Hi, new DM here. I have a player in my group who is playing an Elf Ranger (because he wanted to start with a wolf companion, but had to get to level 3 before he could use it in battle).
My question is... is there a difference between a pet and a companion? Because he keeps wanting to try and tame and gain creatures as additional pets to go along with his wolf companion. A fellow DM friend has told me that he should only be allowed 1.
He is level 6, if that makes a difference.
The player is now arguing with me that a pet and a companion are different and he should be allowed one of each.
Article here, but I think it's up to you. You might ask what he has in mind for his pet first. Is it going to be a scout, an arm decoration, a mount, or another fighting creature?
I probably wouldn't allow a second battle creature to travel with one player (to prevent one player's turn taking way long in battle), but would allow a pet for other purposes--especially if it's a ranger. Some people find acquiring pets the most appealing part of this game.
To me, the difference between a pet and a companion is, the pet can't do anything significant in combat. The companion is like an NPC and can (should) be a force to be reckoned with in combat. The companion levels up with the ranger. The pet does not. It stays at CR 1/8 and 7 h.p. (or whatever it had) forever. But that shouldn't matter because, the pet shouldn't be used in combat.
For example, in my party there is a beastmaster ranger who is also a timber (forest) gnome. They keep small animal pets like squirrels and such, and she has adopted a pet squirrel that travels around with her in her cloak pocket. She also has a large melanistic leopard (a 'black panther") as her beast companion. The leopard fights with her in combat. The squirrel rides along out of combat... is usually left outside of dungeons in the nearby trees so it doesn't get hurt... and sometimes can scout into small places and report back what it sees. It's occasionally useful, mostly just fun and cute. But in combat it is a non-entity.
Also, the ONLY creature that the beastmaster can actually command in combat without having to cast "speak with animals" or something and burn an action, is the beast companion. The beast companion will act on its own, and do whatever the ranger wants it to do. But other pets will not, and must be commanded in a more laborious way (and this usually means wasting an action to do it, making animal handling checks, etc).
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
WOTC lies. We know that WOTC lies. WOTC knows that we know that WOTC lies. We know that WOTC knows that we know that WOTC lies. And still they lie.
Because of the above (a paraphrase from Orwell) I no longer post to the forums -- PM me if you need help or anything.
I'd also consider whether or not you want to give a pet plot armor, if you allow a pet. If a pet never levels, only has a few HP, and is not supposed to be involved in combat, then they are likely not long for this world if not given some form of special treatment. The first AoE spell detonated in the Party's midst is likely to take out the pet.
If the pet is basically an RP cue, and conveys no mechanical or game advantage, then there's no real balance issues making the pet conveniently invulnerable. That may, however, go against the tone you're trying to create, or grate on the Group's sense of verisimilitude.
If you watch Critical Role, Jester's pet weasel Sprinkles seems to have fine suit of plot armor, and his increasingly improbable survival has become a point of humor in the group.
Disclaimer: This signature is a badge of membership in the Forum Loudmouth Club. We are all friends. We are not attacking each other. We are engaging in spirited, friendly debate with one another. We may get snarky, but these are not attacks. Thank you for not reporting us.
I'd also consider whether or not you want to give a pet plot armor, if you allow a pet. If a pet never levels, only has a few HP, and is not supposed to be involved in combat, then they are likely not long for this world if not given some form of special treatment. The first AoE spell detonated in the Party's midst is likely to take out the pet.
I discussed this with my player. We agreed that she will need to remember to tell her little pet to go hide in the trees when combat starts or some such. Most enemies will not attack a squirrel so as long as the thing isn't in the radius of the cloudkill or whatever, it should be safe.
The thing I don't like about plot armor is that it destroys verisimilitude. The cloudkill dropped the level 5 barbarian to his knees but the squirrel made it out OK? That breaks the immersion for me.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
WOTC lies. We know that WOTC lies. WOTC knows that we know that WOTC lies. We know that WOTC knows that we know that WOTC lies. And still they lie.
Because of the above (a paraphrase from Orwell) I no longer post to the forums -- PM me if you need help or anything.
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Hi, new DM here. I have a player in my group who is playing an Elf Ranger (because he wanted to start with a wolf companion, but had to get to level 3 before he could use it in battle).
My question is... is there a difference between a pet and a companion? Because he keeps wanting to try and tame and gain creatures as additional pets to go along with his wolf companion. A fellow DM friend has told me that he should only be allowed 1.
He is level 6, if that makes a difference.
The player is now arguing with me that a pet and a companion are different and he should be allowed one of each.
Advice please?
Article here, but I think it's up to you. You might ask what he has in mind for his pet first. Is it going to be a scout, an arm decoration, a mount, or another fighting creature?
https://dmdavid.com/tag/dds-animal-companions-and-familiars-choosing-the-right-pet-for-your-character/
I probably wouldn't allow a second battle creature to travel with one player (to prevent one player's turn taking way long in battle), but would allow a pet for other purposes--especially if it's a ranger. Some people find acquiring pets the most appealing part of this game.
Edit: there was a thread about this a few days ago, with all manner of wisdom imparted (including the "menagerie system" to avoid becoming a travelling zoo) https://www.dndbeyond.com/forums/dungeons-dragons-discussion/dungeon-masters-only/79820-my-players-keep-adopting-monsters-how-do-i-level
To me, the difference between a pet and a companion is, the pet can't do anything significant in combat. The companion is like an NPC and can (should) be a force to be reckoned with in combat. The companion levels up with the ranger. The pet does not. It stays at CR 1/8 and 7 h.p. (or whatever it had) forever. But that shouldn't matter because, the pet shouldn't be used in combat.
For example, in my party there is a beastmaster ranger who is also a timber (forest) gnome. They keep small animal pets like squirrels and such, and she has adopted a pet squirrel that travels around with her in her cloak pocket. She also has a large melanistic leopard (a 'black panther") as her beast companion. The leopard fights with her in combat. The squirrel rides along out of combat... is usually left outside of dungeons in the nearby trees so it doesn't get hurt... and sometimes can scout into small places and report back what it sees. It's occasionally useful, mostly just fun and cute. But in combat it is a non-entity.
Also, the ONLY creature that the beastmaster can actually command in combat without having to cast "speak with animals" or something and burn an action, is the beast companion. The beast companion will act on its own, and do whatever the ranger wants it to do. But other pets will not, and must be commanded in a more laborious way (and this usually means wasting an action to do it, making animal handling checks, etc).
WOTC lies. We know that WOTC lies. WOTC knows that we know that WOTC lies. We know that WOTC knows that we know that WOTC lies. And still they lie.
Because of the above (a paraphrase from Orwell) I no longer post to the forums -- PM me if you need help or anything.
I'd also consider whether or not you want to give a pet plot armor, if you allow a pet. If a pet never levels, only has a few HP, and is not supposed to be involved in combat, then they are likely not long for this world if not given some form of special treatment. The first AoE spell detonated in the Party's midst is likely to take out the pet.
If the pet is basically an RP cue, and conveys no mechanical or game advantage, then there's no real balance issues making the pet conveniently invulnerable. That may, however, go against the tone you're trying to create, or grate on the Group's sense of verisimilitude.
If you watch Critical Role, Jester's pet weasel Sprinkles seems to have fine suit of plot armor, and his increasingly improbable survival has become a point of humor in the group.
My DM Philosophy, as summed up by other people: https://drive.google.com/file/d/1rN5w4-azTq3Kbn0Yvk9nfqQhwQ1R5by1/view
Disclaimer: This signature is a badge of membership in the Forum Loudmouth Club. We are all friends. We are not attacking each other. We are engaging in spirited, friendly debate with one another. We may get snarky, but these are not attacks. Thank you for not reporting us.
I discussed this with my player. We agreed that she will need to remember to tell her little pet to go hide in the trees when combat starts or some such. Most enemies will not attack a squirrel so as long as the thing isn't in the radius of the cloudkill or whatever, it should be safe.
The thing I don't like about plot armor is that it destroys verisimilitude. The cloudkill dropped the level 5 barbarian to his knees but the squirrel made it out OK? That breaks the immersion for me.
WOTC lies. We know that WOTC lies. WOTC knows that we know that WOTC lies. We know that WOTC knows that we know that WOTC lies. And still they lie.
Because of the above (a paraphrase from Orwell) I no longer post to the forums -- PM me if you need help or anything.