Does a familiar have darkvision and/or Augmented Animal Type?

[Fester]

I've already pointed it out; that the entry for a familiar is qualified by saying that a familiar becomes a magical beast only "for the purposes of any effect that depends on its type."

And while I accept that this is a rather vague statement and doesn't in itself necessarily exlude your interpretation, you haven't addressed the issue of the listing of Darkvision (or, rather, its omission) in familiar examples, where as other traits (eg Low-Light) are listed.

 

[Thanee]

As I said, there is no note, and omitting something isn't a note IMHO.
The familiar entry only says they retain their features, and it says, they change type for effects depending on type. It doesn't say anything about traits. The MM does.

Examples: I don't know of any examples for 3.5, where did you find these?

Bye
Thanee

 

[Liquidsabre]

Just thought I'd post the relevant text here for any remaining detractors (and others stumbling upon this thread):

3.5MM p.306 "For example, a wizard's raven familiar has an animal's features and the traits of a magical beast."

3.5MM p.306 and 311
Animal Features: d8 HD (altered by familiar block), 3/4 BAB progression, good Fort and Ref saves, 2+Int Skill Points.

Magical Beast Traits: Darkvision 60ft, Low-Light Vision, proficient with natural weapons only, proficient with no armor; magical beasts eat, sleep, and breathe.

3.5 familiars receive both low-light and darkvision, no argument about it folks.

 

[Pbartender]

Examples: I don't know of any examples for 3.5, where did you find these?

(You may have to scroll a bit to find the actual familiar's stat blocks...)

From the WotC website... Note that neither Alhandra's mount nor Mialee's raven (both magical beasts) have darkvision.

Also from WotC's website... A cat familiar that does not have darkvision.

WotC's website... A mouse familiar without darkvision.

WotC's website... A weasel familiar without darkvision.

Again, from the WotC website... A pseudodragon familiar that seems to have actually LOST its darkvision. (Granted, that one is a Revision Spotlight on Improved Familiars that was posted before the revised books were released... It may be a typo.)

There probably more, but I think that sets a pretty clear precedent, unless no one at WotC knows the proper rule. They are all 3.5 stat blocks... Either by explicit statement for by implication of skill naming conventions.

 

[PallidPatience]

Features: HD type, skill points, saves, BAB...

Traits: Special Attacks, Special Qualities, proficiencies, mortality...

Familiars keep animal features (d8 HD, 3/4HD BAB, etc...) and gain Magical Beast traits (darkvision, proficiencies with natural weapons and no armour, etc...). It's specifically spelled out in the familiar entry under Sorcerer. There's your answer, guys.

 

[Thanee]

From the WotC website...

Yep, altho the WotC website does have some weird stuff every now and then. Assuming, that this was actually changed in 3.5 (that is, that familiars get darkvision now, which I think they do), it could very well be, that the authers just weren't aware of this... however, some of the stuff seems to be written by guys who should know it.

Again, from the WotC website... A pseudodragon familiar that seems to have actually LOST its darkvision.

[font=Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif]

[/font][font=Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif]Dragon Type: Darkvision 60 ft., low-light vision, immunity to sleep and paralysis effects.[/font][font=Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif]

[/font][font=Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif]
Gets darkvision from type (a trait of the dragon type to be precise).

@[/font][font=Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif]PallidPatience: I wonder where you find darkvision explicitly spelled out under the sorcerer's familiar entry... not in my book at least!
[/font][font=Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif]
Bye
Thanee

[/font]

 

[Fester]

Yep, altho the WotC website does have some weird stuff every now and then. Assuming, that this was actually changed in 3.5 (that is, that familiars get darkvision now, which I think they do), it could very well be, that the authers just weren't aware of this... however, some of the stuff seems to be written by guys who should know it.

More examples can be found in the DMG under the section Alternate Familiars by Master Size. Many of these list Light-Vision as a SQ, but none mention Darkvision. It still begs the question of why one would be specifically mentioned (ie Low-Light), but not the other (Darkvision), when both are traits gained by Magical Beasts?

I do accept, however, that just because these are examples supplied by the official authors of the rules, it doesn't follow that writers necessarily know them all This has all too often been proved in the past...

@[font=Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif]PallidPatience: I wonder where you find darkvision explicitly spelled out under the sorcerer's familiar entry... not in my book at least! [/font]

Mine neither!

I must admit that I am open to persuassion on this. Those that claim familiars get Darkvision as part of their change to the Magical Beast (Augmented) type have a valid and well supported argument. For me, it just comes down to how you interpet the line: "for the purposes of any effect that depends on its type."

The sentence isn't very clear - but it does represent a qualifying statement to the attributes of the familiar when it gains the Augmented subtype. It is, if you like, the "unless" part allowed for in the Magical Beast description.

To me, it begs the question: do you consider Darkvision an effect or an affect? What side of this particular line you sit on will, of course, sway your opinion.

 

[Thanee]

Well, the "effect" doesn't really mean abilities, I suppose. It just means, that they are unaffected by spells like charm animal and would suffer from extra damage against magical beasts (i.e. favored enemy), since they are magical beasts.

The PHB entry simply fails to address this issue completely, I'm afraid.

It only says, that the familiar retains the animal features and gains the magical beast type.

Of course, one could argue, that it might mean, that gaining traits is an effect of gaining a type, but well, that's pretty vague.

I therefore prefer to go by the rather clear entry in the MM, since the PHB doesn't seem to say anything about it either way (tho, I do agree normally, that not saying something does mean that there is nothing, however, the MM entry surely adds something to the nothing there... or something like that... ).

Bye
Thanee