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

[KarinsDad]

I like how the Necromancer works in 5E.

As he levels up his (new) pets get +1 hit point per level more and do + proficiency to their damage. He controls all (or some) of them with a bonus action, so if he has 2 skeletons and 2 zombies and he wants the zombies doing the help action and the skeletons doing attacks, it takes 2 rounds to get all of his commands going and by then, the situation has probably changed anyway.


I think that a class feature that increased the pet's hit points (maybe +2 hit points per PC level), damage (+ PC proficiency), and to hit (+ PC proficiency) would be sufficient. The pets saves still suck. Its AC is still low. It gets hit a lot and takes damage a lot and misses saves a lot, but it can still fight and hit somewhat frequently and do some decent (but not great) damage.

The PC then has to use a bonus action to command the pet and the pet does not always understand the command.

Plus, spells and other things can confuse the pet. For example, if the PC wizard shape changes into a troll, the pet might just go attack the troll if the pet is guarding an area and the troll move in. In the pet's mind, this troll invaded his guard space. Attack.


Game elements like this (some minor level boosts plus some restrictions on actions) would tend to keep pets balanced.

 

[Li Shenron]

(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.

The bookkeeping is the same whether the compaion is considered an NPC or a class feature of one PC.

(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?

Have you ever tried a game of D&D when players (some or all) have multiple PCs? This wasn't rare in very old editions.

In my current tabletop 5e campaign, one player (the most experienced one) is playing 2 PCs at once. The reason was that we have 3 players but we wanted a bigger, traditional Fighter+Cleric+Rogue+Wizard party. She doesn't play these 2 PCs as if they are one "twice as powerful", they are 2 different PCs, period.

I am not going to anything "when everyone at the table now wants a companion character". Let them try. The game just gets harder for each player to play, and that is why it won't happen. (In older editions it happened because the game was so simple that you could still easily play 2-3 PCs, and this was usually meant for adventures with very high mortality so that when your PCs start dying you don't have to stop and roll new ones but can continue with the surviving ones). The matter takes care of itself: some players know that it is not fun if it gets too hard to handle 2 PCs. An experienced player will take that as a burden to help the party, like our player is doing right now. Only a moron will think of it as "I'm two people, I'm twice as powerful", but he too will figure it out once he realizes the game is suddenly twice as difficult, as he's playing it poorly, more like he's "twice as moron"

 

[jodyjohnson]

I think the term "pet" is becoming unclear.

Animal Companion is what the Ranger Beastmaster currently has. It has increasing AC, HP, Attack, Damage, and Saves (in theory, not actual). As the Ranger gains levels it increases in actions.

Spirit Companion has very little scaling (how much do you want to pump your Wisdom) other than HP (1/2).

"Pets" I'd use in the common usage. An animal (beast) that anyone can have and of varied utility. We have 2 dogs (Jackal, Mastiff), my neighbor has 3 cats (Cat), the guy down the road a stable of horses (Riding Horse), a cousin has a lizard (Lizard).

At the very least adventurer's might have access to mundane pets. In fantasy, any of the beasts (or even monstrosities) might be possible.

Now if you want these to adventure, some are suitable, and some are not (or maybe just as fluff).

When we start wanting them to scale, I expect we run into Simulationist (World Sim) concerns like having a Border Collie tougher than a Grizzly, or a Panther more deadly than a Allosaurus.

So much of this really depends on gaming style and preferences. One could write a short set of rules for each of the main directions one might prefer to go with companions - but in the end, they've already been written and labelled with an edition number.

 

[77IM]

- 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.

You're counting strong and weak in terms of damage output. What if the pet was a meat shield? Basically, a mobile zone-of-control effect; very useful tactically but not going to actually solve any of your enemy-hit-point problems.

Let me relate a tale about video games, and NPC helpers:

- Video game NPCs that are weak, often because of stupid AI, are a hindrance. They charge in unwisely and need you to rescue them, and it sucks. I've played games where I have to baby-sit my computer-controlled allies.
- Video game NPCs that are strong, often because of special privileges, steal your thunder. I've played games where the player's best option is to hang back and defend while the computer-controlled NPCs do all the work. It sucks.

The first game I played that actually did this right was Lego Star Wars. How? The computer-controlled ally both did less damage (so, no stealing thunder) and also took less damage (so, no baby-sitting required). Their AI was decent, nothing special, they just kind of stuck close to you and didn't fall off any cliffs.

I think animal companions should function in a similar way: as defense, control, or tactical support, possibly even buffing or healing. The mathematical details of balancing this are tricky but in concept an animal that works that way can help the whole party: setting up flanking for the rogue, acting as an off-tank to protect the wizard, pinning down a fleeing foe until the fighter can get there to finish them off, etc.

 

[Staccat0]

Sounds like a feat to me.

This is where my brain always goes.

 

[Mephista]

Its feasable, because the spells work just fine. Yes, it takes up a spell slot, but that is frankly not that onerious of a sacrifice. Most of the probelms with the restrictions are attempts to reign in the druid issues of 3e, where the pet was better than a fighter of equal level. They're overcompensating.

 

[Mishihari Lord]

Li Shenron makes some excellent, well argued points about the difficulties of pets. I like his solution of making them independent NPCs, but that still has the issue the pet adding substantially to the DM's workload. (Besides that, it's a really good solution)

My preferred solution is to just decide that combat strength balance isn't important. This is a great example of how combat balance obsession removes fun options from the game. Spotlight balance is what's important for making the game fun, and there are plenty of ways to balance spotlight without removing fun options like pets.