D&D 5E Familiars, what for?

[James Gasik]

It comes down to a clash of ideologies. One, the more, I guess, "old school" approach says that the game world doesn't revolve around the players, they must adapt to the game world. So enemies, scenarios, and even treasure will not always cater to the strengths and needs of the characters. If a tactic or option is too useful, it becomes a proud nail that will be pounded down.

The more (need a better term for this) "new school" philosophy generally has the game world reflect the characters. If Bongo the Barbarian likes using axes, he finds magic axes. If Wally the Wizard wants to use his familiar as a scout, then it's only going to get specifically targeted if he's exceptionally careless. Molly the Monk and Wilma the Warlock will be allowed to take frequent short rests, etc. etc..

Neither way is wrong, as long as everyone is having fun. But sometimes one way leads to a player having bad feelings, and the other way can lead to a player decrying the game as "easy mode", "monty haul", "story time", or "beer and pretzels gaming".

 

[Crimson Longinus]

I really don't think enemies targeting scouting familiars makes much sense in most cases. They look like normal harmless animals. I doubt most people routinely waste arrows shooting down every random bird that happens to fly by, or slaughter every housecat in sight.

 

[Lyxen]

One, the more, I guess, "old school" approach says that the game world doesn't revolve around the players, they must adapt to the game world. So enemies, scenarios, and even treasure will not always cater to the strengths and needs of the characters.

If I may, I think these are almost three different things:

• World level: adapting to the level/capabilities of the characters.
• Challenging players: creating encounters and fights that are inherently challenging when they occur
• Being unforgiving or benevolent: have the world and the NPCs monsters be mostly very savvy to the characters and unforgiving of "mistakes".

We run campaigns where the world does NOT adapt to the characters, they have to be careful and think about what might be possible or not, but it's not about challenging the players (for the reasons in the previous post), more about telling a story, and we are therefore also more on the benevolent side, and 5e in particular allowed us to do away with the extremely annoying declarations of "I watch for danger" with the DM always pouncing on those forgetting this.

If a tactic or option is too useful, it becomes a proud nail that will be pounded down.

And it's something else again for me, because said tactics are usually the result of game artefacts being used too often or in too strong a way, in which case, as I've explained the DM has many ways to get rid of those. But it does not have to be unfair, and it does not have to be done on the characters, it can and should be discussed with the players first.

The more (need a better term for this) "new school" philosophy generally has the game world reflect the characters. If Bongo the Barbarian likes using axes, he finds magic axes. If Wally the Wizard wants to use his familiar as a scout, then it's only going to get specifically targeted if he's exceptionally careless. Molly the Monk and Wilma the Warlock will be allowed to take frequent short rests, etc. etc.

On this one, I'm fairly close to you, the game is more about fun in general than about following arbitrary rules about treasure placement or enforcing rest rules, and making sure that the characters "pay" for every rest that they take.

Neither way is wrong, as long as everyone is having fun. But sometimes one way leads to a player having bad feelings, and the other way can lead to a player decrying the game as "easy mode", "monty haul", "story time", or "beer and pretzels gaming".

And while the first one is really a no-go for me, it's a game, what right does the DM have to create bad feelings in his players, I really despise the second attitude which is again one of BadWrongFun for others' ways of gaming. And I in particular frown down upon the arrogance of players who think that they are "better players" because think they play "difficult games", as much as I don't like DMs who pride themselves on running "difficult" games which "challenge" players as if it makes them somehow better. There is nothing wrong inherently about playing that way, mind you, but a little humility goes a long way, as well as acceptance of other ways of gaming.

As for us, we play equal opportunity games where everyone is welcome from 5 years-old to 70+, and where everyone is entitled to have fun in their own way. And this means not issuing kill orders on the little girl's character's familiar, even if it's scouting ahead.

 

[Lyxen]

I really don't think enemies targeting scouting familiars makes much sense in most cases. They look like normal harmless animals. I doubt most people routinely waste arrows shooting down every random bird that happens to fly by, or slaughter every housecat in sight.

Indeed, and on top of that, even if it IS a familiar, how more dangerous can it be than actual player characters loaded with spells and powers ?

 

[Composer99]

I really don't think enemies targeting scouting familiars makes much sense in most cases. They look like normal harmless animals. I doubt most people routinely waste arrows shooting down every random bird that happens to fly by, or slaughter every housecat in sight.

In addition to that, I would think it depends on context, stuff like:

• how common are spellcasters with familiars?
• how often do spellcasters use their familiars the way PCs do?
• is a familiar's current form making sense in terms of local fauna or is it out of place?
• is a familiar's current form something people might try to kill anyway?

and other factors besides.

The thread on the other forum (if it's the one I think it is) starts from assumptions about the first two bullet points that I think are a mistake to assume are universal for D&D games.

 

[ECMO3]

I can't be held responsible for cats killing things. It's what they do.

If we are role playing wild or even domesticated outdoor cats correctly, there is almost no way it doesn't kill a bat or any other tiny creature it sees and can get its claws on.

 

[ECMO3]

In addition to that, I would think it depends on context, stuff like:

• how common are spellcasters with familiars?
• how often do spellcasters use their familiars the way PCs do?
• is a familiar's current form making sense in terms of local fauna or is it out of place?
• is a familiar's current form something people might try to kill anyway?

and other factors besides.

The thread on the other forum (if it's the one I think it is) starts from assumptions about the first two bullet points that I think are a mistake to assume are universal for D&D games.

Agree with this for three reasons.

1. A normal harmless animal is going to be out of place in a lot of scenarios. IRL own a cat and a dog and I if a strange weasel or raven showed up in my kitchen one morning I would be very freaked out (and my dog would be too). I am not saying 100% I would kill them on sight, but I darn sure would not be letting them stay in the house. I might not be as surprised and freaked out by a snake, spider or rat in my kitchen, but then those would be "killed on sight" by me, my dog, my cat, my wife or whoever found them.

There are places animals belong - a hawk circling overhead a field spying the enemy camp nearby while it looks like it is looking for food might seem normal, but an owl or bat doing the same thing during the day is going to be out of place (and well over half the familiars in my game are owls).

2. This is a world where "normal harmless animals" are used to scout things

3. Even harmless animals that are not out of place are often killed as pests or for food or for sport. Spiders, rats and snakes are going to be killed by a lot of people (and other animals) period. Dogs will usually attack cats. Cats will attack anything smaller than them. If you are in an area with small livestock hawks and owls will be killed by ranchers. Ravens will be killed by farmers.

In coastal areas where crabs, octopus and fish are common, most that just randomly show up would make it to the dinner plate.

Finally I want to point out few players consider what happens when a familiar is attacked. When the band of orcs decides to shoot my Hawk out of the sky just for sport - well instead of dying it disappears. Now you have alerted that band of orcs you were scouting and it is a safe bet they know exactly what is going on.

 

[GMforPowergamers]

Yep, having a familiar negate an attack is indeed good. If you don't need the familiar for some other purpose and can afford the time and the gold.

The question then becomes why do these adventurers have so much free time? Because it'll never be free in my game. That hour will come with risks and trade-offs. The gold isn't usually a problem, but you do need to make sure you have the actual components, not just gold pieces, and in a remote adventuring environment, you may not have easy access to buy them if your stock runs low.

even if you can't do it mid adventure (I mean sooner or later there HAS to be short rest time in adventures or you are screwing all short rest classes) most times you can start each adventure with a free 'waste attack' for 10gp and a bit of prep time...

I have had players say they prep cloths and hair styles for hours before going into dungeons, so summoning a familiar would be nothing.

 

[ECMO3]

I really don't think enemies targeting scouting familiars makes much sense in most cases. They look like normal harmless animals. I doubt most people routinely waste arrows shooting down every random bird that happens to fly by, or slaughter every housecat in sight.

I think the complete opposite is true. Most people will go out of their way to kill rats and spiders and to a lessor extent snakes. There are entire sections in Lowe's and Home Depot devoted to the pursuit of ridding your property of them in a manner that could be called genocide. People pay good money for these things, a lot more than an arrow costs. Also FWIW I have shot snakes on my property with a shotgun, which is probably the most direct comparison to a bow and arrow. I have killed hundreds of mice or rats and probably tens of thousands of insects (with some spiders) through other methods. My cat has killed easily over 200 birds, rabbits, mice, rats and snakes in her lifetime.

Those kinds of familiars will be killed regularly, other familiars are going more likely be out of place most of the time. There is nothing normal about an owl or bat in my backyard (or anywhere) during the day or a hawk or strange cat in my kitchen EVER and in a world where such animals are the equivelent of a modern day spy drone they will be killed.

To use a familiar effectively as a scout it needs to be the knid of animal that would be "normal" in the situation you are using it for and at the same time not a nuisance animal that will be "killed on sight". That will be difficult to manage more often than not and will at a minimum require changing up your familiar regularly.

You might be able to use your hawk to scout the fields around the outsides castle, but that hawk is not going to be "normal" and will be WAY out of place when you have him fly in the window and look inside the castle proper. Against an astute observer it is not going to even be normal when it stops circling the field outside the castle and flys over the keep (since there are few field mice, quail or rabbits running around inside the courtyard) and if I had guards on the walls it would likely be a nature check to notice that "it is over the castle for some reason".

 

[GMforPowergamers]

I really don't think enemies targeting scouting familiars makes much sense in most cases. They look like normal harmless animals. I doubt most people routinely waste arrows shooting down every random bird that happens to fly by, or slaughter every housecat in sight.

yeah I can see a dumb brute swatting at a familiar that is harrasing it, or a smart tactician trying to catch it in the AoE of a fireball or something... but really most times it's a waste...

Imagine a vetrain with 3 attacks (I can't remember if it's 4 with off hand short sword or if the off hand is the 3rd) that takes the ready action, to hit the owl with a single attack (most likely killing it out right) that isn't 1 wasted attack that is an entire wasted round.