The Use (or Abuse) of Animal Companions

[GMMichael]

I GM a game that includes a PC who plays a gnome with a furry woodland friend: a giant badger. I also GM a rules-light game that has no rules for animal companions: they're not required to act on your turn, they don't have power progression tables, and you don't lose a point of Constitution when your animal companion dies, for example. However, there is a list item (character "perks") that grants your animal companion a bit more spirit or personality, bolstering the idea of a special bond. The PC has this perk.

Hogging spotlight by having two characters is not an issue (yet), but I'm wondering how ENworld would fill in the rules gaps here. I have a few ideas as possible starting points:

• Characters can either transform or appear differently with a first-level power called Alter. It's purely superficial - no character elements change with the power. Having an animal companion could be played like this: when using the animal companion, you're just playing your character (sheet), but using a different appearance, in a sense.
• In conflict, PCs have an allotment of actions they can use. If the character uses actions to command or guide the animal companion, then the PC isn't getting more of a resource than other PCs are.
• Have a second sheet, i.e. a second character, for the companion.
• GM plays the animal companion as an NPC (who has a special bond with the PC).
• (Fill in the blank!)

 

[Blue]

Is there an opportunity cost for having the animal companion? Taking one subclass/feat/perk/whatever that grants it, at the cost of getting another that would directly boost them? If so then it should be net as helpful as whatever they didn't take. And by net, I mean both the positives and negatives - for example if it's easy to take out but there's no cost for getting it back, the benefit it brings during the time it's up should be equal to some other perk usable at all times. And if there is a cost (say spell slots or time), then it needs to be even more to offset that.

 

[Emberashh]

Don't make having a pet weaker than not having it.

To use my game as an example, pet and commander classes wouldn't need to sacrifice their most potent option as a character in combat just to use their pet.

In my game you get two actions, but can only use each of the 4 options once per Round. That generally gives everyone an Attack, usually their most potent option, and then they're choosing between using their second Action to React, to do a Skill Action, or to use an Ability.

Pet and commander classes would thus be swapping out that secondary most often, using their Skill Action to direct their pet/summons/army, which puts them at a general parity with everybody else. They aren't sacrificing anything the others aren't.

 

[payn]

If im going rules lite, the companion just tags along and for narrative purposes works with the character in conjunction when it suits play. If the companion is going to have actions and can fight on par with another PC, thats second character sheet with a preference for baked in mechanics like Druids often have in D&D.

 

[aco175]

I tell players that pets can be used in combat or out of combat. Non-combat pets do not take damage from fireballs and poison clouds and such. They somehow reappear back to the PC when danger is over. They cannot aid the PC by giving the rogue an 'ally' next to a bad guy to use sneak attack or to allow the cleric to cast spells by having the pet touch someone. In combat pets tend to die in my games but are replaceable and can be boosted like a sidekick somewhat.

You can use the sidekick rules if you want to have another PC/NPC around.

I also tend to try and limit the number of pets kicking around. Right now, the necromancer PC has a skeleton cat item that has an ability to blow up like the shatter spell 1/rest. The player hardly uses it and the cat mostly wanders around doing creepy cat things.

 

[Faxfire683]

I GM a game that includes a PC who plays a gnome with a furry woodland friend: a giant badger. I also GM a rules-light game that has no rules for animal companions: they're not required to act on your turn, they don't have power progression tables, and you don't lose a point of Constitution when your animal companion dies, for example. However, there is a list item (character "perks") that grants your animal companion a bit more spirit or personality, bolstering the idea of a special bond. The PC has this perk.

Hogging spotlight by having two characters is not an issue (yet), but I'm wondering how ENworld would fill in the rules gaps here. I have a few ideas as possible starting points:

• Characters can either transform or appear differently with a first-level power called Alter. It's purely superficial - no character elements change with the power. Having an animal companion could be played like this: when using the animal companion, you're just playing your character (sheet), but using a different appearance, in a sense.
• In conflict, PCs have an allotment of actions they can use. If the character uses actions to command or guide the animal companion, then the PC isn't getting more of a resource than other PCs are.
• Have a second sheet, i.e. a second character, for the companion.
• GM plays the animal companion as an NPC (who has a special bond with the PC).
• (Fill in the blank!)

I’m not sure exactly what system you’re playing, but most other replies seem to be assuming 5e or something similar. If not then disregard my advice below:

For my games I personally feel the MCDM Beastheart provides really helpful animal companion rules, a long list of bespoke animal companion stats, rules support, and on their YouTube channel there is advice on creating your own. The companions are pretty balanced and it provides advice for non-Beastheart class characters that want one. Basically they say to treat it similarly to a rare magic item for encounter design. It scales with character level too, so your companion will never be “left behind” in power.

 

[Meech17]

One of my players is a ranger, and when he hit level three, he took the option for an animal companion. The book said a beast with a CR of 1/4 or less I believe, so I gave him the monster manual and let him go wild. He found the Blink Dog. I was a little surprised but said yolo.

• In conflict, PCs have an allotment of actions they can use. If the character uses actions to command or guide the animal companion, then the PC isn't getting more of a resource than other PCs are.

I believe the 5e PHB also says in order for the beast to take an action other than moving, the player has to spend their action commanding it. I'm not particularly fond of this however. Perhaps it's OP to essentially give him an extra attack. It just feels like the alternative is underpowered.

Perhaps I will change it to requiring an action(Or perhaps reducing it to a bonus action) to give an order, or change the order. So for instance if he orders the dog to attack an enemy, the dog will continue to attack that enemy each turn until either the dog, or the enemy are defeated, or it's commanded to stop or do something else.

• Have a second sheet, i.e. a second character, for the companion.

This is a good idea, and I might try and make one up before next session

• GM plays the animal companion as an NPC (who has a special bond with the PC).

I also like this idea.

I look forward to what else comes up in this thread. It wasn't something I gave too much thought to.

 

[aco175]

I believe the 5e PHB also says in order for the beast to take an action other than moving, the player has to spend their action commanding it. I'm not particularly fond of this however. Perhaps it's OP to essentially give him an extra attack. It just feels like the alternative is underpowered.

I'm not sure if having the ranger lose his action to have the beast attack, but then the beast will continue to attack until another action is used to change something. You lose the first round but then get the 'extra' attack from then on, or until that one opponent dies and you need to change it.

 

[GMMichael]

Is there an opportunity cost for having the animal companion? Taking one subclass/feat/perk/whatever that grants it, at the cost of getting another that would directly boost them? If so then it should be net as helpful as whatever they didn't take . . .

Good question, which, I think, ties in with this suggestion:

Don't make having a pet weaker than not having it.

The Familiar Spirit perk is what creates the metaphysical bond - the difference between a faithful pet dog and a dog that goes to bark at the forest ranger until he follows the dog to his wounded owner's location. The faithful pet dog falls safely into the NPC camp, while the perk-enhanced dog could be beneficial at PC-will, or in response to NPC actions. Some common alternative perks would bump up damage with a weapon type, add to max health, or bump up a resistance to damage. A combat-focused companion (versus a wizard's ferret, for example) could both increase a PC's damage output by attacking and effectively increase a PC's max health by taking damage in place of the PC. The balancing factor here seems to be the mortality of the companion . . .

. . . Basically they say to treat it similarly to a rare magic item for encounter design . . .

I hadn't thought of this: animal companion as equipment. While "using" the companion with an action is similar to using an action to give orders, the item/companion could also have benefits simply by being equipped. Let's say, when you equip your companion, you gain X benefits, but it occupies a hand/item slot, and what, can only be used Y times per encounter?

 

[grimmgoose]

Companions (not just animal ones) are a thing I tinker with the most. My players love tagalong NPCs ("add to party" is one of their favorite sayings), but I hate running them in combat. I'm like the opposite of a DMPC.

So far, my favorite method with companions is to let them act like magic items, almost. Right now, the most prominent companion is an "Elizabeth from Bioshock: Infinite" kind of character. She's not an active piece on the battlefield (we assume she's moving, dodging, staying out of the way), but the players can choose to activate her in between any turn.

Her shtick is that she can cast any spell of seventh-level or lower. But, she only has three spell slots. The first spell is a freebie; the second, a "Luck check" is made (d20 roll; 1-10 is bad). The third spell slot spent (or a failed Luck Check) means that the BBEG gets a lock on where she is, complicating the adventure.

It's gone really, really well. She's dramatic, she doesn't overshadow the players, the players love being able to use her for clutch moments, and I don't have to worry about the nonsense that a traveling companion typically brings. The negatives are that she's a power multiplier, but the narrative risk adds an interesting (in my opinion) push-and-pull of "should she spend that second spell slot? should we risk it?"

I'm a fan, and I'm looking for ways to use this system for other companions (not just multiverse-bending Elizabeth's).