D&D 5E Familiars!

[doctorbadwolf]

It bugs me that familiars are only as smart as their mundane type. I think they should have an Int of, at least, 6. Like a Paladin's mount.

I agree. They should also have minor benefits for their master for crafting alchemical items, maybe reduce ritual casting time, act as an arcane focus, etc, maybe even be able to remember stuff for you.

A wizqrd’s familiar should be an aid to them in their Arcane endeavors, not just scouting and fighting.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

I don't like that the Familiar and the Revised Ranger's Beast Companion are both basically immortal. If it dies in combat, you can just re-summon it afterwards. Pfft...

IMO, the death of a beloved pet is a ripe roleplaying opportunity, and it should be part of the game. So should the rewarding experience of keeping a fragile animal companion alive for a whole campaign.

Any character can get a pet.

 

[Paul Farquhar]

Reading a certain other threadbrought my feeling to the fore of the topic of familiars in 5e.

Now, for the most part, I find 5e's rules for familiars okay. However...

I don't like that the familiar is a spirit rather than a normal creature of its ilk. The spirit thing is neat, but for me it's not as cool as bonding with an actual creature.

I like it. It's more consistent with folklore on which it is based: a witches familiar is a devil in animal form. And it means the familiar isn't a liability that is permakilled by the first AoE spell that comes your way.

I don't like that the familiar can't attack.

It helps balance out small critters, so no big deal. Familiars are not meant to be warriors.

I know, chainlocks have this as a special ability, but meh—they have access to more powerful familiars early on, and most familiars aren't exactly deadly opponents. Like the above, this is mostly just a "feel" thing.

I don't like that non-chainlocks are limited to familars certain familiars. Sure, I get the chainlock has special access to more powerful critters and that's cool. However, I think that casters of other classes should be able to take more powerful creatures, too, at higher levels (that preserves some of the chainlock's specialness). I mean, why shouldn't a 10th-level wizard have a pseudodragon familiar (like they could in some previous editions)?

Yes, these are just my feelings and, sure, I can houserule to hell and back. But these are things that I find disappointing in an edition that I am mostly satisfied with (there are other small things like this that I can whinge on about, but they're all pretty minor). So, here I am ranting online.

But that brings me to you guys... What are your thoughts and feelings concerning familiars in this edition and how they size up with your experiences and feelings of previous editions and your expectations of how they should work?

It would be nice to have some more options for warlocks, and an "improved familiar" feat for others. As a DM I would probably allow pretty much anything reasonable.

 

[DND_Reborn]

I don't like that the Familiar and the Revised Ranger's Beast Companion are both basically immortal. If it dies in combat, you can just re-summon it afterwards. Pfft...

IMO, the death of a beloved pet is a ripe roleplaying opportunity, and it should be part of the game. So should the rewarding experience of keeping a fragile animal companion alive for a whole campaign.

That was why we got rid of the fey, celestial, or fiend spirit stuff, and imposed the level of exhaustion when the familiar dies.

 

[5ekyu]

Any character can get a pet.

Yes, just like characters can get special faniliars.

I draw a distinct line between "class features" (and the like) including spells and the broader issues of companions etc. "Class features" may have some upkeep and baggage, restrictions etc, but they are not the same thing as the party just having now folks to love.

Then again, for my own Stonesinger, she sees it as calling Shadow ( her bat familiar) back.

 

[MechaTarrasque]

All this seems like a good rationale for a Veterinarian School subclass for wizards.

 

[Ralif Redhammer]

Seriously. Our one cat, a former feral, once took both her claws to my leg in a series of strikes. There was screaming. There was blood.

On the subject of familiars, as I said in the other thread, I think I'd prefer a little more granularity in the experience you get from different familiars and a little more consequence to losing one.

I think your experience with house cats has been different than my experience. #littlekillers

 

[doctorbadwolf]

That was why we got rid of the fey, celestial, or fiend spirit stuff, and imposed the level of exhaustion when the familiar dies.

That seems really extreme for the loss of a pet that barely does anything.

Do you let it help with things other than scouting and using Help in combat?

 

[Immortal Sun]

IMO, the death of a beloved pet is a ripe roleplaying opportunity, and it should be part of the game. So should the rewarding experience of keeping a fragile animal companion alive for a whole campaign.

Familiars and animal companions have been notoriously squishy. Which is one reason I don't like the idea that they can "help" in combat, but I've never found it terribly fun to get an animal companion, love it, train it...only to have it take a couple bad crits and die...just so that I can then not have a familiar for a like a year AND take some XP penalties. That was FUN. NOT.

Roleplaying out the death of a familiar is great and all, no issue there. And even if it's a spirit taking the form of an animal, it might not want to serve you again if you got it killed. So add a little RP fluff and you end up with the same result, a dead friend who may not be interested in coming back.

----

Personally, I really like the way 5E familiars work. Sure, I wouldn't mind an "Improved Familiar" feat or a mildly expanded list (though I thought there was an "ask your DM" list already?). But overall they're a a pet with some special uses that you have to make some effort to take care of. You might not have the materials and time to bring them back!

 

[TaranTheWanderer]

Imposing exhaustion is a nice drawback, actually. It’s temporary and can represent a combination of a loss of power that happens when your connection to your familiar is ripped apart as well as a the grief that might go along.

It might be even worse if you are looking through the familiar’s eyes when it dies. That would be jarring.

One long rest to recover and regain the lost arcane potential is a small cost, I think.

I might not allow you to summon a new one until the level of exhaustion is recovered. Or go the opposite and say that resummoning also recovers your level of exhaustion.