Familiars - Advantage or Disadvantage?

[Ferret]

I always have familiars. They are a lot of fun. I don't look at them like a stat block though.

Exactly. Much more fun.

I played a halfling who was very protective of his familiar, it was very fun.

 

[Felon]

You know, even when I hear all the little things a familiar can do (like scouting), it just doesn't sound like it has any real relevance to the arcanist. Tradiitonally, familiars are supposed to act as a conduit to the spirit world. They make the mage a better mage. In D&D they don't do anything like that, they're just these little sidekicks.

My house rule was to link familiars to school specialization, as follows:

Abjuration = Rat
Conjuration = Raven
Divination = Owl
Enchantment = Snake
Evocation = Hawk
Illusion = Cat or weasel
Necromancy = Bat
Transmutation = Lizard or toad

 

[Slife]

Of course, sling stones cost nothing, and I find it perfectly fitting for a bored and mean guard to carry a sling for "bird hunting".

If by nothing you mean 1cp, then you are correct.

 

[Felon]

Any spellcaster dumb enough to leave his familiar in the direct line of fire deserves the XP loss.

Even before all the familiar-centered spells in the Complete books, there were always options for protecting them, starting with having a flying familiar just STAY OUT OF THE WAY.

Yeah, but the toads are pretty much dead meat when the area spells hit, regardless of the caster's intelligence level.

The rules should've treated familiars as they do objects: if you have'em on you, they're attended objects and don't get blown up when you get fireballed.

 

[BHarlick]

I hate the familiar rules in 3.0/3.5. In my mind, they don't really do what I think a spellcaster's familiar should do: enhance the caster's magic. Sure, they can deliver touch spells at some range when you get them to that level, but that's about it.

I keep meaning to redesign the familiar rules for my campaign, but I've been too lazy to date to actually do anything about it.

-Bruce

 

[Olaf the Stout]

I'm currently playing a Necromancer in our game. I made sure to get a familiar at first level, and the DM was willing to let me choose a ferret.

That ferret has saved a number of character lives already. 1st level spell, Benign Transposition, works really well with a familiar. Fighter about to die? Transpose with the ferret. Attacking enemy misses (expecting to hit a med. sized humanoid, not a Tiny animal), fighter can be quickly healed by cleric, and, if I have enough spells left, the fighter can re-appear in front of the enemy the next round. And the spell does not provoke an AoO against either of the transposees.

Now, when I get Baleful Transposition (2nd level spell), it's going to get even more interesting. Enemy spell caster hiding behind fighters and causing problems? All of a sudden he appears in the midst of our fighters (assuming Save failure, of course).

The ferret has also been very useful as a guard around camp (spot and hide skills rock!), a decent tracker (no ranger in the party) and even good as comic relief on occasion.

Where are the Transposition spells that you talk about from?

Olaf the Stout

 

[VirgilCaine]

And if you want to get RAW, it takes;

A knowledge Nature check DC 11 to recognize the familiar is not a normal 1HD animal.
A knowledge Arcana DC 10+ owner’s caster level [the familiar’s effective HD] to recognize a familiar as such.

WTF? DC 11? Even if it's not doing anything, just sitting like a normal animal? That's crap. That makes no sense at all.

 

[Slife]

WTF? DC 11? Even if it's not doing anything, just sitting like a normal animal? That's crap. That makes no sense at all.

Remember that knowledge skills can't be used untrained.

 

[GreatLemur]

Whether it's familiars or animal companions, I pretty much hate the idea of pets as class features in general. They're often a burden during play, they can lead to some remarkably obnoxious roleplaying, and honestly it just seems unethical to send an animal into fight, anyway. Which might be fine for a lot of character concepts, sure, but I've got some real issues with the Neutral Good Druid who drags his pet badger into a dungeon.

And the worst part is that they keep making these things into class features instead of just feats. I think somebody at WotC really liked those Beastmaster movies.

 

[Felon]

Whether it's familiars or animal companions, I pretty much hate the idea of pets as class features in general. They're often a burden during play, they can lead to some remarkably obnoxious roleplaying, and honestly it just seems unethical to send an animal into fight, anyway. Which might be fine for a lot of character concepts, sure, but I've got some real issues with the Neutral Good Druid who drags his pet badger into a dungeon. And the worst part is that they keep making these things into class features instead of just feats. I think somebody at WotC really liked those Beastmaster movies.

I definitely agree with the sentiment, and add that in many sessions I've taken part it in I've seen a player's style evolve into "adventuring by proxy". They try to figure out the best, safest, easiest way to circumvent a risk, and they ultimately realize the solution is to let someone else take it. Delegate the expendable pets to form the front line in a fight while the actual players sit back and shoot/heal. Delegate the expendable pets to take point so they can activate traps and uncover ambushes. And with things like warlocks and reserve feats making "minor" at-will abilities all-the-rage, there's no longer even the opportunity cost of burning a spell slot.

Of course, this sentiment doesn't really have a place in this discussion, except to underscore the fact that familiars are the only class-feature pets that (from a mechanical POV) aren't casually expendable--and that's pretty absurd considering the power boost that an animal companion or paladin mount can represent.