Level Up (A5E) Future archetypes with pets

[Pedantic]

Chamomile's pretty accessible. He has an open discord channel he runs, but they aren't really any more persuaded by A5E than 5e in general there. More generally, you could see this book (and the series of 'zines it collates) primarily as a different approach to the "expand 5e into a slightly more crunchy/complete game" than A5E took.

That being said, I think it would be pretty trivial to hack this class up to A5E standard. It just needs knacks really.

 

[xiphumor]

And a few minor adjustments for IP reasons of course.

 

[lichmaster]

I've read a lot of very interesting ideas here for anyone who likes a character with a pet.

I'm wondering though if we really need archetypes for this, or we could more simply and seamlessly just design a pet system where characters can get access to some pets and get some relevant bonuses at some specific conditions.

Of course, not all characters will need to have pets, and finding these pets could take resources and some adventuring, and on top of that there could be some training required, equipment, etc.

This way the players don't have to sacrifice their archetype choice to just get the pet and can get all the benefits of having one. On the balancing side, this is an investment that the character will want to protect, so having some kind of cost (maybe roughly equated to a magic item of the relevant rarity just to give an idea) can act as both a balancing mechanism and also as a way for having the player really involved in the pet's wellbeing.

 

[xiphumor]

@Faolyn had the brilliant idea to make most pets a kind of follower, which is simple and easy to slip into the existing system. However, I still want archetypes with pets that function in unique and interesting ways.

 

[VenerableBede]

I've read a lot of very interesting ideas here for anyone who likes a character with a pet.

I'm wondering though if we really need archetypes for this, or we could more simply and seamlessly just design a pet system where characters can get access to some pets and get some relevant bonuses at some specific conditions.

Of course, not all characters will need to have pets, and finding these pets could take resources and some adventuring, and on top of that there could be some training required, equipment, etc.

This way the players don't have to sacrifice their archetype choice to just get the pet and can get all the benefits of having one. On the balancing side, this is an investment that the character will want to protect, so having some kind of cost (maybe roughly equated to a magic item of the relevant rarity just to give an idea) can act as both a balancing mechanism and also as a way for having the player really involved in the pet's wellbeing.

Wasn't there some DM minor-celebrity-figure who a year ago came up with a system for turning literally any monster (in O5e) into a pet? Didn't it include rage dice, something like that? I'm pretty sure in the same third-party sourcebook he published he included a class entirely focused on maximizing the use of such pets.
I love the idea, and if such a thing existed for A5e I would use it. I do think it's worth noting that there is a greater degree of convenience in an archetype that says, "Hey, here's a wolf that's your friend. It gets stronger in these ways as you level up. Now just go play the game."
Also, just my opinion, I think it's easier for an archetype or class feature to grant a minion that feels like an extension of the player or that naturally synergizes with the player character's abilities than a separate, universal system that anyone can use. But for people who like their pets to feel separate or do their own thing, that doesn't really matter much.

In other words, both ideas fill different "this is how I have fun" needs.

 

[Faolyn]

Wasn't there some DM minor-celebrity-figure who a year ago came up with a system for turning literally any monster (in O5e) into a pet? Didn't it include rage dice, something like that? I'm pretty sure in the same third-party sourcebook he published he included a class entirely focused on maximizing the use of such pets.
I love the idea, and if such a thing existed for A5e I would use it. I do think it's worth noting that there is a greater degree of convenience in an archetype that says, "Hey, here's a wolf that's your friend. It gets stronger in these ways as you level up. Now just go play the game."
Also, just my opinion, I think it's easier for an archetype or class feature to grant a minion that feels like an extension of the player or that naturally synergizes with the player character's abilities than a separate, universal system that anyone can use. But for people who like their pets to feel separate or do their own thing, that doesn't really matter much.

In other words, both ideas fill different "this is how I have fun" needs.

Pathfinder 2 allows for your animal companions to increase in power via feats. I have no idea if they're class-specific feats or not, though, since its been ages since I've looked at any PF stuff of either edition. In LU, there could possibly be a synergy feat chain that did something similar (open to anyone with an animal companion or familiar), although I don't know how popular such a chain would be. The feats would have to allow for a great deal of power to be competitive with anything else you want to spend your ASI/feat on; they couldn't just be an extra hit die. they'd have to include higher stats (both mental and physical), better AC, and probably some supernatural abilities as well.

 

[WarDriveWorley]

Pathfinder 2 allows for your animal companions to increase in power via feats. I have no idea if they're class-specific feats or not, though, since its been ages since I've looked at any PF stuff of either edition. In LU, there could possibly be a synergy feat chain that did something similar (open to anyone with an animal companion or familiar), although I don't know how popular such a chain would be. The feats would have to allow for a great deal of power to be competitive with anything else you want to spend your ASI/feat on; they couldn't just be an extra hit die. they'd have to include higher stats (both mental and physical), better AC, and probably some supernatural abilities as well.

They are class/archetype specific.

 

[Fareed]

So I love pet classes, so this is something that I think about a lot So I have quite a few ideas. For me, I wouldn't want every class just to have animals; I'd like them to each feel unique.

• Adept- My idea for the Adept is only technically a pet class, but I call it the Beast Chucker. Your companion is a tiny beast (probably a monkey) with this archetype. Outside of combat, it could go around and do stuff on its own, but in combat, it functions as a thrown weapon. If it hits, it latches on and can apply a variety of debuffs.
• Artificer- This is pretty self-explanatory. I'd give them some kind of magical construct that follows them around.
• Bard- Someone else already mentioned a Pied Piper-themed Bard.
• Berserker- Dinosoar mount, that's all.
• Cleric- I imagine them as more of a Pokemon trainer. They would have a relatively weak beast companion but spells and features heavily focuses on summoning.
• Druid- I emagin a Druid archetype that allows you to grow a huge plant creature as your pet. Or you could have a chimera druid who focuses on imbuing there pet with traits from other creatures.
• Marshal- The Cavilier would get a horse pet and have a heavy focus on giving mobility based support with additional benefits to allies who are mounted.
• Rogue- They would use tiny stealthy beast like rats and cats.
• Sorcerer- You are able to manifest your soul as a physical entity
• Warlock- The Vestige Keeper is a warlock whos companion is there patiron and a last remaining vestige of some greater being.
• Wizard- they would focus on familures.
• Fighter/Herald- I wasn't able to decide which of these ideas was best for which class.
  • Wing Knight: Agile warriors who fight from the backs of large flying steeds (eg. griffin, pegasis, etc)
  • Drake Rider

 

[lichmaster]

Wasn't there some DM minor-celebrity-figure who a year ago came up with a system for turning literally any monster (in O5e) into a pet? Didn't it include rage dice, something like that? I'm pretty sure in the same third-party sourcebook he published he included a class entirely focused on maximizing the use of such pets.

It's very probable, I just don't follow many "celebrities" at all.

I love the idea, and if such a thing existed for A5e I would use it. I do think it's worth noting that there is a greater degree of convenience in an archetype that says, "Hey, here's a wolf that's your friend. It gets stronger in these ways as you level up. Now just go play the game."
Also, just my opinion, I think it's easier for an archetype or class feature to grant a minion that feels like an extension of the player or that naturally synergizes with the player character's abilities than a separate, universal system that anyone can use. But for people who like their pets to feel separate or do their own thing, that doesn't really matter much.

In other words, both ideas fill different "this is how I have fun" needs.

I totally agree. My comment wasn't really to crap on the very good ideas written so far, but just to propose a different way than generating more archetypes.

Personally, I don't really like the exponential increase of archetypes, like I didn't like the evergrowing list of feats and prestige classes that happened at a certain point with 3.5.

Good variety is paramount, and boy does A5E deliver on that, but the way the core material increases the variety is not just with the sheer number of same kind options (archetypes or feats), but with a good number of well diversified options in many different subsystems (equipment, strongholds, followers, destinies, combat manoeuvres, etc). In this sense, a "pet" system would give even more variety to every character, and a flexible system may allow for creating a very tight bond between pet and owner. But I do understand if some people prefer an archetype for that.

 

[VenerableBede]

That’s fair, and I respect the perspective. Diversified, flexible “systems” would help to consolidate new ideas and additions without contributing to system bloat as much.
Personally, I’ve always considered bloat to either be end-positive or end-neutral. For example, I loved the overwhelming deluge of content in 3.5 and Pathfinder 1e. So many concepts and ideas that might have never seen the light of day got full-book treatment because those systems weren’t afraid to put everything out there. And then it’s up to you and your DM as to what’s available. I do get the criticism that it’s a lot for the DM to manage, keeping up with everything and trying to manage potential power creep at the table, but as a forever-DM (less by choice than by circumstance - over half of what I write is what I write is what I wish I could play if I were ever a player), it never bothered me. My players were never very competitive with each other and I’m not afraid to hack the system to give a player a boost if needed to make the game more fun, so it always worked out.