

 

[Bupp]

I like what the OP is saying. Of course, I played AD&D rangers, and never had animal companions except as followers at high levels.

I like the idea that they get a share of XP. When they level, increase their proficiency bonus and hit dice. Give them ability score increases or feats at the appropriate level.

 

[I'm A Banana]

griffons are about an 8 IIRC. Unicorns are actually high intelligence. I'd be fine with them operating fully independently. I would not be OK with a Blood Hawk doings so

I can dig it, though I don't think the DMG asks to consider Intelligence as a matter of mechanics or balance or anything (that is, the DMG seems OK with a blood hawk operating as an independent party member, if the DM is cool with it).

What if the creature is engaged with the Animal Handling skill, or has been the target of Animal Friendship, or Speak With Animals? What if there was a spell (call it "Beast Bond") that maybe worked a bit like planar ally, to get a little more specific?

Part of what I like about this potential solution is that it is agnostic with regards to the mechanics of it, and open to DMs to roll with. If you as a DM want to support your ranger having an animal companion without a class feature that specifies it, it's easy to make some small hoop or check or rule or spell to jump through in order to erase whatever objections you might have. A libertine DM might just say, "sure, you can have a bear that follows you around, it's a party member." One who has an Int-based prerequisite might say "Well, use Speak with Animals and make them Friendly." One who wanted it to be explicitly supernatural could say, "Use Animal Friendship, if it fades, they leave." One who just wanted to put some hoop might be like "If you undertake a quest for these druids, you can have a wolf buddy that follows you around."

And the paladin player who wanted a squire or to ride around on a giant boar or whatever could do the same thing.

 

[jodyjohnson]

There are a lot of pieces one might tweak on the subject of animal companions.

Feature or NPC
CR Limit
Size limit
Saves
HP
Action economy
Hit Dice (short rest healing)
Spell Interactions
Creatures by Terrain
If NPC, value for encounter building and XP division (full or partial)
Town restrictions

Same with Mounts, Hirelings, Cohorts