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

[jasper]

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.

Just make it binary. If the power level from the pc and pet is the same. Either jasper pc does the action, bonus action, this round or the pet does.

 

[Minion X]

Seems like the actual problem is trying to bake the pet feature into a limited number of character class when it clearly should be an option for everyone so all players who want to live out their dreams of having a magic, talking fantasy pet can do so without having to be yet another Drizzt do'Urden or Jon Snow. The game already has hirelings and mounts, so it's not like it breaks anything.

It would also be a great opportunity to cash in by either selling a pet sourcebook, or, if WotC has the gametes, sell indidivually priced official rules packages for different pets ranging from a buck or two for a common wolf or owl to ten bucks for a dragonet.

 

[Tigris]

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...

How would they want to do that when wanting to keep things compatible with 5E?

That was ruined by 5E not something 5.5 could have saved. That would need a much much bigger change than a patch.


Also some oldschool people would be pissed if suddenly casters would lose part of their class power.

 

[Zardnaar]

The main problem is the concept at least if you care about balance. Heres your options.

1. Pet is independently powerful. 3.5 Druid. Its to good.

2. Pet is anemic. 5E generally. OPs point.

3. Pet is more powerful but consumes PC resources/actions. Pet gets killed PC tends to suck.

Conceptually it doesnt work imho.

 

[Horwath]

How would they want to do that when wanting to keep things compatible with 5E?

That was ruined by 5E not something 5.5 could have saved. That would need a much much bigger change than a patch.

then it should have been bigger

Also some oldschool people would be pissed if suddenly casters would lose part of their class power.

or just add more stuff to noncasters, not just weapon mastery as one new thing.

 

[CreamCloud0]

The difficulty is that a setup like that is hard to manage without a Pokemon Trailer 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.

The incredibly simple solution to this to me is just make the PC weak but durable, they use their action economy to command their strong pet, and the pet isn’t going to be another PC who can act in the same ways one would.

 

[Ancalagon]

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

I think you understand my intentions.

This is why I picked the artificer to do this - in part because of the reanimator inspiration, in part because it "fits", RP wise, but because the artificer base class has a bit less power (and a bit more power in the subclass), so it felt like a good "base class" for the controller of a large/powerful pet (such as a golem)

 

[Tigris]

then it should have been bigger

or just add more stuff to noncasters, not just weapon mastery as one new thing.

Then you add way more power to classes and material is no longer compatible, especially subclasses from before 5.5 which is now a BIG point of making 5.5 interesting that you can still use the cool subclasses from the (later) 5E books.


This would be frustrating for people because they suddenly cant (in a reasonable way) play their favourite subclass anymore when upgading to 5.5.


The plan was for 5.5 to be compatible, which from a sales perspective was the right plan. And with this it is impossible to fix all the problems initial 5e had including the problem with the different power budgets in subclasses.



And if you want to make bigger change, than it would not be 5.5 but a new edition and there you would hopefully not start from 5E, but from scratch to make it possible to actually fix the problems 5e has.

The main problem is the concept at least if you care about balance. Heres your options.

No. There exist several games which managed to have pet classes work. So its not the concept its the implementation.



But how can one make pet classes work?


In general for me its important that a pet is mechanically different in play than not having a pet. So if you just use your actions (which could be used for basic attacks) to let the pet attack and do basic attacks (like PF2 in some cases), then there is not really a different gameplay.

There are several ways to make the gameplay different:

1. Make the pet and main character work together. Both attacking, can profit from each other, the 2nd body (and its positioning) is important, the pet supports you.
   1. I would say the 5.5 beastmaster does this reasonably well. This needs a certain power budget, but not an extreme one, since the pet only does need to add to you and not replace you.
2. Pet and main character work together, but you support the pet, the pet does the main damage.
   1. This would 100% need to have a pet class in 5E because subclass has never enough power budget for it. However, I also do not think this plays so much different than point 1 above. And except for character death, this is the same as above. Or rather you can do this already with a Ranger in 5.5 if you just reflavour the pet as the ranger and the ranger as the pet. In the end its just a matter of perspective.
3. The pet is the strong one and it needs to protect the weak main class
   1. This would also need its own class in 5E, and would actually be different from the above. Because its not teamwork, but you have also a protection minigame.
4. You have several pets. Kind of commanding an army.
   1. May be done with a subclass but is in general annoying for everyone with too many actions/time taking. So to make this actually work well it would also need to be its own class.

The incredibly simple solution to this to me is just make the PC weak but durable, they use their action economy to command their strong pet, and the pet isn’t going to be another PC who can act in the same ways one would.

Well if the pet does act differently to normal PCs then yes this can be different, but then the question of why not just make a beast class or something, why also have a weak sidekick which does not do much?


If you as the PC are there, do not need to be protected, and you just use your actions for the pet, then I dont think its from a gameplay perspective really different than just playing the pet as the class.

 

[CreamCloud0]

The main problem is the concept at least if you care about balance. Heres your options.

1. Pet is independently powerful. 3.5 Druid. Its to good.

2. Pet is anemic. 5E generally. OPs point.

3. Pet is more powerful but consumes PC resources/actions. Pet gets killed PC tends to suck.

Conceptually it doesnt work imho.

With 3, is it not possible for both the PC and the pet to be of reasonable strength, but with the understanding that due to their shared action economy they can’t both be functioning on full cylinders in the same turn, so if the pet does go down the PC is no longer splitting their action economy and thus becomes independently ‘stronger’ closer to the other PCs if still slightly below until they can restore their pet?

 

[Zardnaar]

With 3, is it not possible for both the PC and the pet to be of reasonable strength, but with the understanding that due to their shared action economy they can’t both be functioning on full cylinders in the same turn, so if the pet does go down the PC is no longer splitting their action economy and thus becomes independently ‘stronger’ closer to the other PCs if still slightly below until they can restore their pet?

Theoretically.

One over looked aspect is atm the monster design. I find pets to be underwhelming because they are squishy. 55 monsters hit hard. Similar deal with summoning.

Pet class couldn't have full spellasting. Even half caster is iffy and we have that already.

Basically means new class not a half caster.

The pet+PC woukd need to deal martial level danafe. Pet dies the PC needs to deal ball park damage fighter sword and board levels or completely suck.

Pets are also a pain to deal with. Less fun for other players.

I think the concepts flawed at least in D&D. Adding a pet to existing classes seems best DMs discretion as to the pet eg a cat through to a dragon.