Familiars

[satori01]

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 never took one in the olden days precisely for that reason. The party fighter once took my familiar hostage to make me cast the spells he wanted cast.
It was funny, but I never took a familiar again.


Neither did Raistlin.

 

[I'm A Banana]

On reading, haven't playtested it yet, I really like the familiar in the playtest documents. I want a familiar that is a magical companion that can do magical stuff like said familiar, not just a little pet that anyone can have. The classes are meant to be different and unique why try to make them more the same?

My question would be: why necessarily tether having a furry friend to one particular magical pigeonhole? Why can't I have a thief with a pet rat? Or a fighter with a loyal canine companion? Why is casting spells a prerequisite for being friends with a fuzzy pet?

You can still HAVE that more explicitly arcane familiar (I think it's a natural fit for warlocks to have a more supernatural companion), but why not let a little animal friend be something ANYONE can have, and then maybe give particular spellcasters where the archetype is important one for free automagically?

It's interesting that the familiar comes from a feat and not a class feature of the Wizard. Wouldn't this make the familiar feat a "feat tax," since what's a wizard without a familiar?

I think there's plenty of wizards who never bothered with a familiar (before 3e, none of my wizards did), and plenty more characters of any stripe who could use something remarkably like one (just without the explicitly magical juju around it). I don't think it's something exclusively tied to a particular spellcasting archetype.

I DO think the idea of a more arcane witch/warlock familiar is solid, and that can easily be a class feature of that class, but I don't see why a furry friend should require arcane magic.

 

[Campbell]

Olgar Shiverstone has a point. Since what you're proposing adds to skills and has little combat benefit, maybe it would be better off as a background (with the pet as your background feature) instead of a feat or theme.

It seems like the distinction between themes and backgrounds isn't non-combat vs. combat to me. Backgrounds clearly represent who you were before you became an adventurer while themes are all abilities you receive not directly tied to your class. They've mentioned gaining skills through themes before.

 

[steeldragons]

It's level 3 in the playtest. I'm not a fan. I think it should be available at level 1.

I also think that, rather than having special unique little rules for spellcasters, the familiar needs to make use of a broader "useful pet" kind of concept.

Meaning, it should be something anyone can get. A cat or a raven or a monkey or a ferret or a parrot or a toad or even a horse or a serpent or even another person maybe. It should be your Disney Side-Kick Animal. Your Abu from Aladdin. What is a pirate without their parrot? What is a knight without their noble steed? Or a bond villain without their fluffy cat? Or a bard without their Number One Fan, maybe?

Everyone should have the option to gain a useful little pet that they can order around and help them out. From level 1.

Personally, I think it would make a great Theme.

You'd need to futz a bit with the current familiar mechanics. I'd do something like this:

[sblock]
Theme: Bonded Pet
You have a particularly close bond with an animal companion. You travel together, explore together, fight together, and rely on each other. You are perhaps each others' closest friend. As you gain levels, you teach your pet many tricks, and your bond grows closer.

At first level, you gain the Adventurer's Best Friend feat.
Adventurer's Best Friend: You have a close bond with a particular animal, and it follows you around and helps you out. Benefit: You can choose an animal to have as a pet. The animal is loyal to you, and obeys your commands. Due to your similarities, you gain one extra skill that both you and the animal share (your lucky cricket might give you Fiddling +3, or your noble steed might grant you Endurance +3). Your pet also does not die as long as you are alive. Your pet can be knocked out, but it automatically stabilizes and doesn't need to make death saves. Your pet has HP equal to 1/10th of your HP.
[/sblock]

That might need a bit more thought, but it's the version 0.1.

Now, what about the more...otherworldly elements of an arcane familiar? The idea of a creature from the otherworld teaching dark secrets to a student?

Two words: Warlocks, son.

Do you have Thoughts About Familiars? Post them here (if they are grandma-friendly).

I very much DO hope this is a joke thread. If not...here's what I think...

Just very...mayhaps, you've answered your own question. Level 3 sounds like a great place for familiars to come into play. Not...ya know...YOUR idea of familiars...but the normal kind.

Familiars for everyone?! ABSOLUTEly NOT!

Warlocks?...NO familiars. You're infused with diabolic essence (and yes, I appreciate the normal/traditional concept/mythology OF a familiar...but that is not what it is in the D&D game terms.)

I will very much not be pleased with...any of your ideas of familiars coming into play in the game of 5e.

 

[Dragoslav]

Thanks, I didn't know how familiars worked in earlier editions. As for KM's idea, it's not without precedent: 4e has an "animal master" theme that grants you an animal companion, so I could see something similar in 5e. The 4e theme says that your companion typically stays out of battle and thus doesn't attract attention, but if it does get killed then you can replace it after the end of an extended rest (you go out and befriend a similar animal because you have such an affinity for that type of animal). So yeah, I like the idea, and it could definitely work.

 

[I'm A Banana]

...the normal kind....Familiars for everyone?! ABSOLUTEly NOT!...Warlocks?...NO familiars. You're infused with diabolic essence (and yes, I appreciate the normal/traditional concept/mythology OF a familiar...but that is not what it is in the D&D game terms.)....

You seem to have some very specific and inflexible ideas about what familiars (and warlocks) are in D&D. I don't know why this is or what they are, so I'm not sure I can contribute much.

All I know is that having an occasionally useful pet cat probably shouldn't be something that requires me to be able to cast magic missile, and that having a magical pet cat that, as an emissary from my Dark Masters, teaches me the Dark Arts, sounds totally like the Warlock's bag (what with the pact-making and the witches and the slightly otherworldly twinge).

 

[Oni]

My question would be: why necessarily tether having a furry friend to one particular magical pigeonhole? Why can't I have a thief with a pet rat? Or a fighter with a loyal canine companion? Why is casting spells a prerequisite for being friends with a fuzzy pet?

You can still HAVE that more explicitly arcane familiar (I think it's a natural fit for warlocks to have a more supernatural companion), but why not let a little animal friend be something ANYONE can have, and then maybe give particular spellcasters where the archetype is important one for free automagically?

That takes you right back around to need special unique little rules for spellcasters. And the presence of familiars as they are currently implemented doesn't preclude the possibility that characters could have a mundane trained pet. I just don't want the familiar dumbed down to one in an effort make it one size fits all, which is what I got from your OP.

 

[rjfTrebor]

I very much DO hope this is a joke thread. If not...here's what I think...

Just very...mayhaps, you've answered your own question. Level 3 sounds like a great place for familiars to come into play. Not...ya know...YOUR idea of familiars...but the normal kind.

Familiars for everyone?! ABSOLUTEly NOT!

Warlocks?...NO familiars. You're infused with diabolic essence (and yes, I appreciate the normal/traditional concept/mythology OF a familiar...but that is not what it is in the D&D game terms.)

I will very much not be pleased with...any of your ideas of familiars coming into play in the game of 5e.

first of all, not all warlocks are "Infused with diabolic essence". Secondly, why can't a warlock learn whatever ritual or spell it is that allows a wizard to have a familiar?

i think that any arcane class should be able to easily acquire a familiar, and any non arcane class should still have the option available to them through themes or backgrounds.

 

[Li Shenron]

It's level 3 in the playtest. I'm not a fan. I think it should be available at level 1.

It probably will. It's just a feat, and Wizard will be probably able to get it at level 1. The fact that it belongs to a theme doesn't mean it is available only by taking that theme, remember?

Also IMHO that theme was not originally supposed to be for Wizards, in fact it's called "dabbler", even tho the playtest Wizard has it. But the theme works great for a non-Wizard, granting her cantrips and later a familiar.

I also think that, rather than having special unique little rules for spellcasters, the familiar needs to make use of a broader "useful pet" kind of concept.

Meaning, it should be something anyone can get. A cat or a raven or a monkey or a ferret or a parrot or a toad or even a horse or a serpent or even another person maybe. It should be your Disney Side-Kick Animal. Your Abu from Aladdin. What is a pirate without their parrot? What is a knight without their noble steed? Or a bond villain without their fluffy cat? Or a bard without their Number One Fan, maybe?

Everyone should have the option to gain a useful little pet that they can order around and help them out. From level 1.

I really hate the idea of having rules for pets. Familiars are magically bound to their master, so it makes all sense that they cost something to get or they come free to some classes, and that they have special rules.

But an adventuring friend, pet or sidekick? No rules for me, thanks. I prefer just to handle it as an accompanying NPC. I can however accept rules for guaranteeing the loyalty of it beyond roleplaying, e.g. what the Leadership feat was about, i.e. you spend something to be guaranteed that the DM won't decide to turn your sidekick against you.

 

[Lwaxy]

In most settings, I do allow familiars/companions for everyone who has a basic magic aptitude, no matter what form. Works great.

What I will not allow under any circumstances is that nonsense about familiars being like little eidolons. They will be normal animals bounded to one of the heroes in one way or the other. This aspect of the "otherworldly" stuff is the only thing in the playtest so far that gives me a shiver.