D&D 5E Familiars, what for?

[Neonchameleon]

So do mine. So do many DMs' NPCs, I'd wager, so this isn't very unique in my experience. It's pretty easy to come up with those motivations, relationships, and threat assessments. Even on the fly when they've turned their sights on the familiar. I'm still not sure this gets to the heart of the objection though.

Which is why I'd never make such a blanket statement as "Kill on site given the opportunity."

 

[iserith]

Which is why I'd never make such a blanket statement as "Kill on site given the opportunity."

One can have that as a general policy and NPCs that have different motivations, relationships, and threat assessments. They don't need to be mutually exclusive since it's relatively easy to justify actions in a fictional setting. Of course, I am not saying anyone should do anything in particular, only stating how I (in part) create difficulty in challenges while justifying them in the fiction.

I'm still interested in finding out what underpins the objection though. It seems like it's based on some mix of realism or fairness, given some of the responses. Realism has been addressed where I'm concerned since justifications are easy to imagine. Fairness, or what seemed like a lack thereof in the case of Lyxen's previous example (or posters' experience with similar situations), could be it, but players knowing the threat going in and using the actual game mechanics in a consistent manner for resolving uncertainty would allay that concern in my view.

 

[Neonchameleon]

I'm still interested in finding out what underpins the objection though.

A big part of it is that not all familiars behave the same way. Two of my players basically treat them as pets. Occasionally relevant to the fiction but most of the time they're pets, such as the rat that spends most of its time on the wizard's shoulder or in his robes - and occasionally as a spy.

At this point you come in saying you kill them on sight. Do you kill the PCs little dogs too? Because in many cases that would be the same thing. And "Kill on sight" means you are saying you prioritise them.

If a PC's hawk familiar goes roaring in and channels dragonbreath then that makes them a more than legitimate target because they are a clear and present danger to the enemies. But not all do that. Many are noncombatants. And when you make familiars "kill on sight" you're saying it's regardless of whether the players have been using familiars for combat.

 

[iserith]

A big part of it is that not all familiars behave the same way. Two of my players basically treat them as pets. Occasionally relevant to the fiction but most of the time they're pets, such as the rat that spends most of its time on the wizard's shoulder or in his robes - and occasionally as a spy.

At this point you come in saying you kill them on sight. Do you kill the PCs little dogs too? Because in many cases that would be the same thing. And "Kill on sight" means you are saying you prioritise them.

If a PC's hawk familiar goes roaring in and channels dragonbreath then that makes them a more than legitimate target because they are a clear and present danger to the enemies. But not all do that. Many are noncombatants. And when you make familiars "kill on sight" you're saying it's regardless of whether the players have been using familiars for combat.

So it IS about thinking I'm going to kill people's puppies!

It seems to me that if one wants to keep their familiars (or whatever else of note) alive, they'd take steps to ensure that. In the case of a familiar, it's fairly trivial to dismiss it and bring it back later if one is concerned there's a threat to its existence. The only cost is an action. That might be a steep cost in combat, but outside of combat it likely doesn't matter.

 

[Neonchameleon]

So it IS about thinking I'm going to kill people's puppies!

It seems to me that if one wants to keep their familiars (or whatever else of note) alive, they'd take steps to ensure that. In the case of a familiar, it's fairly trivial to dismiss it and bring it back later if one is concerned there's a threat to its existence. The only cost is an action. That might be a steep cost in combat, but outside of combat it likely doesn't matter.

Or you send the flyers out of the way which doesn't take an action. But still means that people who are going to "kill on sight" can choose to ignore the rest of the combat and the people actually trying to kill them and try and shoot down the familiar. Which tends to have a very high opportunity cost for the attacker.

And puppies aren't actually a familiar option. I'm not sure why not.

 

[iserith]

Or you send the flyers out of the way which doesn't take an action. But still means that people who are going to "kill on sight" can choose to ignore the rest of the combat and the people actually trying to kill them and try and shoot down the familiar. Which tends to have a very high opportunity cost for the attacker.

And puppies aren't actually a familiar option. I'm not sure why not.

"Puppies" here being my stand-in for some kind of pet for which the player and/or character has an emotional attachment.

Yeah, commonly my players will have their familiars behind total cover, taking away my opportunity to attack it. That is, unless they need it to fly around with a light spell or for dragon's breath or delivering a touch spell. Even when they have it in the open though and my monsters have the means to attack them (often they don't), it's still not a terrible trade-off for the monster to direct attacks at the familiar instead of the PCs. Some of those attacks might even miss. That's a pretty good deal in many cases.

 

[Lyxen]

Yeah, commonly my players will have their familiars behind total cover, taking away my opportunity to attack it. That is, unless they need it to fly around with a light spell or for dragon's breath or delivering a touch spell. Even when they have it in the open though and my monsters have the means to attack them (often they don't), it's still not a terrible trade-off for the monster to direct attacks at the familiar instead of the PCs. Some of those attacks might even miss. That's a pretty good deal in many cases.

I'm sorry, but all of this, while logical and not far from the reasoning of my (and apparently other DM's) NPCs, I still don't understand how this qualifies as "kill on sight". For me, "Kill on sight" would certainly mean not only that a NPC/Monster would mandatorily target the familiar rather than the PC with the choice above, but that they would actively pursue opportunities to kill the familiar, even if it's not directly targetable. He would CREATE opportunities.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

So do mine. So do many DMs' NPCs, I'd wager, so this isn't very unique in my experience. It's pretty easy to come up with those motivations, relationships, and threat assessments. Even on the fly when they've turned their sights on the familiar. I'm still not sure this gets to the heart of the objection though.

The phrase "kill on sight," in general, means that the killer drops whatever they are doing and focuses on killing the target. Literally, as soon as one can see the target, one attempts to kill them, basically no matter what. To engage in "kill on sight" means to put killing the target of that attitude at the top of one's priority list, and is used to indicate that negotiation or non-lethal options are completely off the table. "Kill on sight" is just about maximally strident, I can't think of a more actively hostile stance--it comes across as being willing to drop pretty much every other priority in order to destroy the familiar as soon as one is aware of it.

"If given the opportunity" does not ratchet this response down to something moderate. Frankly, as far as I'm concerned, the phrase adds no meaning. If one has no opportunities to attack, then whether one's attitude is "kill on sight" or not is irrelevant. Sort of like that old joke about the object that repels tigers or the like--"but tigers don't live around here." "Then it's WORKING!" "If given the opportunity" just means...it's not impossible to try. Maybe--if I was feeling particularly charitable--I could allow something like "I won't take extreme risks to do it, but I will gladly take moderate risks."

As far as I'm concerned, the familiar literally being present for combat IS the opportunity to kill it. Like when the Eleventh Doctor used the famous Apollo 11 landing broadcast to defeat the Silence ("This is one small step for man..." [bzzt] "YOU SHOULD KILL US ALL ON SIGHT" [bzzt] "...one giant leap for mankind.") Every human that watches that broadcast and then sees a Silent later drops what they're doing to kill said Silent, and then (because of their innate powers) forgets they've done so. Adding "if given the opportunity" does not lessen the "ah, a familiar, I must kill it immediately" meaning.

Now, if you'd said something like, "My general policy is treat familiars as fair targets in combat regardless, especially if they take risks or put themselves in melee range, and I let the players know that," that would have had rather a different impact. As it stands, yeah, if you would call your stance "kill on sight," I very much think that means "I will prioritize killing familiars over other actions, should it seem possible (or at least remotely feasible) to do."

Edit: Yeah, as Lyxen said. "Kill on sight" means one creates opportunities, takes meaningful risk to try to secure the kill. Perhaps not ridiculous "I'll gladly risk total defeat just to try to kill the familiar," but still willing to delay or forestall almost any other goal simply to try to kill it. "Kill on sight" means the moment you see it, you want it dead, period.

 

[beancounter]

If familiars cause so much of a problem for a DM that he/she has to prioritize killing them, then perhaps they need to learn how to properly balance an encounter...

 

[TaranTheWanderer]

I had a session where we snuck a weasel familiar into an enemy’s headquarters. Meanwhile, we were in the sewers (within 100 feet) and our tinkerer was ‘controlling’ it by looking through its eyes and telling it where to go. Since invisibility and identify and other useful spells are touch, the familiar can deliver them to itself so it ran around invisibly. It, finally, found the prisoner we were looking for, freed it by gnawing the ropes and turned them invisible so they could sneak out. The familiar was spotted and the tinkerer bravely sacrificed its life (and the 10gp to summon it) while the prisoner escaped.

my issue with 5e familiars is they don’t get any supernatural intelligence. They are stupid (Int 1 or 2). As a dm, I’m not sure I’d have allowed that much ‘control’ over the familiar’s actions. If it was smarter I would and they would be very useful.

in 3.5, a cat was following our characters. Suspecting it was a familiar (who have an Int of 8), the wizard cast feeblmind on the familiar., rendering it no more intelligent than a normal cat, he took it as a pet and held it for ransom. The owner finally revealed himself and we negotiated. Losing a familiar in 3e came with heavy costs and the wizard wanted his cat back.