Li Shenron
Legend
To me it is becoming more and more clear that pets (companions, familiars, minions...) as class features are just plain and simply unfeasible.
There are several issues to consider:
- Only some people want a pet in D&D (if every PC had a pet, there would be no problem) so you have to balance pets against "non-pet" features of other characters.
- Furthermore, many of those people don't want to play specificall a Ranger or a Warlock. Their idea of PC concept (class first) is often unrelated to that of having a pet.
- Non-combat pets (e.g. used for scouting, tracking, delivering etc) are not a problem, but most of those who want a pet actually want a combat pet.
- A combat pet that is weak will never satisfy a player who wanted a combat pet; this is the case with current 5e pets which don't add a significant firepower since their attacks basically costs the PC her own attacks (5e pets are just fine as non-combat pets which can give also you a small tactical advantage in combat sometimes, but not consistently).
- A combat pet that is strong is just too good and therefore unfair to other PCs, unless it's balanced by a significant cost to your character. But if you design a proper cost, you basically go back to what will be considered "weak" (overall i.e. pet + PC) by the player who wanted the pet.
- In the last attempt by WotC, they are trying to pursue a totally different path, that of restriction of usage, in this case a time restriction: get a strong pet but only 1/day. This is interesting and clever, and after all it's pretty similar to the old summoning spells. But it has a couple of conceptual problems: first of all it's magical (which not everyone accepts when it comes to pets), and second it changes the nature of the pet from companion to almost a piece of equipment. Yes I know that Drizz't panther was originally a magic item and not a real animal, but this cannot be the default for pets, because this is not what players have in mind when they talk about having a companion.
So what else is left to consider, when some of your players want a pet that (1) is optional, (2) available to different characters, (3) can fight well, (4) without your PC having to give up her own fighting, (5) is not necessarily magical and (6) is an actually companion for the whole story?
Well... how about just have a pet that is simply a character of its own? Your PC might have a special bond with it, but the pet is just another member of the party. The DM can even allow the player to control (partially or totally) the actions of this pet, or take control herself if preferred. This way the pet can be as strong as it suits the party level (and it can level up on its own), without having a cost on a PC's abilities. It needs no special rules or restrictions. It doesn't need to be exclusive to a class, because in reality is just a friend, pretty much like an allied NPC. The interested player can be freely allowed to create and handle the pet's story and personality, it won't disrupt the game. What else do you need?
There are several issues to consider:
- Only some people want a pet in D&D (if every PC had a pet, there would be no problem) so you have to balance pets against "non-pet" features of other characters.
- Furthermore, many of those people don't want to play specificall a Ranger or a Warlock. Their idea of PC concept (class first) is often unrelated to that of having a pet.
- Non-combat pets (e.g. used for scouting, tracking, delivering etc) are not a problem, but most of those who want a pet actually want a combat pet.
- A combat pet that is weak will never satisfy a player who wanted a combat pet; this is the case with current 5e pets which don't add a significant firepower since their attacks basically costs the PC her own attacks (5e pets are just fine as non-combat pets which can give also you a small tactical advantage in combat sometimes, but not consistently).
- A combat pet that is strong is just too good and therefore unfair to other PCs, unless it's balanced by a significant cost to your character. But if you design a proper cost, you basically go back to what will be considered "weak" (overall i.e. pet + PC) by the player who wanted the pet.
- In the last attempt by WotC, they are trying to pursue a totally different path, that of restriction of usage, in this case a time restriction: get a strong pet but only 1/day. This is interesting and clever, and after all it's pretty similar to the old summoning spells. But it has a couple of conceptual problems: first of all it's magical (which not everyone accepts when it comes to pets), and second it changes the nature of the pet from companion to almost a piece of equipment. Yes I know that Drizz't panther was originally a magic item and not a real animal, but this cannot be the default for pets, because this is not what players have in mind when they talk about having a companion.
So what else is left to consider, when some of your players want a pet that (1) is optional, (2) available to different characters, (3) can fight well, (4) without your PC having to give up her own fighting, (5) is not necessarily magical and (6) is an actually companion for the whole story?
Well... how about just have a pet that is simply a character of its own? Your PC might have a special bond with it, but the pet is just another member of the party. The DM can even allow the player to control (partially or totally) the actions of this pet, or take control herself if preferred. This way the pet can be as strong as it suits the party level (and it can level up on its own), without having a cost on a PC's abilities. It needs no special rules or restrictions. It doesn't need to be exclusive to a class, because in reality is just a friend, pretty much like an allied NPC. The interested player can be freely allowed to create and handle the pet's story and personality, it won't disrupt the game. What else do you need?
