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

[CapnZapp]

Why?

Why what?

If you seriously wonder why players don't touch class designs where the death of the pet is already planned in with a ten-feet pole, just think about how people get more upset when animals die than when people die.

Players play Beastmasters to gain a trusted friend. Not to have a disposable bag of hit points.

 

[CapnZapp]

Having watched the full video, it is pretty clear that the Battle Smith and now this Druid are a working out of Mearls realization about summoning math and spell slot value last year.

Not sure what you mean. Could you summarize for those of us not able to watch the video?

 

[Paul Farquhar]

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.

This is a description of a sidekick/NPC companion.

Note your own words: "member of the party".

 

[CapnZapp]

This is just false.

The feedback on the battlesmith was overwhelmingly positive. Likewise, the revised ranger BM works just fine, and the only overstep is moving extra attack to the beast.

The beast doesn’t need to do PC level damage, it needs to add enough damage to the ranger’s damage in all tiers that the pair together are not at the low end of the 5e power curve, and it needs enough HP that it doesn’t lose relative power at higher level.

The revised ranger BM subclass, and the Artificer Battlesmith, both accomplish that.

What is false? Have I ever discussed playtest material or some Battlesmith?

I was talking about the Beastmaster concept. The PHB version was woefully inadequate.

 

[CapnZapp]

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.

Exactly why the pair is more like 150% of a regular character, and not 200%.

 

[CapnZapp]

If the pet is "part of the character" it needs to be effectively immortal so long as the character lives. I expect the Ranger we get in next month's UA will have a Telthor pet - a fey spirit in animal form that can be resummoned if it dies.

The sidekick system is intended for secondary characters, including pets, who have a separate "life of there own".

If WotC admits they don't want to make a good Beastmaster subclass, then so be it.

I personally don't see why there can't be a reasonable Beastmaster. WotC just needs to abandon any pretense of balance (=accept the pair is closer to 1,5 regular character).

My whole point here isn't that the concept can or can't be done. My point is that WotC can't both have the cake (balance) and eat it (a class design that meets people's expectations).

 

[CapnZapp]

Why not just let the ranger bring back their companion, then?

Of course it should be possible to bring back the companion, just like it is possible to bring back the party Wizard.

Just as long as the class design doesn't plan on bringing one back significantly more often than the other.

 

[Parmandur]

Why what?

If you seriously wonder why players don't touch class designs where the death of the pet is already planned in with a ten-feet pole, just think about how people get more upset when animals die than when people die.

Players play Beastmasters to gain a trusted friend. Not to have a disposable bag of hit points.

Saying players don't touch the Beastmaster with a ten-foot pole is an exaggeration: one of the major issues WotC has with addressing the dissatisfaction with the Beastmaster is that it is a minority report. Most players are happy with it as is, though the dissatisfaction is higher than other options.

As was said upthread, the pet is easily replaced, if somehow the pet get's killed even with death saves (which I checked, Crawford and Mearls say thye get Death Saves) and all the resources the party has. Most parties probably don't experience pet permadeath, and those that do can get new pets.

 

[CapnZapp]

The PHB Beastmaster of finding another beast that isn't hostile to you and then spending 8 hours is right out.

No, actually, that's quite reasonable.

Why? Since it assumes the pet stays dead and now is replaced. A sad momentous event. It should not be possible to replace your dear friend just by snapping your fingers.

More importantly, the design should provide a robust pet that isn't significantly more likely to die than, say, the party Wizard. So this finding another beast shouldn't happen often enough to be a real detriment.

 

[Parmandur]

Not sure what you mean. Could you summarize for those of us not able to watch the video?

Last year, Mearls had a realization that they had been doing Summoning wrong the whole time: instead of having critters from the MM show up for a Spell, using the Spell HD guidelines (the real underlyign math of Spell balance in the game) to make a Spell Effect with some level of customizeable personality would get the job done. This is what you see with the Batltle Smith and this new Druid: Spell Effects with specific HD economy contributions in an Adventure day.