|
I'm a relatively-new GM who's had a male Witch in my game, with a cat familiar who he carries around in his knapsack. I haven't paid much attention to what harm can befall this fragile creature, partly because I don't want to deal with one more detail and also I know how devastating it would be for the Witch to lose all of his stored spells. So I've let it slide so far, and he's now at 3rd level.
But I don't want my generosity to always keep this kitty invulnerable. There should be consequences! But the thing is, when should I figure out harm and damage to it? I'm thinking of ignoring blows aimed at his PC, except when the blow comes from behind, in which case I will use the PC's Armor Class without his armor bonus (Touch AC), to reflect the Witch's own ability to dodge the blow. If the blow hits his Touch AC, I roll high-low to see if it hits kitty also, and if it does the damage then this is split between the PC and the kitty.
As for area of effect spells and other effects that call on Kitty to make a saving throw (say, a monster's nauseating aura), if it's a Reflex save I will use the PC's roll and apply it to Kitty; if it's another kind of save then Kitty gets its own roll.
Of course, whenever he decides to let the cat out of the bag to deliver touch spells or to scout, then it will be as vulnerable as any other creature.
What do people think of these rules? And how do familiars get handled in your games?
What do people think of this? And how do familiars get handled in your games?
I think most people treat familiars as equipment that can't be damaged. It is somehow there but not there. The abilities it grants apply any time they are within one mile of each other. It would be simple to meta-game "my kitty is waiting outside for me."
Most enemy combatants would likely ignore a cat while combat is raging all around them. Unless the familiar is bing used deliver touch spells or does something else to make it a threat they have more important things to worry about.
All the games I have been in did it the same.
If the familiar is not really doing anything then they count like equipment and more or less are ignored.
If they are out doing scouting, touchspells, etc, then game on.
Heck LazarX, you could say the same thing for a wizards spell book too truthfully.
If a familiar worked like an animal companion, then it would be quite a bit different. But since they don't level up like animal companions..
All the games I have been in did it the same.
If the familiar is not really doing anything then they count like equipment and more or less are ignored.
If they are out doing scouting, touchspells, etc, then game on.
This.
Then again, we rarely see things get sundered either. Killing familiars and casually breaking gear is rarely fun for anyone involved. Mostly familiars are used for the bonuses they give, and to give the GM a outlet for in-game snarky comments.
Heh, if I targeted my players' familiars, that might be the only time in an entire session that the player remembered he had one...
I have a male witch who had a scorpion familiar before Ultimate Magic came out, now he's a Gravewalker, so has no familiar. But for that one session we played, our GM only took the familiar into account for area of effect spells, which luckily we saw very few of.
I tend to view familiars as equipment until they enter the tactical part of the game, and then I deal with them the way I think my monsters or NPCs would, which frankly usually isn't to seek and destroy them. Usually it's more to remove an annoyance.
Heck LazarX, you could say the same thing for a wizards spell book too truthfully.
I've had spell books sundered, stolen and obliterated inside a broken handy haversack. And is seriously a dick move.
Honestly, play it by ear. In general combat no one is going to target a cat over a player, but if the cat is acting on its own or the NPC's have been preparing specifically then I can see it happening.
|
All the games I have been in did it the same.
If the familiar is not really doing anything then they count like equipment and more or less are ignored.
If they are out doing scouting, touchspells, etc, then game on.
This is how I've always run it and seen it run as well. The familiar fades into the background when not being awesome and slinks back out when its needed.
If I had to phrase it in rule terms, I'd say something like "While carried, familiars are treated as equipment and only take damage as a magic item would."
Cheers!
Landon
I typically expect my familiar to be targeted and plan accordingly -- however I actively use my familiar in combat and out as an extra set of actions, scout, and party member. If your player is doing likewise then yes feel free to target the familiar like you would any cohort.
However if the familiar is mostly fluff... a means to store spells and little else then I wouldn't worry about it any more than I worry about the barbarian's non-intelligent axe. Sure target it occasionally as you would the axe but I wouldn't make a huge habit of it.
|
It all depends on how much the player utilizes it. A friend of mine avoids familiars, animal companions, and cohorts in general because he doesn't want to have to fuddle with more than 1 creature on the field. I personally couldn't have my PC and his familiar (Ted) be any further apart than I reasonably should. Ted is a fair target if you want to get at him, but they better be prepared to fight one mean, serious, tough ass bird if they want to pick a fight. My PC (A witch) has learned to give him his own space, in fact he is quite jealous of Teds house.
I'm a relatively-new GM who's had a male Witch in my game, with a cat familiar who he carries around in his knapsack. I haven't paid much attention to what harm can befall this fragile creature, partly because I don't want to deal with one more detail and also I know how devastating it would be for the Witch to lose all of his stored spells. So I've let it slide so far, and he's now at 3rd level.
But I don't want my generosity to always keep this kitty invulnerable. There should be consequences! But the thing is, when should I figure out harm and damage to it? I'm thinking of ignoring blows aimed at his PC, except when the blow comes from behind, in which case I will use the PC's Armor Class without his armor bonus (Touch AC), to reflect the Witch's own ability to dodge the blow. If the blow hits his Touch AC, I roll high-low to see if it hits kitty also, and if it does the damage then this is split between the PC and the kitty.
As for area of effect spells and other effects that call on Kitty to make a saving throw (say, a monster's nauseating aura), if it's a Reflex save I will use the PC's roll and apply it to Kitty; if it's another kind of save then Kitty gets its own roll.
Of course, whenever he decides to let the cat out of the bag to deliver touch spells or to scout, then it will be as vulnerable as any other creature.
What do people think of these rules? And how do familiars get handled in your games?
I don't intentionally attack(target) a familiar until it does something useful in battle. Why would the bad guys attack an animal when the party members are far more dangerous?
The player may also want to buy magic items for the cat to protect it.
I've had spell books sundered, stolen and obliterated inside a broken handy haversack. And is seriously a dick move.
Honestly, play it by ear. In general combat no one is going to target a cat over a player, but if the cat is acting on its own or the NPC's have been preparing specifically then I can see it happening.
I have seen this discussion before, and I always wondered why it is supposed to be unfair to try and destroy the opponent's gear? Discussions abound about whether this or that class sucks, why rogues are inferior and wizards are superior, but as soon as someone suggests attacking/stealing/destroying the opponent's equipment (especially if the opponent is a spellcaster), everybody screams out "UNFAIR!"
I think it is ok, it's fair, and it is a legal tactic to go for the caster's spell book, bonded item or familiar.
If your cat is in the area of effect of a fireball, so be it. After all, the cat has improved uncanny dodge, so it shouldn't be too difficult to survive. Or even better: charm the cat and grab it. Remember the cartoon in the 1st edition DMG? "One false move wizard, and your familiar get's it."
I've had spell books sundered, stolen and obliterated inside a broken handy haversack. And is seriously a dick move.
Honestly, play it by ear. In general combat no one is going to target a cat over a player, but if the cat is acting on its own or the NPC's have been preparing specifically then I can see it happening.
I have seen this discussion before, and I always wondered why it is supposed to be unfair to try and destroy the opponent's gear? Discussions abound about whether this or that class sucks, why rogues are inferior and wizards are superior, but as soon as someone suggests attacking/stealing/destroying the opponent's equipment (especially if the opponent is a spellcaster), everybody screams out "UNFAIR!"
I think it is ok, it's fair, and it is a legal tactic to go for the caster's spell book, bonded item or familiar.
If your cat is in the area of effect of a fireball, so be it. After all, the cat has improved uncanny dodge, so it shouldn't be too difficult to survive. Or even better: charm the cat and grab it. Remember the cartoon in the 1st edition DMG? "One false move wizard, and your familiar get's it."
Okay so these are valid tactics against NPCs right? I'm allowed to now go after their familiars, weapons, and general buildings?
"One false move and I completely eliminate your base, familiar and family."
Okay so these are valid tactics against NPCs right? I'm allowed to now go after their familiars, weapons, (...)
Apart from alignment issues, why shouldn't it? After all, you try to kill the enemy caster. Why not, before the final encounter, lower the threat by eliminating his familiar or his bonded item?
(...) and general buildings? "One false move and I completely eliminate your base, familiar and family."
Not sure why you mention the opponent's family, but why should it be totally acceptable to kill the (supposedly) evil wizard, but destroying his tower is off limits?
I've had spell books sundered, stolen and obliterated inside a broken handy haversack. And is seriously a dick move.
Honestly, play it by ear. In general combat no one is going to target a cat over a player, but if the cat is acting on its own or the NPC's have been preparing specifically then I can see it happening.
I have seen this discussion before, and I always wondered why it is supposed to be unfair to try and destroy the opponent's gear? Discussions abound about whether this or that class sucks, why rogues are inferior and wizards are superior, but as soon as someone suggests attacking/stealing/destroying the opponent's equipment (especially if the opponent is a spellcaster), everybody screams out "UNFAIR!"
I think it is ok, it's fair, and it is a legal tactic to go for the caster's spell book, bonded item or familiar.
If your cat is in the area of effect of a fireball, so be it. After all, the cat has improved uncanny dodge, so it shouldn't be too difficult to survive. Or even better: charm the cat and grab it. Remember the cartoon in the 1st edition DMG? "One false move wizard, and your familiar get's it."
Because in reality, Lets say I'm a DM. I get to build the encounter any which way I want. As a result, I can have armies of troops march in and keep attempting to sunder all of your equipment and come up with a bullsh.. way of "Rping" the reason why these guys worry more about breaking your gear than defeating you.
For example there is this board game based off Doom. The DM has all the knowledge of what you can and cannot do. They know who has the best armor and who has the worst armor. And so what do they do? Since they win by doing a number of frags in a game, they specifically target the weakest link. As a result, the DM has always won, as it is pretty much impossible for the players to get much of an advantage for very long.
Because in reality, Lets say I'm a DM. I get to build the encounter any which way I want. As a result, I can have armies of troops march in and keep attempting to sunder all of your equipment and come up with a bullsh.. way of "Rping" the reason why these guys worry more about breaking your gear than defeating you.
Well, if the players or GMs try to "win" the game by constantly trying to destroy the other's equipment, there's something wrong with the style of play.
But just because something explicitely allowed in the game seems to be unfair it isn't a reason not to allow it.In my game, I had two events in the last twelve months where sundering the opponent's weapons was involved. The first was an ogre who smashed the blade of the fighter who was sticking it through the gap between two doors. The second was a (different) fighter who went for the wands of an enemy artificer. They wanted to preserve the wands, but the artificer proved too strong. And the fighter didn't succeed at the first attempt, so he didn't try a second time.
So you see, it has never been a problem for me. I won't send an army of gear-breaking ruffians, and the players don't go around killing familiars where the can find them.
After all, it would be boring, wouldn't it?
I have seen this discussion before, and I always wondered why it is supposed to be unfair to try and destroy the opponent's gear? Discussions abound about whether this or that class sucks, why rogues are inferior and wizards are superior, but as soon as someone suggests attacking/stealing/destroying the opponent's equipment (especially if the opponent is a spellcaster), everybody screams out "UNFAIR!"
I think a lot of people are overly sensitive to this because they've had that 13-year old DM who was a dick and destroyed their stuff just because he could. (In this case 13-year old does not necessarily reflect chronological age.)
When was the last time you saw a PC try to sunder an enemy spellcaster's spell book? I'd don't ever recall it happening. One, the spell book is valuable treasure; Two, it's useless during combat other than as an improvised weapon.
Most other equipment falls into the same category. You are generally better served by killing the owner than trying to destroy his stuff, especially stuff that isn't useful in combat.
In my game, I had two events in the last twelve months where sundering the opponent's weapons was involved. The first was an ogre who smashed the blade of the fighter who was sticking it through the gap between two doors. The second was a (different) fighter who went for the wands of an enemy artificer. They wanted to preserve the wands, but the artificer proved too strong. And the fighter didn't succeed at the first attempt, so he didn't try a second time.
If you've only had two attempts at sundering in a year I would hardly call that 'unfair.' Especially in light of the new sunder rules that don't necessarily destroy an item outright.
As a player I've had more items than that sundered in the last year. My barbarian had his greataxe sundered three times. The difference being I can see the tactical advantage of destroying his axe (at least until they find out he has improved unarmed strike). Destroying a spell book or a wizard's kitty won't help the immediate tactical situation.
To me 'unfair' is using an NPC to destroy an item without any intent of winning the fight. If you sunder my barbarian's axe so I can't fight as effectively, well-played. If you destroy my wizard's spell book, so he can't prepare new spells tomorrow, but you die today, what's the point. (Before anyone starts, No, I don't want to hear the "but I'm a suicidal fanatic, Evil with a capital E, crazed heretic that is questing to destroy magical writings argument.")
I have seen this discussion before, and I always wondered why it is supposed to be unfair to try and destroy the opponent's gear? Discussions abound about whether this or that class sucks, why rogues are inferior and wizards are superior, but as soon as someone suggests attacking/stealing/destroying the opponent's equipment (especially if the opponent is a spellcaster), everybody screams out "UNFAIR!"I think a lot of people are overly sensitive to this because they've had that 13-year old DM who was a dick and destroyed their stuff just because he could. (In this case 13-year old does not necessarily reflect chronological age.)
When was the last time you saw a PC try to sunder an enemy spellcaster's spell book? I'd don't ever recall it happening. One, the spell book is valuable treasure; Two, it's useless during combat other than as an improvised weapon.
Most other equipment falls into the same category. You are generally better served by killing the owner than trying to destroy his stuff, especially stuff that isn't useful in combat.
In my game, I had two events in the last twelve months where sundering the opponent's weapons was involved. The first was an ogre who smashed the blade of the fighter who was sticking it through the gap between two doors. The second was a (different) fighter who went for the wands of an enemy artificer. They wanted to preserve the wands, but the artificer proved too strong. And the fighter didn't succeed at the first attempt, so he didn't try a second time.If you've only had two attempts at sundering in a year I would hardly call that 'unfair.' Especially in light of the new sunder rules that don't necessarily destroy an item outright.
As a player I've had more items than that sundered in the last year. My barbarian had his greataxe sundered three times. The difference being I can see the tactical advantage of destroying his axe (at least until they find out he has improved unarmed strike)....
Tim has it right.
Sunder the Barb's axe? sure, good idea. Now he cant use it to kill me RIGHT NOW.
Spend an actiaon in combat to sunder a spellbook? Dick.
Same with a non combat familiar, thats not trying to win, thats being a Dick.
(Mind you I am not talking about the cat getting caught in a fireball, that happens. I'm talking about TRYING to kill it for no real combat reason)
Destroying a spell book or a wizard's kitty won't help the immediate tactical situation.If that wizard's "kitty" however is a mephit wielding a wand of fireballs, then taking it out makes a big impact.
And your right, I think everyone has sid this.
If you are useing your familiar in combat to do stuff? fair game.
Destroying a spell book or a wizard's kitty won't help the immediate tactical situation.If that wizard's "kitty" however is a mephit wielding a wand of fireballs, then taking it out makes a big impact.And your right, I think everyone has sid this.
If you are useing your familiar in combat to do stuff? fair game.
With the rule changes from 3.5 to PF, it is now a legal tactic to try and sunder the wizard's bonded item. Having to make a concentration check each time he tries to cast a spell and losing the free spell is a significant disadvantage for him.
And with the introduction of the witch, the familiar has become a valid target. Ok, not in a random or surprise encounter, but if you plan to engage the witch tomorrow, it's always a good idea to try and do away with the familiar.
And the witch should better take precautions that this doesn't happen.
|
|
With the rule changes from 3.5 to PF, it is now a legal tactic to try and sunder the wizard's bonded item. Having to make a concentration check each time he tries to cast a spell and losing the free spell is a significant disadvantage for him.
And with the introduction of the witch, the familiar has become a valid target. Ok, not in a random or surprise encounter, but if you plan to engage the witch tomorrow, it's always a good idea to try and do away with the familiar.
And the witch should better take precautions that this doesn't happen.
I agree with this. I noticed the rule in the CRB just yesterday -- that wizards who lose their bonded item must use a concentration check for every spell they cast -- looks like a legitimate target in the heat of battle to me. Not sure how the PCs are supposed to be able to find out which is the enemy wizard's bonded item, however. I guess they'd have to use divinations or do some investigating?
Targeting a witch's familiar can lead to some fun scenarios: imagine a rogue investigating the witch's hut and trying to take out Kitty. The witch finds out what the rogue is trying to do, and so sends out an illusionary cat to set up a trap!
It seems fair to me to require wizards and witches to come up with a plan to protect their bonded objects and familiars from being identified against more intelligent opponents who have a reason to target it.
All the games I have been in did it the same.
If the familiar is not really doing anything then they count like equipment and more or less are ignored.
If they are out doing scouting, touchspells, etc, then game on.
+1