D&D 4E 4e Familiars more than just a skill buff ?

[Gloombunny]

I think they should just make familiars be a feat that anyone can take.

Yeah... though perhaps warlocks and/or wizards could have talents that build on the feat to add class-flavored abilities (like help with spellcasting). But I like the idea that anyone could take one if they wanted.

Also, the big thing is that people shouldn't have to worry about familiars in a fight. I think they should be lucky, small, and skilled enough that you just say they will not get hurt in battle unless specifically targetted, and will always stay out of the way. They shouldn't be fragile.

Yes, yes, a thousand times yes.

 

[Mad Mac]

Also, the big thing is that people shouldn't have to worry about familiars in a fight. I think they should be lucky, small, and skilled enough that you just say they will not get hurt in battle unless specifically targetted, and will always stay out of the way. They shouldn't be fragile.

Oh definately. I mean, it's not like it's a big suspension of disbelief to say that no one is normally going to pay much attention to a small animal in the middle of a fight.

 

[Mouseferatu]

Oh definately. I mean, it's not like it's a big suspension of disbelief to say that no one is normally going to pay much attention to a small animal in the middle of a fight.

I'd actually argue with that, under certain circumstances.

If I know that I'm facing a wizard (or another class known for familiars), and if I know that harming the animal harms the wizard, then if I have a few seconds, I'm definitely going to look for the small animal that's hanging around. This is particularly true if I've had the chance to spy or scry on the enemy beforehand.

(Witness the villains' strategy toward the end of the movie "The Crow.")

As long as killing the familiar causes harm to the master, they will always be targets. The only solution is either

A) Change it so that the death of a familiar is harmless (or at worst, only briefly harmful) to the master, or

B) Make sure that the benefits of the familiar are potent enough to offset any potential harm.

 

[Clavis]

It'd be hard to pull off really cool familiars. The thing with familiars in myth/popular fantasy is that they're usually not so much expendable scouts like in D&D so much as....eh...kind of like the cat in the various incarnations of Sabrina the Teenage Witch.

The familiar is more like a teacher or mentor than a sidekick. You keep them around because they know more about magic than you do (for the brash young spellcaster) or because they can assist you in magic rituals and arcane trivia (For the more seasoned archmage)

That's not a role that would be easy to fit into D&D though.

In my old AD&D game I ruled that familiars weren't really animals at all, but spirits in animal form. Their masters (and other familiars) would hear them speaking with human voices, but to everybody else they just sounded like animals making normal animal noises. They were important and beloved NPCs, and were played in exactly the way you suggested above.

 

[I'm A Banana]

Six ways...

If I were designing a familiar from the ground up...

The familiar is more like a teacher or mentor than a sidekick. You keep them around because they know more about magic than you do (for the brash young spellcaster) or because they can assist you in magic rituals and arcane trivia (For the more seasoned archmage)

That's not a role that would be easy to fit into D&D though.

My first way would be to focus it on this. Familiars teach you spells. The spells you learn from a cat are different from the spells you learn from a toad, which are different then the spells you learn from a weasel.

Number two would be to focus on their otherworldly nature. Make them part of another plane by default, the Feywild or the Shadowfell or Somewhere Else. They gain magical abilities related to thier particular planar connection as they level up.

Number Three would be to make them decent "sidekicks." They actively use their actions to do things like Aid Another, they carry useful little abilities, they can be something the spellcaster can "ride" when they're in a bad scenario. Have them serve as good Allies, making what the spellcaster can do on their own even BETTER with the familiar around.

Number Four would be to make them free. You don't loose XP if they die. You don't spend gold to get one. They're just *there*. Though if you loose it, perhaps you can't learn as many new spells on your own.

Number Five would be to make them active NPC's in the character's story. They are sagacious otherworldly beings, let them use their knowledge and their connections to help the PC's get there. Familiars are guides on other planes, diplomats in front of delicate NPC's, they know other wizards, they serve as the spellcaster's connection to their college, etc.

Number Six is the old "true soul" myth-trick, where the familiar reflects elements of the wizard's own personality cast in animal form, so that as the wizard grows and changes, the familiar does as well.

Think of the Daemons from The Golden Compass, and combine that internal externalities with an otherworldly nature that lets them be at once something less than and more than mortal.

Baloney

I don't really think it needs to be argued. It's common enough to simply forget you even have a familiar (as OotS got comedy out of). If your experience differs, I think it's safe to say your experience is the anomaly.

 

[CleverNickName]

It seems that most players want a familiar that they can use as a weapon or a shield in combat. And every time, the players are always surprised when their glorified gerbil gets smashed by a single blow from an orc's warhammer. What do they expect? Sure, it is a magical beast-rat with some sort of arcane link with its master, and it gets a few magical bonuses and intelligence to boot...but at the end of the day, it is still a rat. It is not Mighty Mouse.

Familiars are not meant to be bodyguards or retainers...they are not meant to be used in combat. And unfortunately, the phrase "not meant to be used in combat" gets translated as "completely worthless" by most players. It's not their fault; 3.X has trained all of us to seek out and keep only those items that give the biggest bonuses. Everything else gets ignored.

Familiars are cool, just the way they are...they are great things to have whenever you need a messenger, or someone to keep an eye on the horses while you are exploring yonder cave, or someone to patrol the skies while you are marching overland, or someone to shadow a suspicious-looking customer in the tavern. But if you want a bodyguard, hire a retainer.

 

[LightPhoenix]

I personally hope that Familiars are relegated to flavor text only, and have no mechanical effect on a character whatsoever. That way, you can have a familiar if you want it, but it doesn't become a liability or conveniently ignored when you don't.

 

[Khuxan]

Familiars are not meant to be bodyguards or retainers...they are not meant to be used in combat. And unfortunately, the phrase "not meant to be used in combat" gets translated as "completely worthless" by most players. It's not their fault; 3.X has trained all of us to seek out and keep only those items that give the biggest bonuses. Everything else gets ignored.

The problem is not that familiars make bad bodyguards... it's that familiars hit by an area spell have a good chance of dying. As soon as they leave the wizard/sorcerer, they become a liability - even if they don't attack enemies.

An interesting alternative would be if damaging the familiar damaged the wizard... the familiar only dies when the wizard does. Wizards could probably do with a bit more hp in this case.

EDIT: And thanks for that, Kamikaze Midget. They look really cool.

 

[Kunimatyu]

I hope they disappear, though if they show back up as a feat/talent tree in a later book or Dragon article, I won't complain.

I don't like having a feature like a familiar built into a fundamental class like that, especially when fantasy wizards in literature/movies often *don't* have anything that resembles a "familiar"(there are examples that spring to mind, but more examples of spellcasters lacking them IMO).

In my 3.5 game, the players always ditch them for some other small benefit, no matter how small, so we certainly won't miss them.

 

[neceros]

I'd suggest that the death of a familiar should not bring harm to the master at all. Instead, it could impair the growth of the master until it regains the old, or a new, familiar. This would keep in line with the teacher or inspiration type familiar.

Then again, I do love pets and pet classes (for you MMO fans). I love the druid for this reason. Their companions were a main reason to play the class for me. I love having minions do my bidding for me. So, a buff, hearty killer familiar is also tempting.