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

[EzekielRaiden]

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

Of course, the problem is that this requires that subclasses can take away things that the base class has.

5e has so assiduously avoided ever doing this, that I cannot imagine it happened by accident. The designers do not want subclasses that remove. They exclusively want subclasses that expand.

This is part of why I say that, while subclasses ARE good, they cannot fulfill the whole laundry list of mechanical and thematic demands placed on them. They have to provide balance, enable drifting into new roles, support major re-focus of central structure, support major re-flavoring or even entire alternate thematics (consider the Celestial Patron)....and they have to do all of that without ever removing anything of the base class, nor without changing SO much that you can't tell what the underlying class is.

Subclasses are a good idea. 4e functionally already had them, 5e did the same idea in its own language. Perfectly reasonable concept. But it simply cannot carry all of the weight WotC tried to hang off it. It ends up inadequate.

 

[Whisper-Kitten]

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.

Yes, that is what I believe most people think when they choose the subclass. However, you are still defined by your main class. You are a Ranger first and a Beast Master second. It‘s meant to add to the class and not overtake it. If you want that, then you need a class that is focused on just pets alone.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

Yes, that is what I believe most people think when they choose the subclass. However, you are still defined by your main class. You are a Ranger first and a Beast Master second. It‘s meant to add to the class and not overtake it. If you want that, then you need a class that is focused on just pets alone.

No such class exists, not in 5.0 nor 5.5e.

edit: Which, I mean, doesn't that clearly point to the claim I made later? Subclasses cannot achieve the "bundle many concepts under one class" goal that the designers intended. They did about as good as they possibly could have, subclasses DO cover a surprising amount of ground. But they're fundamentally constrained by the fact that the subclass can never matter as much as the class does, and that's a problem when you need subclasses to cover things that fundamentally change the class itself.

 

[CreamCloud0]

I don’t think pet subclasses are a bad thing to have either, because there will always be times that people will want a little bit of a concept not the full package, but that’s the thing, 5e doesn’t offer the pet fantasy as a full standalone package.

 

[Staffan]

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?

Pathfinder 2 has two "levels" of pet class. The lower level can be found as subclasses for a variety of classes (and is also available as an archetype, essentially the same as a subclass available to many different classes): paladin mounts, ranger/druid animal companions, probably some others I can't quite recall. Summoning magic basically allows you to buy into the type while the summon lasts. This allows the master to spend one of their three actions each round in order to give their minion two actions. This may sound like an excellent deal but remember that the minion will often have to spend one of those actions in order to move into a good position. This also requires the character to spend a significant amount of resources keeping their minion up to par, either by casting high-level spells to get usable combat summons or spending a significant number of class feats boosting their companion.

The second level is the actual Summoner class, which shares action economy and IIRC hit points between minion and master (so instead of the master giving the minion two actions for the price of one, they have four actions together. This class also puts a whole lot more of oomph into the minion rather than it being an add-on to the master. Note that this requires its own class rather than being a sub-class of an existing class.

Draw Steel has two pet classes that work in different ways. I haven't read either, but I've understood the gist of them. One is the Beastmaster, who has a single powerful companion, and they share resources (including action economy). The other is the Summoner, who summons lots of expendable minions but doesn't do all that much by themselves. I think the Beastmaster is more individually capable than the Summoner, but they just can't do awesome stuff themselves at the same time as their companion does.

 

[Horwath]

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.

or we missed the chance with universal subclasses and subclass levels.
if every class got their subclass at levels (1),3,6,10,14 and with same budget, we could have universal beastmaster or drake warden.

 

[Tigris]

or we missed the chance with universal subclasses and subclass levels.
if every class got their subclass at levels (1),3,6,10,14 and with same budget, we could have universal beastmaster or drake warden.

No, because the power budgets for classes is sooo widely different. Thats the big problem.


That would make casters just OP because they have more power in the main class. I agree that having a universal subclass progression would be good, but, that was made completly impossible by original 5E by having so widely different power budgets for classes and subclasses.

 

[Belen]

I used Tasha’s sidekick rules to add classes to the companion and it’s works just fine.

 

[Kurotowa]

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.

The difficulty is that a setup like that is hard to manage without a Pokemon Trainer clause. Which is to say, an absolute rule that the summoner won't try to jump in and land a hand in the fight, and that the summoner similarly can't be targeted in lieu of the summon.

Without that sort of rule, you either get the same old "two PC's for the price of one" problem, or you get a helplessly squishy target hovering around the battlefield just begging to get picked off. And a rule like that is really hard to rectify with a less gamified world like D&D.

 

[Horwath]

No, because the power budgets for classes is sooo widely different. Thats the big problem.


That would make casters just OP because they have more power in the main class. I agree that having a universal subclass progression would be good, but, that was made completly impossible by original 5E by having so widely different power budgets for classes and subclasses.

yeah, if only when 2024 was design, that could have been calculated for, that every class can have same power budget for a subclass, hmmm...