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

[Parmandur]

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.

Well, an effective

Not familiar with Wildfire, but the point of a Beastmaster is that it isn't a summoner.

The way you solve the death risk is not by making resurrection easy, it is by making the animal strong enough to not die significantly more often than any other party member.

It should be treated as a Summoner,as all pet Classes ought to be.

 

[Paul Farquhar]

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 say that is a plus, since many players are not keen on their rangers as spellcasters.

The Wildfire druid is given the option of a pet OR wildshape. Because not everyone wants to play a druid as a shapeshifter.

 

[RSIxidor]

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

Issue there was also action economy, I believe. It was somewhat helped by some of the various powers that let both beast and master attack at the same time, and by the fact that opportunity actions and immediate actions were separate concepts, and were per-turn instead of per-round (as opposed to reactions, which contain parts of both concepts, 1 per-round).

I remember playing a Sentinel Druid (similar to Beastmaster Ranger but leader instead of striker) with the Fey Beast Tamer theme. The Fey Beasts had auras with fairly useful bonuses and was really the only reason it worked at all. Two annoying pets instead of one but I couldn't make very good use of either, outside of the passive aura.

It still was bad past 10th, probably bad past 5th.

 

[Mistwell]

Not familiar with Wildfire, but the point of a Beastmaster is that it isn't a summoner.

The way you solve the death risk is not by making resurrection easy, it is by making the animal strong enough to not die significantly more often than any other party member.

Why? Why can't it be solved with Resurrection? I mean it's already going to be stronger based on this playtest. You should read the Wildfire - that's why this topic is in this thread. You're kinda flying blind if you don't, and it will take you less than 5 minutes and looks like this is the direction they're going to go in.

 

[OB1]

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 - It's even easier than that and doesn't require a revised ranger or anything else. It can be done by adding three 1st level spells to the Ranger list, each with an 8 hour duration and no concentration.

Companion Crate - The first time your beast companion drops to 0 HP while under the effect of this spell, it drops to 1 HP instead and is teleported into a magical pocket dimension, where it remains until you recall it with a bonus action or the spell duration ends, reappearing in a space within 5' of you.

Pet Armor - Your beast companion gains a +3 to AC and to saving throws for the duration of the spell.

Hunting Party - Your beast companion gains an additional 1d6 force damage to each successful attack. When attacking a creature that has your hunters mark, it has advantage on the attack.

 

[Mistwell]

I would say that is a plus, since many players are not keen on their rangers as spellcasters.

The Wildfire druid is given the option of a pet OR wildshape. Because not everyone wants to play a druid as a shapeshifter.

No I think it says you can do both you just need to use a wildshape for the pet - not that you cannot also use it to wildshape.

But like I said if you want a spell-less Ranger...make a spell-less ranger! This isn't that, it's just a weird vaguely related unintended kinda sorta that. I don't think it will satisfy anyone who actually wants t play a spell-less ranger.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

I like the idea of the ranger spending spell slots to heal their animal companion, same as the Moon Druid can spend spell slots to heal their wild shaped form.

Yep. It makes sense.

No, it's the logical analysis.

You show me a pet that can be sent into the midst of combat without a stupid high risk of death, and a master that isn't strangely gimped, and we'll talk.

But I bet you can't do that without the package being >1

Revised Beastmaster does it. So does the Battlesmith Artificer. Taking the Revised BM pet rules, and putting it on the PHB Ranger, would do it.

Good, since you're obviously still thinking in terms of the pet dying repeatedly.

You don't deserve a pet if all you can think of is easily replacing it.

This is insulting and poorly thought out garbage. Calm the hell down before you reply to people.

And no, it’s not about the pet being replaced or dying repeatedly. It doesn’t matter how tough the pet is. It could be tougher than a fighter, and I’m still not gonna play the subclass unless it has explicit rules for regaining the use of my subclass if the pet dies.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

I think that'd be one decent way to do it.

I think it’s the easiest way to let players choose how much their pet is the focus vs themselves.

I think you are talking about separate subclasses there, since the abilities that accompany an areal scout are quite different to those that go with a tanky defender.

I'm also pretty sure that the lesson learned from the Iron Defender is that there will be no attempt to differentiate between pets that look like cats/dogs/bears/pigs/elephants/whatever the player can imagine.

Also, remember the new subclass will sit along side the beastmaster, it is not a direct replacement (even though it may be the preferred option). Ergo it is unlikely that the pet will be fluffed as a natural beast - for that still go beastmaster or sidekick.

Honestly, I think what we will get is optional variant features for the Beastmaster subclass.

And if they go the iron defender route and don’t include the ability to be a falconer, then it ain’t worth much.

Lastly. There’s no reason at all that the rules for the beast can’t support scouting and fighting.

 

[Mistwell]

So to lay out the more specific model as presented in the Circle of Wildfire feature "Summon Wildfire", but adapting it for Ranger, here's the rough outline:

1) Form of the power: The Druid feature is a summon. Ranger's can be a summon too, or we can go with an existing animal. Which creates some mild issues but nothing we can't work through.

2) Activation: You expend an action and use a limited resource to activate it. The druid is spending a Wild Shape use. The Ranger could spend a spell slot.

3) Initial Move: The Wildfire appears in 30 feet. If the Beast is an existing companion, it could just move it's move on activation.

4) Initial Action: The Wildfire immediately "attacks" every creature in 10 feet of where it's summoned/moves to other than the you, requiring a save or take an average of 11 damage. For a beast, I think we could instead issue a Command for that round, as detailed in #6 below.

5) Initiative: The Wildfire shares your initiative count but takes its turn immediately after yours, and the Beast can do the same.

6) Actions In Combat: After activation, the Wildfire only takes the Dodge action unless you take a bonus action on your turn to Command it to do any of the following instead: 1) take one of the actions in its stat block, or 2) Dash, or 3) Disengage, or 4) Help, or 5) Hide.

7) Ranger Action Variant: Now because the Bonus action to issue a command can interfere with one of the Ranger's iconic fighting forms of dual weapon fighting, I think it might be fair to say the Beast follows it's last command on following rounds until issued a new Command? This one will take some more thought.

8) Advancement of Stats by Level: The stats for the Wildfire have some built-in advancements with level. HP = Con Mod+your Wis+ (Your level * 5). That's a likely starting HP = 2+3+5=10 at level 1, 15 at level 2, 20 at level 3, etc. until your Wis goes up. This could be adapted for a Beast. The Wildfire sees the following numbers increase by 1 when your proficiency bonus increases by 1: skill and saving throw bonuses, bonuses to hit and damage. This can be adapted to the Beast. I'd say Beast DCs for any abilities it use also would increase.

9) Pet Survivability: The stats for the Wildfire include a lot of immunities a Beast normally wouldn't get, like fire, charmed, frightened,grappled, prone, restrained. It can also fly, and has 60' darkvision. These increase it's survivability and utility. Not sure how to adapt these concepts to the Beast but I think it could be done.

10) Types of Specific Pet Actions: The Wildfire has two actions it can specifically take on in it's stats, in addition to the general actions it can do as mentioned above. They are: A Ranged Weapon Attack: +4 to hit, range 30 ft., one target you can see. Hit: 1d6 + 2 damage; and a Teleportation power that Recharges after a Short or Long Rest that teleports each willing creature of your choice within 5 feet of it up to 30 feet, and then each creature within 10 feet of the space that the spirit left must succeed on a save or take an average of 5.5 damage. Obviously there would be pretty wide variance for Beasts in what actions it can take, and there would likely be different Beast options each with their own different abilities and attacks and such.

 

[Paul Farquhar]

No I think it says you can do both you just need to use a wildshape for the pet - not that you cannot also use it to wildshape.

That is the case - they have said that a subclass never takes away an ability from the core class, but it can repurpose it.

So you can't remove the ranger's spells, but you can use them to fuel another another ability.

This allows the player to choose to never use an ability without disadvantaging themselves.