Heck, if they want two familiars - let em.
There was a cool feat for that
There was a cool feat for thatHeck, if they want two familiars - let em.
Ultimately...there's a feat for pretty much anything.
And they all taste like chicken.
Thats it. Next time I'm getting a chicken familiar. A male one, and I'm going to cast enlarge animal on it...
well not getting into the chicken familar debate, did anyone ever really use familares in 3.5? I perfered 3.0, or a completly differnt system for familiers.
So...all chicken jokes aside...there is actually a valid question being posed here. Can a multi-class wizard/sorcerer with the Arcane bloodline have both a bonded item and a familiar? Two items? Two familiars?
I'd say not. Rather than stacking abilities it would just mean using whichever you took first. But perhaps the wizard and sorcerer levels might stack for the potency of the item or advancement of the familiar.
B'gock!
well not getting into the chicken familar debate, did anyone ever really use familares in 3.5? I perfered 3.0, or a completly differnt system for familiers.I've never used familiars. They give you nothing except a chance to lose stuff every time it dies.
Not anymore. You have to wait a week and pay a bunch of money to get a new one, but no more huge hit for actually using the familiar's abilities.
Hugely happy about that since it was my one real gripe about familiars, which I otherwise love.
I think the main issue is not the familiar part per se, but the Bonded Item. (As mentioned, there are already Feats which give you another Familar.)
If a Wizard/Sorceror had TWO Bonded Items, each allowing them to spontaneously cast ANY of their class spells, along with the other benefits of Bonded Items, I think that'd be a bit overpowering.
I don't see how having both a Bonded Item and a Familiar would be Overpowered.
|
well not getting into the chicken familar debate, did anyone ever really use familares in 3.5? I perfered 3.0, or a completly differnt system for familiers.
There was a neat article in a Paizo-produced issue of "Dragon" with alternate familiars. I used them for a few NPCs. As stated by others and portrayed in "OotS"--yep, they tend to be little more than a miscellaneous bonus to skill checks.
Although there was that one time my friend's toad familiar scored a crit with a shocking grasp....
|
Is it an oversight in the text where, on page 50 discussing Familiars, it mentions that a familiar becomes a magical beast when summoned to service by a sorcerer or wizard?
I know that the Arcane bloodline allows the arcane bond, if that's the only way that sorcerers can gain a familiar could this text be reviewed to make that distinction? Perhaps even just saying something like: A familiar is a normal animal that gains new powers and becomes a magical beast when summoned to service through the use of an Arcane Bond.
well not getting into the chicken familar debate, did anyone ever really use familares in 3.5? I perfered 3.0, or a completly differnt system for familiers.I've never used familiars. They give you nothing except a chance to lose stuff every time it dies.
Monte's Book of Experimental Might addresses this. I paraphrase him as saying, 'I don't have a problem with familiars per say, I have a problem with how they are used. Basically, everyone forgets they have them.' He proposed familiars be a spirit that can be summoned.
Anyone read Order of the Stick? Sort of like the androgynous elf's raven familiar.
About that elf: It's not androgynous! V's gender is quite obvious!
Thats it. Next time I'm getting a chicken familiar. A male one, and I'm going to cast enlarge animal on it...
Whoa, an enlarged chicken. It's small now, instead of tiny!
Actually, I really used one or two of my familiars.
One was with an elven spellsinger, who had a tressym (winged cat). Got food and everything. Talked to it often (I'd claim that she had more common sense than the rest of the party combined - and it was true, too ;-))
And in NWN, I had a gnome arcanist with a fairy dragon familiar, called "The Amazing, uhm.... Ben!" I'd possess it all the time and chat up people, talking about the time when he beat Tiamag singlehandedly and so on. Was a hoot.
And one of my players had a dragon familiar and said that I should play it because he wanted to concentrate on his own character. I did. It was a brass dragon as far as I remember - ego larger than the Tarrasque, talkative like nothing in town, drove several players (not characters) mad. :D
|
Actually, I really used one or two of my familiars.
One was with an elven spellsinger, who had a tressym (winged cat). Got food and everything. Talked to it often (I'd claim that she had more common sense than the rest of the party combined - and it was true, too ;-))
And in NWN, I had a gnome arcanist with a fairy dragon familiar, called "The Amazing, uhm.... Ben!" I'd possess it all the time and chat up people, talking about the time when he beat Tiamag singlehandedly and so on. Was a hoot.
And one of my players had a dragon familiar and said that I should play it because he wanted to concentrate on his own character. I did. It was a brass dragon as far as I remember - ego larger than the Tarrasque, talkative like nothing in town, drove several players (not characters) mad. :D
Oooh! I love that idea. Having a character play a familiar sounds like all sorts of fun! Imagine the possibilities... hmmmmm
PS. Tressyms have always been my favorite familiars. Those and psudodragons
well not getting into the chicken familar debate, did anyone ever really use familares in 3.5? I perfered 3.0, or a completly differnt system for familiers.I've never used familiars. They give you nothing except a chance to lose stuff every time it dies.
The first 3e game I ran had a Fighter/Sorcerer with only a couple of levels of Sorcerer for a few buff spells. His familiar was a raven that could speak common. Given how lucky the player rolling was rolling for HP, his familiar had more hp than most of the other players. This made him great for overland scouting and helping on watch.
Oooh! I love that idea. Having a character play a familiar sounds like all sorts of fun! Imagine the possibilities... hmmmmm
I was actually the GM, so playing everything but the PCs themselves was kind of my job.
But we did have one instance where a player played a familiar. But not really, he was a full-fledged PC who only pretended to be another guy's familiar - and the guy didn't know. There was a lot of handwaving by the GM (a lot of it probably to stop the party from tearing each other apart - the guy that played the familiar is very disruptive).
The best part of this (evil) game was the epilogue:
The GM told us what our characters would be doing after the campaign - basically by what means they got more powerful and all. He did the imp (the pseudofamiliar, who also disguised himself as a quasit all the time, took us a long time to find out we had a LE devil in our midst - and I was playing a demonspawn).
So the guy who played the evoker (the familiar's victim) asks the GM:
EV "So the campaign is over, yes?"
GM "Yeah."
EV "Power Word Kill on the imp"
FA "WHAT??"
EV "Yeah, you pissed me off, I killed people for less."
FA "I get init to try something"
*rolls"
EV "I go first. I cast Power Word Kill"
FA "I have this psi power that grants me SR, I can manifest it immediately
GM "Okay. What SR do you have now?
FA "23"
EV "I get +24 on the roll.
FA "Nothing I can do??"
GM "Your HP?"
FA "Ninety-something"
GM "You're dead."
FA "NOOOOO! One of you guys will res me, right?"
Me "Why should we help a devil?"
FA "ARGH!"
Good times.
|
|
Technically no. Since it isn't OGL, the rules can't directly talk about it.
That's what I was thinking. Alternatively the feat could allow a sorcerer with a bloodline other than "arcane" to get a familiar, or both a familiar and a bonded object if the bloodline was "arcane." In a way it does seem to be cheating a little, but even with the increased rate of feat acquisition it seems like giving up one for both a familiar and an object is a reasonable exchange, two if you want an improved familiar.
However, traditionally whenever there was an obvious arcane spellcaster who didn't look like a trubador who had an animal with him/her, I've always as DM had enemies try to kill the animal (if they noticed it - Spot checks involved). It made sense to - if you succeeded, you've just nailed the spellcaster pretty hard. If you failed, you've threatened the spellcaster in a way that he or she would probably want to withdraw from the battle. Thus, my take is if you actually invest a feat into being able to do such a thing, I'd say you're asking for it.
Playing your NPC's intelligently is a whole other issue from the legality of the feat/feature combination. I would suggest that NPC's unfamiliar with the familiar's bond would be unaware of how drastic its loss is. For an evil wizard who opted for a bonded object, it makes sense to blow the familiar away ("stupid animals, shedding and whining, my staff is better!"). For the barabarian with an intellgient of 8, not so much unless he or she really hates [insert familiar type here] for some other reason.
I think Domains, Schools and Bloodlines should all be in the Magic section.
Dammit..I was hoping to convince my DM to give me a chiuaua familiar, but if he finds out she would taste like chicken there's no way she would survive.like a cool chicken XD
Ultimately...there's a feat for pretty much anything.
And they all taste like chicken.
Sigh...what have I done...
Whoa, an enlarged chicken. It's small now, instead of tiny!
Well, sounds pretty intimidating to me:
"I'm Gandalf Elminsterson, mage supreme, and MY COCK is as BIG as a halfling!" xPAnd whoever got attacked by enraged poultry once knows what I'm talking about...
(And this is not indecent language, stupid board...)
In a brief online campaign, I used to talk about how the empathic link worked both ways. General emotional content is what's permitted. So, when my cat familiar found a mouse at the inn at 4 a.m.... And he'd be logey for half the day, due to the cat's sleep patterns communicating sleepy contentment. (Like how yawns cause yawns.)