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

[LuisCarlos17f]

Some players would rather a construct as companion because they are in dessert zones where water and food are more difficult to be got.

And we should be careful about potential abuses by munchkins. There is enough imagination to find really crazy ideas from the concept of monster pet subclass.

What if a player wants a (monster) humanoid as "monster pet"?

Blaster-Master from Mad Max III: beyond thunderdome.

Ferra&Tor, from Mortal Kombat X.

Ogre with howdath, in D&D 5th Ed. And let's remember the tayfolk "race" (tayling and tayland) from Krynn. Even in Dragon Compedium there was a race, the dvati, whose "pet" was his twin brother (with a telepathic link), or let's say there was a two bodies sharing the same soul.

And you have forgotten the ultimate monster pet, the most popular, the dragons. Some players want to be a dragon rider, and this concept or archetype as class has been published by some 3rd party.

Also we should remember any players don't want a monster pet but become one, like a nagual (totem witch-warrior with shapeshifter powers to become an animal).

Or a DM could use a special magic and the animal companions would become monster humanoids, with hands and opposite thumbs. Most of times couldn't wear armour but if they are trained as monks...

* If there is a monster pet subclass then somebody will want to use the same mechanic to create a class as a warlord with sidekicks, or even troops (a special monster subtype for humanoids who fight in squads or no-little monsters in packs).

* Other variation of the monster tamer subclass is the sha'ir as a genie summoner. These wouldn't be "magic slaves" but more like "hired workers" but paid with "mana" or magic essence. If she can summon different genies, or these can do different things, it could become a too versatile spellcaster.

* There was (planar handbook 3.5) a monster template about planar creatures infused with positive energy, and they could be summoned by an arcane spellcaster for its healing effects.

* The psionic manifester classes didn't summon planar creatures but they created astral constructs, and theses as no-sentient beings could be sent to explore rooms without worry too much about hidden traps.

* Sorry, I have got a lot of ideas in the head, and maybe these aren't too linked to this thread.

 

[Leatherhead]

7) Ranger Action Variant: Now because the Bonus action to issue a command can interfere with one of the Ranger's iconic fighting forms of dual weapon fighting, I think it might be fair to say the Beast follows it's last command on following rounds until issued a new Command? This one will take some more thought.

It's ok to have conflicting features. Like how the Barbarian has Unarmored Defense despite being able to use armor. And besides, two-weapon fighting is inherently a mess for Rangers. It doesn't scale properly, conflicts with Hunters Mark and any spell that uses somatic or material components for that matter.

Come to think of it, Hunters Mark could be safely replaced from this subclass as well, it doesn't modify Pet Damage.

 

[Sword of Spirit]

Just to brainstorm, what about a ranger that starts with the idea of character + purchased pet? In other words, a ranger who doesn't get a pet but enhances what they have.

That's exactly how it should work. Anyone can buy a pet. The MM even talks about more powerful monsters that could be raised and trained (though that's more dependant on campaign and DM reasonability (yes, I consider artificially disallowing that sort of thing as unreasonable--though it's completely reasonable to tell a player most of a campaign is urban, and they don't like griffons walking around, so please don't do that)). The class should let you get more use out of the pet--you know, like Fighter lets you get more use out of a weapon that anyone could buy and wield.

My quick fix is just (in addition to the errata), saying that the pet can use its action anyway that makes sense for a trained beast (including attacking). The ranger uses his features to grant it additional actions with its reaction.

 

[gyor]

Honestly I really love all three subclasses, Onomancer, Twilight Cleric (insert joke here) , and Wild Fire Druid. One type of deity I think the Twilight Domain would be great for are deities of passion, like Sune, Sharess, Llirra, Kepto, Aphrodite, as they tend to be more linked to the night more then most none evil deities are and even the dusk, and sun set.

 

[Paul Farquhar]

My quick fix is just (in addition to the errata), saying that the pet can use its action anyway that makes sense for a trained beast (including attacking). The ranger uses his features to grant it additional actions with its reaction.

This is already in the rules, it's what the Animal Handling skill is for. And the good news is you can choose any class you like.

 

[CapnZapp]

It's not rocket science for the DM to level up an animal NPC, but I expect to see expanded sidekick rules for it in the new book.

As stated in the interview, some players need explicit permission to do things that the rules have always allowed.

Please don't insinuate that a Beastmaster concept is or superfluous.

That's WotC newtalk, only intended to let them off the hook.

 

[CapnZapp]

Why?

Sorry Mistwell, I don't believe you're asking in good faith, not after the extensive explanations I've offered as to why a player might get upset his trusted friend and companion is meant to die all the time.

I've already said summon-based options are fine. Doesn't fix the classic Beastmaster concept (finding a real animal to bond with), though.

 

[CapnZapp]

Yep. It makes sense.

Revised Beastmaster does it. So does the Battlesmith Artificer. Taking the Revised BM pet rules, and putting it on the PHB Ranger, would do it.

This is insulting and poorly thought out garbage. Calm the hell down before you reply to people.

And no, it’s not about the pet being replaced or dying repeatedly. It doesn’t matter how tough the pet is. It could be tougher than a fighter, and I’m still not gonna play the subclass unless it has explicit rules for regaining the use of my subclass if the pet dies.

It was a long time since I looked at the revised Beastmaster, but sure, show me the official version (with those 1st level kinks ironed out) and we'll talk.

As long as it remains playtest, however, WotC has fixed nothing.

One man's garbage...

The game already has plenty ways to bring creatures back from the dead. You need to understand that by making it significantly easier/cheaper/faster to resurrect one creature than others, what that REALLY means, is that creature's life isn't worth as much; that the rule is trying to lessen the impact of that particular creature dying.

But animal lovers looking to play a Beastmaster isn't interested in having their pet die.

And they are definitely not interested in any mechanism for replacing it. If there ever was a design that fundamentally misunderstands the needs and wants of the Beastmaster fans, it is the notion Fido 2 and Fido 3 works just as well as Fido 1.

 

[CapnZapp]

I present then: a tough-ish pet, with death saves, and the ranger having access to resurrection magic but not expecting to use it every day, seems like it's on 5e paradigm.

Absolutely.

I've never claimed the pet should be harder to resurrect than ordinary PCs. My comments were intended to make those posters that clamor for specific replacement/resummon/resurrect rules such as "whenever my pet dies I can just snap my fingers to get another one so I'm guaranteed never to be without my class feature" understand that outlook is nothing short of reprehensible to many animal companion fans. They're much better off with a summoned or disposable pet since, frankly, their attitude is like a necromancer's towards its zombies and skeletons: if, no, when they die, it's easy getting new ones.

All I'm asking for is a significantly sturdier pet with a less artificial action economy than the PHB offers.

And, not to forget, I offer the argument this will never be close to a balanced (1/2 + 1/2 = 1) design, so why don't WotC simply accept and acknowledge this.

 

[LuisCarlos17f]

Guenhwyvar, the famous panther and Drizzt D'ourden's "pet" or animal companion isn't an ordinary animal.

If some monter allies are harder or easier to be killed because its type (fay, undead, construct, plant) is different, then the game balance could be broken.

* OMG! Some fan will want to create a d20 version of the videogame Plants vs Zombies using those as "monster pets" with subtype plant.

* Wizards' familiars aren't ordinary animal but magic beasts for game mechanic effects.

* In videogames monsters mounts are very popular, not only in Warcraft but also in Newerwinter Online.

* If a subclass allow monster pets, why not monster mounts, or monster humanoid squirrels?

* If a magic monster pet is easier to be recovered after losing all hit-points some players could use them to explore zones with danger by possible hidden traps. Or to be sent to carry a bomb, and teleportation to a safe zone before the explosion.

* What if a player wants a monster template for his animal companion? For example half-golem or feytouched.

* If a ranger or druid's animal companions are only ordinary animals... why not more pets? It would be like buying a horse or a donkey.

* If magic gloves or gauntlets would allow opposable thumbs to a monster, for example a sphynx. Could this work as a humanoid monster? In Savage Species there was a magic item, the naga's arms. And in my own setting nagas have got arms and hands with opposable thumbs. A 3rd party sourcebook about monster templates (by Green Ronin?) ordinary monsters could become humanoids. Savage Species also had got a monster template to create creatures as centaurs.

* If an animal companion is a creature from the feywild, if it loses all hit-points, then it doesn't die really but it come back to its original plain, does it?