D&D 5E Magic Resistance at Level 3? Warlock Familiars

[Mephista]

It's not speculation. Chain pact warlocks gain familiars via the Find Familiar spell, which conjures a spirit and binds it to your service. The spell even says that it always obeys your commands. I doubt most warlock patrons would subject themselves to magical slavery.

The moment you start assuming ANYTHING about the motives of the Patron or familiar, you've moved into speculation territory. The spell conjures a spirit, yes. Binds, yes. Obeys, yes.

Anything else? You're guessing. The moment you said "I doubt" is when you went off track there. You're attributing motives and reactions that you feel is appropriate, but others disagree.

While, as DM, you can make any NPC feel any way, but there's nothing saying that a DM has to run a familiar/patron in the way you are suggesting. If anything, I'd say that's deliberate because it gets in the way of stories that you could run. Further, there's nothing to say that the familiar bond can't be broken by the familiar in the case of abuse (and, in the case of the psuedodragon, explicitly says that's exactly what happens), which makes it far less of a slavery issue and more of an "employment" one. If it was slavery, having a bound patron as a slave forced to teach you magic is very much in par with a warlock design as well.

We're talking about non-humans here, as well. The imp especially is part of an infernal hierarchy where obeying and pleasing superiors is an art form, and being on the material plane to gather souls or further an agenda could be germane to its ascension to a higher form. Psuedodragon is very much not human in thought or motive; I imagine its closer to an intelligent canine, who wouldn't have any issues with following orders of their leader. Sprites, likewise, could see you as an extension of a fey noble, so obeying the fey noble's representative is natural in stories of the fey world. Quasit? Demons are renowned for being balls of hate and destruction already, so that's par for the course, really.

So much potential for various stories here to limit it to "magical, unwilling slavery."

 

[Paraxis]

A DM can choose to nerf that ability, but that decision shouldn't be made lightly.

Denying spell resistance isn't a nerf to the ability. It is not using a rules variant, and there is good justification for not using the rules variant.

The Mark combat option variant is amazing for rogues, as it allows a second off turn attack without using your reaction, not allowing that variant isn't a nerf to rogues.

Flanking is a horrible variant combat option that allows for easy advantage for all melee fighters, not allowing that variant rule isn't a nerf to melee fighters.

Deciding not to allow multiclassing isn't a nerf, because it is not the default.

 

[Moorcrys]

Certainly optional. That's why it's in a sidebar. Personally I think the designers are leaning toward giving the ability to pact of chain warlocks, but that's just my opinion. [emoji4]

I don't think it's too overpowered - magic resistance is a racial feature available at level one to gnomes and I don't see threads on the board complaining that too many people are taking gnome characters because they're so off the wall powerful. It's obviously an ability the designers were more than happy allowing 1st level characters to possess over and above any class abilities.

Also, I don't have the books in front of me so forgive me if I'm totally wrong - doesn't the familiar need to be close to the warlock to grant the resistance as well? Even with magic resistance, one decent area of effect damaging attack on the warlock and the resistance, along with the familiar, is gone. This is especially true at higher levels. So it's not a permanent ability, nor is it something that can't be gotten around, particularly as the game progresses, where it will likely protect the warlock from one magical attack before he or she has to summon the familiar again. I personally don't seen it as game breaking to let them have it - but it's certainly a nice little bonus for warlocks getting a special familiar as their cornerstone pact ability.

 

[Falling Icicle]

The moment you start assuming ANYTHING about the motives of the Patron or familiar, you've moved into speculation territory. The spell conjures a spirit, yes. Binds, yes. Obeys, yes.

Anything else? You're guessing. The moment you said "I doubt" is when you went off track there. You're attributing motives and reactions that you feel is appropriate, but others disagree.

While, as DM, you can make any NPC feel any way, but there's nothing saying that a DM has to run a familiar/patron in the way you are suggesting. If anything, I'd say that's deliberate because it gets in the way of stories that you could run. Further, there's nothing to say that the familiar bond can't be broken by the familiar in the case of abuse (and, in the case of the psuedodragon, explicitly says that's exactly what happens), which makes it far less of a slavery issue and more of an "employment" one. If it was slavery, having a bound patron as a slave forced to teach you magic is very much in par with a warlock design as well.

We're talking about non-humans here, as well. The imp especially is part of an infernal hierarchy where obeying and pleasing superiors is an art form, and being on the material plane to gather souls or further an agenda could be germane to its ascension to a higher form. Psuedodragon is very much not human in thought or motive; I imagine its closer to an intelligent canine, who wouldn't have any issues with following orders of their leader. Sprites, likewise, could see you as an extension of a fey noble, so obeying the fey noble's representative is natural in stories of the fey world. Quasit? Demons are renowned for being balls of hate and destruction already, so that's par for the course, really.

So much potential for various stories here to limit it to "magical, unwilling slavery."

I don't even know why you're arguing with me. All I said initially was that warlock familiars are creatures bound to serve by magic, not the optional, variant familiars found in the Monster Manual which can voluntarily serve a master and give that person spell resistance. I was simply pointing out that, at least by default, the warlock's familiar does not offer spell resistance to its master, since that is an optional rule meant for familiars that are acquired through roleplaying. Had that feature been intended to be a free part of the warlock chain pact, surely they would have said so in the PHB.

Then, after making that observation, I suggested that a DM could let a warlock's familiar voluntarily give its master spell resistance in the same manner after he earned its devotion through roleplaying. The first part was an observation of the rules as written, the second was a suggestion about one way I think a DM could give that benefits to warlocks and have it be fair. I wasn't trying to tell people how they can or can't play, but to suggest a way for DMs to reward warlocks with a power that they don't normally get. You then responded by deriding what I said as "pure speculation." I don't get it.

As for a familiar being a warlock's patron, of course the DM could do that. If that's what you want to do in your game, go right ahead. It could make for an interesting story. I'd just be leery of the DM using that as an excuse to hijack the warlock's familiar at a whim, when it's meant to be a loyal minion. In any case, it's your game. Play it however you like.

 

[Zaruthustran]

Had that feature been intended to be a free part of the warlock chain pact, surely they would have said so in the PHB.

The PHB was at the printers while the MM was still being developed. The MM should not be looked to as a source for conjecture on PHB content.

At the end of the day, we've got:

1. Familiars gained from the Find Familiar spell are "spirits that take the form of" something else, with the "statistics" of whatever that form is.
2. When Chain Pact Warlocks cast Find Familiar, those Familiars can take the form of Imp, Quasit, Pseudodragon, or Sprite.
3. The MM has the statistics of Imp, Quasit, Pseudodragon, and Sprite.
4. The MM has a Variant sidebar that explains the rules for what happens when an Imp, Quasit, Pseudodragon, or Sprite is a Familiar.
5. It's up to the DM to decide if those same rules apply to Familiars gained from the Find Familiar spell that take the form of an Imp, Quasit, Pseudodragon, or Sprite. It boils down to 1) does the DM allow the variant, and 2) is SR-extension a "statistic"?

It's important to note that a Familiar gained from the Find Familiar spell isn't a Frog, Spider, Imp, or whatever. It's a spirit (a "celestial, fey, or fiend (your choice)") in the form of those things. For example, a Familiar in the form of a Frog who is hit by an Arrow of Frog Slaying wouldn't be instantly destroyed, because it's not a Frog. A Familiar in the form of an Imp or Quasit who is caught in the AOE of a Paladin's Turn the Unholy would not be affected if the caster had chosen Celestial or Fey for the spirit origin.