Acquiring pets with Handle Animal?

[Arc_knight25]

What are people's thoughts on the Druid losing their Animal companion from 3.x/Pathfinder to 5th ed

Animal Friendship spell is to replace? but it only has a 24hr duration so the druid will be casting it each day just to keep their animal around so long as the animal fails their save and no allies do it damage.

Could one given time, train their animal so as to not have to continually cast Animal Friendship each day and hope it doesn't make its save?

Editions prior to 5e had time frames for how long it would take to train certain skills/tricks. 5e takes the hands off approach and says very little on the subject.

I have currently taken on training a parrot to be able to do simple tricks, come, go, fetch, stay. I looked at the Pathfinder list for how long skills take to train and my DM allowed for it.

Come later levels I will obviously be trying to train larger and tougher animals.

What are peoples thoughts? To much to be asking for or not earth shattering?

[Personification]

I have designed two 5E characters, and for both I took flaws and replaced class abilities to get a companion or sidekick, the first was because it was a druid and every druid should have an animal companion, the second because every psychic gnome (UA Mystic) needs a psychic dragon (pseudodragon telepathically-bonded familiar).

[Vaz]

What are people's thoughts on the Druid losing their Animal companion from 3.x/Pathfinder to 5th ed

Animal Friendship spell is to replace? but it only has a 24hr duration so the druid will be casting it each day just to keep their animal around so long as the animal fails their save and no allies do it damage.

Could one given time, train their animal so as to not have to continually cast Animal Friendship each day and hope it doesn't make its save?

Editions prior to 5e had time frames for how long it would take to train certain skills/tricks. 5e takes the hands off approach and says very little on the subject.

I have currently taken on training a parrot to be able to do simple tricks, come, go, fetch, stay. I looked at the Pathfinder list for how long skills take to train and my DM allowed for it.

Come later levels I will obviously be trying to train larger and tougher animals.

What are peoples thoughts? To much to be asking for or not earth shattering?

Ranger is now the animal companion class. Find Familiar is only a feat away. Getting tougher creatures seems like a decent use of your full advancement casting progression.

If a Necromancer has to spend a half dozen spell slots to keep their Undead in line, you have to keep expending yours for your pet.

[DarkKnightJin]

If a Necromancer has to spend a half dozen spell slots to keep their Undead in line, you have to keep expending yours for your pet.

Slight difference: The parrot isn't liable to try and murderize you if you don't magically force it into obedience. Oh, and the Wizard's undead minions don't get a save to resist being enslaved.

[Regitnui]

I'd say yes, but after an extended time of casting animal friendship, using the Animal Handling skill, and kindly treatment by the whole party. Even then, I'd emphasize that this is a wild animal that has decided to stick around the party, not an animal companion, and can and will do what it wants to. I would, on the other hand, allow a few commands to be taught like "attack", "stop", or "give".

[Quoxis]

Slight difference: The parrot isn't liable to try and murderize you if you don't magically force it into obedience. Oh, and the Wizard's undead minions don't get a save to resist being enslaved.

And the druid's conjured animals don't attack at all while taking one 3rd level slot. It's even imo, if not in favor of druids.

Also: there's the 5th level spell "awaken" that does pretty much what has been said so far: you touch a (non hostile) animal or plant, it's charmed by you, gains intelligence and you can make it your (significantly stronger) animal companion if treated well.

[Vaz]

Slight difference: The parrot isn't liable to try and murderize you if you don't magically force it into obedience. Oh, and the Wizard's undead minions don't get a save to resist being enslaved.

If he wants to acquire larger creatures, can well imagine Fleshraker/velociraptors/dire bears/elks/tigers/aurochs/boars turning on their master if not controlled magically.

Many farmers still get killed by docile creatures after hundreds, if not thousands of years of selective breeding for at least in part docility.

[Tanarii]

I allow Druids to make friends with wild animals if they use Speak with Animals and Animal Friendship.

I believe the last time one asked about persuading the animal (a Crocodile) to leave its range, to accompany them on their adventures, I set it as a DC 20 charisma (animal handling) check, or like a 15% chance for the 1st level Cha 10 Druid in question. Before advantage for Animal Friendship. He declined and instead went for a DC 10 check to arrange for it to come to him whenever he entered its swamp.

I do have a general ruling for using trained animals, because players often buy trained War Dogs. To give them a attack command takes an Action, and a DC 10 Animal Handling check. It can apply to multiple animals at once, within reason. I've never had a player buy more than (I think) four dogs at once, so never had to set an exact limit. They attack under my control, and will definitely flee if wounded enough or otherwise scared off. Although usually they just die. (This upsets some players and places a kind of limit on their use.)

[Waterdeep Merch]

I find pets are amongst the most beloved things you can give your players. Even if they're only barely useful in combat, a lot of players will seek them out if you offer them.

The druid frankly never should have had such a powerful pet in 3.x. The class was powerful enough without it, it was obscene with it.

[dejarnjc]

I find pets are amongst the most beloved things you can give your players. Even if they're only barely useful in combat, a lot of players will seek them out if you offer them.

The druid frankly never should have had such a powerful pet in 3.x. The class was powerful enough without it, it was obscene with it.

I agree and as a player I always want a pet for my character buuuuuut then I remember that there's a 9/10 chance it'll die a horrible death and opt not to.

[Regitnui]

I find pets are amongst the most beloved things you can give your players. Even if they're only barely useful in combat, a lot of players will seek them out if you offer them.

The druid frankly never should have had such a powerful pet in 3.x. The class was powerful enough without it, it was obscene with it.

I'll agree with this. My warlock player loved having their "cat"-like fey pseudodragon. Another player eventually got a baby displacer beast (displacer kitten).

[Tanarii]

I agree and as a player I always want a pet for my character buuuuuut then I remember that there's a 9/10 chance it'll die a horrible death and opt not to.

Simple solution: don't send your pet into combat.

[SiCK_Boy]

Tomb of Annihilation has rules on training flying monkeys via animal handling.

You can capture them, and then teach them tricks after spending a few hours per day, during a full week, and succeeding on a DC 10 Animal Handling check. This is for simple tricks (fetching a specific object, dancing to music, etc.).

Each animal has a random (1d6) maximum number of tricks they can learn.

[Longman]

A "nature" cleric recently befriended a black bear in my game, using the Animal Friendship spell, but also cast Speak with Animals spell cast as a ritual, and made a deal with the bear, to feed him provided he helped them track down another monster in the area.

I house-ruled that the Wisdom save DC for any future daily castings of the Animal Friendship spell would get progressively harder for the bear (I said +1 per casting) as the animal slowly became accustomed to getting fed.

Not the same as an animal companion in 3e. And I'd still have the creature roll an extra save if you sent it into a dangerous fight. But with luck you might train a creature to be a companion in this way. That would mean a period of casting both those spells each day, but it could work.

(This is quite different to Handle Animal which is what the thread title says.)

Edit: Incidentally the Animal Friendship spell does not seem to have a limt on HD for the beast. Maybe it should. Or, maybe if you want to befriend a really dangerous beast, you take the risk should the save fail. The bear was only 3hd so I figured this was reasonable.

[Odessa333]

One of my last characters was a fighter with a ranger complex. She had handle animal and survival, and kept trying to tame/train ANY creature she could. By the game's end, she had a donkey, a bird, a snake, a hippogriff, a wolf, and 3 horses. While this force could have potentially been interesting to send in to fight, they were mostly novelty and/or transportation help, flying on the hippogriff, packs on the donkey/horses, etc. The wolf helped guard camp, and the snake slept in my backpack as a guard. The bird (an actual familiar thanks to Magic initiate) scouted. The hippogriff did fight, yet very rarely; mostly as it had target on it's back in every combat it faced. She tried (and failed) to get other creatures, like owlbears for example.

I never found it overpowering myself. The party wizard could replicate any use they had without needing to feed/maintain an entire zoo or spend two feats (I had mounted combat for my horse/hippogriff) to do so. Still, the other players would give me grief over my zoo. I never quite understood the hate for my animals, but it was there.

[Waterdeep Merch]

One of my last characters was a fighter with a ranger complex. She had handle animal and survival, and kept trying to tame/train ANY creature she could. By the game's end, she had a donkey, a bird, a snake, a hippogriff, a wolf, and 3 horses. While this force could have potentially been interesting to send in to fight, they were mostly novelty and/or transportation help, flying on the hippogriff, packs on the donkey/horses, etc. The wolf helped guard camp, and the snake slept in my backpack as a guard. The bird (an actual familiar thanks to Magic initiate) scouted. The hippogriff did fight, yet very rarely; mostly as it had target on it's back in every combat it faced. She tried (and failed) to get other creatures, like owlbears for example.

I never found it overpowering myself. The party wizard could replicate any use they had without needing to feed/maintain an entire zoo or spend two feats (I had mounted combat for my horse/hippogriff) to do so. Still, the other players would give me grief over my zoo. I never quite understood the hate for my animals, but it was there.

Without decent animal handling, I played an immortal mystic that owned: a griffon (Strindberg), a pseudodragon (Kaufmann), a warhorse (Uberpferd), two riding horses (Plato and Dionysus), and a donkey (Wagner). I also owned a few farms that I populated with cattle and chicken I claimed as my rewards for helping a king.

I let the other players use my excess transportation animals and wagons, took Kaufmann with me everywhere (I had a special backpack hovel built to carry him), and rode Strindberg any time I wanted to look impressive. I rose Kaufmann and Strindberg myself from eggs and doted on them.

They rarely gave me any statistical advantage, but I had a lot of fun raising them all and roleplaying it.

[Longman]

One of my last characters was a fighter with a ranger complex. She had handle animal and survival, and kept trying to tame/train ANY creature she could. By the game's end, she had a donkey, a bird, a snake, a hippogriff, a wolf, and 3 horses. While this force could have potentially been interesting to send in to fight, they were mostly novelty and/or transportation help, flying on the hippogriff, packs on the donkey/horses, etc. The wolf helped guard camp, and the snake slept in my backpack as a guard. The bird (an actual familiar thanks to Magic initiate) scouted. The hippogriff did fight, yet very rarely; mostly as it had target on it's back in every combat it faced. She tried (and failed) to get other creatures, like owlbears for example.

I never found it overpowering myself. The party wizard could replicate any use they had without needing to feed/maintain an entire zoo or spend two feats (I had mounted combat for my horse/hippogriff) to do so. Still, the other players would give me grief over my zoo. I never quite understood the hate for my animals, but it was there.

Animal Handling seems to be for critters that are already domesticated. How one goes about using this skill to train an animal that is not already domesticated isn't clear to me. It seems obvious that farmers can use the skill to train regular domestic animals raised by them. As a GM I'd probably draw the line at a hippogriff as it is a monstrosity not a beast and not a regular animal you would domesticate. The rest of the zoo sounds kinda fun!

[Maxilian]

Having in mind that you can get "pets" from the stables by RAW, and the Druid gets Beast Bond, and they also added a whole feat (for the Feat for skills UA) that works around the idea of you getting a pet to help you in combat, then yes, i assume you can.

[Regitnui]

Having in mind that you can get "pets" from the stables by RAW, and the Druid gets Beast Bond, and they also added a whole feat (for the Feat for skills UA) that works around the idea of you getting a pet to help you in combat, then yes, i assume you can.

It shouldn't be automatic or easy, though. Like raising a griffin from an egg is the sort of thing I can support as a DM.

[Tanarii]

Having in mind that you can get "pets" from the stables by RAW, and the Druid gets Beast Bond, and they also added a whole feat (for the Feat for skills UA) that works around the idea of you getting a pet to help you in combat, then yes, i assume you can.

The key is it shouldn't be superior to the Rangers Beast Companion. That means at the minimum it should require an action and a check to direct it in combat. And the DM has to decide if it's under their control or the PCs.

I allow just one action initially with a check to give a general 'attack' command for mastiffs, but the PC isn't controlling them. They move where they will and attack as they will and stop fighting and flee if I decide they do that. That's considerably less useful than a Companion that the PC can have occupy a precise location like a ranger's can, under the PCs control, and only retreat if the PC wants it to.