|
In keeping with the general disappearance of xp-sucks (spell xp costs are gone and even Resurrection level loss can be Restored, now) is the xp loss from the death of a familiar removed (I hope so)? How long does it take to get a new familiar (a year and a day as in 3.5)?
If this question's been answered before, I'd be happy to be directed to the answer.
In keeping with the general disappearance of xp-sucks (spell xp costs are gone and even Resurrection level loss can be Restored, now) is the xp loss from the death of a familiar removed (I hope so)? How long does it take to get a new familiar (a year and a day as in 3.5)?
Same question came up in my session this past weekend...do the normal v3.5 rules apply still?
It's the same rules as any other arcane bond. I know, I got confused by it too when I first saw it. It can be replaced after one week's time in a special ritual that costs 200 gp/wizard level and takes 8 hours to complete. It's kinda hidden at the bottom of the description of arcane bond. Arcane bond is defined as a bonded object or creature and a familiar counts as a subject of an arcane bond.
|
Since Jason went through the trouble of re-printing much of the current Familiar rules in the beta, but didn't include the bit about XP loss, I think he means for it to have gone the way of the dodo.
To which I say, good riddance!
I'm not real clear on the replacement time, 'though, since I'm not seeing that mentioned, nor is there any mention of spending 100 gp and a day to summon a new one.
(In absence of any hard and fast rules, I'd skip the monetary cost, but require the Wizard to spend a day calling up a new familiar, similar to a Druid or Ranger losing their Companion. OTOH, I've considered having some negative consequence to losing a familiar or companion, such as a negative level for the day (that never becomes permanant) or a point of Con damage (if one is 1st level and has no extra levels to lose) to represent the psychic trauma of having a creature that is empathically and magically linked to you die. I don't want the Druid/Ranger/Wizard to be *too* blase about sending their furry friends off to certain death, after all!)
Since Jason went through the trouble of re-printing much of the current Familiar rules in the beta, but didn't include the bit about XP loss, I think he means for it to have gone the way of the dodo.
To which I say, good riddance!
I'm not real clear on the replacement time, 'though, since I'm not seeing that mentioned, nor is there any mention of spending 100 gp and a day to summon a new one.
(In absence of any hard and fast rules, I'd skip the monetary cost, but require the Wizard to spend a day calling up a new familiar, similar to a Druid or Ranger losing their Companion. OTOH, I've considered having some negative consequence to losing a familiar or companion, such as a negative level for the day (that never becomes permanant) or a point of Con damage (if one is 1st level and has no extra levels to lose) to represent the psychic trauma of having a creature that is empathically and magically linked to you die. I don't want the Druid/Ranger/Wizard to be *too* blase about sending their furry friends off to certain death, after all!)
In the Beta, under arcane bond, the last paragraph. It's really easy to miss, but someone kindly pointed it out to me a while ago. That's where it spells out how to replace an arcane bond. The definition of arcane bond at the beginning of that section includes the familiar as one of the possible subjects of an arcane bond.
A negative level for the day seems overkill, although I think that dazed for the rest of the encounter would be totally fair.
Remember:
Under the Alpha, any rule not included was considered to have been deleted for space, unless specifically mentioned as otherwise.
Under the Beta, any rule not included is considered to have been purposefully omitted and deleted. The Beta is a complete rule book (minus the prestige classes) and should be taken as such. If a rule is gone, or a particular sentence missing then it should be generally taken to mean that rule was purposefully snipped.
Having to not only change the rules but make mention of every rule changed, would make the book waaay too big and unwieldy.
-S