D&D 5E Familiars, what for?

[beancounter]

Familiars have always been easy to replace but losing them came with a cost, the loss of that cost in 5e is the big problem that makes them a standin for a ten foot pole. Here's how it used to work

• In an 2e losing a familiar was one of the most terrifying things a wizard could have happen. specifically "If the familiar dies, the wizard must successfully roll an immediate system shock check or die. Even if he survives this check, the wizard loses 1 point from his Constitution when the familiar dies.".
• In 3.x the caster lost access to a familiar specific skill bonus & needed to spend 24 hours along with 100gp (a serious loss) to resummon it after "If the familiar dies or is dismissed by the sorcerer, the sorcerer must attempt a DC 15 Fortitude saving throw. Failure means he loses 200 experience points per sorcerer level; success reduces the loss to one-half that amount. " on bringing it back tomorrow instead of using that slot for something else.
• Now in 5e the caster says "hmm.. I need to spend an hour ritually casting find familiar & subtract ten funbucks worth of pointless gold"

Yea, I agree. 1E was too costly, and 5E has no meaningful costs. 3x seemed about reasonable, although if I were writing the rules, I would increase the lost time and money and scrap the xp lost.

 

[James Gasik]

It really feels like what they should have done is buff familiars and give them a set "this is what a familiar is for" job, AND made the costs to summon/replace them heftier.

 

[Dausuul]

The problem is that the rules clearly say that it's able to, and that it does not break the invisibility. Moreover, there can be some justification, fluttering invisibly around an adversary's head would certainly be distracting, for example.

I would say the familiar can use Help and remain invisible--but it cannot remain undetected. In other words, the enemy will still have disadvantage to hit the familiar, but they know it's there and they can target it.

IMO, scouting is the primary adventuring function of a familiar, and the DM should avoid having monsters attack it for no reason. You can't take a shot at every owl which flies by at night. That said, a familiar which draws attention to itself is forfeiting that "anonymity shield." An owl in a dungeon is a lot more conspicuous than an owl in the forest.

I do feel like they could do more to improve some of the options for familiars, though. I feel like the overwhelming majority of familiars are birds just because having a flying scout is so much more useful than a land-bound one. (Though snakes seem like a bit of a sleeper option; they can fit through tiny holes, they can operate equally well on land and in water, and they have blindsight.)

 

[iserith]

I don't really find the Help action case with familiars to be a big deal. My general policy is to kill familiars on sight anyway if given the opportunity and I let the players know that. While 10 gp is not really going to be a huge concern in most of my games, an hour spent casting the spell is not usually a good use of the characters time. That's likely going to mean a wandering monster check (or several) or one hour closer to Something Bad Happening. Or both.

The biggest issue in my view, if one can really even consider it one, is spotlight time. It's an extra turn for the player in initiative and when scouting it can mean that some amount of players are sitting idle while the familiar's poking around is resolved. I have my own solutions for this, but on its own I would see this as the only real problem to resolve.

One minor issue I also have is that flyby basically makes it so owls are the only familiar anyone chooses. So getting rid of flyby might see more variety in familiars.

 

[Lyxen]

I don't really find the Help action case with familiars to be a big deal. My general policy is to kill familiars on sight anyway if given the opportunity and I let the players know that.

So you basically make the familiar useless, but really, the main problem is the "given the opportunity", since for most adversaries it's really hard to kill a flying familiar who flies in, distracts, and flies away without harm due to invisibility or flyby. Most adversaries can't reach it, and if all your adversaries have such capabilities, it makes the spell useless, which is in turn hardly fair to the player.

While 10 gp is not really going to be a huge concern in most of my games, an hour spent casting the spell is not usually a good use of the characters time. That's likely going to mean a wandering monster check (or several) or one hour closer to Something Bad Happening. Or both.

With all the above, it might be better for the DM to just forbid the spell, rather than having a frustrated player trying it.

One minor issue I also have is that flyby basically makes it so owls are the only familiar anyone chooses. So getting rid of flyby might see more variety in familiars.

Owl also have darkvision 120 feet and keen senses, in addition to the flight, which makes them a great familiar even without the flyby.

Which is why was absolutely pissed at the DM's kobolds killing my owl at night in the woods, without the owl noticing anything first. Again, as a DM, if you don't like the spell, say it and forbid it, but allowing it and then doing the above is unfair and frustrating to your players.

 

[Dausuul]

One minor issue I also have is that flyby basically makes it so owls are the only familiar anyone chooses. So getting rid of flyby might see more variety in familiars.

It isn't just flyby. Owls tick pretty much all the boxes you want in a familiar:

1. They are flyers with a high speed, allowing them to bypass many obstacles, conduct aerial surveillance, and escape ground-based foes.
2. They have top-notch Perception (a +3 bonus and advantage on essentially all checks), coupled with 120-foot darkvision.
3. They have decent Stealth as well (a +3 bonus).
4. They are apex predators who rarely have to worry about being attacked by other animals.
5. They're really cool. What with Harry Potter, half the players probably had owls on their shortlist before even looking at their stats.

While I certainly agree with toning owls down a bit, I think much more needs to be done to boost the other options and especially the non-flyers. Cats are the classic familiar, but they really don't have much to recommend them mechanically. Rats, toads, and spiders are just terrible. And then there are the aquatic-only options... I mean, fish? Really? You're going to have a familiar that you have to carry around in a bowl most of the time?

 

[EzekielRaiden]

Many critics' fears are overblown, but not 100% unwarranted. Some fans expect too much. Obviously, each group will have its own experience of this issue, but I see a lot more people, several times more, complaining about the possibility of abuse by players than I do complaints about any actual abuse.

Spoiler: Digression about "white room" arguments and how selectively they're used

Many love the "white room" retort. I strongly dislike it, in part because it's almost always used to dismiss discussion without further thought, but also in part because it's only used against things the speaker opposes. This is relevant because I find concerns about familiars are "white room"-type claims--on both sides. Players with inflated expectations, and DMs who anticipate bad-faith players. Both are "white room"; if you dismiss others' arguments for being "white room," I recommend thinking about whether your concerns are such. If you've actually had DMs rule unfairly, actively denying any value to your choice to have a familiar, that's a serious issue. If one of your players has thrown a legit tantrum because their reckless choices with their familiar had consequences, that's a serious issue. But if your concerns arise from what you think might happen, consider whether you would accept that kind of criticism against something you're personally in favor of.

With that digression out of the way: Yes, player abuse is possible, as is a DM being excessively punitive toward familiars. Effective use requires a real conversation, where no one assumes anyone else will act in bad faith. This is why I so heavily stress that DMs should actively support genuine, non-coercive, non-abusive player enthusiasm.

If it's genuine, the player is earnest and wants a good experience for all. I find it pretty easy to tell whether a player's enthusiasm is genuine or merely a ploy to get power. If it's non-coercive, the player doesn't want to control what others do; at most, they might hope others play along for everyone's mutual benefit. Coercion takes many forms, from "get in a relationship with my PC" to "everyone should play 100% optimized" to "but that's what my character would do" excuses, but again, it is usually not too hard to spot. If the enthusiasm is non-abusive, in general, it will be pretty easy to find out--just offer a lower-power alternative, especially if it's got a richer story or higher aesthetic value in the bargain. (I offered to do that for a rhetorical question in a thread last month. The person who asked never responded.) Abusive enthusiasm doesn't demand much of others, and instead seeks to "win" or "dominate," controlling the state of the game rather than the actions of other participants.

I am of the opinion that it is almost always possible to do this in a way that works for everyone involved, and always worth seeking such a solution even if ultimately one can't be found. And if you're having a mature, respectful conversation with your player or DM about what familiars do, what to expect, etc., then you shouldn't ever have a dust-up because a player got upset that their expectations weren't met, or a DM being needlessly punitive.

I don't really find the Help action case with familiars to be a big deal. My general policy is to kill familiars on sight anyway if given the opportunity and I let the players know that.

I mean...good on you for being up front about that...but that sounds needlessly punitive to me. "Oh, you interested in that thing? Keep in mind, my policy will always be to destroy it immediately. Yes, every single time." That just comes across as opposed to players having fun with something.

 

[BookTenTiger]

As I said above, I've had really positive experiences with Find Familiar. My only two problems are:

1) Owl is consistently the best option, for almost any use of a familiar.

2) Two characters with Find Familiar will usually have the same experience, since you can choose any form each time you cast it.

If I were recreating the spell, I think I'd have a caster pick a consistent form for their familiar. Maybe choosing a new form costs more, or means it's a new spirit.

I would give each form an extra bonus to the caster, with weaker forms granting a larger bonus.

I would add in an optional table of personality traits for the familiar, such as "loves to drink wine," "always pounces on shiny things" or "only responds when spoken to in rhyme."

 

[iserith]

So you basically make the familiar useless, but really, the main problem is the "given the opportunity", since for most adversaries it's really hard to kill a flying familiar who flies in, distracts, and flies away without harm due to invisibility or flyby. Most adversaries can't reach it, and if all your adversaries have such capabilities, it makes the spell useless, which is in turn hardly fair to the player.

Given the opportunity, I will target the familiar. It doesn't make the familiar useless. It creates a risk for the player to consider which makes the choice meaningful. It's a resource, nothing more. Draining resources increases the stakes and tension.

With all the above, it might be better for the DM to just forbid the spell, rather than having a frustrated player trying it.

Time pressures in the game create a trade-off and, when combined with wandering monster checks, a risk which as above makes their choices meaningful. More meaningful choices per unit of play time increases player engagement.

Owl also have darkvision 120 feet and keen senses, in addition to the flight, which makes them a great familiar even without the flyby.

Which is why was absolutely pissed at the DM's kobolds killing my owl at night in the woods, without the owl noticing anything first. Again, as a DM, if you don't like the spell, say it and forbid it, but allowing it and then doing the above is unfair and frustrating to your players.

Please don't project whatever issues you have with your own DMs on me. I'm not them.

 

[Oofta]

All of these are reasonable uses, the main difficulty comes from how alert the enemies are to familiars. I've, had, at level 1, first use of my familiar, an owl shot down at night in the woods by kobolds, just for flying in the woods. I did not even see what happened, just the owl died for no reason that I could determine, without even spotting the kobolds. Was that an abused use of the spell ? And since it was level 1, I did not even have the money to summon it again until way later, which I did not do since I could by then see how it was going to go with that DM, who hated the spell anyway.

That would only make sense if the archers looked like:

The problem is that the rules clearly say that it's able to, and that it does not break the invisibility. Moreover, there can be some justification, fluttering invisibly around an adversary's head would certainly be distracting, for example.

As usual, my problem is not using tricks like this now and then, they can be fun and even a little inventive at times. My difficulty is more with players who make assumptions that they will work all the time, and then complain that it's not fair that the familiar was whacked or that the adversary had anti-familiar tactics...

I agree that the help tactic is fine now and then, it's a question of it being abused and making things non-fun for the group. We had to tell one of our players that their familiar was starting to get PTSD from dying every combat. An invisible flying creature doing all the exploration can also simply be boring for most of the group, even if it is a valid tactic.

We just limit familiars and don't allow imps while reminding people that anything they can do the bad guys can also do, so we have kind of a mutual agreement. Now and then is fine, they should be useful in many ways. Just don't abuse it.