D&D 4E Familiars in 4E

Keep them, but as either a feat or a talent. Possibly a talent tree; e.g. the more talents a wizard sinks into his familiar, the more powerful it is. But if he doesn't want a familiar, he can take another talent.

Howndawg
 

log in or register to remove this ad

I think they should be optional, either a feat or talent. I think you should be able to improve you're familar by spending feats and talents in addition to the inherent improvent that familars get and that familars should provide some sort of benefit.
 

Howndawg said:
...e.g. the more talents a wizard sinks into his familiar, the more powerful it is.
This would disappoint me. Familiars need a boost as it is with clear benifits. Even if familiars become an optional ability, the wizard should not be required to sink their talents into their familiar to make it a viable option.

Familiars should be interesting and useful out of the box. Not toads that must be guarded vs XP loss.
 

Traycor said:
In 4E, here are the choices of familiars that I think should be available to wizards at lvl 1 (balanced of course to that level)

- Psuedodragon (or some sort of dragon)
- tiny elemental
- Imp
- Fairy (of some kind. As in a Sprite)
- Elven Cat (for elves/half-elves only, such as the ones from 2E)
- Talking Animal (available with all "standard" animals that were familiars in 3E)
- Construct (something cooler than a homunculus. Like a mini-golem)
- Undead (for necromancers. Woot!)
- beholderkin, eyeball (from FR)

I'm sure there are lots of other great ideas out there. So sound off! What familiars do you think should be standard in 4E?

I like alot of those....but how about going even MORE outside the box like say staves or non-animal objects?
 

carmachu said:
I like alot of those....but how about going even MORE outside the box like say staves or non-animal objects?
I liked the article in Dragon that came out a year or so ago that allowed you to basically turn your staff into a familiar.

Unfortunately to make it a truely effective option, the article required you to burn all kinds of feats, XP, spell slots, and gold. Fantastic idea that I was utterly enthusiastic about. Poor implimentation.
 

Traycor said:
I liked the article in Dragon that came out a year or so ago that allowed you to basically turn your staff into a familiar.

Unfortunately to make it a truely effective option, the article required you to burn all kinds of feats, XP, spell slots, and gold. Fantastic idea that I was utterly enthusiastic about. Poor implimentation.


Right, I remember that one. Basically a good idea, just not done well. But with 4th coming....
 

If familiars couldn't be killed, they'd be a lot more useful. Maybe it wouldn't be "realistic", but their usefulness would skyrocket.

Of course, players would promptly use the new invincible familiars to break everything. Maybe a rule like the wizard has to choose to risk her familiar in combat before it can be killed. But the default play is that familar evades all damage, but doesn't do anything useful in combat.
 

carmachu said:
Right, I remember that one. Basically a good idea, just not done well. But with 4th coming....
That staff was wayyy too much of an XP sink should it of gotten destroyed. 5x as much as the familiar hit was excessive.
 

I've been fairly satisfied with the various 3E feats that allow for the development of a mage's familiar; it feels almost as though the character is divesting some of his own power into a separate body as an extension of himself. Or in other words, he effectively becomes two characters, a primary big person and a secondary small critter, both capable of affecting the game world. And that, in my mind, has inherent benefits that can be a lot of fun to roleplay.

The familiar issues that have bothered me in 3E involve the way game designers have scattered that potential through various resources without much consideration of a comprehensive "familiar policy." It's always been an afterthought of an afterthought. If they would simply embrace the familiar (or mage's staff, or whatever) as a series of linked feats or talent tree, it could be a really nifty game element for those of us who like that sort of thing. (The rest of you familiar-haters could ignore it, of course, and be happier for it.)
 

GSHamster said:
If familiars couldn't be killed, they'd be a lot more useful. Maybe it wouldn't be "realistic", but their usefulness would skyrocket.

Of course, players would promptly use the new invincible familiars to break everything. Maybe a rule like the wizard has to choose to risk her familiar in combat before it can be killed. But the default play is that familar evades all damage, but doesn't do anything useful in combat.
Once again I mention the raven harrier from the Knight of the Raven PrClass (EtCR). It is a celestial raven, and it can be killed. But if so, it reforms on the next day. And it has several abilities to hinder opponents in addition to just being a celestial raven (up to "see through raven's eyes" at 10th level).
 

Remove ads

Top