Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Lizard" data-source="post: 4281386" data-attributes="member: 1054">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...</blockquote>