D&D (2024) Find Familiar, the Alert feat, and the loss of the fly-by Owl.

[mellored]

Yeah, we ran into this in a previous campaign and the DM just started having wandering monsters attack the familiar on-sight. Eventually, the repeated 1 hr delays to resummon the familiar kept things in check, such that we didn't solely rely on the familiar to scout, but still used it to let us know about the first instance of danger.

You could also capture the familiar, then sing annoying goblin songs to it.

 

[mellored]

Or capture it and use illusion spells to give out false information.

The party shows up ready to fight ice golems, but really it's a red dragon who resist fire.

 

[tetrasodium]

Is that not exploring?

No. The whole game turns into an omniscient stroll in the park and literally any unknowns or things the familiar can't understand will immediately grind the game to a complete halt investigating it through familiar until the GM just gives up. I've seen a lot of players like @FitzTheRuke described in 23 & 28... IME the entire group tends to immediately fall in line refusing to do anything other than wait for the familiar to scout their way to the next encounter they instantly melt.

Giving so many classes an AI equipped parrot drone* would be a mistake that really changes the game would be problematic without bringing back some of the old risks that went with familiar death in past editions. Having a familiar get ganked while scouting is one thing... Having one PC's familiar watching a second PC's familiar that is watching the third PC's familiar actuallygetting ganked will dramatically change the game. Likewise with so much in combat help action spam

I resolve the familiar exploring the same way I would a (flying, if the familiar can fly) PC exploring. The player describes where the familiar goes and what they do, and I describe what it can perceive while doing so. If the players want to make a map from that they can, but it’s not automatic, and the familiar has to search for hidden features the same way a PC would. If your players are expecting to be able to skip those processes and just have you tell them every detail of the map automatically, I can certainly see that being annoying. But I would think a simple “that’s not how the spell works, the familiar has to actually explore and experience the environment through its direct senses” would resolve the issue.

When a PC encounters a trap, hostile monsters, environmental hazzards, etc they are generally put at some level of risk . When a familiar encounters those things it doesn't matter because summoning a new one is effedctively free with a duplicate replacement only a short rest away.

You could also capture the familiar, then sing annoying goblin songs to it.

The familiar
disappears if it drops to 0hit points, if you dismiss it as a Bonus Action...

*Parrot makes those cellphone controlled camera equipped quadcopter things

 

[Charlaquin]

No. The whole game turns into an omniscient stroll in the park and literally any unknowns or things the familiar can't understand will immediately grind the game to a complete halt investigating it through familiar until the GM just gives up.

Gives up on… what, exactly? Trying to conceal information from the players?

I've seen a lot of players like @FitzTheRuke described in 23 & 28... IME the entire group tends to immediately fall in line refusing to do anything other than wait for the familiar to scout their way to the next encounter they instantly melt.

If the whole group refuses to do anything else, it sounds like they’re all onboard with the plan. So what’s the problem?

Giving so many classes an AI equipped parrot drone* would be a mistake that really changes the game would be problematic without bringing back some of the old risks that went with familiar death in past editions. Having a familiar get ganked while scouting is one thing... Having one PC's familiar watching a second PC's familiar that is watching the third PC's familiar actuallygetting ganked will dramatically change the game. Likewise with so much in combat help action spam

The question is, does it change the game for the worse or for the better? Again, if the whole party is up for it, seems like it’s a mode of play they’re interested in engaging with.

When a PC encounters a trap, hostile monsters, environmental hazzards, etc they are generally put at some level of risk . When a familiar encounters those things it doesn't matter because summoning a new one is effedctively free with a duplicate replacement only a short rest away.

You mean the players might use their characters’ abilities to mitigate risk while exploring dangerous environments? Those monsters!

The familiar
disappears if it drops to 0hit points, if you dismiss it as a Bonus Action...

*Parrot makes those cellphone controlled camera equipped quadcopter things

Yeah, seems like a pretty apt analogy. And I would certainly describe a person using such a drone to scout out an unfamiliar and potentially dangerous environment as “exploring” that environment. They’re just using tools to make that exploration safer.

 

[tetrasodium]

Gives up on… what, exactly? Trying to conceal information from the players?

Gives up on actually running any form of game and presents it like players would reading the strategy guide to a video game. Did you not read the way Fitz described it in the posts you yourself quoted in 27 29 31 or 40? I talked about his description of it explicitly hoping to avoid going back to square one as if it were an entry from left field. A familiar lacks the capabilities of a PC but less opportunity cost if attacked beyond reach of the party's aid, a flying PC has that pretty much reversed.

If the whole group refuses to do anything else, it sounds like they’re all onboard with the plan. So what’s the problem?

The game is played for enjoyment, fiddling with their phone because the group has decided to use a familiar to skip all exploration pending completion of a full and accurate map in order to launch into round one of 5e's version of scry and fry is not meeting that objective of being fun. Combat in 5e is really not even that solid to operate as the exclusive pillar.

The question is, does it change the game for the worse or for the better? Again, if the whole party is up for it, seems like it’s a mode of play they’re interested in engaging with.

... I feel the answer to that question was obvious from the section of my post you quoted just above it. When I wrote "a mistake that really changes the game would be problematic without bringing back some of the old risks that went with familiar death in past editions." Which part did you feel left doubt to the answer?

You mean the players might use their characters’ abilities to mitigate risk while exploring dangerous environments? Those monsters!

Using those abilities like they were playing the game rather than waiting for the creation of a full and accurate map before engaging in scry and fry....I think you already forgot what has been discussed, this kind of thing has previously been covered

Yeah, seems like a pretty apt analogy. And I would certainly describe a person using such a drone to scout out an unfamiliar and potentially dangerous environment as “exploring” that environment. They’re just using tools to make that exploration safer.

"Safer" is not the same as sitting at the entry room or equivalent and waiting for a full and accurate map

 

[Charlaquin]

Gives up on actually running any form of game and presents it like players would reading the strategy guide to a video game. Did you not read the way Fitz described it in the posts you yourself quoted in 27 29 31 or 40? I talked about his description of it explicitly hoping to avoid going back to square one as if it were an entry from left field. A familiar lacks the capabilities of a PC but less opportunity cost if attacked beyond reach of the party's aid, a flying PC has that pretty much reversed.

The game is played for enjoyment, fiddling with their phone because the group has decided to use a familiar to skip all exploration pending completion of a full and accurate map in order to launch into round one of 5e's version of scry and fry is not meeting that objective of being fun. Combat in 5e is really not even that solid to operate as the exclusive pillar.

... I feel the answer to that question was obvious from the section of my post you quoted just above it. When I wrote "a mistake that really changes the game would be problematic without bringing back some of the old risks that went with familiar death in past editions." Which part did you feel left doubt to the answer?

Using those abilities like they were playing the game rather than waiting for the creation of a full and accurate map before engaging in scry and fry....I think you already forgot what has been discussed, this kind of thing has previously been covered

"Safer" is not the same as sitting at the entry room or equivalent and waiting for a full and accurate map

Tetrasodium, I believe it’s you who has forgotten that I already responded to @FitzTheRuke ’s post clarifying his example, and agreed that it was a case of poor player behavior.

 

[tetrasodium]

Tetrasodium, I believe it’s you who has forgotten that I already responded to @FitzTheRuke ’s post clarifying his example, and agreed that it was a case of poor player behavior.

So why did you respond to me as if I need to prove that it is not something caused by the gm or as if I too was not talking about poor player behavior in the expectation of a full and accurate map via find familiar that is enabled and encouraged by 5e familiars having such low cost and risk compared to past editions? You even asked if I was talking about a good or bad change...

 

[Charlaquin]

So why did you respond to me as if I need to prove that it is not something caused by the gm or as if I too was not talking about poor player behavior in the expectation of a full and accurate map via find familiar that is enabled and encouraged by 5e familiars having such low cost and risk compared to past editions?

Because you responded after I had posted

Ok, that makes sense to me. Personally, I have no qualms about giving players a hard no, but I can understand the struggle of trying to temper expectations for sure. Especially with players who may have had other DMs that were more permissive with such things.

So, I assumed that rather than simply ignoring me, you were making a separate argument. Especially since you directly quoted me; I was rebutting your direct responses to my post.

You even asked if I was talking about a good or bad change...

That was a rhetorical question. I was implying that it was a good change.

 

[tetrasodium]

When support for expansion of find familiar can only rhetorically imply unstated good to the game it's probably a sure sign that something is off.

Yes, the latter part of your paragraph here is what I was speaking to, and I certainly used your solution. It's just a constant struggle to keep the player's expectation toned down to a reasonable reality without overly disappointing them. (I generally don't like to say "no" to a player - so I'm constantly having to tone down his expectation.) I also don't want to have the other players sitting around twiddling their thumbs while we play out every single thing that his familiar does, but that's another issue.

But I have no problem with a familiar being an excellent scouting tool - just not an "I win" button.

I'm not 100% sure how 4e handled familiars but I don't remember this kind of scry and fry via familiar in. 2e or 3.x. Even with scry & fry taking shape in the 3.x days (afaik) I don't even remember scrying being used for much more depth than a clue or two on what would make good spell & equipment prep before leaving town & heading for an adventure.the lack of any consequences to a dead familiar seems to be the root cause in the shift.

 

[FitzTheRuke]

When support for expansion of find familiar can only rhetorically imply unstated good to the game it's probably a sure sign that something is off.


I'm not 100% sure how 4e handled familiars but I don't remember this kind of scry and fry via familiar in. 2e or 3.x. Even with scry & fry taking shape in the 3.x days (afaik) I don't even remember scrying being used for much more depth than a clue or two on what would make good spell & equipment prep before leaving town & heading for an adventure.the lack of any consequences to a dead familiar seems to be the root cause in the shift.

I admit, one of the things that I don't enjoy about familiars is the idea one of the solutions to familiar over-reliance is to kill the familiar off. Even with all the "your familiar is an immortal celestial/fey/fiend spirit and not, you know, a cute little animal", it still feels murdering someone's pet. That the pet-owner doesn't seem to mind sending their pet in to be murdered, and will just bring 'em back, does nothing to offset the guilt experienced by a kind-hearted DM like myself.

It's not a big deal, it's just (a tiny bit) upsetting. I like to make jokes that the classes that apparently love animals the most (Druids, Rangers, Wizards with a familiar) wind up, by the rules as they are, being RECKLESS ANIMAL ENDAGERERS. Which seems like a bad fit to me? Rather than having your "pet" die but be super easy to bring back, wouldn't it be better if you just made them tougher, yet more limited in scope?

I mean, obviously it's easy enough to just fluff it that the familiar really IS immortal and just teleports back to its pocket dimension when threatened (IE takes any damage) - I've done it with beastmasters, too, by saying that when they run out of HP they really have twice the HP but run away when they're "bloodied".

At any rate, I think there's room for mechanical (and fluff vs crunch) improvements to "pets", whatever their sort.