D&D 5E Familiars, what for?

[tetrasodium]

I have a question about the complaint that familiars take up too much spotlight when they're relied upon for investigation: how is this any different from a rogue regularly stealthing ahead to investigate without the rest of the party? Obviously there are circumstances in which a familiar that blends into the setting has better chances of going undetected than a humanoid, but by the same token, a PC generally has better stats than a familiar anyway. Additionally, a PC can do things like have an interaction with NPCs (such as get caught and try to lie their way out of the situation).

In my current campaign, we have a shadow monk and ranger who do most of the stealthing ahead, so my pact of the chain familiar is more of a messenger who can transmit messages between the two party groups. If anything, the fact that my warlock is often standing away from the front line with her familiar acting as her eyes and ears means that she sometimes gets sidelined as action plays out too quickly for her to do much about it.

It's very different. A ten foot pole is more cumbersome & due to being more difficult to replace than a familiar while in the field that ten foot pole is less expendable.

 

[Joshy]

It's very different. A ten foot pole is more cumbersome & due to being more difficult to replace than a familiar while in the field that ten foot pole is less expendable.

Now to find a way to make my next familiar an awakened ten foot pole.

 

[James Gasik]

"In 3.5, you took one for a passive benefit and then hid it in a pouch or something." Sure, if you were bad at 3.5. But if you weren't, you traded your familiar for the Abrupt Jaunt immediate magic option cause you were a Conjuration specialist wizard.

Well it depends on what level you are, and what books are available to you.

 

[Lyxen]

So are we now defending the DM who did this to you or pointing out how the adjudication of the situation was in some way unfair? You seemed to have a negative reaction to it happening. What's going on here?

What is going on is that there is a large difference between applying, in good faith, the right rules to manage familiars, and deciding that familiars have to be killed on sight and not even bothering with niceties, and in particular not about explanations, usually because they are simply none, it's just that the DM dislikes familiars and will kill them because...

That perception is just wrong, where I'm concerned. Enemies will exploit mistakes in some cases. Leave your familiar exposed in combat and they're a valid target. Send them into a dangerous area to scout, expect that they may get killed. Make decisions and prepare accordingly. That's just playing the game.

Again, it depends on the DM and his views. Why would you send a familiar to scout only in areas that are not dangerous ? But you need to be able to assess the risks. If the risk assessment is that it's not that great a risk (an owl with superior perception and stealth, at night, into simple woods), then the assumption is that it will not be killed outright just because the DM has decided that familiars are on the "kill on sight" list.

I try not to assume what players have their characters do.

And yet, the rules assume that characters are heroes, not stupid, and always on the lookout. Assuming that they need to describe every single detail all the time and in particular "I'm watching for danger" is not only unfair, but it slows down the game and it's just waiting for a "gotcha" moment. So yes, by default, I will not assume the worst of the PCs, I will assume that they ask their familiar to be properly positioned. Moreover, the game default is not to use a map or a grid, so if a player tells me that his familiar flies away and gets out of sight after helping his master, I will by default assume that he does so in a manner that actually provides them cover. I will not assume that it stays in the open in a position where it might be killed just because the player did not specify exactly where.

It's on them to be reasonably specific about their positioning. (A map and minis helps with this.) What weapons a monster may have at their disposal will also be telegraphed when I describe the environment. That's part of setting the scene in my view.

On that we agree, but then there are many things which might not be visible and in particular magic, which is after all fairly common.

Anything can be made to make sense in the context of a game based on make-believe. Putting the PCs' resources in jeopardy isn't necessarily about hate.

But putting familiars on a "kill on sight" list smacks of it, that's all, and that's what some of us noticed. It might not be the case for you, but the extreme wording should, in all fairness, be avoided.

It's just part of the difficulty of the challenge that must be overcome and a means to introduce tension.

I hope that you do realise that the game does not need anything like this. It does not have to be a challenge for the players, it might just be about telling a story collectively, using some rules for resolution. On the other hand, some DMs feel that they need a tough world so that players are challenged, it's fine, but it's not the absolute rule, and all manners of playing the game are good as long as everyone is having fun.

 

[ECMO3]

What is going on is that there is a large difference between applying, in good faith, the right rules to manage familiars, and deciding that familiars have to be killed on sight and not even bothering with niceties, and in particular not about explanations, usually because they are simply none, it's just that the DM dislikes familiars and will kill them because...


But putting familiars on a "kill on sight" list smacks of it, that's all, and that's what some of us noticed. It might not be the case for you, but the extreme wording should, in all fairness, be avoided.

When I am a DM it all depends on what the familiar is doing.

If the familiar is helping in combat frequently, ESPECIALLY if he is helping a Rogue, I will go out of my way to kill it. That is not because I have a vendetta against them, but because it makes sense. They are the weakest allies on the battlefield, one attack against them will generally kill them and when they go down they can not be brought back up in the fight.

For this reason it usually makes tactical sense to kill the familiar and take it out of the fight if it is active in combat. This is no different than the party concentrating attacks on the wounded or weaker creatures to put them out of the fight.

If it is sitting in a corner hiding, that is a different story.

IF a familiar is scouting and fails a stealth check it will usually be attacked (and killed) unless there is some Thematic reason it wouldn't be (for example you are scouting with a spider familiar in a Lothian Drow temple). The guards are going to attack the Rogue when he sneaks up on them, they are probably going to attack the strange cat too, especially in a world where cats are used for this sort of thing.

 

[iserith]

What is going on is that there is a large difference between applying, in good faith, the right rules to manage familiars, and deciding that familiars have to be killed on sight and not even bothering with niceties, and in particular not about explanations, usually because they are simply none, it's just that the DM dislikes familiars and will kill them because...

So are you saying that your DM just killed your familiar because they dislike familiars? That seems like a bit much, if so.

Again, it depends on the DM and his views. Why would you send a familiar to scout only in areas that are not dangerous ? But you need to be able to assess the risks. If the risk assessment is that it's not that great a risk (an owl with superior perception and stealth, at night, into simple woods), then the assumption is that it will not be killed outright just because the DM has decided that familiars are on the "kill on sight" list.

And yet, the rules assume that characters are heroes, not stupid, and always on the lookout. Assuming that they need to describe every single detail all the time and in particular "I'm watching for danger" is not only unfair, but it slows down the game and it's just waiting for a "gotcha" moment. So yes, by default, I will not assume the worst of the PCs, I will assume that they ask their familiar to be properly positioned. Moreover, the game default is not to use a map or a grid, so if a player tells me that his familiar flies away and gets out of sight after helping his master, I will by default assume that he does so in a manner that actually provides them cover. I will not assume that it stays in the open in a position where it might be killed just because the player did not specify exactly where.

You know what they say when you assume.

But putting familiars on a "kill on sight" list smacks of it, that's all, and that's what some of us noticed. It might not be the case for you, but the extreme wording should, in all fairness, be avoided.

If what someone says "smacks" of something, but you're not certain, then one way to find out is ask rather than assume the worst and base your arguments on the most uncharitable interpretation.

I hope that you do realise that the game does not need anything like this. It does not have to be a challenge for the players, it might just be about telling a story collectively, using some rules for resolution. On the other hand, some DMs feel that they need a tough world so that players are challenged, it's fine, but it's not the absolute rule, and all manners of playing the game are good as long as everyone is having fun.

I can't speak for anyone else's games but my own. In my games, the players are challenged and part of that is threatening their resources when given the opportunity.

 

[Flamestrike]

I have a HR where if the familiar dies, the caster takes a level of exhaustion.

Casters now seem to care a lot more about those familiars.

 

[Joshy]

I have a HR where if the familiar dies, the caster takes a level of exhaustion.

Casters now seem to care a lot more about those familiars.

That's a good one, I like it. How does that rule interact with Flock of Familiars?.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

So are you saying that your DM just killed your familiar because they dislike familiars? That seems like a bit much, if so.

Well, if a DM told me his "general policy is to kill familiars on sight anyway if given the opportunity," then yes, I absolutely would think they killed my familiar because they dislike familiars.

You know what they say when you assume.

Really? That's your reply to "the rules assume good faith players" I call rank BS. Especially because that's literally the argument people put forward for why it was so gosh-darn necessary to "empower" DMs again, because rules that work on their own allegedly presume bad faith DMing.

Perhaps, instead of dismissing an entire argument with "don't make assumptions," actually respond? At least a little?

If what someone says "smacks" of something, but you're not certain, then one way to find out is ask rather than assume the worst and base your arguments on the most uncharitable interpretation.

You literally said you up-front tell people you'll "kill familiars on sight...if given the opportunity." There's nothing to interpret there! The meaning is right there in the original words: "I will kill your familiar on sight." There's no nuance. There's no room for negotiation or understanding or respect between parties. It's "oh, you took a familiar? Alright, I'll be killing it ASAP. Every time you summon it. That familiar will be dead before the next combat ends." What other meaning could there possibly be?

I can't speak for anyone else's games but my own. In my games, the players are challenged and part of that is threatening their resources when given the opportunity.

Challenge =/= destroy. Threatening =/= kill on sight, the phrase you literally used.

If you meant something other than "I will actively hunt down the thing you think is cool solely because you have it," you shouldn't have used such strident and uncompromising terms.

 

[iserith]

Well, if a DM told me his "general policy is to kill familiars on sight anyway if given the opportunity," then yes, I absolutely would think they killed my familiar because they dislike familiars.


Really? That's your reply to "the rules assume good faith players" I call rank BS. Especially because that's literally the argument people put forward for why it was so gosh-darn necessary to "empower" DMs again, because rules that work on their own allegedly presume bad faith DMing.

Perhaps, instead of dismissing an entire argument with "don't make assumptions," actually respond? At least a little?


You literally said you up-front tell people you'll "kill familiars on sight...if given the opportunity." There's nothing to interpret there! The meaning is right there in the original words: "I will kill your familiar on sight." There's no nuance. There's no room for negotiation or understanding or respect between parties. It's "oh, you took a familiar? Alright, I'll be killing it ASAP. Every time you summon it. That familiar will be dead before the next combat ends." What other meaning could there possibly be?


Challenge =/= destroy. Threatening =/= kill on sight, the phrase you literally used.

If you meant something other than "I will actively hunt down the thing you think is cool solely because you have it," you shouldn't have used such strident and uncompromising terms.

You're free to read all of my posts in the thread if you haven't already to see how this plays out at my table and decide for yourself is that's a totally unbearable situation for a player to be in. If what I've said is not clear enough, I'm happy to answer your specific questions.

I will add that challenging the player with the notion that their familiar is a valid target and will be threatened doesn't mean I actually can destroy it. The player has some say here as might the dice. A player in my game had his familiar out in tonight's session. I attacked it. I missed. The monster was killed before its turn came back around. Does that sound like a terrible game experience to you?