D&D 5E Familiars, what for?

[Lyxen]

Right. But it would also be nice if there was some real mechanical incentive for the players to not treat the familiars as expendable drones.

There are two incentives, money and time. I agree that money only works at low level (but it does work), but time is certainly effective even at higher level. I'm not against making it a resource with threat attached, what I'm against is abusing it just like some players abuse familiars as drones. It's all in the balance, each table can (and should) find their own.

 

[James Gasik]

Real world beliefs about familiars is that they serve, protect, advise, and guard their master, or even function as magical aids. That last part is something D&D rarely does, and I think that's a shame. You would think at the least a familiar could hold concentration on a spell for it's master or something.

 

[Lyxen]

Real world beliefs about familiars is that they serve, protect, advise, and guard their master, or even function as magical aids. That last part is something D&D rarely does, and I think that's a shame. You would think at the least a familiar could hold concentration on a spell for it's master or something.

That would be way overpowered (and would certainly go towards a more intensive kill order ), but I agree upon the principle. That being said, remember that D&D is not an implementation of real world or other fantasy tropes, it has created its own tropes...

 

[James Gasik]

Well, just thinking, something like that would give Familiars a real purpose, thus, worth the effort, and their masters would be more cautious about them. /shrug

Unlimited free concentration would be bad, but maybe times per day equal to proficiency, recharged with a long rest would work? Just a thought.

 

[Lyxen]

Well, just thinking, something like that would give Familiars a real purpose, thus, worth the effort, and their masters would be more cautious about them. /shrug
Unlimited free concentration would be bad, but maybe times per day equal to proficiency, recharged with a long rest would work? Just a thought.

Concentration in itself is way too strong, but maybe advantage on concentration checks as long as the familier has been within 5 ft. for a whole round ?

 

[DND_Reborn]

Here is our current house-rule for Find Familiar:

And the Brownie to go with it:

 

[James Gasik]

Perhaps, I vaguely recall seeing a way someone could hold concentration for a caster, though it might have been in a third party supplement. Personally, concentration annoys me, since it seems to work counter to it's intended purpose- the idea was to prevent people from layering buffs, but I've found that because you need to be picky about your spells, it actually prevents people from getting buffs they really could use (particularly martials). But that's beyond the scope of this thread, and it might just be unique to my experience.

Your idea is more conservative, and that's probably safer, Lyxen.

 

[Baron Opal II]

Since we're sharing he's mine. I made it a feat instead of a spell since it seemed to be a somewhat character defining trait in my games.

Familiar Bond: After an arduous ritual, the character gains a magical animal companion. Familiars are minor primal spirits that manifest as small animals. They can assist magicians in their learning of magic as well as provide companionship. Familiars have an AC: 16, with level, saving throws, intelligence, and hit points equal to the caster. Familiars only need to make a saving throw if they are specifically targeted or are more than 15 ft. from their master. Otherwise, it is assumed that they pass or fail with the same roll. The magician and familiar can communicate verbally with each other, but others can only understand the familiar with speak with animals.

The familiar is utterly loyal to its master and will fight for him, perform services, and generally obey his commands. At first level, and every three levels thereafter (3rd, 6th, &c.), the familiar can assist the magician in the following ways. Once chosen, they cannot be changed.

Bond- The magician and the familiar can perceive through each other’s senses, up to a mile. Selecting Bond a second time allows for telepathic communication between the two.

Defense- The familiar grants the magician +1 to AC and saves.

Health- The familiar enhances the magician’s health, granting an extra 1 + Constitution modifier to Health.

Lore- The familiar teaches the magician a new spell. This will automatically be learned, and may exceed limits based on intelligence.

Might- The familiar can maintain concentration on a spell for the magician. It cannot move while doing so.

Excepting Bond and Lore abilities, the familiar must be within 120 ft. for the magician to benefit. If the familiar is ever killed, the character must make a saving throw or instantly lose half their maximum Grit. The familiar can reincarnate if the character repeats the find familiar ritual, costing 250sp. Any spells gained through Lore are lost until the familiar is reincarnated. Recurring careless deaths will sour the familiar-character bond.

(Grit: hit points, representing stamina. Health: 6 + Con mod hit point kicker, representing meat.)

 

[James Gasik]

DND_Reborn, Baron Opal II, I like both of your house rules. I would feel much better about having a Familiar at your tables, I suspect. Thank you for sharing!

 

[iserith]

And it's also a silly example, you had to push a situation to an extreme (a party with 5 familiars) that never happens in the game just to try to make a point. So no, there is no such "context".

Except I didn't introduce this into the discussion. @GMforPowergamers did. I agreed that they could do it, but that there would be risks and trade-offs and what those might be specifically. If you've got a problem with the example, take it up with them.

I will answer this when you first answer the question that I asked, which is why you are obviously going out of your way to prevent characters from having familiars with even a small chance to live, with sentences like "kill on sight" and "at risk for even having them out, doing nothing".

You're asking a question that isn't relevant, so I can't answer it. As shown in my other posts, the players aren't prevented from having familiars, nor do they have a "small chance to live." I have two PCs in my regular group with familiars, as I stated. So why do you see meaningful choices as "piling on difficulties?"

Then it just proves that you actually don't play your game by your words, as I suspected all along. There is no actual "kill on sight". You probably would kill familiars if the players were doing really stupid things with them, as most DMs probably do, but again it's very different from a "kill on sight".

I do it if given the opportunity. My players know this. They plan accordingly or, at least, understand when they don't why their familiar got taken out. The most recent example of this was when the party was fighting another adventuring group which my random generator for adventuring party names came up with "Four Warriors & A Pixie." So I established that the group had a pixie strung out on fermented honey in their service. They released the pixie from a jar and she buzzed about the battlefield, hindering the PCs during the battle. Among that was using her dispel magic on the wizard's familiar after he had cast dragon's breath on it. I thought that was a pretty neat turn and so did the players. (You don't see that every day.)

And again, mules don't necessarily need to be protected unless adversaries target them specifically, and hirelings and henchmen are supposed to be competent enough to survive generally. As you say, it's a dangerous world, so why would the adventurers be the only tough ones ? They might be somewhat tougher, but do they really have to cocoon all other party members all the time ?

If true (see above), that amount of pressure and danger probably incites the players not to use henchmen and hirelings (or mules), which I find a bit of a shame since it in general makes for a poorer game with fewer possibilities.

Overall, once more, it's a question of balance, I'm not saying that they are not in danger in our campaigns (they are, just as the heroes are), but there is no "kill on sight", and no need to protect them and make meaningful choices about them every single minute. Most of the time, it's companionship and having a varied party and having fun without fearing that the DM will pounce on their resources (you claim you do, but I am pretty sure it's not really the case, actually ).

Putting pressure on the PCs' resources, which is part of the game, doesn't disincentivize taking mounts, pack animals, familiars, or hirelings. It incentivizes making good decisions when deploying them. The incentive to use mounts, pack animals, familiars, and hirelings comes from what they can do for the party in the context of the game and however much fun the players derive from that.

If you were correct in your assertions - and you're not - then we might reasonably see no mounts, pack animals, familiars, or hirelings in my regular game. But we do have those things. The PCs have a goat, three mules, 7 hirelings to man their river boat, and two familiars. At the moment, they also have an NPC cleric they just rescued and are traveling a long distance to bring back to town. So they need to protect that NPC too. I'll even add that protecting the boat is also a concern for the PCs - they ran into a monster with the Siege Monster trait recently and almost lost it!

So no, there is plenty of fun to be had here. Maybe you don't like it because of past traumatic experiences, but as I said far upthread, please don't project your issues onto me or my group.