Familiars

[underfoot007ct]

Those are both good points. I guess it just needs to be looked at to have some application for those that aren't arcane casters.



It's not bad, but I don't think it's good for all types of pets like this, since not all types of pets like this are going to be explicitly supernatural. I figured the "it can be knocked out, but not killed" thing might've been an OK compromise, but maybe not?

Anyway, the important thing is that I can play Dr. Evil with Mr. Bigglesworth at level 1 and not have to be a sparkly mage to do it.

I think familiars should be "magical creatures" for arcane casters only. Yet maybe a "beast master" theme, which gives a mundane pet, which can do a number of useful tricks. A small dog, Cat, parrot, Weasel, etc.

 

[Mattachine]

Isn't a non-magical familiar called "a pet"?
A special rule or ritual is needed for pets?

 

[I'm A Banana]

A special rule or ritual is needed for pets?

All rules are unnecessary.

A rule for pets is useful if you want to make it a significant part of your character's design.

Just like the rules for a fighter class are useful if you wanna make hittin' things with weapons a significant part of your character's design.

The idea to make it a theme rather than a background was that you'd learn more tricks as you level up, but that might not be necessary -- take the trick list from 3e's Handle Animal skill, and you've got a nice baseline.

 

[SkidAce]

Isn't a non-magical familiar called "a pet"?
A special rule or ritual is needed for pets?

Agreed.

Non-magical "pets" could be acquired via game play.


Purchase a horse, train a dog, save a baby basilisk. Work it out with your DM.

--------

A lacerta (lizardman race) was being followed by a spy lizardbird trained by an evil organization. He didnt even know, thought it was neat, lured it in and fed it. Treated it with kindness since it was reptilian like he was, and it changed loyalty and became his pet/companion.


No feat required.

 

[JRRNeiklot]

In 1e/2e terms, a wizard (or magic-user) without a familiar is a wizard who either has not got the find familiar spell in his spell book, or who considers the monetary cost and/or the potential hassle and vulnerability in obtaining it to be not worth the benefits of getting it.

EDIT: The following is funny for a reason:

I loved Find Familiar being a spell. Rangers could have a familiar, or 10th level thieves.

 

[grimslade]

I am not sure of the spirit or summoned familiar. It seems to be too forgiving. That said, it is fun to see familiars being used for touch attacks a lot more. I miss the more advanced familiars like the quasit, imp and fairy dragon.

A familiar is different from a pet. I like the idea of a similar feat/theme for a domesticated pet. Maybe a background, for an animal handler or hosteler. A familiar is bound to the Mage, which is why touch spells can be delivered by it. A regular beastie has no such potential.

 

[Skyscraper]

I've played a wizard in 1E and the problem with my familiar was keeping it alive. And the reason for that is simple: AoE spells.

If you allow animals into any PC's entourage, you need to find a way to have them survive. The immortal-"normal animal" rule you suggest appears contradictory to me. If you wish for a PC to have a "normal animal", why can't it die?

 

[I'm A Banana]

If you wish for a PC to have a "normal animal", why can't it die?

Story Explanation: The animal, like the character that it accompanies, is a HERO (albeit a sidekick).

Sim Explanation: The animal, like the character that accompanies it, is hardy and tough and heroic and clever (possible rule fudge to give them death saves or a portion of the PC's HP or somethin').

Game Explanation: Because the animal is part of the character's identity, it's not a good idea to separate them.