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

[Mistwell]

I wonder, what do you think about simply adding spells that boost the pet, same as the ranger has self buffs, that don’t require concentration so they don’t interfere with the normal ranger concentration spells?

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

 

[Paul Farquhar]

I’d argue that the Ranger version should have more HP and the ranger able to spend a slot to heal it as a bonus action within 60ft,instead of being so easily summoned, but yeah, that probably works.

As long as it’s a choice between at least three forms.

Pack Hunter companion: wolf, big cat, etc. damage, pounce, knock down.

Stout Defender companion: Bears and board and such

Airborne Sentinel companion: birds. Lower damage, flyby, ability to Help as part of attack.

Then find a place in the subclass for sharing senses if possible, but if not, we aren’t any worse off on the scouting front than we are now...

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.

 

[CapnZapp]

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

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

 

[CapnZapp]

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.

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.

 

[CapnZapp]

That a direction. It's not the only direction. And it's likely not even the best direction because it only can handle the case of singular pets.

Let's take what you said: no more likely to die than the party wizard. If that's "the party wizard if they decided to run into melee" (which is where the beast is), then I'm good - and it will happen a decent amount. If you mean as likely to die as someone who avoids combat, that means that since they are in combat they are a large sack of HPs/Defenses and really as likely to die as a fighter. Being able to absorb a full character's worth of attacks and then come back with little resource spend is very powerful. When you combine it that without perfect focus fire it really means that HP damage is just spread around more, and HP damage is absolutely meaningless in the long term, that's a lot more powerful.

Sorry, lost your point in there. Do you have a question for me?

 

[CapnZapp]

They aren't going do anything with the existing beastmaster class. That ship sailed long ago. They are probably going to put out a ranger subclass with a pet like the Steel Defender: Fixed stats, immortal, powered by it's master's bonus actions.

However, the idea that any game designer ever would deliberately put out a 1.5 character is patently ridiculous. Hell would have to freeze over, thaw out, and be sucked into a black hole fist.

And it's completely unnecessary. There is no rule that all party members must be player characters, never has been. I've had an NPC pony in a party with levels of Barbarian. You want an animal in they party? You can have one. Role play it, rather than roll play it, and it will become a much loved friend, and it's death, should it occur, tragic.

What animal?

You're not seriously suggesting the level 17 party bring along a CR 1/2 guard dog are you?

Of course we want and deserve a subclass that simplifies and codifies the pet's stat block as appropriate for my level. Right. Right?

 

[CapnZapp]

About non-sentient creatures, animals or monsters, we have to remember they have got better senses. This is really important in stealth operations. An ordinary horse in a night camp could listen or smell a potential predator or a forest goblin trying to steal.

Or a bird could be used to leave a stone with a teletransportation rune on a window in the top of the tower, or to cross a room without touching walls or floor to avoid traps.

You have forgotten in the real life chimpanzee are strong as two humans, and a gorilla as eight. If we talk about elephants then the difference is higher.

Usually animals as companions are too claustrophobic to enter dungeons or underground zones. And if they are barefoot then traps on the floor are more dangerous for people who wear shoes or boots.

Haven't you noticed the great potential as gold reef the subgenre of collectable monster battle arena (Pokemon, Digimon and company)?

Mon - TV Tropes

A Monnote short for "monster", as in Pokémon (Pocket Monsters) and Digimon (Digital Monsters) is a creature, generally summoned by magic or sufficiently advanced science means, which fights on behalf of its summoner. This allows …

tvtropes.org

The Beastmaster - TV Tropes

A type of character who uses the assistance of an animal, Beast of Battle, force of nature, or just some sort of not-highly-sapient creature (with free will) to help them fight. There are a few variations to this: The creature in question has …

tvtropes.org

Fluffy Tamer - TV Tropes

When your setting features snarling, ferocious beasts with names like Fluffy the Terrible, call in Alice the Fluffy Tamer. She'll turn that man-eating, three-headed dog into a precious puppy by sundown, and the hardest part of the job will be …

tvtropes.org

Pet Monstrosity - TV Tropes

A character keeps as a pet what would normally be considered (and the same species may be in every other instance) a bloodthirsty monster. Such a creature may be given a deceptive name. A person with such a pet may be a Fluffy Tamer, if not The …

tvtropes.org

Team Pet - TV Tropes

The default mascot of The Team and usually the most outlandish of the bunch. Can be a robot, magic animal, or in a more realistic setting, a little girl much younger than everyone else. Often a Sidekick Creature Nuisance. Most of the time, the …

tvtropes.org

Monster Allies - TV Tropes

Where monsters in RPGs can be recruited to fight alongside the heroes. Allied monsters can be individual characters (Paper Mario) or not (the Dragon Quest series to an extent). In the latter case it's common for the monsters to appear "in the …

tvtropes.org

This is not only D&D. Here also some old ideas from other Hasbro franchises could be recycled for a new line.

* Edit.

A monster pet tamer class is a serious challenge for game designers, because it has to be original, and the right balance of power to avoid abuses by munchkins, not only by PCs but some DMs.

WotC doesn't need a copy of the summoner class from Pathfinder. They can add its home-grown things, for example points to "buy" monster traits (demonbinder prestige class from "Drows of the Underdark"), a summoned monsters with chakras (body slots) for a soulmeld class close to the totemist, or a special ritual to summon "eidolons" like the game mechanic for vestige pact magic.

* I like the idea of a gnome as monster-tamer riding on an ogre's shoulder's who is screaming "HOLDUR, HOLDUR!"

Sorry all those comparisons are valid only against a level 0 Commoner.

The level-based nature of D&D means a hero soon becomes better than a dog at sensing enemies, stronger than a chimpanzee or even an elephant.

Your observations are true, except D&D is a supers game in fantasy trappings.

 

[CapnZapp]

I disagree and the Wildfire power seems a reasonable way to draft this for the beastmaster as well.

1) It takes a limited resource to summon/resurrect it after it dies. For the Ranger I think this should be a spell slot.
2) It shares your initiative count but takes it's turn immediately after yours.
3) It takes the Dodge action on it's turn unless you used a bonus action on your turn to command it to take one of the actions in it's stat block or to take the Dash, Disengage, Help, or Hide action.

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.

 

[Don Durito]

I really think pets get overthought.

Especially the Ranger/Beastmaster thing.

Trying to balance it is the issue. Is the pet really part of the character? Do we really want the Ranger to be weaker as a character because he has to leave his pet panther outside the city/or handwave the fact that he would probably have to?

It just seems easier to say that, if everyone's fine with it, the Ranger gets a secondary character and has some rules to interact with it.

How much do the rest of the PCs care? It's not as if the Ranger is more powerful than other PCs.

Just put it out there as an option - if the group isn't happy with the Ranger having a companion character then sorry no pet.

If the Paladin takes a squire do we need to rebalance the whole class?

Just make the pet a sidekick and have done with it.

 

[CapnZapp]

If by “people’s” you mean ”CapnZapp’s,” then I agree. However, I think it’s entirely possible for them to make a reasonably balanced beast master that meets their 75% approval threshold or whatever the number is.

No I'm obviously not just speaking for myself.

I'm merely observing that WotC can't both have and eat their cake.

A real full beast combined with a non-gimped master easily is more than 1/2 + 1/2.

My point is that WotC would have saved SO MUCH TIME and effort if they had admitted this to themselves five years ago (or ideally even earlier, so we weren't saddled with the Beastmaster fiasco these past five years).