Familiars and Animal Companions. Should they stay?

[JVisgaitis]

Just as the thread title. Do you think they should stay? I like the flavor of them, but they get to be a pain and a lot of times when we play I have players that totally forget them. Personally, I wouldn't mind seeing them cut. I understand that would probably create some animosity (and last time I checked, we got enough), so I would be okay with them being available as a choice using talent trees. Thoughts?

 

[Cadfan]

You should have to go out of your way to get them.

That way there'd be fewer ignored familiars and animal companions shadowing the party but never doing anything.

 

[marune]

I would prefer them to be cut out. However, if they keep them, they should be an option (i.e. not like under 3.x where you only loose something if you don't use them).

 

[coyote6]

I'd like to see them remain, at least as options, and in some way.

They don't have to be as they are now, though.

 

[Olgar Shiverstone]

Yes, they should stay, though the mechanics should be simplified, and they should be optional class features that could be traded for other concepts.

I like the option to create a beastmaster druid or ranger, but it shouldn't be the default assumption. Likewise a wizard should have the option to have a familiar, but it shouldn't necessarily be the default.

Mechanically, they should become a set of fixed abilities, rather than separate characters/cohorts that cause the familiar/companion to be a second character to run.

 

[JamesP]

I personally love both familiars and animal companions, and would hate to see them cut.

I really like the idea of having to go out of your way to get one though, not just a 24 hour ritual as it currently is. RP opportunities abound!

 

[Arkhandus]

Just as the thread title. Do you think they should stay? I like the flavor of them, but they get to be a pain and a lot of times when we play I have players that totally forget them. Personally, I wouldn't mind seeing them cut. I understand that would probably create some animosity (and last time I checked, we got enough), so I would be okay with them being available as a choice using talent trees. Thoughts?

They're just made too inconsequential most of the time in 3E.

When I play a spellcaster with a familiar, I generally make good use of it, and hardly ever leave it just inactive in the background. Vaeron was always sending his hawk out to scout, or sending it to fight enemy familiars while he assisted with spells, or had the hawk assist him in entertaining folks with tricks, or had the hawk help out a tad in combat, or had it carry around small objects that Vaeron had cast Light upon, or carry messages....

The familiars that various sorcerers have gained in my Rhunaria campaigns have been fairly frequently used; Carillus for example, is often doing one thing or another in any given scene, and if he isn't scouting, he's giving his master tidbits of advice on the spirit world, or he's hunting fish or birds, or something else. Since I never just forget about familiars, I have 'em participating even when the players aren't actively using them. And my Rhunaria homebrew has several feats and even a few prestige classes that directly or indirectly boost familiars, animal companions, or special mounts, so they can be more useful.

In my Thursday game (3.0e like all the ones I DM), the party's druid generally has his two polar bears do 75% of the fighting for him, while he heals them and throws out the occasional Animal Growth, Greater Magic Fang, Flame Strike, or Poison. He's Awakened his monkey animal companion, too, so now it's going to start gaining Swordsage levels and become his ninja monkey minion.....

Unfortunately, it seems that the designers will just make familiars and animal companions even more inconsequential in 4th Edition, relegating them to some minor critter in the background that provides its master with some minor skill bonuses, a damage shield, or somesuch.

 

[drothgery]

I'd like to see familiars and animal companions optional (meaning the default is that you don't have one, and have to spend character resources -- feats or talents or something like that -- to get one) and useful (meaning that your familiar or animal companion is as helpful at level 30 as it was when you first acquired it, always providing a meaningful benefit). And running them should be pretty straightforward; you shouldn't have to do two characters worth of work to handle your familiar or pet in combat.

 

[Rechan]

I would expect that, because companions are viable combat options, they don't get forgotten. But I expect they are treated like meat shields.

The Familiar shouldn't just be something tossed onto the first level of a class (or fourth level) and say "Here, this will provide some balance/frill." That's ALL the sorcerer gets. Meanwhile the paladin, unless he's a halfling or gnome, is unlikely to be able to take his horse into a dungeon. There goes that class ability.

Personally, I would like to see them as a viable option. Give up something to take them, and thus make them very useful when they are taken. As it stands, the wizard's familiar is a liability. It gives him a +2 to something, he can buff an ally in combat, and at higher levels it can scout. But it can do little else due to it threatening half a square and when it dies he loses XP. The Familiar is basically a mobile magic item that if taken away, is a loss to resources.

Make them a talent tree or what-have-you, and make them intrinsic to the character's abilities. The wizard and familiar become more alike as they level, meaning the wizard gets more traits of the familiar and vice versa. That familiar should be be a constant presence, and have a Benefit of being a constant presence at the table, rather than living in a pocket until it's needed.

Further, I think a companion can very well facilitate some concepts when it's offered as an option. Such as a Necromancer provided a Skeletal companion at level 1 as an option, so he has a personal little "knight" that declares him a necromancer, as they always have sway over undead, not just when they get Animate Dead; a summoner has an outsider companion that he can trade up as he levels, as summoners are always in concert with outsiders and thus he can make better deals.

As for the Paladin, I'm not sure what to do with him. The Paladin's general flavor has been so closely tied with "Knight in shining armor on steed". However, a paladin is often the "Two-handed swordsman smiting demons" or as James Wyatt said, "The shield-wielding guy holding back the monster defensively", thus it's not mount-focused. If the Paladin wants his mount, then he should get it, and from it springs mounted-related powers, because that's his character's theme. And that mount should be viable to some extent everywhere he goes. It shouldn't have to stand outside the dungeon, where all the action is, where it can easily fall prey to some dragon looking for a meal.

 

[Mouseferatu]

I'd like to see familiars and animal companions optional (meaning the default is that you don't have one, and have to spend character resources -- feats or talents or something like that -- to get one) and useful (meaning that your familiar or animal companion is as helpful at level 30 as it was when you first acquired it, always providing a meaningful benefit). And running them should be pretty straightforward; you shouldn't have to do two characters worth of work to handle your familiar or pet in combat.

What he said.