D&D General Beast Master Ranger Should Have A Familiar

[Scott Christian]

It is a non starter for players that are attached to their familiar. It is just bad gameplay.

The only way around that player problem without creating terrible gameplay is to either get rid of familiars, make them completely cosmetic, or make them tough enough that they arent going to die when taken adventuring.

And most of the game exists in exploration and combat. Even if the pillars were balanced that would be 2/3 of the game.

The other way to help with the issue is to give familiars things to do outside of combat and exploration, which requires changing the game to make things like spellcraft, alchemy, ritual magic, etc, require skill checks and benefit from a familiar. That will make it worth having a familiar regardless of taking it into dangerous situations, but it wont change that most games dont go back and forth between "camp" and "the dungeon", which means that familiar will still be with the wizard when she is hurling magic at things trying to kill her. Which means the familiar will still die sometimes, in most games.

I really wish you wouldn't use the term "bad gameplay" or "terrible gameplay." It isn't. It is a style of gameplay you don't like. That's it. Nothing more.

As for making the familiar matter. I have run a campaign where I made it matter to the player. Much like Pinocchio, it actually came to life. There it was, this dog they manifested several times through the first three levels was now a real, living, breathing animal. It levelled with them and sometimes fought by their side. But as they grew stronger and had a home base, they relished in the fact that they could leave it at the house (which was a brewery) and still get in touch with it via sending collar that was imbued with speak with animals.

It literally became a nice role-playing session when they were away and making camp. It reminded them of home, and warm fires, and good food, and the neighbors in the town they lived in. It was their active decisions to keep the dog safe, and those decisions sometimes happened on the battlefield too. I better use my healing word on the dog because it's about to die. Even in exploration, the dog (which before was just a trap detector) now became a watch the rear protector. We'll figure the trap out in order to keep the dog safe.

I do not believe any of those things would have happened had the dog been a mere tool in their equipment list.

 

[Paul Farquhar]

Because they care about something, such as, "I really like my +2 sword," doesn't make it a character.

But they will really like the Humming Blade of Korrock, which they inherited from their former master.

It’s just about adding some creativity. The same way authors make readers care about things in books.

 

[Paul Farquhar]

Yeah I am with you. They should get Find Familiar automatically. Maybe even similar to the Pact of the Chain.

What about players who want to play a ranger like Aragorn, who doesn’t drag a squealing menagerie around the wilderness with him?

 

[doctorbadwolf]

I really wish you wouldn't use the term "bad gameplay" or "terrible gameplay." It isn't. It is a style of gameplay you don't like. That's it. Nothing more.

"Your subclass failed a saving throw so now you do not have a subclass for 3 levels" is bad gameplay. I will not budge on that.

As for making the familiar matter. I have run a campaign where I made it matter to the player. Much like Pinocchio, it actually came to life. There it was, this dog they manifested several times through the first three levels was now a real, living, breathing animal. It levelled with them and sometimes fought by their side. But as they grew stronger and had a home base, they relished in the fact that they could leave it at the house (which was a brewery) and still get in touch with it via sending collar that was imbued with speak with animals.

It literally became a nice role-playing session when they were away and making camp. It reminded them of home, and warm fires, and good food, and the neighbors in the town they lived in. It was their active decisions to keep the dog safe, and those decisions sometimes happened on the battlefield too. I better use my healing word on the dog because it's about to die. Even in exploration, the dog (which before was just a trap detector) now became a watch the rear protector. We'll figure the trap out in order to keep the dog safe.

I do not believe any of those things would have happened had the dog been a mere tool in their equipment list.

In your group perhaps. In mine, no one has ever yeeted their familiar at traps like a bouncing ball. Not once in the decade of playing 5e, with about 2 dozen players rotating through over those years.

 

[Paul Farquhar]

In your group perhaps. In mine, no one has ever yeeted their familiar at traps like a bouncing ball

I once had my bat familiar fly down the throat of a dragon carrying an explosive sphere. I unsunmoned it before it died in the explosion though.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

I once had my bat familiar fly down the throat of a dragon carrying an explosive sphere. I unsunmoned it before it died in the explosion though.

Taking risks is for sure a thing. And that is rad as hell.

But the whole "throw the familiar at it" thing with traps is just a result of playing the game like a board game.

 

[Scott Christian]

But the whole "throw the familiar at it" thing with traps is just a result of playing the game like a board game.

No, it's not. It's using it as a tool instead of a sentient being.

You and @Paul Farquhar, go ahead. Give it a personality. Give it characteristics. Then watch it die in combat. Watch the humdrum expression of knowing in 24 hours it will be back, good as new.

You can try to debate all day long about it not dying in combat because "you're careful." All that would mean is your DM is careful. Because familiars don't get death saves. And they generally have fewer hit points (and sometimes less of an armor class!) than a PC. So, if the fight is fair, they have a pretty good chance of dying each and every encounter. But so what, right? They'll pop back during the next encounter.

Again, that is not a character, that is a piece of equipment. So because you never send them down the hall, doesn't mean you are treating them any more as a character than the PC that does send them down the hall. Because if they are in a fight with you, they are likely to die, unless of course, the DM goes out of their way to make sure they don't. But it is not you doing that, it is the DM.

 

[Minigiant]

Your model isnt how the game works nor how the lore works, though. It is a potentially interesting idea for a new world, but it isnt how dnd works, and the real world lore of witches and familiars features both otherwordly spirits and "normal" animals and doesnt really distinguish between them.

Find Familiar:
You gain the service of a familiar, a spirit that takes an animal form you choose


The flavor of Rangerlore in D&D and fantasy is that a ranger's animal companion is a real animal. Not a spirit. Said animal might be buffed with training, armor, and/or Magic by the ranger.

 

[Distracted DM]

Player characters don’t have to die for the players to care about them. That’s why they have plot armour. They just need to have some attention paid to them. Without plot armour the familiar is going to die every episode. Which means it either gets an identical replacement the same as a PC, or, if it has -1 con like 1st edition, it’s too big a liability and no one has one.

There are penalties that lie between zero consequence and permanent stay loss, like -max hp til a long rest, or being poisoned, or something else that folk could think of.

 

[Mistwell]

What about players who want to play a ranger like Aragorn, who doesn’t drag a squealing menagerie around the wilderness with him?

Maybe don't pick Beastmaster?