D&D General "Pet subclasses" - the problem and the solution

[Ancalagon]

Hello

So I saw the artificer reanimator, and I was underwhelmed. I've found in general that a lot of the "pet subclasses" (a ranger beastmaster, a pact of the chain warlock, a battlesmith etc) have pets that are rather underwhelming.

And... they kind of have to be weak. If the pet was very powerful, you would now have the power of two PCs! In many cases, "using" the pet consumes a bonus action, so the pet has to be roughly as impactful as the bonus action provided by another subclass. This isn't that potent, and as a result the design space is limited.

How can we free ourselves of these limits? How can we have a character, a summoner type, who's main power is their powerful "pet" - a dragon, a golem, a potent nature spirit?

Here is how I would do it with an Artificer: The Golemist


TL,DR: The artificer has a "permanent" pet, and it uses a bonus action to both control the golem and cast a bonus action spell on it that bolsters the golem. Because the PC has used a spell slot, its main action will be a basic attack or a cantrip - meaning the golem is the main source of offensive power,

This is a bit like a paladin using their spell slots to smite - but instead of having the smite be combined with an attack from the PC it is combined with the attack of the golem. Balancing this will be tricky But I believe that this design space could be used to create certain fantasy archetypes that didn't fit so well in the current DnD rules.

 

[Whisper-Kitten]

Hello

So I saw the artificer reanimator, and I was underwhelmed. I've found in general that a lot of the "pet subclasses" (a ranger beastmaster, a pact of the chain warlock, a battlesmith etc) have pets that are rather underwhelming.

And... they kind of have to be weak. If the pet was very powerful, you would now have the power of two PCs! In many cases, "using" the pet consumes a bonus action, so the pet has to be roughly as impactful as the bonus action provided by another subclass. This isn't that potent, and as a result the design space is limited.

How can we free ourselves of these limits? How can we have a character, a summoner type, who's main power is their powerful "pet" - a dragon, a golem, a potent nature spirit?

Here is how I would do it with an Artificer: The Golemist


TL,DR: The artificer has a "permanent" pet, and it uses a bonus action to both control the golem and cast a bonus action spell on it that bolsters the golem. Because the PC has used a spell slot, its main action will be a basic attack or a cantrip - meaning the golem is the main source of offensive power,

This is a bit like a paladin using their spell slots to smite - but instead of having the smite be combined with an attack from the PC it is combined with the attack of the golem. Balancing this will be tricky But I believe that this design space could be used to create certain fantasy archetypes that didn't fit so well in the current DnD rules.

I think that them being underwhelming is the point though. They are meant to be a little extra and not shine on their own.

 

[Morrus]

Or you could just buy Pets & Sidekicks!

Pets & Sidekicks: Companions for D&D, Level Up A5E, and ToV

Allies, adversaries, pets, and companions who can level up alongside your characters. You Don’t Have To Leave Wolfy Behind... In 'Pets & Sidekicks' Your Companions Level Up With You! Has your character ever had a beloved pet, a steed, or an NPC companion that, as your character leveled up...

enpublishingrpg.com

 

[Tigris]

I would say the problem in general is more that the subclasses have a too small power budget. And because that is the case you cannot make them strong.


I think the 5.5 beastmaster ranger here shows the difference. The ranger has in general a huge power budget in the subclass, and this allows to make an actual strong pet.


Full casters just have a huge power budget in their full casting, so not that much power is left over for subclasses.


Your solution or similar ones (using standard action for pet attack) can also work to some degree, but that could be frustrating because you "lose" the cool thing the class does, and replace it with something else instead of adding on top.

 

[guachi]

Or you could just buy Pets & Sidekicks!

Pets & Sidekicks: Companions for D&D, Level Up A5E, and ToV

Allies, adversaries, pets, and companions who can level up alongside your characters. You Don’t Have To Leave Wolfy Behind... In 'Pets & Sidekicks' Your Companions Level Up With You! Has your character ever had a beloved pet, a steed, or an NPC companion that, as your character leveled up...

enpublishingrpg.com

This is my favorite Level Up book so far. It fits very well with regular 5e, probably because of the simplified stat blocks. It's also versatile. I play Level Up, but I've used it for Druid Wildshapes, a pet sidekick (dog), and for slightly boosting monsters (e.g., just last week I made Elite Goblins that appear on the 2nd level of A2 Against the Slaver Stockade).

Oh, and I used it to add some differences with PC mounts. Yes, by rule they need some kind of special ability. But I thought a Level 1 Mount (horse or pony) would be fun for the players and make them more sad when I tried to kill their mounts. Turns out each of the 5 PCs picked different abilities for their mounts so it really did work out.

 

[Steady Vane]

This is true; but even Ranger does not have that much in subclass.

 

[Mecheon]

I think that them being underwhelming is the point though. They are meant to be a little extra and not shine on their own.

If you're picking a pet subclass, it should be the opposite. They shouldn't be a little extra, they should be the main reason. It should nerf whatever your character is doing and make the pet the main point of the class

 

[CreamCloud0]

I would say the problem in general is more that the subclasses have a too small power budget. And because that is the case you cannot make them strong.


I think the 5.5 beastmaster ranger here shows the difference. The ranger has in general a huge power budget in the subclass, and this allows to make an actual strong pet.


Full casters just have a huge power budget in their full casting, so not that much power is left over for subclasses.


Your solution or similar ones (using standard action for pet attack) can also work to some degree, but that could be frustrating because you "lose" the cool thing the class does, and replace it with something else instead of adding on top.

this is absolutely why i think there needs to be a dedicated pet class, so that they can actually design a class that's got all it's budget dedicated to the pet and adjacent features rather than trying to squeeze the concept into limited subclass space.

 

[Tigris]

This is true; but even Ranger does not have that much in subclass.

Ranger still has a lot more of its powerbudget in main class than subclass, thats true.

But still it has a significant part of the budget in the subclass especially compared to other classes like caster or even the monk.

You only gain a fighting style for combat power level 2, 1 more first level spell level 3 and nothing in addition to the ability score on level 4.


Compare to that most classes gain more. Like the paladin gets an additional level 1 spell slot level 2 with its class feature and gains a scaling 5 healing from lay on hands level 2, 3 and 4.

Even the figther gains slightly more. A scaling +1 HP heal on second wind on level 1,2 and 3 and an additional use of second wind level 4 (which is comparable to a level 1 spell slot the ranger gains).

Barbarian gets an extra rage (like level 1 spell slot but scales better) and primal knowledge level 3 and gains more HP per level.

Rogue extra sneak attack and steady aim and casters gain 2nd level spells.


So ranger has almost the highest possible power budget in the level 3 subclass. Only a martial (with maybe d8 hit dice) and no level scaling feature and no bonus feature level 3 and 4 (and only 1 combat level 2) could potentially have a (slightly) higher power budget level 3.

Level 7 the ranger also has a higher power budget compared to the paladin (which gets 1 extra spell level 5 and gets subclass 1 level before and has a really strong level 7 feature compared to the level 6 ranger one)


And level 11 the ranger subclass feature needs to cover the power spike which needs to be as strong as an extra attack. Where even the monk (for some reason) with also level 11 subclass has the power spike on level 10 in the main class.

Only the level 15 subclass feature has a lower power budget compared to some other classes, but thats really late.

this is absolutely why i think there needs to be a dedicated pet class, so that they can actually design a class that's got all it's budget dedicated to the pet and adjacent features rather than trying to squeeze the concept into limited subclass space.

Sure thats one design space not covered, but I also do think classes should in general have more of the power budget allocated to the subclasses to allow making more interesting ones. (I especially dont get why the monk 5.5 subclass got such a lower power budget..)

 

[EzekielRaiden]

I think that them being underwhelming is the point though. They are meant to be a little extra and not shine on their own.

Sure, but this is the eternal tension.

Are "pet classes" classes where their core power and class-fantasy come from having a cool creature friend?

Or are "pet classes" classes that fully stand on their own and act more or less like any other class, they just get incidental benefits from having a "pet" of some kind?

I find that most players are drawn to the former. I certainly am. But I find far, far too often, designers slide into doing the latter, because the former is a thorny design challenge while the latter is somewhat easier. It also, I imagine, doesn't feel like you're abandoning the class fantasy, you're just..."massaging" it a bit. Recognizing that action economy balance is very important, for example.

That's part of why I've been making my 5e translation of Summoner be genuinely a pet-using class, where the pet plus Warlock-style spellcasting is nearly the entirety of the class.