D&D 5E Is there an ideal way to handle player-controlled summoned creatures/pets in combat?

[doctorhook]

Is there a satisfying way to handle player-controlled pets/companions/summoned monsters in combat in a TTRPG?

"Pets" (as I will call them in this conversation, for the sake of brevity) seem like a persistent problem area in D&D. If pets are treated as additional participants, then the player in control of them gets more actions and more turn-time at the table; it makes sense from an action-economy perspective, but it can seriously slow down a game if multiple pets are in play. On the other hand, the mind boggles if (ostensibly independent) pets are unable to act without the "owner" expending an action; this approach is more fair, but it's ridiculous to imagine a pet attack dog that needs to be told to keep biting the bad guy every round.

Has any game included an ideal way to handle pets in combat? If so, what way was that, and why was it ideal?

 

[The Crimson Binome]

The most fun/fair/balanced approach I've seen, particularly in regards to the Ranger, is that you need an action to command the pet initially; the pet will then continue to follow that command indefinitely.

That puts pet-control on the same action-economy level as summoning a monster, where you give up your turn now in order to get an extra attack on all future rounds (with limits).

 

[Sunseeker]

Pets shouldn't require constant maintenance. It's one of the reasons I find pets so incredibly annoying. Pets should be simple: on your turn, if you have a pet, you can command it to either move or attack, if it has an ability that lets it move an attack, you can do that too. But this way it simplifies it down to essentially an extra attack roll. My biggest beef with too high an action cost, such as pets using your entire action, is that pets are class features, comparable to raging and your class is missing out on other cool, less action-consumptive features in exchange for the pet, which arguably requires a lot more in-combat control and out-of-combat upkeep than most other class features which simply function.

tldr: Pets should be limited to a single "action" (move/attack/special) and consume no more than a bonus action. Anything more consumptive makes them too heavy of a burden on the class and any further ability usage on their part makes them too powerful.

 

[steeldragons]

The ideal way to handle player-controlled summoned creatures is to not have/allow them. Pets are something else and, also, should not be player-controlled anyway as they are separate entities, not PCs, and thus fall under DM domain.

Since that is probably not an option you are willing or able to enforce, the "single action to direct" the creature and then let'em rip until you want them to do something else (probably just "Attack" til they die) seems the most player-friendly without having to rewrite/make up any rules.

 

[jgsugden]

ROLE playing game.

Let the beast be a role to be played as a loyal NPC. Pets should be loyal and obedient if they're to live up to the PC's resource investment in them, but beyond that the creatures should be NPC monsters run by the DM. If there is a good reason, a beast or familiar might decide to not listen to the PC. For example, I occasionally have druids or rangers make charisma based skill checks in order to get their creatures to do something that is clearly outside of the natural behavior of a beast (getting a panther to dive off a ship in the middle of the ocean, etc...)

 

[FormerlyHemlock]

"Pets" (as I will call them in this conversation, for the sake of brevity) seem like a persistent problem area in D&D. If pets are treated as additional participants, then the player in control of them gets more actions and more turn-time at the table; it makes sense from an action-economy perspective, but it can seriously slow down a game if multiple pets are in play.

This is true, but it's equally true of any large combat. The old Gold Box games loved to throw dozens of monsters at you per combat, and I don't see anything wrong with that: a goblin patrol (16 goblins led by 3 bugbears) is a perfectly good opponent for 3 or 4 7th level PCs. The DM has to get good at running those combats quickly (battlemaps help), and those same techniques help for keeping player hirelings/pets/summons under control.

Some things that I've found to help (#5 is the most important for me):

1.) Spread the pain/fun. Let a player roll initiative/attacks/damage for his own minions. In practice this means that a player (my players at least) won't bring more firepower to bear than he needs. The wizard could have dozens of skeleton archers in each combat, but in practice he only has about ten, and he sometimes leaves them behind while exploring dungeons and such.

2.) Allow taking average damage on a hit as an option instead of rolling. Use that option liberally for monsters you control.

3.) For any battle where more than 4 combatants are on each side, use a battlemap. Otherwise it gets too confusing keeping track of the verbal descriptions. "Wait, is it ogre #5 or #9 who's down now?"

4.) When using a battle map, don't feel obligated to have separate miniatures for each creature. It's okay to have an wolf "blob" of 8 wolves.

5.) Buy lots of dice. When 8 wolves are attacking an AC 13 orc, it's easy to roll 8 dice and count how many dice are 9+. "Okay, five hits, that's 35 damage to the orc. He's now a fine mist of blood." However, it's slow to roll a single d20 eight times and remember how many you've rolled and how many were hits.

 

[Sunseeker]

The ideal way to handle player-controlled summoned creatures is to not have/allow them. Pets are something else and, also, should not be player-controlled anyway as they are separate entities, not PCs, and thus fall under DM domain.

My only objection to this is it can put a LOT of strain on the DM who is already running a dozen monsters in combat. The players really shouldn't have abilities that force the DM to do more work, which is why I let players run their creatures, because I sure as heck don't want to have to suddenly run another 3-10 creatures on the board....Because I know the first thing they'll do is attack the guy who just doubled the amount of work I have to do and forced me to play against myself (which is really un-fun).

 

[Mishihari Lord]

Is there a satisfying way to handle player-controlled pets/companions/summoned monsters in combat in a TTRPG?

I consider the disintegrate spell the ideal way to handle them.

 

[doctorhook]

Thanks for the input, girls and guys! I honestly expected this topic to be more confusing to resolve, but one page of discussion has already offered some pretty insightful solutions.

I think I'm gonna go with a summoning/pet system wherein pets are NPCs, mostly directed by bonus actions but who continue to act in a manner appropriate for their nature when not under command. For example, a ranger could use a bonus action to command his wolf companion to "attack those orcs", and the wolf thereafter will attack anyone who seems hostile to its master (because it understands "attack" but not necessarily "orcs") until they're either all dead or its master commands it to back down. FWIW, y'all have also convinced me that pet numbers should be limited for the sake of combat management; perhaps groups of minions should be handled as swarms or mobs?

 

[Sunseeker]

...perhaps groups of minions should be handled as swarms or mobs?

I usually operate large numbers of mobs in psuedo-swarms or small teams, depending on what is more fitting for the creature. But when I do I reduce the damage they do. 4 attacks with +4 to hit, each doing 1d6 isn't that bad, the independant chance to miss is pretty good and it happens on every attack, but 1 attack with +4 to hit doing 4d6 damage, especially since it will usually be focused on one creature, can be brutal.