D&D 5E Followers and Animal friends in 5E

[DEFCON 1]

Above all else, I want most classes with an animal companion to give me the ability to "opt out" of it. Really though, I don't see why any class couldn't have an animal companion, though I'm sure some would emphasize it more than others.

The talk was that it wasn't classes that got the companions... but rather the themes. So the way to 'opt out' of a companion would be to just not take a theme that included one. If your wizard doesn't want a familiar, there will probably be numerous themes that don't include one that you could take instead.

 

[Sunseeker]

The talk was that it wasn't classes that got the companions... but rather the themes. So the way to 'opt out' of a companion would be to just not take a theme that included one. If your wizard doesn't want a familiar, there will probably be numerous themes that don't include one that you could take instead.

Well hopefully. But this is a growing concern as well. It'll take time for Wizards to release splatbooks with variant rules, which makes me wonder exactly how long we'll be stuck with a "boiled down" or "basic" core with little to no ability to customize.

 

[Frostmarrow]

I'm thinking every character has one primary action and one secondary action per round. The secondary action can be used for different things such as order an NPC, make an iterative attack, or even cast a second spell. Different classes have different available secondary action slots. We don't want characters having three or four actions each such as a bunch of iterative attacks or summoned monsters, because it takes too long. But if we are to have diversity we need to allow for some things to happen other than the primary function of moving and attacking.

If characters have a secondary action that can be used for a large range of class abilities we can have it all tucked neatly into the action economy.

A wizard can move and cast a spell with the primary action and direct the familiar with the secondary action.

A fighter can move and attack with the primary action and cleave with the secondary action.

A ranger can move and attack with the primary action and either but not both strike with an offhand weapon or direct an animal companion.

This isn't exactly groundbreaking but I just wanted to point out two actions are probably ideal as most classes have some use for a second action.

 

[DEFCON 1]

Well hopefully. But this is a growing concern as well. It'll take time for Wizards to release splatbooks with variant rules, which makes me wonder exactly how long we'll be stuck with a "boiled down" or "basic" core with little to no ability to customize.

If we assume for the moment that they follow the ideas that were put forth in the blogs and the podcasts... Backgrounds could supply a PC with its Skills list, and Themes would supply them with their feat lists. And neither of them would be class or even power source specific (in other words, no pre-requisite for 'sage' for example-- any class can take it). As a result, the first books would probably include anywhere from 10 to 20 Backgrounds and 10 to 20 Themes. Even if four of them included companions, that leaves plenty without.

 

[Minigiant]

If we assume for the moment that they follow the ideas that were put forth in the blogs and the podcasts... Backgrounds could supply a PC with its Skills list, and Themes would supply them with their feat lists. And neither of them would be class or even power source specific (in other words, no pre-requisite for 'sage' for example-- any class can take it). As a result, the first books would probably include anywhere from 10 to 20 Backgrounds and 10 to 20 Themes. Even if four of them included companions, that leaves plenty without.

This is what I see. Backgrounds seem to be described as Skills & Minor flavor bits. Themes have been described more like fighting style. There might only be 2 PC themes that grant combat worthy cohorts; some sore of beastmaster theme for an animal companion and maybe some sort of leader theme that grants a basic warrior bodyguard/teammate. Then for the noncombat cohort might be only 5-10% of the core backgrounds, familiar and mount.

The default classes most likely wont have cohorts built in. To get the 3.5E ranger with a bear buddy, you'll have to make a ranger then take the beastmaster theme for a combat ready animal companion or the tamer theme for a little furry friend.

My current guess for core backgrounds and themes is

Backgrounds:
Apprentice
Commoner
Dragon-blooded
Explorer
Feytouched
Merchant
Mercanary
Mystic
Noble (grants servant)
Outlaw
Planetouched
Savage
Sailor
Soldier
Thief
Wild
Witch (grants familiar)


Themes:
Avenger
Artificer
Alchemist
Beastmaster (grants a animal companion)
Blacksmith
Cavalier (grants a mount)
Guardian
Elementalist
Lurker
Scrollscribe
Sharpshooter
Slayer
Trickster
Tempest

Then there could be villainous bg/themes that a DM can use for NPCs and might left PCs use.

BG:
Bandit
Blackguard
Cultist (grants a servant)
Mobster
Tainted
Tax Collector

Themes:
Hired AssassinLycantrope
Mummy
Necromancer (grants a homunculus or some minor undead)
Overlord (grants a few minions)
Mad Scientist (can craft a monster)
Thrallherd (has a supply of thralls)
Vampire

 

[CM]

As long as we don't return to the days of the druid summoning a dozen animals and spending the next two hours throwing various buff spells on them...

I very much like how 4e handled familiars and summonings. Unless you focus on controlling them directly (by spending your own actions) summoned creatures would act according to their nature. For example a mage in my campaign summons hell hounds frequently. They act on a very simple instinct: If they are close enough to attack an enemy, they will do so, attempting to breathe fire on as many creatures as possible. They have no compunctions about breathing on the summoner's allies, either. If they're not close enough, they will instead move toward the nearest enemy.

Basically, for the summoner these creatures are on autopilot, acting as the DM decides by following its simple instinctive "script" and only following the summoner's orders when controlled directly. I think that's a really cool, speedy way to handle them, as opposed to earlier editions where they were basically an extension of the summoner's will. I feel other companion-type creatures and NPCs should act this way, as well. Hopefully this gets carried over into 5e.

 

[El Mahdi]

Why not just make Animal Companions/Familiars a Feat. If you want one, you take the Feat for it. If you don't want it, don't take the Feat for it.

 

[Minigiant]

Why not just make Animal Companions/Familiars a Feat. If you want one, you take the Feat for it. If you don't want it, don't take the Feat for it.

By the looks of it, companions and cohorts will be a feat.

They will attached to feats. Feats are grouped into Themes.


So if you want an animal companion, you either take the theme with the Animal Companion feat or create a custom theme and choose the Animal Companion feat.

If you don't want one, don't pick that theme or don't add that feat into your custom theme.

 

[KidSnide]

The action economy is the central problem with henchmen and followers because an extra action (even by a weaker character) is an extremely powerful ability. Animal companions, along with summoned monsters, have the problem that -- if they get their own actions -- they need to be almost uselessly weak or prohibitively expensive to be balanced against other character abilities.

I'm not sure what the answer is. I suspect that animals and followers are going to need to have an on-going monetary cost -- something that makes them like a different type of magic item. Then the character abilities that allow PCs to improve their morale (and maybe hire them more efficiently) can be compared against character abilities that create magic items.

All of this would be optional, of course, but it seems to me that worthwhile companions and followers have to be treated as a form of semi-expendable treasure. In other words, they are a valuable thing that exists in the gameworld and not an entitlement from a character ability. (That wouldn't go for familiars and other non-combat animal companions -- those are weak enough that they make reasonable character abilities.)

-KS

 

[dkyle]

Sounds like extra attacks as you level up will be a part of 5E, so the easy thing to do would be to have an animal companion essentially cost one of those attacks, taken from the progression of the class.

Supposing a basic Fighter gets an attack every 5 levels, a Beastmaster Ranger might initially have to spend a standard action to make their beast attack, but at level 5, in lieu of an additional attack themselves, gains an "Independent Beast" feature, that allows their animal to act and attack separately from the Ranger.