This thing is way to valuable. It's nice to have the extra spells, but a wizard can have two spellbooks. A witch that loses a familiar gets some the basic spells, but anything learned through another witch or scroll is gone. The situation also may have the witch not casting, and even though its only 8 hours, the time may not be available. If I was a player I would kill the familiar, and then engage the witch in combat. If I was losing I would leave and come back. The witch would be lower on spells than normal from the previous fight, and it would need 8 hours to get a new familiar, and another 8 to prepare spells. I would not mind losing some of the spells from the witch for more security.
This thing is way to valuable. It's nice to have the extra spells, but a wizard can have two spellbooks. A witch that loses a familiar gets some the basic spells, but anything learned through another witch or scroll is gone. The situation also may have the witch not casting, and even though its only 8 hours, the time may not be available. If I was a player I would kill the familiar, and then engage the witch in combat. If I was losing I would leave and come back. The witch would be lower on spells than normal from the previous fight, and it would need 8 hours to get a new familiar, and another 8 to prepare spells. I would not mind losing some of the spells from the witch for more security.
But as a character, would you know that the witch's abilities come from her familiar? Would you recognize that she is a witch, vs an odd looking wizard or an arcane sorcerer?
Targetting any particular thing about another PC/NPC because the player knows something is to my mind not the spirit of role-playing :)
This thing is way to valuable. It's nice to have the extra spells, but a wizard can have two spellbooks. A witch that loses a familiar gets some the basic spells, but anything learned through another witch or scroll is gone. The situation also may have the witch not casting, and even though its only 8 hours, the time may not be available. If I was a player I would kill the familiar, and then engage the witch in combat. If I was losing I would leave and come back. The witch would be lower on spells than normal from the previous fight, and it would need 8 hours to get a new familiar, and another 8 to prepare spells. I would not mind losing some of the spells from the witch for more security.But as a character, would you know that the witch's abilities come from her familiar? Would you recognize that she is a witch, vs an odd looking wizard or an arcane sorcerer?
Targeting any particular thing about another PC/NPC because the player knows something is to my mind not the spirit of role-playing :)
It has never been a secret how classes work in D&D. A lot of the time their class lends to the character's prestige in novels. Smart players will also do research to try to find out. If the character level is 11 or above they are subject to the Legend Lore spell, so one way or another finding out is not much of an issue, even if the person tries to hide it.
|
This thing is way to valuable. It's nice to have the extra spells, but a wizard can have two spellbooks. A witch that loses a familiar gets some the basic spells, but anything learned through another witch or scroll is gone. The situation also may have the witch not casting, and even though its only 8 hours, the time may not be available. If I was a player I would kill the familiar, and then engage the witch in combat. If I was losing I would leave and come back. The witch would be lower on spells than normal from the previous fight, and it would need 8 hours to get a new familiar, and another 8 to prepare spells. I would not mind losing some of the spells from the witch for more security.
Try it, I guarantee you, that is by far harder than you make it seem.
If that was the case wizards would lose their spell books everyday, and arcane bond would never be taken.
This is the exact same damn thing concerro.
This thing is way to valuable. It's nice to have the extra spells, but a wizard can have two spellbooks. A witch that loses a familiar gets some the basic spells, but anything learned through another witch or scroll is gone. The situation also may have the witch not casting, and even though its only 8 hours, the time may not be available. If I was a player I would kill the familiar, and then engage the witch in combat. If I was losing I would leave and come back. The witch would be lower on spells than normal from the previous fight, and it would need 8 hours to get a new familiar, and another 8 to prepare spells. I would not mind losing some of the spells from the witch for more security.Try it, I guarantee you, that is by far harder than you make it seem.
If that was the case wizards would lose their spell books everyday, and arcane bond would never be taken.
This is the exact same damn thing concerro.
My point is that once you take the familiar a lot of spells get lost(the ones from outside sources such as scrolls). If you take a wizard's spellbook he may just have another one. The end effect is not nearly the same unless you dont mind hunting all those spells down again.
|
This thing is way to valuable. It's nice to have the extra spells, but a wizard can have two spellbooks. A witch that loses a familiar gets some the basic spells, but anything learned through another witch or scroll is gone.
I think a reasonable mitigating factor would be some form of resurrection reincarnation ritual that would allow you to get back your spell book at some reasonably high price (perhaps that scales with level.) What way it still is a great punishment for people who send their familiar into the fray to spare themselves, but not permanently crippling.
To be clear familiar assassination/kidnapping is very rare, but it just hurts the witch so much more. As a PC I would try it. As a PC I don't think the bad guys will do that since you normally go to them.
I also had the idea of recovering spells after I have paid for them. It's a time issue, more that it is a money issue.
Instead of making a new topic, I figured I could ask this question here.
One of the ways a familiar/witch can learn new spells is having two witches familiars commune with each other. Could a Raven familiar teach a Viper familiar invisibility? I believe the text says that the spell has to be on the witch's spell list, are the familiar bonus spells considered to be on the witch's spell list?
Thanks for any input on the subject.
As for the familiar = spellbook vulnerability thing, would it be inconsiderable to give the witch a (relatively) cheap way to resurrect her familiar?
Instead of making a new topic, I figured I could ask this question here.
One of the ways a familiar/witch can learn new spells is having two witches familiars commune with each other. Could a Raven familiar teach a Viper familiar invisibility? I believe the text says that the spell has to be on the witch's spell list, are the familiar bonus spells considered to be on the witch's spell list?
Thanks for any input on the subject.
Yes, they are. Another option is to have another witch make the bonus spells as scrolls, since they are now witch scrolls the other witch can learn them.
I am sure that is not the intent, but it works by RaW. It is just like a cleric making a divine scroll of an arcane spell if it was a domain spell for him, which was one reason the Archivist was so powerful.
|
|
Instead of making a new topic, I figured I could ask this question here.
One of the ways a familiar/witch can learn new spells is having two witches familiars commune with each other. Could a Raven familiar teach a Viper familiar invisibility? I believe the text says that the spell has to be on the witch's spell list, are the familiar bonus spells considered to be on the witch's spell list?
Thanks for any input on the subject.
My knee jerk reaction was no, but on consideration it really isn't game breaking. It might mean coven's of witches all have a few extra spells, but whoop-di-do
As for the familiar = spellbook vulnerability thing, would it be inconsiderable to give the witch a (relatively) cheap way to resurrect her familiar?
Personally I am not overly concerned, I dont go after the wizards spellbook, nor does any dm in my group. Its just poor form in my mind. Its like saying 'hey caster you werent looking to have fun this gaming session right? Awesome, someone stole your spellbook, good luck with doing anything for a few days". I mean if you have to worry about your dm taking that route, then theres nothing to be done, they dont need to go after your familiar to screw you over.
That said, I dont know how much of it is a problem. How many monsters, or npcs even intelligent ones, will when being stabbed by the raging barbaring, backstabbed by the rogue, hexed by the witch, lanced by the cavalier, sit there and decide to attack the house cat? It would be some serious metagaming I think. And perhaps, it also would make for interesting roleplay. If I were a witch I would probably try to play myself off as a wizard or other spellcaster, downplaying the importance of my familiar. After all wizards have familiars, how exactly would an npc know the difference unless he knew the character very well?
As for the familiar = spellbook vulnerability thing, would it be inconsiderable to give the witch a (relatively) cheap way to resurrect her familiar?
Personally I am not overly concerned, I dont go after the wizards spellbook, nor does any dm in my group. Its just poor form in my mind. Its like saying 'hey caster you werent looking to have fun this gaming session right? Awesome, someone stole your spellbook, good luck with doing anything for a few days". I mean if you have to worry about your dm taking that route, then theres nothing to be done, they dont need to go after your familiar to screw you over.
That said, I dont know how much of it is a problem. How many monsters, or npcs even intelligent ones, will when being stabbed by the raging barbaring, backstabbed by the rogue, hexed by the witch, lanced by the cavalier, sit there and decide to attack the house cat? It would be some serious metagaming I think. And perhaps, it also would make for interesting roleplay. If I were a witch I would probably try to play myself off as a wizard or other spellcaster, downplaying the importance of my familiar. After all wizards have familiars, how exactly would an npc know the difference unless he knew the character very well?
Normally the NPC's dont live long enough to find out, but if the BBEG already knew about the PC's its possible, but nobody is advocating going after the familiar just to annoy the player.
I think its more of an issue to an NPC than a PC. If I were fighting a losing battle I would take fluffy out before I left or at least try. As for the PC's familiar being taken out it's highly unlikely, but that does still causes an issue when you have to take 8 hours to replace the familiar, and another 8 hours to get your spells back. Having a fake spellbook, or even a real one* is not a bad idea though. Maybe I will do that for my PC's to discourage them coming back before I get prep spells again.*It does not matter if I can't use it.
|
|
My point is that once you take the familiar a lot of spells get lost(the ones from outside sources such as scrolls). If you take a wizard's spellbook he may just have another one. The end effect is not nearly the same unless you dont mind hunting all those spells down again.
Arcane bond.
People cried sky is falling over arcane bond as well. Because the item could be sundered or stolen. And its just as debilitating if not more so than the familiar dying.
looking into the possible loss of a fimiliar during battle, a few things stand out that seem to make it less of a damper on a witch then u may think. for starters yes the familiar is the spell book, but each day the witch prepares the spells, the prepared spells are still good for the day even if the familiar dies, also the witch's hex's are not spells stored thru the familiar so the witch will always have them.
now on to killing the familiar, one that wouldnt be easy, if i was playing a witch and u attacked it, first step use my abilities with my familiar to save him by shared spells and such, second, have him run, you dont need the familiar by your side at all times, i most likely wouldnt even let it get in battle unless it was invisible of flying or hidden, third target the pc/npc attacking the familiar with everything i got.
now im not saying if u know the witch is bad news an she goes into a roleplay situation and the familiar is as good as dead by your hands not to take the shot, by all means kill the sucker. but as a battle tactic to attack the familiar is really more like a waste of time than anything else
Yes, they are. Another option is to have another witch make the bonus spells as scrolls, since they are now witch scrolls the other witch can learn them.
I am sure that is not the intent, but it works by RaW. It is just like a cleric making a divine scroll of an arcane spell if it was a domain spell for him, which was one reason the Archivist was so powerful.
It sounds like you solved the problem of losing your familiar / spell book. Scribe scrolls of all the spells you really want / need. Keep them somewhere safe. If the familiar buys it you can recover the spells from the scrolls with the new familiar. Problems? Other than having to keep a library of scrolls, possibly including several copies in case of failure, around that is?
My point is that once you take the familiar a lot of spells get lost(the ones from outside sources such as scrolls). If you take a wizard's spellbook he may just have another one. The end effect is not nearly the same unless you dont mind hunting all those spells down again.Arcane bond.
People cried sky is falling over arcane bond as well. Because the item could be sundered or stolen. And its just as debilitating if not more so than the familiar dying.
It's a lot more likely to happen to a familiar, though. Familiars only get half their master's hit points, and while they get Improved Evasion, they're still quite vulnerable to area-effect attacks with such a small hit point pool. There are non-core spells that help with this (familiar pocket), but those are non-core options.
My point is that once you take the familiar a lot of spells get lost(the ones from outside sources such as scrolls). If you take a wizard's spellbook he may just have another one. The end effect is not nearly the same unless you dont mind hunting all those spells down again.Arcane bond.
People cried sky is falling over arcane bond as well. Because the item could be sundered or stolen. And its just as debilitating if not more so than the familiar dying.
Not the same. If you can take the bonded item the wizard is most likely dead since he wields or wears the item. With the witch's familiar it may not even be near the witch. Of course if the witch's familiar is killed it would be wise to relocate if possible until the familiar has been replaced so the PC's dont catch it off guard. I should have thought of that before.
It's a lot more likely to happen to a familiar, though. Familiars only get half their master's hit points, and while they get Improved Evasion, they're still quite vulnerable to area-effect attacks with such a small hit point pool. There are non-core spells that help with this (familiar pocket), but those are non-core options.My point is that once you take the familiar a lot of spells get lost(the ones from outside sources such as scrolls). If you take a wizard's spellbook he may just have another one. The end effect is not nearly the same unless you dont mind hunting all those spells down again.Arcane bond.
People cried sky is falling over arcane bond as well. Because the item could be sundered or stolen. And its just as debilitating if not more so than the familiar dying.
I forgot about that spell. Thanks.
|
|
It's a lot more likely to happen to a familiar, though. Familiars only get half their master's hit points, and while they get Improved Evasion, they're still quite vulnerable to area-effect attacks with such a small hit point pool. There are non-core spells that help with this (familiar pocket), but those are non-core options.My point is that once you take the familiar a lot of spells get lost(the ones from outside sources such as scrolls). If you take a wizard's spellbook he may just have another one. The end effect is not nearly the same unless you dont mind hunting all those spells down again.Arcane bond.
People cried sky is falling over arcane bond as well. Because the item could be sundered or stolen. And its just as debilitating if not more so than the familiar dying.
And the thief that steals the arcane bonded ring, or ornate staff? Its just as likely an arcane item gets stolen, and if its a weapon, I have seen several GM's on this board alone say they sunder PC weapons from time to time. Its still as often an occurrence as killing a familiar.
And the thief that steals the arcane bonded ring, or ornate staff? Its just as likely an arcane item gets stolen, and if its a weapon, I have seen several GM's on this board alone say they sunder PC weapons from time to time. Its still as often an occurrence as killing a familiar.
The difference is that the first (arcane bond) is the DM specifically deciding to screw with the wizard. The second is just something that happens that the DM would have to specifically avoid doing if he didn't want to screw over the witch.
|
|
The thing is a wizard doesn’t lose his spells if his familiar or arcane bond bites it, just the benefits that they provide. The witch loses everything they provide plus their spells. It’s not even a fair comparison. Wizards get to make backups of their spells by having more than one spellbook and can also, if necessary, use their spellbook as a scroll by reading the spell straight out of the book. Witches don’t get that luxury or I should say desperate gambit. Besides only a fool wizard would take every spellbook they own into combat with them so them losing all their spells is almost not even an issue except at low level. No matter what level the witch is they will lose all their spells if their familiar dies and can’t be brought back.
Therefore for witches familiars are far more at risk than spellbooks or arcane bonds, but I’ll agree they are more often overlooked. As I pointed out in the other thread I'll go after a familiar, but usually only if it's being used in combat or makes itself known in an overt way.
I just think that if familiars are going to play such a key role for witches then it would make sense to have them be a little better built than the standard familiar or at least give the witch better means to protect them. It's not like enhancing the familiar for the witch will over power the class if it's done only to protect the animal.
I like the idea of the familiar being able to be resurrected after 24 hours, maybe 48 and a week would be the longest I’d go. Even if it's rare for a familiar to die, the few times they do tend to almost always be at critical moments in the game, i.e. just before or during a major battle in a campaign arch. Granted the later might be the final battle, but if it’s not the party has to wait until the witch regains their familiar along with all the spells it once held. Allowing familiar resurrection still penalizes the witch but not overly, since other than scrolls (which still have a cost) they have no other way of backing up their spells. The thing to remember is that at higher levels losing spells doesn’t just cripple the witch, it cripples the party.
Another option might be to have their familiar be a bound spirit that resides in the animal of choice. Then the ritual to recover the familiar is actually a rebinding that could require expenditures of gifts and promises, along with entreating the spirit to accept the new body in addition to the waiting time. Then it becomes a role-playing instrument as the witch not only has to find a suitable animal to be possessed, but also convince the spirit that what just happened won’t happen again. This could also allow the witch to change familiars if they can’t entreat their old familiar back or decide they want a different one as they can then petition a different spirit and start anew. Course the same could be handled by making them go back to the being they get their power from and requesting to get their familiar back.
This concerned me a little as well. First of all, I think they did a great job with Witch. The spell list is flavourful, the abilities seem very well balanced and overall I really, really enjoy the witch. I think that the familiar needs to be tougher myself...I wouldn't give it ANY offensive abilities other then deliver touch based spells....actually it would be really interesting if the witch ended up as the primary touch based caster.
The thing is a wizard doesn’t lose his spells if his familiar or arcane bond bites it, just the benefits that they provide. The witch loses everything they provide plus their spells. It’s not even a fair comparison. Wizards get to make backups of their spells by having more than one spellbook and can also, if necessary, use their spellbook as a scroll by reading the spell straight out of the book. Witches don’t get that luxury or I should say desperate gambit. Besides only a fool wizard would take every spellbook they own into combat with them so them losing all their spells is almost not even an issue except at low level. No matter what level the witch is they will lose all their spells if their familiar dies and can’t be brought back.
Right, and in addition, a familiar is much more vulnerable to damage than a spellbook. To target a wizard's spellbook, the wizard basically has to already be unconscious, while a
I dislike the rules as they currently are primarily because they make the witch's familar more boring than a Wizard's. Because a witch's loss of familiar is so devastating, most witches will just keep their familiar in their pocket to keep it out of harm's way. The familar becomes little more than a talking spellbook, not the independent creature that it should be.
I just think that if familiars are going to play such a key role for witches then it would make sense to have them be a little better built than the standard familiar or at least give the witch better means to protect them. It's not like enhancing the familiar for the witch will over power the class if it's done only to protect the animal.
Right. Even something simple like giving a witch's familar the same HP as the witch, instead of 1/2, would help immensely.
Another option might be to have their familiar be a bound spirit that resides in the animal of choice. Then the ritual to recover the familiar is actually a rebinding that could require expenditures of gifts and promises, along with entreating the spirit to accept the new body in addition to the waiting time.
I like this idea a lot. Not only does it solve the mechanical problem, but it also provides new roleplaying opportunities, and fits the witch's flavor even better than the original "magical animal" definition of the familiar.
|
the cost listed in the witch description for replacing the familiar/spellbook seems unreasonably high, for the few spells it would "replace". 500gp / witch level?
it would be cheaper to replace a spellbook whenever it got lost/stolen/destroyed. and how many enemies run after a wizard's spellbook in the middle of combat?
granted if you keep your familiar on you / out of combat they won't be doing that to your witch either. but then why even have your "pet" be so vulnerable?
i think the witch's familiar should be a little more robust if they're going to place so much value in them. or make them cheaper to replace.
if the familiar is a conduit to the supernatural, why not just have them reform if they die and not cost the witch extra gp. ?
also from a flavor perspective. i think it would be much more fun if the familiars could look like normal animals, but were really darker twisted creatures, visible under true seeing or when they let their disguises drop.
And the thief that steals the arcane bonded ring, or ornate staff? Its just as likely an arcane item gets stolen, and if its a weapon, I have seen several GM's on this board alone say they sunder PC weapons from time to time. Its still as often an occurrence as killing a familiar.The difference is that the first (arcane bond) is the DM specifically deciding to screw with the wizard. The second is just something that happens that the DM would have to specifically avoid doing if he didn't want to screw over the witch.
Yes collateral damage is what I had in mind too. I've dealt damage to the few familiars we didn't forget about and killed at least one animal companion that way.
Yes collateral damage is what I had in mind too. I've dealt damage to the few familiars we didn't forget about and killed at least one animal companion that way.And the thief that steals the arcane bonded ring, or ornate staff? Its just as likely an arcane item gets stolen, and if its a weapon, I have seen several GM's on this board alone say they sunder PC weapons from time to time. Its still as often an occurrence as killing a familiar.The difference is that the first (arcane bond) is the DM specifically deciding to screw with the wizard. The second is just something that happens that the DM would have to specifically avoid doing if he didn't want to screw over the witch.
Yeah that all makes good sense. I think it's more a matter of if you play the game with the RAW because *technically* a burning hands or Fireball spell. Could light up any gear the character is carrying (I've never really seen this played out this way though) making the spellbook just as vulnerable as the stray familiar.
I do enjoy the idea of the familiar being very important to the witch, I'd just like to see it have a little more survivability so the witch could really make use of more touch attack spells, but half of the witch's hp isn't too bad at the lower level if they've got a decent con and good HP rolls... conceptually I'd just like to see the familiar tougher so that it could be utilized in combat. It's supposed to be really important to the witch, but players have a tendency to forget what they don't utilize. I'm going to be playtesting a pair of them during an encounter this weekend, I'll report in when it's done.
An even easier solution would be:
have the "dead" familiar retain all spells, and thus, it can be called back in 24 hours with no loss of arcane goodies.
The witch will still be out of spells for a day and a night.
That solves the problem.
An even easier solution would be:
have the "dead" familiar retain all spells, and thus, it can be called back in 24 hours with no loss of arcane goodies.
The witch will still be out of spells for a day and a night.
That solves the problem.
True. For all we know, the familiar's body may only be a vessel for its spirit (or whatever) which sticks around for as long as the witch is alive (or a period of a year and a days, and so forth).
Alternatively, make a feat that allows the witch to 'lich-ify' the familiar's soul (and all its 'contents') into a phylactery or something.
|
|
The only question I have to all of this is how the Improved Familiar and other such feats work with the witch? I have heard talk of trying to figure out the bonus spells they give, but I personally think that to be merely a Player to GM discussion. So, would using the Improved Familiar feat to get, say, a dire wolf familiar change the vulnerability of the thing? I believe that the Familair for the witch is similar to the Wizard's familiar, meaning that the feat that improves it gives it different HD, thus different HP, and different stats.
Am I just wrong or what? I mean, the description for Improved Familiar says something about how vulnerable familair's are and how some spellcasters want more durability in their companions. I don't see how this is any different.
Also, on the point of stealing a spellbook or bonded Item, I once created a rogue that had, at 2nd level, a +19 to sleight of hand. His combat tactics where to, with the help of the bard, steal the opposing spellcaster's spellbook or whatever and then flank them for a sneak attack. It worked wonders, and I even had the chance by level 4 to disarm a fighter in much the same way, so it can be done if a player puts their minds to it.
I like the idea of the familiar being able to be resurrected after 24 hours, maybe 48 and a week would be the longest I’d go. Even if it's rare for a familiar to die, the few times they do tend to almost always be at critical moments in the game, i.e. just before or during a major battle in a campaign arch. Granted the later might be the final battle, but if it’s not the party has to wait until the witch regains their familiar along with all the...
That is such a cool solution. Wish I had thought of that. It's thinking outside the box, keeps to the spirit of the thing.
|
|
In my 20+ years of playing, I've only seen one Wizard familiar die in a game...and that was a Quasit who decided to scout out in front of the party.
Frankly, I don't see why the Witch's familiar will be any different. Do what every other spellcaster with a familiar does: stick it in the bag of holding or in a familiar pocket.
This "problem" is being overstated, and seems to be driven by "thought exercises" not play-testing.
In my 20+ years of playing, I've only seen one Wizard familiar die in a game...and that was a Quasit who decided to scout out in front of the party.
Frankly, I don't see why the Witch's familiar will be any different. Do what every other spellcaster with a familiar does: stick it in the bag of holding or in a familiar pocket.
This "problem" is being overstated, and seems to be driven by "thought exercises" not play-testing.
I don't have quite the history of playing, but I have to agree, familiars are pretty good at surviving. With Improved Evasion and decent saves, they generally survive the area of effect saves without taking a scratch and at most they take half damage (which if the master fails the save they effectively take the same amount of damage proportionally). More often, I have seen the master die from an explosion or whatnot, and the familiar is sitting there undamaged.
|
|
Other variations, local cleric seeking to remove competition starts a crusade against cats...or your familiar beast of choice.
Did you know that this is one of the reasons the black plague started? People thought cats were the eyes and ears of witches, and killed them, leading to a rise in the rat population, who carried to plague.
|
In my 20+ years of playing, I've only seen one Wizard familiar die in a game...and that was a Quasit who decided to scout out in front of the party.
Frankly, I don't see why the Witch's familiar will be any different. Do what every other spellcaster with a familiar does: stick it in the bag of holding or in a familiar pocket.
This "problem" is being overstated, and seems to be driven by "thought exercises" not play-testing.
In my experience familiars tend to die in games where people remember that they're around. They are not nearly as resilient as people think they are. The reason why people do is that in most games the familiar "disappears" when anything dangerous happens.
I just finished a playtest session with a level 5 Witch and their familiar nearly died. A single fireball from an equal level caster dropped it right to the ground. The witch had a decent amount of hitpoints (32, with a 14 Con), so it's not like the familiar's hitpoints were exceptionally low compared to the average expected witch's familiar. The caster rolled an almost exactly average fireball (19 damage, whereas 17.5 would have been average). The familiar rolled a 9 for their save, so not *exceptionally* low, but still missed the DC of 17 by a wide margin.
The issue with the Witch's familiar is that it should be more interactive than the normal wizard's familiar that you mostly forget is around until you remember why you're memorizing familiar pocket. At least this is the sense I get from the writeup of the class. Given the risk of losing a familiar you'll never see a witch use one to deliver a touch attack. You'll never see a witch let their raven scout ahead. You'll never see a witch let their familiar out of the familiar pocket unless it's to commune for spells. That strikes me as wrong, how about you?
I don't recommend that the familiar be easily "raised" after a death unless there is some other downside to having a familiar die. It shouldn't be "like a spellbook but better", at least, I don't get the sense that it should be. But it's probably worth looking into ways to make a familiar dying different from losing a spellbook. The fact remains that a familiar is more vulnerable than a spellbook because of it's more independent nature. Is it *far* more? I don't think so, but that's up to personal experience. Also, thieves have an incentive to steal a spellbook and not destroy it. There is no such incentive for the enemies of the witch. I think that these two combined mean that such a hefty monetary penalty for the loss of a familiar might quickly become a gold sink for an unlucky witch.
There are other factors to consider, but I'm not sure how much to weigh them. The first is that a wizard can make multiple spellbooks. Not only backups (which is a rather significant advantage I think), but also keep multiple smaller books so that some spells are safer than others. Spellbooks are not often (ever?) in plain view during a combat. Keep in mind that fireballs and other instantaneous fire magic don't set equipment or characters on fire. It's actually rather difficult to set equipment on a person on fire (a reletively low reflex save that you can get a large bonus to by doing something instinctive to most people). In any case, I think this is a "danger" for spellbooks, but not so much that you can compare it to the vulnerability of the familiar.
The issue with the Witch's familiar is that it should be more interactive than the normal wizard's familiar that you mostly forget is around until you remember why you're memorizing familiar pocket. At least this is the sense I get from the writeup of the class. Given the risk of losing a familiar you'll never see a witch use one to deliver a touch attack. You'll never see a witch let their raven scout ahead. You'll never see a witch let their familiar out of the familiar pocket unless it's to commune for spells. That strikes me as wrong, how about you?
Absolutely agree with everything in this paragraph. The familiar is supposed to be (or at least, was supposed to be, when the class was initially being talked about) a major centerpiece of the class. At the moment, it's so fragile and so important to the witch's ability to function in any reasonable capacity that it is likely to spend its entire existence in the china cabinet because it's too priceless to actually use to set the table.
|
|
The familiar is supposed to be (or at least, was supposed to be, when the class was initially being talked about) a major centerpiece of the class. At the moment, it's so fragile and so important to the witch's ability to function in any reasonable capacity that it is likely to spend its entire existence in the china cabinet because it's too priceless to actually use to set the table.
I'd prefer for the Familiar to be some sort of native Outsider, with celestial / fiendish / protean / whatever abilities (perhaps even using the relevant templates, to determine it's damage reduction / energy resistances), which takes the form of an animal while in this plane. It should be intelligent enough to be a meaningful tutor of magical lore, and able to communicate with the Witch, at least, at 1st level.
The best example I can think of is from an Patricia McKillip book, the Forgotten Beasts of Eld, where the 'sorceress' Sybel has, among other mystical beasts, an abnormally large black cat named Moriah has served as familiar to countless witches, and is rumored to have forgotten more about charms and hexes than most living witches know. The cat was at least the size of a bobcat or lynx, and quite capable of killing an armed soldier (being a mystical beast, it was somewhat resistant to weapons, IIRC).
IMO, the Witches familiar should be more like this. Not a patch on the butt of a Summoner or Druid's pet (since it's damage doesn't increase with levels and it remains a jumped-up housecat or whatever, with stats not much better than a Wolf or Eagle with damage resistance 5 and some immunities), but smart, mystical and otherworldly, not just a carbon copy of the Wizard/Sorcerer class ability.
If the Witches spellcasting needs to take a minor hit, to compensate for the Familiar being better, then so be it.
And then the Witch can have a special spell called 'Death by Kitty' that increases the size of her familiar by X. (More levels means more X.) That way she can have her now Huge housecat stalk people around like in that Halloween-themed episode of the old Star Trek series. :)
If the Witches spellcasting needs to take a minor hit, to compensate for the Familiar being better, then so be it.And then the Witch can have a special spell called 'Death by Kitty' that increases the size of her familiar by X. (More levels means more X.) That way she can have her now Huge housecat stalk people around like in that Halloween-themed episode of the old Star Trek series. :)
LOL
There was an old game series called Heroes Quest (Or Quest for Glory, depending on the version). In one of the episodes, you broke into this house, and if you got too near the cat this old woman's voice came from a back room and says 'Kitty? What's that noise?' At which point the cute black housecat turned into a panther the size of a shetland pony and ate you. ;)
Back to on topic...
I think there are two very good solutions in this thread. One, is perfectly fine per RAW, which is, make 2 copies of all your spells and store them in two bags of holding. One bag of holding you leave at home in a steel box under your hearth. The second bag of holding you put in a waterproof map case and store at the bottom of your backpack.
If your familiar dies, teach your new one all the spells, then make new spell scrolls.
The second one, and I like this one, is that your familiar is a spirit that inhabits a normal animal. Then the witch can take 'Improved Familiar' and gain bigger/better familiars (tigers, wolves, fiendish/celestial owls, etc), and just move the spirit to a new animal. If the physical body dies, it takes a ritual and, say, a week (and a few hundred gold) to put the spirit back into a new body.
James please consider the spirit inhabiting an animal angle, it really really fits with the witch and makes a loss of a familiar painful but not catastrophic.
EDIT: Technically, a third way would be to case resurrection on the familiar, as soon as it is alive again it has all those spells again.
|
|
The familiar is supposed to be (or at least, was supposed to be, when the class was initially being talked about) a major centerpiece of the class. At the moment, it's so fragile and so important to the witch's ability to function in any reasonable capacity that it is likely to spend its entire existence in the china cabinet because it's too priceless to actually use to set the table.I'd prefer for the Familiar to be some sort of native Outsider, with celestial / fiendish / protean / whatever abilities (perhaps even using the relevant templates, to determine it's damage reduction / energy resistances), which takes the form of an animal while in this plane. It should be intelligent enough to be a meaningful tutor of magical lore, and able to communicate with the Witch, at least, at 1st level.
The best example I can think of is from an Patricia McKillip book, the Forgotten Beasts of Eld, where the 'sorceress' Sybel has, among other mystical beasts, an abnormally large black cat named Moriah has served as familiar to countless witches, and is rumored to have forgotten more about charms and hexes than most living witches know. The cat was at least the size of a bobcat or lynx, and quite capable of killing an armed soldier (being a mystical beast, it was somewhat resistant to weapons, IIRC).
IMO, the Witches familiar should be more like this. Not a patch on the butt of a Summoner or Druid's pet (since it's damage doesn't increase with levels and it remains a jumped-up housecat or whatever, with stats not much better than a Wolf or Eagle with damage resistance 5 and some immunities), but smart, mystical and otherworldly, not just a carbon copy of the Wizard/Sorcerer class ability.
If the Witches spellcasting needs to take a minor hit, to compensate for the Familiar being better, then so be it.
And then the Witch can have a special spell called 'Death by Kitty' that increases the size of her familiar by X. (More levels means more X.) That way she can have her now Huge...
I'd actually prefer that the familiar *not* be all that much more powerful, just that it not cost so much to lose. I say this in part because I'm not a fan of pet classes (though I acknowledge that this is a personal preference and that many people enjoy them.) I'd like a Witch's familiar, like a Wizards, to be a slightly tougher version of the normal animal. That is, not so tough at all.
I'm not actually opposed so much to the familiar being vulnerable. I think that fits the Witch well. Given my recent experience it could stand to be a little tougher. Though I think that's true of wizard familiars as well. I'm mostly just opposed to the amount of gold a witch could potentially end up sinking into their familiar. You can say the same of spellbooks (but they don't cost 500g per level plus all the extra spells) and for the reasons I outlined above, I don't think they're as easily comparable as people claim.
With all that said, I think your concept could be done with a slightly less vulnerable familiar whose loss wasn't quite as risky and maybe the improved familiar feat. Or perhaps a summoner with a little stretching?
|
|
I'm not actually opposed so much to the familiar being vulnerable. I think that fits the Witch well. Given my recent experience it could stand to be a little tougher. Though I think that's true of wizard familiars as well. I'm mostly just opposed to the amount of gold a witch could potentially end up sinking into their familiar. You can say the same of spellbooks (but they don't cost 500g per level plus all the extra spells) and for the reasons I outlined above, I don't think they're as easily comparable as people claim.
I don't consider them comparable at all, as spellbooks are easier to keep secured away in your belongings (or even shoved in a Secret Chest or something), and easier to repair if 'broken' via spells. Returning a familiar from the dead seems like it would be harder, although the Witch does indeed have those sorts of spells.
I like the idea of the familiar being a spirit in animal form, and the death of the animal being a temporary setback, requiring it to be conjured up into a new animal body.
I like the way they have the familiar as an active part of the witch. Without changing too much maybe giving the witch a d8 for hp and if the familiar is within a close proximity, the witch takes the damage instead. If the familiar is farther away, that protection won't happen. So unless the familiar is not close to the witch it won't die the witch will. In the case of it being further away and the witch's death, like others have said the familiar being spirit form so still a set back but not as badly.
|
|
Going with the scroll backup of spells would become a feat tax requiring every Witch to take scribe scroll, and if they got it free like Wizards do they start blurring more into a variant Wizard rather than their own unique niche in my opinion.
And that right there is my main issue with the Witch. It's just not different enough to be a class on it's own, IMO. It's a funky Wizard, that feels more different than a Universalist from a Diviner or Necromancer, but not different *enough.*
I love the Summoner, and find the Cavalier to be okay for whatever audience it is meant to please (I play casters, mostly), but the Oracle and Witch haven't really struck me as different or distinctive enough to warrant a whole new class. They feel like modified Clerics and Wizards.
Here's a thought to make familiars more magical without making them too unbalanced: Give them nine lives. If your cat is killed, it can come back a total of eight times. After that, it's gone, short of doing some reasonably expensive spell to get it back: I'd suggest Limited Wish.
If the familiar dies, it comes back in a manner akin to Reincarnation, but in its same body but at the location of the master, not wherever it was killed, so the BBEG can't just keep skinning the cat until it stops coming back.
I hope there will be Spell Lists for the Improved Familiars (and the rest of the familiars not listed yet).
|
|
Second, the summoner class gives some good ideas of other ways to make the witch's familiar more resilient: give the witch the life bond class feature, make her familiar a summoned creature, and/or give her familiar a small number of evolution points to spend on a limited list of (mostly) defensive evolutions.
Actually a thought which might prove interesting would be to increase abilities granted by the familiar so that the witch gets to chose from unlike the wizard who's stuck with what is listed. In addition to the cat granting the +3 bonus on Stealth checks, it might also grant darkvision, a perception bonus, or some other aspects similiar to a cat. Granting more options for having a familiar would fit into the build design and limiting the choice to the witch would not over power it since they only get one unless a feat would be offered to take more. The special ability granted by the familiar is very similar in power to what a trait offers so bulding the options for the witch along that mentality should help keep the familiar in check.