Any one else feel like 5e hates pet classes?

[FoxWolFrostFire]

So it has always bugged me that one of my favorite play style. The pet/summon character was mostly shafted by 5e.
Beastmaster is a HUGE joke.

Druid didn't get a suitable circle for it until several years down the line. Even them as per Raw you could burn a 9th level spell slot and bring forth the full might of...a single cr 0 bat. Because the dm couldn't be bothered.

Wizard Basicly gets too punch lines. As most of their summon spells get had at around level 7! Seven levels of none summoning aside your familiar
And god knows animate dead needs a total retooling. Book teases the want to be upcomi g necros with zombie ogres and skeleton minotaur. But nope.

And how does Crawford of all people reply? RP taming a wolf, screw the ranger and a VERY defining feature of the class do it for every one...but a wolf is weak and will get one shot...don't worry he had a fix for that! Give the pet CLASS LEVELS. cause we need to REALLY grind in how much Beastmaster is just a joke.

Don't get me wrong both those ideas are fine on their own merit. But useless for official AL games.

It is just sad that we didn't see a proper official pet class until the artificer came out. To just be a better beast master. I'm just sad that one of my favorite play styles need to be homebrew to feel fun.

[Unoriginal]

So it has always bugged me that one of my favorite play style. The pet/summon character was mostly shafted by 5e.
Beastmaster is a HUGE joke.

Druid didn't get a suitable circle for it until several years down the line. Even them as per Raw you could burn a 9th level spell slot and bring forth the full might of...a single cr 0 bat. Because the dm couldn't be bothered.

Wizard Basicly gets too punch lines. As most of their summon spells get had at around level 7! Seven levels of none summoning aside your familiar
And god knows animate dead needs a total retooling. Book teases the want to be upcomi g necros with zombie ogres and skeleton minotaur. But nope.

And how does Crawford of all people reply? RP taming a wolf, screw the ranger and a VERY defining feature of the class do it for every one...but a wolf is weak and will get one shot...don't worry he had a fix for that! Give the pet CLASS LEVELS. cause we need to REALLY grind in how much Beastmaster is just a joke.

Don't get me wrong both those ideas are fine on their own merit. But useless for official AL games.

It is just sad that we didn't see a proper official pet class until the artificer came out. To just be a better beast master. I'm just sad that one of my favorite play styles need to be homebrew to feel fun.

Having more bodies to throw in the fight is VERY powerful in 5e. Such it's hard to make something balanced with the premise.

I don't think they hate pet classes, I just think it took them a while to figure out how to handle them.

IMO I'm perfectly fine with wizards needing to be 7th level for summoning, and I don't think Animate Dead needs a retooling. Could maybe use an Animate Dead Monster spell that let you make undead out of non-humanoids, though.

[Kane0]

Because of the way the action economy and bounded accuracy work every additional creature on the PC's side is a big deal. So summoners, pets, etc tend to be rather limited to account for that.

[FoxWolFrostFire]

Having more bodies to throw in the fight is VERY powerful in 5e. Such it's hard to make something balanced with the premise.

I don't think they hate pet classes, I just think it took them a while to figure out how to handle them.

IMO I'm perfectly fine with wizards needing to be 7th level for summoning, and I don't think Animate Dead needs a retooling. Could maybe use an Animate Dead Monster spell that let you make undead out of non-humanoids, though.

I just home brew animate dead to function souly off of CR. Animate that ogre baby...but it is ALL you can animate with that casting.

But I still have a MASSIVE issue with the raw of most of the summon spells.
The fact that I can say "I burn a 5th level spell slot to summon three giant elk" and the dm by RAW and RAI can just go...nah here is a single crab. Is just...bad.

[noob]

I just home brew animate dead to function souly off of CR. Animate that ogre baby...but it is ALL you can animate with that casting.

But I still have a MASSIVE issue with the raw of most of the summon spells.
The fact that I can say "I burn a 5th level spell slot to summon three giant elk" and the dm by RAW and RAI can just go...nah here is a single crab. Is just...bad.

At least if it was The Crab.
(you know that 3.5 crab that was so op for its cr it should have gotten a cr higher of one or two points)

[Azuresun]

I just home brew animate dead to function souly off of CR. Animate that ogre baby...but it is ALL you can animate with that casting.

But I still have a MASSIVE issue with the raw of most of the summon spells.
The fact that I can say "I burn a 5th level spell slot to summon three giant elk" and the dm by RAW and RAI can just go...nah here is a single crab. Is just...bad.

It's bad DMing, yes. Talk to the DM and tell them what you just told us.

[FoxWolFrostFire]

It's bad DMing, yes. Talk to the DM and tell them what you just told us.

My problem isn't with any one bad DM. But the fact that the spell it's self is poorly designed and written. Pretty much feel that way about ANY feature that requires a player to ask DM permission to "use". The only one I don't hate is cleric divine intervention...but at least that has a more solid ground rule.

[Bosh]

Because of the way the action economy and bounded accuracy work every additional creature on the PC's side is a big deal. So summoners, pets, etc tend to be rather limited to account for that.

Would love to see more summoning spells built around summoning a single powerful critter that can only do anything if you do nothing and that attacks you if your concentration is broken. Would be fun and flavorful and not make everyone's eyes glaze over as you roll for your bajillion critters.

[Amnestic]

Because of the way the action economy and bounded accuracy work every additional creature on the PC's side is a big deal. So summoners, pets, etc tend to be rather limited to account for that.

Absolutely bizarre that they let Animate Objects and Conjure Animals get printed if that was a big concern though.

[Miele]

Conjure Animals and Conjure Woodland beings can be both overpowered or "not terrible, but not amazing". In the case of CA if one plays a Shepherd druid, they are game changing, for every other summoner, they are at best cannon fodder, even if a good one.
Upcast CA with a Shepherd druid and hilarity ensues, even if you stop at 16 beasts and don't reach the 24-32 furball of death.

CWB where a player could choose, would be just overpowered (e.g.: pixies, 8 flying T-rexes), so a DM will let you do it once for fun and then observe in horror the devastation it causes. Don't be surprised if you'll be fireballed 900% more often together with your summons.
In the case of CA, one single CR2 or 2xCR1 would be more balanced and controllable, maybe even upcast.

Animate dead seems quite limited, but I have very little experience with it in a 5e game . Old edition used a raisable hit dice amount, which allowed a lot more variance.

As a DM, I wouldn't mind a summoner in a group if well organized and quick at playing, but I'd rather have one in a small party of 2 or 3 PCs rather than in a large 6-7 people group.

Edit: UA version of Beastmaster seems a lot more interesting and useful, more in line with the ranger+pet classic ideal that Drizzt (and WoW hunters) created in the playerbase.

[Fnissalot]

The class feature variant companion options are pretty nifty! The beastmaster is not a huge joke, it can do decent damage, but it feels bad to play as you are cheated out of doing things on your action and the beast dies easily if the DM is unfriendly. Based on the way the rules are written, you cannot play a dualwielder with a pet as Drizzt since you don't take the attack action if your beast attacks, or with the class feature variants, it takes your bonus action every turn.

The Battlesmith Artificer and the new UA druid subclasses has tried to approach pet classes recently.

The other big problem that has already been mentioned is action economy. It feels bad if your pet leeches on your actions, and it becomes a drag pulling combats into slogs and unbalanced if the pets act on their own, especially if you have more than one pet at a time. Edit:(I would probably house rule all conjuring spells to always summon just 1 creature just to prevent slogs) And if the pet acts on their own and level on their own, should they get a share of the party EXP and does it then feel fair that some players have multiple characters in the same game?

Don't get me wrong, I love pet classes but I think they are hard to do right. Letting player RP their way to pets freely feels like it unjustly punishes the player with the pet-subclass.

The new conjure spells from the Spells and Magic Tattoos UA are less random and less affected by DMs but break action economy. Summon Bestial Spirit is about on par with a beastmaster companion with the big exception being how it breaks the action economy. All those spells should probably have a clause saying "you can not take bonus actions while you concentrate on this spell" to balance it out.

[FoxWolFrostFire]

Conjure Animals and Conjure Woodland beings can be both overpowered or "not terrible, but not amazing". In the case of CA if one plays a Shepherd druid, they are game changing, for every other summoner, they are at best cannon fodder, even if a good one.
Upcast CA with a Shepherd druid and hilarity ensues, even if you stop at 16 beasts and don't reach the 24-32 furball of death.

CWB where a player could choose, would be just overpowered (e.g.: pixies, 8 flying T-rexes), so a DM will let you do it once for fun and then observe in horror the devastation it causes. Don't be surprised if you'll be fireballed 900% more often together with your summons.
In the case of CA, one single CR2 or 2xCR1 would be more balanced and controllable, maybe even upcast.

Animate dead seems quite limited, but I have very little experience with it in a 5e game . Old edition used a raisable hit dice amount, which allowed a lot more variance.

As a DM, I wouldn't mind a summoner in a group if well organized and quick at playing, but I'd rather have one in a small party of 2 or 3 PCs rather than in a large 6-7 people group.

Edit: UA version of Beastmaster seems a lot more interesting and useful, more in line with the ranger+pet classic ideal that Drizzt (and WoW hunters) created in the playerbase.

But both those summon spells come with a big ol section saying the dm picks what you summon. So it could easily be the worse spell in the game bar none...worse than true strike

[Amnestic]

But both those summon spells come with a big ol section saying the dm picks what you summon. So it could easily be the worse spell in the game bar none...worse than true strike

Conjure Animals says no such thing.

You summon fey spirits that take the form of beasts and appear in unoccupied spaces that you can see within range. Choose one of the following options for what appears: One beast of challenge rating 2 or lower Two beasts of challenge rating 1 or lower Four beasts of challenge rating 1/2 or lower Eight beasts of challenge rating 1/4 or lower. Each beast is also considered fey, and it disappears when it drops to 0 hit points or when the spell ends. The summoned creatures are friendly to you and your companions. Roll initiative for the summoned creatures as a group, which has its own turns. They obey any verbal commands that you issue to them (no action required by you). If you don’t issue any commands to them, they defend themselves from hostile creatures, but otherwise take no actions. The GM has the creatures’ statistics.

It doesn't say how the conjured animals are chosen. It certainly implies that the player does, since they get the choice of CR, just the the DM has the stats for them.

CWB is essentially the same:

You summon fey creatures that appear in unoccupied spaces that you can see within range. Choose one of the following options for what appears: One fey creature of challenge rating 2 or lower Two fey creatures of challenge rating 1 or lower Four fey creatures of challenge rating 1/2 or lower Eight fey creatures of challenge rating 1/4 or lower A summoned creature disappears when it drops to 0 hit points or when the spell ends. The summoned creatures are friendly to you and your companions. Roll initiative for the summoned creatures as a group, which have their own turns. They obey any verbal commands that you issue to them (no action required by you). If you don’t issue any commands to them, they defend themselves from hostile creatures, but otherwise take no actions. The GM has the creatures’ statistics.

This ambiguity leads to tables doing it differently and often requiring the DM to put their foot down in the case of pixies, but the spells do not say the DM picks.

And if they did start summoning a pile of fish when you cast it in the desert then they'd be viewed - rightly - as a hostile DM and players should correctly object to that.

[Unoriginal]

But both those summon spells come with a big ol section saying the dm picks what you summon. So it could easily be the worse spell in the game bar none...worse than true strike

If you can't trust a DM, don't play with that DM.

[MinotaurWarrior]

At least if it was The Crab.
(you know that 3.5 crab that was so op for its cr it should have gotten a cr higher of one or two points)


My problem isn't with any one bad DM. But the fact that the spell it's self is poorly designed and written. Pretty much feel that way about ANY feature that requires a player to ask DM permission to "use". The only one I don't hate is cleric divine intervention...but at least that has a more solid ground rule.

Pixies - CR 1/4 monsters that are honestly fine as CR 1/4 monsters (the one HP really counteracts the offensive power), but are absolutely absurdly broken if the pc can pick them for conjure woodland beings.

Making things balanced for the DM is very very different than making them balanced for PCs, so I'm really glad they didn't tie themselves up by making virtually the whole MM player options. As it stands, only beasts need to pass the test "is this balanced for PCs?" and I think that's great.

(yes true polymorph exists - so does wish)

[Sigreid]

Would love to see more summoning spells built around summoning a single powerful critter that can only do anything if you do nothing and that attacks you if your concentration is broken. Would be fun and flavorful and not make everyone's eyes glaze over as you roll for your bajillion critters.

I have toyed with building essentially a pokemon master class where your critter does the fighting, and you can bolster it by paying directly with your own strength. Share your HP with it and such.

[OldTrees1]

5E has design decisions that make minionmancy too powerful in abstract, so all instantiations of minionmancy needed to be nerfed.

5E cannot support my Necromancer character. Bounded Accuracy would make it too powerful, so it banned the character concept. Other pet classes have similar outcomes.

This is not ideal, but we can understand how this is a reasonable consequence of a high level design decision.

[Man_Over_Game]

Because of the way the action economy and bounded accuracy work every additional creature on the PC's side is a big deal.

I mean, it's not, really.

There are plenty of things that increase value on the actions you're already doing, whether it's adding 1d6 damage from TWF, adding 1d8 Force Damage as a Bonus Action, or making all of your attacks have Advantage for a round as a Bonus Action (which equates to about +30% more damage per attack).

So you just do more of that. 1d4 damage from a pet is barely more than the Dueling Fighting Style on a single attack. 1d6 is roughly Dueling on two attacks. 1d6+2 seems like a reasonable amount for a power boost that's highly conditional (as you can lose your pet or it can be out of position).

The only real reason that numbers are a big deal is because +1d6 damage is a lot harder to get than finding a peasant and arming them with a bow, and you generally fight a lot of monsters that are stronger than peasants. That doesn't mean that +1d6 (or about a +3 damage bonus) per round is impossible, as it's basically a feature somewhere in almost 50% of every build in the game.

Numbers are really only a big deal in 5e because damage per character scales rather slowly compared to HP, and damage generally starts out high (a level 1 character deals enough damage to kill a level 1 character in one turn).

[MaxWilson]

Pixies - CR 1/4 monsters that are honestly fine as CR 1/4 monsters (the one HP really counteracts the offensive power), but are absolutely absurdly broken if the pc can pick them for conjure woodland beings.

Take a bunch of, I dunno, orcs or something, and replace a handful of orcs with Pixies, and the difficulty on paper goes down but the actual difficulty goes way up. Stealth +7 and superior invisibility plus good AC counteract low HP, and they can chuck Dispel Magic and Sleep spells without breaking Invisibility, or just dart behind total cover after casting Confusion/Entangle/Phantasmal Force/Polymorph, or stay behind cover while Polymorphing the monsters into tougher monsters (with free HP).

3 Orogs and 1 Orc: not a big deal for a 5th level party. (2900 XP/Medium encounter.)

3 Orogs and 2 Pixies: same difficulty on paper, but the PCs have to deal with someone Dispelling the wizard's Shield spells or the druid's Conjure Animals, Polymorphing the Sharpshooter into a sheep, Entangling the PCs so the Orogs can gang up on them at advantage, etc. The Pixies have much more impact on the combat than the Orc does.

I give XP for them as CR 2 (450 XP) but I could see an argument for CR 1. Ultimately CR just doesn't work well for spellcasting monsters because the utility of spells is highly-situational.

[da newt]

Firstly - the conjure animals spell as written does not say the DM gets to choose what is summoned (as already stated above).

Secondly - It seems to me that a simple 3rd level spell that results in summoning 8x Velociraptors w/ multi attack and pack tactics is a HUGE action economy boon. 16 attacks w/ ADV per round (that they live) even with only +4 to hit and ~5 damage each, is pretty sweet, and then there are 8 more creatures to suck up attacks / tank too (even without Shepard's temp hp that's 80 hp / 8 melee attacks).

Is there a more powerful 3rd lvl spell?


I do agree that the pet subclasses are less than desired, but minionmancy is plenty potent IMO.

[Pex]

Battlesmith Artificer does fine with his Defender. The attack modifier and damage isn't great, but it's decent enough for a little extra damage as a bonus action. It's Force damage, so it can hurt any monster except one. Giving the opponent Disadvantage on one attack does make a difference. An attack by the bad guys against the Defender is an attack not against a PC which is significant. The Artificer can easily repair the Defender with Mending or just remake it if destroyed. It's a pet, not a PC, so it doesn't and shouldn't replace one but you're not sorry for having it.

My Artificer's pet is a good dog, a very good dog, oh yes he is.

[MinotaurWarrior]

Take a bunch of, I dunno, orcs or something, and replace a handful of orcs with Pixies, and the difficulty on paper goes down but the actual difficulty goes way up. Stealth +7 and superior invisibility plus good AC counteract low HP, and they can chuck Dispel Magic and Sleep spells without breaking Invisibility, or just dart behind total cover after casting Confusion/Entangle/Phantasmal Force/Polymorph, or stay behind cover while Polymorphing the monsters into tougher monsters (with free HP).

3 Orogs and 1 Orc: not a big deal for a 5th level party. (2900 XP/Medium encounter.)

3 Orogs and 2 Pixies: same difficulty on paper, but the PCs have to deal with someone Dispelling the wizard's Shield spells or the druid's Conjure Animals, Polymorphing the Sharpshooter into a sheep, Entangling the PCs so the Orogs can gang up on them at advantage, etc. The Pixies have much more impact on the combat than the Orc does.

I give XP for them as CR 2 (450 XP) but I could see an argument for CR 1. Ultimately CR just doesn't work well for spellcasting monsters because the utility of spells is highly-situational.

They have superior invisibility but not any sort of bonus action hide, so it amounts to the same thing as blur. They are guaranteed to die from any save or half damage effect, and even with advantage they have some weak saves, and even to a physical attack, sure they inflict disadvantage, but you just need one hit.

Level 1 PC Lightning Lure has a 64% chance of killing them. A standard +5 attack has a 25% chance. Starting a fire with an oil flask is guaranteed to kill them. An attack with a source of advantage (E.g. A hidden rogue) has a 50% chance to kill them. Burning hands is guaranteed to kill multiple.


Now, I won't deny that despite all that, the encounter you set up, with normal geography, is more challenging with the pixies than with the orc. But I think a dryad is even tougher. Cast pass without trace and she and the Orogs have a good chance to surprise the party.

Like you said, spellcasting focused monsters are just harder to pin a CR on, because they can vary so much situationally. I figure the CR repents the average of them in a poor situation and a good situation.

[HappyDaze]

Every class is a pet class if you spend your gold on mercenaries and hirelings. In 5e, magical items are no longer as commonly bought & sold, so all that money is just begging to be used, and nothing beats some high-quality companions even if their loyalty is to the money.

[FoxWolFrostFire]

Conjure Animals says no such thing.

You summon fey spirits that take the form of beasts and appear in unoccupied spaces that you can see within range. Choose one of the following options for what appears: One beast of challenge rating 2 or lower Two beasts of challenge rating 1 or lower Four beasts of challenge rating 1/2 or lower Eight beasts of challenge rating 1/4 or lower. Each beast is also considered fey, and it disappears when it drops to 0 hit points or when the spell ends. The summoned creatures are friendly to you and your companions. Roll initiative for the summoned creatures as a group, which has its own turns. They obey any verbal commands that you issue to them (no action required by you). If you don’t issue any commands to them, they defend themselves from hostile creatures, but otherwise take no actions. The GM has the creatures’ statistics.

It doesn't say how the conjured animals are chosen. It certainly implies that the player does, since they get the choice of CR, just the the DM has the stats for them.

CWB is essentially the same:

You summon fey creatures that appear in unoccupied spaces that you can see within range. Choose one of the following options for what appears: One fey creature of challenge rating 2 or lower Two fey creatures of challenge rating 1 or lower Four fey creatures of challenge rating 1/2 or lower Eight fey creatures of challenge rating 1/4 or lower A summoned creature disappears when it drops to 0 hit points or when the spell ends. The summoned creatures are friendly to you and your companions. Roll initiative for the summoned creatures as a group, which have their own turns. They obey any verbal commands that you issue to them (no action required by you). If you don’t issue any commands to them, they defend themselves from hostile creatures, but otherwise take no actions. The GM has the creatures’ statistics.

This ambiguity leads to tables doing it differently and often requiring the DM to put their foot down in the case of pixies, but the spells do not say the DM picks.

And if they did start summoning a pile of fish when you cast it in the desert then they'd be viewed - rightly - as a hostile DM and players should correctly object to that.

It was confirmed by Crawford him self the player gets no real input on what is summoned and it is the DMs choice

[Miele]

It was confirmed by Crawford him self the player gets no real input on what is summoned and it is the DMs choice

Regardless, CR 1/4 creatures supported by a Shepherd Druid are just that good: wolves, velociraptors, giant snakes are all really strong, but 8 of anything is a massive advantage in any given fight, even if what they do is using the "help" action to give advantage or blocking enemies or eating attacks that would have gone elsewhere.
CWB gives spellcasting options, enemies will be hard pressed to stop the horde right away or pay a dear price.

Also I'm not sure I'd happily spend my precious free time with a DM that doesn't try hard to at least give me useful creatures. Adversarial DMs are just a waste of time, I consider myself lucky I never had to deal with them (unless the whole theme of the campaign is total war, then I'm ok with it).

P.S.: we have a very unexperienced player in our group trying the UA revised beastmaster, it seems more interesting and an actual pet class now, but he isn't pushing it to the limit and I'm not telling him what to do, he needs a chance to learn ;)

[HappyDaze]

It was confirmed by Crawford him self the player gets no real input on what is summoned and it is the DMs choice
Coincidentally, it has been confirmed by my players themselves that Crawford gets no real input to how we play the game.

[Amnestic]

It was confirmed by Crawford him self the player gets no real input on what is summoned and it is the DMs choice

An obscure tweet is not the same as "the spell says this". Even assuming you did follow the sage advice - which is *advice*, not errata - you were wrong in your initial post about it becoming worse than True Strike.

From here (https://media.wizards.com/2015/downloads/dnd/SA_Compendium_1.02.pdf)



When you cast a spell like conjure woodland beings, does the spellcaster or the DM choose the creatures that are conjured?
A number of spells in the game let you summon creatures. Conjure animals, conjure celestial, conjure minor elementals, and conjure woodland beings are just a few examples.
Some spells of this sort specify that the spellcaster chooses the creature conjured. For example, find familiargives the caster a list of animals to choose from. Other spells of this sort let the spellcaster choose from among several broad options.
For example, conjure minor elementals offers four options.
Here are the first two:
• One elemental of challenge rating 2 or lower
• Two elementals of challenge rating 1 or lower
The design intent for options like these is that the spell-caster chooses one of them, and then the DM decides what creatures appear that fit the chosen option. For example, if you pick the second option, the DM chooses the two elementals that have a challenge rating of 1 or lower.

A spellcaster can certainly express a preference for what creatures shows up, but it’s up to the DM to determine if they do. The DM will often choose creatures that are appropriate for the campaign and that will be fun to introduce in a scene.

Emphasis mine. There is nothing fun about blowing a spell to summon something that's completely useless ("worse than true strike") such as fish in a desert. The DM is incentivised - because the player is invested in the spell - to summon something useful. Perhaps they want some giant owls but instead get giant bats. Perhaps they wanted wolves and instead get boars. But they're still useful. They're still incredibly effective. Because otherwise you're not having fun, and therefore not following the sage advice.

[Tvtyrant]

So it has always bugged me that one of my favorite play style. The pet/summon character was mostly shafted by 5e.
Beastmaster is a HUGE joke.

Druid didn't get a suitable circle for it until several years down the line. Even them as per Raw you could burn a 9th level spell slot and bring forth the full might of...a single cr 0 bat. Because the dm couldn't be bothered.

Wizard Basicly gets too punch lines. As most of their summon spells get had at around level 7! Seven levels of none summoning aside your familiar
And god knows animate dead needs a total retooling. Book teases the want to be upcomi g necros with zombie ogres and skeleton minotaur. But nope.

And how does Crawford of all people reply? RP taming a wolf, screw the ranger and a VERY defining feature of the class do it for every one...but a wolf is weak and will get one shot...don't worry he had a fix for that! Give the pet CLASS LEVELS. cause we need to REALLY grind in how much Beastmaster is just a joke.

Don't get me wrong both those ideas are fine on their own merit. But useless for official AL games.

It is just sad that we didn't see a proper official pet class until the artificer came out. To just be a better beast master. I'm just sad that one of my favorite play styles need to be homebrew to feel fun.

Yes, it's not a good system for it. Having seen the mess that is the Malconvoker and Summoner from 3.5 and Pathfinder I think it's just hard to do right. Most games with summons they are either the best or worst option, because they give you extra powers and actions.

I think the best system in 5E would be a mount summoning power where you direct the mount or do things yourself, as opposed to independent actions. A Young Red Dragon as a summon would be completely busted at level 20, as a mount it would be merely be really good.

[FoxWolFrostFire]

An obscure tweet is not the same as "the spell says this". Even assuming you did follow the sage advice - which is *advice*, not errata - you were wrong in your initial post about it becoming worse than True Strike.

From here (https://media.wizards.com/2015/downloads/dnd/SA_Compendium_1.02.pdf)



Emphasis mine. There is nothing fun about blowing a spell to summon something that's completely useless ("worse than true strike") such as fish in a desert. The DM is incentivised - because the player is invested in the spell - to summon something useful. Perhaps they want some giant owls but instead get giant bats. Perhaps they wanted wolves and instead get boars. But they're still useful. They're still incredibly effective. Because otherwise you're not having fun, and therefore not following the sage advice.

Sorry but as per RAW and RAI you can ask for the CR 2 and still get a CR 0
Still a problem in design and in fact makes it worse than truestrike because a 3rd level spell was spent to summon a CR 0

[Amnestic]

Sorry but as per RAW and RAI you can ask for the CR 2 and still get a CR 0

Uh, no? RAW, it looks like the player chooses. Certainly doesn't say anything about the DM choosing in the spell text. I quoted it above, despite your incorrect statement otherwise. If you want to quote where it says the DM chooses in the spell text feel free. It's not there.

Sage Advice, the DM chooses "something campaign appropriate and fun".

And if you're sat with a DM who thinks it's fun for you to summon a pile of fish in the desert, then you probably have bigger problems at the table. A hostile DM shouldn't be assumed when discussing a spell's efficacy.

[FoxWolFrostFire]

Uh, no? RAW, it looks like the player chooses. Certainly doesn't say anything about the DM choosing in the spell text. I quoted it above, despite your incorrect statement otherwise. If you want to quote where it says the DM chooses in the spell text feel free. It's not there.

Sage Advice, the DM chooses "something campaign appropriate and fun".

And if you're sat with a DM who thinks it's fun for you to summon a pile of fish in the desert, then you probably have bigger problems at the table. A hostile DM shouldn't be assumed when discussing a spell's efficacy.

A hostile DM should ALWAYS be assumed until proven otherwise.
But good for you having a better experience than I have. But I'm at this point far to many times bitten and cynical to agree with you. End of story on that.

[Unoriginal]

A hostile DM should ALWAYS be assumed until proven otherwise.

That's a very sad assumption. I would honestly quit playing RPGs forever if hostile DMs were the actual assumption I had.

If someone is an hostile DM, don't play with them. It's really better for you.

[FoxWolFrostFire]

That's a very sad assumption. I would honestly quit playing RPGs forever if hostile DMs were the actual assumption I had.

If someone is an hostile DM, don't play with them. It's really better for you.

By that logic I should quit life. Always assume who ever you meet is trying to hurt or game you in some way until THEY can prove otherwise.
Just the same line of thought I apply to my everyday life.

[OldTrees1]

By that logic I should quit life. Always assume who ever you meet is trying to hurt or game you in some way until THEY can prove otherwise.
Just the same line of thought I apply to my everyday life.

That is a very sad assumption. Even "trust but verify" is a more prosperous assumption. Not to mention "never attribute to malice that which can be equally explained by incompetence".

With D&D I assume my friend is a friendly DM unless they demonstrate otherwise. So if I were to cast a spell, I would assume the DM wants everyone at the table (themselves, myself, and the other players) to have fun, unless the DM demonstrated otherwise.

As a result I don't let the paranoia of poisoned wells accidentally poison a clean well, but I am still able to detect a poisoned well.

[MaxWilson]

Sorry but as per RAW and RAI you can ask for the CR 2 and still get a CR 0

Yes, and per RAW the DM can hit you with 20d20 of damage from a falling meteorite at first level. Yet somehow, most people manage to avoid playing with DMs who abuse their powers as DMs to this extent.

In practice that isn't a real problem--DMs will not deliberately give you CR 0 minions just because the spell says "challenge rating 2 or lower". You might get horses when you wished for wolves, but you'll get something of roughly the power level you ask for, and frankly, 8 draft horses for an action, your concentration, and a 3rd level spell slot is still excellent.


A hostile DM should ALWAYS be assumed until proven otherwise.

How hostile? Have you ever had a DM actually give you a CR 0 minion in place of a CR 2 one, or is your entire interpretation based on conjecture?

What's to prevent the hostile DM from annihilating you with other RAW tricks like a custom CR 1/4 monster that's immune to all damage and conditions and has 120' movement, legendary actions, and a 600' ranged attack that ignores cover? When the hostile DM annihilates you, will you even care that he did it completely by RAW? Would you continue playing with a DM who did this? Do you assume from the beginning that every DM will do this?

[NorthernPhoenix]

Yes to the title, but i don't agree with the rest. Summoning is horrible in 5e because it encourages summoning a load of crap, which i always detest. This should either not be an option at all, or be a much worse one than it is.

In my mind a Pet Class should have 1 single Pet that is important to the character both mechanically and in roleplay. I feel like, compared to video games that get this right, 5e fails in this regard and is worse for it.

[Witty Username]

I personally like the houserule that the player either picks the monster or the number of monster and the DM picks the other. But on the primary topic.


Beastmaster companions should be able to receive general commands, and/or be allowed more in-character?(more like a real-life animal) actions. as written they do nothing unless commanded which makes no sense to me.
Also, I allow "kill X" as a general command, so summons behave more like hex or hunter's mark. It makes commands feel more natural.

[opticalshadow]

This is why i wish DnD supported summoning or a pet class in a less is more way. 5e spells encourage general summoning or raising a large amount of weak creatures which slw the game to a crawl and because of weak creatures forces min/max mentality and so your either useless, or your op.

Id like to see more niche style pet classes. Like psions that could create constructs, and use their points each day augmenting and beefing up. Main class has a narrow spell list of support spells and abilities, designed to supplement the damage of his summon, or allies. Or give the wizard something more unique then conjure. Give us a class that is more abstract, let us say be able to pump magic into flame, and create flame constructs, or give us more adaptable and upgraded versions of what we have. Animate object is just, heres a living object, give us a subclass that is more then that, let us upgrade what we animate, be it something like animating fire, or animating some other thing.

[Sherlockpwns]

Wow this thread derailed into the rules for conjure hard. Regardless of the conjure spells I completely disagree that “pet” classes are hated.

There are essentially three entire subclasses across the different classes that use durable (non summoned) pets. Plus Bards. That’s pretty damn good! Despite all the hate for beast master, it’s perfectly playable, though maybe not in the exact way you want.

These are: Battlesmith: an awesome class with a pet that is very useful. Does everything a beast master does but better.

Beast master: Yeah ok, it’s not as strong as a Smith, but as long as you go for mounted combat on a decent mount (panther, wolf, giant snake) it’s totally fine. Most DMs will work with you to iron out some weird things raw, but even if your dm is a jerk it’s still ok.

Necromancer: Comes online at level 5 instead of 3, and is finicky to play, but it really is the best “pet” class. Sure you’ll spend a fortune and a ton of everyone’s time outfitting and managing a giant horde, but it’s totally viable.

Paladin/Bard: kind of odd and coming online very late, but Bards as early as level 10 can snag a Pegasus. That’s a decent pet for many levels. The regular War Horse is ok too earlier.

If you count viable summoner classes, you can add in another with shepherd Druid, and frankly any Druid.

Now you say, but there’s no good summons later on! ... who cares? The fact is with multiple classes summons and durable pets remain viable from level 3-5 to about level 11-12 as a core mechanic of your class. Some people say that’s half the game, but the reality is level 3-12 probably covers more than 80% of your d&d life. Heck in my recent campaign we played 1 session at level 13 at the end and there wasn’t even any combat (because we chose not to fight), and then it was over.

If you are going in for some high level campaign I’d just work it out with the dm, because upgrading your Pegasus to a young dragon is going to be the least of the broken things.

[Fnissalot]

Wow this thread derailed into the rules for conjure hard. Regardless of the conjure spells I completely disagree that “pet” classes are hated.

There are essentially three entire subclasses across the different classes that use durable (non summoned) pets. Plus Bards. That’s pretty damn good! Despite all the hate for beast master, it’s perfectly playable, though maybe not in the exact way you want.

These are: Battlesmith: an awesome class with a pet that is very useful. Does everything a beast master does but better.

Beast master: Yeah ok, it’s not as strong as a Smith, but as long as you go for mounted combat on a decent mount (panther, wolf, giant snake) it’s totally fine. Most DMs will work with you to iron out some weird things raw, but even if your dm is a jerk it’s still ok.

Necromancer: Comes online at level 5 instead of 3, and is finicky to play, but it really is the best “pet” class. Sure you’ll spend a fortune and a ton of everyone’s time outfitting and managing a giant horde, but it’s totally viable.

Paladin/Bard: kind of odd and coming online very late, but Bards as early as level 10 can snag a Pegasus. That’s a decent pet for many levels. The regular War Horse is ok too earlier.

If you count viable summoner classes, you can add in another with shepherd Druid, and frankly any Druid.

Now you say, but there’s no good summons later on! ... who cares? The fact is with multiple classes summons and durable pets remain viable from level 3-5 to about level 11-12 as a core mechanic of your class. Some people say that’s half the game, but the reality is level 3-12 probably covers more than 80% of your d&d life. Heck in my recent campaign we played 1 session at level 13 at the end and there wasn’t even any combat (because we chose not to fight), and then it was over.

If you are going in for some high level campaign I’d just work it out with the dm, because upgrading your Pegasus to a young dragon is going to be the least of the broken things.

The class feature variants UA pretty much puts the beastmasters beast of the earth on par with the battle smith's iron defender.

[Azuresun]

By that logic I should quit life. Always assume who ever you meet is trying to hurt or game you in some way until THEY can prove otherwise.
Just the same line of thought I apply to my everyday life.

It sounds like you'd have more fun not playing RPG's. It's a cooperative, trust-based activity right from the ground up. Playing it with such a paranoid mindset, and actively assuming that everyone else at the table wants to make you feel bad and the rules are the only thing stopping them....well, it's possible, I guess. It just seems kinda pointless.

And my experience is that if I go into a situation with a very pessimistic, ready-for-the-worst attitude, people pick up that I'm viewing them in a hostile and uncharitable manner (just like I would if someone was displaying that kind of attitude and nonverbal signalling), and get belligerent or touchy towards me in turn. It quickly becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy, and it's better for me to just give people some credit and not treat them like an a-hole until they've actually unambiguously acted like an a-hole.

[Valmark]

Now, disclaimer that I never had a DM screw me over (if I'm underwater I'll get acquatic beasts, in the skies I'll get flying ones, if I pick CR 1/4 I get CR 1/4 etc.) But the Sheperd is bonkers. Up until now encounters that couldn't be inpacted by Conjure Animals were only against very superior enemies (a solar, Vecna... That's it. And if anybody asks, that solar asked for it) and conjuring eight animals of any kind will at least ease up the pressure of the encounters by a lot.

For example, there was a fight against a Flind, a Yosuuva (or whatever it's called), something like 12 maw demons and some gnolls. The DM gave me 8 constrictor snakes. Heh. The Flind wasted two turns to get free (dying by the third because he had three spellcasters raining death on him), the Yoosuva got constricted to death, maw demons were blasted into oblivion while they were helping get rid of the snakes (together with the snakes who were all wounded, dead or debuffed by then) and the gnolls were no challenge for our martial. And ignoring her would have just meant tackling the druid or the wizard with their close to 20 AC.

Or when the druid soloed a draegloth.
Good luck getting past wolves, oxes and panthers... Refreshable.

Without Sheperd they are much less sturdy and aggressive, but they are still a whole lot of hp that isn't subtracted from your party.

We've also used Summon Greater Demon quite effectively (including that draegloth. Because f*** that NPC). There isn't actually that big of a chance of them getting free if you know the True Name and then they need to roll high enough on the turns to be able to do. Something that happened:
- Babau gets free
- Wizard uses Protection from Evil and Good
- Babau laughs, Dispels, and then poof.

That's the worst it got, and it was after the fight was over. Otherwise, it worked very well against dragons, golems and elementals (all that it has been used against until now basically). We do houserule that if you know the True Name you get to pick that specific demon though, otherwise it's pointless to know them really.

To whoever said it, there's at least four different summonings that summon one powerful creature that turns hostile if things go bad. If we don't consider Summon Lesser Demon and the undead spells like Animate Dead or Negative Energy Flood.

Bards' and Paladins' Greater Steed offers close to the best mobility and speed in the game.

Warlocks through Pact of the Chain have THE scout.

Vanilla beastmaster... It's honestly pretty bad on paper, haven't tried them. Good thing they fixed that through UA while the Arteficer's works well enough.

[Monster Manuel]

I think it's important to acknowledge the distinction between "pet" classes and "summoning" classes.

A "pet" is something like the beastmaster or Battlesmith, which is persistent and the main character invests resources to make it better, either in terms of material support (buying it armor or magic or what have you), or via taking actions in combat to get it to do something more than a book-standard version of that thing could do, or via subclass options that make your thing better.

Summoning is a quick addition of disposable resources. You generally don't spend any more resources on this than a spell known, and the creatures summoned are nothing special. They do their thing and then vanish.

They tend to get lumped together into the same category, but they're really different in terms of design and intent. When you try to design for both together, the pets suffer.

It's really hard to balance these two options, and still have them in balance with other class abilities. I don't think 5E does a great job with it, so ultimately I agree with the OPs assertion that 5E is inherently biased against pet classes, but probably not so much against summoner classes. The game is designed in such a way as to minimize the super-effective nature of summoning in 3.5e, but doesn't always hit the mark.

side note: I'll never understand why they went the way they did with the conjure spells; why not just have a table of level-appropriate options to choose from, with better tables available through upcasitng? Then encourage DMs to customize the tables by putting some rough rules about how to adjudicate level-appropriate summoning options in the DMG.

[Democratus]

Good points, Monster Manuel.

Maybe a pet-based class should just count as 2 characters for calculating CR of encounters.

If you just bite the bullet and accept that a pet should be a major contributor to a party I think it makes things easier.

[Yakk]

I think the best system in 5E would be a mount summoning power where you direct the mount or do things yourself, as opposed to independent actions. A Young Red Dragon as a summon would be completely busted at level 20, as a mount it would be merely be really good.
Day 1: Wish simulacrum
Day 2: True polymorph Ancient Brass Dragon, hold concentration
Day 3: Dragon shapechanges into Red Dragon. RIDE IT BABY!

[Amnestic]

Good points, Monster Manuel.

Maybe a pet-based class should just count as 2 characters for calculating CR of encounters.

If you just bite the bullet and accept that a pet should be a major contributor to a party I think it makes things easier.

Perhaps scrapping the "class with a pet" thing entirely and instead revisiting the Sidekick UA (which explicitly offers monsters/pets as sidekicks) would work. Give the player two characters, essentially, with all the boons and banes that causes. They could have specific recommendations for classes like Ranger or Druid, while not making them mandatory or part of a subclass.

[Kyutaru]

Day 1: Wish simulacrum
Day 2: True polymorph Ancient Brass Dragon, hold concentration
Day 3: RIDE IT BABY!
Day 4: The carnage is terrible. My simulacrum has taken to his newfound power with a darkness I did not realize I possessed. He has been razing villages, burninating the countryside, the peasants, all the peoples and their thatched-roof cottages. I cannot control him any longer. If someone should find this diary then I have perished in my gambit. Flee while you still can.

[Xervous]

Day 4: The carnage is terrible. My simulacrum has taken to his newfound power with a darkness I did not realize I possessed. He has been razing villages, burninating the countryside, the peasants, all the peoples and their thatched-roof cottages. I cannot control him any longer. If someone should find this diary then I have perished in my gambit. Flee while you still can.

and all to live out the wizard’s deep desires of getting with the party bard, because that’s how the remnants of the party will solve this.

[Desteplo]

I cast grease! (A snail is summoned and leaves a trail of goop)
-dust devil
-earthen Hand (snake bonding target)
-flaming sphere (Phoenix)

It’s flavor not mechanics that needs to be implemented in your games

Beastmaster is a trainer first thing. It’s a progressive story arc of training your companion animals

Adding sidekick classes is a DM tool. Not a player tool

[NaughtyTiger]

Good points, Monster Manuel.

Maybe a pet-based class should just count as 2 characters for calculating CR of encounters.

If you just bite the bullet and accept that a pet should be a major contributor to a party I think it makes things easier.

I strongly disagree
The beastmaster without the pet isn't a full PC (ie it lacks all of its subclass features).
The beastmaster pet takes PC actions and resources to perform its own actions.
The beastmaster pet is fragile in combat and will likely cost the PC its archetype for a minimum of a long rest.
This holds for battlesmith, but to a lessor extent.

no other class can lose its archetype at DM's whim.

By contrast, paladin/chainlock/summoner lose no class/archetype features if their summons is destroyed.

[stoutstien]

I strongly disagree
The beastmaster without the pet isn't a full PC (ie it lacks all of its subclass features).
The beastmaster pet takes PC actions and resources to perform its own actions.
The beastmaster pet is fragile in combat and will likely cost the PC its archetype for a minimum of a long rest.
This holds for battlesmith, but to a lessor extent.

no other class can lose its archetype at DM's whim.

By contrast, paladin/chainlock/summoner lose no class/archetype features if their summons is destroyed.

Wild magic sorcerer?

[Democratus]

I strongly disagree
The beastmaster without the pet isn't a full PC (ie it lacks all of its subclass features).
The beastmaster pet takes PC actions and resources to perform its own actions.
The beastmaster pet is fragile in combat and will likely cost the PC its archetype for a minimum of a long rest.
This holds for battlesmith, but to a lessor extent.

no other class can lose its archetype at DM's whim.

By contrast, paladin/chainlock/summoner lose no class/archetype features if their summons is destroyed.

The point I was making is that the pet-based character should be 2 different things (char and pet), each as powerful as a character.
Each with their own actions.
Each with level appropriate HP.
Each with abilities and options that increase in accordance with a character at that level.

They could, literally, be two character-power-level units.

[Renvir]

I don't think 5e hates pet classes. I think the creators just didn't understand how best to include them in the game. The Battle Smith seems like a culmination of their experience and offers a fun and effective pet class. At some point they'll release a Ranger 2.0 with a beast master subclass that is both effective and fun.

As for summoning spells, it should've always been summon 1 creature of CR <= X or summon 1 swarm of CR <= Y. Upcasting the spell would increase X and Y and/or have something like the Steel Defender's Might of the Master feature.

[Valmark]

The point I was making is that the pet-based character should be 2 different things (char and pet), each as powerful as a character.
Each with their own actions.
Each with level appropriate HP.
Each with abilities and options that increase in accordance with a character at that level.

They could, literally, be two character-power-level units.
Wouldn't that be unbalanced by definition? Having a feature granting you the equivalent of a same-leveled character?

I don't think 5e hates pet classes. I think the creators just didn't understand how best to include them in the game. The Battle Smith seems like a culmination of their experience and offers a fun and effective pet class. At some point they'll release a Ranger 2.0 with a beast master subclass that is both effective and fun.

As for summoning spells, it should've always been summon 1 creature of CR <= X or summon 1 swarm of CR <= Y. Upcasting the spell would increase X and Y and/or have something like the Steel Defender's Might of the Master feature.
Will they? I feel like without reprinting the PHB they can't exactly go "That's ****, use this" in another book. Even if they already made the Ranger/Beastmaster 2.0 in the UA.

Well, the X one already is like this. Haven't been able to see how upcasted conjure animals and the like works just yet, but I expect it to be powerful.

[NorthernPhoenix]

I don't think 5e hates pet classes. I think the creators just didn't understand how best to include them in the game. The Battle Smith seems like a culmination of their experience and offers a fun and effective pet class. At some point they'll release a Ranger 2.0 with a beast master subclass that is both effective and fun.

As for summoning spells, it should've always been summon 1 creature of CR <= X or summon 1 swarm of CR <= Y. Upcasting the spell would increase X and Y and/or have something like the Steel Defender's Might of the Master feature.

I don't think you should be able to summon a swarm of anything. The system clearly isn't built for it.

[Renvir]

I don't think you should be able to summon a swarm of anything. The system clearly isn't built for it.

I figured a swarm was a nice solution to summoning a bunch of creatures compared to the 2, 4, or 8 of CR X stuff. It only gives one "unit" to control and track compared to the current spell design.

[Renvir]

Will they? I feel like without reprinting the PHB they can't exactly go "That's ****, use this" in another book. Even if they already made the Ranger/Beastmaster 2.0 in the UA.

Well, the X one already is like this. Haven't been able to see how upcasted conjure animals and the like works just yet, but I expect it to be powerful.

No one but WotC can say 100% if they will have a new version of ranger printed in the future or not. However, they've spent a lot of time on the ranger in UA and releasing new versions of classes has been done before. We'll just have to wait and see.

[MaxWilson]

I think it's important to acknowledge the distinction between "pet" classes and "summoning" classes.

A "pet" is something like the beastmaster or Battlesmith, which is persistent and the main character invests resources to make it better, either in terms of material support (buying it armor or magic or what have you), or via taking actions in combat to get it to do something more than a book-standard version of that thing could do, or via subclass options that make your thing better.

...

It's really hard to balance these two options, and still have them in balance with other class abilities. I don't think 5E does a great job with it, so ultimately I agree with the OPs assertion that 5E is inherently biased against pet classes, but probably not so much against summoner classes. The game is designed in such a way as to minimize the super-effective nature of summoning in 3.5e, but doesn't always hit the mark.

The best "pet" class in 5E by this definition is arguably the Chainlock's familiar, especially if it is also the patron, and the Warlock has high Cha and low Int. The Warlock is the pet. Eventually you can get an Ancient White Dragon (sans legendary actions) as your pet, but it's still balanced because the PC is still just a weak imp :)

[Miele]

*snip* Eventually you can get an Ancient White Dragon (sans legendary actions) as your pet *snip*

Ahem... how? I know a friend who would be interested :smallbiggrin:

[Valmark]

Ahem... how? I know a friend who would be interested :smallbiggrin:

Keep True Polymorph running for an hour. Bam! Permanent non-legendary dragon.

I don't think it can even be dispelled RAW.

I'd pick a metallic though, since they can pass off as Humanoids (TP doesn't mantain your class features, so you're stuck as a dragon at that point)

[NorthernPhoenix]

I figured a swarm was a nice solution to summoning a bunch of creatures compared to the 2, 4, or 8 of CR X stuff. It only gives one "unit" to control and track compared to the current spell design.

My bad for misunderstanding you. In that case, yes that is a good idea.

[Pex]

Keep True Polymorph running for an hour. Bam! Permanent non-legendary dragon.

I don't think it can even be dispelled RAW.

I'd pick a metallic though, since they can pass off as Humanoids (TP doesn't mantain your class features, so you're stuck as a dragon at that point)

It can because it has a duration of permanent, not instantaneous.

[NaughtyTiger]

Wild magic sorcerer?

ah.. good catch. (although you still control 6 and 18 powers)
but given the hate on wild magic sorc, that is a real thing.

[Valmark]

It can because it has a duration of permanent, not instantaneous.

There are permanent spells that cannot be dispelled.

Though that did prompt me to check and since Wall Of Stone specifies that it cannot be dispelled True Polymorph must be since it doesn't say that.

[stoutstien]

ah.. good catch. (although you still control 6 and 18 powers)
but given the hate on wild magic sorc, that is a real thing.

Aye. Personally I don't have a problem with conjure spells because magic isn't that rare in my settings so most intelligent NPCs will have a least one good counter tactic to the wall of fur even if it's as simple as just retreating.

Pet classes have gotten progressively better so here's hoping

[Yakk]

Keep True Polymorph running for an hour. Bam! Permanent non-legendary dragon.
Um, the familiar isn't CR 20.

Why do you think true polymorph can turn your familiar into an ancient dragon?

Now, simulacrum...

[Valmark]

Um, the familiar isn't CR 20.

Why do you think true polymorph can turn your familiar into an ancient dragon?

Now, simulacrum...

Because the running joke was that the warlock was the familiar- they would turn into a ancient whatever dragon, not the imp or whatever is picked.

And yes, Simulacrum would most definitely work. And even if they Dispel it, hello same-level warlock buddy!

[Democratus]

Wouldn't that be unbalanced by definition? Having a feature granting you the equivalent of a same-leveled character?


If the animal companion is the equivalent of an extra PC, the DM can balance encounters accordingly.

[NorthernPhoenix]

If the animal companion is the equivalent of an extra PC, the DM can balance encounters accordingly.

It doesn't literally have to be that, with feats, powers and so on all of its own that literally equal another PC. It just needs to be an independent character that can competently act on its own without being a drone for the pilot. I feel like Revised Ranger got closest, but wasn't quite there yet.

[da newt]

If you want one player to play two PC's, why not just do that?

[NorthernPhoenix]

If you want one player to play two PC's, why not just do that?

Because the goal isn't to literally play two PCs, but to play 1 PC and 1 creature, and the bond they share.

[Democratus]

If you want one player to play two PC's, why not just do that?

Exactly. That's one way to handle character and animal companion.

Sometimes one player will play both. Sometimes one of the players might want something different and decide to play the companion.

I've had one game where one player was a powerful weapon being wielded by another PC.

[Amnestic]

Because the goal isn't to literally play two PCs, but to play 1 PC and 1 creature, and the bond they share.

From the player's perspective that could be exactly what it is. It's from the DM's perspective that it's counted as two.

As long as it was clearly noted in the (sub)class description is it a problem? It does stray a bit from 5e's devotion to streamline/simplicity I suppose in making an exception like that.

[da newt]

I understand, but if the animal companion gains levels just like a PC, and counts as a PC for encounter building, and has a full round of move/action/BA/reaction (a huge action economy boost), and has level appropriate HP, then in essence one of your players gets to be two PCs at once - granted one of them is a beast vice a person, and this one player gets to roll-play his two characters interacting with each other - but if you look past the furry bit, all that you have accomplished is allow one player to play two PCs.

Or am I misunderstanding your companion proposal? (because it seems like you want the pet to get full PC levels, feats, abilities, hp and actions)

[NorthernPhoenix]

I understand, but if the animal companion gains levels just like a PC, and counts as a PC for encounter building, and has a full round of move/action/BA/reaction (a huge action economy boost), and has level appropriate HP, then in essence one of your players gets to be two PCs at once - granted one of them is a beast vice a person, and this one player gets to roll-play his two characters interacting with each other - but if you look past the furry bit, all that you have accomplished is allow one player to play two PCs.

Or am I misunderstanding your companion proposal? (because it seems like you want the pet to get full PC levels, feats, abilities, hp and actions)

You need these at least for a pet to be a fully functional and viable fulfillment of the fantasy rather than a drone. And ideally they should get abilities that are designed for the pet too, not PC abilities.

[Damon_Tor]

Animal companions should be handled as loot.

[Xervous]

Animal companions should be handled as loot.

So they can be sundered and subsequently repaired with copious bandages?

[Valmark]

So they can be sundered and subsequently repaired with copious bandages?

Necromancer ranger is the answer. Keep your first pet forever.

[BerzerkerUnit]

I’ve created a handful of of pet focused classes and subclasses for 5e (links below).

The Companion was one of my earliest attempts. Imagine if your PC was a Doctor Who Companion and the creature was your Doctor was kind of the intent. at low level it works well for “Child with Dog” types and at high levels the guy who marries Medusa, Dragon Rider and so on.

Since you’re PC is basically a cheerleader and comic relief, or the bridge to the rest of the party, player’s Action was used by the creature and PC did stuff with your bonus action.

As an experiment I kept mechanics identical but refluffed it into a sinister Overlord character. Less successful thematically but exactly as functional.

Since then I think I’ve gotten better with the Legendary Dragoon Barbarian, the Symbiogen Adaptive, and a few others.

I was just about to revisit my Summoner class. Jeremy Crawford had a great insight- subsystems are great unless no one uses them. So I’m going to make the Summoner a spell slot user, but they’ll instead use it as a kind of fuel for their menagerie.


Adaptive:
https://www.dmsguild.com/product/322652/Class-Option-The-Adaptive?term=The+adaptive

The Companion:
https://www.dmsguild.com/product/246117/Class-Option-The-Companion?src=by_author_of_product

Barbarian Path: Legendary Rider
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1-QTMrhu8qG1N_VSPdeBD_PNgM0Ir15lPZn8fq4B36qM/edit

Guildmaster Class
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1yxJtT9io0WtPCG1W4CSUZUcnWy4XBOFcamgvsIP7qEE/edit

Warlock Patron: Ancient Dragon (pet@14th)
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1nziUyzixEjXq3uN2mfGYJwJfiuz1jo9NXn1MecbcIqM/edit

Warlock Patron: Heavencrasher (Pet@6th and Invocations for Chain Pact)
https://docs.google.com/document/d/16o2tRhjofTXo6jf1ziHTLapVkj29Ov-9lgweksILBP4/edit

[Yakk]

That isn't a subclass.

That is a monster-class "animal companion".

You can play a fighter-wizard twin pair of PCs. You can play a Ranger and its loyal Wolf pair of PCs.

[Amnestic]

So they can be sundered and subsequently repaired with copious bandages?

It's pretty telling that the PHB ranger didn't have any special way to get its animal companion back, and they had to wait on Revised Ranger to do so outside of things like Raise Dead.

[sambojin]

Wildfire Druid is becoming official in the new Tasha's book. A flying, probably humanoid (it can look how you want it to, so give it hands) slightly-scaling summon with a mini-ranged-attack and a teleport off a wildshape charge (2/sr) isn't bad as far as minionmancy is concerned.
(I hope you can just choose the damage type. So, elemental druid, not firey burn-everything druid).

Artificer is likewise not bad.

The vhuman with MI/wizard feat for find familiar is a lvl1 option for any class.

There's also Awaken. Sure, you'll have to be lvl9, but it's pretty darn permanent as long as you heal the beasty. And hey, it can talk! (and is probably more intelligent than most of the party).


Thinking a vhuman wildfire druid with FFamiliar at 1, wildfire spirit at 2, Conjure Bestial Spirit (UA) spell at 3, a basic ASI at 4, Conjure Animals at lvl5 fits pretty well into a minionmancy build for early levels of play. They might not be "too powerful", but it gives you what you want. Refreshable minions, many with a hands-off-DM approach to what they are (honestly, no-one minds if you summon CR1 or CR2 minions with CA, and while it's not optimal, it's not a bad spell level even at that level of inefficiency).

Oh, there's "sidekick" stuff in Tasha's too, so I'm thinking your wildfire spirit is a definite candidate for sidekick levels if it's any good.

[Warlush]

I feel your pain. Pact Of the Chain allows your familiar to attack, but at not just the cost of your own action and their own reaction. You have to take "the attack action".
It doesn't even make sense in roll play.
"I attack, but not really, and my familiar reacts by attacking, but not on it's turn."
It literally has it's own initiative, and can do anything on it's turn, except attack.

A dominated creature has more freedom than a minion. At least they "defend themselves if not given a command."

I remove all the action economy cluster cuss from familiars and beast masters at my table. So do the guys at nerdarchy.

[NorthernPhoenix]

Wildfire Druid is becoming official in the new Tasha's book. A flying, probably humanoid (it can look how you want it to, so give it hands) slightly-scaling summon with a mini-ranged-attack and a teleport off a wildshape charge (2/sr) isn't bad as far as minionmancy is concerned.
(I hope you can just choose the damage type. So, elemental druid, not firey burn-everything druid).

Artificer is likewise not bad.

The vhuman with MI/wizard feat for find familiar is a lvl1 option for any class.

There's also Awaken. Sure, you'll have to be lvl9, but it's pretty darn permanent as long as you heal the beasty. And hey, it can talk! (and is probably more intelligent than most of the party).


Thinking a vhuman wildfire druid with FFamiliar at 1, wildfire spirit at 2, Conjure Bestial Spirit (UA) spell at 3, a basic ASI at 4, Conjure Animals at lvl5 fits pretty well into a minionmancy build for early levels of play. They might not be "too powerful", but it gives you what you want. Refreshable minions, many with a hands-off-DM approach to what they are (honestly, no-one minds if you summon CR1 or CR2 minions with CA, and while it's not optimal, it's not a bad spell level even at that level of inefficiency).

Oh, there's "sidekick" stuff in Tasha's too, so I'm thinking your wildfire spirit is a definite candidate for sidekick levels if it's any good.

You're referencing ways to control a whole bunch of crap, which is no more helpful than where we are now. And also trying to game power. The point is that the game is really bad about fulfilling the "guy and his partner" fantasy.

[Edea]

I think the original problems were just how little needed to be paid to achieve a flawless version of pets/minionmancy in older editions, as well as 'the silent majority' of players really not liking the bookkeeping aspects.

Summoning just being a 1 round cast and poof, bodies, was way too easy (druids being able to do that spontaneously was just a slap to the face). Same for animating a zillion undead and controlling all of them at once. And let's not even get into how planar binding used to work.

In addition, the minionmancer -might- like spending 15 minutes directing all his boyz on his turn, but everyone else at the table (including the DM) probably has issues with that.

It's pretty clear the 5e devs wanted to put 'enriched' mechanics into exploration/social aspects, not combat (whether they succeeded is up for debate). They wanted combat as streamlined and easy-to-understand as possible, which runs directly counter to the idea of having pets everywhere.

[Warlush]

Just one pet. Not a zillion. For like the 10th time. And my turns with my one pet resolve quicker than the PC with 3 or 4 attacks.

[Witty Username]

You need these at least for a pet to be a fully functional and viable fulfillment of the fantasy rather than a drone. And ideally they should get abilities that are designed for the pet too, not PC abilities.

I am not sold that all that is necessary, a creature that has its own actions would be a start for the beastmaster.
We have 3 ish pet classes. Ranger, paladin, and wizard. Paladin and wizard work because find familiar and find steed get a creature with it's own actions. The fact that a wizard familiar feels more like fighting along side an animal then the beastmaster is a problem.

[Valmark]

I am not sold that all that is necessary, a creature that has its own actions would be a start for the beastmaster.
We have 3 ish pet classes. Ranger, paladin, and wizard. Paladin and wizard work because find familiar and find steed get a creature with it's own actions. The fact that a wizard familiar feels more like fighting along side an animal then the beastmaster is a problem.

Also arteficer! To be more precise, Battlesmith.