Recent Posts
Today my player asked my if he could change a wizard Arcane Bond into a additional feat. I asked him why he would do that, the arcane bond is like wizard trade mark and its natural that you would like to have it. Then he said that the familiar is a useless , pain in the but type of creature and the bonded item is an major flaw and a excuse for the DM to take away or tramp his casters ability. When I said no he declared killing his familiar. Did you guys experience this kind of behaviour from you wizards?
Today my player asked my if he could change a wizard Arcane Bond into a additional feat. I asked him why he would do that, the arcane bond is like wizard trade mark and its natural that you would like to have it. Then he said that the familiar is a useless , pain in the but type of creature and the bonded item is an major flaw and a excuse for the DM to take away or tramp his casters ability. When I said no he declared killing his familiar. Did you guys experience this kind of behaviour from you wizards?
Yes. One of them had this reaction (although he just hasn't summoned a familiar rather than throwing a major tantrum and killing his familiar), the other one went "Sweet!" and is busy crafting an abomination of a staff as his bonded item. So it varies depending on the player and GM style. The bonded item is a tempting target, but so's a wizard's spellbook, a fighter's favourite magic sword, etc. I don't go out of my way to attack the bonded object, but if you don't try stealing it at least once, you're not trying. For comedy, let the thief try to use the item on the wizard as it's obviously majorly powerful.
Today my player asked my if he could change a wizard Arcane Bond into a additional feat. I asked him why he would do that, the arcane bond is like wizard trade mark and its natural that you would like to have it. Then he said that the familiar is a useless , pain in the but type of creature and the bonded item is an major flaw and a excuse for the DM to take away or tramp his casters ability. When I said no he declared killing his familiar. Did you guys experience this kind of behaviour from you wizards?
That sort of behavior is inappropriate just in general. I'd remove someone who threw a tantrum from my game.
Arcane bond is part of the rules, and it's pretty clear cut. Is he complaining about his free spell per day?
Today my player asked my if he could change a wizard Arcane Bond into a additional feat. I asked him why he would do that, the arcane bond is like wizard trade mark and its natural that you would like to have it. Then he said that the familiar is a useless , pain in the but type of creature and the bonded item is an major flaw and a excuse for the DM to take away or tramp his casters ability. When I said no he declared killing his familiar. Did you guys experience this kind of behaviour from you wizards?
To me it sounds like this player would be more happy playing something like a sorcerer. Or, if he can't learn to trust that his GM isn't going to use class features to mess with him and ruin his fun, perhaps playing something like a non-RPG game.
Today my player asked my if he could change a wizard Arcane Bond into a additional feat. I asked him why he would do that, the arcane bond is like wizard trade mark and its natural that you would like to have it. Then he said that the familiar is a useless , pain in the but type of creature and the bonded item is an major flaw and a excuse for the DM to take away or tramp his casters ability. When I said no he declared killing his familiar. Did you guys experience this kind of behaviour from you wizards?
I'd house rule a feat exchange - Combat Casting is pretty much essential with the new Concentration check rule.
The bonded object rule is the only thing in PF I'm bitterly opposed to. Roll on next year's books - amongst all those new options there's going to be alternate class feature options for wizards right?
Right?
As someone who never took a familiar in 3.5 because I thought it was a handicap I do understand the players worries at not having the option to not take the familiar or the bonded item.
Also the OP never said the player threw a tantrum, Paul Watson assumed he did, and it seems from that point it was taken as a fact.
I think the player looks at both the item and the familiar as cursed items, for all they are worth. It seems that killing the familiar so as to not have to worry about it was a tactical decision to me.
Personally I really like having a familiar, it's like a bonus perception check, an extra action or two each round, a free scout, and now in pathfinder it's not a huge deal to lose one.
Heck if nothing else have it "Aid Other" on you every round to increase your AC or what not.
Most people I play with/ talk to regularly about D&D either ignore the familiar or use it often. Those that ignore usually say it's rather useful... but a lot of book keeping they would rather not worry about.
The bonded object rule is the only thing in PF I'm bitterly opposed to. Roll on next year's books - amongst all those new options there's going to be alternate class feature options for wizards right?
Although this part of the Advanced Player's Guide hasn't yet been worked on... this is exactly the type of thing we'll be putting into the book. So yeah... if you can wait for about 11 months, that'll help! :-P
Honestly, back in 1st edition, the wizard was assumed to have a tower somewhere with the main copies of all his books (as opposed to the traveling spellbooks) and after a certain level, he just dumped his familiar at the tower to hang out with the books. The cat never seemed to mind, and this seems a perfectly good tactic for Pathfinder too.
As someone who never took a familiar in 3.5 because I thought it was a handicap I do understand the players worries at not having the option to not take the familiar or the bonded item.
Also the OP never said the player threw a tantrum, Paul Watson assumed he did, and it seems from that point it was taken as a fact.
I think the player looks at both the item and the familiar as cursed items, for all they are worth. It seems that killing the familiar so as to not have to worry about it was a tactical decision to me.
If I had a player make that 'tactical decision' in response to me pointing out the rules, I'd bar them from my game.
It wasn't what Paul said that made me think he was throwing a tantrum, it was when the player received the DM ruling, he responded by engaging in a power struggle by killing his fictional bonded animal
That's childish.
As someone who never took a familiar in 3.5 because I thought it was a handicap I do understand the players worries at not having the option to not take the familiar or the bonded item.
Also the OP never said the player threw a tantrum, Paul Watson assumed he did, and it seems from that point it was taken as a fact.
I think the player looks at both the item and the familiar as cursed items, for all they are worth. It seems that killing the familiar so as to not have to worry about it was a tactical decision to me.
If I had a player make that 'tactical decision' in response to me pointing out the rules, I'd bar them from my game.
It wasn't what Paul said that made me think he was throwing a tantrum, it was when the player received the DM ruling, he responded by engaging in a power struggle by killing his fictional bonded animal
That's childish.
Would it have been any better if he ordered the familiar to stay here*, and never came back for it.
here*=a place the wizard never intends to see again.
I dont see a power struggle. The player tried to exchange the class ability for a feat. The DM'ing ruling was no, there could not be an exchange. The player got rid of the familiar. Now if the DM had said you have to use it(familiar or arcane bond) then that might be a power struggle.
Previously I was under the impression the losing your familiar still made bad things happen, but I check the book, and I could not find any reference that rule was still in effect. The player that killed his probably thought so also.
Yeah, I was gonna mention that. There's no penalty for a familiar biting it other than having to summon another one. They're a free stacking Skill Focus or Improved Save feat with no real downside.
Personally, I rather like the bonded object. It offers a different flavour of wizard, and while it comes with a fairly hefty drawback; you have to have the item with you to cast, or else you have a concentration check of DC 20 + spell level, but assuming a starting INT of 16 that drawback is reduced quite quickly and is practically a non-issue by level 10; it also comes with the ability to cast one spell from your spellbook without needing to prepare it in advance, which is always useful, and the ability to apply any applicable magical effect to the item (provided you meet the prerequisites for the feat you'd normally need).
While being able to enhance the item without needing the usual feats is nice, that extra spell has the potential to be really nice. How many times have you wished you'd prepared just one more of a given spell, or had that spell prepared in the first place, as opposed to one that saw no use? Given that it can be used for any spell you know and can cast, that provides a lot of flexibility. Not quite the flexibility of a Sorcerer, but then you get all those extra spells.
I like the bonded item myself, and now that familiars dont make bad things happen I might take one of those also.
Today my player asked my if he could change a wizard Arcane Bond into a additional feat. I asked him why he would do that, the arcane bond is like wizard trade mark and its natural that you would like to have it. Then he said that the familiar is a useless , pain in the but type of creature and the bonded item is an major flaw and a excuse for the DM to take away or tramp his casters ability. When I said no he declared killing his familiar. Did you guys experience this kind of behaviour from you wizards?
My players also saw a weakness in a bonded item, you lose it and all spells require a concentration check to cast, a familiar you need to protect but will not do you harm if you leave it at home, like losing/leaving a bonded item would.
We house ruled that leaving or losing a bonded item just means you lose it's benifits.
Today my player asked my if he could change a wizard Arcane Bond into a additional feat. I asked him why he would do that, the arcane bond is like wizard trade mark and its natural that you would like to have it. Then he said that the familiar is a useless , pain in the but type of creature and the bonded item is an major flaw and a excuse for the DM to take away or tramp his casters ability. When I said no he declared killing his familiar. Did you guys experience this kind of behaviour from you wizards?
It seems the real issue is that the player has a lack of trust in the DM. Was it you, or a previous DM that brought that out in him?
I know with some of the people i game with as a player i avoid giving any sort of hook if at all possible to the DM. I won't bother to learn any of the NPC names because if i do seem to like them they get killed by some villain. I could see being very careful about having a class feature vulnerable to that kind of DM as well.I'm just pointing out that there are two sides to every coin for those that lable this as a tantrum on the part of the player.
Today my player asked my if he could change a wizard Arcane Bond into a additional feat. I asked him why he would do that, the arcane bond is like wizard trade mark and its natural that you would like to have it. Then he said that the familiar is a useless , pain in the but type of creature and the bonded item is an major flaw and a excuse for the DM to take away or tramp his casters ability.
Well, allow him to exchange it, and then break his character's fingers in a fight with a much stronger enemy. Shows him that if you want to screw with him, you just do it, and nothing will save him.
I'm only half joking.
Implying that I'd even try to cripple characters like that on purpose would be an insult.
When I said no he declared killing his familiar. Did you guys experience this kind of behaviour from you wizards?
Nah.
I'd declare killing his character on the spot. It's childish. No in-game reason for him to kill his familiar. Depending on the situation, I'd disinvite the player permanently. Sounds hard-ass, is hard-ass, but I'm particular about who I play with.
The thing is this: Why would you allow people to cash in everything they don't want to use? Especially for free feats?
I might negotiate an alternative, like not getting a bonded item or familiar but getting, say, Skill Focus (Spellcraft). Not Spell Focus or something like that, but something that can be useful.
The bonded object rule is the only thing in PF I'm bitterly opposed to.
Why?
As someone who never took a familiar in 3.5 because I thought it was a handicap I do understand the players worries at not having the option to not take the familiar or the bonded item.
Of course, there is the option: never designate an item or summon a familiar.
Also the OP never said the player threw a tantrum, Paul Watson assumed he did, and it seems from that point it was taken as a fact.
The way it sounded he did act like a little crybaby. Saying that you kill your familiar for no in-game reason doesn't exactly sound mature.
I think the player looks at both the item and the familiar as cursed items, for all they are worth. It seems that killing the familiar so as to not have to worry about it was a tactical decision to me.
When did he make this decision? Does he consistently play his character as a total moron? Because if that was a "tactical decision", the proper tactical decision would be never to have gotten a familiar.
And what sort of tactics is that, anyway?
"Surrender or I kill your daughter!"
*Hero kills his daughter himself* "Now you got nothing"
*Villain stares in confusion.*
It might be okay if you're playing "Scary Roleplaying Game", but I prefer high fantasy, or low fantasy, to slapstick sit com. :P
"Surrender or I kill your daughter!"
*Hero kills his daughter himself* "Now you got nothing"
*Villain stares in confusion.*
*Hero Stabs Villain*
I've seen this happen before... but the guy wasn't really a hero, he wasn't good, and he had character history and development that lead to this kinds of decisions. So that's all a bit different.
I don't blame the guy. The bonded item rules are silly and are NOTHING but a built-in achilles heal for the DM to punish you with. Why else would they have rules governing the loss of a flavor item and make them so harsh? DC 20+spell level? Even assuming an 18 int at 1st level casting 1st level spells you have to roll 16+ for a 75% chance of failure. On top of SR and saves and to hit rolls you might as well just go hide in a corner. At 10th level casting 5th level spells assuming a pretty phenomenal 26 int that's still a 30% chance of failure. Unacceptable. All for a single extra spell slot, as useful as that might be.
Killing his familiar? Strange reaction. Make him slide a little towards Chaotic or Evil and be done with it. Game on.
I don't blame the guy. The bonded item rules are silly and are NOTHING but a built-in achilles heal for the DM to punish you with. Why else would they have rules governing the loss of a flavor item and make them so harsh? DC 20+spell level? Even assuming an 18 int at 1st level casting 1st level spells you have to roll 16+ for a 75% chance of failure. On top of SR and saves and to hit rolls you might as well just go hide in a corner. At 10th level casting 5th level spells assuming a pretty phenomenal 26 int that's still a 30% chance of failure. Unacceptable. All for a single extra spell slot, as useful as that might be.
Killing his familiar? Strange reaction. Make him slide a little towards Chaotic or Evil and be done with it. Game on.
Item bond isn't all that much of an achilles heel really. If the DM wants to take away a wizards spell casting he can do it as simple as not letting the wizard sleep. Thats for all wizards, item bond or not.
So really it comes down to the DM. If he wants to "punish" his PC wizards he'll do it regardless.
Also... if you get a ring or amulet as your item bond... its pretty hard to take away short of a grapple + pin.
I don't blame the guy. The bonded item rules are silly and are NOTHING but a built-in achilles heal for the DM to punish you with. Why else would they have rules governing the loss of a flavor item and make them so harsh? DC 20+spell level? Even assuming an 18 int at 1st level casting 1st level spells you have to roll 16+ for a 75% chance of failure. On top of SR and saves and to hit rolls you might as well just go hide in a corner. At 10th level casting 5th level spells assuming a pretty phenomenal 26 int that's still a 30% chance of failure. Unacceptable. All for a single extra spell slot, as useful as that might be.
Killing his familiar? Strange reaction. Make him slide a little towards Chaotic or Evil and be done with it. Game on.
Item bond isn't all that much of an achilles heel really. If the DM wants to take away a wizards spell casting he can do it as simple as not letting the wizard sleep. Thats for all wizards, item bond or not.
So really it comes down to the DM. If he wants to "punish" his PC wizards he'll do it regardless.
Also... if you get a ring or amulet as your item bond... its pretty hard to take away short of a grapple + pin.
Sunder...
The bonded object is more than an incredibly useful "any spell I know RIGHT NOW" item, it's also A) free masterwork at level 1 (free +1 to hit/300gp if it's a weapon); B) upgradable by enchantment and C) replacable with found magic items (thus never have to "waste" an item slot for rings and amulets). And I'm not 100% certain you can sunder a ring or an amulet, although I suppose you could disarm it.
If your player doesn't like it, he doesn't have to use it or the familiar, but don't expect a free feat for ignoring your class abilities. It's like a fighter who says "hey, if I promise never to use armor, can I have my Armor Proficiencies Light/Medium/Heavy back for 3 other feats?" Umm.. no.
Inform the player that if a villian is able to get close enough to sunder his Bonded Items or able to steal them while he/she sleeps, the villian is also theoretically capable of doing the same to the wizards spell book. Did he destroy that before?
I like the weaknesses tied in with it. For one thing, it provides a better tactic to actually fighting wizards other than "Threaten, ready action."
I don't blame the guy. The bonded item rules are silly and are NOTHING but a built-in achilles heal for the DM to punish you with. Why else would they have rules governing the loss of a flavor item and make them so harsh?
You think that's an Achilles heel?
Okay, I give in. Give every wizard who thinks that a free spell focus.
And then steal his spell book. BAM! No more spells.
Or steal the spell component pouch. Or sunder a priest's holy symbol. Or take away a fighter's weapon.
All Achilles heels.
And let's face it: If the GM wants to f@+& you over, your ass is forfeit. The guy doesn't need swords or symbols or spell books. He just does whatever he wants to you.
But if he doesn't want to do that, he won't.
Inform the player that if a villian is able to get close enough to sunder his Bonded Items or able to steal them while he/she sleeps, the villian is also theoretically capable of doing the same to the wizards spell book. Did he destroy that before?
True story: We assassins always destroy silly important items when we catch a guy in his sleep.
Sure, we could beat his head in with a big sword or hammer, or cut him open like a fish and feed him his own innards (and, if you want to get rules techy, get a x4 crit with power attack and sneak attack in), but we somehow don't do that.
Oh, and a hint: I'm lying through my teeth. I hope you all sleep well tonight. Especially the one I'll visit as soon as he/she/it is fast asleep.
*goes and sharpens his sacrificial katar*
Mistwalker
(Pathfinder Roleplaying Game, Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Companion, Modules, GameMastery Maps Subscriber)
I've created two wizards. One, a diviner, with an Arcane Bonded pendant known as the Eye of Calan. So I've had to hide the fact that the pendant is my arcane bond. Nothing too unusual. And how will an assassin (or whatever) know what item is the arcane bonded one. Maybe its just a wizard whose familiar is currently performing some mission for him.
My other wizard is a Generalist with a familiar. So far, highly enjoyable to roleplay, as the golden hawk often screeches or otherwise makes sounds to convey our shared emotions. We're currently in a combat, and Elim always readies an action to Aid if the wizard is attacked, adding +2 to AC. Otherwise remaining out of sight.
I like the sorcerers. (My first Pathfinder character was a sorcerer), but I am sorely missing the familiars now. My fire elemental sorceress really wants a little fire elemental of her own running around. :P
Today my player asked my if he could change a wizard Arcane Bond into a additional feat. I asked him why he would do that, the arcane bond is like wizard trade mark and its natural that you would like to have it.
The following might be a useful observation here: "It's natural that people like icecream - except for those who don't."
Then he said that the familiar is a useless , pain in the but type of creature
Did you ask, or did the player say, why he feels this way, and what would make having a familiar more fun for him?
and the bonded item is an major flaw and a excuse for the DM to take away or tramp his casters ability.
Did you ask, or did the player say, why he has this fear (has he been "burned" before?), and what would alleviate his fear? When "the rules" specifically and mechanically outline drawbacks, it's a completely natural reaction for players to be concerned (or, yes, even afraid).
When I said no he declared killing his familiar. Did you guys experience this kind of behaviour from you wizards?
Sounds like he could be rewarded for playing the "I became a wizard so I could screw the rules of the universe, not the other way around!" archetype to the hilt. :)
Seriously, it reads to me that the player has an issue with the fun/trust/fear balance of the game. As DM, you need to establish a trust relationship with your players (and that's harder for some than others). You have to demonstrate that if your story messes with or screws over a particular PC, the PC will be rewarded for it. I find that, if you don't already have a good trust relationship with a player, taking the player aside and asking if you can do something "nasty" in the story, and asking if it's worth what the player will get or wants to get in return, is essential (as is letting your players know that you'll ask first).
Did you ask, or did the player say, why he feels this way, and what would make having a familiar more fun for him?
Did you ask, or did the player say, why he has this fear (has he been "burned" before?), and what would alleviate his fear? When "the rules" specifically and mechanically outline drawbacks, it's a completely natural reaction for players to be concerned (or, yes, even afraid).
Sounds like he could be rewarded for playing the "I became a wizard so I could screw the rules of the universe, not the other way around!" archetype to the hilt. :)
Seriously, it reads to me that the player has an issue with the fun/trust/fear balance of the game. As DM, you need to establish a trust relationship with your players (and that's harder for some than others). You have to demonstrate that if your story messes with or screws over a particular PC, the PC will be rewarded for it. I find that, if you don't already have a good trust relationship with a player, taking the player aside and asking if you can do something "nasty" in the story, and asking if it's worth what the player will get or wants to get in return, is essential.
Sorry to say it, but I'm glad I don't have players with these issues. Classes have strengths and weaknesses. Situations may work out for the player or not. Good and bad things may befall them. Having to "alleviate his fear" of a class feature, or assure him that it will all be good in the end... no. I don't go to extremes to mess with players, I don't go to extremes to save them from the consequences of their actions either. I'm fair about it. Pick a class you like. Don't summon a familiar / bond an item if you're paranoid about it. Just don't throw a fit because you wan't some other thing in return for not using that ability. And d@mn people, if they're close enough to sunder a ring on your hand, you've got bigger problems than the ring you might lose...
Then he said that the familiar is a useless , pain in the but type of creature ... he declared killing his familiar.
So, let me see if I understand this.
So he had a familiar. Because of his familiar he had some kind of bonus. He also had the ability to use the familiar as a scout, or to deliver touch spells, or to simply hide in his pocket and grant the wizard whatever bonus ability that particular familiar grants.
So he had something. Even if it was only a little something, it was something.
But, a little something wasn't good enough, because he wanted a lot of something else I guess.
So he killed his familiar. And now he has nothing.
Apparently nothing is better than something?
Did you guys experience this kind of behaviour from you wizards?
That kind of behavior? Heavens no, my players have all grown up already.
Or did you mean have I experienced players who feel Arcane Bond is a weak class ability? If that's what you mean, well, then the answer is not really. Familiars have always been somewhat weak and only situationally useful. They used to have a huge penalty for losing the familiar, so you got a weak class ability with a huge pending liability.
Now that liability is gone. To me, and I think my players who've discussed this agree, that makes familiars more appealing than ever.
But every player I've known, myself included, who has created a wizard since we discovered Pathfinder Beta, has gone with a bonded item instead of the familiar.
The ability to enchant it without wasting a feat, and at half price, while also gaining a bonus spell that the wizard doesn't even have to prepare in advance is just too sweet to pass up. My wiazrd loves his bonded item. He doesn't have to prepare Feather Fall, or Tongues, or Identify, or Water Breathing, or Knock, or ...
In the old days, my wizard might have filled up a third of his spell slots with sspells like those - just in case he needed them - and then gone day after day after day without ever casting any of them, or maybe only one of them on some days.
Now he doesn't prepare those spells. If he needs one, his bonded item has it covered. If he needs two in the same day, well, bummer - on the rare occasion that might happen (hasn't happened yet in 6 levels) he will miss out, but all the rest of the adventuring days he has far more useful spells prepared than any previous wizard I've ever played.
That bonded item means going to bed at night having cast all, or nearly all, of his spells in a useful fashion, rather than just casting 2/3 of them.
Yeah, it's worth it.
[...] or assure him that it will all be good in the end... no.
Sorry, I'll clarify: You can totally screw over a character in a dozen different horrible ways and it won't matter one iota so long as the player enjoys your story.
I don't go to extremes to mess with players, I don't go to extremes to save them from the consequences of their actions either. I'm fair about it. [...]
And if your players know and accept this, then you have already established that trust relationship. That's great. :)
Sometimes though it's hard to establish that trust - when the new guy's past experience with DMs was only with the Me Versus Them kind, or worse the Lawful Evil kind that get their jollies out of breaking the players rather than the characters.
So it's not just "I'm a fair DM, I'm not out to get them", it's "I'm a fair DM, I'm not out to get them, and they know I'm not out to get them."
This player is apparently saying "I don't know you're not out to get me."
As someone who never took a familiar in 3.5 because I thought it was a handicap I do understand the players worries at not having the option to not take the familiar or the bonded item.
Of course, there is the option: never designate an item or summon a familiar.
...
Also the OP never said the player threw a tantrum, Paul Watson assumed he did, and it seems from that point it was
I dont think not selecting an item or not summoning the familiar was an option or that is what the player would have done since he was trying to get out of the situation and ignoring it was the easiest route.
There was an in-game reason. He wanted to be safe, assuming he thought the 3.5 rules were still valid. If he knew the 3.5 rules were not valid anymore I have no idea why he took such an action.
The daughter thing has no connection with what I said. If the daughter dies the wizard does not lose any ability to cast spells or XP, once again assuming 3.5 familiar rules are in affect.
I see it no differently than if I was given a Legacy Item, but I did not want to deal with the minuses. If I choose not to unlock the abilities so as to avoid the drawbacks I should not be punished for that.
I don't blame the guy. The bonded item rules are silly and are NOTHING but a built-in achilles heal for the DM to punish you with. Why else would they have rules governing the loss of a flavor item and make them so harsh? DC 20+spell level? Even assuming an 18 int at 1st level casting 1st level spells you have to roll 16+ for a 75% chance of failure. On top of SR and saves and to hit rolls you might as well just go hide in a corner. At 10th level casting 5th level spells assuming a pretty phenomenal 26 int that's still a 30% chance of failure. Unacceptable. All for a single extra spell slot, as useful as that might be.
Killing his familiar? Strange reaction. Make him slide a little towards Chaotic or Evil and be done with it. Game on.
Item bond isn't all that much of an achilles heel really. If the DM wants to take away a wizards spell casting he can do it as simple as not letting the wizard sleep. Thats for all wizards, item bond or not.
So really it comes down to the DM. If he wants to "punish" his PC wizards he'll do it regardless.
Also... if you get a ring or amulet as your item bond... its pretty hard to take away short of a grapple + pin.
But many DM's dont want the punishment to be so obvious that is why instead of directly taking a paladin's powers they put him in a moral dilemma, and use that as an excuse.
The above was only an example of course.
Well you can select the familiar and just not summon it. So you have 'selected' you simply aren't using the option, just like you can choose to ignore your divine bond as a paladin by not using it, or spells as a ranger by not using them, or stunning fist as a monk. You still have the option, you simply don't have to exercise it.
When I said no he declared killing his familiar.I'd saying dying such a horrible death at the hands of your master is liable to make a familiar return as some sort of revenant animal creature, undying misery driving it to follow its master to the ends of Golarion to wreak vengeance.
I think that would be a great plot to add to a story. :)
I think that would be a great plot to add to a story. :)When I said no he declared killing his familiar.I'd saying dying such a horrible death at the hands of your master is liable to make a familiar return as some sort of revenant animal creature, undying misery driving it to follow its master to the ends of Golarion to wreak vengeance.
But maybe not Grandmikus's player. From what Grandmikus described, more likely his player would NOT want that, and instead see it as confirmation that DMs are only out to screw the PCs over (true or not doesn't matter, it's the perception that's relevant here).
As DMs it's important we find out what our players want; equally important is what they don't want. That doesn't mean we have to roll over for them, just that we recognise that not everybody likes the same food and it's good to establish a common ground (if feasible).
Personally, I'd keep the familiar thing up my sleeve for a later date.
It does look as though there's not much trust between player and DM at the moment. If the game runs long enough, I would consider bringing the familiar in as a foe once he's started trusting the DM and can recognize it as an antagonist-with-a-grudge instead of assuming he's being screwed over.
People always seem to forget that a familiar can use skills and that it has ALL the skills of its owner and then some. Thus, it is the equivalent of "roll two dice and take the higher result" for many skills such as spellcraft, knowledges, perception.
And it definitely can use the aid another action with skills as long as it can speak with the one it helps (ie not much of a problem for a raven familiar).
Just my 2 cp.
We've had such a player. He did anything he could think of just to screw the game and prove that he has out-thinked DM and the players... well to try to do that. He no longer plays with us.
I don't know whether the autor of the OP knows the player well in-game, but I'd definitely keep an eye on him.
Aside from that what's more exposed? A spellbook in your bag, or a piercing in your tongue or a gem in your navel perhaps? Or a toad in your pocket? A cat left at home?
Please let me describe the situation more accurately. I play roleplaying games for 8 years, constantly as a DM, with few player one shots to observe other DM mistakes and learn form them. I dont have a university degree in statiscics or builds, I use mainly fluff as my sword and shield against the players. They tend to view me as a very rewarding DM and really enjoy my stories. The main dillemas on the game that I make are about moral , love, honor etc like "will you experiance true love if you use domination to make your beloved yours again" or "will you kill people defensless people with good hearts because of you own safety". They often are much about choosing something, and the worst thing people say about me that sometimes the fluff can be too much for the player and he can't roleplay more leaving the game unfinished...yeah I thought that was only a faairytale old veterans tend to tell on interviews ... till it became reality, but every game has its flaws.
As for the player he is also a DM, with less experiance than me, who tend to play with a~+!@~!s as I remember from one game with him and his unstable groupe. He is a very hardworking and a nice guy, self proclaimed and proven powergammer. He is new to my groupe as we want to expand the team. I proposed him, hey I got pathfinder core rule book and some other pdfs wanna join? I lend him my copy's and directed to SRD, tryed to help with character creation but he refused. I think he is a little bit ignorant toward other players. Before the arcane bond incident he asked me if he can play a undead, specificali some Necropolitan from Liber mortis book i think. Never seen that one before. I refused because we have a rule, if not on table not in game, and he couldnt provide his spell companion , complete arcana and that liber mortis thing. he had a sad face because I just blown up his dual wand wielding warlock character , his "Playing a god" guide wizard , and probably many other nasty things but he still insisted on playing undead forgetting that we have a paladin and a CG rogue in team, and i didnt recall any friendly undead in golarion, then we argued about how undead are monsters and even if with good intention viewed as abominations and have to be put to eternal slumber once more. His argument was " Its racism". Yeah we still laugh about that thing. In the end he made a young CN human wizard , overcome with madness , a%~~*&~ like attitiude, believing in non existent god, with goal is to be self sufficient in everything and he will do anything to acomplish that. I hope to somehow squeeze from him why his character is such an a+**@+*, oh I hope he will give me some good anwsers, but the fact that I need to ask so many questions lead me to the point where his character was done in rush without thinking , the fluff of course , the stats are really masterclass makeing him in the end he is an empty character with some obvious easly breakable plot shields.
As for the main topic the arcane bond
For him the bonded object is a flaw that DM can use to take away his spells as i would do something so obvious like that but he has his game experiance and i have mine. As for the familiar he thinks he is useless because he wont ever use his skills to anything, and is an "unneeded roleplay"... I really dont want to comment that. Well I hope it clarifies most things. Many times many Dm wrote me that i should just kick out some players but I don't know many of them and its hard to find someone who wants to play with you and has time.