No Familiars?

[Lizard]

Maybe you could be less condescending, please? Just a thought.

No, I don't think I can be.

The original argument was that the DM will give you whatever information the DM planned to give you, whether you send your familiar out to interrogate the rats or all just hang out in the inn playing tiddly-winks. That kind of DM need a little uniform and ticket punch. If a DM fails to acknowledge players using their abilities -- and award the use of them -- he's a bad DM. Period, full stop. If his carefully constructed plot falls apart because a player used a power he (the DM) knew he (the player) had, he had better think on his feet -- or pass the screen to someone who can.

Players should feel as if their abilities matter -- they "pay" for them in the sense that, in a well designed game, each ability granted is another one denied. If a DM treats a familiar as, in essence, "Great Fortitude with the special effect that it looks like a rat", he is "dissing" (to use the vernacular) the player -- as much as if he declared magic missiles (in 3e) needed a to-hit roll or (in 4e) that Sneak Attack didn't work on golems or undead.

Back on topic...I think I have an idea for how to implement familiars in ways which do not impact the "action economy"...I will post something in the house rules...

 

[Knightlord]

No, I don't think I can be.

The original argument was that the DM will give you whatever information the DM planned to give you, whether you send your familiar out to interrogate the rats or all just hang out in the inn playing tiddly-winks. That kind of DM need a little uniform and ticket punch. If a DM fails to acknowledge players using their abilities -- and award the use of them -- he's a bad DM. Period, full stop. If his carefully constructed plot falls apart because a player used a power he (the DM) knew he (the player) had, he had better think on his feet -- or pass the screen to someone who can.

You know, not all people can react quickly to an unforeseen situation and not all DM's can think on their feet. And quite honestly, I don't think they really should have too. They are there to have fun too, not to simply act like a computer and anticipate every possibility.

As for Familiars, I'm kinda glad their gone. I never really used mine and always just traded it for a bonus feat. They just didn't seem to have enough "oomph!" for me.

 

[Wolfwood2]

In third edition, I thought of Familiars as, "that constant aid another to any of your skills". Since familiars share the skill ranks of your PC, they could always do "aid another". I think that sort of thing would work really with with 4E's Ritual casting, where a familiar sitting on the caster's shoulder and helping him get it right feels perfectly in-theme. I would drop all the "share spell" and other combat-useful stuff, though.

The only reason for familiars being targets in combat is that idiotic rule about doing damage and sucking xp from their PC if they die. Drop that, and nobody should be going after them.

 

[Lizard]

You know, not all people can react quickly to an unforeseen situation and not all DM's can think on their feet. And quite honestly, I don't think they really should have too. They are there to have fun too, not to simply act like a computer and anticipate every possibility.

Sort of the opposite, really. A computer limits you to a set of predetermined responses. The putative advantage of a human DM is that you don't have to follow a script or pick from a small list of "allowed" options.

 

[The Grackle]

I've always hated D&D familiars; they're just talking pets. A familiar is supposed to be a spirit or demon that can take the form of an animal-- like an imp or quasit.

In 4e I might have familiars. No combat stats or uses, but instead an imp that can teach rituals, give (corrupting?) advice, and serve as a intermediary with bigger and scarier monsters. Like an NPC rather than a class feature.

 

[Lizard]

For those interested, I have posted my first pass on Familiars over in the House Rules section.

 

[Old Gumphrey]

Maybe you could be a little less condescending, please?
Just a thought.

Lizard, I didn't see your comment as condescending.

Maybe you could be less condescending, please?
Just a thought.

This is fun! Your turn.

No, I don't think I can be.

Actually, the rest of your post kinda proves that you can. It's just that the prior comment sounded a lot like "my friends are better than yours". Especially the captial "people YOU play with".

The original argument was that the DM will give you whatever information the DM planned to give you, whether you send your familiar out to interrogate the rats or all just hang out in the inn playing tiddly-winks. That kind of DM need a little uniform and ticket punch. If a DM fails to acknowledge players using their abilities -- and award the use of them -- he's a bad DM. Period, full stop. If his carefully constructed plot falls apart because a player used a power he (the DM) knew he (the player) had, he had better think on his feet -- or pass the screen to someone who can.

Players should feel as if their abilities matter -- they "pay" for them in the sense that, in a well designed game, each ability granted is another one denied. If a DM treats a familiar as, in essence, "Great Fortitude with the special effect that it looks like a rat", he is "dissing" (to use the vernacular) the player -- as much as if he declared magic missiles (in 3e) needed a to-hit roll or (in 4e) that Sneak Attack didn't work on golems or undead.

Back on topic...I think I have an idea for how to implement familiars in ways which do not impact the "action economy"...I will post something in the house rules...

I tend to agree with virtually all of this post. The thing is, though, in most games, DMs don't have useful on the fly information available for completely unexpected situations. My first comment was actually humor; although, now it's completely wasted. If a DM has decided in advance how you're going to come across specific information, asking rats about it isn't going to get you that information.

Now, a great DM would put in a few situations were asking rats for information was the only way to get it, but those aren't going to be exactly common. And if your wizard forgets about his (useless) familiar all the time, why is the DM going to go the extra mile to even bother caring about it?

Plus, rats are freaking dumb. They're not going to know a lot anyway. You can't ask them if specific people walked by, because rats identify others by smell, just like nearly all animals. About the best you could hope for is if, wandering in a sewer, you asked some of them if there's any really big nasties living down there and one of them said "yes, further down the tunnel."

 

[Knightlord]

Sort of the opposite, really. A computer limits you to a set of predetermined responses. The putative advantage of a human DM is that you don't have to follow a script or pick from a small list of "allowed" options.

I was referring to the immense reaction speed of a computer, not it's programming. I can't really think on my feet and I'm a DM. And my players know and understand that. And that said inability does not, IMO, make me a bad DM. The best? No. The worst? I like to think not.

I feel DM's do their best when constructing an adventure to take into account several possible situations in which a player may do something that is unexpected, but DM's, understand, cannot think of everthing. And, again, I don't think they should have too, as they are there to have fun as well.

Just because a DM isn't always able to have an answer ready for the unexpected should not mean he or she must relinquish his or her DM Screen to someone who thinks that they can.

That's like punishing a player for not being a good roleplayer, IMO.

$0.02