How vulnerable are familiars?

[Caliban]

My take on this:

1) If any creature is on your body, be it a Familiar or you carrying the unconscious Rogue, it doesn't matter. Area effect spells still affect them. They are not carried items, they are carried creatures.

2) T&B rules mean nothing to me. If you have the Familiar in a container which can supply cover, then it gets a cover bonus. Such an item could be a chest, but not a normal pocket. Acid from Acid Fog would still seep through a normal pocket. And, I can care less about the logic concerning items not affected by spells unless you roll a one rule. That is a totally non-logical rule there for ease of playability, it should not be used in a logical discussion. In other words, yes, the pocket is protected (due to the non-logical rule) even though the Familiar in the pocket is toasted (due to a logical rule). In reality, both should get toasted. But, PCs would be running around naked a lot if you did that.

3) If you have a Familiar in an extra-dimensional area such as a Bag of Holding, a Familiar Pouch or whatever, then they are not within arms length of you and will not supply you with Alertness, etc.

4) If you have a Familiar in a box, then they are within arms length of you and by a strict interpretation of the rules, they would supply you with Alertness, etc. However, I think common sense should apply here. If the cover is 100%, then in my game, the Wizard would not gain Alertness. If the cover is less than 100%, then the Familiar can have his eyes and ears sticking out and Alertness would be granted.

As you wish. It's your call in your game.

However, I belive the rules are pretty clear in this instance. Your equipment is undamaged, and therefore anything carried inside your equipment would be undamaged. This has nothing to do with T&B, it's a side effect of the plainly stated rule in the PHB. It's no more illogical than that rule is.

If you want a fireball to cause the familiar to spontaneously combust within a sealed pocket, while leaving the pocket unscorched, that's your call.

A person being carried on your shoulder is not inside your clothing, nor is it equipment. A familiar completely inside your equipment would only be damaged if the pocket/pouch/whatever was destroyed (which even a single point of damage would accomplish).

If the familiar is not completely inside your equipment, it wouldn't be completely protected by it (but would get a cover bonus to it's reflex save), but it's own improved evasion would come into play. (Being inside your pocket or pouch would count as a completely restricted space, in my opinion, and thus prevent the familiars evasion from operating).

 

[KarinsDad]

However, I belive the rules are pretty clear in this instance. Your equipment is undamaged, and therefore anything carried inside your equipment would be undamaged. This has nothing to do with T&B, it's a side effect of the plainly stated rule in the PHB. It's no more illogical than that rule is.

Yes, the rules are clear once read and you are not following them.

Exactly which rule is it that anything carried inside your equipment would be undamaged?

Must have missed that rule.

The rules I see are (PHB 136 and 150):

“An item attended by a character (being grasped, touched, or worn) receives a saving throw just as if the character herself were making the saving throw.”

“Unless the descriptive text for the spell specifies otherwise, all items carried and worn are assumed to survive a magical attack. If a character rolls a natural 1 on his saving throw, however, an exposed item is harmed (if the attack can harm objects).”

It then goes on to talk about the top 4 items in the list are most likely to be harmed, blah, blah, blah.

These sections talk explicitly about objects, not about creatures. They are in sections talking explicitly about items with hardness values and such. For example, “if the attack can harm objects”. There is no section that states as you say “anything inside your equipment would be undamaged”. The second section here indicates that a non-exposed item (not creature) is not harmed.

So, since it is a creature and not an item that we are discussing, it really comes down to whether you judge a pocket to be cover or concealment.

From PHB 133:

“Concealment includes all circumstances where nothing physically blocks a blow or shot but where something interferes with an attacker’s accuracy.”

It then goes on to specify light and heavy foliage as granting concealment.

A pocket would grant concealment, not cover IMO. If you see the Familiar duck into a pocket, then you can swing a weapon at that pocket and have a chance of damaging the Familiar, but there would be a miss chance for you not seeing the familiar. It would not be Total Cover where you could not damage the Familiar. Ditto for spells. Since Area effect spells are not affected by concealment, the Familiar is not protected at all from Area Effect spells within a pocket.

On the other hand, if the Familiar is hidden in the bowels of your backpack or a chest, then he would be getting a Cover bonus since there are hard physical objects between it and any attack.


The problem here Caliban is that you are using the item rules for a Familiar which is a creature. You want to do that in your game, fine. But, it is not the rules.

 

[bret]

My take on this:
4) If you have a Familiar in a box, then they are within arms length of you and by a strict interpretation of the rules, they would supply you with Alertness, etc. However, I think common sense should apply here. If the cover is 100%, then in my game, the Wizard would not gain Alertness. If the cover is less than 100%, then the Familiar can have his eyes and ears sticking out and Alertness would be granted.

Where does it say that the Alertness is caused by the Familiar noticing something? It would be just as valid to consider it a heighening of the Master's senses caused by the mere presence of the Familiar.

The familiar isn't doing a perception roll (listen/spot) as 'Aid Another'. It is granting an ability. An owl familiar asleep on the master's shoulder should still grant the ability. So should a familiar securely resting in a carrier.

I don't see the problem nor a rules reason to forbid this bonus.

 

[Xarlen]

How could a familiar, that is in a tight little space like a pocket, backpack, whatever, get Improved Evasion? Wouldn't it have little place to move? So, if the pack is hit, for example, how could it get a reflex save to avoid the damage that's obviously going to go through the pack.

Which is silly. 'Well, the potions in my backpack are Okay, the iron rations are fine, but Sparky was burnt to a crisp'.

 

[Caliban]

The problem here Caliban is that you are using the item rules for a Familiar which is a creature. You want to do that in your game, fine. But, it is not the rules.

KD, please stop trying to twist my words. I am not using the item rules for a familiar, I'm using the COVER rules, because the familiar is completely covered by the item. It doesn't matter whether it is a chest, a leather bag, or a cloth sack. You have to penetrate the cover before you can damage whatever is behind it (when dealing with total cover). That is very clearly defined in the rules.

Items carried by you can only be damaged if you roll a 1 on your saving throw.

It's pretty simple.

You are the one who seems to be trying to define an piece of equipment as non-physical object.

You want to say that the familiar being completely covered by a physical piece of equipment provides concealment, and not cover.

Do items have hit points? Yes they do.
Is cloth an item? Yes.
Does clothe have hit any hit points? Yes, it has at least one.

I simply don't see how you can justify terming a physical item interposed between you and an attack as concealment instead of cover. It has solid form, it does not move out of the way of the blow, the damage has to penetrate the object before it can damage you.

In the case of a cloth sack or large pocket, by the rules it would provide 100% cover, but anythign that hits it and does at least one point of damage would instantly penetrate, and then deliver full damage to whatever is inside.

I know you don't like it, but redefining cover as concealment is sophistry and not logic.

 

[Zerovoid]

I am so sick of people who just take a toad for the stupid CON bonus, never rollplay it at all, and then just say "Its in my backpack." I don't think that carried familiars should necessarily be immune to attacks just because they are inside a container. Does this mean that a halfling hiding inside a friendly ogre's backpack is also immune to fireballs? If so, then why not if the halfling is just in a sack on the ground?

Now, I know the real reason is just that its a time saving thing, and frying people's familiars all the time isn't fun, but I really hate those toads. I want them to burn and sizzle and pop. Wizards should get a real familair.

 

[bret]

I am so sick of people who just take a toad for the stupid CON bonus, never rollplay it at all, and then just say "Its in my backpack." [ snip ]

Now, I know the real reason is just that its a time saving thing, and frying people's familiars all the time isn't fun, but I really hate those toads. I want them to burn and sizzle and pop. Wizards should get a real familair.

Rather than do that, the GM can just start playing the part of the toad.

Empathic link can be mighty interesting. Just start to think like the toad, and project what it would be feeling to the mage every once in a while.

Some possible examples:
My, that fly looks mighty tasty. You feel a rumbling in your stomach and yearn for the taste of a nice, juicy fly!

You feel a bit clautrophobic, as if you hadn't seen the light of day for several months. You know that you're outdoors, but it still feels like you are packed tightly into a little box.



Use your imagination. Make the familiar have a personality of it's own. It is basically an NPC after all.

Personally, I think taking a toad is it's own punishment. The other familiars are so much more interesting, why would someone want a toad? There is also the problem that if the toad ever does die, it will take the master with it. Loosing the 1 HP/level on top of any damage you've already taken can definately be dangerous.

 

[Caliban]

I don't think that carried familiars should necessarily be immune to attacks just because they are inside a container.

I've never said that they are immune to attacks. Just that if they are in a container they won't take damage from area affect spells or similar effects, unless the container is destroyed first.

You can still target the container with a directed attack, such as with a melee weapon, ranged attack, or targeted spell.

Even if you did allow a familiar to be vulnerable to area effects, they would still have their improved evasion.

Does this mean that a halfling hiding inside a friendly ogre's backpack is also immune to fireballs?

If the bag is immune to fireballs, anything inside the bag would be immune as well.

If so, then why not if the halfling is just in a sack on the ground?

Well, if the halfling can move around inside the sack, technically he would get a saving throw and the bag it would be an attended item. *shrug* It's a bit silly, but there you are.

If the halfling is tied up inside the bag (for example) and can't move, then there is no saving throw possible, the bag takes full damage, is destroyed, and then the tied up halfling takes full damage.

 

[Saeviomagy]

Caliban - by your interpretation, a halfling in a sack is immune to fireballs. The sack is attended, cannot be damaged, and the halfling is wholly within the sack, therefore cannot be damaged without someone going through the sack.

I'd have to say - a sack does not grant cover. It grants concealment. I'd say up until an item has a hardness and hitpoints, it grants concealment, not cover - there simply isn't anything stopping the blow or blast. Otherwise that halfling also becomes immune to attacks from weapons, at least until the sack has been destroyed (aka - on the second hit).

Next up - a familiar has half the masters hitpoints. If the master succeeds at a reflex save, and takes half damage, he takes as much as his familiar would failing it's save. Obviously it's possible for the familiar to die to area effect spells before it's master.

Reflex saves can still be made in restricted spaces, up to the point at which the savee cannot move. Technically they apply if you're asleep! I've got no problem with a familiar in a backpack retaining it's reflex save and hence it's improved evasion.

To sum up - a familiar in your backpack is surrounded by a material with hitpoints (a quality I feel that a material should have before it can provide cover, not a hard and fast rule), and is therefore given cover by it. A familiar in a conventional pocket is not, it is merely concealed. A lightning bolt will get both the master and familiar. Both will get reflex saves to avoid/take half damage.

 

[Storm Raven]

I'd have to say - a sack does not grant cover. It grants concealment. I'd say up until an item has a hardness and hitpoints, it grants concealment, not cover - there simply isn't anything stopping the blow or blast.

Umm, that's the point, the bag does have hit points. You have to penetrate the hit points of the bag to do damage to the contents.