D&D 5E The Tamer: A Monster Tamer Class - Balancing Questions

[Jaiken]

Hello. I am working on a new class called the Tamer that works with and is able to control/summon only one monster. The monster will be based on a Challenge Rating to determine toughness. 10 is the highest Challenge Rating that Tamers can summon at level 20.

My question is: Is it balanced to give the class only one Monster to control and they start with 1/8 at level 1 and at level 2 they are able to temporarily increase the Challenge Rating of their Monster by one level? For example at level 2 Tamers get the ability to temporarily increase the Challenge Rating of their Monster to 1 whereas they are originally at CR 1/4.

Tamers have a 1d6 hit die and can use simple weapons and light armor, no shields.

Thanks for the help.

 

[the Jester]

There's not enough detail here to really tell, honestly.

I do think you need to be careful not to overshadow other pet subclasses such as the beastmaster and drakewarden. A CR 10 creature is pretty powerful, and I don't think that a beastmaster's pet (f'rex) is even close to that, even at level 20, though I haven't done the calculations.

The other thing is, if this class can't really do anything without its pet... it's not going to be fun to play whenever the pet is out of commission.

 

[Tonguez]

How is it different to Drakewarden or Vermin Druid? That what you wanna compare too

Also only one pet gets a bit tedious without cool effects

 

[Blue]

CR is a rating for challenge in combat, not a general rating of usefulness of a pet. One with various extra senses, movement types like flying or burrowing, being able to be rid, spell-like abilities, invisibility or incorperability - all of these can make a pet much more (or less) useful that the CR rating measures.

Basically, unless you are disallowing any use of the pet in pillars of play outside of combat, then CR rating is not an appropriate measuring tool.

If you look at the trend from WotC for the last several years for spells and companions, it's been to move away from CR and have one or more base forms that increase with level. From the Conjure spells in the PHB being replaced the Summon spells, or even the Ranger (Beastmaster) companion.

So the short answer is "no, it's not balanced", but that's more because the measurement you are using isn't balanced against all pillars of play, so it cannot give you a balanced output.

 

[MoFoCThat]

Just commenting 'cuz it sounds interesting to me. If you want to make a different subclass from the ones mentioned above, why not take a page from Jurassic World? Make the one monster the class can control a pack animal. A pack of wolves or raptors with low hp, high-ish atk could be fun without complicating the dice rolls. 2-3 animals that will die in a couple of direct hits won't overpower all enemies or overshadow other players; and once they're dead, the player can tame the same kind of animal or a different type for replayability.

 

[Jaiken]

Just commenting 'cuz it sounds interesting to me. If you want to make a different subclass from the ones mentioned above, why not take a page from Jurassic World? Make the one monster the class can control a pack animal. A pack of wolves or raptors with low hp, high-ish atk could be fun without complicating the dice rolls. 2-3 animals that will die in a couple of direct hits won't overpower all enemies or overshadow other players; and once they're dead, the player can tame the same kind of animal or a different type for replayability.

Now that sounds good. Will keep it in mind.

 

[MoFoCThat]

Now that sounds good. Will keep it in mind.

No prob! Let me know how it goes when you finish it!

 

[Jaiken]

Update: I got rid of Challenge Rating for the Partner Monster and decided to introduce Augmentations that the player is able to customize their Partner Monster.

 

[CreamCloud0]

How is it different to Drakewarden or Vermin Druid? That what you wanna compare too

i wonder if those are what you want to compare it to? considering the whole class is meant to be dedicated to the pet-structure design budget rather than merely a subclass's worth.

 

[GnomeWorks]

So the (main) problem with doing it by CR is that WotC really likes giving high-level spells to low-CR creatures, or giving low-CR creatures weird abilities that let them do things only high-level characters would be capable of. It's incredibly aggravating and impedes a number of class fantasies from working properly.

One of my takes on a pet class, though, restricts pets by CR. In the main text, it has a bunch of specifications and limitations on what sorts of creatures can be controlled in this manner, and it (mostly) avoids any absurdly problematic creatures. However, it is really designed with these monsters in mind (and this is called out in a sidebar).

This class has been playtested up to 8th or 9th level, and worked fine with the intended list. There is pending errata that maintaining control of the pet no longer requires concentration, you just have to be conscious on your turn for it to do things.

Sidenote -- the casting subclass uses a homebrew casting system.

The other thing is, if this class can't really do anything without its pet... it's not going to be fun to play whenever the pet is out of commission.

In the playtest, the player wound up making the character something of a face, and it worked out really well. With my pet classes I've generally tried to ensure that the character is somewhere from 1/3 to 1/2 of a normal class: that way if you are in a situation where you don't have your pet, you can still do something, even if you're not as good or effective at it as another class might be. I also think there's a bit of an expectation that since having the pet is part of the class fantasy, not having it will weaken your effectiveness.