Hating on familiars

[Wraith-Hunter]

I think it's a fair risk.

However if you don't want the risk, consider that there are other options beside asking the DM for a replacement of the whole summon familiar ability:

- Bring the familiar with you in your adventures, but not in combat: the main bonus granted works within 1 mile, so leaving the familiar outside of the dungeon for example may often mean that you don't lose that bonus. The price to pay is to lose Alertness (something you can live without) and the possible aid of the familiar during combat (which you wouldn't do anyway because of the risks).

- Leave the familiar at home: you lose all benefits during adventures, but sometimes you may use them when doing something within the town. Furthermore, remember that combat is only one of many uses for a a familiar: there's messenger, scout, tracker, alarm... all of which threaten it less than a fight.

- Look for spells and items (e.g. in T&B) specifically designed to protect the familiar.

I just wanted to comment that this is a sub standard approach. Familiars can be VERY powerfull and are a part of the class. Frankly a bit more powerfull than a feat depending on your level. Some players/dms HATE pets and so forth and many times is just 'forgotten equipment' on the sheet. It is not a big deal to swap it out for a feat IMHO. In fact a character is generally LESS powerfull in doing so. Most feats are not as good.

I had some really nasty NPCs with very well implemented familiars in the last campaign I ran. It made the encounter very difficult for the players. But I like to optimize whether it is an NPC or PC. We had 4 arcane casters in the group at the time. 3 of them I let take a feat instead of a familliar and I can't remeber what kind of familiar the other one had. They didn't use it very well, and we always forgot about it. I always did with effects that could have damaged it, likewise the player forget as well. It was just a +2 to some ability and alertness. I don't even know if they realized they were just fighting a familiar and not a magical best of some sort.

So if a player wants feat instead, give them one generally it is less powerfull! Some of the abilities in UA and other books are more powerfull than feats and as good as a well played familiar.

 

[KarinsDad]

You can do useful things, completely Core, with a well-selected familiar. Really. At low-levels, at least.

Bat familiar: Very small, put it inside your clothing, where it sleeps while you adventure. Your clothing is attended (by you), so you take the consequences of anything that attempts to get to your familiar must get through you first (familiar has total cover, so can't be targetted by all but a handful of effects; you're attending your clothing, so except for a handful of effects and natural-1's on saves, you take any damage your clothing otherwise would - like, say, a Burning Hands spell you get caught in).

Not quite accurate.

The familiar has total concealment in this case, not total cover.

An opponent could attack it with a 50% miss chance and it would have to save versus any area affect spells.

 

[Jack Simth]

Not quite accurate.

The familiar has total concealment in this case, not total cover.

An opponent could attack it with a 50% miss chance and it would have to save versus any area affect spells.

Okay. Can you a good, clear rules quote that takes it out of the realm of pure DM "makes sense to me" (either direction)?

So give your familiar a Tower Shield sized for him (or a wooden sheath, or whatever, as appropriet), and have it use that for Total Cover while it sleeps inside your clothing. Shouldn't cost too much. Problem solved.

 

[KarinsDad]

Okay. Can you a good, clear rules quote that takes it out of the realm of pure DM "makes sense to me" (either direction)?

A rules quote that clothing is total concealment instead of total cover?

As in if the Wizard jumps into a lake, if the familiar gets wet, it's total concealment. If it doesn't get wet, it's gets total cover. Is that type of thing what you are looking for?

So give your familiar a Tower Shield sized for him (or a wooden sheath, or whatever, as appropriet), and have it use that for Total Cover while it sleeps inside your clothing. Shouldn't cost too much. Problem solved.

The designers added a Familiar Box (forget the name) in Tome and Blood. Not sure if they added it into Complete: Arcane. It gave total cover. Your familiar was in a box and it could close and open the lid itself.

It was pretty pricey (couple of hundred gold IIRC).

Personally, I think such an item strapped to the top of a backpack works about best. Familiar can get in and out on its own, etc.

 

[Jack Simth]

A rules quote that clothing is total concealment instead of total cover?

As in if the Wizard jumps into a lake, if the familiar gets wet, it's total concealment. If it doesn't get wet, it's gets total cover. Is that type of thing what you are looking for?

No, as in a book and page refference (or weblink, if you can find it in the SRD) where the requirements for what how tough something needs to be before it can grant cover.

Oh, and I'm pretty sure you can get cover from a wall, which isn't exactly watertight. And a Tower Shield, which isn't exactly enclosed.

The designers added a Familiar Box (forget the name) in Tome and Blood. Not sure if they added it into Complete: Arcane. It gave total cover. Your familiar was in a box and it could close and open the lid itself.

It was pretty pricey (couple of hundred gold IIRC).

Personally, I think such an item strapped to the top of a backpack works about best. Familiar can get in and out on its own, etc.

Seems high for what amounts to a wooden box with an internal latch.

 

[irdeggman]

No, as in a book and page refference (or weblink, if you can find it in the SRD) where the requirements for what how tough something needs to be before it can grant cover.

Since cover is determined by lines through squares, if clothing provides cover to the familiar it should likewise provide cover to its wearer or at least partial cover - but it doesn't. Remeber that the cover bonus to AC is in addition to any armor bonus provided by the worn clothing (or armor).

COVER
To determine whether your target has cover from your ranged attack, choose a corner of your square. If any line from this corner to any corner of the target’s square passes through a square or border that blocks line of effect or provides cover, or through a square occupied by a creature, the target has cover (+4 to AC).

When making a melee attack against an adjacent target, your target has cover if any line from your square to the target’s square goes through a wall (including a low wall). When making a melee attack against a target that isn’t adjacent to you (such as with a reach weapon), use the rules for determining cover from ranged attacks.

Low Obstacles and Cover: A low obstacle (such as a wall no higher than half your height) provides cover, but only to creatures within 30 feet (6 squares) of it. The attacker can ignore the cover if he’s closer to the obstacle than his target.
Cover and Attacks of Opportunity: You can’t execute an attack of opportunity against an opponent with cover relative to you.

Cover and Reflex Saves: Cover grants you a +2 bonus on Reflex saves against attacks that originate or burst out from a point on the other side of the cover from you. Note that spread effects can extend around corners and thus negate this cover bonus.
Cover and Hide Checks: You can use cover to make a Hide check. Without cover, you usually need concealment (see below) to make a Hide check.

Soft Cover: Creatures, even your enemies, can provide you with cover against ranged attacks, giving you a +4 bonus to AC. However, such soft cover provides no bonus on Reflex saves, nor does soft cover allow you to make a Hide check.

Big Creatures and Cover: Any creature with a space larger than 5 feet (1 square) determines cover against melee attacks slightly differently than smaller creatures do. Such a creature can choose any square that it occupies to determine if an opponent has cover against its melee attacks. Similarly, when making a melee attack against such a creature, you can pick any of the squares it occupies to determine if it has cover against you.

Total Cover: If you don’t have line of effect to your target he is considered to have total cover from you. You can’t make an attack against a target that has total cover.

Varying Degrees of Cover: In some cases, cover may provide a greater bonus to AC and Reflex saves. In such situations the normal cover bonuses to AC and Reflex saves can be doubled (to +8 and +4, respectively). A creature with this improved cover effectively gains improved evasion against any attack to which the Reflex save bonus applies. Furthermore, improved cover provides a +10 bonus on Hide checks.

 

[KarinsDad]

No, as in a book and page refference (or weblink, if you can find it in the SRD) where the requirements for what how tough something needs to be before it can grant cover.

I suspect that total cover (and cover in general) is based on hardness. If the attack blows through the hardness (and hit points of an object), it is supposed to continue on. Cloth might have a hit point or two, but it should have a hardness of zero.

Fireball works that way, but I am not aware of a generic rule:

If the damage caused to an interposing barrier shatters or breaks through it, the fireball may continue beyond the barrier if the area permits; otherwise it stops at the barrier just as any other spell effect does.

So, in the case of Fireball, the familiar within a total cover wooden box is fortunate. The rules state that objects on the PCs body do not take damage unless the PC rolls a one on his saving throw. So, the Fireball cannot get through the cover.

However, I do not consider clothing to be cover. It does not match the examples in the PHB for cover. Hence, I consider them concealment. Concealment does not give these advantages.

I base concealment on the example objects in PHB. If tree branches and bushes can supply total concealment and not total cover, to me, tree branches and bushes are too "flexible" to provide cover. Same with cloth. I think each DM has to draw the line, but for me, mobile flexible objects could provide concealment, but not cover. Immobile non-flexible objects can provide concealment or cover or both. But, I do not have a rules quote for this. The best I can do is the examples in the PHB.

Also remember, there is "soft cover" in the game, but soft cover is creatures, not objects.

Oh, and I'm pretty sure you can get cover from a wall, which isn't exactly watertight. And a Tower Shield, which isn't exactly enclosed.

One does not necessarily get total cover from a wall versus a spread, even though the same wall could give total cover from a burst.

In other words, the going underwater example (mostly meant as a joke) would emulate a spread, not a burst.

Seems high for what amounts to a wooden box with an internal latch.

Agreed. I think the idea was that it was more or less always gave protection that made it that pricey.