D&D 5E Familiars, what for?

[iserith]

The trouble with gold though is that there are no real sinks & with "magic items are optional"+bounded accuracy it's very difficult to fit any sort of churn that might consume it. Variant encumbrance/default encumbrance is backwards though because players are going to expect benefits from that nerf & the GM doesn't have any room to give mechanically elsewhere. It's easy for a gm to say "no I think it's silly/broken/whatever" when players ask for a powerful option but selling a big nerf is a much higher bar & the GM shouldn't be expected to enact a bunch of nerfs out of the gate to claw things back into being meaningful.

I don't find it very difficult, but recognize the rules don't offer much in the way of guidance. The simplest way is to make gold equal XP in some way (e.g. you effectively pay to level up). That creates a good loop in my experience and has some knock-on effects as well in terms of player decision-making.

I'm not sure what you mean as to benefits players expect with regard to variant encumbrance.

 

[tetrasodium]

I don't find it very difficult, but recognize the rules don't offer much in the way of guidance. The simplest way is to make gold equal XP in some way (e.g. you effectively pay to level up). That creates a good loop in my experience and has some knock-on effects as well in terms of player decision-making.

I'm not sure what you mean as to benefits players expect with regard to variant encumbrance.

stats magic items stats boons whatever tit for tat they think they can extract, alternately they can grumble about how they've been nerfed whenever.

 

[iserith]

stats magic items stats boons whatever tit for tat they think they can extract, alternately they can grumble about how they've been nerfed whenever.

I see. Not an issue I have to deal with, thankfully. The players understand that switch is turned on specifically to support the theme I'm trying to emphasize in play.

 

[tetrasodium]

I see. Not an issue I have to deal with, thankfully. The players understand that switch is turned on specifically to support the theme I'm trying to emphasize in play.

I tire of being setup as the badguy when it comes to things like that, too much of 5e is stacked that way

 

[GMforPowergamers]

I see. Not an issue I have to deal with, thankfully. The players understand that switch is turned on specifically to support the theme I'm trying to emphasize in play.

Me and you don't have a lot in common but I am glad to say this we do. I often run VASTLY different campaign concepts, and I have had to make major changes (no full casters, no druids, a list of sub class restrictions) and my players always make due with the changes.

 

[billd91]

Having played wizards with and without familiars, and DM'd for a 5e chain pact warlock with Imp, I still don't really think the familiar fits in with what 5e (or really all editions of DnD, are about). In the research I've done around familiars in mythology, folklore, etc., there is actually very little to indicate that they were "a thing" aside from the 'witch' and black cats or toads and some such. And even in those, and more modern cases (Harry Potter, Sabrina the Teenage Witch), familiars were never something taken on an adventure (willingly), and were more likely to be something that remained in your laboratory or home. The descriptions I most often see of them is: pet, companion, and/or trusted ally. Why would you bring your pet/companion/trusted ally anywhere to get "discorporated", cause really, they don't die since they're just spirits, and you can summon another one with minimal hassle.

I'm trying to figure out 1) do they even have a "role" for a spellcaster beyond scout extension, sometimes combat helper; or 2) do they need to be in the game at all.

I'm trying to brainstorm ideas for Familiars that would actually have them assist the spellcaster in some manner: be the source of learning new magics (in lieu of "automatically learn new spells"), perhaps function as a way to "prepare" additional spells above one's current max, impart ribbons/enhancements depending on the type of familiar - and all of these may or may not be available at level 1. And the most challenging: what do you do with the familiar when adventuring. Is it "in a pocket" until it isn't? Is it always out and about (I'm not talking about magic spirit stuff that you can tuck into pocket dimensions, I'm talking a real animal familiar)? Does it have to remain close? Can you leave it at home or in your tower and still get the benefits? If it is out and about, how does it get damaged? How does it avoid it? Etc. Maybe I'll post a brainstorming thread. I like the "idea" of familiars, but I find their execution lacking.

I think the question "do they need to be in the game" is misplaced. There's little that needs to be in the game. Better to approach it from the perspective that they are in the game, now how can they be used?

I've had fun with familiars over the years, but it was only in 3e and 5e that I think they come into their own as a resource for PCs. In 1e/2e, you could use them as scouts but they were so fragile (2-4 hp, AC 7) and the penalty for them dying was so high (permanent loss of hit points in 1e, -1 Con and system shock roll to avoid dying in 2e) that it was madness to actually use them that way.

In 3e, their durability and cost started to really balance out, as did their general utility because they were smart and had skill ranks. They were a fantastic mage's helper. And if you took a raven, it could talk. This opened up a lot of role playing opportunities. I had a sorcerer character with a raven familiar. The raven would talk sarcastically about the rest of the party while the sorcerer would chide him for being rude. For those of you familiar with the sitcom Soap, it was on the order of Chuck's ventriloquist act with his dummy Bob.

In 5e, their durability is way down, as is their general intelligence. But their weakness is offset by the relative cheapness of the cost if they're lost. Some of the warlock's options with Pact of the Chain can be a real benefit depending on the campaign you're playing and your willingness to be creative. In an AL game where I play a Pact of the Chain Warlock, we were on a mission in which our transportation (a ship) had to keep at a distance after we were deposited on an island. Since I could communicate with my familiar anywhere on the plane and talk through him, I left my familiar with the captain of the ship and he was our communication medium. I may have lacked my familiar throughout the rest of the mission, but we knew our ability to request extraction/report completion of the mission was secure.

In the end, familiars can add a lot of interesting options that aren't always obvious - from role playing and communications to scouting. Combat is really one of the more limited options for them.

 

[Lyxen]

Time as a resource and the cost or weight of some components exist whether or not the party wants to have 5 familiars. In the context of those things being true, I illustrated some of the risks and trade-offs with attempting to have a party of 5 PCs with familiars that they expect to use to deflect attacks regularly. That is not punishing familiars. It's just how the game works:

And it's also a silly example, you had to push a situation to an extreme (a party with 5 familiars) that never happens in the game just to try to make a point. So no, there is no such "context".

The question I would have is why you seem to look at this as a punishment for familiars and not just another meaningful choice a player makes in the context of the game.

I will answer this when you first answer the question that I asked, which is why you are obviously going out of your way to prevent characters from having familiars with even a small chance to live, with sentences like "kill on sight" and "at risk for even having them out, doing nothing".

I find it unusual for someone to look at having to make meaningful decisions as "piling on difficulties" or that no consideration is given for the "fun part of it from the players' side." Do you imagine my players aren't having fun with this? Two PCs in the current party have familiars. I imagine if it was so terrible they wouldn't.

Then it just proves that you actually don't play your game by your words, as I suspected all along. There is no actual "kill on sight". You probably would kill familiars if the players were doing really stupid things with them, as most DMs probably do, but again it's very different from a "kill on sight".

As for the mule, that would certainly be another thing for the PCs to need to protect. Same deal if they have a hireling or a henchman or some other valuable thing. It's a dangerous world of swords and sorcery, after all. The players in my current campaign use mules regularly. Sometimes they die. (As do the camels in the game I play in.) We're increasing our inventory space at the risk of losing money when the pack animal dies. We do what we can to mitigate that by positioning them well, buying them barding, and hiding them when we're not nearby. There's nothing punishing about that. It's just part of the game.

And again, mules don't necessarily need to be protected unless adversaries target them specifically, and hirelings and henchmen are supposed to be competent enough to survive generally. As you say, it's a dangerous world, so why would the adventurers be the only tough ones ? They might be somewhat tougher, but do they really have to cocoon all other party members all the time ?

If true (see above), that amount of pressure and danger probably incites the players not to use henchmen and hirelings (or mules), which I find a bit of a shame since it in general makes for a poorer game with fewer possibilities.

Overall, once more, it's a question of balance, I'm not saying that they are not in danger in our campaigns (they are, just as the heroes are), but there is no "kill on sight", and no need to protect them and make meaningful choices about them every single minute. Most of the time, it's companionship and having a varied party and having fun without fearing that the DM will pounce on their resources (you claim you do, but I am pretty sure it's not really the case, actually ).

 

[Haiku Elvis]

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?

Like this?

Wait this whole thread is about Pokemon right? Just y'know for Wizards and stuff.

 

[Lyxen]

Wait this whole thread is about Pokemon right? Just y'know for Wizards and stuff.

For Hedwig then...

But yes, younger players love familiars, and they won't be happy if you target them, and I would not even start about a "Kill on sight".

 

[Crimson Longinus]

For Hedwig then...

But yes, younger players love familiars, and they won't be happy if you target them, and I would not even start about a "Kill on sight".

Right. But it would also be nice if there was some real mechanical incentive for the players to not treat the familiars as expendable drones.