Menu
News
All News
Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
Pathfinder
Starfinder
Warhammer
2d20 System
Year Zero Engine
Industry News
Reviews
Dragon Reflections
White Dwarf Reflections
Columns
Weekly Digests
Weekly News Digest
Freebies, Sales & Bundles
RPG Print News
RPG Crowdfunding News
Game Content
ENterplanetary DimENsions
Mythological Figures
Opinion
Worlds of Design
Peregrine's Nest
RPG Evolution
Other Columns
From the Freelancing Frontline
Monster ENcyclopedia
WotC/TSR Alumni Look Back
4 Hours w/RSD (Ryan Dancey)
The Road to 3E (Jonathan Tweet)
Greenwood's Realms (Ed Greenwood)
Drawmij's TSR (Jim Ward)
Community
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions, OSR, & D&D Variants
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Resources
Wiki
Pages
Latest activity
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Downloads
Latest reviews
Search resources
EN Publishing
Store
EN5ider
Adventures in ZEITGEIST
Awfully Cheerful Engine
What's OLD is NEW
Judge Dredd & The Worlds Of 2000AD
War of the Burning Sky
Level Up: Advanced 5E
Events & Releases
Upcoming Events
Private Events
Featured Events
Socials!
EN Publishing
Twitter
BlueSky
Facebook
Instagram
EN World
BlueSky
YouTube
Facebook
Twitter
Twitch
Podcast
Features
Top 5 RPGs Compiled Charts 2004-Present
Adventure Game Industry Market Research Summary (RPGs) V1.0
Ryan Dancey: Acquiring TSR
Q&A With Gary Gygax
D&D Rules FAQs
TSR, WotC, & Paizo: A Comparative History
D&D Pronunciation Guide
Million Dollar TTRPG Kickstarters
Tabletop RPG Podcast Hall of Fame
Eric Noah's Unofficial D&D 3rd Edition News
D&D in the Mainstream
D&D & RPG History
About Morrus
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions, OSR, & D&D Variants
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
Pets are unfeasible! Or not.
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="Li Shenron" data-source="post: 6697276" data-attributes="member: 1465"><p>To me it is becoming more and more clear that pets (companions, familiars, minions...) as class features are just plain and simply <strong>unfeasible</strong>.</p><p></p><p>There are several issues to consider:</p><p></p><p>- Only <strong>some </strong>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.</p><p></p><p>- Furthermore, many of those people don't want to play specificall a Ranger or a Warlock. Their idea of PC concept (<strong>class </strong>first) is often unrelated to that of having a pet.</p><p></p><p>- 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 <strong>combat</strong> pet.</p><p></p><p>- A combat pet that is <strong>weak</strong> 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).</p><p></p><p>- A combat pet that is <strong>strong</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.</p><p></p><p>- In the last attempt by WotC, they are trying to pursue a totally different path, that of <strong>restriction of usage</strong>, 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 <em>summoning</em> 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 <em>companion</em> to almost a piece of <em>equipment</em>. 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 <em>companion</em>.</p><p></p><p>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?</p><p></p><p>Well... how about just have a pet that is simply <strong>a character of its own</strong>? 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 <em>friend</em>, 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?</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Li Shenron, post: 6697276, member: 1465"] To me it is becoming more and more clear that pets (companions, familiars, minions...) as class features are just plain and simply [B]unfeasible[/B]. There are several issues to consider: - Only [B]some [/B]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 ([B]class [/B]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 [B]combat[/B] pet. - A combat pet that is [B]weak[/B] 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 [B]strong[/B] 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 [B]restriction of usage[/B], 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 [I]summoning[/I] 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 [I]companion[/I] to almost a piece of [I]equipment[/I]. 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 [I]companion[/I]. 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 [B]a character of its own[/B]? 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 [I]friend[/I], 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? [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
Pets are unfeasible! Or not.
Top