Pet vs. Animal Friend vs. Animal Companion

[Snoring Rock]

So the spell animal friendship makes sense. But the animal companion not so much. Your companion cannot attack on your turn unless you command and therefore, lose your own attack. How about a fighter who purchases a dog? That dog, as a companion to the fighter, can and will attack anything opposed to his master/pack-leader. That dog will have its own attacks regardless of the attacks of the fighter. So a ranger may be better off just buying a pet? Am I missing something here?

 

[Yunru]

You're missing my awesome subclass

The Beastmaster has to use his action (or just an attack from level 5 onwards) for balance reasons, that's it basically.

 

[Snoring Rock]

You're missing my awesome subclass

The Beastmaster has to use his action (or just an attack from level 5 onwards) for balance reasons, that's it basically.

Then since there are no rules on trained animals that I see, then does it makes sense to determine that "trained pets" should have the same or even stricter restrictions....at lease for balance?

 

[Yunru]

Then since there are no rules on trained animals that I see, then does it makes sense to determine that "trained pets" should have the same or even stricter restrictions....at lease for balance?

Trained pets are special due to being external from any class feature. The beastmaster's pet has to be balanced against other subclasses, whereas external pets don't.

 

[Snoring Rock]

Trained pets are special due to being external from any class feature. The beastmaster's pet has to be balanced against other subclasses, whereas external pets don't.

I completely get that, and I agree however, this makes the beastmaster utility useless. You get much more bang for the buck with a purchased animal. The beastmaster can acquire an animal companion or for better effect, purchase a trained animal. Again, no rules for trained animals, but do there need to be?

As a secondary attack, they are real losers but for other types of utility, must be better than a pet possibly. Just seems out of wack for the sake of balance, other classes can also purchase/train/capture pets.

 

[Umbran]

That dog, as a companion to the fighter, can and will attack anything opposed to his master/pack-leader.

No. That's not how dogs actually work. Yes, occasionally you will find an animal that will choose to be protective of a particular person, but that is the *dog's* choice, not yours. Many is the man who buys a big old Rottweiler or Pit Bull, thinking that it will be *his* dog, and stand by *his* side, and find out the animal bonds with, say, his 4 year old daughter and will only protect her.

You can only rely on an attack form a highly trained animal, and only with command and oversight of its handler. And not every dog you run across has the proper temperament for it. And we don't have well-balanced rules for training combat capable pets, which is why they'd seem unbalanced if you just say, "your pet will attack on command."

 

[Li Shenron]

So the spell animal friendship makes sense. But the animal companion not so much. Your companion cannot attack on your turn unless you command and therefore, lose your own attack. How about a fighter who purchases a dog? That dog, as a companion to the fighter, can and will attack anything opposed to his master/pack-leader. That dog will have its own attacks regardless of the attacks of the fighter. So a ranger may be better off just buying a pet? Am I missing something here?

At least you're missing that the animal companion is free, it works out of the box no question asked, and is infinitely replaceable.

Keep buying dogs that die at the first encounter costs money and time to train them, you have no control over them by default, and no guarantee of loyalty. Unless of course your DM handwave all those... but then another DM might handwave all locks and traps and render half of the Rogue class wasted, and another might let everyone cast spells from lots of scrolls and devalue spellcasters...

 

[Snoring Rock]

No. That's not how dogs actually work. Yes, occasionally you will find an animal that will choose to be protective of a particular person, but that is the *dog's* choice, not yours. Many is the man who buys a big old Rottweiler or Pit Bull, thinking that it will be *his* dog, and stand by *his* side, and find out the animal bonds with, say, his 4 year old daughter and will only protect her.

You can only rely on an attack form a highly trained animal, and only with command and oversight of its handler. And not every dog you run across has the proper temperament for it. And we don't have well-balanced rules for training combat capable pets, which is why they'd seem unbalanced if you just say, "your pet will attack on command."

And that could be how I handle it. Maybe random -- maybe a charisma check each time. I want the animal companion to be infinitely more valuable.

 

[jgsugden]

If there are no explicit mechanics, it is an NPC. A pet dog is a lot like a hired hand... it will follow commands - generally, but may not meet all your expectations.

I introduced a spell simmilar to "Find Steed" for druids, rangers, and nature clerics. It summons a beast with a CR equal to or less than the spell level used to cast the spell. That beast becomes a loyal ally of the caster and is run as an NPC. Like Find Steed - you can have only one. It gets to use your proficiency bonus and has similar minimum HPs to an animal companion. It is widely used, but not overpowering or obnoxious.

 

[Umbran]

And that could be how I handle it. Maybe random -- maybe a charisma check each time. I want the animal companion to be infinitely more valuable.

I am not sure it is worth bothering, to be honest. Without magic or some other mechanic to bolster the pet's abilities, and advance it with the character, the character will quickly outstrip a normal, mundane pet. It won't be able to hit, won't do significant damage, and is terribly likely to be killed.

I guess the question to ask is - why do you need rules for pets? Who in the game wants to have a pet, and why, and do they realize that the animal is apt to die by the time they're 3rd level?

If it is for NPCs, you don't need rules. If an NPC has pets, just have them behave as you want them to. No rules needed.