Familiars?

[Mr. Teapot]

How about a Familiar as a feat... grants some sort of minor bonus (skill) and all allows a new Familiar centered Encounter power??? (or an at-will?)

If I wanted a wizard with a familiar, I'd just take the Implement abilities the wizard gets (Wand Mastery = +2 to hit with one attack, once per encounter) and say I was using my familiar instead of a wand or crystal ball.

Simple, easy, and doesn't require any potentially unbalancing houserules.

 

[(Psi)SeveredHead]

Er...people:

[snip]

It's also not against the law to have one player controlling more than one creature...or character...in the game, even if 4e design seems to imply otherwise.

No, that's not against the law, but that caused problems in 3.x. When people learn lessons, they often want to share said lessons.

 

[Lanefan]

No, that's not against the law, but that caused problems in 3.x. When people learn lessons, they often want to share said lessons.

Ah, but 3.x isn't my frame of comparison. Running multiple critters in 1.x causes very little problem at all; in fact, the game's designed to handle it. That said, even playing 3.x I found running multiple characters/critters no real headache...we'd usually have 2 PCs each, plus the occasional cohort, familiar, etc.

It'd be nice to think that 4e design can also handle such things.

Lanefan

 

[(Psi)SeveredHead]

Ah, but 3.x isn't my frame of comparison. Running multiple critters in 1.x causes very little problem at all; in fact, the game's designed to handle it. That said, even playing 3.x I found running multiple characters/critters no real headache...we'd usually have 2 PCs each, plus the occasional cohort, familiar, etc.

It'd be nice to think that 4e design can also handle such things.

Lanefan

I'm not convinced 1e was designed to handle that kind of thing. More characters means more time taken up in combat (even if it's just "the ferret dives into the bushes").

Furthermore, there's some RP issues involved with a character that's not quite an extension of a PC and not quite an NPC.

 

[Deverash]

If I wanted a wizard with a familiar, I'd just take the Implement abilities the wizard gets (Wand Mastery = +2 to hit with one attack, once per encounter) and say I was using my familiar instead of a wand or crystal ball.

Simple, easy, and doesn't require any potentially unbalancing houserules.

I seem to recall reading somewhere that was the current plan for familiars, to make them a 4th implement type. But I don't even recall where I read that.

 

[Jawar]

Er...people:

It's not against the law to handwave familiars back in to the game, using basic rules ideas from any earlier edition. Ditto for animal companions, if such things float yer boat. Ditto for henchmen (or cohorts) and hirelings.

It's also not against the law to have one player controlling more than one creature...or character...in the game, even if 4e design seems to imply otherwise.

So if you want familiars, go for it.

Lanefan

The thing is all these make yet another party member. That's one of the things that slows the game, and 4E developers had the thing in mind.

I'm sure we're going to see them all, sooner or later, but as somewhat controlled options. The politics in PH1 must have been: «anything slowing combat should be cast out»

 

[Oni]

I do.

But "we" probably doesn't include me in this instance.

It could.

 

[DreamChaser]

That said, even playing 3.x I found running multiple characters/critters no real headache...we'd usually have 2 PCs each, plus the occasional cohort, familiar, etc.

It'd be nice to think that 4e design can also handle such things.

Handle? Any game can "handle" it.

The question is not a matter of can a player run multiple characters. The question is whether it is fair to the other players to have one player effectively running 2 or 3 characters.

Having a companion-based class infringes upon any other classes that are not companion based.

DC

 

[Mad Mac]

I do.

But "we" probably doesn't include me in this instance.

Oh no, we totally included you last week when we were talking about familiars and uh...monks. Yeah. Since we already talked about it and it was cool, maybe you could refresh my memory on that cool thing you told us before?

 

[hero4hire]

I do.

But "we" probably doesn't include me in this instance.

Well that wasn't very nice....

Tsk Tsk!