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

[I'm A Banana]

a load of poppycock

Mod Note: Lets see if we can have this discussion without the rudeness.

 

[Minigiant]

Yeah, that would not be cool.

I think this would probably call for some more robust monsters-in-the-party advice and guidelines, but given the sort of opt-in nature of NPC party members, I could see this being pretty loose. You could go the simple route (a monster is considered a character of a level equal to its' CR something, every level they gain adds a hit die that varies with their size, and they get increased proficiency bonuses at various levels), or get a little more custom with it (I like the sound of a dog with fighter levels, and have no issue with it from a mechanical perspective, but it seems like it'd encourage some weird combos at the edges), or somewhere in between (guidelines for converting a creature into a racial template you can overlay on a class? a rough damage/defense comparison you can run to give it a rough character level like the table for monster CR?). That might be useful independent of what happens with the beastmaster specifically, because it can give a DM a better sense of when it might want to give a paladin a unicorn or something anyway.

The DMG already advises treating a follower or adventuring NPC as a full party member who eats up some XP for the group, and I think that's a very useful starting point for this!

A table, chart, or rules for "monsters-as-PCs" or 'PC HP and Damage benchmarks" would be great. If there are neither of these in the books, then heck no. No unless your DM has done enough research to make a class. No.

What's a beast's 5th level benchmark feature? What's a beast's 11th level benchmark feature? What's a beast's 17th level benchmark feature? What's the substitute for the lack of skills or language? What's the substitute for the lack of weapons and armor proficiencies and inability to get them?

That's the point. If you're Mearls, Crawford, Perkins, Thompsons, Sims, Lee, Schaub, Wyatt or even Cook are doing it, I'm all for it.
If it is you or a select few on this forums, I'm okay with it because you would do the work.
Everyone else? Heck no! I can't risk them giving me a wimpy dog and the monsters 4 giants to even things up. One adventure, maybe. Not a whole campaign.

 

[Mephista]

What this proposal doesn't do is make your animal companion better than anyone else's.

The problem. The Ranger needs mechanics to be closer with their comanions and empathy than anyone else. Everything else I, and at least my group, would find unacceptable.

I don't know that I can agree with the assertion that a ranger's animal companion specifically is a bigger part of their identity than a druid's animal companion or a paladin's mount or a summoner's demon buddy or a wizard's familiar is to their identity. Given the historical D&D ranger, that simply doesn't seem to be the case in general.

Paladins in 5e have their mount through magic spells. Same with familiar. Its an intrictate part of those classes. As for the druid? The druid didn't have an animal companion until 3e, and never again after that. Druids don't have animal companions in a number of novels or video games - they shape into beasts themselves as a major mechanic.

And the warlock is terrible with summons, which is a terrible loss for the class. Really, I'm beginning to feel the warlock is badly designed, and would be a huge wreck if not for Eldritch Blast.

[*] At the ranger's conception in the Strategic Review, they didn't have an animal companion. The closest they get is a chance to have unicorns, pegasi, and wearbears as followers. (ie, only at high level, if the DM allows it, and they're generally not there for adventuring with)
[*] In 1e, the ranger didn't have an animal companion. The closest they get is a chance to have bears, lynxes, owls, and a blink dog (among more exotic creatures) as followers. (ie, only at high level, if the DM allows it, and they're generally not there for adventuring with)

I specifically said 2e was the start. So glad we're on the same page.

[*] In 2e, the ranger didn't have an animal companion.

They did have Animal Empathy as a core feature of the class. I never said Beastmaster with a pet exclusively. You're either not understanding me, or twisting my words around.

[*] In 4e, the original ranger had neither animal companions, nor spells. A beast mastery build was added, where the ranger gave up actions to allow their companion to attack. Later, a spell-using ranger was added, but it does not have any animal companion.

Which just goes to show that the demand for beast companion was there. And the giving up action to let a pet work was standard in ALL summons and companions in 4e. Conjure up an elemental in 4e, takes your action. Conjure up an elemental in 5e, acts alone. The two editions are completely separate standards.

The spell using Scout and Hunter were Rangers, and had options of using the Ranger stuff from previous books, including getting a pet.

So is a spell-less ranger who chooses the Hunter subclass the same as a fighter in your eyes? If so, I don't think I can agree with that assumption, either.

So, you came here to ask opinions, and now, when I disagree with yours with my own, its suddenly a wrong opinion?

You asked "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?" No, I don't think it is cool. I think a lot of people would be pissed off at a class without magic or some form of animal empathy.

I'm not here to make you agree with any assumptions. I'm here to give my opinion, and I'd be happy explain my position if you're confused. I came here because you asked a question and a request for an opinion, not to fight over who has the "right idea" or be converted to your ideas.

And, given the current testing of the Ranger, I think its clear that the people at WotC think its an important part of the class identity as well. We'll see with the next survey how much that's true with a wider audience.

 

[Mephista]

"It needs to be present...as an option for those that want it....in some fashion."

There ya go. Fixed that for ya.

Then you can have you cake and those of us that think the bulk of your "pro" arguments and examples are a load of poppycock can eat ours too.

(and suggesting that the 2e animal empathy ability was, in any way other than a very very remote ancestor, equivalent to the MMO monstrous creation that has become the "beastmaster" concept is disingenuous)

Rude. Seriously and one hundred percent rude. I said optional several times, right before that very sentence you took grossly out of context. It was part of the paragraph - there was zero reason for you to "fix" something I already said other than to be confrontational.

 

[Minigiant]

The problem. The Ranger needs mechanics to be closer with their comanions and empathy than anyone else. Everything else I, and at least my group, would find unacceptable.

The Ranger needs spells to be closer with their companions and empathy than anyone else. Everything else I, and at least my group, would find unacceptable.

That's the thing rangers (and druids) have to strengthen the combat and exploration features of animal companions and henchmen.
The druid has more spells but their few nonmagic features and the concentration cap holds them back.

The ranger has the martial skill to back up the companion. They should have taken a page from WOW. Kill Command -> Cobra Shot/ArcaneShot/Barrage -> Kill Shot (when ready) Keep Steady Focus up.

 

[I'm A Banana]

Rude. Seriously and one hundred percent rude. I said optional several times, right before that very sentence you took grossly out of context. It was part of the paragraph - there was zero reason for you to "fix" something I already said other than to be confrontational.

Did you miss the mod note? It's been handled. Drop it.

 

[steeldragons]

It was part of the paragraph - there was zero reason for you to "fix" something I already said other than to be confrontational.

You did actually say [an animal companion] needs to be a part of the class, "even if optional", and I missed that in my read of your zealous advocacy of a beast companion. So, mea culpa. I apologize.

I would still argue that it doesn't "need" to be part of the class. Not by a long shot. And citing, multiple times, "but in <video game>..." and other derivatives of D&D and saying "look see, they do this" does not make it a mandate for D&D to have to match those media/genre "versions" of what a D&D ranger was/is supposed to be.

I would have no problem at all with it being a spell/ritual a la Find Steed or Familiar. There is, already, Animal Friendship in the ranger spell list. If that's what you want/"need", as with the druid, there ya go. Get an animal companion if you want. But for "beastmaster" advocates that doesn't seem to be obvious or enough? Why not?

The issues for people with the existing beastmaster and any other words about/against it, is that people don't want an "animal companion." They want "Where's my extra DPR? My extra bag o' hit points/attack sponge? My ranger's 10th level now, why doesn't my wolf now have three times as many HP as any other wolf? Why can't it hit as hard as my swords? Where's my Gwynhwyfar!?"

Because some drow had a Figurine of Wondrous power in some mediocre D&D novel once upon a time, the game been cursed for decades with "the animal companion is a part of the ranger."

Then people played some poke-yugi-digi-cards and had a saber-toothed blue ice tiger "pet" in their MMO and so D&D just has to let my ranger have a beast. "It's so kewl [in this other not-D&D place]! It's definitive!" I find that ridiculous, that what came after gets to mandate/redefine what came before.

But that's the world we live in. So, as long as it's optional. Have at it.

I'm totally pro having people play what they want. I'm totally pro having them play HOW they want. I'm totally pro having multiple avenues to get to a similar character concept.

Make it a feat? Sure. Make it a spell? Sure. Make it a set of "Having an animal companion [for the love of Lolth stop referring to them as "pets"]" mechanics/guidelines for any class? Great! The game should have had them already, afaic.

Make it a subclass feature with FAIR mechanics? Sure! Which means, if you are getting something -like, say, a potential 3 additional attacks on your turn and separate HP pool/target that falls under "your character"- you have to give something -like, say, your action. That seems fair to me. But from the word go, there has been great woe and gnashing of teeth.

I think we're all agreed on all of that.

I am con saying "This other game does this. I like that. Ergo, D&D -the game, the official-for-everybody system- needs to be like that, let me do/have that, now." I am VERY opposed to that. Intended or not, a lot of what you are saying, to me, sounds like just that. 'Cuz WoW, cuz Diablo,...Jack and the Beanstalk? Really?

Jack as a ranger, first of all...I've never understood why 2e included that. That's how desperate they were for an example that wasn't Aragorn/deal with the Tolkien estate, apparently. But his goose animal companion? C'mon. You know that was a stretch bordering on the comical, right?

So, again, apologies for not recognizing your attitude/willingness for optional......options. But I am not really buying the defense/justifications for why/how it needs to be capable of or in the game in the first place [specifically, as a part of the ranger class]. But if/since it will be in the game, a spell or feat or general game element option for any class are all perfectly doable and fine by me.

 

[steeldragons]

Sorry @I'm A Banana . I was composing my reply before seeing your [red text] moderation. I can remove it if you like.

 

[Minigiant]

[MENTION=92511]steeldragons[/MENTION]

There is nothing wrong with players wanting there ranger or druid to have a beastly DPR meattank as an animal companion from a subclass.

They just gotta pay for it.
You have to spend your actions and bonus actions to let it attack.
You use spells to buff its health.
You use spell slots to up it's DPR.

It is a simple solution to give a beastmaster, druid, or chainlock something equivalent to the paladin Divine Smite and Smite spells but only effect the beast. Complainers would be outed as a munchkin powergamers.

Easier than a NPC beast.

 

[steeldragons]

[MENTION=92511]steeldragons[/MENTION]

There is nothing wrong with players wanting there ranger or druid to have a beastly DPR meattank as an animal companion from a subclass.

They just gotta pay for it.
You have to spend your actions and bonus actions to let it attack.
You use spells to buff its health.
You use spell slots to up it's DPR.

It is a simple solution to give a beastmaster, druid, or chainlock something equivalent to the paladin Divine Smite and Smite spells but only effect the beast. Complainers would be outed as a munchkin powergamers.

Easier than a NPC beast.

Perhaps. I can see it.

Of course, as you know, and we've tete-a-tete'ed across multiple ranger threads, I am no fan of a spell-dependent/-heavy Ranger, either.

But a class feature that comes in, a la Divine Smite, that could be used to "boost" an animal companion makes sense for an AC dependent subclass. As the ranger gains levels, they could make them tougher/hit harder, and/or if for rangers with spell access, then sure that makes sense to spend slots that way...or, as my latest rewrite of the class uses, some separate/bonus/mini-feat mechanic built into the class that let's it do that...thus, it stays/is only a "Ranger" thing.

But then, the OP idea here, I think [if I'm in the right "talking about the ranger" thread and honestly it's getting difficult to keep track], is that it should be something open to all/any class...and I can get behind that, too. Then the ranger just needs mechanics to enhance theirs so the advocates would be satisfied that the ranger can do animals "better" than any other class [other than, maybe, a druid geared this way] and that can be one of the [a subclass] ranger's shticks.