So do we know if Wizards still have familiars?

[Dragonblade]

I really hope familiars are optional now.

Agreed. I hope familiars are an optional feat/power path that can be ignored if you don't want a familiar.

 

[Aristotle]

I like the idea of them as optional and ignorable.

I like the idea of them as more powerful and useful, more like a cohort than a critter living in your pack.

Shadowrun makes use of familiars in an interesting way. They aren't required, and they have many more uses in play. I don't want an exact copy of what they did, but something along those lines would be great.

 

[WhatGravitas]

A question to the familiar-lovers (and I also like to see them as an optional tree): How would you make familiars interesting and unique - yet wizard-like, not a druidish animal companion?

Cheers, LT.

 

[Aristotle]

I'd love to see familiars that could...

Defend their master.
Larger animals like wolves or mountain lions that act as guardians, or golem-like constructs.

Have symmetry with their master.
More fragile creatures, like fairy dragons or humunculous, that can cast limited spells/rituals.

Be the eyes and ears of their master.
Small shapshifters, owls, and other traiditional familiars that can spy, deliver messages, and so on...

 

[ZombieRoboNinja]

A question to the familiar-lovers (and I also like to see them as an optional tree): How would you make familiars interesting and unique - yet wizard-like, not a druidish animal companion?

Cheers, LT.

I feel like wizards should have an intimate, magical connection with ONE familiar (at most), while druids have a more general affinity with ALL natural creatures. So a druid can chat with animals in the forest and see what they've noticed, but if she wants something to slither into the enemy fortress and scout it out... well, that's what wildshape is for!

I guess in effect this would mean removing the "animal companion" mechanic from druids and giving them some more class abilities that let them communicate and negotiate with wild animals.

 

[WyzardWhately]

Hmm. I think they'd be good for a talent tree or feat chain or something. That way the player can decide how much of their awesome they want to spend on the familiar. In fact, IMHO, that's so overwhelmingly the best idea I'll be kind of surprised if they don't go that route. I think it'd be kind of cool to have a Wizard character with a familiar so great they could be like a backup character if your actual character got kidnapped. Sort of like how Snoopy eventually ended up being more interesting and cool than Charlie Brown.

 

[Lizard]

Hmm. I think they'd be good for a talent tree or feat chain or something. That way the player can decide how much of their awesome they want to spend on the familiar.

I agree. One thing I like about 4e (there's a lot I like conceptually, I just have issues with the implementation) is the idea that there can be a lot of variability in a given class based on player choice. The 3e fighter was brilliant -- all he was was a pile of feats, and you could use those feats to build almost any kind of fighter from a 2-weapon stabmaster to a greatsword-wielding tank. No, they weren't all "optimal", but the core idea was sound, and with three feats at first level (human fighter) you could start off different and keep going.

If 4e makes it so the bulk of what you do is a choice, not fixed class powers, that will be Very Good.

 

[Ahwe Yahzhe]

I feel like wizards should have an intimate, magical connection with ONE familiar (at most), while druids have a more general affinity with ALL natural creatures. So a druid can chat with animals in the forest and see what they've noticed, but if she wants something to slither into the enemy fortress and scout it out... well, that's what wildshape is for!

I guess in effect this would mean removing the "animal companion" mechanic from druids and giving them some more class abilities that let them communicate and negotiate with wild animals.

Not to jack the thread, but I agree. I always seem to have "that one guy/girl" in the party who has their wolf animal companion (always a wolf, and always named "Cujo," "Lassie," or "Buttons") that takes over the melee combat with its 3.5E 'trip 'n' bite' mechanic. It's not fair to arbitrarily take the companion away and using fear effects gets old fast, but all the other players only get one character to bring to the fight. Rarely have I seen a familiar in the current 3.5E rules set that tips the balance in such a way.

I like the earlier idea of more useful familiars (not animal companions) as an feat or arcane power path taken by those wizards who want them.

 

[mach1.9pants]

I agree. One thing I like about 4e (there's a lot I like conceptually, I just have issues with the implementation) is the idea that there can be a lot of variability in a given class based on player choice. The 3e fighter was brilliant -- all he was was a pile of feats, and you could use those feats to build almost any kind of fighter from a 2-weapon stabmaster to a greatsword-wielding tank. No, they weren't all "optimal", but the core idea was sound, and with three feats at first level (human fighter) you could start off different and keep going.

If 4e makes it so the bulk of what you do is a choice, not fixed class powers, that will be Very Good.

THIS..is what I am most excited about 4E, choices at every level and large customisation within class. Heck it should be easy to make up your own talent trees or whatever to get your ideal character.
A Wiz who devotes a lot of his choices to his familiar is a great idea, I wouldn't play it (Raistlin though dependence on another creature as a weakness ) but it gives options beyond advanced familiar feat! Maybe eventually leaving your body behind and inhabiting the familiar to scout or even if you die....

 

[Voss]

hopefully we won't have the menagerie of woodland critters by default anymore. If people want to spend feats or powers or whatever on them, then fine. But I'd like them far away from default, locked class features.