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

[darjr]

Wait. When PCs buy pets those are NPCs or non player. I don’t let the players “run” them. Do most folks?
I do agree that the beast can’t feel like it’s less than a purchased dog, or horse. But I’m OK with that being given by other means than complete action economy. Or at least balancing that against, say the fighters extra class features that give them more to do in combat.

 

[Fanaelialae]

Also, large races deal an extra die of damage with weapons. A large PC wielding a longsword deals 2d8 damage instead of the normal 1d8. So there's more stuff to deal with by having a large PC race that I am sure WotC just doesn't want to hassle with.

That's only if you need to satisfy a particular kind of simulationism. Which, admittedly, at this point in 5e it would be hard to pivot away from for WotC.

For example, I've created monster classes for my own games where the class itself provides extra damage dice, rather than the size of the creature.

This has opened up the option to use large size on non-class races in my own design. There are some additional advantages of size, such as larger auras and the ability to control a larger area. However, in my opinion they are naturally counterbalanced, as large creatures can have more enemies gang up on them in melee, will (likely) be forced to squeeze more frequently, etc.

While I realize that scaled-up-weapon == bigger damage is basically a sacred cow at this point, I think it's a prime candidate for slaughter, as it opens significant design space.

 

[gyor]

This is so inspiring for a character. He married a fire genasi priestess of Sharess, and when she died, she bound her fiery soul with his so that he could summon her elemental soul, in the form of a Cheetah made of flames to his side. He has a huge tattoos of a Volcano and a cheetah made of flames on his back. He is an Urban Druid who prays to Sharess, Kossuth, Sune, and Gond, and he has a history as a former gang member.

 

[PsyzhranV2]

Mearls explained the issue on the Happy Fun Hour once: having a PC take up four squares in grid combat breaks things like the Paladin Aura. He admitted that it doesn't make any difference for TotM combat, which is more common, bit that they didn't want to break the game for mini-users.

I feel this is the biggest problem with Large-sized PCs, before things weapon damage dice and not being able to fit in the dungeon. Polearm master + Sentinel gets a lot more powerful, as do all effects that occur within X feet radius from the user such as Paladin auras, other aura (spells), other spells originating from the user that spread in a circle, etc.

 

[bedir than]

I've found that single pet characters need less screen time then most casters. In combat, pets usually have very constrained options so there's little descision paralysis, just a move and an extra roll or two. Out of combat there are similarly limited amounts of times they influence play that isn't already the spotlight on the pet character (such as tracking in the wilderness, etc.). Casters on the other hand often have longer times spent on descisions, specifically spell selection, and often need to roll a lot more than other characters due to a area of effects.

You are talking about the current state of pets, not the desired state of pet per the vocal "pet classes are too weak" group

 

[Blue]

You are talking about the current state of pets, not the desired state of pet per the vocal "pet classes are too weak" group

Thanks for telling me what I'm talking about, that's not rude at all. It is also incorrect.

My statement about how much screen time holds true for PHB Beastmaster, for pets as presented recently for wildfire druid and artificer, and for the "I want a powerful beast companion" - which still does not have a lot of options and is, as mentioned, a move and an attack roll or two.

 

[Undrave]

Why not just let the ranger bring back their companion, then? Perhaps not as easily as the Battlesmith, but certainly without spending 8 hours in the wilderness to get a new one. Most players I know don’t want a new one. I’ve even seen a player refuse to continue to be a BM Ranger when their pet died. They were ready to switch subclasses, but the DM found a way to bring the pet back. (An item that let the player bind the soul of a willing beast as a familiar. The pet could then be resurrected in a Fey body, with the basically the mechanics of the Chain Warlock, but with a wolf as the familiar.)

Personally I have no problem with it, it just runs straight into the 'mundane pet' concept of the BEAST companion. But for other companions it works great.

 

[CapnZapp]

If the pet gets to the point where it is worth 1/2 to 3/4 of a PC then there must be penalty for that pet dying.

Yeah, well, the point is that most players interested in a Beastmaster class want a pet that isn't planned or designed to die.

That is, a pet that is a treasured member of the party, whose death is a sad affair. Ideally the pet doesn't die more often than, say, the party wizard.

But you were talking about the penalty. Yes, there is a huge penalty. That penalty is...: the death of the pet.

But if you mean that the class design should come with specified extra penalties on top of losing your dear friend, then, hard nope - since that means the design relies on the death of the pet in order to provide balancing drawbacks.

 

[bedir than]

Thanks for telling me what I'm talking about, that's not rude at all. It is also incorrect.

My statement about how much screen time holds true for PHB Beastmaster, for pets as presented recently for wildfire druid and artificer, and for the "I want a powerful beast companion" - which still does not have a lot of options and is, as mentioned, a move and an attack roll or two.

So, still the version that completely and wholly dissatisfies CapnZapp and the like.

 

[bedir than]

Yeah, well, the point is that most players interested in a Beastmaster class want a pet that isn't planned or designed to die.

That is, a pet that is a treasured member of the party, whose death is a sad affair. Ideally the pet doesn't die more often than, say, the party wizard.

But you were talking about the penalty. Yes, there is a huge penalty. That penalty is...: the death of the pet.

But if you mean that the class design should come with specified extra penalties on top of losing your dear friend, then, hard nope - since that means the design relies on the death of the pet in order to provide balancing drawbacks.

Currently if a pet dies a character merely waits for the next long rest and poof, brand new pet. No penalty at all really. They're easier to return to life than a PC, by far.