I don't know if this question was asked before (couldn't find a fitting thread) so I'm asking, becausse after looking through the rules concerning familiars, I stumbled over this piece of text (from the Core Rulebook):
"It retains the appearance, skills, and feats of the normal animal it once was, but is now a magical beast for the purpose of effects that depend on its type"
This implies that the animal doesn't change into a magical beast anymore (I believe it did in 3.5 edition).
So... is my little capybara familiar a magical beast or still an animal? It is intelligent now, so it can't be an animal, one would think. But if it's a magical beast now, wouldn't it get darkvision and some other goodies (a donkey rat/capybara doesn't have darkvision)?
Some clarification would be much appreciated, thanks!
is my little capybara familiar a magical beast or still an animal?
All of the familiars in the bestiary are animals.
But do they change into magical beasts upon completing the bonding ritual? I remember that the type of a rat, for example, changed from (animal) to (magical beast) in 3.5 edition when it became a familiar.
But do they change into magical beasts upon completing the bonding ritual? I remember that the type of a rat, for example, changed from (animal) to (magical beast) in 3.5 edition when it became a familiar.
3.5 Familiars: "A familiar is a normal animal that gains new powers and becomes a magical beast when summoned to service by a sorcerer or wizard. It retains the appearance, Hit Dice, base attack bonus, base save bonuses, skills, and feats of the normal animal it once was, but it is treated as a magical beast instead of an animal for the purpose of any effect that depends on its type."
|
It reads to me like it's still an Animal Inside, just wrapped in Magical Beast Suit. So it doesn't get Darkvision, but spells that target animals but not magical beasts wouldn't affect the familiar.
Yeah, somehow that just seems needlessly complicated. Might've been more convenient to make it wholly magical beast, rather "X, but treat as Y for things that react differently to Y".
Anyway, if you want to give your familiar Darkvision, I think using Improved Familiar to apply one of the planar templates (Celestial, Fiendish, Entropic, Resolute) will grant Darkvision.
|
"It retains the appearance, skills, and feats of the normal animal it once was, but is now a magical beast for the purpose of effects that depend on its type"
This would indicate it is no longer an animal.
I think familiars are magical beasts, but retain the statistics of animals, modified as appropriate for familiars specifically.
I think familiars are magical beasts, but retain the statistics of animals, modified as appropriate for familiars specifically.
What's the difference at that point? If they're treated as magical beasts for effects that care, but they don't get any of the stuff from the magical beast type, is there anything that makes that mechanically different from being an animal, with the animal type, with familiar modification, that counts as a magical beast?
Thank you all for your answers and, yes, it seems needlessly complicated.
Maybe I just houserule it that the animal in question changes in type to magical beast. It seems weird that such an advanced creature with evident magical bonds is still considered an animal. And if I recall correctly, it wouldn't be very overpowered if it changes into a magical beast. It still wouldn't get feats and the like.
|
|
Think of "Familiar" as a template which may be applied to a restricted list of animals. It changes the animal's type to magical beast, but doesn't change the animals hit dice, BAB, saves or traits.
Still too complicated. I wonder if saying a familiar is a magic beast with the familiar subtype, and defining how that subtype is different than the standard magical beast creature type (like with native outsiders) would be more or less complicated.
I agree with Lincoln Hills' post. If familiars were magical beasts, it would just say "familiars become magical beasts". But it adds a long qualification instead: "but it is treated as a magical beast instead of an animal for the purpose of any effect that depends on its type." It only makes sense to add the qualification if you want to make it clear that the familiar isn't really, fully a magical beast. So, as an earlier post said, it remains an animal but in a Magical-Beast-suit.
Improved familiars otherwise use the rules for regular familiars, with two exceptions: if the creature's type is something other than animal, its type does not change;