D&D 5E Familiars, what for?

[Lyxen]

As someone who played a wizard with a familiar, I was absolutely fine with my DM targeting my familiar in combat.

There is a difference between that and "My general policy is to kill familiars on sight anyway". If I expose my familiar in combat (which I did not, and would certainly not do routinely anyway), and it's clearly a threat for some reason, and the adversary is able to target it, and that threat is actually greater than other threats faces, then OK, it's logical.

But if the adversary has a fighter in the face, a rogue in the shadows, and my familiar is on my shoulder 60 feet away doing nothing for the combat apart watching for enemies, why should he be targeted ? Wouldn't that be stupid ?

It made narrative sense, too. If an owl is flying around the ogre's face, distracting it and helping out the fighter, that ogre is going to take an angry swipe at the owl.

First, that's a very agressive use of a familiar, and clearly taking huge risks. And even then, the owl has flyby, it can be 30 feet up in the air, swoop down to distract and fly back up. So is that taking risks ?

I will say I am getting deja vu, haven't we had this debate more than once on this forum?

And the debate was going fairly well with people being reasonable until a "kill familiar on sight" contributor appeared.

 

[billd91]

I think you are exaggerating the poster's point. I see it as no different than enemies targeting the cleric because they have the power to heal others, or charging past the fighter to attack the fireball-slinging wizard.

You seem to be adding dogma to a poster's general strategy.

I dunno about that. The statement:

My general policy is to kill familiars on sight anyway if given the opportunity and I let the players know that

does kind of lend itself to a dogmatic interpretation. "Kill on sight" isn't a very nuanced expression compared to reacting to something put at risk followed up by combat examples.
Now, maybe it's a question of phrasing. There are plenty of examples of people communicating things poorly on the internet. But I certainly sympathize with someone looking at a "kill on sight" statement with a jaundiced eye.

 

[Lyxen]

The details of your example are scant, but it would appear you were in some sense unaware of threats being present or, at least, threats to your owl.

Indeed, it was a dark forest, at night, and I was LOOKING for threats, with a creature supremely suited for that. Do you call that taking risks ?

Is it reasonable in the context of that campaign setting that monsters like kobolds hunt creatures like owls for sustenance or for their feathers, etc.?

It's exactly like the stormwind fallacy, a DM, like a player, can always find a reason to kill a familiar if he is looking for it, usually by inventing something justification that was not there 10 seconds ago. This is exactly the problem of the "kill familiar on sight" DM, he will let you play a familiar, but will invent any sort of excuse to do it as soon as they can (and being a DM, they can very easily do that).

I much prefer a DM telling me "I don't allow familiars" than a DM doing the above, much less frustration involved.

Was the owl keeping watch for threats so that it's PP applied to noticing the kobolds?

Once more, you don't have to watch for threats to have PP apply. And by default, in D&D, everyone is watching for threats, all the time. The PH tells you it straight up. Please don't bring up that one sentence that means something else entirely than what you think it means, this was not travelling and the owl was certainly not bent over a table making a map.

Moreover, since the owl was LOOKING FOR THREATS, I dare say that it was.

Was the owl hiding? If so, did you make a Stealth check and failed compared to the kobold's PP? Or, alternatively, did the DM make a Stealth check to resolve the kobolds getting the drop on the owl? Was the owl surprised? Did the owl lose initiative? Or did the familiar just die without any of those things taking place? Because if that's what happened, then that definitely seems unfair to me!

The owl was flying as discreetly as it could, at night, with a darkvision, stealth and senses far superior to kobolds. But then it just died.

"At risk" means that you put them in harm's way. If you don't want them targeted, don't do that. If you want advantage on your attack via the Help action, know that your familiar is now a target. If they're flying around spewing fire, a monster might loose an arrow at them or throw a rock. They might even ready an attack to do it.

And if I see them readying an attack instead of attacking, I will probably do something else that turn. But with a familiar with flight and flyby, is it really taking a risk ? That's where the problem is, it shouldn't be.

Failure to telegraph threats sets up situations where attacks or traps can be perceived by players as a "gotcha."

And putting everything in the open reduces the game to a boardgame where everything is on the table and you just need to compute probabilities. There is no reason nor requirement for a DM to telegraph threats or make them explicit. The discovery and investigation, and surprise, is part of the game too, actually a more interesting part for some of us than crunching numbers in combat.

Does a monster need to know the owl flapping around their heads, making it easier for an adventurer to hit them, is a familiar in order to target them? No.

And of course, it's more important to target the owl because of the standing "kill familiar on sight" order than the fighter in your face, the rogue in the shadows and the wizard peppering you with magic missiles...

Look I have nothing against adversaries targeting familiars if the player abuses them by always claiming advantage and invulnerability, but this is not what we are speaking of, a "kill familiar on sight" is just a reason to aggravate players who just want a scout under reasonable conditions, and who expect a well chosen familiar to be sufficiently discrete or blending in to not be hunted and killed on sight. There are rats in the sewers. There are ravens flying over the streets during the day, there are owls flying at night in the wood. Are these all killed on sight just because they might be familiars ? Or are just familiar targeted because they are an annoying player feature ?

 

[Willie the Duck]

A few years back, I remember some people griping online that it was "cheap" to let a Familiar take the Help action.

Then, on another forum I frequent, a day or two ago, I started seeing arguments about how Familiars are not only not good at scouting, but should probably be killed more often than not if someone insists on making them scout.

I rarely take Familiars on my casters because they are notoriously fragile (though I have made use of Improved Familiar in Pathfinder). In 3.5, you took one for a passive benefit and then hid it in a pouch or something.

But in 5e, I'm a little confused. If there's pushback for having Familiars take actions, what the point of them even is. What should they be doing?

And are the complainers just being jerks?

Knowing the forum in question, there's a strong impulse to 'be right and prove your opposition wrong' cultural vibe. Is that jerkishness? I'm not sure.
Regardless, there was a good point raised -- because of the existence of familiars, reasonable enemies will have to (if spellcasters are at all common) have to fashion countermeasures not just to sneaking rogues and invisible mages, but to scurrying mice, and what does that do to your game world (/your DM's time budget, in terms of planning things out)?

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.

That is a solution. I think all I'll advocate is that, in the next iteration of the game, the designers have a very clear idea of what they want out of the familiar rules (be they spell or class feature, as it has jumped around) and be consistent about that. Other than to emulate the 'Witches familiar' trope, the game has never been exactly clear on what the intended use was, so people just kinda mess around with them, occasionally find an outsized-compared-to-other-options use for them (in 5e flyby and/or Dragon's Breath) and then we have the debate on whether that's ingenious or cheeze and whether that means bad guys should shoot owls and ravens and such on site, etc.

 

[Lyxen]

That is a solution. I think all I'll advocate is that, in the next iteration of the game, the designers have a very clear idea of what they want out of the familiar rules (be they spell or class feature, as it has jumped around) and be consistent about that.

Or, you know, the designers already gave fairly good rules in 5e, very open so that people can get creative, and trusting on the reasonableness of players to make them work without abuse, knowing that the DM has the final say on rulings anyway.

And in most of the cases, as mentioned a number of times on these forums, it's fine. I even have a character in my Avernus campaign who has Imp familiars (a whole lineage of them, actually, since they are in hell, they die when killed, but there is a new one to take it's place, I think we are down to 10 or so, some having lasted longer than others) acquired through a Devil Pact, and it never causes a problem, either of spotlight hogging or of power.

The worry is when people take extreme attitudes, as players (I want advantage every round with my bladesinger/hexblade) or as DMs (I will kill familiars on sight but not forbid the spell, just to teach players how to behave in my dangerous world where every mistakes costs you - Dark Souls mode, I suppose), without discussion and hearing each other about what could be expected of a feature which is both interesting, open and fun without being abused.

 

[beancounter]

Familiars, huh, yeah
What are they good for?
Absolutely nothing, uh huh

 

[GMforPowergamers]

As both a DM and a player I love Familiars. I as an artificer once made magic items so the whole party could have them, and as a DM let a ranger have a spell that let any CR 1 or lower animal count as a familiar.

In order to get some shy players that have had bad experiences get in on the fun I have even run games where I promised familiars would be unhurtable until they take an attack action in anygiven fight.

 

[iserith]

Indeed, it was a dark forest, at night, and I was LOOKING for threats, with a creature supremely suited for that. Do you call that taking risks ?

It's exactly like the stormwind fallacy, a DM, like a player, can always find a reason to kill a familiar if he is looking for it, usually by inventing something justification that was not there 10 seconds ago. This is exactly the problem of the "kill familiar on sight" DM, he will let you play a familiar, but will invent any sort of excuse to do it as soon as they can (and being a DM, they can very easily do that).

I much prefer a DM telling me "I don't allow familiars" than a DM doing the above, much less frustration involved.

Once more, you don't have to watch for threats to have PP apply. And by default, in D&D, everyone is watching for threats, all the time. The PH tells you it straight up. Please don't bring up that one sentence that means something else entirely than what you think it means, this was not travelling and the owl was certainly not bent over a table making a map.

Moreover, since the owl was LOOKING FOR THREATS, I dare say that it was.

The owl was flying as discreetly as it could, at night, with a darkvision, stealth and senses far superior to kobolds. But then it just died.

You broke down a couple of the sentences from the many questions I asked, but didn't answer all of them. What about all the adjudication of the rules that could come into play in a situation like this? Were any checks made at all that might have been appropriate? Or did the DM just say the familiar was killed? Because if it's the latter, then it's no wonder it was seen as unfair.

And if I see them readying an attack instead of attacking, I will probably do something else that turn. But with a familiar with flight and flyby, is it really taking a risk ? That's where the problem is, it shouldn't be.

That is a good tactic - don't position your familiar to be killed when a monster is readying for them! While you don't get the Help action (or whatever) that round, you do get to waste the monster's attack. The player is making a meaningful choice here.

By just having flyby, it doesn't mean the familiar's not at risk. Is the familiar flying to a place where they can' be attacked? Behind total cover, for example, or out of reach? If not, then fair game.

And putting everything in the open reduces the game to a boardgame where everything is on the table and you just need to compute probabilities. There is no reason nor requirement for a DM to telegraph threats or make them explicit. The discovery and investigation, and surprise, is part of the game too, actually a more interesting part for some of us than crunching numbers in combat.

Telegraphing doesn't eliminate discovery or surprise. It just mitigates the perception of a situation as being a "gotcha."

And of course, it's more important to target the owl because of the standing "kill familiar on sight" order than the fighter in your face, the rogue in the shadows and the wizard peppering you with magic missiles...

Look I have nothing against adversaries targeting familiars if the player abuses them by always claiming advantage and invulnerability, but this is not what we are speaking of, a "kill familiar on sight" is just a reason to aggravate players who just want a scout under reasonable conditions, and who expect a well chosen familiar to be sufficiently discrete or blending in to not be hunted and killed on sight. There are rats in the sewers. There are ravens flying over the streets during the day, there are owls flying at night in the wood. Are these all killed on sight just because they might be familiars ? Or are just familiar targeted because they are an annoying player feature ?

A monster or NPC might attack a familiar for any number of reasons that make sense in context. To suggest otherwise is to admit to a failure of imagination in a game based on make-believe, which I'm sure nobody here would do.

I don't target familiars because players are "abusing" them. (There's that word again.) I target them because they are a valid target and because presenting a player with risk and trade-offs is at the heart of giving them meaningful choices to consider. As well, taking out resources is a good way to raise the stakes and tension.

 

[James Gasik]

I didn't mean to open up a can of worms, if this is an old debate here. I've just noticed that, in general, the posters here are more reasonable than some I've had to deal with elsewhere, so I brought the questions I had here.

It seems like anytime someone finds a good use for a Familiar, there are people opposed to that use. And it really begs the question, what do people think a Familiar is for, then?

A companion? Well that's great for roleplay, certainly, but then why is there a cost to have an NPC cohort who is just comic relief?

An extra set of eyes? I guess, but I'm used to players who decide Perception is the most important skill and devote resources to it, so the value of a bird on one's shoulder to see traps and hidden enemies seems kind of lackluster.

 

[GMforPowergamers]

BTW if I had a DM tell me he was always going to target a familiar I would have to fight the urge not to laugh... You just told me for an hour ritual and 10gp I can negate the first attack of your monster.

Imagine I made a magic item "ablative armor" and it cost 10gp and took an hour to equip... it then negated the first attack a monster makes. Everyone would be overjoyed to have it.

I would (again) find a way to get every player a familiar. a party of 5 just negated 5 attacks for 50gp