I hope they don't, but I expect to be disappointed much as I was when the beast ranger was printed.
I suspect familiars will return in Arcane Power.
I hope they don't, but I expect to be disappointed much as I was when the beast ranger was printed.
Salla, sometimes I get the distinct feeling that concepts offend you more than mechanics. Why the hate?
Salla, sometimes I get the distinct feeling that concepts offend you more than mechanics. Why the hate?
You're basically right. I HATE animal sidekicks. They just annoy the living (feces) out of me. Familiars, animal companions, mounts, all of 'em. I hate 'em, always have. I was very, very happy when I read they were gone in 4e; it was a selling point to me. Their return does not please me.
I suspect familiars will return in Arcane Power.
I hope they don't, but I expect to be disappointed much as I was when the beast ranger was printed.
:heehee Sometimes you make me laugh. You're just a big, cuddly Eeyore, aren't you? :P
You're basically right. I HATE animal sidekicks. They just annoy the living (feces) out of me. Familiars, animal companions, mounts, all of 'em. I hate 'em, always have. I was very, very happy when I read they were gone in 4e; it was a selling point to me. Their return does not please me.
Although this sounds rather drowish or diabolical or what have you.
You're basically right. I HATE animal sidekicks. They just annoy the living (feces) out of me. Familiars, animal companions, mounts, all of 'em. I hate 'em, always have. I was very, very happy when I read they were gone in 4e; it was a selling point to me. Their return does not please me.
lol Well bro, at least you're honest. That's the difference between a decent poster and a troll.
You are not a troll. (Yet. :P)
PS: Oh, and I also think Arcane Power or PH2 will present Familiar rules.
You're basically right. I HATE animal sidekicks. They just annoy the living (feces) out of me. Familiars, animal companions, mounts, all of 'em. I hate 'em, always have. I was very, very happy when I read they were gone in 4e; it was a selling point to me. Their return does not please me.
Don't own any pets, I take it.
Don't own any pets, I take it.
Or friends? Those negative posts are all over the place. Sad, with so much negativity towards the game, why still play? Besides, 4E is no different than any other edition, rules are a GUIDELINE for playing, change them as you like, we in the gaming world call them "house rules". Or simply don't pick a familiar, they are not mandatory anyway. Personally, I've had familiars save my arse more than once, personal choice I suppose.
Or friends? Those negative posts are all over the place. Sad, with so much negativity towards the game, why still play? Besides, 4E is no different than any other edition, rules are a GUIDELINE for playing, change them as you like, we in the gaming world call them "house rules". Or simply don't pick a familiar, they are not mandatory anyway. Personally, I've had familiars save my arse more than once, personal choice I suppose.
I like the game. There are things they got rid of that I'm glad they got rid of, that I do not like either in concept or in execution. They seem to be returning.
I'm sorry, I didn't see the part of the rules that said I wasn't as entitled to state my opinions as everybody else. All familiars have ever done for me is suck XP away.
And yes, I know I can house rule. It's just annoying to have to do so when they're bringing back things I was glad to see go and didn't figure they'd ever bring back.
And just because you dont like something, it doesnt mean that you always get to houserule it away. If i want to play the game, i may very well be playing with a bunch of annoying halfings, prissy elves or other random abominations that i would rather didnt exist. When i DM i can ban everything i feel like, but players dont have that luxury.
Then find a different group if the other player's characters annoy you.
I'm sorry, I didn't see the part of the rules that said I wasn't as entitled to state my opinion
There's no way that it would drain XP away in 4th. That's against the design philosophy. So don't worry if that's your problem.
Since you don't like animal companions though, it seemed like you just didn't like pets in the game (And hence I figured you might not like them in real life). In any case, familiars will probably be options in 4E like animal companions are.
I see them being a replacement to the Implement Mastery class feature and mostly non-combat, maybe an encounter power that lets you cast a spell from their square instead of your own. In a respect they would be your implement but, I still don't have an idea of exactly how they would balance out the magic item bonuses with that so I may be way off.
Ignoring the negativity, I think familiars will be in Arcane Power.
I see them being a replacement to the Implement Mastery class feature and mostly non-combat.
if it replaced Imp mastery with a non combat power it would suck...
if it replaced Imp mastery with a non combat power it would suck...
What I meant was they would be the implements and provide the bonuses and such, just not have the stats to fight compared to the Ranger's animal companion.
The thing about the ranger's animal companion and familiars in 3rd Ed, was that to me they were more window dressing than anything else, I'm sure/hope 4th Ed will remedy that.
How do people think they'll differ from Martial Power's beast companions? Because I saw a Level 4-5 Ranger's bear take quite a bit of damage yesterday and it never even got to bloodied (damn thing had 66 HP and the ranger seemed able to sacrifice any amount of healing surge's he desired in order to keep the bear healthy).
I hope they don't, but I expect to be disappointed much as I was when the beast ranger was printed.
Why do you dislike beast companions? While the one I saw was quite powerful in regards to HP, it seemed to have quite weak defences and its attacks while handy, didn't seem overpowered compared to other rangers.
You're basically right. I HATE animal sidekicks. They just annoy the living (feces) out of me. Familiars, animal companions, mounts, all of 'em. I hate 'em, always have. I was very, very happy when I read they were gone in 4e; it was a selling point to me. Their return does not please me.
You hate mounts? Why? I mean I can understand hating the thematic idea of beast companions or familiars (although why someone can be fine with druids, elves/eladrin, halflings, dwarves and yet seem to mysteriously detest other fantasy tropes confuses me), but mounts!?
All familiars have ever done for me is suck XP away.
Mounts don't appear to suck XP away. Why the hate for them?
The thing about the ranger's animal companion and familiars in 3rd Ed, was that to me they were more window dressing than anything else
That doesn't jive with the stories I've heard. Anytime I hear about a 3.5e ranger's companion its about how overpowered they were and how the ranger was the beast's sidekick rather then vice-versa.
Anytime I hear about a 3.5e ranger's companion its about how overpowered they were and how the ranger was the beast's sidekick rather then vice-versa.
You might be thinking of the druid's animal companion, because the ranger's was half the power level of the druid's companion. Everybody I knew who played a ranger was ecstatic when the 3rd Ed PHB II came out so they could switch it out for distracting attack
That's the problem with the 3rd Ed druid:
"I am a spell-casting bear, with a bear sidekick that I can buff, and when I team up with pretty much any other full caster, we don't need those other classes cramping our style."
Then find a different group if the other player's characters annoy you.
Well, maybe where you live players grow on trees. ;)
Really though, i cant blame someone for being upset that the developers are introducing stuff they find thematically annoying, even if i dont share that annoyance, simply because i understand what its like to be in a game with a bunch of races/classes/spells/ect that detract from your enjoyment of the game.
You might be thinking of the druid's animal companion
That could be it. I didn't realise druids had them as well.
I hope we'll see them in a non-combat variation
Any reason why?
Any reason why?
I just would like to have some tiny/small animal that generally stays out of combat as my companion. I don't want to always have to use nature skillchecks to get it do what I want it to do so as a familiar bonded to me it would be perfect.
I just don't want something that's on the battlemat and fighting and getting hurt and all this ugly stuff.
"I am a spell-casting bear, with a bear sidekick that I can buff, and when I team up with pretty much any other full caster, we don't need those other classes cramping our style."
^^ Your 3.x druid needed another full caster? Man, he must have been weak. Druid alone, man.
We found the druid could easily be a 1 man party....
"I am a spellcasting bear, with a dire wolf sidekick, that can summon more bears and dire wolves, well calling down lightling, and buffing mysefl, sidekick and/or summons...why do I need others cramping my style?"
That could be it. I didn't realise druids had them as well.
You probably did mean Druid, John. As was said above, Ranger animal companions in 3.5E were half the power of Druid companions, literally. The Ranger entry said something to the effect that, "You gain an animal companion, as per the Druid's class feature. You count as a Druid of half your Ranger class level for this purpose." There was potential for abuse, even with that half-progression though.
The Ranger entry said something to the effect that, "You gain an animal companion, as per the Druid's class feature. You count as a Druid of half your Ranger class level for this purpose." There was potential for abuse, even with that half-progression though.
I saw natural bond feat being used alot...it added 3 druid levels for the purpose of the companion...so level 10 ranger counts as an 8...
I saw natural bond feat being used alot...it added 3 druid levels for the purpose of the companion...so level 10 ranger counts as an 8...
Hmm... but OTOH, that feat gets weaker as you go up in level.
There's still something to be said for replacing all your physical ability scores with those of a ferocious elemental dire-ape, strapping on some armor and picking up a weapon*, and casting as well as the party cleric or wizard, all with an intelligent, magically-enhanced dire-beast rampaging into combat alongside you. You served as your own artillery, healer, buffer, and utility casters, and you didn't even need the party's tank, because you had a better (read: magically resistant) one as a class feature.
*Okay, I don't believe that turning into a Dire-Ape, calling yourself humanoid-shaped, and then equipping magical weapons and armor to yourself was technically legal, but that didn't stop the stories of it happening.
True, a wizard is not strapped for spells and opportunities anymore, yet it can never hurt to have another friend.
And I have always enjoyed crazy wizards with funny pets. It adds flavor.
If you hate them well then you don't have to include them. The Powers books are rather optional in nature.
Well, maybe where you live players grow on trees. ;)
Actually, I think they do. When my last group broke apart (rules lawyer DM vs story trumps rules players) I immediately placed a Craigslist ad (also had one on the wall at the FLGS) and had 7 people respond within 2 weeks, I had to put 2 on standby because I have a small place and you never know when someone is going to flake out.
Should move here, I'll give you directions, lol.
Maybe i would have more luck with craig's list and if that fails ill consider Cali. lol
Man, im not even incredibly crazy about the gamers i usually play with much less the guys we've tried to recruit from meet-ups.com! It seems bizarre that everyone we get to come to the store always seems to embody the cliche smelly super-dork.
Maybe i would have more luck with craig's list and if that fails ill consider Cali. lol
I wasn't rude about it, but I did mention that proper hygene was a bonus, lol, that seemed to weed out the smelly super-dorks, have a nice group now.
I'd like them to be customizable, and useful mainly for non-combat activities (granting skill bonuses, scouting, providing assistance with rituals, perhaps have feats that grant your companion utility powers or powers akin to rituals, so you can have an imp that can foretell the future or a gremlin like creature that can magically make a complex lock fall apart). That being said, I'd like them to be available to all arcane characters, rather than being a wizard only thing so there can be warlocks with imps or quasits, pixies, or tiny tentacled creatures with mouths and stingy bits all over their bodies, so sorcerers can have bizarre creatures formed of pure arcane power (or that were spontaneously "marked" as the sorcerer came into his power), and so swordmages and bards can, if they so choose have a companion to watch their backs. In that vein, I'd prefer if it was a heroic feat with the perquisite of having the arcane power source that granted you a familiar from one of several categories, with further feats expanding on the familiar's power and versatility.
Whatever the bonus is, I'd love to see one that changes or adds features as you hit Paragon and Epic tier play.
So with 4e and it's new approach to design, I suspect there will be some new approached to this.
1. Familiars are invulnerable and mostly statless. Familiars might not actually have much in the way of stats, they could be just something that's there, and really only affects game only when some sort of power or ability is used. In fact they might be some invisible presence that only manifests and becomes visible at a certain time when such things are used.
But to me that sounds more like a companion spirit, and might very well be something they're doing with the shaman, who's bound to have many powers which are about the companion spirit acting.
2. Familiars have stats and interact with the world, but are immortal. Familiars could be more like the Ranger's animal companion with a set stat regardless of type. In this case they could be targeted in combat, and might actually die. A familiar 'dying' in combat might mean the wizard grants enemy combat advantage till the end of their next turn. But with a short or extended rest the familiar could come back with full hit-points.
I agree that using it as an optional Class Feature with a trade out for Impliment Mastery would be awesome and very 4E logical.
Isn't that what happened with the Ranger?
Whatever the bonus is, I'd love to see one that changes or adds features as you hit Paragon and Epic tier play.
I'll be surprised if there isn't a familiar-related paragon path.
2. Familiars have stats and interact with the world, but are immortal.
I don't know if its necessary to go to those lengths. Having them as carbon copies of the Ranger's Beast Companion would still make them useful (as they can be resurrected through a ritual that the class feature should give to you for free).
I'll be surprised if there isn't a familiar-related paragon path.
Oh now that would be sexy. I'd imagine a Familiar with it's own unique magical powers that can aid you in combat in a bit way. Dual Fire Balls! Booya!
I agree that using it as an optional Class Feature with a trade out for Impliment Mastery would be awesome and very 4E logical.
Whatever the bonus is, I'd love to see one that changes or adds features as you hit Paragon and Epic tier play.
While I agree with you that it'd be awesome to have options to add features (such as powers or abilities) to familiars, either as paragon paths, epic destinies, or (hopefully) feats I disagree with your assertion that having familiars as a substitution for implement mastery would be "awesome". What about warlocks or sorcerers, neither of whom get implement mastery as a class feature? Both of those classes have flavor that would work with a variety of familiars and I'd imagine that many warlock and sorcerer players might not enjoy the thought of having to start out as a wizard in order to get a familiar-thus sacrificing a significant amount of warlocky or sorcerous goodness. They should probably be a feat-with the requirement of Arcane power source-that way every arcanist can have one if he or she so wishes, whether they get their power from birth, pact or study.
What about warlocks or sorcerers, neither of whom get implement mastery as a class feature? Both of those classes have flavor that would work with a variety of familiars
Don't all primal characters have flavour that works well with a variety of companions (druids even had them in 3e)? And yet I'll be astonished if they get any.
Seems like a similar situation for familiars.
and gave you penalties when your familiar was killed, and they were fragile, and mostly just a complication that everyone was stuck with whether they wanted one or not.
If you didn't want one you didn't have to summon one.
If you didn't want one you didn't have to summon one.
Pretty much.
I'll never understand why people thought they HAD to have a familiar.
I wish my Duskblade had one, but that's a personal preference. (Didn't know there was a feat when I put him together. blasted no xp campaign.)
They could also add the stronger ones with another advanced familiar feat like they had in the arcane book in 3.5e i think it was.
I think when most people think of rangers they think of drizzt, and drizzt went no where without his pet panther and i think they've done a nice job of balancing the new ranger companions without making them an entire extra pc like they could be before.
Oh, and Mounts still exist, and their are rules for mounted combat arn't there?
One: Wizard class feature replacing either Arcane Implement Mastery or Ritual Casting
Two: A feat requiring an Arcane Source.
Three: Not sure about three yet, but 'see two and look for the third' as they saying goes.
Personally, I love using familiars. In previous editions, I've had a variety of characters possessing and using familiars for different reasons.
Rogue-Mage: Companion and Partner-in-Crime. Effective aid in combat by tumbling into an enemy square and using aid another actions.
Wizard: Had a raven that acted as a part-time secretary and scout. Great fun arguing over weekly pricing. "6 goat eyes for dinner or I don't fly!"
Arcane Heirophant: Sure, it was, in fact, a Companion Familiar, but there's just something about seeing a large snake spit lightning at one's enemies. Great for keeping the rats out.
Three: Not sure about three yet, but 'see two and look for the third' as they saying goes.
A ritual. Afterall, the price tag there would be the same as the price tag for a magical item (so you'd just have to figure out what a familiar is worth).
A heroic tier ritual of the 1,000gp market price variety (100gp component cost)
An improve familiar ritual for paragon tier (10,000gp market, 1,000gp component) and an epic tier variety of the ritual as well (100,000gp market, 10,000gp component)!
A ritual would, in fact, make loads of sense!
A heroic tier ritual of the 1,000gp market price variety (100gp component cost)
An improve familiar ritual for paragon tier (10,000gp market, 1,000gp component) and an epic tier variety of the ritual as well (100,000gp market, 10,000gp component)!
Ah, ninja'd. I was about to say to make it a ritual. What would it do though? Would it have a skill of its own, be used as a scout, or something else? If it's non-combat, a ritual would be the perfect way to handle it.
And why must a familiar be relegated to noncombat status? Certainly they won't have as much biting power as a Beast Companion, that's a given, but they may have their various uses both in and outside of bloody conflict.
Even if the basic damage they do is minimal, 1d4 or 1d6 bite/claw, they MAY be applied in combat situations. Not optimal, but the use is there.
Furthermore, I like the idea that as part of the ritual, you either permanently invest one or two healing surges in your familiar (explained via bonding with it), which may be regained should the familiar perish and you don't want to raise it from the dead.
But it will of course require tinkering.
I expect I'll dislike the 4e mechanics when they come, and dislike the flavor text even more, but anything is preferable to the gaping hole there is now.
Some of my thoughts and reactions:- I don't think they'll do familiars as a class feature swap; familiars should probably be available to all arcane classes.
- A feat and/or feat chain as mentioned is more feasible for adding a familiar onto a character.
- A ritual might be required to summon or awaken a familiar initially, just like the 3e flavor text. This might make familiars feel a bit mundane or too commonplace, unless...
- There could also be a series of arcane attack and utility powers (i.e., requiring the arcane power source) to make any real use of the familiar in and out of combat. These powers would function something like beast or beast form powers and to the series of arcane illusion powers from Dragon, and without them a character who uses the ritual simply has a nice animal buddy.
- I don't think they'll do familiars as a class feature swap; familiars should probably be available to all arcane classes.
I would have agreed with this, however, I also felt that beast companions should have been an option for any character that wanted a pet to battle beside them, and yet for the time being they are the exclusive purvey of the ranger and a whole set of powers (all the beast ones) are effectively useless as multiclass power swaps. What is it with the ranger and not sharing? First they won't share their paragon paths, and now they won't share battle pets.
I would have agreed with this, however, I also felt that beast companions should have been an option for any character that wanted a pet to battle beside them, and yet for the time being they are the exclusive purvey of the ranger and a whole set of powers (all the beast ones) are effectively useless as multiclass power swaps. What is it with the ranger and not sharing? First they won't share their paragon paths, and now they won't share battle pets.
Hmm.....veerrrrrry good point.
My thought is to take the 1st ed Find Familiar spell and turn it into a 4e ritual, then declare that "familiar" is an item slot so you can only have one familiar at a time, and you can't just swap them out like with your pouch of rings or golf bag of swords. Let the familiar gain other powers as you gain levels, as per 3.X, but also allow for more interesting familiars at higher levels if a wizard has lost his familiar.
This is a neat idea - using the framework of magic items (akin to Wondrous Figurines) and expanding it - this way you can even "upgrade" familiars, i.e. you can put in higher level features without forcing a 3E-style level progression.
Cheers, LT.
This is a neat idea - using the framework of magic items (akin to Wondrous Figurines) and expanding it - this way you can even "upgrade" familiars, i.e. you can put in higher level features without forcing a 3E-style level progression.
Cheers, LT.
Right. And I'm also thinking of treating familiars like 4e artifacts in terms of Pleased, Displeased and so on. You annoy your familiar too much, it's going to leave. But if you please your familiar, it may leave eventually as well if there's nothing more it can teach you and it's time for you to get a spiffier familiar.
I higher level Ritual could get you the advanced Familiar such as an Imp or Mephit.
Right. And I'm also thinking of treating familiars like 4e artifacts in terms of Pleased, Displeased and so on. You annoy your familiar too much, it's going to leave. But if you please your familiar, it may leave eventually as well if there's nothing more it can teach you and it's time for you to get a spiffier familiar.
I like this.
I like this a lot.
Still hoping for gone forever, but they disappointed me by bringing back animal companions so it's probably inevitable.
Considering they already announced that familiars would be returning in Arcane Power, yup it is inevitable.
Still hoping for gone forever, but they disappointed me by bringing back animal companions so it's probably inevitable.
If you don't like them, you don't have to use them.
Why is an OPTION such a cause for concern?
Why was it EVER such a cause for concern?
If you don't want one, you don't have to play that build. Last I checked, there are at least two different builds for Ranger aside from the Beast Companion build. Neither of those have the beast companion. So play one of those two, and stop whining over the existence of something you have no control over.
So, the Ranger has his beast, and the arcane classes have their pet, then what about the Paladin? Do we have any reason to expect a mount alternate class feature coming out in, say, Divine Power?
I would not count on it as a developer recently(I want to say two months ago) mentioned that if they could come up with a good way to make paladin mounts work well they would do it.....the implication being that they haven't come up with a way yet and I think it would be too late to add it at this point.
I'll be interested in seeing what system was come up with for them. I'm tinkering around with a house rules version in the interim, but I have no trouble with incorporating other rules later, especially if they're elegant and workable.
I also expect that a lot of the stuff in Insider will simply be skinning: Arcane Power says "You can have a raven familiar" and Insider says "You can also have as parrot familiar--just use the same stats as the raven."
Except having only one functioning eye, hand, or leg is a prerequisite for having a parrot familiar.
Your also have to say "arr matey!!" as well.:D