D&D 5E UA interviews: The possible future for Pet Subclasses in 5e.

[Don Durito]

It's worth pointing out the the failure is older than that. The 4E ranger beastmaster was largely considered failed design as well.

 

[CapnZapp]

Umm... You realize there’s a planned procedure for the death of a party member, right? It’s called Raise Dead.

Absolutely.

But I was talking to people adamant the pet must be easier to resurrect than that.

All that tells me is that they don't care enough that their pet dies.

For somebody pulling rabbits out of hats, or summoning a guardian demon, sure.

But here we're talking a class to satisfy those animal lovers who look forward to finding Fido as a cub, and then sailing into the level 20 sunset together with Old Fido at the end of the campaign.

Is there a risk of Fido dying and being raised? Yes - this is D&D after all. Just like Joe the Cleric or Sue the Sorcerer might have bitten the dust once or twice.

But if the design already from the start factors in Fido 2, Fido 3, etc it goes right down the toilet.

 

[CapnZapp]

It's a massive conflict with the general Ranger spell list. You're almost saying it's a beast OR spellcasting but not both. Too high a price in my opinion.

I would totally be down with this trade. A real full combat pet in exchange for some weak-ass magic? Sold!

(You can still have your magic just by choosing the Hunter or another subclass)

 

[CapnZapp]

If that's the plan for balance, then it would have been needed in place prior to designing the spell selections for the Ranger - and not patched on years later. Right now the spells for concentration are not in any way related to the concept you're expressing. The concentration spells in place are balanced against the other concentration spells such that you are expected to have one in place but not a second one. The expectation is not none in place, and the non-centration spells are not laid out to account for that either.

But nobody expects good results from the existing design...?

I mean, any effort designed to not supplant the PHB Beastmaster is bound to fail for the simple reason something (much) better than the Beastmaster is what we want!

 

[Don Durito]

I seemed to remember on the Happy Fun Hour channel, Mearls sketched out a design for an alternate class feature for the Ranger that would let you swap out spell casting for a pet.

I think he even mentioned in passing that this would mean you could technically then take the beast master subclass and end up with two pets.

 

[CapnZapp]

I really think pets get overthought.

Especially the Ranger/Beastmaster thing.

Trying to balance it is the issue. Is the pet really part of the character? Do we really want the Ranger to be weaker as a character because he has to leave his pet panther outside the city/or handwave the fact that he would probably have to?

It just seems easier to say that, if everyone's fine with it, the Ranger gets a secondary character and has some rules to interact with it.

How much do the rest of the PCs care? It's not as if the Ranger is more powerful than other PCs.

Just put it out there as an option - if the group isn't happy with the Ranger having a companion character then sorry no pet.

If the Paladin takes a squire do we need to rebalance the whole class?

Just make the pet a sidekick and have done with it.

Many don't care just as you say. It's not as if we're asking for something controversial and disruptive, after all.

But some do care. And in some cases (official tournament play) they might even have a point.

That's why I've been suggesting a class that comes with a sidebar saying the subclass requires GM approval.

 

[CapnZapp]

It's worth pointing out the the failure is older than that. The 4E ranger beastmaster was largely considered failed design as well.

I wouldn't know, but sure, absolutely.

 

[Paul Farquhar]

What animal?

You're not seriously suggesting the level 17 party bring along a CR 1/2 guard dog are you?

Of course we want and deserve a subclass that simplifies and codifies the pet's stat block as appropriate for my level. Right. Right?

It's not rocket science for the DM to level up an animal NPC, but I expect to see expanded sidekick rules for it in the new book.

As stated in the interview, some players need explicit permission to do things that the rules have always allowed.

 

[Fanaelialae]

Since 5e doesn't have PF2's action economy, the big bit (trading one of your actions for two of the companion's) would be hard to implement though.

I'm not caught up on the thread, so not sure if this has already been mentioned, but that's effectively what 5e does. You effectively have an action, a bonus action, and a move (which isn't technically an action, but easily could be). You give up your bonus action to grant the beast an action and move (beasts don't get any way to use a bonus action, so they effectively don't have one, even though they technically do).

Granted, P2's implementation is significantly more elegant and flexible (IMO). However, at a conceptual level the ranger is sacrificing one action to effectively give the pet two.

 

[LuisCarlos17f]

Usually the PCs in D&D are like superheroes, but in low-magic-levels campaigns an ordinary predator can be a serious menace. Can you kill an elephant with only your fists? (Somebody did it in "Assasin's Creed Origins").

My own experience with some online videogames is companions with less hit points are killed before in the confrontation against boss monsters. PCs can survive some traps although serious damaged, but pets and sidekicks can't say the same.

We also have the option of the "monster in my pocket". When a pet monster is serious damaged doesn't die, but he goes to a magic item as a "pokeball" to rest and recover energy for a time. Do remember summoned monsters from outer planes don't die really, only come back to their original plane and they can return again after a time.

If there is a subclass about monster pets or animal companions you can bet somebody will create other about symbiont craft. I also remember the anime "Marvel Disk Wars: the Avengers" where children with special disks could "summon" superheroes. But d20 isn't for "superhero for only 5 minutes". This concept or archetype is too good to be forgotten. The "hero with a monster ally" is very good to sell toys for children or to be the star of a cartoon. And Hasbro could use old franchises to be recycled as monster allies.

And companions could be used by DMs to create paranoia about infected or infiltrated werebeasts.