Familiars and Animal Companions. Should they stay?

[Thundershield]

Hmm, I don't think I ever used the Familiar or Animal Companion of a character I played, so when Character Flaws were introduces, I often picked Forlorn or Loner (Familiar and Animal Companion version, respectively) for an extra feat instead. Either that or I got some alternate class feature from Unearthed Arcana or Player's Handbook 2.

I can, however, see the enticement of having a Familiar or Animal Companion. Especially with a mounted Ranger concept, where the mount could be the Animal Companion, so I feel both Familiars and Animal Companions should stay, though not as an integral or "core" part of the classes.

And as for Familiars and Animal Companions being worthwhile or "working", I think they need more incorporation into their respective classes. Having a Familiar should give you more than a +2 bonus on Listen and Spot, which by the way is of... limited usefulness to a Wizard or Sorcerer.

Having your Animal Companion as your mount, for instance, should give you abilities to create the feel of a close bond in mounted combat or in overland travel. Or a Familiar might aid you in research, doubling the speed at which you read or somesuch.

Also, the usefulness of having a Familiar or Animal Companion should increase with leveling, as in 3rd Edition, but scale better. While the Animal Companion of a single-class Druid (or Beastmaster, if you dared pick that up) is still a worthwhile ally in higher levels, it couldn't keep up with the dangers of the battlefield at those levels.

At times, such an Animal Companion was also more of a hindrance, but we're familiar with that from all kinds of mounted characters and Cavaliers wanting to charge stuff in the cramped dungeons. "Hey, Wizard. Got an extra Fly spell for Bongo?" "Who?" "My bear companion." "No, not for all of us and your bear." "Well, I can't just leave him behind..."

 

[IceFractal]

Familiars should probably be overhauled somewhat - maybe even to the extent of boosting the Wizard's abilities moreso than having their own.

However, I think it makes more sense to keep animal companions as separate creatures, with their own abilities and actions. As long as they are an optional feature, only players who want to manage multiple characters will take them, which is fine - there are lots of ways to get additional characters under your control, and it would be impossible to remove them all in 4E. The key is that it should be an intentional choice, not a side-effect of a class.

 

[Ruin Explorer]

To be honest, I suspect DMs who want familiars and animal companions "cut" from the game entirely or made extremely hard to get (such that you cannot start with one), haven't talked to their players.

DMs, in my experience, don't like players having a bloody menagerie following them around.

Players, on the other hand, especially, if I may say so, female players, in my experience, love their familiars and animal companions dearly. I also don't believe that they make the game "hugely more difficult" for new players at all. That seems nonsensical to me, unless you introduce your new players via highly tactical combats whilst making a strong effort to kill one or both of their characters.

They certainly need overhauling, however, and I wouldn't mind if they were Feat or Talent-tree based, so long as they were balanced properly (i.e. it didn't require investment of every talent you had to get a worthwhile companion). The Thrush vs. Toad example is a very good one - the "non-obvious" abilities of familiar-types should be made more clear, so people can make better choices (some people are going to want cute-but-useless things regardless, though).

 

[Nightchilde-2]

I say get rid of them. They're needlessly complex or often conveniently forgotten until they're advantageous then, when it's time for the disadvantages (like the party getting hit with a fireball) they seem to not be there somehow.

Of course, I'm a DM so...

 

[(Psi)SeveredHead]

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.

You know, this is one of the more irritating parts of having a familiar. Why do they have the same skills as the spellcaster? And in a lot of cases, they shouldn't be able to provide aid another assistance anyway. (They're usually much smaller than the mage, and can't handle writing implements and what not.)

 

[Driddle]

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.

I agree strongly with paragraphs 1 and 2, but I disagree with 3.
I've never had a problem running a critter-character as an interactive component of the adventure, and I would be disappointed if they were reduced to a simple math modifier.

 

[Li Shenron]

They should be optional (especially familiars), but they certainly belong to the game.

I love companions that are used as scouts, messengers, guards, spell-delivery and other similar things.

I hate companions that are used as meat shield, and replaced like a piece of worn equipment.
And I hate players that complain that they are too weak for battle... yes of course they should be weak, they cannot be as good as another character of your same level, otherwise you'd be playing 2 characters.

At best, I'd like the option of being taken into battle as support, but to do this they should be resilient enough so that they don't die every other fight, and at the same time not as good as a character in offensive abilities.

Finally, I'd also like the option of having many smaller companions, like it was possible in 3.0, but since this option is not going to be used so frequently, it's fine in a later supplement.

 

[billd91]

You know, this is one of the more irritating parts of having a familiar. Why do they have the same skills as the spellcaster? And in a lot of cases, they shouldn't be able to provide aid another assistance anyway. (They're usually much smaller than the mage, and can't handle writing implements and what not.)

It would very much make sense for the skills to be the same if the familiars were animals in which a small chunk of the caster's own soul resided...

But as far as having the same skills, best reason is to provide those aid another chances with all of the caster's skills. And even if the familiar can't hold a pen, that doesn't mean he can't help with skills like forgery: "Hey, don't forget that the Duke's seal has 3 stars on it and an eagle, not four stars like you put down last time. No, no. His mark is more loopy than that." and so on...

 

[Wormwood]

I play in a Red Hand of Doom Campaign.

Seven players.

Plus:
one Animal Companion
one elemental familiar
one Cohort
one celestial warhorse

Nothing beats waiting around while half the table takes *two* complete turns every round. Make that *three* turns when the Sorcerer or Druid decide to Summon something.

I'm going to have to vote with: all's fair until your fun negatively impacts mine.

 

[GreatLemur]

I've always really hated being forced by class features to have some kind of pet. That sort of thing absolutely oughta be shoved into talent trees. Also, it'd be nice if there were some kind of non-animal options for familiars, along the lines of the Hexblade's "Dark Servant" variant ability. Pets that aren't mortal, flesh-and-blood creatures would be a lot less irritating to drag into the dungeon.

Maybe this thread should have a poll.