D&D 5E Pets The Problem and Solution

[Tony Vargas]

D&D has never really been that big on pets, in AD&D a high level Ranger might get one but it was fairly useless at combat (literally it was more of a pet)

The Ranger's 'pet' could be a copper dragon, IIRC. High level rangers (and, of course, low-level druids) could also use Animal Friendship, and some pretty butch critters in the 1e MM were technically animals - prehistoric animals, but still. Then there was the Paladin's Mount, and wizard's Familiar (or Homunculus, or freak'n Golems, if he could make 'em). Then there were the subdual rules, which applied to dragons, and tame-able monsters like flying mounts, and, to stretch it a bit, Figurines of Wonderous Power...

 

[Ristamar]

I'd have preferred any "pet" class features to be more akin to summons (i.e. situational, temporary help at the cost of a resource) and any long term followers, animal or otherwise, to function as NPCs. I believe it would have circumvented a lot of the ongoing bellyaching regarding class balance and the action economy.

 

[Zardnaar]

The Ranger's 'pet' could be a copper dragon, IIRC. High level rangers (and, of course, low-level druids) could also use Animal Friendship, and some pretty butch critters in the 1e MM were technically animals - prehistoric animals, but still. Then there was the Paladin's Mount, and wizard's Familiar (or Homunculus, or freak'n Golems, if he could make 'em). Then there were the subdual rules, which applied to dragons, and tame-able monsters like flying mounts, and, to stretch it a bit, Figurines of Wonderous Power...

Sure and virtually none of that was built into the class itself.

 

[Tony Vargas]

Sure and virtually none of that was built into the class itself.

I think Find Familiar and Animal Friendship were built into the class, since spell lists were pretty tightly coupled to class back in the day - maybe the ramifications of the latter weren't thought through too carefully.

But, yeah, homunculus, Golems, flying mounts & magic items weren't even in the PH, were hardly even alluded to in it.

But there was a lot of potential for 'pets' in the classic game … and, there were Henchmen & Hirelings. My old 1e Druid character had a veritable menagerie, and a pretty complete NPC adventuring party following him around. CHA's good for something, even back in the day.

There was even a pretty clear assumption that players would make fiendish use of Henchmen & Hirelings, and lots of DM advice how to handle it.

Maybe it was always problematic, but with the WotC era, it seems like there's more worry over the balance impact of such things. The controversy over the Druids animal companion supposedly rivaling the party fighter, for instance, or the harsh restrictions on pet/summon actions in 4e/E, or the current 5e take on the 'beastmaster…'

 

[Zardnaar]

I think Find Familiar and Animal Friendship were built into the class, since spell lists were pretty tightly coupled to class back in the day - maybe the ramifications of the latter weren't thought through too carefully.

But, yeah, homunculus, Golems, flying mounts & magic items weren't even in the PH, were hardly even alluded to in it.

But there was a lot of potential for 'pets' in the classic game … and, there were Henchmen & Hirelings. My old 1e Druid character had a veritable menagerie, and a pretty complete NPC adventuring party following him around. CHA's good for something, even back in the day.

There was even a pretty clear assumption that players would make fiendish use of Henchmen & Hirelings, and lots of DM advice how to handle it.

Maybe it was always problematic, but with the WotC era, it seems like there's more worry over the balance impact of such things. The controversy over the Druids animal companion supposedly rivaling the party fighter, for instance, or the harsh restrictions on pet/summon actions in 4e/E, or the current 5e take on the 'beastmaster…'

Its not even an option for the class and not every spell caster will want those spells, or aquire them. Its not like you got to chose those abilities either.

In 2E the Ranger did get a baked in follower- at level 10 or so IIRC and said follower wasn't that power. No AD&D class get pets baked in say compared with the 3.5 Ranger/Druid. The Ranger pet was fine IMHO. There was also big difference in the level of animal power, a horse was 2 or 3 HD. A Paladins horse was more a mount than a battle pet and horses weren't that good/ were squishy.

Sure you could have pets, anyone could buy a hippogriff but very few were baked in class features, Paladins and Rangers got them but yeah they weren't exactly great.

 

[Lanefan]

One solution that keeps pets in the fiction but keeps them out of the way of game play is to have pets be just that - pets. Ordinary (not fantastic!) animals that are either already tame e.g. dogs, cats, horses or have been tamed by the character e.g. a wolf or a pirate's parrot. If the pet dies, it dies, and the character then has to go and get a new one - it's not automatically replaced.

And the pets are statted out as basic pets would be - meaning that to take one into the field adventuring is probably a death sentence for the poor thing. But it allows for meeting the NPC woodsman with his pet wolf.

Obviously, things like trained warhorses are different; in that they would get extra attacks over and above those of the rider and also be reasonably tough. Those you'll just have to accept as a fact of life should a PC bring one along.

Even just banning any fantastic creatures as pets probably goes a long way toward solving most of the headaches.

 

[Krachek]

Adding hit dice rather than flush hit points will help.
The pet should have the same number of hit dice as it’s master.

Maybe sharing hunter mark can help damage output.

Otherwise beastmaster is more for role play and fun than combat efficiency.

 

[jgsugden]

We overthink this topic way too much.

1.) Pets are not class features.
2.) Pets are NPCs under the control of the DM.
3.) PCs can enhance pets with spells. For example, give rangers and druids (and nature clerics) a non-concentration spell that gives beasts temporary hps and bonus to hit/damage.

It works.

I have a first level spell that druids, rangers and nature clerics can cast in my games. It bonds a beast to the PCs with a CR no higher than half the character level of the PC. That animal is charmed by the PC until the spell is dispelled, it gains temporary hps at the end of each LR equal to twice the character level of the spellcaster, and it adds the spellcaster's proficiency bonus to hit and damage. The beast gains a rudimentary understanding of 1 language spoken by the caster. The beast remains an NPC. I've used it since the start of 5E (with some slight tweaks over the edition) and it has been fine.

 

[Scott Graves]

The solution to pets is to leave them at home. Bringing your pet with you to work rarely goes down well in the long run.

I tell my players that I target pets. I don't like them. I had one kid un a game capture a wild boar. HE couldn't take it with him and the stables wouldn't keep him. They recommended the butcher, the player didn't even think about it, offhe went to the butcher to "take care of the boar"... Then he went off to adventure. The butcher "took care of the boar", fed it sour apples and such, then slaughtered it and by the time the player got back his boar was smoked sausages, dried meat and other such travel food. The rest of the players got it... He was slightly gruntled.

 

[Caliburn101]

The pet is bad in 5th - I allow Rangers to combine 1 other subclass with the pet one and it doesn't make them OP at all.