If you compare the benefits gained by having a familiar to the penalties associated with the death of something as fragile as a cat, is there ANY reason at all to ever use one?
My whole group has opted to take Flaws, specifically the one that gives you an extra feat for giving up a familiar because no one sees it as a drawback.
Animal companions are much less detrimental, and easily replacable. Familiars are XP loss waiting to happen.
|
The wizard in the my AoW campaign is the first wizard in 3.x that has chosen to not have a familiar. He's holding out pending some final Feat selections (perhaps going for an Improved Familiar feat). Before Graum (half-orc wizard to boot!), every wizard/sorcerer has had a familiar because of their metagaming usefulness (added bonuses to stats, skills and the like) and having an extra set of senses for scouting/spying. ::shrugs:: Personally, I love familiars in my game as it gives this DM a "voice" in the party, albeit a small voice/meow/croak/honk/whatever. I suspect if I used the Flaw rules that there'd be less familiars in the game.
It's really a matter of how familiars are presented by the DM to suggest their usefulness to players that may not realize/understand their usefulness. This may be heavy handed at first but the players pick up quickly and before long the familiars often foil the DM's plan in some way.
I wouldn't use familiars (if I played a character) for the same reasons you mentioned... But one of my players has one cause he thinks it's cool. So I'm all for that. I try not to burst his bubble (kill his familiar) and use it to advantage the group (sort of like the rodents in Beastmaster) to retrieve small items or to scout ahead.
I find it more akward to DM when a PC Ranger (another of my players) decides to have a big animal companion (like a bear) and takes it with him wherever he goes, be it a local tavern or in a cramped, trap-filled dungeon. At low levels, I guess it could seem cool for a PC to get the help of a bear to fight off those pesky kobolds, but now my group is around 10th level. What the hell does a bear do against a twelve-headed cryohydra? I'm finding this it more and more difficult not to kill the companion. I certainly don't want to add more bigger and better companions (like griffons and pegasi), then my group will start resembling A Mutual of Ohmaha's Wild Kingdom Travelling Circus. What can I do to remedy this without frustrating my player.
Ultradan
Personally, I think familiars should require a feat.
They represent one wizard archetype, but certainly not all. Galdolf doesn't have a familiar.
Anyway, they are a hassle most of the time and I'd prefer that wizards in my game not have them unless they are particularly meaningful to the character.
I enjoy PCs having familiars in my game - when I remember they're there.
However, this happens all too often in my campaigns. :)
When the familiar is remembered, though, I don't find them particularly vulnerable. They're treated as having the same hit die as the master - even if all the master's levels aren't in a class that advances the familiar. They have half the master's hit points - which isn't great, but it's certainly more than the animal would normally have. Finally, they have improved evasion, so even when they get caught in those area of effect spells, chances are they won't take too much damage.
Maybe I'm a nicer DM than I thought by not targetting familiars more often. :D
I don't normally play a spellcaster when I do game, but I have before. I once played a half dragon/drow sorcerer who didn't get a familiar until higher level so he could have a pseudodragon. I never really played him much, it was more to just have one than to really play it, but I'm sure that if played right, a familiar could be an invaluable asset to a party.
Personally, I think familiars should require a feat. They represent one wizard archetype, but certainly not all. Galdolf doesn't have a familiar. Anyway, they are a hassle most of the time and I'd prefer that wizards in my game not have them unless they are particularly meaningful to the character.
I agree. As a player I usually play some kind of wizard, but I've only once had one of my characters call a familiar.
As a DM, I allow wizards to swap out having a familiar for a metamagic or craft (magic) feat of some kind... or a magic-related feat they can reasonably argue... but then if they want a familiar in the future they have to spend a feat.
|
Contributor
|
Personally, I think familiars should require a feat.
They represent one wizard archetype, but certainly not all. Galdolf doesn't have a familiar.
Anyway, they are a hassle most of the time and I'd prefer that wizards in my game not have them unless they are particularly meaningful to the character.
I allow players with such companions to allow the companion to grow as well. Allow, them to share some of their newly earned XP to allow their companions HD to increase a little (as per the building tougher monsters section in the MM).
I don't think that players need to give up a feat just to have a familiar. Please remember that they already have to pay 100 gp (not that much at the higher levels, but pretty hefty at 1st) just to call a familiar. True not all wizards/sorcerors would have familiars, but it is voluntary, just because you can have a familiar doesn't mean you have to have one.
Ok, so as a fellow adventurer and animal companion is a GREAT asset because of the size of the group I PLAY in. You see, it all comes down to the group's size, and the DM's ability to keep tabs on everyone. In the games I play in, Drake, Evlen Ranger has a black wolf named Shadow (lame, I know). So, it's Drake, Elven Ranger, his wolf, Shadow, and Koran Qu'uek, human Bard. Yes, that's our ENTIRE party!!! (Keep in mind that I can only PLAY when I'm with my DM and best friend from outta town.
But I digress....Animal companions give you benefits in the end, but are a nuissance if you are careless, and are but starting your character. (DICLAIMER: NOT THE ANIMALS FAULT FOR MASTER'S CARELESSNESS!!!) I can not stress that enough. Also, animal companions are great party fillers when your group is small and the DM wishes to expand! In my games, I don't allow more than one PARTY animal companion (our is Zilla, a silver dragon hatchling), because there are several players in our group, and it's too much for me to handle. (I know, I know; you AD&D DMs are FAR more superior than me...we get it...^.^;)
{Ooops. I guess I had a bit to say? ^.^;} B*B Adventurers!
I think a familiar can be useful in the right situation.right now one player has a drow ranger that has a deep dragon for a familiar which has helped us against some creatures. in a previous campaign, we had two sorcereres and a ranger gain a familiar that the dm had made up they were (yes a retarded name) dragonflies. but instead of basing them on the dragonflies of our world, they were small flying creatures similar to dragons each was a different color (red, black, white, etc) my charactr through the leadership feat obtained one (don't ask, the dm allowed since these creatures falled within that feat) we had two black dragonflies, one gold (which was mine)and one red
Im currently playing an elven wizard with the racial substitution level and a hummingbird familiar (from Dragon). The +8 to initiative is amazing.
Yup, there is a hummingbird in our group too...besides obvious initiative bonus it is nice to have a small, flying spy (which eg helped us to study the face trap in Whispering Cairn...)
In our all-mage campaign three of us four characters have opted to take a familiar. And so far they have been more benefit than harm (and since we all are rather interested in making magical items, it has pretty much set out that exp comes and goes anyway...).
Note that over 50% of the Sorcerer and Wizard villains in Dungeon Magazine don't have a familiars, and at least one editor has admitted that they don't like them and that they are a waste of page space.
Personally, I have played a Wizard or Sorcerer almost my whole gaming career, and I've only ever had one familiar. I only got it because the DM let me get a Will o' Wisp as a familiar, and those guys rock.
Basically, unless you are getting an Improved Familiar with nice abilities of its own, they are a bigger liability than asset.
For example, with the Stitched Flesh Familiar feat from Libris Mortis, you can get a spellcasting familiar by applying the Spellstitched template (from Complete Arcane) to it.
Except that you might not want to waste spell slots on them, there are spells which do allow you to either buff your familiar into something that can aid you in battle or allow you to keep it safe in a 'familiar pocket.' Also once the familiar survives a few levels, you can use buffing spells on yourself to also buff up the familiar.
And while it might be dangerous, the ability to help cast touch attack spells can be useful.
One of my players has a monkey and another has a weasel. Both are excellent spies and are able to gather information from other familiars. Most useful when spying on other magic users. Our druid sometimes accompanies them (when wildshaped).
So far my players have avoided them. I got to think its a good idea as well. So far as I can tell the famileir is toast the first time its in the blast radius of a fireball.
So far my players have avoided them. I got to think its a good idea as well. So far as I can tell the famileir is toast the first time its in the blast radius of a fireball.
Well, Familiars do tend to get Improved Evasion, which helps a good bit against the AOE damage.
I have played a few Arcane casters in 3e and I for one use familiars more often than not. Having a flying spy/scout, with the avian familiars, can be rather useful. Rats are also fun, as they are rarely noticed in midieval style cities, if they're careful. They're not useful all that often in combat, but in the games I've played in, combat is only one aspect of the game.
Im currently playing an elven wizard with the racial substitution level and a hummingbird familiar (from Dragon). The +8 to initiative is amazing.
Which Dragon?
|
Hehe...
I once had a group where there were about as much animals as characters.
Two wizards with familars, a ranger and a druid (both with animal companions), a paladin with his mount and a halfling fighter with a riding dog.
It was definitly more of a wandering circus than an adventuring group and the trouble at taverns (okay, they understood that the mount must wait outside) became quite a running gag.
And it happened several times that an animal delivered the killing blow to a villain.
"Hey, why don't we call it 'The Adventures Of Harry, The Bear And His Human Companions'?" was one of the funny quotes i remember from these sessions...:)