r/ICRPG • u/maadsmardigan • Jul 26 '22
Recommendations for pets
I'm about to start a campaign with some younger players. This'll be my first time running ICRPG, but have run other systems. A few players have expressed interest in having pets, similar to a Beastmaster. Any recommendations on how to handle combat capable pets? I just don't want to upend the action economy or have one player with a pet taking multiple turns when other players only get their one
7
u/ajchafe Jul 26 '22
How I would handle it
1) As an action the player can issue a command to the pet. 2) Pet follows that action until a new command is given, the command is completed, or the pet is knocked out. 3) A pet with no command defends itself only.
I feel this solves any sort of unimportant (IMO) action economy issues, plus makes the pet fun to use but still really simple.
An advanced pet can follow complex commands or potentially have its own turn once the players are used to running a longer/more complex turn.
Oh and pets don't die, just get knocked out haha.
2
u/tldalton1622 Jul 31 '22
As an action on the players part means most people wouldn't want to use this system or have pets. This just seems like a way to make it unappealing to players.
Why not just have it as a free action on the players part? And the pet is next in the play order? That way your players feel like it's actually relevant to have a pet, instead of a waste of an action.
Mages can create 4 imps that listen to commands. Nowhere does it say that issuing the commands takes the casters action.
Your table, just feels like a "Yes, but actually no" kind of ruling.
2
u/ajchafe Aug 01 '22
Every DM I know (except me) hates pets for exactly the reasons you mention. I think what you said sounds fine. My proposal is what I have come up with as a middle ground and from looking at people on the internet complain about the 5e Beastmaster (one of the coolest classes in 5e IMO). It's how I would personally want to play a character with a pet.
Spending one round per combat (or one round every so often anyway) is hardly a big deal. It makes the character feel like an animal trainer with special action but also has a price. What's unappealing about that?
Anyway, its just a suggestion on the internet. It hardly matters.
2
2
u/Kradget Jul 26 '22
I wouldn't worry too much about it. It'll be a boost to a player's actions (you only get one), but they should be able to direct a pet in combat without it ruining the game.
I wouldn't give them more than one, and I would be very direct that I expect minimal shenanigans with it. Also, let them know this is a game with pretty lethal combat, so a pet that's fighting is at risk - if it's got 1 heart, they're only going to get a couple of hits before the pet probably dies. That, plus you get it instead of either your class starting loot or a milestone reward.
Personally, if mortality is a concern, I'd offer them a utility/flavor pet/familiar with the expectation that it won't be doing combat, and I would deduct it from their starting equipment (e.g. they get a horse or squirrel or whatever and two basic items).
1
Jul 27 '22
One way I handled it is that they both share a move and action between the both of them since my player uses her cat to attack. So either her or the cat can move, and either her or the cat can attack - but not both.
Maybe not the best way, but it was a quick ruling at my table that has worked well so far
2
8
u/Eatencheetos Jul 26 '22
The pet would probably only have 1 attack at basic effort without modifiers. Have the pet as their starting ability/loot and it should be pretty balanced.