Improved Familiars

[FrankTrollman]

That's obviously not what the rules meant. Actually, if going by the core rules, there are a specific list of choices.

Again, no. There is a specific list of choices which give you special abilities on page 51. There is not a restrictive list of all the familiars you can choose from. The implication is that a familiar (such as a Quasit) which is not on the list gives you no bonus - not that you can't have one.

Going by Core, there is no reason in 3rd edition why a Pseudodragon couldn't become your familiar. No feat is required to make this happen.

-Frank

 

[nimisgod]

But the only game restriction in 3rd edition is "small animal".

That's not "Small Animal" - they can, for example, be size Tiny or of type Vermin.

Or, for that matter, type Outsider. There wasn't a game specific type or size restriction. If you got an Imp to agree to it, it can be your familiar. It is "small" (as in: not very big, like the Toad) and it is an "animal" (as in: neither vegetable nor mineral as the "hairy spider" or Polymorph Any Object spell).

-Frank

That's a long stretch. Even if we weren't going by the technical term of Animal in D&D, I don't think an Imp (a creature from the lower realms) would count as an Animal in any definition of the term (D&D or otherwise).

And when one gives the Options Vegetable, Animal or Mineral, I would think that extradimensional beings are exempt from any such categories.

 

[Kai Lord]

Again, no. There is a specific list of choices which give you special abilities on page 51. There is not a restrictive list of all the familiars you can choose from. The implication is that a familiar (such as a Quasit) which is not on the list gives you no bonus - not that you can't have one.

3.0 PHB: "A familiar is a magical, unusually tough, and intelligent version of a small animal (see facing page)." Then the facing page lists the eligible animals; Bat, Cat, Hawk, Owl, Rat, Raven, Snake, Toad, and Weasel. Period.

"It is a magical beast, not an animal." Gives the type, before and after (in reverse order), in plain English.

Even if the type (animal), and eligible animals of that type (listed on page 52) were vague, which they're not, there still wouldn't be an "implication" that a Quasit, Imp, or Pseudodragon would qualify.

Note that a familiar is an "unusually tough and intelligent" member of its species. What's the INT of Quasits, Imps, and Pseudodragons? 10. The INT of an "unusually intelligent" familiar? 6. So call an Imp as a familiar and get a 6 INT moron of the species. Yeah that matches the flavor text perfectly....

 

[Saeviomagy]

3.0 PHB: "A familiar is a magical, unusually tough, and intelligent version of a small animal (see facing page)." Then the facing page lists the eligible animals; Bat, Cat, Hawk, Owl, Rat, Raven, Snake, Toad, and Weasel. Period.

Not one of which is size Small incidentally.

 

[Desdichado]

Again, no. There is a specific list of choices which give you special abilities on page 51. There is not a restrictive list of all the familiars you can choose from. The implication is that a familiar (such as a Quasit) which is not on the list gives you no bonus - not that you can't have one.

Going by Core, there is no reason in 3rd edition why a Pseudodragon couldn't become your familiar. No feat is required to make this happen.

-Frank

Wrong. In 3e "animal" is a specific class of creature. Also, your interpretation of, paraphrasing here, "anything it doesn't say I can't do is fair game" is fairly ridiculous. According to your interpretation, I could just as easily have a small epic level creature of some kind as a familiar.

 

[Desdichado]

Not one of which is size Small incidentally.

That's because it's small, not Small in the description. It's not a game term, it's just a description of the familiar; they are small, they're just not Small. Capitalization means something in d20 -- they do that to differentiate between the usage of a word as a specific game term and just using the word normally.

 

[Zerakon]

That's because it's small, not Small in the description. It's not a game term, it's just a description of the familiar; they are small, they're just not Small. Capitalization means something in d20 -- they do that to differentiate between the usage of a word as a specific game term and just using the word normally.

So, that begs the question do they use the term "animal" or "Animal." If the former, then that would lend some viability to Frank's perspective.

I do disagree with Frank on this one from a sensibility standpoint. Although as a DM I would allow a caster to take pretty much anything as a familiar as long as I thought it wasn't unbalancing. For example, if he wanted a pony for a familiar, and gave me a good reason why, I might allow it.

 

[Desdichado]

I want a small prismatic dragon as a familiar.

 

[BVB]

If your basic question is:

"Why wouldn't I just take Leadership instead?" ...

I don't think that was what he asked. His basic question was, "What benefits do Improved familiars grant their masters?"

 

[FrankTrollman]

So, that begs the question do they use the term "animal" or "Animal." If the former, then that would lend some viability to Frank's perspective.

small animal

If "small" is not the game term "Small", then "animal" is likewise not the game term "Animal". This is "animal" in the sense that a Manticore (a Magical Beast) is given as an example of an "animal" on page 236 of the same book.

The existence of the non-core Improved Familiar feat does not prevent you from just getting an improved familiar in play without feat expenditure. In the same way that the non-core "Wealth" Infernal Pact prevents you from getting 15,000 gold pieces in play without feat expenditure.

The entire feat is just short hand. And what you get is so small compared to the other shorthand feats (leadership, landlord), as to be laughable.

-Frank