If a wizard chooses a bonded item & loses it, there are at least some inconvenient consequences. If a wizard loses his familiar, there are absolutely no consequences.
Those of you who played 1st & 2nd edition may recall that losing a familiar could be pretty dreadful. Nothing happening when a familiar is lost as is the case now just doesn't feel right. I am considering adopting the same outcome that happens to a shadowdancer when he loses his shadow for the wizard & familiar. Basically make a save or lose a level.
What do you think?
If a wizard chooses a bonded item & loses it, there are at least some inconvenient consequences. If a wizard loses his familiar, there are absolutely no consequences.
Those of you who played 1st & 2nd edition may recall that losing a familiar could be pretty dreadful. Nothing happening when a familiar is lost as is the case now just doesn't feel right. I am considering adopting the same outcome that happens to a shadowdancer when he loses his shadow for the wizard & familiar. Basically make a save or lose a level.
What do you think?
Hmmm I get what you are saying, and absolutely agree with the sentiment, however 'make a roll or lose a level' doesn't really do much to add weight or gravitas to the situation.
Its either 'yay' I saved or 'boo' I failed - no real attachment, and no way to make amends/fix the problem...
If a wizard chooses a bonded item & loses it, there are at least some inconvenient consequences. If a wizard loses his familiar, there are absolutely no consequences.
Those of you who played 1st & 2nd edition may recall that losing a familiar could be pretty dreadful. Nothing happening when a familiar is lost as is the case now just doesn't feel right. I am considering adopting the same outcome that happens to a shadowdancer when he loses his shadow for the wizard & familiar. Basically make a save or lose a level.
What do you think?
Well the wizard does lose the bonus the familiar gave them, lose your toad and you're 3hp down, not to mention the other abilities like delivering touch spells.
If a wizard chooses a bonded item & loses it, there are at least some inconvenient consequences. If a wizard loses his familiar, there are absolutely no consequences.
Those of you who played 1st & 2nd edition may recall that losing a familiar could be pretty dreadful. Nothing happening when a familiar is lost as is the case now just doesn't feel right. I am considering adopting the same outcome that happens to a shadowdancer when he loses his shadow for the wizard & familiar. Basically make a save or lose a level.
What do you think?
My train of thought:
1) Hmmm... well, the Shadowdancer is a prestige class. What happens when a 1st level wizard loses his familiar? Does he die just as if he had recieved negative levels?
2) Even if he's got a few levels under his belt, but not a lot, isn't losing a levels still pretty harsh, especially if he's under level 5?
3) Why not just make the penalty be like for a druid who loses their animal companion or a cavalier who loses their mount, and give him a -2 to attack and damage rolls for X amount of time?
4) 2nd Ed. has THACO. Nearly everything is dreadful.
If a wizard chooses a bonded item & loses it, there are at least some inconvenient consequences. If a wizard loses his familiar, there are absolutely no consequences.
Those of you who played 1st & 2nd edition may recall that losing a familiar could be pretty dreadful. Nothing happening when a familiar is lost as is the case now just doesn't feel right. I am considering adopting the same outcome that happens to a shadowdancer when he loses his shadow for the wizard & familiar. Basically make a save or lose a level.
What do you think?My train of thought:
1) Hmmm... well, the Shadowdancer is a prestige class. What happens when a 1st level wizard loses his familiar? Does he die just as if he had recieved negative levels?
2) Even if he's got a few levels under his belt, but not a lot, isn't losing a levels still pretty harsh, especially if he's under level 5?
3) Why not just make the penalty be like for a druid who loses their animal companion or a cavalier who loses their mount, and give him a -2 to attack and damage rolls for X amount of time?
4) 2nd Ed. has THACO. Nearly everything is dreadful.
You bring up some good points.
Well, when a wizard loses his bonded item, he then has to make a spellcraft check every time he wants to cast a spell without it (assuming I'm remembering correctly). So how's about that same penalty for being without a familiar?
If a wizard chooses a bonded item & loses it, there are at least some inconvenient consequences. If a wizard loses his familiar, there are absolutely no consequences.
Those of you who played 1st & 2nd edition may recall that losing a familiar could be pretty dreadful. Nothing happening when a familiar is lost as is the case now just doesn't feel right. I am considering adopting the same outcome that happens to a shadowdancer when he loses his shadow for the wizard & familiar. Basically make a save or lose a level.
What do you think?My train of thought:
1) Hmmm... well, the Shadowdancer is a prestige class. What happens when a 1st level wizard loses his familiar? Does he die just as if he had recieved negative levels?
2) Even if he's got a few levels under his belt, but not a lot, isn't losing a levels still pretty harsh, especially if he's under level 5?
3) Why not just make the penalty be like for a druid who loses their animal companion or a cavalier who loses their mount, and give him a -2 to attack and damage rolls for X amount of time?
4) 2nd Ed. has THACO. Nearly everything is dreadful.
You bring up some good points.
Well, when a wizard loses his bonded item, he then has to make a spellcraft check every time he wants to cast a spell without it (assuming I'm remembering correctly). So how's about that same penalty for being without a familiar?
Perfectly fine and balanced, to be honest. :)
Contributor, RPG Superstar 2010 Top 8
|
The consequence for losing your familiar is that you lose your best friend and you become very sad :'(
But seriously, I'm not sure using the same penalty as losing a bonded item is fair. Familiars are more vulnerable and provide a smaller bonus than a bonded item, so it makes sense that losing them should penalize you less.
|
The consequence for losing your familiar is that you lose your best friend and you become very sad :'(
But seriously, I'm not sure using the same penalty as losing a bonded item is fair. Familiars are more vulnerable and provide a smaller bonus than a bonded item, so it makes sense that losing them should penalize you less.
This.
Familiars are more vulnerable and provide a smaller bonus than a bonded item, so it makes sense that losing them should penalize you less.
That is a matter of opinion. Familars can spy, deliver spells(I am not justifying doing it without precaution). They can be given ranks of UMD to provide extra actions in a round. Economy of actions rules the game so the familiar is a free standard action, and nobody attacks the familiar unless he does something attention worthy.
Wizard-doing various annoying things
Cleric-buffing and fighting as needed
rogue-making you bleed
fighter-bringing the pain
Familiar-watching the fight most of the time, since many people dont use them.
The fact that people don't use them to the best of their ability does not mean they are not very useful.
all the item does is help you with one spell. The familar can actually cast spells if you play it right.
one spell vs many spells, I think the familar wins.
This.The consequence for losing your familiar is that you lose your best friend and you become very sad :'(
But seriously, I'm not sure using the same penalty as losing a bonded item is fair. Familiars are more vulnerable and provide a smaller bonus than a bonded item, so it makes sense that losing them should penalize you less.
I am beginning to see that you lack of ways to identify the bonded item, and use a familiar are due to a lack of an ability to think outside the box. I am not being insulting, but really. There is no way I could not find a bonded item if I really needed to know what it was. There is also no way I could not make use of free standard actions.
|
|
I am beginning to see that you lack of ways to identify the bonded item, and use a familiar are due to a lack of an ability to think outside the box. I am not being insulting, but really. There is no way I could not find a bonded item if I really needed to know what it was. There is also no way I could not make use of free standard actions.This.The consequence for losing your familiar is that you lose your best friend and you become very sad :'(
But seriously, I'm not sure using the same penalty as losing a bonded item is fair. Familiars are more vulnerable and provide a smaller bonus than a bonded item, so it makes sense that losing them should penalize you less.
\
Don't thread drag...
Having the ability to cast any spell you know, regardless of if you have prepared it in advance > Familiar.
Therefore
Losing a familiar < DC 20 + the spell's level concentration check.
I am beginning to see that you lack of ways to identify the bonded item, and use a familiar are due to a lack of an ability to think outside the box. I am not being insulting, but really. There is no way I could not find a bonded item if I really needed to know what it was. There is also no way I could not make use of free standard actions.This.The consequence for losing your familiar is that you lose your best friend and you become very sad :'(
But seriously, I'm not sure using the same penalty as losing a bonded item is fair. Familiars are more vulnerable and provide a smaller bonus than a bonded item, so it makes sense that losing them should penalize you less.
\
Don't thread drag...
Having the ability to cast any spell you know, regardless of if you have prepared it in advance > Familiar.
Therefore
Losing a familiar < DC 20 + the spell's level concentration check.
Wrong. You can have spells(plural) that you don't like to prepare on scrolls. Your familiar can then cast those spells with a UMD check. One spell is not as good as a lot of spells.
Even if I dont have a familiar or an item, assuming it was allowed I could still buy scrolls which are cheap, so at best the bonded item allows me to do a cheap trick. Actually since wizards get scribe scroll for free I can get the cheap trick for half price.|
Contributor, RPG Superstar 2010 Top 8
|
Familiars are more vulnerable and provide a smaller bonus than a bonded item, so it makes sense that losing them should penalize you less.That is a matter of opinion. Familars can spy, deliver spells(I am not justifying doing it without precaution). They can be given ranks of UMD to provide extra actions in a round. Economy of actions rules the game so the familiar is a free standard action, and nobody attacks the familiar unless he does something attention worthy.
Wizard-doing various annoying things
Cleric-buffing and fighting as needed
rogue-making you bleed
fighter-bringing the pain
Familiar-watching the fight most of the time, since many people dont use them.The fact that people don't use them to the best of their ability does not mean they are not very useful.
all the item does is help you with one spell. The familar can actually cast spells if you play it right.
one spell vs many spells, I think the familar wins.
I'm not saying they're bad (in fact, I prefer familiars, for a lot of the reasons you listed.)
But making a familiar kick butt in a fight is contingent upon a lot of things, like putting ranks in UMD (not a class skill for either of you, and they have poor Cha, so it'll be a while before this really kicks in), supplying it with UMDable items--even getting your GM to let your familiar UMD to begin with. Remember, "some skills may remain beyond the familiar's ability to use.", and I know GMs who would balk at the idea of a wand wielding toad. Also, like you say, delivering touch spells requires some caution.
You're reward for making it combat-useful? You attract the attention of the enemy. Yeah, the big bad probably isn't going to bother wasting an action on it, but not every enemy fights logically. Animals might attack the closest critter. Minions looking for a target might take a swing at your little buddy. Even with Evasion, area attacks are dangerous. All it takes is one lucky hit and with half your hit points, ker-splat.
This is why, back when getting your familiar dead meant a hit to your XP, a lot of people stuck the poor thing in their backpack and forgot about them completely.
Meanwhile the bonded item gets you a free spell of any level, and you don't have to prep it ahead of time. Having just the right spell at just the right time? Pretty dang BA.
|
|
Wrong. You can have spells(plural) that you don't like to prepare on scrolls. Your familiar can then cast those spells with a UMD check. One spell is not as good as a lot of spells.
Even if I dont have a familiar or an item, assuming it was allowed I could still buy scrolls which are cheap, so at best the bonded item allows me to do a cheap trick. Actually since wizards get scribe scroll for free I can get the cheap trick for half price.
You carry around a scroll for every spell you know? Then re-scribe them as you go up in caster level. And have quick draw so you can get them out as a free action.
How do you afford equipment?
I'm not saying they're bad (in fact, I prefer familiars, for a lot of the reasons you listed.)
But making a familiar kick butt in a fight is contingent upon a lot of things, like putting ranks in UMD (not a class skill for either of you, and they have poor Cha, so it'll be a while before this really kicks in),
So it sucks at low levels just like casters do. That does not make the bonded item better
even getting your GM to let your familiar UMD to begin with.
If the familiar has opposable thumbs he can use scrolls. Now if the wizard took a toad I would say the DM would be right to say no. I never said all familiars were created equally.
You're reward for making it combat-useful? You attract the attention of the enemy. Yeah, the big bad probably isn't going to bother wasting an action on it, but not every enemy fights logically. Animals might attack the closest critter. Minions looking for a target might take a swing at your little buddy. Even with Evasion, area attacks are dangerous. All it takes is one lucky hit and with half your hit points, ker-splat.
The only enemies that don't fight logically are animals. Even a really dumb humanoid will go after the wizard or fighter first. I am assuming the DM is playing realistically here. If we can't assume that a lot of discussion fall apart. I as a wizards will not be the closest to any animal, but for the sake of argument will saves are nice to target. I will also add I doubt I will need my familiar to defeat an animal so if the DM targets it, then UMD had nothing to do with it. It is not like I expect my familiar to be wasting scrolls every round. They are cheap, but not cheap enough to use for no reason. If someone can get close to the familiar they can get close to me. If they are that smart then they are smart enough to go after me which might get me killed, but UMD has nothing to do with that either.
You're reward for making it combat-useful? You attract the attention of the enemy. Yeah, the big bad probably isn't going to bother wasting an action on it, but not every enemy fights logically. Animals might attack the closest critter. Minions looking for a target might take a swing at your little buddy. Even with Evasion, area attacks are dangerous. All it takes is one...
Wrong. You can have spells(plural) that you don't like to prepare on scrolls. Your familiar can then cast those spells with a UMD check. One spell is not as good as a lot of spells.
Even if I dont have a familiar or an item, assuming it was allowed I could still buy scrolls which are cheap, so at best the bonded item allows me to do a cheap trick. Actually since wizards get scribe scroll for free I can get the cheap trick for half price.You carry around a scroll for every spell you know? Then re-scribe them as you go up in caster level. And have quick draw so you can get them out as a free action.
How do you afford equipment?
I did not say every spell I know. I said the ones I don't like to prepare. Why do I need to quick draw them, which IIRC does not work on scrolls anyway. Just because I need a scroll that does not mean I have to use it "right now". A well played wizard will have the correct combat spells memorized anyway. The bonded item spell is more useful for non-combat encounters. As an example I don't use a lot of save or suck spells, but if I need to get into a barred area using the bond for charm person would be nice. Now if I was using a familiar I would probably change my strategy and memorize charm person since scrolls have bad save DC's, and make scrolls of spells with no saves. Not all situations are combat based, and most combats don't depend on one spell. If they did many parties would die so the bonded item saving the day is a weak argument.
|
Contributor, RPG Superstar 2010 Top 8
|
So it sucks at low levels just like casters do. That does not make the bonded item better
It makes the bonded item better at low levels, doesn't it? :D
If the familiar has opposable thumbs he can use scrolls. Now if the wizard took a toad I would say the DM would be right to say no. I never said all familiars were created equally.
So...monkey? Unless you're talking Improved Familiar, which is a whole 'nother matter entirely.
The only enemies that don't fight logically are animals. Even a really dumb humanoid will go after the wizard or fighter first. I am assuming the DM is playing realistically here. If we can't assume that a lot of discussion fall apart. I as a wizards will not be the closest to any animal, but for the sake of argument will saves are nice to target. I will also add I doubt I will need my familiar to defeat an animal so if the DM targets it, then UMD had nothing to do with it. It is not like I expect my familiar to be wasting scrolls every round. They are cheap, but not cheap enough to use for no reason. If someone can get close to the familiar they can get close to me. If they are that smart then they are smart enough to go after me which might get me killed, but UMD has nothing to do with that either.
Don't forget plants, oozes, unintelligent undead, and pretty much anything in the 0-3 Int range at the very least. There are high CR threats out there that aren't smart enough to ignore the familiar, especially if it's hitting them with spells. Plus, even with intelligent enemies, if they outnumber PCs, someone will eventually take a swing at the scroll-monkey. Especially if, as the OP is considering, losing the scroll-monkey penalizes the wizard ala bonded item.
I'll meet you halfway. It's possible, at higher levels, with a properly optimized monkey, to top the bonded item. Not everyone is going to have a properly optimized monkey. The bonded item is usable and effective off the shelf with little to no extra investment. Hell, it practically enchants itself :). Therefore, to most players, the bonded item is going to be better.
Back on the original subject, do you think applying bonded item penalties for losing a familiar is fair?
OK.... well, for the people who think being unable to cast spells is still bad, there is still the penalty that a druid or cav gets when they lose their companion/mount. I'd say thats still on the table.
also a mean Gm could makes rules that your familiar could not stay in the inn. Then have a starving street person eat it. If you take an amulet as a bonded object and hide it under your clothes. Then people will have a hard time stealing it from you. The rules state it must be worn but that does not mean displayed. freely for people to grab.
I see we have a lot of people that don't know how to use familars, and people who assume the familiar is active in combat. I took care of that example before you even presented it.
also a mean Gm could makes rules that your familiar could not stay in the inn. Then have a starving street person eat it. If you take an amulet as a bonded object and hide it under your clothes. Then people will have a hard time stealing it from you. The rules state it must be worn but that does not mean displayed. freely for people to grab.
Why on earth would I stay in an inn? Those quaint establishments for for lesser folk -- like commoners, fighters, and the like.
I prefer to leave it as it is, for one simple reason.
The Wizard is already the most-easily-jacked with guy in the game. Take away a fighter's prized sword and he just picks up another weapon and keeps going. Sure- he's not as good as he should be with "his weapon" but he still plugs along, doing his thing. The same for the rogue, and really every other class. Even the divine classes can, with a simple skill check, carve/whittle/cobble together a passable holy symbol and keep doing their thing,
When the wizard loses his spell book he's s c r e w e d. Period. There is no "snag a new spell book" option. he's just 100% dead weight until he can either get one of his spares- if he was high enough level to afford one- or slowly start to cobble together a new one.
With PF wizards got a new option. The arcane bonded object, Or a familiar.
See, before, you could simply opt not to get a familiar. /this is no longer true/ Reading RAW you either have an annoying pet or a "have it or fail" item.
With no penalty to losing a familiar however, it gives a character a 3rd option. To go solo- no Achille's heel item and no annoying side kick.
Options are good.
Besides- you are already losing something if your familiar dies.
/you are losing your familiar/. Thats potentially a 2nd roll for any and every skill check you have plus an extra set of (probably) smaller and more-scout worthy eyes.. not to mention alertness and whatever other effect your particular little ball of fluff gives you.
You don't need another penalty on top of that penalty.
-S
|
Contributor, RPG Superstar 2010 Top 8
|
I see we have a lot of people that don't know how to use familars, and people who assume the familiar is active in combat. I took care of that example before you even presented it.
Er, but didn't you bring up using the familiar in combat? The whole UMD, free standard action, nobody attacks the familiar thing? That's where that came from, I thought.
| 1 person marked this as FAQ candidate. |
Familliars can not make use of Use Magic Device.They can be given ranks of UMD to provide extra actions in a round. Economy of actions rules the game so the familiar is a free standard action, and nobody attacks the familiar unless he does something attention worthy.
Citation please.
Well I don't see anything that says they CAN'T do it.
However unless the owner had a significant personal investment in UMD the familiar wont be rocking much - as they only get the number of ranks their master has, but none of his/her stat bonuses.
Given most familiars have a low CHA, you are loooking at a pretty low number.
Hence the utility is going to be pretty poor except for pretty basic stuff, and even that is a long time later in the piece when the owner has some decent levels invested.
I see we have a lot of people that don't know how to use familars, and people who assume the familiar is active in combat. I took care of that example before you even presented it.Er, but didn't you bring up using the familiar in combat? The whole UMD, free standard action, nobody attacks the familiar thing? That's where that came from, I thought.
It was a part of a larger argument. A part of the argument was that it interferes sometimes. I also added why attack the least useful party member along with other things which I am too lazy to repeat.
Well I don't see anything that says they CAN'T do it.
However unless the owner had a significant personal investment in UMD the familiar wont be rocking much - as they only get the number of ranks their master has, but none of his/her stat bonuses.
Given most familiars have a low CHA, you are loooking at a pretty low number.
Hence the utility is going to be pretty poor except for pretty basic stuff, and even that is a long time later in the piece when the owner has some decent levels invested.
Improved Familiar Psuedodragon (or fairy dragon) is a great deal on this side -- it has UMD as a class skill, speach, telepathy, blindsense, reach of 5 with its tail, poison, immunities, etc.
The fairy dragon is an actual caster and therefore item use accordingly.
While many familiars don't immediately lend themselves to UMD at first level gaining enough to be good at it isn't that hard for them, and even without it the monkey familiar is quite proficient at lobbing alchemical items (tanglefoot bags, thunderstones, holy water, etc) handing you items, feeding you potions, etc.
Hmmm I dunno, a Monkey Familiar has a Cha of 5, so thats going to be a bit of a hinderance; whats the mechanic for giving it a reasonably functioning UMD score? given that you need 3 ranks for it to even get to UMD=0? Can't find reference to a Pseudo getting UMD either in the Bestiary.
I'm curious as familiars using items is a bit of a new take for me, and I'm interested in how you could do it short of a significant skill burn and Imp familiar etc?
Hmmm I dunno, a Monkey Familiar has a Cha of 5, so thats going to be a bit of a hinderance; whats the mechanic for giving it a reasonably functioning UMD score? given that you need 3 ranks for it to even get to UMD=0? Can't find reference to a Pseudo getting UMD either in the Bestiary.
I'm curious as familiars using items is a bit of a new take for me, and I'm interested in how you could do it short of a significant skill burn and Imp familiar etc?
If you have a negative modifier it does not prevent you from using the skill. You just have to be mentally, and physically capable. By the rules he gets the wizard's ranks, if any, in it. Familiars are sentient, and the monkey has opposable thumbs. Other than DM Fiat nothing should stop it. Imp Familiar makes it better. You could also give the monkey the headband of persuasion(correct name?). I just did not use that feat in my original post because I don't really expect to use the familiar to use scrolls, just magic items like wands. I expect a wizard to have a high enough spellcraft to now have to worry about activating things blindly. I don't expect the monkey to be great at UMD at low levels, and not even competent until later, but being able to provide an occasional spell in addition to scouting is not bad at all. Information is often priceless, and walking into a situation knowing what to expect has saved many parties. At the least it can make a job a lot easier.
Sure, I take all that - wouldn't be until the higher levsls that the familiar was vaguely reliable for the most basic functions - but by then I'd be more worried about it getting tagged in by an AoE spell and carking.
|
If a wizard chooses a bonded item & loses it, there are at least some inconvenient consequences. If a wizard loses his familiar, there are absolutely no consequences.
Those of you who played 1st & 2nd edition may recall that losing a familiar could be pretty dreadful. Nothing happening when a familiar is lost as is the case now just doesn't feel right. I am considering adopting the same outcome that happens to a shadowdancer when he loses his shadow for the wizard & familiar. Basically make a save or lose a level.
What do you think?
Try the consequences a witch faces, lose your familiar, lose you whole spell book. The witch was supposed to have the familiar as more important role playing component of the class, my witches familiar pretty much doesn't exist in the game other then as a line on the character sheet. For a witch trying to be more involved with your familiar is about as smart as a wizard trying to smother a fire with his spell book, so I wouldn't bother making the consequences worse unless you would like to guarantee your wizards choose the bonded item over a familiar every time.
I prefer to leave it as it is, for one simple reason.
The Wizard is already the most-easily-jacked with guy in the game. Take away a fighter's prized sword and he just picks up another weapon and keeps going. Sure- he's not as good as he should be with "his weapon" but he still plugs along, doing his thing. The same for the rogue, and really every other class. Even the divine classes can, with a simple skill check, carve/whittle/cobble together a passable holy symbol and keep doing their thing,
When the wizard loses his spell book he's s c r e w e d. Period. There is no "snag a new spell book" option. he's just 100% dead weight until he can either get one of his spares- if he was high enough level to afford one- or slowly start to cobble together a new one.
With PF wizards got a new option. The arcane bonded object, Or a familiar.
See, before, you could simply opt not to get a familiar. /this is no longer true/ Reading RAW you either have an annoying pet or a "have it or fail" item.With no penalty to losing a familiar however, it gives a character a 3rd option. To go solo- no Achille's heel item and no annoying side kick.
Options are good.
Besides- you are already losing something if your familiar dies.
/you are losing your familiar/. Thats potentially a 2nd roll for any and every skill check you have plus an extra set of (probably) smaller and more-scout worthy eyes.. not to mention alertness and whatever other effect your particular little ball of fluff gives you.
You don't need another penalty on top of that penalty.-S
I Agree, not all players want the bonded object or familiar. At least with the familiar, and a little drowning, you can get back to basics.... wizard with spell book, wizard without bird droping on his hat or shoulder.
If I may make a small suggestion, for anyone who would like to create a house rule on a penalty for losing a familiar. My inspiration for the idea I have comes from one of my favorite lesser-known Dragonlance books "Night of the Eye". The wizard in said book has had his Seagull familiar for much of his life, when he loses the seagull (sorry for the spoiler, but the book is quite old), it tears away part of his will/mind. So my suggestion is this, a Wisdom score penalty, on an increasing skill by level (eg, the longer you are with said familiar the worse the penalty). I see the penalty as the following:
1st lvl: -1 Wis until you summon a new familiar
2nd lvl: -2 Wis until you summon a new familiar
3rd lvl: -2 Wis lasting for 1 week after you summon new familiar
4th lvl: -2 Wis lasting 2 weeks after summoning new familiar
5th lvl: -3 Wis until you summon new familiar
6th lvl: -3 wis lasting 1 week after summoning new familiar
7th lvl: -3 wis lasting 2 weeks after summoning new familiar
8th lvl: -4 wish until you summon new familar
ETC
(this list could also be read as "1st level with a familiar" to give the idea of time passing, rather than just "level 1, level 2, etc" so that penalty is tied to time spent with the familiar rather than class level.)
I think you get the jist. time frame and negatives can be adjusted, and I would also add that if you make it to 12-15th level with the same familiar, and then lose it you would suffer the normal negative, but all the wis would not return, even with magical healing (so at 12th, maybe -1 would stay, at 15th, -2 would stay, etc). This shows the bond created between caster and creature, and shows the mental strain suffered when it dies. Thoughts?
Pseudodragons and faeire dragons are two completely different creatures, the former is on the improved familliar list, the latter is not. While the faerie dragon is indeed a caster, you can't bond to it as a familliar.
Improved Familiar Psuedodragon (or fairy dragon) is a great deal on this side -- it has UMD as a class skill, speach, telepathy, blindsense, reach of 5 with its tail, poison, immunities, etc.
The fairy dragon is an actual caster and therefore item use accordingly.
.
Completely incorrect on the last part. The faerie dragon entry specifically states that it can be choosen as a familiar at 7th level with the improved familiar feat.
If I may make a small suggestion, for anyone who would like to create a house rule on a penalty for losing a familiar. My inspiration for the idea I have comes from one of my favorite lesser-known Dragonlance books "Night of the Eye". The wizard in said book has had his Seagull familiar for much of his life, when he loses the seagull (sorry for the spoiler, but the book is quite old), it tears away part of his will/mind. So my suggestion is this, a Wisdom score penalty, on an increasing skill by level (eg, the longer you are with said familiar the worse the penalty). I see the penalty as the following:
1st lvl: -1 Wis until you summon a new familiar
2nd lvl: -2 Wis until you summon a new familiar
3rd lvl: -2 Wis lasting for 1 week after you summon new familiar
4th lvl: -2 Wis lasting 2 weeks after summoning new familiar
5th lvl: -3 Wis until you summon new familiar
6th lvl: -3 wis lasting 1 week after summoning new familiar
7th lvl: -3 wis lasting 2 weeks after summoning new familiar
8th lvl: -4 wish until you summon new familar
ETC(this list could also be read as "1st level with a familiar" to give the idea of time passing, rather than just "level 1, level 2, etc" so that penalty is tied to time spent with the familiar rather than class level.)
I think you get the jist. time frame and negatives can be adjusted, and I would also add that if you make it to 12-15th level with the same familiar, and then lose it you would suffer the normal negative, but all the wis would not return, even with magical healing (so at 12th, maybe -1 would stay, at 15th, -2 would stay, etc). This shows the bond created between caster and creature, and shows the mental strain suffered when it dies. Thoughts?
Your penatlies and time lag make absolutely no sense. The more "masterful" mage should be able to better weather such occurances and the time lag comes then goes with levels? Why?
The thought that somehow the better you get the more screwed you are when something bad happens is... well lacking in reason.
Faerie Dragons are also non-core...just sayin'.
You're obliged to cite that they can. I have not seen one iota of rules support for such use. Familliars get a lot of skills from thier master that they can't really use, diplomacy being one of them.Citation please.Familliars can not make use of Use Magic Device.They can be given ranks of UMD to provide extra actions in a round. Economy of actions rules the game so the familiar is a free standard action, and nobody attacks the familiar unless he does something attention worthy.
The rules say the familiar uses the wizard's ranks in a skill. That means in order to say he can use skill X you need a citation.
Skills: For each skill in which either the master or the familiar has ranks, use either the normal skill ranks for an animal of that type or the master's skill ranks, whichever is better. In either case, the familiar uses its own ability modifiers.....
Skills: For each skill in which either the master or the familiar has ranks, use either the normal skill ranks for an animal of that type or the master's skill ranks, whichever is better. In either case, the familiar uses its own ability modifiers.....
Regardless of a familiar's total skill modifiers, some skills may remain beyond the familiar's ability to use.
(finished the quote for the added ambiguity)
Regardless of a familiar's total skill modifiers, some skills may remain beyond the familiar's ability to use.
(finished the quote for the added ambiguity)
What that means is Lazar's quote of saying a specific skill could not be used. He has no rule for specific skills because there is not one. The skills that can't be used depend on the skill and the familiar.
A familiar that can't speak can't use diplomacy as an example. I would also think a familiar without opposable thumbs would find it difficult at best to man use UMD or disable device.
If he is going to say no familiar can use skill X he needs to provide a rules quotes.
Yeah thats what I was thinking; the familiar would need to be attached to a pretty solid caster for UMD to work.
10th level Wizard = 10 ranks in UMD, means a Monkey would be rolling with a 7 UMD check (10-3CHA) - 'urgh' when chasing that wand for a 20.
So yeah its a case of spending a Feat to open up some better familiars, but then dealing with the fact that those familiars now actually LOOK like a target for the bad guys (Little demons dont look as innocent as a frog)