Does a familiar have darkvision and/or Augmented Animal Type?
- Thread starter strongbow
- Start date
uzagi_akimbo
First Post
overpowered ? min/maxing ?
Heck there is even a familliar out there that gives darkvision to the sorcerer/wizard master and which technically should be vermin (the hairy spider from the FR-Setting), not an animal, and as such not eligible as a familliar in the first place (but the WOtC choose to make it so, nevertheless ) etc etc etc.
I honestly do not see the problem with the fact that a familliar has darkvision (and its master has not ) - it would still have to communicate the knowledge, precisely enough to be of any use, which is not that easy with a low intelligence score, especially not under pressure. Or it might even be blissfully ignorant that is master cannot see things it does itself. As explicitly outlined in the PHB. And just for the record - there are a number of familliars who have low-lightvision, which might be a useful thing, for say a human or halfling master to have around, wouldn't it ?
So where is the big power-gaming issue ? To pick one's familliar with some tactical or long-term considerations in mind being abusive ?
Strange attitude
Heck there is even a familliar out there that gives darkvision to the sorcerer/wizard master and which technically should be vermin (the hairy spider from the FR-Setting), not an animal, and as such not eligible as a familliar in the first place (but the WOtC choose to make it so, nevertheless ) etc etc etc.
I honestly do not see the problem with the fact that a familliar has darkvision (and its master has not ) - it would still have to communicate the knowledge, precisely enough to be of any use, which is not that easy with a low intelligence score, especially not under pressure. Or it might even be blissfully ignorant that is master cannot see things it does itself. As explicitly outlined in the PHB. And just for the record - there are a number of familliars who have low-lightvision, which might be a useful thing, for say a human or halfling master to have around, wouldn't it ?
So where is the big power-gaming issue ? To pick one's familliar with some tactical or long-term considerations in mind being abusive ?
Strange attitude
uzagi_akimbo
First Post
Thanee said:Not really.
Bye
Thanee
He ? Spiders aren't vermin these days ? news to me
Garnfellow
Explorer
For what it's worth, none of the animal familiars statted out on the Wizards website are listed as having either darkvision or the Augmented Animal subtype, although the low-light vision special quality is explicitly called out.
In retrospect, it seems like having a "familiar template" in the Monster Manual would have been a much cleaner way to handle familiars.
In retrospect, it seems like having a "familiar template" in the Monster Manual would have been a much cleaner way to handle familiars.
Jeff Wilder
First Post
In my opinion, darkvision is an important enough trait that if familiars were intended to have it, it would have been called out in the description. Instead, the description of familiars is very specific on when they are treated as magical beasts ... "for the purpose of any effect that depends on its type." It would have been much simpler to have written "for all other purposes" or something similar.
For what it's worth -- not much, IMO -- when I wrote Skip Williams about my tamer of beasts' animal companions (which also became magical beasts), his reply was that they were only treated as magical beasts for the same purpose as listed for familiars above. (Of course, when I then pointed out that tamers of beasts would then be unable to do things like use speak with animals on his own companions, Skip added, "Except for the tamer, who can still treat them as if they were animals." So, like I said, not really worth much; even less, since that was under 3.0.)
For what it's worth -- not much, IMO -- when I wrote Skip Williams about my tamer of beasts' animal companions (which also became magical beasts), his reply was that they were only treated as magical beasts for the same purpose as listed for familiars above. (Of course, when I then pointed out that tamers of beasts would then be unable to do things like use speak with animals on his own companions, Skip added, "Except for the tamer, who can still treat them as if they were animals." So, like I said, not really worth much; even less, since that was under 3.0.)
Thanee said:
But is this really true?
What you say is correct (that a familiar becomes a magical beast with the augmented subtype), but this is still not as clear cut as you're suggesting, IMO.
Yes, the Augmented Subtype description does explicitly state that a wizard's familiar has the traits of a magical beast. But, the description for a magical beast says "a magical beast gains the following traits (unless otherwise noted in a creature's entry)". And in the description for a familiar (PHB), the entry qualifies that a familiar becomes a magical beast only "for the purposes of any effect that depends on its type."
Now an effect and an affect are certainly not the same thing and it is easy to interpret from this (as I do) that familiars do not get Darkvision. To support this, in examples that I've seen, familiars with Low-Light Vision are listed as having such, but are not listed as having Darkvision. Since both are explicitly listed as traits of creatures with the type magical beast, why mention one, but not the other? This seems a glaring (ie deliberate) omission to me.
Just my thoughts on the matter
Thanee
First Post
Well, the description of the familiar says, they retain some of their animal abilities, the list is exactly what constitutes the features of an animal. It doesn't say anything about traits. According to the MM, it gains the traits of a magical beast (including darkvision), unless otherwise noted.
I haven't seen any such note...
Bye
Thanee
I haven't seen any such note...
Bye
Thanee
Similar Threads
D&D 3E/3.5
Homebrew Content
