Post/Author/DateTime	Post
Haldrik 04-26-04, 03:04 PM	Greater Familiar Benefit: You gain a Familiar (as described in the Wizard's class features). All class levels stack to determine the benefits of your familiar. At 7th level, you automatically gain Improved Familiar as a bonus feat. If your familiar dies, you lose only half as much experience as you otherwise would have (100 xp/level on a failed save, 50 xp/level on a successful save). Suppose the only way to get a familiar is to use a feat slot. Do you think the above feat is worth a feat slot? If you normally have a Familiar, would you use a feat to get this one? Any suggestions for modifications?
Haldrik 04-26-04, 03:19 PM	Posted elsewhere: Lina Inverse: I'd still only give up 1 hp for the stuipid familiar. (Whereas a feat is worth about 4 or 5 hp.) But i can tell you this. I would EASILY give 8-10 hp, quite possibly MORE, for the animal companion. (It) is quite useful, but sadly it still sucks (compared) to summoning.
Roland the Crownbreaker 04-26-04, 03:25 PM	Well, take a look at what Unearthed Arcana compares to the usefulness of the familar for specialist wizards. I'm not sure of all of them, but I know the conjurer can give up his familiar in exchange for casting summons with a one action casting time, rather than the one full round casting time. (which, IMO, is far superior for a summoner) A familiar provides 2 feats right off the top. Alertness, and the bonus the familiar provides (which stacks with the feat it duplicates). In addition they can provide an extra set of eyes, possibly hands. They are not in any way capable of being used in combat though. Except the possibility of low level encounters.
Mith 04-26-04, 03:40 PM	I would completely eliminate the XP cost, but make improved familiar a seperate feat. That's the way it should be, IMO. You can pay one feat to get the PHB familiar, except that it doesn't cost XP, and then pay another if you want to upgrade it for combat or utility or whatever. And if you do this, don't give the familiar to any class automatically.
Haldrik 04-26-04, 03:43 PM	Roland, Changing casting time from full-round to standard action is a negligible advantage. This suggests Unearthed Arcana acknowledges that the official Familiar is nearly worthless. Also the official Familiar does not really provide 2 feats. The Alertness skill bonus is good but situational - only if the Familiar is nearby - and therefor is not worth as much (perhaps worth 1 or 2 hp). The other benefit depending on the kind of animal (such as 3 hp from a toad) is only worth a minor feat (about 3 hp), and easily negated by the threat of xp loss if the animal dies (about -4 hp). The "Greater Familiar" is an attempt to put together a new Familiar that is actually worth something: something players would frequently choose, even over alternative feats.
Haldrik 04-26-04, 03:47 PM	Mith, What do others think about the official Familiar as-is, without any threat in xp? In my estimation, removing the threat does cause the official Familiar to become worth a feat, even a good one. I agree any class should be able to acquire a Familiar if they wish one, especially a Barbarian.
Mith 04-26-04, 03:58 PM	Haldrik, I would never spend a feat to gain a liability. A familiar, even with 50/level XP loss, is a liability. With no XP loss, the familiar is worth spending a feat. With 100/level XP loss, it's worth nothing. With 50/level, maybe 1 HP, at most. And that's being generous. Just drop the XP loss and make it cost a feat. As it is, this feat pretty much sucks unless you were already planning to get Improved Familiar, in which case it gets you what you wanted and reduces the XP loss a little bit.
Thermanshs 04-26-04, 04:50 PM	Haldrik, sorry but that was a terrible judgement of yours...I hope you understood both mine and a few other guys' point on why the familiar is worth much more than a feat slot and you finally come up with this???!!! Terrible judgement! To make my point more clear as a part of this new thread I'll only say this: Why would a player pick alertness,save boost or skill focus in a feat when he could have even more benefit from a familiar?And don't give an excuse like:because of the threat for XP loss...it's your responsibility to keep your familiar safe and if you find it so worthless then keep it out of enemy's sight...that'll make you happy. Also another terrible point: The familiar accessible by every class?I thought it was summoned someway...I agree it would be accessible by spellcasters in general but a fighter should by no means be able to perform such a process. Anyway...sorry for the flame but I think that all our efforts HERE (http://boards1.wizards.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=225021) went to hell!
Roland the Crownbreaker 04-26-04, 05:52 PM	Roland, Changing casting time from full-round to standard action is a negligible advantage. This suggests Unearthed Arcana acknowledges that the official Familiar is nearly worthless I disagree, a spell with one full round of casting time has a great deal of, well, time to be disrupted by someone looking to do so. Reducing it to a standard action makes it much harder to stop.
Haldrik 04-26-04, 06:49 PM	Thermanh, Different players value the Familiar differently. More than a few like it (assigning a high value under certain circumstances), and more than a few dislike it (assigning a negative value). As you know. As for myself, after looking at the Familiar carefully, I feel it is worth about 1 or 2 hp (not valuable) at low levels, but that it improves to merit about 7 or 8 hp (very valuable) at high levels. I also feel the threat of xp loss lessens the Familiar's overall worth. I feel Barbarians should be allowed to take a Familiar as a feat, to represent their special bond with an animal spirit. The Barbarian's familiar however should be combat worthy, like a bear or a wolf, but an eagle or a hawk is also ok because its ability to fly is very valuable and makes up for the lack of combat muscle. Barbarians need to unite spiritually with an animal, thus it would be a Familiar: a bond that is much stronger than just an animal companion.
Haldrik 04-26-04, 06:56 PM	Roland, If I had to choose between a feat that let me cast *all* full-round spells as a standard action and an other feat like Empower, I would not hesitate to take Empower. If I had to choose between casting only Summon spells as a standard action and an extra rank in a skill, I would probably take the extra rank. To me, the slightly less time to cast Summon is not valuable.
ninjarabbit 04-26-04, 07:04 PM	Take the leadership feat if you want a companion.
fractal 04-27-04, 12:21 AM	Originally posted by Haldrik If I had to choose between a feat that let me cast *all* full-round spells as a standard action and an other feat like Empower, I would not hesitate to take Empower. If I had to choose between casting only Summon spells as a standard action and an extra rank in a skill, I would probably take the extra rank. To me, the slightly less time to cast Summon is not valuable. Well, I don't know about the overall value, but in the session we just played tonight, our Druid lost a Summon spell that would otherwise have succeeded, because enemy archers noticed her casting, and targetted her and disrupted the spell. Full round spells that are cast in combat are a definite liability.
Mith 04-27-04, 12:37 AM	I think that ninjarabbit has a good point. Compare the familiar to a cohort, which you could get from the leadership feat. The familiar should add as much mechanical power to your character as a cohort would, whether that power is in scouting and stealth, combat, or spellcasting aid.
Thermanshs 04-27-04, 04:15 AM	Originally posted by Haldrik Thermanh, Different players value the Familiar differently. More than a few like it (assigning a high value under certain circumstances), and more than a few dislike it (assigning a negative value). As you know. As I said in a previous post...a familiar's usefulness DOES exist...whether some players recognize it is a different matter.To better know what I mean suppose that one player runs a 15th level fighter.Suppose that he never carries weapons with him,he only grapples enemies. -Would he be underpowered? Yes -Is he ran badly? Yes -Are there strong points left out of use? Yes -Is it fair to take away his BAB because this player hasn't discovered these strong points that he've left out of use? No Ok guys...this is an exaggerated example but that's how you judged the familiar in some extent...but I won't go on with ways to utilize a familiar as a spy,scout bla...bla... as we've already mentioned them in my previous link and I also think that such uses vary from campaign to campaign. So I only give you a standard benefit for all players that the familiar offers and Haldrik,you left unnoticed. All familiars give either :save bonus+alertness or skill focus+alertness or toughness+alertness or speaks a language+alertness If you forget the last raven's case all other examples give you effectively 2 feats and I'm not counting here all the other benefits a hack n' slasher ignores.These mechanically set the greater familiar overpowered compared to these feats taken individually but wait...it still gives access to the improved familiar feat in progress!!!Time for a revision of your thoughts I think I also feel the threat of xp loss lessens the Familiar's overall worth. As I said before...if you find a familiar such worthless then keep in mind that it's only an animal in an enemy's eyes...that means that it won't be his primary target...despites,it has SR,imp. evasion for the "uncaring" to save their ass while you can still KEEP IT OUT OF COMBAT and still retain ONE OF ITS GRANTED FEATS
Mith 04-27-04, 04:27 AM	Therm, see my posts in TDoA's sorcerer alt thread on familiars and toast. Short story: in an average of 3 encounters with a spellcaster that is a proper CR for your group, your familiar will be toasted.
Thermanshs 04-27-04, 04:35 AM	If your conclusion was that...ok I beleive you...how you came up with that I don't care so recheck my last pararaph.
Mith 04-27-04, 04:43 AM	I'm not sure what you're saying. You want to leave your familiar somewhere where you are not? Regularly? You think that's wise? If you take your familiar with you, odds are eventually it will get killed. All it takes is a couple of AoE spells, or attacks of opportunity, or anything like that that get lucky to wipe the poor little sucker off the face of the planet. Will it make most of its saves? You bet. But eventually it'll miss a save or two, and then it's gone, along with a load of your XP. I guess theoretically you could make arrangements to leave it in town, in which case it is basically one really bad feat, with the odd chance that robbers/accidents/whatever will eventually cost you a load of XP, if your DM feels like screwing you over for leaving it behind.
Thermanshs 04-27-04, 05:00 AM	Answer to all of your statements: Leave it in the branches of a tree above your head and you're done. What YOU'RE saying is that placing a wizard in the front line of combat his familiar wandering in front of your enemie's feet can be disastrous! BIG DEAL!OF COURSE IT IS! So...take care of your familiar and watch the results.I don't know how descriptive your DM is but it's nothing easier than having your familiar hide somewhere when you're in a fight.And if it's a long way from you,telepathic link can help it find it's way to you. Leave it in town?Why not?Do burglars in your area kill cats before pillaging a house?If so... I understand your problem And also take note of the flying familiars...these are effectively invulnerable unless an enemy spellcaster or archer is so stupid that his first focus in a battle is killing the crow! And I still haven't mentioned any protections for both you and your familiar for free!!!!!!!!!!!!!!Mirror image,protection from alignment,blink,displacement...bla...bla ...ever tried these? Especially the mirror image/mage armor/shield are ones of your primary spells in a battle and you can have them affect your familiar as well for free... But please try to get my point and don't post anything like... yes but....what if..... there's always the threat....all I'm saying is that if you're carefull the chances of getting your familiar killed are almost eliminated if your DM feels like screwing you over for leaving it behind. If my DM did something like that...it would mean the end of our gaming meetings... Kill my familiar because he feels like screwing me?No sir! And if I felt like screwing the players(I always master) the problem wouldn't be encountered in the familiar only...it's child's play killing the whole party when you're stepping out of realistic terms
quetzyl 04-27-04, 06:08 AM	I believe, and have always played, that a familiar can take total cover hiding in pocket or pouch in its masters robes. While hidden like that, it cannot be targeted by spells and is not affected by area effect spells (see rules on total cover), and basically cannot be hurt until after its master is dead. Even if your familiar spends its whole life in total cover, it still provides its master with 2 medium quality feats (alertness and skill focus, toughness or save bonus). So at an absolute minimum the familiar is worth two medium quality feats. Cheers, quetzyl
Thermanshs 04-27-04, 06:13 AM	:bow: :thumbsup:
Elrana 04-27-04, 08:13 AM	Originally posted by Roland the Crownbreaker ...they can provide an extra set of eyes, possibly hands. They are not in any way capable of being used in combat though. Except the possibility of low level encounters. I beg to differ, fourteenth level party of two dwarves, as aasimar palladin, a cleric, an elven wizard, a lycanthrope rogue, a half celestial monk and a pale master. 8 14th level characters, work out the CR of our group and the EL we have to, er, encounter to make it a battle worth having. Does that quialify in any way shape or form as low level? Now read this (I have posted it elsewhere but am computer illiterate and don't know how to give a link to the post so I'll just copy and paste. Far easier! :) Last night (Sunday) I proved that the pseudodragon is harder than the broken drow shadowdancer! We had pretty much decimated the six drow rogues and the truly horrid umberhulk that stumbled through the cavern wall into our battle (damn was he surprised!) all that was remaining was the drow leader, a shadowdancer with a ring of greater invisibility. He was getting right on my nerves! No one could find him after he had shadow stepped, the dwarf had 30' blindsight from a magic item (and who wouldn't like that?) but he moved further away than that. Fortunately I have an elven artefact, an intelligent longsword with 120' blindsight and telepathy. The sword told me where he was, about 80' away hiding invisibly in a corner. At the time I was flying about at the ceiling (40' up and too far for ranged sneak attacks, I'm not stupid!) so having lots of movement, and having already failed several penetration checks I charged the bugger using my other sword (icy burst +3 short sword of flaming burst, a present from Corellon's sister). The rest goes like this: DM: Okay roll to attack. Elrana: Okay, that plus that, plus 2 for charging... 30 something. Other player: Is that a crit threat? Elrana: No. Other player: You're a mage! How can you do that? There's something wrong with you! Elrana: Yeah, I know! DM: Roll me a miss chance. Elrana: 96. DM: Well done, you feel your sword slice into something you can't see, roll damage please. Elrana: 6 regular, 3 cold and 2 fire. DM: You're going to be so upset. Elrana: I left the bastard on 0 didn't I? DM: I can't tell you (with a look on his face that says it all) but it's the third time you've done it this fight! Elrana: Git! (Rolls a die) Does 25 hit? DM: You charged, you don't have a second attack. Elrana: Canth is going to bite the bastard. DM: It does, can you roll me a miss chance. Elrana: No. DM: Why not? Elrana: Blindsense. DM: Fair enough, Canth hits, roll damage. Elrana: Canth bites the drow for one damage. DM: The drow falls over. Elrana: Wahay! Canth downs the bad ass drow shadowdancer! I therefore declare, based on empirical evidence, that the pseudodragon is harder than the broken drow shadowdancer! A familiar is no use in combat? We are in the underdark, the drow could have shadow stepped had he not gone down and before we knew it we'd have been overrun with hundreds of the buggers. Although often a familiar is not that useful in combat outside of low levels a psuedodragon inflicting the crucial damage in a high EL encounter kind of disproves your definitive comment. Haldrik: I think you should try to better understand the difference between a familiar and an animal companion. A familiar represents a creature bound to his master through a forged magical link. An animal companion displays a character's affinity with nature and ability to befriend and gain the loyalty of an animal. Which one do you think best suits a barbarian? With regard a feat that allows anyone to gain a familar, no way. I repeat, a familiar is a creature bound by a forged magical link. If you do not have the ability to perform the arcane rites to forge that link you cannot gain a familiar. Black and white, cut and dry, nuff said.
Mith 04-27-04, 10:29 AM	Originally posted by Thermanshs Answer to all of your statements: Leave it in the branches of a tree above your head and you're done. What YOU'RE saying is that placing a wizard in the front line of combat his familiar wandering in front of your enemie's feet can be disastrous! BIG DEAL!OF COURSE IT IS! So...take care of your familiar and watch the results.I don't know how descriptive your DM is but it's nothing easier than having your familiar hide somewhere when you're in a fight.And if it's a long way from you,telepathic link can help it find it's way to you. Leave it in town?Why not?Do burglars in your area kill cats before pillaging a house?If so... I understand your problem And also take note of the flying familiars...these are effectively invulnerable unless an enemy spellcaster or archer is so stupid that his first focus in a battle is killing the crow! And I still haven't mentioned any protections for both you and your familiar for free!!!!!!!!!!!!!!Mirror image,protection from alignment,blink,displacement...bla...bla ...ever tried these? Especially the mirror image/mage armor/shield are ones of your primary spells in a battle and you can have them affect your familiar as well for free... But please try to get my point and don't post anything like... yes but....what if..... there's always the threat....all I'm saying is that if you're carefull the chances of getting your familiar killed are almost eliminated If my DM did something like that...it would mean the end of our gaming meetings... Kill my familiar because he feels like screwing me?No sir! And if I felt like screwing the players(I always master) the problem wouldn't be encountered in the familiar only...it's child's play killing the whole party when you're stepping out of realistic terms So, your meatshields always manage to prevent anything at all from getting past them? Nothing ever breaks through to take down the spellcaster? And none of your enemies ever use AoE spells? As far as whether something bad could happen to the familiar at home - apparently you only adventure with characters in their mid to upper teen levels, going from all the abilities you list the familiar as having, as if you actually get those early. So, in other words, your characters are legendary heroes, with lots of enemies. And leaving your familiar alone in your home seems like a wise idea to you? Hope you plan to blow half your treasure getting a house with all types of defenses to leave the poor little bugger in, because otherwise somebody will stop by and off him.
Haldrik 04-27-04, 11:19 AM	Elrana: With regard a feat that allows anyone to gain a familar, no way. I repeat, a familiar is a creature bound by a forged magical link. If you do not have the ability to perform the arcane rites to forge that link you cannot gain a familiar. Black and white, cut and dry, nuff said. Definitely, definitely, the Barbarian has a Familiar! The situation is "black and white" that the Barbarian's Familiar must be a Familiar and cannot be an Animal Companion. The Read my post in *The Familar Foundation* about the concept of the concept of the animal spirit of the Barbarians (berserks) in the Viking world. I did not go into detail about the magical ceremonies that took place during the initiation rites for the Barbarian to bond with the animal spriit, but the Barbarian is definitely, definitely "forging a magical link". My post does go into detail about how the Barbarian's Familiar is actually an extension of the Barbarian's own lifeforce, a form of astral projection, and not a normal animal companion. The Barbarian employs the exact same Familiar that the Witch (seidh) does.
tarkin 04-27-04, 11:23 AM	I have no problem with a feat to get a familiar. That sounds appropriate, but wierd. I DO have a problem with you having one feat grant 3 feats A single feat should grant a familiar. It should NOT also grant Improved familiar and ALSO grant reduced xp penalties on the feath of the familiar. Those are three seperate feats that you wrapped up and pushed into one. In fact it is even generous to let you get all your class levels count towards the familiar. But I think that is acceptable. P.S. A strict DM would also put in a pre-req for getting the familiar of having a spell-like or supernatural ability.
tarkin 04-27-04, 11:23 AM	I have no problem with a feat to get a familiar. That sounds appropriate, but wierd. I DO have a problem with you having one feat grant 3 feats A single feat should grant a familiar. It should NOT also grant Improved familiar and ALSO grant reduced xp penalties on the feath of the familiar. Those are three seperate feats that you wrapped up and pushed into one. In fact it is even generous to let you get all your class levels count towards the familiar. But I think that is acceptable. P.S. A strict DM would also put in a pre-req for getting the familiar of having a spell-like or supernatural ability.
Haldrik 04-27-04, 11:24 AM	Anyway, even people who love the Familiar need to respect those who don't, IMO. They deserve to have something else that they love in its place. Making the Familiar a feat is the best solution for everybody. Those who love it take the feat. Those who don't take something they do love. The problem now is to come up with a Familiar feat that is fair, so that most Familiar fans don't feel cheated out of a feat when they choose the Familiar.
Thermanshs 04-27-04, 11:56 AM	Mith,you're ignoring more than half of my reply to you....that's bad...so,commenting that about safety in your own home I have to tell you that in a real world...no man will chase your familiar even if you leave it in a sewer...I can't see why you're so overcautious about your familiar being left alone,it's small enough to hide and intelligent to take care of itself by its own.... this subject finished...I can't insist anymore on such an obvious matter like this. For the other part when your familiar is close to combat: You're still forgetting many factors that can keep your familiar safe if you don't want it deliver some attacks of opportunity and still tend to ignore them when we post them in front of your eyes. factor1:total cover,simple...from hiding in a tree to cover inside your robes factor2:size very small factor3:disguised like an animal=unlike to draw attention factor4:all protections that affect YOU can affect the familiar for FREE! factor5:it's intelligent enough to take good positions in a battlefield(unless you're talking about a 30x30ft completely empty room) and take actions by itself without your commands(move equivalent to command an animal companion) factor6:I need a little help with this but if I got it well does AoE mean area effect?If that was it then I ensure you that all these flexible beasts armed with improved evasion will never be harmed seriously factor7: POLYMORPH!!!!try a Rhemoraz...you can turn yourself into an ogre mage and your familiar into this beast for free by 7th level.str bonus,con bonus,regains lost HP, while it still retains SR and imp evasion,intelligence and wisdom factor8:it's HP are made to resist at least one hit from a strong fighter and still stand on its feet factor9:some of them can fly factor10:if all else fails there's still the rope trick's sanctum I would also like to remind you that I never talked of a familiar being so lucky that it never gets caught by the enemy...all I tried to tell you is that if you're wise and carefull enough you can make it "ALMOST" invulnerable. Haldrik:I'm still waiting for your response...if you want a final agreement from both sides you have to count all these I've shown you above
Elrana 04-27-04, 12:47 PM	Originally posted by Haldrik Greater Familiar Benefit: You gain a Familiar (as described in the Wizard's class features). All class levels stack to determine the benefits of your familiar. At 7th level, you automatically gain Improved Familiar as a bonus feat. If your familiar dies, you lose only half as much experience as you otherwise would have (100 xp/level on a failed save, 50 xp/level on a successful save). Suppose the only way to get a familiar is to use a feat slot. Do you think the above feat is worth a feat slot? If you normally have a Familiar, would you use a feat to get this one? Any suggestions for modifications? The wizard class features describes familiar as: A wizard can obtain a familiar in exactly the same way as a sorcerer can. See the Sorcerer description and the accompanying familiar sidebar for details. I'd probably cut out the middle man and let the reader go to sorcerer, do not pass wizard, do not collect a familiar unless you are a wizard or sorcerer! ;) My modifications would be: requirement: able to have a familiar as a class ability, Improved Familar feat (not necessarily actually an improved familiar though). All arcane spellcaster level stack when determining benefits. That would make this a feat that low level wizards/sorcerers with PrC levels might take.
Haldrik 04-27-04, 12:53 PM	Thermanhs: Haldrik:I'm still waiting for your response. About the factors? "factor1: total cover, simple ... from hiding in a tree to ... inside your robes" I have one Wizard with a familiar, a hawk. He is almost always indoors or underground. The hawk seldom has cover and never "camouflage" among other animals. The hawk in a room is always a target, and always at risk from attacks of opportunity. Always. If it's hiding inside my backpack, then it is not being useful. "factor2: size very small" My halk is small, but not very small. Its wings span over 4 ft! "factor3: disguised like an animal=unlike to draw attention" A hawk in a room does draw attention. Lots! "factor4: all protections that affect YOU can affect the familiar for FREE!" Helps, but not enough to feel safe. "factor5: it's intelligent enough ... in a battlefield (unless you're talking about a 30x30ft completely empty room)" Exactly, 30x30 ft room is normal in all the campaigns my Wizard has been in. "factor6: I need a little help with this but if I got it well does AoE mean area effect? If that was it then I ensure you that all these flexible beasts armed with improved evasion will never be harmed seriously" Damage spells with Area of Effect: So few hit points, even Evasion is not enough to feel safe. (Personally, I think Familiars that have total concealment by hiding inside bags do not have enough room to maneuver, cannot have a Dex bonus on AC, and cannot use Evasion.) "factor7: POLYMORPH!!!! try a Rhemoraz...you can turn yourself into an ogre mage and your familiar into this beast for free by 7th level.str bonus,con bonus,regains lost HP, while it still retains SR and imp evasion,intelligence and wisdom" This is where our discussions are coming from totally different directions. You assume the Familiar is already at full power and that its owner is at a very high level. I assume the opposite. The Familiar cannot reach a high level if it dies. Therefore, the low level Familiar is the only one that matters in this discussion! Low level Wizards cannot polymorph their Familiar, cannot buff them well, and their Familiars do not have SR. High level Familiars are valuable companions (SR does improve their value), but low level Familiars are dinner. "factor8: it's HP are made to resist at least one hit from a strong fighter and still stand on its feet" No way! Not at low levels. The Wizard is not able to stand on his feet, let alone the Familiar with half the Wizard's hp! "factor9: some of them can fly" Yes, truly valuable. However often worthless underground or indoors. "factor10: if all else fails there's still the rope trick's sanctum" This is not the solution to the problem of a Familiar.
Haldrik 04-27-04, 01:08 PM	Elrana: My modifications would be: requirement: able to have a familiar as a class ability. Fair enough, but personally I don't see the need to restrict the Familiar to certain classes. For me the biggest issue is the xp threat. Mith brought up the point that people don't want to use up a feat slot to buy an xp liability. It's a fair comment.
Thermanshs 04-27-04, 01:40 PM	Haldrik.... no,I wasn't talking about my factors but my response to you before quoting Mith.However you can consider these as well if you like...it doesn't step out of topic... All I can see from both yours and some other guys gaming experience is that you are unable to solve such a simple matter... Is it finally SO difficult finding a place to get your familiar covered?Even a fallen table could do in a room!!! And please...read before posting....you still tend to ignore my key points... do you mean that you still have your hawk targeted by ranged attackers in the middle of a battle?If you ask me I find this totally out of reality. You also said that a familiar is worthless indoors or underground. From what I can assume of this is that your DM fails to describe places well enough to get what you want so..... Take a look around your room where you're typing now and think of how many places a hawk could take cover.... I can see more than 5 in mine ;) Also an underground terrain is even more messy!Pits,holes,dark areas,stalactites/stalagmites....you're an archeologist damn you!take a look of an unerground tomb!!!!
Cardinal Teplin 04-27-04, 01:57 PM	Haldrik said: I assume the opposite. The Familiar cannot reach a high level if it dies. Therefore, the low level Familiar is the only one that matters in this discussion! Low level Wizards cannot polymorph their Familiar, cannot buff them well, and their Familiars do not have SR. This isn't quite true. The strength of the familiar is the _owner's_ level. There is no need to summon a familiar at all at low level if you feel they are a liability. I never do. I very much like the improved familiar feat, so I usually wait until 7th level and get something good. And my 17th level Sorcerer has a fire mephit who is very very useful. If nothing else, he's smarter than my character is, and has better skills. I'm in two minds about the feat suggested. I like what you are trying to do, but the feat as listed simply makes improved familiar better. Imp familiar is proably ok as it is, it is the basic familiar that is more of a problem.
Elrana 04-27-04, 02:02 PM	"....you're an archeologist damn you!take a look of an unerground tomb!!!!" At the risk of destroying any romantic images people may have picked up, as an archaeologist myself, I have to tell you, you'd be really surprised at just how little time archaeologists actually spend in underground tombs! Trenches full of mud, yep, spend a fair amount of time there. Pubs. You can't keep a decent archaeologist out of the pub, that one's a given. Small dusty rooms writing long numbers onto small finds in unfeasibly tiny writing. We do a lot of that. But tombs. In all fairness it's never been a part of my job description!
Thermanshs 04-27-04, 02:09 PM	Interesting comment but I didn't mean an archaeologist needed to be present in an ancient tomb to know how he looks like...there MUST be pictures in all those endless books you use And cardinal Teplin is correct,you can get full benefit from a gamiliar at whatever level you may summon it.
Haldrik 04-27-04, 02:14 PM	Cardinal Teplin: I'm in two minds about the feat suggested. I like what you are trying to do, but the feat as listed simply makes improved familiar better. Imp familiar is proably ok as it is, it is the basic familiar that is more of a problem. Write down what you would consider to be the ideal Familiar feat. (This goes for everybody!)
Mith 04-27-04, 02:24 PM	Originally posted by Thermanshs ...Take a look around your room where you're typing now and think of how many places a hawk could take cover.... Oh, I can see a few. However, one fireball and everyone and everything in this room is toast. Definitely including any hawks hiding in the corners. Hmmm. I need to get Tony Vargas in here on your case for saying that a familiar will never be targetted. He's in another thread claiming that a spellbook can realistically be targetted. At least if you nuke a familiar, there's a 20% chance that the character immediately loses a level.
Elrana 04-27-04, 02:27 PM	"Write down what you would consider to be the ideal Familiar feat." Invulnerable Familiar Need I say more! In all fairness I am perfectly happy as I am. I think familiars work really well as they are. The only thing that I think would be handy in an ideal realm would be if, as an intelligent creature, your familiar could get the benefits of hit die increase, potentially even class level. Perhaps some kind of leadership/improved familiar hybrid. You can use leadership to attract a mount, so why not use it to allow your familiar to improve beyond the norm. I would still only apply it to wizards and sorcerers.
Thermanshs 04-27-04, 02:43 PM	Mith...having 9/10 total cover "RESULTS" the same like having imp.evasion but doesn't "WORK" likewise. Having total cover means that you are unaffected by area attacks(or attacks in general)since you're totally covered behind something.So youdon't need to be in open space to effectively use your reflexes the way it works with evasion... so my answer is no...getting total cover can keep a fireball's burst off your ass because all the energy is absorbed by the surface that grants you cover...simple physics my friend that you tend to ignore just to justify your statements. And if there still is no place to take cover lets say that you're being attacked by a wizard of 5th level.His fireball's damage would be 5d6 or 18 rounded up on average.Your familiar would then have half your 5th level caster's (because that's an appropriate encounter for your level) HP which are on average 10(assuming that the wizard has a +1 con modifier).So the damage dealt on it would be: 9 at worst or none at best Haldrik: Unfortunately I currently don't have time to post my suggestions for a feat like that so wait till tomorrow :(
Haldrik 04-27-04, 04:00 PM	Elrana: As an intelligent creature, your familiar could get the benefits of ... class level. LOL! My hawk would take levels in Barbarian to get some hp!
Mith 04-27-04, 07:09 PM	Originally posted by Thermanshs Mith...having 9/10 total cover "RESULTS" the same like having imp.evasion but doesn't "WORK" likewise. You don't seem to understand how cover works in 3.5, and you obviously have no clue how Fireball works. Read the bloody description of fireball: it is not, I repeat IS NOT an explosion governed by physics. There is no pressure generated - it's just an expanding area that is filled with fire. I could hypothesize that the spell creates a resonance with the elemental plane of fire within the area, but that has no basis in text - it's simply a theory that fits the description given. Total cover can grant you immunity to attacks from a fireball, but remember: A) fireball automatically affects unattended objects, and wood is easy to burn through; B) You have to have total cover from everywhere in the room that the caster can see, or he can still catch you by firing the fireball to a point from which you don't have total cover. The attacker always has an advantage. I'm not saying that this will happen every time you take your familiar - most likely, you will manage to stave off your little buddy's death a vast majority of the time. However, all it takes is once that you get unlucky, and all of a sudden you're in the midden. You have no familiar, no bonuses, you lose XP, you get a load of penalties, and you have to wait a year and a day to get a new familiar, if you haven't yet learned your lesson.
Elrana 04-27-04, 07:31 PM	Spend 1,500gp on a brooch of shielding. Put it on a chain. Hang it around your familiar's neck. Magic Missile is probably the single most dangerous spell for your familiar. Trust me on this one. I am talking from experience! On the sombre and disturbing subject of familiars dying, do I remember correctly or is this some strange memory I've made up: in 2ed wasn't there a system shock roll versus horrible fate that you had to make if your familiar was killed? Whatever happened to that? It made all manner of good sense and realistic response.
Northwest 04-27-04, 09:21 PM	I would like to see the familiar have more impact on some of the caster's magic ability. Like in the Steven Brust Jhereg novels maybe. His familiar helped him maintain focus during some long rituals. Could be useful for the incantations in UA or maybe someway to help apply metamagic feats to spells. HIs familiar, btw, would definitely have been an improved familiar. Flying, poison, telepathy. It was helpful in combat, of course, familiars in novels never get hit. :D
Thermanshs 04-28-04, 12:12 AM	Originally posted by Mith Read the bloody description of fireball: it is not, I repeat IS NOT an explosion governed by physics. There is no pressure generated - it's just an expanding area that is filled with fire. I could hypothesize that the spell creates a resonance with the elemental plane of fire within the area, but that has no basis in text - it's simply a theory that fits the description given. Total cover can grant you immunity to attacks from a fireball, but remember: A) fireball automatically affects unattended objects, and wood is easy to burn through; B) You have to have total cover from everywhere in the room that the caster can see, or he can still catch you by firing the fireball to a point from which you don't have total cover. Who spoke about a fireball generating pressure upon the victim? You yourself described that it's an expanding area so anything that intervenes within the center point(target) and the victim effectively stops the fire from expanding beyond that surface...simple Oh...and about the thing you said that fireball can set things on fire take a look at this please: From the 3,5 SRD Catching on Fire Characters exposed to burning oil, bonfires, and noninstantaneous magic fires might find their clothes, hair, or equipment on fire. Spells with an instantaneous duration don’t normally set a character on fire, since the heat and flame from these come and go in a flash. I'll say no more...
fractal 04-28-04, 02:20 AM	About Familiar fatality: If a targetted effect like Magic Missile could knock out the familiar, it could also take off half of the caster's hp. If it could kill the familiar, it could take out half of the caster's hp + 10. Although my casters value their familiars, if an attack dealing that much damage is aimed someplace else, they're not going to complain. As far as area attack spells go... the familiar and the caster probably have about equal saves. The familiar, however, has Improved Evasion. This means that if both the familiar and the master fail their saves, they both lose an equal percentage of their max hp. They'll fall unconscious at the same time (and the master will die first). If both the familiar and the master make their saves, the familiar takes no damage at all. The only case where the familiar is at risk of death but the master is not is if the master makes his save while the familiar fails his. This should happen at most 1/4 of the time, and only in circumstances where the master was, on average, expected to die. [Edit] If the master has sufficient Rogue or Monk levels to also have Improved Evasion, of course, then the Familiar is in greater danger than the master from an area attack.
Thermanshs 04-28-04, 06:47 AM	Exactly Fractal... So if your familiar is in trouble then the caster is in even more trouble....it's not your familiar to blame if you are unlucky or not careful enough to stand in the middle of the combat ground having firepower directed at your side
Mith 04-28-04, 08:24 AM	Therm, you are completely wrong. A) You claimed that fireball was an explosion governed by physics. I pointed out that this is clearly BS, from the text of the spell. B) Whether or not the items catch on fire, they automatically take full initial damage. In other words, if your familiar is crouching beind a table when a 35 point fireball goes off in front of it, the fireball will automatically burn through 3 inches of table. You should learn the actual rules before you go spouting off about how hard it is to kill something.
Thermanshs 04-28-04, 08:45 AM	Originally posted by Mith Therm, you are completely wrong. A) You claimed that fireball was an explosion governed by physics. I pointed out that this is clearly BS, from the text of the spell. B) Whether or not the items catch on fire, they automatically take full initial damage. In other words, if your familiar is crouching beind a table when a 35 point fireball goes off in front of it, the fireball will automatically burn through 3 inches of table. You should learn the actual rules before you go spouting off about how hard it is to kill something. The way you mess my words is really funny.:D I didn't say that a firebal is governed by physics.I did say though that if a surface intervenes between the point of the explosion and your familiar then the familiar has cover...how much cover depends on the occasion however a familiar is small enough to take total cover from a small table.So if you have total cover against an area attack you are immune to this effect. Take a fighter with a tower shield for example(the tower shield's description says that it can grant you cover).If a fighter gets totally behind a tower shield then he has total cover (if there's no line to connect both squares) and therefore is immune to the fireball's effect.Is the shield burned?I don't think so as I haven't seen any rules about your tower shield being damaged by area attacks and fire damage doesn't necessarily mean catching fire or being burned...many chemical reactions can produce huge thermal amounts without a minor flash. So relate the fighter with the shield example with a familiar behind a table(although tables aren't the ONLY places a familiar may hide,pits,holes,piles,wardrobes etc...are far better places to hide than a simple flat surface)...and see how much protection it gains by such means...
Thermanshs 04-28-04, 08:58 AM	And also Mith you haven't checked Fractal's comment about area attacks. To sum them up we came to the conclusion that if a spellcaster uses an AoE spell against you then the caster is in even more danger than his familiar is...so area effect spells are a more general problem NOT EXCLUSIVELY ENCOUNTERED ON FAMILIARS. Anyway it's encouraging for me to see that the field of our argue has "thinned" very much and now has the form of AoE spells only.
Mith 04-28-04, 09:11 AM	Originally posted by Thermanshs ...simple physics my friend that you tend to ignore just to justify your statements. And I'm not restircting the discussion to AoE spells, I'm simply responding to your false claims about that specific aspect of the discussion, because I haven't yet had time to type up a coherent presentation of other ways for your familiar to die. And as far as the Tower Shield not burning, that's because it's not unattended. RTDR, Therm. You need to update your knowledge on cover, unattended objects, area spells, hardness, and item hit points. Edit: forgot a "not" there. Yeah, that's confusing.
Cardinal Teplin 04-28-04, 09:53 AM	>And as far as the Tower Shield not burning, that's because it's unattended. Ok, now I'm confused. A tower sheild is unattended? How? I usually just stick the familiar in a backpack. Or to be precise, I put the things I actually need into a holding pocket of some kind, and then use the backpack for the familiar. Is this wrong?
Cardinal Teplin 04-28-04, 09:56 AM	I'd like to see some variation on imbdue familiar with spell (T&B)ability as a feat. It makes more sense as a feat than a spell. Mind you, I'd also like familiars to get feats, but hey.
Elrana 04-28-04, 10:24 AM	Originally posted by Cardinal Teplin I'd like to see some variation on imbdue familiar with spell (T&B)ability as a feat. It makes more sense as a feat than a spell. Mind you, I'd also like familiars to get feats, but hey. After considering this thread for some time I came to a very similar conclusion. Hence, I have just finished developing a new spell which will allow a familiar to better aid a mage when in a dangerous combat scenario: Elrana’s Exploding Familiar Evocation (Fire) Level: Sor/Wiz 1 Components: V, S, M Casting Time: 1 standard action Range: Up to one mile Area: 30 ft. radius spread Duration: Instantaneous Saving Throw: Reflex half Spell Resistance: Yes Elrana’s Exploding Familiar is a spell for that last ditch attempt when the caster has no choice but to make a desperate act in a hopeless bid for survival. Upon casting the caster’s familiar, if within one mile, immediately explodes dealing 1d10 points of fire damage per caster level (no maximum) to every creature within the area. You simply instruct your familiar to make his way to a particular point and once he reaches it clap your hands together. The force of the explosion is so great that it even deals damage to objects within the area and all creatures and loose objects are blown to the edge of the area of effect (a successful reflex save halves the damage and negates the involuntary travel). The familiar suffers immediate death upon the casting of this spell and the caster suffers all the usual penalties connected with such an unhappy occurrence (see PHB page 54). This spell is compatible with all Metamagic feat effects except Repeat Spell (aside from when two or more casters cast this spell in conjunction using the Cooperative Spell feat. Even in these circumstances a second familiar must be present for the repeated effect to occur). Eschew Materials may not be applied to this spell. Material Component: A familiar. I like it. I wouldn't use it myself but you can if you want to. It certainly allows your familiar to have a bigger impact on the game!
Thermanshs 04-28-04, 12:28 PM	Originally posted by Mith And I'm not restircting the discussion to AoE spells, I'm simply responding to your false claims about that specific aspect of the discussion, because I haven't yet had time to type up a coherent presentation of other ways for your familiar to die. Oh really?I can tell you more than 20! The questions are:is that the purpose of this thread?are we talking about what dangers a familiar faces in an AVERAGE campaign?would they be realistic and objective enough or just another form of bad DMing?(which I presume you've fallen into...) To put it in a more general basis: The DM's voice is all of the player's senses in one: smell,listening,vision bla...bla So if you don't have a clear view of HOW can you utilize the terrain as to protect your familiar (you should watch me looking for my hamster last night) you will ALWAYS argue about having your familiar dying in the middle of an encounter because all you could visualize from that scene was only the standard grid battlefield. You tend to ignore all these secure places a familiar can get to and stay unharmed just because they aren't shown in the player's handbook but other guys in here showed you. Some really clever of those were hiding inside a backpack,under a robe,on a tree etc. So...you don't need any gaming experience to find ways to protect such a small animal...all you need is to put your imagination to work.Let's get real here and see what a familiar can offer besides its role in a battle,which unfortunately is the only thing that counts for you(at least as you've shown me) Haldrik:You still have said no word about my 2nd post on the 1st page... and some of my discussions with Mith have something teach YOU as well,so please take these into serious consideration before giving such a feat
Khazra 04-28-04, 12:37 PM	I would EASILY give 8-10 hp, quite possibly MORE, for the animal companion. it is quite useful, but sadly it still sucks compared to summoning. Try telling that to a level 20 druid with a dire tiger, tyranosaurus or advanced (insert type) bear companion. I'd never give up my polar bear animal companion, he kicks but! Especially that my DM is going to allow me to awaken him & have him as a cohort when we go epic gain,allowing him to gain class HD (barbarian levels, fanged ring, permenant enlarge animal +str increases). Thats gonna kick what ever u summons arse. Anyone who wants a combat familiar should use a polymorph any object permenat or use a ritual! Improved familiar is a wasted feat P.S. sorry to go off topic, that comment annoyed me!
Elrana 04-28-04, 12:47 PM	Originally posted by Khazra Anyone who wants a combat familiar should use a polymorph any object permenat or use a ritual! Improved familiar is a wasted feat P.S. sorry to go off topic, that comment annoyed me! Or send him into the middle of the enemy camp and make him explode! I feel that that should be mentioned at this point! If a familiar is as useless and feeble as people keep pointing out then why not? I'm sure you could kill enough enemies with him to cover the XP loss and more.
Thermanshs 04-28-04, 12:54 PM	Originally posted by Mith RTDR, Therm. You need to update your knowledge on cover, unattended objects, area spells, hardness, and item hit points. Edit: forgot a "not" there. Yeah, that's confusing. Ok dude found it!!! go on page 175 in the PH 3,5. It's in the second column in the middle of it. Here's what it says: A burst spell affects...bla...bla...It can't affect creatures with total cover from its point of origin(in other words it doesnt extend around corners) it's right there...exactly as I've stated it before only that it uses a wall instead of a table as the surface of your cover. Are you convinced now:rolleyes: ?
Mith 04-28-04, 01:55 PM	Dude, I already said that. Now watch very carefully, I'll try this one more time for you: THE FIREBALL CAN STILL AFFECT YOUR COVER, AND BURN THROUGH IT. THE FIREBALL CAN BE FIRED TO PLACE FROM WHICH YOU DO NOT HAVE FULL COVER. IT IS'NT ENOUGH TO HAVE FULL COVER FROM THE CASTER, YOU ALSO HAVE TO HAVE FULL COVER FROM ANYWHERE HE COULD TARGET.
Thermanshs 04-28-04, 02:23 PM	Burn through it?I don't think so...if it's hard to set a simple cloth on fire then it's 100 times harder to burn through a wooden surface. Which is an obvious fact that you still ignored. And the area effect of a fireball would be one that could take burn the party...not directed on a point to burn the familiar,the wizard's (and therefore the familiar's) position in combat has nothing to do with the front liners or even with the central backup(at least a caster with real brains will try to affect THESE targets FIRST)...not just shooting at the crow... Another pretty obvious fact...;)
Mirror, Mirror 04-28-04, 03:46 PM	Can a toad not fit in a pack? Seems like that would protect it quite nicely. And it should not need to make a save from an AoE spell, unless you make EVERY SINGLE ITEM carried by the player make a save.
Thermanshs 04-28-04, 03:49 PM	Yes...but some people are just stuck on their inconsistent ideas:rolleyes:
Mith 04-28-04, 04:33 PM	Originally posted by Thermanshs Burn through it?I don't think so...if it's hard to set a simple cloth on fire then it's 100 times harder to burn through a wooden surface. Which is an obvious fact that you still ignored. And the area effect of a fireball would be one that could take burn the party...not directed on a point to burn the familiar,the wizard's (and therefore the familiar's) position in combat has nothing to do with the front liners or even with the central backup(at least a caster with real brains will try to affect THESE targets FIRST)...not just shooting at the crow... Another pretty obvious fact...;) Ther, you still don't seem to get it: The fire ball doesn't set things on fire, it DEALS DAMAGE TO THEM AS PART OF THE SPELL EFFECT.
Haldrik 04-28-04, 05:13 PM	Haldrik: You still have said no word about my 2nd post on the 1st page. Thermanh, I looked for what you're referring to. As far as I can tell I did address the issues you mentioned. For example, when I say the (Basic) Familiar is worthless, I mean it is worthless at low levels. I don't think it is worthless at high levels. I mentioned the different values depending on level in one of my posts. Also, I mentioned how any benefit from the Alertness feat + one other minor feat depending on the animal, is negated by the detriment of excessive xp loss if the Familiar dies. If there is an issue I missed, just post cut and paste it again, and I'll make sure I respond.
Haldrik 04-28-04, 05:17 PM	Khazra: Anyone who wants a combat familiar should use a polymorph any object permanent or use a ritual! Improved familiar is a wasted feat. This is a seriously good suggestion (even if it doesn't alter hp).
Thermanshs 04-28-04, 06:22 PM	Originally posted by Haldrik Thermanh, I looked for what you're referring to. As far as I can tell I did address the issues you mentioned. For example, when I say the (Basic) Familiar is worthless, I mean it is worthless at low levels. I don't think it is worthless at high levels. I mentioned the different values depending on level in one of my posts. Also, I mentioned how any benefit from the Alertness feat + one other minor feat depending on the animal, is negated by the detriment of excessive xp loss if the Familiar dies. If there is an issue I missed, just post cut and paste it again, and I'll make sure I respond. So I assume that my duscussion with Mith(although in a high tone) meant nothing to you...you're still blind for my key points
Haldrik 04-28-04, 06:35 PM	Thermanh, So I assume that my duscussion with Mith(although in a high tone) meant nothing to you...you're still blind for my key points I'm not "blind", I just see more than just these points. The discussion between Mith and you is important because you each represent an opposite perspective. You both have good points, of course. So far the discussion has focused on how likely is the Familiar to die. The more likely the fatality, the less the Familiar is worth and the more terrible the xp liability becomes. Unfortunately, the Familiar's life expectancy will change drastically from campaign to campaign. The Familiar needs to be designed to cope with either extreme because either extreme will happen for some one somewhere. The Familiar must not become too powerful in a favorable campaign, and it must not automatically die in an unfavorable campaign. I also tend to agree with the thought that the Improved Familiar is fine, already. It's just the basic Familiar - and only at low levels - that really needs help.
Mirror, Mirror 04-28-04, 06:41 PM	Originally posted by Mith Ther, you still don't seem to get it: The fire ball doesn't set things on fire, it DEALS DAMAGE TO THEM AS PART OF THE SPELL EFFECT. If the wooden door is locked, would you let a Fireball destroy the door? Would the damage then pass beyond the door into the room? If so, can I play in one of your games? I'll play a sorcerer who LOVES fireball...
Haldrik 04-28-04, 06:43 PM	The advantage of making the basic Familiar a feat is that it becomes its own punishment if the Familiar dies. The feat slot remains dormant, perhaps for "a year and a day", until the character can get the new Familiar. No character who uses a feat to get a Familiar will let that Familiar die. At the same time, if it does die, and if there is no loss in xp, the death will not be as catastrophic as it is now. Thus, Familiar feat + no xp loss seems to solve all the issues: It is optional for those who want a Familiar. It has no bearing on those who don't want one. It is certainly worth a feat when you remove the xp threat. The Familiar is no more or less powerful than it is now, so there is no change in gaming balance. If the Familiar dies, you basically lose your feat until you resurrect the Familiar or wait for a new one. The loss of a Familiar is painful, but not catastrophic. So it seems more fair.
Thermanshs 04-28-04, 06:47 PM	Originally posted by Haldrik Unfortunately, the Familiar's life expectancy will change drastically from campaign to campaign. And here's my objection:a familiar's fatality depends on the most part on the player.If he misuses it messing a familiar's role with that of an animal companion then he deserves losing levels. Take another look at my fighter's(1st page,2nd post) example and let's speak again later... As for whose points were justified on my debate...I think I made myself clear.Go on and give me ONE of my suggestions to protect your familiar (and effectively make it almost invulnerable) that didn't make sense to you
Thermanshs 04-28-04, 06:52 PM	pointless double post
Thermanshs 04-28-04, 06:53 PM	Originally posted by Haldrik Thus, Familiar feat + no xp loss seems to solve all the issues: It is optional for those who want a Familiar. It has no bearing on those who don't want one. It is certainly worth a feat when you remove the xp threat. That's when your feat's power goes crazy!!!Removing the xp penalty?I told you that it is overpowered as identical with the wizard's feature and you make it even more appealing?No way! And if you noticed,you're here to gather opinions and most of them here think of your feat being overpowered or useless at best...why did you post it if you're going straight as you initially designed it no matter what we say? and Mirror Mirror : :rofl:
Haldrik 04-28-04, 07:45 PM	Thermanh, (The Familiar) is (already) overpowered ... and you make it even more appealing (with your feat written in the first post of this thread)? No way! I don't agree. The Familiar is powerful, but not that powerful. I would estimate the Familiar's value as follows: Benefit for Owner 2½ hit points = Alertness 1½ hit points = minor feat (+2 save, +3 hp, +3 skill ranks, or so on) Benefit for Animal 2 hit points = Evasion 2 hit points = Improved Evasion 1 hit point = Touch Spell Delivery Potentially, the total value is quite high, about 9. However, in reality it does not seem to realize its potential. For example, the benefit to the owner (about 4 hp) is immediately negated by the threat of xp loss (about minus 4 hp). How much is negated depends on how hostile a campaign setting is to the Familiar. So we are more or less left with the Familiar's value on its own. It has some cool things. Evasion is *powerful*! However, when its hp are too low, the full potential is not exploitable. A combat animal (like Animal Companion) if it had Evasion would *rock*! However a non-combat animal like the Familiar with Evasion is no better than a magic item that you also have to feed. Its touch spell delivery is suicide if it has too few hp. Attacks of Opportunity can mean instant death at low levels. These AoO prevent mobility for a Familiar who is trying to avoid combat! If the Familiar has too few hit points, it is basically an intelligent magic item with a couple of minor abilities like Alertness, but that is also "cursed" with the addictive threat of xp withdrawal. I have taken a Familiar at 1st level, my hawk. I would never do this again, if the Familiar continues to be the way it is. I would wait until 7th level for Improved Familiar because at low levels the Familiar is worthless, IMO. I've always played campaigns that are adverse to Familiars because: they are underground or indoors, intelligent monsters fight strategically and aim for vulnerabilities like a Familiar, (we take turns DMing) and (one of us *loves*) bizarro sci-fi traps. Traps, like illusioned gate to the negative material plane, snuf out Familiars regularly. Doors of "Harm" bring instant death if touched in anyway, and so on! I would rather have fewer abilities, moderately more hit points, and no threat of xp loss. A little bit more like Animal Companion, which most people agree is useful. Most (posters) ... think of your feat (as written in the first post) being overpowered or useless at best. .. Why did you post it if you're going straight as you initially designed it no matter what we say? I wanted to see how people respond to the feat as written. We have to start somewhere. I agree, the feat can probably be better. As far as I can tell, it's more necessary to focus on the basic Familiar (not the Improved Familiar) and worry about its viability at 1st level when it becomes available. If you or others come up with a better feat, and there is somewhat of a consensus (at least a momentum), I'll update the first post of the thread with the new feat, and we can discuss it from there.
Thermanshs 04-28-04, 08:06 PM	quote: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- (The Familiar) is (already) overpowered ... and you make it even more appealing (with your feat written in the first post of this thread)? No way! -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- You're messing with my words... my sentence was rather meant to be like this: The "feat" that grants a familiar is overpowered....bla...bla... Originally posted by Haldrik Benefit for Owner 2½ hit points = Alertness bla...bla... this is a system of yours in which I don't like to mess with...it may be subjective favoring your side and I haven't even studied it However, in reality it does not seem to realize its potential. For example, the benefit to the owner (about 4 hp) is immediately negated by the threat of xp loss (about minus 4 hp). How much is negated depends on how hostile a campaign setting is to the Familiar. And I told (and proved you) that a familiar is almost invulnerable.Thing you STILL IGNORE So we are more or less left with the Familiar's value on its own. It has some cool things. Evasion is *powerful*! bla...bla... Oh! NOW I can see what you mean! you're a hack n' slasher too as you haven't made the slightest reference of what a familiar can offer OUT OF COMBAT. I've always played campaigns that are adverse to Familiars because: they are underground or indoors =even more suitable setting to keep your familiar alive as I've shown you on page 2 intelligent monsters fight strategically and aim for vulnerabilities like a Familiar So next time you'll have to face my wizard armed with any of my instant killer tricks(I hope you've taken a carefull look in my "a wizard's hidden power" (http://boards1.wizards.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=185835) thread...I'd advise you to think of it again...shoot my familiar and risk your head?And I still haven't counted all other vicious party members... (we take turns DMing) and (one of us *loves*) bizarro sci-fi traps. Traps, like illusioned gate to the negative material plane, snuf out Familiars regularly. Doors of "Harm" bring instant death if touched in anyway, and so on! Oh ! terrific tricks! Rather an unrealistic method though of all your masters to keep players on their toes. If u or others come up with a better feat, and there is somewhat of a consensus (at least a momentum), I'll update the first post of the thread with the new feat, and we can discuss it from there. Be sure that I will...;) And stop calling me Therma"N"h!!! Therman"S"h is the right form!!!
Elrana 04-28-04, 08:12 PM	I would rather have fewer abilities, moderately more hit points, and no threat of xp loss. Great! Use Exploding Familair at will! A little bit more like Animal Companion In that case play a druid or a ranger and stop bloody whining! A familiar has a fairly positive effect on a character but more importantly adds flavour. The familiar you choose, the name you give it, the role it adopts, its attitude to other players and so on. Yes so can an animal companion but so what? If you don't like it then don't have it but don't whinge because other people do like it and do have it. 'It's not fair, I should get something else instead. If I don't get anything why should you?' You sound like the dog in a manger. Look at it this way, you're gaining the ability to sleep at night secure in the knowledge that while you are sleeping no one will be able to come along and make you lose your XP by fulfilling the top priority contract put out on your familiar (by every NPC in the game apparently). which most people agree is useful. Yes the animal companion is more useful in combat but it is less intelligent and thus less useful outside of combat. Animal companions aren't Skippy and wagging their tail and scratching their nose isn't going to let the anyone know that they have to come quickly because Timmy has fallen in the well. A familiar, however, can be told to go to a particular person in a particular place and deliver a specific message, whether on paper or spoken (raven, pseudodragon etc.) this is more than the typical animal companion can do. With regard targeting familiars yes of course it can happen and no of course familiars aren't invulnerable or immune from death. So are animal companions and I know about the XP loss before you repeat yourself. Again. However, where is the spell 'Animal Companion Pocket'? If my familiar is in danger he is immediately sent to his own little extradimensional space wihere he can sleep, breathe, eat and drink indefinitely with 100% concealment and total cover, completely out of danger. Following your logic the enemy will next move on to your animal companion. Who is shafted? I must admit, with regard combat tactics when confronted by a mage I think I should always spend my first attacks targeting his familiar. After all, that's where the real threat is ( :confused: ). Traps, like illusioned gate to the negative material plane, snuf out Familiars regularly. Doors of "Harm" bring instant death if touched in anyway, and so on! You lose familiars to these traps 'regularly'. You have a DM who '*loves*' this kind of trap, you encounter them fairly often and you lose a part of yourself, a magically linked creature that it is your responsibilty to look after and protect 'regularly' to them? Frankly, you deserve to lose XP. XP represents a learning curve, as you encounter something new it adds to your experience and you learn from it so that you may better deal with it should you come across it again in the future. Clearly you aren't learning therefore you deserve to be docked extra XP on top of what you lose as a fixed penalty for throwing away yet another life.
Mith 04-28-04, 09:05 PM	Originally posted by Mirror, Mirror If the wooden door is locked, would you let a Fireball destroy the door? Would the damage then pass beyond the door into the room? If so, can I play in one of your games? I'll play a sorcerer who LOVES fireball... From the PHB, description of Fireball: "If the damage caused to an interposing barrier shatters or breaks through it, the fireball may continue beyond the barrier if the area permits." In other words, I would, and if you don't you are wrong.
Haldrik 04-28-04, 09:19 PM	Elrana, you seem to rely on a lot of *splat book* material. No doubt they offer ways to mitigate the Familiar's inadequacies (such as the Familiar Pocket). I just use the core texts, and these are what I comment on. Regarding the Familiar as a feat, I see good reason why every player should get something they are happy with. Especially at 1st level when every ability counts. Those who don't want a Familiar should get something else instead. Even those who do want a Familiar should get something they are happier with. I know that some people are satisfied with the Familiar as is, but many are not. Surely, the Familiar could be better than it is now? Thermansh, in my campaigns Familiars are *not* invulnerable. Their "out of combat" usefulness is only good if they don't get killed. They must be able to survive a trap, an ambush, passing Attacks of Opportunity, and so on, or else they have no out of combat usefulness. I disagree that finding cover is always the solution. Many times trying to reach cover causes death from Attacks of Opportunity, and most times monsters chase after it anyway. Intelligent monsters chase after it to spite the Wizard, nonintelligent monsters chase after it for food. When I encounter hostile Wizards, I always destroy their Familiars. At the very least it disrupts their concentration (according to our opinion). Possibly, they also lose a level, and that means one less most powerful spell.
Haldrik 04-28-04, 09:25 PM	Did anyone see the episode of Frazier, when his brother Niles wanted to see what it was like to have a baby? He would carry around a sack of flour and roleplay with it as a baby. Unfortunately, he accidently thrust it thru with a baton while 'orchestrating' the stereo. It also caught on fire because it was sitting too close to the fire place. Niles exclaimed, "It's not fair! A real baby would have cried before it burst into flames!" :rofl: I just can't help but compare this sack of flour to a Familiar.
Elrana 04-28-04, 09:48 PM	Originally posted by Haldrik Elrana, you seem to rely on a lot of *splat book* material. No doubt they offer ways to mitigate the Familiar's inadequacies (such as the Familiar Pocket). I just use the core texts, and these are what I comment on. That being said your knowledge base is incomplete and thus your opinion, although no less legitimate, is, by your own admission, less well-founded, and therefore less qualified than the opinions of those who are better informed. Regarding the Familiar as a feat, I see good reason why every player should get something they are happy with. Especially at 1st level when every ability counts. Those who don't want a Familiar should get something else instead. Okay, they can have a pat on the head and a kind and sincere 'there there'. If they promise not to cry maybe a fruit flavoured lolly pop as well. Even those who do want a Familiar should get something they are happier with. I know that some people are satisfied with the Familiar as is, but many are not. Surely, the Familiar could be better than it is now? Yes, it could be a celestial colossal uber creature with inherent vorpal claws, 40 spell-likes at caster level 20 and unlimited hp. But it isn't. Thermansh, in my campaigns Familiars are *not* invulnerable. Their "out of combat" usefulness is only good if they don't get killed. They must be able to survive a trap, an ambush, passing Attacks of Opportunity, and so on, or else they have no out of combat usefulness. That is one hundred per cent correct. A dead familiar is not much use beyond as a door stop or a novelty paper-weight. BUT, it is not their duty to stay alive, they don't exist. It is the player's duty to keep them alive. If you are not capable of that then, quite honestly, you should strive to be a better player and learn to better anticipate potential dangers. I disagree that finding cover is always the solution. Many times trying to reach cover causes death from Attacks of Opportunity, and most times monsters chase after it anyway. Intelligent monsters chase after it to spite the Wizard, nonintelligent monsters chase after it for food. I have sent my familiar out of fights without it being chased by monsters or provoking AoOs. Intelligence does not necessarily mean spitefulness and no one and nothing has ever tried to eat my familiar! When I encounter hostile Wizards, I always destroy their Familiars. At the very least it disrupts their concentration (according to our opinion). Possibly, they also lose a level, and that means one less most powerful spell. Alternatively direct damage to the spellcaster disturbs their concentration and may even kill them if you keep at it and stop them from casting any spells. Enervation can make them lose lots of levels and so not be able to cast lots of their most powerful spells. If you attack their familiar instead if them then 1) your immensely silly tactic is letting down your group and 2) frankly, you deserve to be enervated, then disintegrated and just to make sure you don't take the pee by coming back soul bound. But don't worry, you might have scratched a small furry animal before you died. Finally, if familiars are so crap why is it your first target whenever you see one? Did your familiar not hug you enough when you were young? :)
Mith 04-28-04, 09:51 PM	Erm, the fact that he targets it first should tell you something: He sees the familiar as an exploitable vulnerability.
Elrana 04-28-04, 10:13 PM	Originally posted by Mith Erm, the fact that he targets it first should tell you something: He sees the familiar as an exploitable vulnerability. Not remotely as exploitable a vulnerability as running around after a familiar leaving his master alone to think about which devastating spell he is going to kill you with! Example, you make an attack on Canth. Canth is sharing my shield spell, has a pretty high dex. plus is under the effect of the mass cat's grace I cast on the group. While he is in the same square as me he enjoys an AC bonus from cover plus I have a magic item that allows me to cast displacement, which obviously I can share with him, three times a day. Result, a familiar with an AC of 32 and a 50% miss chance whenever he is attacked. Meanwhile I have a higher AC than him, so even if you miss due to cover I am safe. Plus while I am left undisturbed I cast disintegrate at you. How likely is your mage to make a DC23 fortitude save and survive 24 d6 damage? Please explain to me why this attack the familiar tactic makes sense?
Haldrik 04-28-04, 10:16 PM	Elrana, FYI, I have not lost my (only) Familiar, my hawk. But our campaigns have suffered several such casualties. The difficulty between those who use *core* and who use *spatbooks* is common. Official core is what counts. Splatbooks are optional. Splatbooks often illuminate a core situation and offer a good alternative, but they are optional. Problems with core remain until officially fixed. I have sent my familiar out of fights without it being chased by monsters or provoking AoOs. ... And no one and nothing has ever tried to eat my familiar! If monsters don't chase the Familiar, the DM is unrealistically lenient. Intelligence does not necessarily mean spitefulness. Intelligence plus *evil* alignment DOES "mean spitefulness"! Anyway, it's easy to kill a Familiar if you want to. Magic Missiles work fine most of the time, and are only 1st level spells. Attacking a Familiar is sometimes more effective than attacking a Wizard directly. "Easily killable bundle of your xp" is indeed "exploitable", as Mith affirms!
Elrana 04-28-04, 10:36 PM	Originally posted by Haldrik Elrana, FYI, I have not lost my (only) Familiar, my hawk. But our campaigns have suffered several such casualties. My condolences. No need to be too upset about it though as apparently familiars are crap? The difficulty between those who use *core* and who use *spatbooks* is common. Official core is what counts. Splatbooks are optional. Splatbooks often illuminate a core situation and offer a good alternative, but they are optional. Problems with core remain until officially fixed. You should try it. It expands the game and straightens out some funny ideas. ;) If monsters don't chase the Familiar, the DM is unrealistically lenient. Or realistically realistic. I am more dangerous than my familiar. Fact. Every strategist will tell you two basic pointers for battle strategy: take out ranged attackers as soon as possible, not to do so is suicidal. Remove the biggest threat first. I am a ranged attacker. I am a bigger threat than my familiar. What do you think the trick in this situation might be? Please don't argue against this one. Why do you think 600 light cavalry sacrificed their lives to take the cannon at Balaclava during the Crimean? Why do you think Israel made a surprise attack at Egypts and Syria's aircraft, not their ground troops to kick off the six day war? Why do you think England and Germany's primary targets were airfields during WWII? It is a tried and tested and proven military strategy. Napoleon didn't do it. Who won Waterloo despite being outnumbered? Nelson attained a similar result against a larger force at Trafalgar. Wellington defeated 100,000 maharatti with a force of 7,000 British troops, 500 of whom were absent, because the first thing he did was to take their artillery. Just trust me. It works. Intelligence plus *evil* alignment DOES "mean spitefulness"! Is that a given? A totally definitive description of all evil and intelligent people worldwide? Or is it simply the way in which you and your D&D group think evil and intelligent people would be? Anyway, it's easy to kill a Familiar if you want to. Magic Missiles work just fine, and are only 1st level spells. Attacking a Familiar is sometimes more effective than attacking a Wizard directly. "Easily killable bundle of your xp" is indeed "exploitable", as Mith affirms! I agree about the magic missiles. They are without doubt the easiest way to kill a familiar. If you were to go back several hundred posts probably by now you will find one from me, quite early on during this thread. It says that I have put a brooch of shielding on a chain around Canth's neck. It cost 1,500gp. If you are so bothered about the XP loss surely 1,500gp is a small price to pay, less if you make it yourself.
Northwest 04-28-04, 11:01 PM	Personally, I wouldn't take a familiar for several levels, and like a few have already posted, I would probably wait until I could get an improved one. I don't wait so much due to fear of losing the familiar at low levels but due to communication. I would primarily use it as a scout, but until it can talk to you, why bother? And finally, I like the xp loss factor. Familiars are cool, and the xp loss is a tie in to the concept that I like.
Mith 04-28-04, 11:48 PM	Originally posted by Elrana Not remotely as exploitable a vulnerability as running around after a familiar leaving his master alone to think about which devastating spell he is going to kill you with! Example, you make an attack on Canth. Canth is sharing my shield spell, has a pretty high dex. plus is under the effect of the mass cat's grace I cast on the group. While he is in the same square as me he enjoys an AC bonus from cover plus I have a magic item that allows me to cast displacement, which obviously I can share with him, three times a day. Result, a familiar with an AC of 32 and a 50% miss chance whenever he is attacked. Meanwhile I have a higher AC than him, so even if you miss due to cover I am safe. Plus while I am left undisturbed I cast disintegrate at you. How likely is your mage to make a DC23 fortitude save and survive 24 d6 damage? Please explain to me why this attack the familiar tactic makes sense? Possibly because not everybody begins play at a level where you can have shield, mass cat's grace, and displacement on you every combat, before you even start thinking about combat spells? You have to evaluate the familiar, starting from level 1 and going on up to see what it's really worth. It doesn't help a whole lot to say something like "My familiar with shared stoneskin and shapechange and moment of prescience, etc. is practically invulnerable. Therefore all familiars are durable and not in danger at all." Which is basically what you are doing.
Haldrik 04-29-04, 12:35 AM	I find the concept that Familiars should stay out of combat, to be false. DnD is a combat game. My Wizard is *always* in combat. IF the Familiar is with my Wizard, THEN the Familiar is also *always* in combat. The only "noncombat" Familiars around should be for NPC's.
Haldrik 04-29-04, 12:52 AM	Northwest, a fair comment about Familiars not being useful scouts until a level when they can communicate more precisely.
fractal 04-29-04, 01:49 AM	Just a random comment that admittedly does not apply to most Familiars: My Barbarian/Wizard multiclass character had a fox familiar with more hp than some of the other PCs. Familiars don't always have low hp. Anyway, as long as the Wizard isn't decked out with far better AC than his familiar, it seems really stupid to target the familiar. You could deal X damage to annoy the Wizard, and 3X total damage to defeat the Wizard, or you could just start with 2X total damage to defeat the Wizard. Personally, I'd rather defeat the Wizard in 2/3 the time. The battle starts at T=0, X damage is dealt every unit of T. Even if there wasn't a concentration disruption issue, I think it's much more dangerous to fight a familiar-less Wizard from time T=1 through T=3, than to fight a familiared Wizard from time T=1 through T=2. Therefore, unless the familiar is obviously more vulnerable than the Wizard, only a non-intelligent foe would ever target the familiar.
Thermanshs 04-29-04, 03:32 AM	Originally posted by Elrana That is one hundred per cent correct. A dead familiar is not much use beyond as a door stop or a novelty paper-weight. BUT, it is not their duty to stay alive, they don't exist. It is the player's duty to keep them alive. If you are not capable of that then, quite honestly, you should strive to be a better player and learn to better anticipate potential dangers. :bow:Yeah...your lack of performing the simplest of the tasks really shows how much expreience you carry guys Originally posted by Elrana Alternatively direct damage to the spellcaster disturbs their concentration and may even kill them if you keep at it and stop them from casting any spells. Enervation can make them lose lots of levels and so not be able to cast lots of their most powerful spells. If you attack their familiar instead if them then 1) your immensely silly tactic is letting down your group and 2) frankly, you deserve to be enervated, then disintegrated and just to make sure you don't take the pee by coming back soul bound. But don't worry, you might have scratched a small furry animal before you died. That sounds MUCH MORE reasonable to me...Haldrik...you have still not read what a single wizard can do in a few rounds Originally posted by Haldrik Intelligence plus *evil* alignment DOES "mean spitefulness"! Originally posted by Elrana Is that a given? A totally definitive description of all evil and intelligent people worldwide? Or is it simply the way in which you and your D&D group think evil and intelligent people would be? I think it's the second...and it's because some players have a really bad and way out of reality gaming experience that results in bringing their completely extraordinary ideas here. Originally posted by Haldrik Northwest, a fair comment about Familiars not being useful scouts until a level when they can communicate more precisely. Ok ...so far we've discussed how you can hide the biggest of the basic familiars,your hawk...so let me try give you another example: THE RAVEN
Thermanshs 04-29-04, 03:34 AM	Originally posted by Mith "If the damage caused to an interposing barrier shatters or breaks through it, the fireball may continue beyond the barrier if the area permits." True,but I haven't seen any fighter lose his thick tower shield because of such a force...have you? Originally posted by Mith Possibly because not everybody begins play at a level where you can have shield, mass cat's grace, and displacement on you every combat, before you even start thinking about combat spells? You have to evaluate the familiar, starting from level 1 and going on up to see what it's really worth. It doesn't help a whole lot to say something like "My familiar with shared stoneskin and shapechange and moment of prescience, etc. is practically invulnerable. Therefore all familiars are durable and not in danger at all." Which is basically what you are doing. I think that concealment,hide,secure(or distant) positions and cover can still be used from level 1....
Mith 04-29-04, 04:19 AM	Originally posted by Thermanshs :bow:Yeah...your lack of performing the simplest of the tasks really shows how much expreience you carry guys Wrong. What it shows is that we understand the basic underlying principles of war and battle, while you do not. The attacker has the initiative. If your enemy is attacking you (even if you are also attacking him), he will have an ammount of initiative, and this will allow your enemy to destroy your familiar. Your familiar has half of your hit points, and you have the smallest hit die in the game. Your familiar is fragile, and easily destroyed, even without a concerted effort. All it takes is one lucky potshot and your familiar is gone, along with a chunk of XP. Your familiar will not be targetted in all battles. Your familiar will be harmed in a small fraction of battles. But your familiar will probably be killed at least once, over the course of the game.
Thermanshs 04-29-04, 04:33 AM	Mith...if you're talking about my familiar being killed only once in a game...then I agree with you... After all I've said...s**t happens! Noone can be so precise as to prevent s**t from happening at least once!But I can handle my familiar in such a way as to keep me at equal levels with the rest of my party(unless if I craft magic items a lot). As for that lucky shot...I don't think that one shot even from a +4 comp longbow can kill a familiar... familiars are very fragile at low levels but so do the other characters and the damage potential at such encounters is FAR LESS. Also the avegare AC for a first level wizard's familiar is 16...not so bad I think...I've seen fighters with less than that(and the average 1st level one starts with 17)
Elrana 04-29-04, 07:55 AM	Originally posted by Mith Possibly because not everybody begins play at a level where you can have shield, mass cat's grace, and displacement on you every combat, before you even start thinking about combat spells? You have to evaluate the familiar, starting from level 1 and going on up to see what it's really worth. It doesn't help a whole lot to say something like "My familiar with shared stoneskin and shapechange and moment of prescience, etc. is practically invulnerable. Therefore all familiars are durable and not in danger at all." Which is basically what you are doing. Neither did I, I just kept my familiar alive until I could by being a good player. I am not saying that all familiars are etc. It has been stated, however, that in any given combat situation any intelligent foe would target the familiar and not the master. I am proving that to be incorrect. Even at low levels it is incorrect because the foe (assuming equal EL) will also have lower hp and abilities and so will still be easier for the wizard to kill undisturbed than when under attack. Remember, scorching ray is only a second level spell and has no save! Even a low level mage is dangerous!
Thermanshs 04-29-04, 08:06 AM	I'm very curious to see the guy who shoots at the familiar having an armed with spells mage in front of him....:D [EDIT]One more thing to add:as I said above...the familiar's average AC at 1st level is 16.Ever thought of it mage-armored?It can be cast for free on it and it lasts for 1 hour...well...that's an AC that FEW average 1st level characters can reach
Elrana 04-29-04, 08:16 AM	Originally posted by Mith Wrong. What it shows is that we understand the basic underlying principles of war and battle, while you do not. Really? Would you like me to quiz you on it? My professional training in combat tactics versus your D&D experience (and whatever else you can draw from?). I have already given a brief lesson on viable tactics complete with examples from the real world. Where are your examples of how a force attacking (let's up the ante) its oppposing force's families and loved ones has distracted them enough to win the war? How about WWII. Germany bombed civilian targets to demoralise the allied forces and therefore won. Oh no, Britain formed a defensive barrier, wiped out their air force during the Battle of Britain and then went on to defeat them (with their allies before you Yanks start complaining!). How about Caesar versus Vercingetorix? Caesar left the Gauls' families to starve in an effort to force them to leave their stronghold. They didn't. They watched their families die because their resolve was strong. (Mind you, it was a waste of time seeing as they ended up surrendering anyway but that was for different reasons!) How about Britain and the IRA? Has their bombing of civilian targets won them Ulster back? Please do find me examples where your tactic, or a close approximation of it, has won. It very rarely ever should. A person who involves himself in combat and is willing to kill his enemies, be he a wizard, ranger, fighter, cleric or whatever must be ruthless and willing to make sacrifices. Once you have done all that you can to protect something you have to accept that there is always a chance of it being injured or dying still. If that really bothers you then your mage should sit in a library all day wrapped in cotton wool researching metamagic for the risk taking and adventuring wizards out there to use. The attacker has the initiative. If your enemy is attacking you (even if you are also attacking him), he will have an ammount of initiative, and this will allow your enemy to destroy your familiar. Your familiar has half of your hit points, and you have the smallest hit die in the game. Your familiar is fragile, and easily destroyed, even without a concerted effort. All it takes is one lucky potshot and your familiar is gone, along with a chunk of XP. Your familiar will not be targetted in all battles. Your familiar will be harmed in a small fraction of battles. But your familiar will probably be killed at least once, over the course of the game. Of course it is possible, not probable, that a familiar will be killed. The argument made against you is that it will not happen every combat, it will not and even should not be a target every combat (as you said above) not that it is an impossibility.
Elrana 04-29-04, 08:21 AM	Originally posted by Thermanshs I'm very curious to see the guy who shoots at the familiar having an armed with spells mage in front of him....:D You can see him anytime you want. Plot 42C, Boot Hill Cemetary!:rofl:
Thermanshs 04-29-04, 08:37 AM	Yeah...that would probably be his miserable end:rofl:
Thermanshs 04-29-04, 09:16 AM	Originally posted by Haldrik I find the concept that Familiars should stay out of combat, to be false. DnD is a combat game. My Wizard is *always* in combat. IF the Familiar is with my Wizard, THEN the Familiar is also *always* in combat. The only "noncombat" Familiars around should be for NPC's. See? I was correct...that's however what in YOUR "extraordinary" games happens...can you count extraordinary situations as the rule?Go back to the fighter's example to notice that it PERFECTLY describes your case. So you're like the fighter that doesn't use weapons just because he doesn't like or can't properly use them and his DM has given him FEW opportunities to test them.So he only grapples....thus making him underpowered.... So try to visualise D&D as a roleplaying game as well...with lots of adventuring,spying,gathering information ....just like living in a real world... if you prefer hack n' slash that's ok but that's only you and you can't blame tools that the game offers for different purposes
Haldrik 04-29-04, 03:25 PM	Fractal: Unless the familiar is obviously more vulnerable than the Wizard, only a non-intelligent foe would ever target the familiar. Your statement includes two of my points. First, in my experience, the familiar usually is "obviously more vulnerable"! It's worthwhile to remove the familiar to disorient the Wizard. Second, any "non-intelligent foe" should "target the familiar"!
Haldrik 04-29-04, 03:31 PM	I want to reiterate the Familiar should be combat worthy! In an other thread there was discussion about which Wizard Specialist benefitted the most from a Familiar. The resounding consensus was that the familiar was extremely valuable for the Transmuter, only, because the Transmuter can polymorph and buff it up into a powerful combatant. The less the other Specialists were able to *change* the Familiar into something else, the less the Familiar was worth. It is telling, the Familiar only has obvious worth if it can fight! This is the nature of DnD, and people should not pass "moral judgment" against players who want their Familiar to handle itself in battle.
Thermanshs 04-29-04, 03:37 PM	Originally posted by Haldrik It is telling, the Familiar only has obvious worth if it can fight! This is the nature of DnD, and people should not pass "moral judgment" against players who want their Familiar to handle itself in battle. Fighting is the only nature of D&D?Then your games should be really monotonous man... then why don't you drop most of your wizards divinations?they don't seem to help him much in combat... and some illusions and enchantments too.... and all knowledge skills..their value in combat is almost zero and decipher script as well... and all conjuration(creation) spells...they can't help combat see? your game is defined by combat terms only...I don't blame you for this Haldrik...it's perfectly ok having fun with the combat parts...but I DO blame you for thinking that combat is the one and foremost part of D&D that should taken into account and that all other phases of the game are only there to fill the rest of the combat time(you can't fight for 24 hours a day...or have you invented a way to?) so think that D&D is made to serve another man's game as well that's even more creative and adventure orientated
Haldrik 04-29-04, 03:40 PM	Thermansh, Watch the code of conduct. Your comments are getting rude and personal. There is no need for this. Focus on the issues, not on me, or how I play, or what my campaigns may or may not be like.
Thermanshs 04-29-04, 03:42 PM	and watch what you're presenting as the nature of D&D EDIT: Should I take this as an inability to fulfill my request? you're viewing how D&D should only by YOUR side...so your conclusions are EXTREMELY subjective
Mith 04-29-04, 04:11 PM	Therm and Elrana: perhaps you misunderstand the definition of probable. Probable means that there is chance greater than 50% that something will happen. Even if it is infinitetessimally greater, it's still "probable". Your adventuring career will average 267 encounters, from level 1 through level 20. So, to find out the minimum "danger factor" required for it to become probable that your familiar will die during a campaign, you have to take the 267th root of .5. If the chance that the familiar will die in a particular battle is greater than (1-.5^(1/267)), then it is probable that your familiar will die in the campaign. The required number turns out to be around .997. That means that if there is a .3% chance that your familiar will die in a particular battle, it is probable that your familiar will die during the campaign.
Haldrik 04-29-04, 04:38 PM	DnD is not *only* a combat game, but it *is* a combat game. DnD evolved from pure war games, and structurally it remains a combat game. It's foundation is "hit points". DMs are supposed to award xp for noncombat actions, but such awards are so poorly defined many if not most DMs never do except as the occasional "brownie points". In any case, it's not "wrong" to want the familiar to be able to fight. Familiars versus animal companions do have different flavors, and the distinction is interesting. Perhaps familiars should not combat better physically, with their fangs or claws like animal companions. Perhaps familiars should combat magically like their Wizard owners do. Familiars can already deliver touch spells, maybe improve this spellcasting ability to improve their combat readiness. There are several ways to go about this to different degrees of power. The most powerful familiars: The Wizards can cast two spells per round, one thru themselves and one thru their familiar. Obviously, this makes familiars extremely valuable. More valuable than the feat Quicken Spell. Too valuable. Moderate familiars: The Wizards can assign a certain number of their own spells to their familiar at the beginning of each day. Thus, there are certain spells that only the familiars will be able to cast, and the Wizards themselves will have less spells per day. (Assumably, if the familiars cast a buff spell the Wizards benefit from it too.) The familiars' effective Intelligence score would be their own or the Wizards', whichever is higher. Perhaps the familiars simply take levels in the Wizard class. They can be equal to their owners' level minus 1 level. ("0 level" Wizard familiars can cast cantrips.) I feel strongly certain large animals - like wolves, bears, cattle, porpoises, salmon, and so on - should serve as possible familiars. However, they don't necessarily need to advance in physical power like animal companions do, they can advance in magical power. I also opine the ability to fly is very powerful, so that my hawk is "equal" to a bear in combat even if my hawk cannot do as much damage. In any case, I feel familiars should be able to enter combat. There is nothing wrong with this feeling. There are a number of ways to fight. Magical combat can be more appropriate for familiars and simply expands the idea of the touch spell delivery that they already have.
Mith 04-29-04, 04:57 PM	Someone tried basically this idea before - I think he ended up giving familiars bard or ranger/paladin progression. It's an interesting idea. If it was ranger/paladin progression, it might not be horribly overpowered. I would suggest ranger progression, with a limited number of spells known, and the familiar has to prepare spells (but does not need a spellbook). I think that would be cool, and worth a feat at least. It's probably overpowered like I've written it, but I imagine we could come up with something fairly balanced if we try.
Mirror, Mirror 04-29-04, 05:06 PM	Hey Mith: Off topic, but I'm going to have to remember that "damage through barriers" for fireball thing. After all, 10D6 is a lot of damage to do to a stone wall. The castle should fall in only a couple of days... Haldrik: Why do familiars have to be combat-oriented? They give free feats and abilities to the caster. I know I never let mine get into combat. Hell, my familiar is never even in sight of the enemy! (then again, my wizard also wears chainmail, uses a shield, and fights with a sword...when not casting spells, of course). Now, if you wanted to give the falimiar a power that is combat useful, make it act like a pearl of power once a day. NOW the familiar is really worth trying to kill...
Haldrik 04-29-04, 05:20 PM	Hmmm. I see the point of Ranger (nature spells) and Paladin (celestial animal), but I would have to get to used to the idea that divine spells are an extension of the Wizard. Bard however seems great. It has arcane spells and normal d8 hit die. Also, strong animals like wolves, bears, and so on, can invest more in the Bard's fighter abilities, whereas the stealthy animals like cats, ravens, and so on, can invest more in the Bard's rogue skills. Even the Bards "music preformance" is not unthinkable. That a familiar's howl might scare someone or purr might enchant someone seems ok. Then the familiar can be as formidable as the Wizard without really excelling the Wizard in magic. I like this direction. If familiars can't do this, I think I'll just make an Awakened monster PC that can do this, and make it my next 1st-level Wizard's de facto familiar anyway. I'll have my Druid cast Awaken and my Wizard cast permanent Telepathic Bond. Presto! Beautiful familiar!
Haldrik 04-29-04, 05:26 PM	MnM: Why do familiars have to be combat-oriented? In our campaigns they just have to be. We do engage in a lot of noncombat gaming (as merchants). However, when we fight, we fight very powerful opponents. If the familiar can't keep pace, it will die. My wizard also wears chainmail, uses a shield, and fights with a sword...when not casting spells, of course Does your Wizard have Still Spell? Did you take these proficiencies as personal feats?
Mirror, Mirror 04-29-04, 05:38 PM	What I mean is why does the familiar need to get into combat? He can stay in your pack, or in your pocket, or hidden beneth your robes. Or he could just keep his distance and wait for your instructions. I love the toad in the pack, the snake coled around the arm or leg, or the raven or hawk hanging off a fanny pack and leaving ASAP. If the familiar gets into trouble, he can return, and hopefully not die. I just don't have many encounters where my faliliar is at serious risk... Actually, the only time I ever has a familiar die on me was because it had 30 hp, and my DM rules one of its powers was for it to "take the next hit" for me. Well, it took the next hit...hard. And, to answer your question, the shield and armor were special and only gave me a 5% failure rate and a 10% failure rate respectively. I then used a circlet that lessened the total failure chance by 10%. A 5% chance, but being mistaken for the paladins squire helped out a lot:D And the sword was +4 vs etherial, -4 vs anything else. Nobody wanted it, so I took it (though the -4 non-proficient penality provented me from using it very often...)
Haldrik 04-29-04, 05:51 PM	MnM: The familiar ... can stay in your pack, or in your pocket, or hidden beneath your robes. For me this is not satisfactory. I don't see the point of a useless familiar. Or he could just keep his distance and wait for your instructions. In our campaigns, it's better for the familiar to stay nearby where I can assist it. Rather than far off where it must deal with monsters on its own. Usually. I just don't have many encounters where my faliliar is at serious risk.. In our campaigns the familiar is in no less risk than any of us. In other words, it's always at risk. Our campaigns take place in hostile environments, against powerful monsters, and frequently hoards of monsters where at least a few target the familiar. Whether the familiar is always or never in danger is just a matter of campaign setting. Different campaigns will have very different settings and there is nothing wrong or right about this. It's just different. Anyway, I'm excited about the Awakened animal PC with Bard levels. I'm definitely doing this for my next Wizard. If this is what the official familiar becomes, so much the better.
Mirror, Mirror 04-29-04, 06:13 PM	Absolutly, you are correct, that the vulnerability of a familiar is directly linked to the campaign. However, sitting your pocket, the familiar is not useless. He is still supplying the caster with some benefit. He could be more useful out of combat. Just let him out, then. I don't think a feat for an animal companion is too far fetched, as long as it was reasonable. A familiar, OTOH, is too connected with magic to be used seperately.
Elrana 04-29-04, 06:46 PM	Originally posted by Mith Therm and Elrana: perhaps you misunderstand the definition of probable. Probable means that there is chance greater than 50% that something will happen. Even if it is infinitetessimally greater, it's still "probable". Your adventuring career will average 267 encounters, from level 1 through level 20. So, to find out the minimum "danger factor" required for it to become probable that your familiar will die during a campaign, you have to take the 267th root of .5. If the chance that the familiar will die in a particular battle is greater than (1-.5^(1/267)), then it is probable that your familiar will die in the campaign. The required number turns out to be around .997. That means that if there is a .3% chance that your familiar will die in a particular battle, it is probable that your familiar will die during the campaign. Hey, I really like this piece of sophistry! If it was anything but sophistry I would take it seriously! Your terminology is, in places, incorrect but the meaning is clear. Where does the 7 (267) come from? I understand the 260 (13 encounters per level) but am a bit lost by the extra 7. (In one of my campaigns you will never have that many encounters before you level! I find the ELs in the DMG to be far too low for any half decent group and throw far more powerful encounters at them than recommended. Probably no more than 8 or 9 a level due to increased XP, possibly on a really good day even as few as 7 (but this would be rare). This does not make things too fast as my game is very roleplay oriented and the players also get XP for that. So tyhe combat and the roleplaying combined means that they don't race through the levels like a 13 year old munchkin party! Can you rework the figures to arbitrarily assign a probability of your familiar dying in my campaign! :D) Originally posted by Haldrik MnM: For me this is not satisfactory. I don't see the point of a useless familiar. I can't reply to this as you have already made a request for posts not to be insulting or personal. In our campaigns, it's better for the familiar to stay nearby where I can assist it. Rather than far off where it must deal with monsters on its own. Usually. Familiars are always targeted by monsters in your combat. You have failed to protect it in the past, you have admitted they are regularly lost. Therefore by your logic by taking it into battle it is almost certain to be lost, by sending it away from battle it may have to deal with monsters on its own. Okay, a monster walks through the woods and sees a rat/raven/hawk etc. "oh," it thinks, "a wild animal in a forest. How odd. It must be a familiar. That means there is probably a magic user lurking around here somewhere. Right, my best chance of survival here mist be to immediately attack the normal looking creature in its natural habitat that I somehow intuitively recognise as a magically enhanced and bonded example of its kind." Damn good job your DM doesn't metagame isn't it? A suggestion, it may seem off the wall and outrageous at first but if you read it, digest it and think about it, instead of ignoring it and writing the same post again it just might make sense... If your tactic regularly gets your familiar killed then try a different tactic proposed by a player who doesn't regularly fail to protect his familiar. Odd idea I know, but it just might work. In our campaigns the familiar is in no less risk than any of us. In other words, it's always at risk. Because you let it be at risk as we have said 100,000,000 times or so in the past. Stop being a crap guardian. Our campaigns take place in hostile environments, against powerful monsters, and frequently hoards of monsters where at least a few target the familiar. Then hide it, oh but that makes it useless, refer to top. By the way, when you say "hoards of monsters" does that mean when you defeat a monster you find its secret stash of more monsters instead of treasure? ;) Whether the familiar is always or never in danger is just a matter of campaign setting. Different campaigns will have very different settings and there is nothing wrong or right about this. It's just different. Correct. How the player protects his familiar in each of these settings relies on him to adjust. See my second point. Anyway, I'm excited about the Awakened animal PC with Bard levels. I'm definitely doing this for my next Wizard. If this is what the official familiar becomes, so much the better. I suggested this ages ago on this thread and everyone laughed at me. :( I see no reason why you should not ask permission from your DM to take the leadership feat and make your familiar your cohort. That solves the problems you seem to have.
Mith 04-29-04, 07:36 PM	Originally posted by Haldrik Hmmm. I see the point of Ranger (nature spells) and Paladin (celestial animal), but I would have to get to used to the idea that divine spells are an extension of the Wizard. No, I didn't mean that they suggested using divine spells - I was just talking about the spells per day progression. Bard progression is far too strong for the familiar, and it could easily be argued that even ranger progression will be exceedingly overpowered. Sophistry? In what way? the 267 comes from multiplying the DMG encounters/level (13.333 average) by 20, the number of levels to get the number of encounters. If you use fewer encounters, simply use this formula: 100*(1-(.5^(1/(20*Average number of encounters per level))))=maximum death chance, above which losing your familiar during the campaign becomes probable. So, if your campaign averages 8.5 encounters per level, your familiar is likely to die sometime between levels 1 and 20 if the probablility of death in a single encounter exceeds .4 %. That much is pure math. You have to decide what goes into the probability of your familiar dying in a particular encounter, and that's purely subjective. I suggest that the probability of your familiar dying in a particular encounter is probably at least .4%, especially if you fight opponents of higher CR than suggested by the DMG. If you think that you could fight 1000 varied encounters against different types of threats at the normal CR for your campaign and have your familiar die 3 or fewer times total, then you would say that your familiar probably won't die during your campaign.
Thermanshs 04-29-04, 07:51 PM	Originally posted by ElranaOkay, a monster walks through the woods and sees a rat/raven/hawk etc. "oh," it thinks, "a wild animal in a forest. How odd. It must be a familiar. That means there is probably a magic user lurking around here somewhere. Right, my best chance of survival here mist be to immediately attack the normal looking creature in its natural habitat that I somehow intuitively recognise as a magically enhanced and bonded example of its kind." Damn good job your DM doesn't metagame isn't it? :bow: Yeah...I'm amazed by the amount of logic there!:rofl: Originally posted by ElranaBecause you let it be at risk as we have said 100,000,000 times or so in the past. Stop being a crap guardian. Yeah...please do... Originally posted by Elrana Familiars are always targeted by monsters in your combat. You have failed to protect it in the past, you have admitted they are regularly lost. Therefore by your logic by taking it into battle it is almost certain to be lost, by sending it away from battle it may have to deal with monsters on its own My 5 year old bro could tell me what he was gonna do if one entered our house looking for my hamster...but unfortunately some others can't.... the reason why? that's a different matter...;) Originally posted by ElranaI suggested this ages ago on this thread and everyone laughed at me. I see no reason why you should not ask permission from your DM to take the leadership feat and make your familiar your cohort. That solves the problems you seem to have. Correct..the feat you're looking for already exists Haldrik,then you can have your perfect battler!!! OK just a few words more and I'm stepping out of this thread.If you guys beleive that the way you run your game(no matter how real or fun it is) should be ran some way...do it...but don't try to estabilish your gaming standards here.There are many people out there that have 10 times the fun you get by completely different gaming styles...you have at least to respect their rights to enjoy the game as much as YOU do rather than cut off their favored aspects of their game. And Haldrik:Thank you for helping me find out what this thread's REAL purpose was...building a character into the ultimate war machine.At least a different title could have prevented my "polluting" presence in here
Elrana 04-29-04, 08:06 PM	Originally posted by Mith No, I didn't mean that they suggested using divine spells - I was just talking about the spells per day progression. Bard progression is far too strong for the familiar, and it could easily be argued that even ranger progression will be exceedingly overpowered. Sophistry? In what way? the 267 comes from multiplying the DMG encounters/level (13.333 average) by 20, the number of levels to get the number of encounters. If you use fewer encounters, simply use this formula: 100*(1-(.5^(1/(20*Average number of encounters per level))))=maximum death chance, above which losing your familiar during the campaign becomes probable. So, if your campaign averages 8.5 encounters per level, your familiar is likely to die sometime between levels 1 and 20 if the probablility of death in a single encounter exceeds .4 %. That much is pure math. You have to decide what goes into the probability of your familiar dying in a particular encounter, and that's purely subjective. I suggest that the probability of your familiar dying in a particular encounter is probably at least .4%, especially if you fight opponents of higher CR than suggested by the DMG. If you think that you could fight 1000 varied encounters against different types of threats at the normal CR for your campaign and have your familiar die 3 or fewer times total, then you would say that your familiar probably won't die during your campaign. I forgot about the .33. 267, you are quite right. Sophistry because the calculation is inherently flawed. "You have to decide what goes into the probability of your familiar dying in a particular encounter, and that's purely subjective. I suggest that the probability of your familiar dying in a particular encounter is probably at least .4%" This makes any attempt at accurate calculation a farce. In Elrana's life his familiar has been killed once, it was my fault I have since taken steps to avoid it (brooch of shielding). I could calculate how many encounters I have had divide by the times my familiar hasn't died and work out the theoretical probablilty of familiar death in that campaign. However, since then Drashin has joined the group with his raven. As I had a spare brooch of shielding knocking about (yoinked from one of the many mages I killed who belonged to the same order as the mages who killed Canth) I explained to him what had happened in the past and gave him the brooch for his raven. His raven has never died in this campaign. So 1) now that he has adequate protectin against the only method of familiar killing ever to have been employed in this campaign is his familiar immune to death? No. 2) If we work out, judging by his familiar instead of mine the probability of familiar death in this campaign it still works out as zero. This is also incorrect. This is why your equation is sophistry and any attempt to figure out such an equation will always be flawed.
Mith 04-29-04, 08:44 PM	It's not meant to be an exact calculation. That's why I use terms like "decide for yourself subjectively". What it's meant to do is give you an idea of how safe your familiar has to be, for you to be able to accurately say that your familiar will probably not die in a campaign. If you look at the overall situation and you feel like you could fight 1000 encounters and have your familiar die 3 times max, then you could say that you think that your familiar is safe for your campaign. But I don't think that anyone who is even remotely reasonable could say that their familiar will die 3 or fewer times if they fight 1000 varied encounters.
Haldrik 04-30-04, 12:41 AM	I think it's best for everybody that "Animal Familiar" is removed from the class features, and offered instead as a desirable feat.
Elrana 04-30-04, 03:38 AM	Originally posted by Haldrik I think it's best for everybody that "Animal Familiar" is removed from the class features, and offered instead as a desirable feat. Well gee Haldrik, thanks for making that decision for me. I've spent all this time thinking that I was perfectly happy with my familiar as a class feature and all the time I was just being delluded. I shall lose Canth immediately and berate myself for being so shortsighted as ever to have fallen for that nasty WotC trick of making me think it was useful. I think it is best for YOU to remove that class feature (especially if it stops this thread). I reckon everyone else can just make their own decisions.
Haldrik 04-30-04, 03:44 AM	Elrana: I reckon everyone else can just make their own decisions. Exactly. Which is why Familiar must be a feat. Those who want a Familiar can get the feat. "I reckon everyone else can just make their own decisions" about what feat they want instead!
Talamasca 04-30-04, 07:30 AM	Originally posted by Thermanshs Ok dude found it!!! go on page 175 in the PH 3,5. It's in the second column in the middle of it. Here's what it says: A burst spell affects...bla...bla...It can't affect creatures with total cover from its point of origin(in other words it doesnt extend around corners) it's right there...exactly as I've stated it before only that it uses a wall instead of a table as the surface of your cover. Are you convinced now:rolleyes: ? Well... except that Fireball is a spread, not a burst. It extends around corners and cover doesn't help.
Elrana 04-30-04, 08:26 AM	Originally posted by Haldrik Elrana: Exactly. Which is why Familiar must be a feat. Those who want a Familiar can get the feat. "I reckon everyone else can just make their own decisions" about what feat they want instead! No, it is their choice to take a familiar as a class abilty or not to. There is a balance. If you take the familiar you are dedicated to protecting and maintaining it and the threat of XP loss hangs over your head if you fail to do so. If you don't take it then you have no potential XP loss. That is the balance that has been struck. As far as I am concerned it works. If you don't like it change your campaign, make an in-house rule or whatever, but don't tell those who have been arguing against your opinion what the best thing for everyone is. Are you actually green, scaley and only vulnerable to fire and acid or do you just appear to be?
Haldrik 05-01-04, 10:37 PM	It makes sense for Familiar to be a feat. Moreover I see no reason why not. Elrana, you have nothing substantial to say. Instead, you resort to violating the code of conduct numerous, numerous, numerous times: with insults, personal attacks, and generalized hostility. No one in this thread trolls more than you, Elrana.
BlaineTog 05-01-04, 11:02 PM	Guys 'n Gals. Chill. The familar *should* be a feat, for a number of reasons. First and foremost, it doesn't fit everyone's character conpect. "But BlaineTog! No one is making you take the familiar!" This is true. But it's a class feature. If I *don't* take it, then I am theoretically less powerful. Which means that I have to voluntarily weaken my character. Which is bad. "But DnD is about 'ROLE-PLAY' not 'ROLL-PLAY' :smirk." Also true. But If my character is weaker, then he is less effective that my friend's characters. In other words, I can do what I do less well, which hurts *everybody.* If there is another Sorcerer or Wizard in the party, then they will eclipse me. "TROLL!" :D Take a look at the Psicrystal in the Expanded Psionics Handbook. That requires a feat. However, it is *significantly* better than the familiar. so much so that I think it is going to be Errata-ed in the near future. It gets everything the familiar does, except its a construct (with a boatload of immunities), hardness (essentially DR/adamatite), and a few other really useful goodies (such as Channeling. You can cast spells through the Psicrystal from up to 1 mile away. Oh yeah: it can also talk to anyoe with a language telepathically). Best of all: no XP loss. (This is the part I feel is in danger of errata: making a Psicrystal is essentially free, other than the feat, and has no penalty for losing one). The Psicrystal shows us wha tthe familiar *could* be if you were willing to spend a feat (which is, in theory, one of the biggest things that differnetiates you, mechancially, from every other sor/wiz). It makes it actually *worth* the feat.
Mith 05-02-04, 12:28 AM	So, I have a question: Suppose that you made a feat that allowed you to get a familiar - just like the PHB familiar. Suppose that you then gave it a prereq of "Arcane caster level 1" or something like that. And then suppose that you took away "Summon Familiar" from each class that has it. How many people would take it as a feat? I don't think many people would. Suppose that you took away the XP loss. Then I think that some people would take the familiar, and some would not. In no way is taking the familiar a "no-brainer" even without XP loss. And that, my friends, is the real measure of balance. Would I rather have this or that? If the decision is difficult and I have to think before answering then we have balance. If I laugh, we do not have balance. And if you asked me if I would pay a feat for the familiar as written, I'd laugh at you.
Elrana 05-02-04, 10:13 AM	Originally posted by Haldrik It makes sense for Familiar to be a feat. Moreover I see no reason why not. Elrana, you have nothing substantial to say. Instead, you resort to violating the code of conduct numerous, numerous, numerous times: with insults, personal attacks, and generalized hostility. No one in this thread trolls more than you, Elrana. Having taken time to go back over the thread I have to agree with you Haldrik, assuming that 'nothing substantial' means anything that is in opposition to your opinion, 'insults, personal attacks etc.' means criticism of your opinion and trolling means rational argument, suggesting that unhappiness with the game should result in an in-house rule and not trolling means repeating the same thing over and over again. Under those conditions I am in full agreement with you. All that you have done is to repeat your self time after time, make sweeping generalisations (e.g. intelligence plus evil alignment equals spiteful, familiars will always be attacked first by an intelligent monster, a familiar leaving a battle and not being chased by monsters is unrealistically lenient etc.), state that you dislike the familiar as it is currently and refuse to accept that you have that right but not the right to force everyone else to agree and thus follow your decision (remember your 'I think it is best for everybody...' post as opposed to my 'I reckon everyone else can just make their own decisions.' post?). Let's look at it this way. I like familiars as is. You do not. I have made suggestions to you (leadership/improved familiar hybrid feat, attempt different tactics to protect your familiar, historical examples of why a familiar should not be the first line of attack etc.), ultimately I have not at any point told you that your game should emulate mine, or that your opinion is wrong. You, on the other hand, have ignored any suggestions made, told all and sundry that their way of playing is wrong and short-sighted and that they should switch their rules to match your preferences and stuck rigidly behind that argument without at any point accepting that different people like different things and in-house rules can differentiate between gaming groups. So tell me, after five pages of this, why should I not have thought you might be trolling just to keep the thread/argument going?
fractal 05-03-04, 01:30 AM	Originally posted by BlaineTog "But BlaineTog! No one is making you take the familiar!" This is true. But it's a class feature. If I *don't* take it, then I am theoretically less powerful. Which means that I have to voluntarily weaken my character. Which is bad. Well, perhaps this is the point of the XP loss. It's a "class feature" that's supposed to be around 0 net benefit. Therefore, whether you choose to have, or not to have a familiar, your character will be about the same. There are other, similar, class features, but they typically force you to choose between benefits (frequently bonus feats). The Familiar forces you to choose between nothing, and an advantage+disadvantage.
Elrana 05-03-04, 08:13 AM	Originally posted by fractal Well, perhaps this is the point of the XP loss. It's a "class feature" that's supposed to be around 0 net benefit. Therefore, whether you choose to have, or not to have a familiar, your character will be about the same. There are other, similar, class features, but they typically force you to choose between benefits (frequently bonus feats). The Familiar forces you to choose between nothing, and an advantage+disadvantage. Exactly the point that I made earlier. Thank Heironeous somone here can figure that out! I feel all vindicated and have a rosey glow! Thanks Fractal! :D
Haldrik 05-03-04, 04:46 PM	Fractal: It's a "class feature" that's supposed to be around 0 net benefit. I agree the Familiar's worth is "0 net". That's what I mean when I say it is "worthless". I don't think the game designers intended for the familiar to be worthless. If you look at the other classes: the Druid's animal companion and the Paladin's mount, and even the Psion's Crystal, they are all roughly equal and worth a good feat, at least. I think the designers intended the familiar to be worth more, but they underestimated the price of xp loss and nonviability of familiars in games that have "high combat". In any case, I am heartened by Blain Tog's report that the Expanded Psionic Handbook has changed the Psionic Crystal from a class feature (which it still is in the 3.0 SRD) into a feat. I hope WotC continues this trend to change the familiar into a feat that everyone can be happy with. For those who like the Familiar the way it is now, they can always houserule to keep the Familiar the same way after the change.
Varrik 05-04-04, 12:34 AM	Hm. I think Familiar's really should be a Feat. But so should Mounts and Animal Companions. Here's why: Wizards has gone out of it's way to simplify and consolidate the rules. Having one feat with one table would allow any character (with or without spellcasting) to select an animal companion. The table then would show based on your class what powers and HD etc your companion would get. The Paladin could then select a "mount" or if not fitting with his character, some animal messenger of good, or nothing at all. Similarly a Druid could have an Animal Companion and Ranger could also, if desired, at Ranger level minus four, or whatever. Wizards/Sorcs could do the same. If you note already, Wizards has published on it's website an "Animal Cohert"-esque feat with an attached progression table, which IIRC is a general feat anyone can have. This would be a good way to unify the rules, make a simple easy to read table in Handbook, and free up space for more cool stuff. -two cents
Haldrik 05-04-04, 01:14 AM	Varrik: Hm. I think Familiar's really should be a Feat. But so should Mounts and Animal Companions. Totally agree. Also I agree with your posted reasonings.
fractal 05-05-04, 04:36 AM	Originally posted by Haldrik I agree the Familiar's worth is "0 net". That's what I mean when I say it is "worthless". I don't think the game designers intended for the familiar to be worthless. If you look at the other classes: the Druid's animal companion and the Paladin's mount, and even the Psion's Crystal, they are all roughly equal and worth a good feat, at least. I think the designers intended the familiar to be worth more, but they underestimated the price of xp loss and nonviability of familiars in games that have "high combat". What I mean is, the game designers said something like, "Hmm, Wizards and Sorcerers are powerful enough, there's no room to give them another feat-equivalent. But, we want to them to have familiars. So, if we include an XP penalty, then the mechanical benefit more or less balances out to 0, but the flavor increases. Mission accomplished!" From this interpretation, the Familiar is not supposed to be as powerful as a feat. If you improved it until it is as good as a feat, then you should be aware that you're boosting the power of Wizards and Sorcerers in a way that the designers did not intend. Yes, Paladins and Druids do get animals too. However, the Paladin's mount is one of the major Paladin class features (they don't get level 9 spells to play with the way Wizards do). Don't ask me about the Druid. Maybe they get animal companions to protect them from the Clerics until they can wildshape.