D&D 5E How do you handle a hunting dog/war dog in combat?

[ECMO3]

So if a player buys a hunting dog or other dog and take it adventuring, how do you handle this when it comes to combat?

Does it automatically fight with the party? Does the player need to use an action to command it every turn? Does it require an animal handling check?

 

[Charlaquin]

Unless it’s granted by a feature that says otherwise (such as the Find Familiar spell or the Beast Master’s animal companion), it’s an independent actor. Just like any other NPC, it gets its own turn in combat, and the DM controls its actions. A trained animal like a war dog will generally follow commands (no action needed), provided it recognizes the one giving the commands as its master. However, it isn’t mindlessly obedient - it still has a sense of self-preservation and will act accordingly.

 

[Tales and Chronicles]

I generally use the Sidekick rules (either Expert or Warrior) + the special abilities of the creature.

In combat, let the group decide the actions of the companion, to avoid them becoming an ''extra character'' for a single player.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

Unless it’s granted by a feature that says otherwise (such as the Find Familiar spell or the Beast Master’s animal companion), it’s an independent actor. Just like any other NPC, it gets its own turn in combat, and the DM controls its actions. A trained animal like a war dog will generally follow commands (no action needed), provided it recognizes the one giving the commands as its master. However, it isn’t mindlessly obedient - it still has a sense of self-preservation and will act accordingly.

Which strangely enough makes it much better than the beast master's companion and highlights the weirdness with the lobotomised beast master pets.

 

[AOieiosle]

I run them as their MM profile. It will obey basic commands (sit, stay, attack), but an Animal Handling check to do something complex or outside the range of normal training.

 

[Oofta]

The way I would run it? In general, a dog will potentially help with tracking and be an "early alert alarm" at camp.

In a fight? A trained guard dog is probably best used to help (grant advantage on an attack) or defend (disadvantage on first hit for an individual). They can of course be taught other commands using animal handling. Commands can be given as a bonus action but they will continue following a command as best they can until the target is removed from combat or combat end.

If the animal takes damage, I may require an animal handling check, basically a morale check. If the check fails the animal will try to safely escape combat or, barring that, go full defensive. But remember, a mastiff only has 5 HP, so they're only going to be useful at very low levels unless the DM allows upgrades.

 

[Swarmkeeper]

Which strangely enough makes it much better than the beast master's companion and highlights the weirdness with the lobotomised beast master pets.

Tasha's Primal Companion solved for this at our table.

I run them as their MM profile. It will obey basic commands (sit, stay, attack), but an Animal Handling check to do something complex or outside the range of normal training.

I kinda like this and I also might make Animal Handling be part of training and bonding with the dog. It won't necessarily follow the player's commands until fully bonded - and even then will sometimes act independently in its own interest. Then again, I'd want a solution that is going to take the least amount of table time - especially for combat.

 

[Charlaquin]

Which strangely enough makes it much better than the beast master's companion and highlights the weirdness with the lobotomised beast master pets.

Yeah… I mean, there’s some value in the Beast Master’s companion being unfailingly loyal and directly obeying any order given as a bonus action. It’s just stupid that it doesn’t behave as a rational independent actor when not commanded in such a way.

 

[commandercrud]

It would probably die quick enough that it doesn't matter.

 

[TheSword]

I wouldn’t have it be better than a ranger’s companion. With 5-15 hp It would also die very very early at all but the lowest levels.

Im getting flashbacks to players using farm animals the bought with prices in the PhB to trigger traps back in the days of AD&D.

At best, after a substantial period of training and acclimatizing to it’s new master I would allow basic commands to be used out of combat and in combat it would probably run away from anything scarier than a human/elf/gnome.

 

[Undrave]

It would probably die quick enough that it doesn't matter.

I don't think any version of DnD has ever really handled animal companions well. They're either too weak or they break the game (like a 3.x Druid companion)

 

[IndigoTraveler]

Sidekick rules from Tasha's for certain regular trained animals that are better than the common stock.

The UA Sidekick rules for the more heroic versions of said certain animals.

Tasha's Primal Companions for secret/rare/druidic heroic animals.

*Post Revised Ranger/Battle Smith Companion action economy.

 

[iserith]

If there are concerns with it overshadowing the Beast Master subclass, the DM can just say that it takes an action to command the animal to take the Attack, Dash, Disengage, Dodge, or Help action (or perhaps a subset of these options), but it requires a Wisdom (Animal Handling) check. Success means the animal does as commanded. Failure means it doesn't. If its owner is incapacitated or absent, as with the ranger's companion, it acts on its own, focusing on protecting its owner and itself.

By asking for an ability check here, it's less reliable than the beast master which doesn't require a roll to command the beast, and it doesn't get any of the other benefits a ranger's companion does. By costing an action to get it to, say, attack, it's probably worse than just making an attack oneself, except in particular situations where it makes the most sense (and will probably be awesome). This means it's probably best to keep them around because of its traits like Keen Hearing and Smell, as a pack animal, and sometimes to take a hit which might otherwise be directed at a PC. Occasional combat effectiveness and increased perception and carrying capacity for the party seems about right to me, especially considering the low cost of entry (e.g. a mastiff is only 25 gp which is cheaper than a 50-gp potion of healing and can effectively "heal" better if it takes a hit for a PC).

 

[ccs]

How I run it:
Some sort of handle animal check as a bonus action to get it to attack "monsters"/remain in the fight after taking x damage.
Otherwise it just gets added to the initiative line-up & run as it MM entry.

Rangers etc don't need to make these checks for their animals. Nor do the have to waste actions of any sort directing the animal each round.

 

[ECMO3]

If the animal takes damage, I may require an animal handling check, basically a morale check. If the check fails the animal will try to safely escape combat or, barring that, go full defensive. But remember, a mastiff only has 5 HP, so they're only going to be useful at very low levels unless the DM allows upgrades.

From a purely mechanical point of view they are useful at higher levels too, because they will generally suck up an attack to kill.

From a thematic point of view buying a dog in every town to act as cannon fodder may be distateful but mechanically it is pretty good even if they die. At high levels the price is largely irrelevant, at low levels they are significant despite the hps.

 

[Dausuul]

In 2E I had a wizard with a couple of war dogs. At low levels, those dogs were vicious combatants (much more effective than the wizard herself).

I agree that I would run them as independent NPCs--and note that they can't always be convinced to go into battle. Supernatural monsters will often make them cower and flee, or at least force a high-DC Handle Animals check to keep them at your side.

 

[Aging Bard]

As a 1e completist, I would fully admit war dogs as long as some PC had the Animal Handling proficiency to handle the dog. I am in favor of players understanding the rules and then employing them in their favor. This is a great example.

 

[Flamestrike]

It should be a class feature.

Id certainly look poorly on a PC that used one as a combat multiplier and never fed it, cared for it and just needlessly sent it into danger.

With possible alignment ramifications.

 

[Weiley31]

Is this a regular war hound or we talking about an Animal Companion for a PC or something?

 

[Jfdlsjfd]

I read the OP as a regular Mastiff you can buy for 25 gp. It's not explicitely specified in the rules if the price is for a trained or untrained one, but since it's 25 gp, so 125 workdays of unskilled labor, I'd say it's an already "basically trained" (can be an attack dog, a guard dog, a shepherd dog but nothing more fancy than that) as it's already very expensive. At very low level, characters probably won't be able to do such an investment with their starting gold, and at later level (3+?) the dog will die if used in a fight. Intelligent enemies will strike them first if they can inflict damage.

I wouldn't let them use the Help action as it is not in their stat block, just their basic attack action. I'd treat them as independant creature under the DM's control, trying to obey the orders given at the best of their ability, but no more.