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

[CapnZapp]

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.

Maybe I lost track of the discussion here, but what has summoning rules to do with "the possible future of pet subclasses"?

Are you (or MMearls, I guess) saying they will only offer disposable pets (just summon a new copy) in the future?

 

[Undrave]

As I said, there can't be a pet class that is both good and fair. Choose one or the other, you can't have both, WotC.

Which is why I'd advocate to treat the 'animal companion' as an actual PC class. You can have someone play the wolf or just the player playing both. Balance encounters around the idea of having an extra PC. And you just warn the players outright what this implies.

And if you want the Ranger to be the best at working with an animal companion you give them class features that synergies well with the Animal Companion's own.

 

[Parmandur]

Maybe I lost track of the discussion here, but what has summoning rules to do with "the possible future of pet subclasses"?

Are you (or MMearls, I guess) saying they will only offer disposable pets (just summon a new copy) in the future?

Class Pet Features are Summoning Spells by a different name. Mearls laid out an idea for a new way to approach Summons/Pets, that these new features seem to reflect.

 

[Parmandur]

WotC says the Beastmaster is good enough. That you choose to believe them says volumes.

For the rest of us, it is clearly inadequate. Aggressively obvious, even.

So I guess we have nothing to discuss. You can have the PHB Beastmaster for yourself.

In my experience, it is good enough, and apparently in most people's experiences. WotC isn't going to errata the existing Subclass, but I expect we might see an alternate take in the next UA upcoming.

 

[CapnZapp]

So that means you can end up with a character gimped for days because his class feature just died.

The party wizard is a bad metric since the Wizard isn't meant to be in melee. Maybe the party cleric would be a better basis?.

Well, of course it's a delicate balance.

My point is that the class design should offer a sufficiently sturdy pet that the after-death-procedure isn't a planned event.

The point is, if replacing (or raising) the pet is too easy, that suggests the designer is aware the pet is at a significantly higher risk of dying.

I don't want the death of your beloved pet to be even more of a penalty than it already is.

But I do believe less specific is good here. The rules should not detail how to replace your pet in too close detail, since that event is not meant to happen. (Meaning that the death of any party member is not meant to happen yet it happens anyway).

I think it's better if the rules don't state specific time durations at all, leaving it up to the DM to decide if a new pet can be found in ten minutes or if it takes a week.

 

[CapnZapp]

WotC isn't going to errata the existing Subclass, but I expect we might see an alternate take in the next UA upcoming.

We have known this for five years.

All I'm saying is that WotC needs to choose - good or fair.

 

[Undrave]

Well, of course it's a delicate balance.

My point is that the class design should offer a sufficiently sturdy pet that the after-death-procedure isn't a planned event.

The point is, if replacing (or raising) the pet is too easy, that suggests the designer is aware the pet is at a significantly higher risk of dying.

I don't want the death of your beloved pet to be even more of a penalty than it already is.

But I do believe less specific is good here. The rules should not detail how to replace your pet in too close detail, since that event is not meant to happen. (Meaning that the death of any party member is not meant to happen yet it happens anyway).

I think it's better if the rules don't state specific time durations at all, leaving it up to the DM to decide if a new pet can be found in ten minutes or if it takes a week.

That makes sense.

Personally I've never been a fan of the animal companion class concept, specifically because of the can of worms it opens rules-wise so maybe I'm not the best to discuss it

 

[doctorbadwolf]

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

Nah. None of us want a pet that’s as complicated as a PC. Move, attack action, maybe a special action that resolves about as easily as the attack action.

All it absolutely needs to keep up is properly scaling HP, and proficiency bonus.

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.

The ranger isn’t mundane. The ranger casts spells. Why shouldnt the ranger have the ability to bond with a mundane creature in such a way that they can heal and even revive the beast pretty easily?

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.

Your claim about a satisfying pet requiring an overpowered total package. It’s false.

 

[Blue]

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

Let's see, since as far as I can tell they just want more powerful - something that doesn't require more rolls and therefore more screen time.

If they are looking for something that will drastically increase the screen time - which power doesn't do - please let us know what it is.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

Which is why I'd advocate to treat the 'animal companion' as an actual PC class. You can have someone play the wolf or just the player playing both. Balance encounters around the idea of having an extra PC. And you just warn the players outright what this implies.

And if you want the Ranger to be the best at working with an animal companion you give them class features that synergies well with the Animal Companion's own.

I can’t stress enough how much this is a complete non-starter for me. Absolutely not.
Literally the Battlesmith and the revised beastmaster both do a companion well.

If they play test an optional variant beastmaster that has set stats (choice of 3-5 statblocks, each curated to do exactly what the designers expect) with the progression and scaling rules of the revised beast companion, I am almost certain that the overwhelming feedback would be positive.

I think it's better if the rules don't state specific time durations at all, leaving it up to the DM to decide if a new pet can be found in ten minutes or if it takes a week.

I’d absolutely never even consider playing that, unless the DM was willing to homebrew in specific rules where you left them out. I’m not going to play DM May I with my core character feature that is the primary reason I took the class, and that represents basically my entire subclass.