• The VOIDRUNNER'S CODEX is coming! Explore new worlds, fight oppressive empires, fend off fearsome aliens, and wield deadly psionics with this comprehensive boxed set expansion for 5E and A5E!

Familiars and Animal Companions. Should they stay?

CleverNickName

Limit Break Dancing (He/They)
Nightchilde-2 said:
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...
Ditto.

They wouldn't have to be gone forever, though...I think the effect of an animal companion could be accomplished with the proper summoning spells. A druid who can cast summon nature's ally V once per encounter wouldn't suffer too much from the loss of her animal companion: sure, she would spend her first action of every battle summoning her dire wolf, but that's what Quicken Spell is for. ;)

I think familiars could be handled in much the same way. Drop the "+3 to __ skill" stuff, and give the wizard a once-per-encounter spell called summon familiar or whatever. That way, the magical pet is available when needed, and doesn't become the "gonad pinata" that Andor so accurately described.
 

log in or register to remove this ad



Danzauker

Adventurer
Rechan said:
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.

I agree with everything.

In regards to the paladin, well, if the mount is implemented as a class option or talent tree oe any other kind of swappable set of abilities, the problem is pretty well solved.

If the player really WANTS to be the mounted knight, well so be it. It's part of the game to find a sort of balance between what players expect from the campaign and what the DM intends.

If the DM wants to run a dungeon intensive or marine campaign, well the players are adviced to select character options that fit well with the theme. Conversely, if the DM allows a player to pursue an "equestrial career", he should REALLY have adventures focused on the wild or on open ground, where the player can have an advantage of the abilities he chose.
 


masshysteria

Explorer
I'll chime in and repeat the mantra of make them optional.

In 3.5E terms make it like the ranger's combat style. In Star Wars Saga terms make it a talent tree. Therefore, you choose a familiar/animal and the familiar/animal gets better as you invest talents/feats into it. Of course, you can easily choose not to take a familiar/animal and instead focus on other class abilities.
 


Zaukrie

New Publisher
They should stay if the become more than they currently are in the rules. Familiars should be like the jhereg in the Vlad stories by Brust. Otherwise they are just magic items that give you more of something. They need to grow and evolve with the character. However, they should be a character option, not a requirement. Not everyone will have a familiar, but those that do should be somehow different (in the rules, not just roleplaying) than those that don't.
 

Klaus

First Post
JVisgaitis said:
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?
Not build INTO the classes, but the option to acquire them should be there.
 


Remove ads

Top