Familiars and Animal Companions. Should they stay?

[Andor]

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.

Thirded.

Also I'd like to see familiars become useful rather than a huge liability like they are now. Heck there have been pages worth of Wotc books dedicated to spells and items to let you gain the benefit of them without having to risk then losing their 2 hp and gimping your wizard in mid-fight. Right now having a familiar is like casting Enlarge on your gonands and hanging them out in front of you on a stick for the monsters to beat like a pinata.

 

[JVisgaitis]

Right now having a familiar is like casting Enlarge on your gonands and hanging them out in front of you on a stick for the monsters to beat like a pinata.

Now that was priceless...

 

[(Psi)SeveredHead]

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?

I like animal companions. You only got one in 3.5 and they have an Int of 1 or 2. The only problem occurs when players forget this and try to use them to scout. (Speak with Animals does not make an animal intelligent!)

I don't like familiar. They're not quite an extra PC, they're not quite an extra NPC, but they're adding a new intelligent character to the party. Also, I think they're weak. If they were fixed to not be so wimpy, there's still the problem of adding a new (N)PC to the party, which I would like to avoid.

At the moment, the situation is (IMO) actually fine, because either no one has one or no one uses theirs.

Paladin mounts fall in between; they're intelligent but don't talk. IMO they should be optional (because lots of paladins don't fight on horse/whatever back). Then again, I think the Paladin should be a PrC

 

[Pygon]

I haven't played or DMed familiars much, but I can see where they would have their uses with innate scrying and delivery of touch spells. They seem to be a worthwhile component. Exotic ones should be hard to come by, but hte basic ones should be easy enough to summon.

Animal companions are a staple of druids and a popular and cherished option even for non-nature characters where applicable (a 1e party I was part of had a couple wolves they tamed, they were a favorite). The ranger companion could use some beefing, otherwise they will just die quickly at higher levels.

I don't have a problem with them staying. I think they are at least partially necessary for flavor. Besides, what kind of fantasy setting doesn't allow animal companions, where animals have an intelligent innate connection with their master?

 

[Whizbang Dustyboots]

I'd like to see them as a class option. It sounds like at every level through 10th, you get to pick a class OR racial option. Familiars would be a good one for wizards, sorcerers, warlocks and whatever replaces adepts.

That said, I'd like them to be overhauled. My illusionist's thrush familiar is insanely useful in the urban campaign I play in (he can carry messages, he can shadow people, he can fly up and be a spotter to spy people heading my way, etc.), but if it was a toad or something else, it'd be a pretty marginal class feature. Any class feature that requires picking just the right sort is a class feature that needs work.

 

[Stalker0]

Extra companions are so hard to balance, but I think they'll be there. Here's the dilemma though.

1) You can keep the druid with her companion shtick. Problem is not everyone wants to have an animal at their side. Dms may not like the addition of another set of stats and actions, especially if they have a large party.

2) Make the companion optional. Problem with this is you need to make the class suitably powerful without the companion, but ensure that the companion isn't so strong that if you do select it it won't overpower things. Along with all that, make sure the companion is strong enough to survive the encounters that the party has to. That is a VERY tall order!!

Familiars are easier, and I'm sure they'll stay, though likely as optional abilities. I say take out the lose xp thing when they die, and just let it ride. Familiars can be fun for those who want them, and can be easily discarded for those that don't.

 

[Rechan]

2) Make the companion optional. Problem with this is you need to make the class suitably powerful without the companion, but ensure that the companion isn't so strong that if you do select it it won't overpower things. Along with all that, make sure the companion is strong enough to survive the encounters that the party has to. That is a VERY tall order!!

Well, the class with the biggest animal companion is the Druid.

The Druid has three main abilities:

Wildshape, Animal Companion, Spellcasting.

Looking at the 3E Druid through the 4e lense:

Wildshape: Defender
Companion: Striker
Spellcaster: Leader/Controller.

The Druid is really powerful because he can fill all those roles.

So the Druid could decide which ability should be their primary, which their secondary. This might make the Druid a multi-role class, though one they must decide upon character creation.

 

[Treebore]

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?

I use them the same way as always, they are optional. If the player gets into having them, great. If they don't, they don't.

 

[AdmundfortGeographer]

Having an animal companion immediately makes running a class a huge leap more difficult for a newcomer to the game because they need to keep two sets of stats straight and control two figures on the battlemat.

I'm for ditching animal companions and familiars as base class features and making them chosen options that come at the expense of other abilities.

 

[billd91]

I like the idea of a familiar, but I don't think a single edition of D&D has made them particularly useful... with the sole exception of 3E and the raven familiar. Why the raven? Because it can freakin' talk! The most useless aspect of familiars is that they can't talk with even their masters until several levels down the line. Them things should be talking from level 1, giving advice, providing useful information, relaying messages, helping with skill checks (aid another from your familiar), and so on.
With the rules as they are now in 3.5, I like the way familiars get smarter as the caster levels, but the whole talking issue has got me set to never take one unless it's a raven. Until my caster can actually communicate with it beyond general empathy, I'm not interested.