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

[MechaTarrasque]

I just had a thought. If the problem is that we want the AC to keep attacking after one order, well, 5e has a mechanism for that: concentration. The animal companion will keep attacking a targeted enemy for as long as you maintain concentration (as with a spell) or until the enemy or animal companion reaches 0 hit points. Low level rangers will give up things like hunters mark to keep Fido fighting, and for high level rangers, it is probably worth it to lose an attack a round so you can concentrate, attack yourself, and have Fido attack.

 

[Mistwell]

I just had a thought. If the problem is that we want the AC to keep attacking after one order,

Error. Acronym AC already used to represent a different concept. Please use an alternative to avoid confusion.

well, 5e has a mechanism for that: concentration. The animal companion will keep attacking a targeted enemy for as long as you maintain concentration (as with a spell) or until the enemy or animal companion reaches 0 hit points. Low level rangers will give up things like hunters mark to keep Fido fighting, and for high level rangers, it is probably worth it to lose an attack a round so you can concentrate, attack yourself, and have Fido attack.

It's a fair idea, except now you're conflicting with their concentration spells. Which, if you look. is most of them

 

[Staffan]

Thank you for getting the point!

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.

I think if my current PF2 PC dies, I might try making a ranger or druid with an animal companion to see how that works out. I think the PF2 approach to animal companions has potential:

• The basic version is a young animal companion, which is fairly weak.
• Animal companions are Minions, which means they generally don't do stuff on their own. Instead, their owner has to spend an action to Command them, which gives the companion two actions (for those unfamiliar with Pathfinder 2, the default number of actions per turn is 3).
• You can make the animal companion stronger by investing feats in it: first to a Mature animal companion, then to either Nimble or Savage, and on top of that you can give it a specialization (e.g. Ambusher, Daredevil, Racer). So a fully developed animal companion costs 4 of your 11 class feats.
• Replacing a companion takes a week of downtime.

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.

 

[Leatherhead]

It's a fair idea, except now you're conflicting with their concentration spells. Which, if you look. is most of them

It's not that much of a conflict if you are using spell slot to buff/summon/heal the pet without a spell.

 

[Mistwell]

It's not that much of a conflict if you are using spell slot to buff/summon/heal the pet without a spell.

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.

 

[Undrave]

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.

Why not? You get different perks from this choice and even if it interferes a little with concentration, you can still use concentration outside of combat. You don't need Hunter's Mark if the beast becomes your source of extra damage.

 

[Beleriphon]

I never understood why the Beastmaster ranger didn't get a feature that let its beast companion attack the same target it is attacking in exchange for not getting an extra attack feature, and roll Extra Attack into the archetype.

 

[LuisCarlos17f]

The fun part is if there is an official monster-tamer/creature-collector class by WotC later will be "cloned" for Pathfinder OSR, and maybe later some videogame studio will use it to create its own title, as for example Temtem.

Maybe the "sidesick/companion/monster pet" with some traits as limited telepathy would allow a player to use two characters, but then the distribution of the XPs reward should be as with an extra PC.

The monster pet could be used not only like mount, but like a "mecha" or exosuit. Or DMs could use minions controlling a "construct monster pet", like the humongous from Jim Henson's "Labyrinth", like an arcanepunk "powered suit" or "mini-mecha".

How would be affect the "monster pets" in the mass battles? Let's imagine forest wardens wearing something like a bionoid symbiont, a bulletproof living exosuit/bio-armor of living tissue.

Worse if you want to create a D&D real-time-strategy game (and future e-sport) and the player has to choose how to spend money to buy magic item, constructs, firearms & gunpowder, or hiring more mercenaries.

If WotC publishes something, you can bet fans and 3rd party will create even crazier ideas.

 

[Mistwell]

Why not? You get different perks from this choice and even if it interferes a little with concentration, you can still use concentration outside of combat. You don't need Hunter's Mark if the beast becomes your source of extra damage.

We seem to be missing each other here. When you characterize this conflict as "a little" after I emphasize "it's a huge amount and the degree of conflict is why I think it's too much", we're not responding to each others positions.

It's not "a little" conflict with spell use. Most of those concentration spells are combat-focused. Beast Bond, Ensnaring Strike, Fog Cloud, Hail of Thorns, Hunter's Mark, Zephyr Strike, Barkskin, Beast Sense, Silence, Spike Growth, Conjure Animals, Flame Arrows, Lightning Arrow, Protection from Energy, Wind Wall, Conjure Woodland Beings, Grasping Vine, Guardian of Nature, Stoneskin, Swift Quiver, Wrath of Nature, Etc.. It's such a massive part of their spell list that it's too high a cost.

If this is some sideways method of creating a spell-less ranger, then just make a spell-less ranger. But don't neuter their ability to use spells just to have a pet. The existing system is better than that.

 

[Undrave]

We seem to be missing each other here. When you characterize this conflict as "a little" after I emphasize "it's a huge amount and the degree of conflict is why I think it's too much", we're not responding to each others positions.

It's not "a little" conflict with spell use. Most of those concentration spells are combat-focused. Beast Bond, Ensnaring Strike, Fog Cloud, Hail of Thorns, Hunter's Mark, Zephyr Strike, Barkskin, Beast Sense, Silence, Spike Growth, Conjure Animals, Flame Arrows, Lightning Arrow, Protection from Energy, Wind Wall, Conjure Woodland Beings, Grasping Vine, Guardian of Nature, Stoneskin, Swift Quiver, Wrath of Nature, Etc.. It's such a massive part of their spell list that it's too high a cost.

If this is some sideways method of creating a spell-less ranger, then just make a spell-less ranger. But don't neuter their ability to use spells just to have a pet. The existing system is better than that.

Didn't realize Rangers had so many Concentration spells...but still, I don't think the idea of trading more potent spell casting for a BETTER pet (than the current Beastmaster) is a bad idea.

Heck, how about you instead give the Ranger concentration spells to boost his companion and give the Beast Master a few of those for free? So you have the option to use your spells however you want? I mean the beast is your defining feature so you should be able to invest in it more, right?