D&D 5E Pets are unfeasible! Or not.

[EzekielRaiden]

The downsides of "pet as extra PC" strike me as both simple and obvious, but perhaps I am thinking of it from a different perspective. (1) Bookkeeping; every player with a "companion NPC" (whether or not it's a "pet") requires about double of most everything that takes up time in a session, be it sheet checking, RPing, treasue/xp allocation, etc. (2) "Impact." If the companion is a full (N)PC in its own right, it *more* than doubles a player's ability to accomplish tasks and overcome obstacles, because companion character (hereafter "CC") and PC can work together, e.g. flanking enemies, Aid Another, more chances to crit, etc., so there seem to be no reasons NOT to elect to play a CC along with your PC. That is, the game gives incentive to play one, as the only "player cost" is the oh-so-onerous "I have to remember that I'm twice as powerful because I'm really two 'people.' " (And yes, I understand that that IS onerous for some people, but I find it unlikely that it would be more trouble than benefit for most players; it would be like playing two separate hands of blackjack at the same table, not for everybody, but significantly advantageous to those who do).

Another way of saying this is: if players get all the power of a second PC with it, what are you going to do when everyone at the table now wants a companion character and you now have 8-12 "PC equivalents" in every combat, skill use, and roleplay event?

 

[mflayermonk]

How about trading the PCs levels to level up the companion.
For example, the rest of the party is 10th level but the Ranger is 8th level with a CR 1/2 or CR 1 pet.

 

[The Grassy Gnoll]

I wish I could find an image (damn my throwing the book out), but for all of you who read How to be a Superhero and Save the Universe in 30 days or your Money Back by Mike Leigh and Mark Lepine, I'll just say, Legion of Super Pets, and leave it there.

 

[Sunseeker]

I think the biggest failing in terms of pets is that they don't level. At 20th level your Boar is just as good as it was at first level.

"Pets" would be better off along the lines of Pathfinder's Eidolon. The higher the level the character, the more skilled their pet becomes.

First and foremost, D&D needs to get over the idea of a spellcasting ranger. Eliminating spellcasting will free up major room for pets. Spellcasting could be handled just like it is for the Eldrich Knight. Rangers would have, essentially 3 specs: a "tracker" a rogue-like soloist who emphasizes sneak and nature skills as opposed to the rogue who emphasizes sneak and city-related skills. A "beastmaster" who has a pet and a magic-styled spec.

The room freed up from spellcasting will add definition to both the non-casting specs and make the casting spec feel more unique. The loss of spells would provide ample room for a pet-leveling system without taking much, if anything away from the base class.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

How about trading the PCs levels to level up the companion.
For example, the rest of the party is 10th level but the Ranger is 8th level with a CR 1/2 or CR 1 pet.

Although this is more feasible than it was previous editions, this still runs afoul of one of Li Shenron's issues, that a "strong" pet must be balanced by having a "significant cost to your character," such that the "I want a pet!" player feels weak as a result of having a strong pet.

Long story short, it sounds like Li Shenron's hypothetical "I want a pet!" player wants:
1. A player character that is strong on its own, in and out of combat.
2. A pet that is strong on its own, at least in combat. (No mention is made of out-of-combat either way.)
3. Paying little to no "cost," within the mechanics themselves, for having both (1) and (2).

The presentation indicates that this desire is primarily for story/notional reasons (the first being "I want to portray the close bond between a woman and her trusty hound," the latter being "pets are awesome IRL, so they should be awesome in the game"). Of course, they also...pretty blatantly read as the pet-loving player basically saying, "I want more power." Hence why I said what I said above: if the only difficulty of having a Companion is that you have another PC's worth of bookkeeping, a very large number of people are going to want to have a Companion *because* it makes them, as players, more powerful.

And if the answer to that is "well I just won't let people do it if they're being powergamers," I have a very simple reply:

I don't think you can make a bright-line distinction between the "I love pets because they're cool" player, the "I love pets because they're powerful" player, and the "I love pets because they facilitate new stories" player. Mostly because I could very easily be all three of those at the same time. What do you do if you have a player who gives you a fun story for a cool-sounding (even to you) companion, yet you know that this player likes to combine features in powerful ways? Is that being power-gamer-y? What if you don't know the person, but another friend *tells* you they like to powergame, and the person bring you a fun story for a cool-sounding CC?

 

[bedir than]

I don't think you can make a bright-line distinction between the "I love pets because they're cool" player, the "I love pets because they're powerful" player, and the "I love pets because they facilitate new stories" player. Mostly because I could very easily be all three of those at the same time. What do you do if you have a player who gives you a fun story for a cool-sounding (even to you) companion, yet you know that this player likes to combine features in powerful ways? Is that being power-gamer-y? What if you don't know the person, but another friend *tells* you they like to powergame, and the person bring you a fun story for a cool-sounding CC?

Make the pet have a cost
Make the pet be pretty decent in combat, if a combat type bet, but make the out-of-combat pets have other cool abilities
Make the loss of a pet have a cost
Make them level like cantrips and attacks and proficiency
Don't break action economy

The use of a bonus action to command a pet cost my players an opportunity to interrogate an NPC. During the battle the panther killed the NPC as the player didn't have the spare bonus action prior to the attack. It both hurt the story and underlined that having a PANTHER is pretty awesome in combat, but can damage certain outcomes.

 

[Minigiant]

First and foremost, D&D needs to get over the idea of a spellcasting ranger. Eliminating spellcasting will free up major room for pets. Spellcasting could be handled just like it is for the Eldrich Knight. Rangers would have, essentially 3 specs: a "tracker" a rogue-like soloist who emphasizes sneak and nature skills as opposed to the rogue who emphasizes sneak and city-related skills. A "beastmaster" who has a pet and a magic-styled spec.

The biggest issue is that in D&D, usually "Spells > Other stuff" unless you work really hard and put in the effort. Thus the "beast" ranger would get outclassed in rangery stuff by the "magic ranger" and struggled with the "skills" ranger and the "warrior" ranger. You end up trying the balance a wolf's nose with "divination magic". A bear's claw with "arrow spells". A cobra's coils with "entnagling spells".

And then you if you aren't willing to make the pet a PC, you start wondering.
Why is the ranger the pet class?

 

[EzekielRaiden]

Make the pet have a cost
Make the pet be pretty decent in combat, if a combat type bet, but make the out-of-combat pets have other cool abilities
Make the loss of a pet have a cost
Make them level like cantrips and attacks and proficiency
Don't break action economy

All of these things are great ideas. None of them apply to Li Shenron's suggested "let the pet be a second PC." That's what I have been critiquing this entire time. Much of my critique wouldn't apply to situations where the pet does have a cost, whether in terms of actions, narrowed application (combat-only vs. skill-only), or something else.

The use of a bonus action to command a pet cost my players an opportunity to interrogate an NPC. During the battle the panther killed the NPC as the player didn't have the spare bonus action prior to the attack. It both hurt the story and underlined that having a PANTHER is pretty awesome in combat, but can damage certain outcomes.

An interesting situation, with an unfortunate but (in a certain sense) "cool" result. The direction of the story has been meaningfully altered by the player's choices, both long-term (having a panther) and short-term (not spending a bonus action to tell the panther to chill out sooner).

 

[Greenstone.Walker]

I think that if the player wants a pet that is of a similar power level to a PC then its up to them to convince another player to play that pet as an actual PC.

Because, when it comes down to it, what a player is saying when they ask for a strong combat pet and a strong character is "I am greedy - I want to be twice as powerful as the other PCs".

On the other hand, a power disparity is not necessarily a bad thing. Instead of the PCs all being Conan, some of them can be Zev and some of them can be Stanley Tweedle.

 

[Sunseeker]

The biggest issue is that in D&D, usually "Spells > Other stuff" unless you work really hard and put in the effort. Thus the "beast" ranger would get outclassed in rangery stuff by the "magic ranger" and struggled with the "skills" ranger and the "warrior" ranger. You end up trying the balance a wolf's nose with "divination magic". A bear's claw with "arrow spells". A cobra's coils with "entnagling spells".

And then you if you aren't willing to make the pet a PC, you start wondering.
Why is the ranger the pet class?

The problem with spellcasters is apparently one that WotC approves of and one that it's players like because at this point there's no other explanation for the return of Vancian spellcasting. We keep seeing the problem, identifying it as a problem but then when someone attempts to do something about it it's like WOTC just made a personal attack against your child's finger painting.

The problem has never been that non-casters lag behind the problem has always been that spellcasters are too far ahead and spells are not properly vetted.

Should pets be balanced against spells? In a way, yes, and I don't think it would be that hard to cover the suite of ranger spells with pet effects. Would it lag behind? I think that depends on if players would be willing to tolerate another shot at equality of outcome (a magic beast can detect magic) instead of equality of opportunity (everyone can pick the spell-ranger or shut up and deal) design in D&D again.

But again, while the existing class design is OP, this is why I referenced the Summoner. The important point at this stage I think is that the pet need to be a mini-PC. To have anything otherwise is to make the pet a waste of time.