Familiars and Darkvision-The Sage hath spoken-Answers Within
- Thread starter evileeyore
- Start date
Mouseferatu
Hero
Okay, you want evidence? Let's play "follow the train of logic." 
In official WotC D&D products, the stat blocks for monsters always include "Darkvision" under Special Qualities if the creature has Darkvision, even if it's a magical beast. For example, in RttToEE, the Giant Frog is a medium sized Magical Beast, but it still says "Darkvision" in the SQ section. Even though it's assumed Magical Beasts have Darkvision, they still mention it, just so you know for certain.
Now, in that same product, they have a stat block for Sebbekai. Who's Sebbekai? A cat familiar to a Wizard. What does it say under SQ? It says "Improved Evasion, Speak with Spugnoir (his master), Speak with Cats."
It includes stats for other familiars as well. Kubo the toad. Jolana, a fiendish bat servant of a Blackguard. (Not a familiar, I know, but still.) In all cases, it lists special qualities and special familiar benefits. In no case does it mention Darkvision. Thus providing evidence that the wording in the Player's Handbook is poor and confusing, but proving as well that familiars were not intended to have Darkvision.
Unless you want to convince me that you know the rules better than Monte Cook does.
In official WotC D&D products, the stat blocks for monsters always include "Darkvision" under Special Qualities if the creature has Darkvision, even if it's a magical beast. For example, in RttToEE, the Giant Frog is a medium sized Magical Beast, but it still says "Darkvision" in the SQ section. Even though it's assumed Magical Beasts have Darkvision, they still mention it, just so you know for certain.
Now, in that same product, they have a stat block for Sebbekai. Who's Sebbekai? A cat familiar to a Wizard. What does it say under SQ? It says "Improved Evasion, Speak with Spugnoir (his master), Speak with Cats."
It includes stats for other familiars as well. Kubo the toad. Jolana, a fiendish bat servant of a Blackguard. (Not a familiar, I know, but still.) In all cases, it lists special qualities and special familiar benefits. In no case does it mention Darkvision. Thus providing evidence that the wording in the Player's Handbook is poor and confusing, but proving as well that familiars were not intended to have Darkvision.
Unless you want to convince me that you know the rules better than Monte Cook does.
Last edited:
evileeyore
Mrrrph
To mouseferatu
Then by your logic, unless the animals in printed adventures include lowlight vision in their stat blocks they don't have it.
Except oh yeah, now I remember the MM is cannon...
_____________________
To Bronn Spellforger
So then as "animals" the other Familiars don't get lowlight. Maybe Familiars lose lowlight when they become "magical beasts" and don't get darkvision or lowlight
______________________
Bah, what this boils down to is things were one way when the PHB was printed. Then the MM was printed, things changed noone went back to check the PHB. And unlike many I don't consider Monte Cook a God. Don't even get me started there.
Everyone makes mistakes. What I want to know is have I missed a ruling written in a d20 book. Did I miss something, and so far the answer is NO.
Anyway I broke down and typed out an email to the Sage... maybe I'll hear back. If I do I'll post it here.
And the "evidence" I want is an actual printed rule. If I don't see one eventually I'll assume that I am rightish (about the Editors dropping the ball and not properly listing what they don't get as magical beasts...).
Editted to add: Hmmm, i reread my post and it sounds a tad catty. Sorry about that but I can't think of anyway to say it and sound more agreeable. I blame self-teaching myself HTML. It makes me iretable. I hate the teacher ...
Then by your logic, unless the animals in printed adventures include lowlight vision in their stat blocks they don't have it.
Except oh yeah, now I remember the MM is cannon...
_____________________
To Bronn Spellforger
So then as "animals" the other Familiars don't get lowlight. Maybe Familiars lose lowlight when they become "magical beasts" and don't get darkvision or lowlight
______________________
Bah, what this boils down to is things were one way when the PHB was printed. Then the MM was printed, things changed noone went back to check the PHB. And unlike many I don't consider Monte Cook a God. Don't even get me started there.
Everyone makes mistakes. What I want to know is have I missed a ruling written in a d20 book. Did I miss something, and so far the answer is NO.
Anyway I broke down and typed out an email to the Sage... maybe I'll hear back. If I do I'll post it here.
And the "evidence" I want is an actual printed rule. If I don't see one eventually I'll assume that I am rightish (about the Editors dropping the ball and not properly listing what they don't get as magical beasts...).
Editted to add: Hmmm, i reread my post and it sounds a tad catty. Sorry about that but I can't think of anyway to say it and sound more agreeable. I blame self-teaching myself HTML. It makes me iretable. I hate the teacher
...
Last edited:
Mouseferatu
Hero
evileeyore said:To mouseferatu
Then by your logic, unless the animals in printed adventures include lowlight vision in their stat blocks they don't have it.
Except oh yeah, now I remember the MM is cannon...
_____________________
To Bronn Spellforger
So then as "animals" the other Familiars don't get lowlight. Maybe Familiars lose lowlight when they become "magical beasts" and don't get darkvision or lowlight
______________________
Bah, what this boils down to is things were one way when the PHB was printed. Then the MM was printed, things changed noone went back to check the PHB. And unlike many I don't consider Monte Cook a God. Don't even get me started there.
Everyone makes mistakes. What I want to know is have I missed a ruling written in a d20 book. Did I miss something, and so far the answer is NO.
Anyway I broke down and typed out an email to the Sage... maybe I'll hear back. If I do I'll post it here.
And the "evidence" I want is an actual printed rule. If I don't see one eventually I'll assume that I am rightish (about the Editors dropping the ball and not properly listing what they don't get as magical beasts...).
Editted to add: Hmmm, i reread my post and it sounds a tad catty. Sorry about that but I can't think of anyway to say it and sound more agreeable. I blame self-teaching myself HTML. It makes me iretable. I hate the teacher
Since WotC doesn't print animal stats in any of the adventuers I have, I can't comment on that.
I don't consider Monte Cook a god. But since he developed the game, I consider his interpretation of the rules--especially in an official WotC product--to carry more weight than yours.
Sounds catty? No, it sounds like you've already made up your mind and you don't want to be told otherwise. No, nobody has found a concrete rule, but all the avaiable evidence points to the idea that familiars don't get Darkvision. If you want to play your game where they do, there's nothing wrong with that. But don't ignore the (admittedly circumstantial) evidence to the contrary and then insist that you're doing it by the rules.
Mouseferatu
Hero
Aaron L said:
I know. Didn't mean to imply otherwise. But since he was on the development team, and was therefore one of the people most directly responsible for the rules of D&D3E, I figure he's got a pretty good heads up on those rules.
Kugar
First Post
Actually Familiars are not "Magical Beasts" if you go by the PHB. In the sidebar on page 51 about familiars, it explicitly discusses how to change an animals statistics when creating a familiar. These changes do not include changing the discriptor to "Magic Beast". So they are "not just animals" in discription but still keep the "animal" type. No Darkvision. The SRD has the same contradiction.
Most people have read the contradictory rules as meaning that the discriptor does change but does not bestow the normal characteristics of "Magical Beasts" If I had to call black or white - I'd use animal since the PHB does not explicitly state that the creatures type is changed to magical beast.
Kugar
Most people have read the contradictory rules as meaning that the discriptor does change but does not bestow the normal characteristics of "Magical Beasts" If I had to call black or white - I'd use animal since the PHB does not explicitly state that the creatures type is changed to magical beast.
Kugar
evileeyore
Mrrrph
Kugar that has to be the best answer I've gotten so far. Hmmm.
I'll have to think on that. The only problem I then have is the sentence that states they are magic beasts.
But I'd rather have them treated as animals than some confused combination of the two.
And no mouseferatu I really don't care either way. How ever I asked for one thing-written rules, and have gotten something completely else-opinions.
Now opinions have their place. My DM's opinion being the most important. I don't care if Monte Cook is the Master of the Rules, actually I do care, then atleast I could say "Hey Monte fix this!". That however is not the case.
However you are right I really don't want to be told otherwise, I want to be shown. I like having hard and fast rules to hit, and be hit by. I've been burned by "house rules" in the past (especially when they aren't written down).
You know I could probably speed this up if I could only figure out a screen name for the ezboards... Then I could post on Monte's list and maybe get an answer from him...
I'll have to think on that. The only problem I then have is the sentence that states they are magic beasts.
But I'd rather have them treated as animals than some confused combination of the two.
And no mouseferatu I really don't care either way. How ever I asked for one thing-written rules, and have gotten something completely else-opinions.
Now opinions have their place. My DM's opinion being the most important. I don't care if Monte Cook is the Master of the Rules, actually I do care, then atleast I could say "Hey Monte fix this!". That however is not the case.
However you are right I really don't want to be told otherwise, I want to be shown. I like having hard and fast rules to hit, and be hit by. I've been burned by "house rules" in the past (especially when they aren't written down).
You know I could probably speed this up if I could only figure out a screen name for the ezboards... Then I could post on Monte's list and maybe get an answer from him...
Mouseferatu
Hero
I've just posted the question on Monte's boards. I'll let everyone know what he says, if/when he answers.
evileeyore
Mrrrph
Why thank you. I knew if I mentioned some would else would do it, saving me the hassle of yet another screen name
Similar Threads
