If you get a class feature that doesn't use the word 'may', can you still choose not to avail yourself of it?
F'rex, the Wizard's Arcane Bond. The player likes most everything else, but hates familiars for whatever reason, and while the bonded item is cool, it does have that major drawback if it's destroyed.
Could said player simply choose not to bond with either a familiar or an item?
Well, that sucks.
Will have to ask for special DM permission, then.
Play a sorcerer? No bonds! No pets!
Could said player simply choose not to bond with either a familiar or an item?
Well you can choose never to use it. No reason to force a player to pick one. A player could if he wanted to just get a pet raven... and then that raven lives somewhere in the jungles hundreds of miles away. Similarly you could make a barbarian and never rage, or a fighter who never fights.
Make the Bonded Item a ring, hard to lose or destroy.
However, if you choose the bonded item ability you have to follow the rules on it. You cannot just 'not have it' and also 'not have the penalties'.
Alternately, take the familiar ability and never take a familiar. This should be the preferred route.
Finally, there are a number of wizard archetypes that replace Arcane Bond with something else. Scrollmaster only exchanges the 10th level feat (in addition to Arcane Bond) so may be up the player's alley.
- Gauss
Play a sorcerer? No bonds! No pets!
Unless you take the Eldritch Heritage stuff for Arcane ... which I want solely for it's 15th level power (stealing someone's Kitsune Enchantress build). Well, if I can't get the special dispensation, I'll just go with the ring.
As stated, you don't need special dispensation. Just take the familiar option and never actually get a familiar. No drawbacks, no benefits to not having the familiar.
- Gauss
Agree, just take the familiar option.
If you have a nice DM, he might even let you keep the familiar special ability bonus.
After all, everything on the list, but Crow, can also be found on a lunch menu.
Just cook up the little critter, eat it, and make it a permanent part of you :) HehehHahaha
You can eat crow, it's just bad luck.
You can eat crow, it's just bad luck.
Dodo familiar's are a delicacy in some parts... or so I've been told.
Take a level of tattoo sorcerer, and now the familiar is stapled on and you never have to see it again. Just free bonuses.
Play a sorcerer? No bonds! No pets!Unless you take the Eldritch Heritage stuff for Arcane ... which I want solely for it's 15th level power (stealing someone's Kitsune Enchantress build). Well, if I can't get the special dispensation, I'll just go with the ring.
Just go with the familiar and then strangle it or something. Then don't bother to replace it. You have the option to get another familiar later if you like, and until then you're a wizard without familiar.
If you get a class feature that doesn't use the word 'may', can you still choose not to avail yourself of it?
F'rex, the Wizard's Arcane Bond. The player likes most everything else, but hates familiars for whatever reason, and while the bonded item is cool, it does have that major drawback if it's destroyed.
On the other hand, any given character has that major drawback if they are killed. :)
It's easy to take the familiar bond, and then simply not summon a familiar. That is implicitly allowed.
An item bond on the other hand would likely leave you crippled without said item though.
What doesn't the player like about familiars?
Some people don't like it when the class structure adds in what they consider random things to the class that best exemplifies their character's abilities. "I'm playing a wizard, a wielder of arcane magic gleaned from endless study. Exactly what part of that says 'I want a pet'?"
Basically the same reason that I wonder how many days of rations a horse is worth. I mean, I pick Cavalier because I like the Challenge and Teamwork and all those abilities. At no point did I want a pet. Paladins don't have to have a pet, Druids and Rangers don't have to have a pet, Wizards and Sorcerers don't have to (though it's really a bother to replace the Wizard's bond with something else suitable), so why should my Cavalier?
So if my order is going to insist on sending me one of those new horses every month, I want to know if I take him out back and kill him, will the horse give me enough food for a month or not?
It's one of the strengths of a point-buy based game system, a la BESM, Mutants and Masterminds, or Anima, though don't get me wrong, those require work of their own.
What doesn't the player like about familiars?
Fragility, complexity, and only wants to huggle one character sheet at a time (he also refuses to summon or use animal companions or mounts).
I have to say, a player really doesn't have to worry about "Fragility, complexity, and [another] character sheet". Pick a Diminutive familiar, put in pocket and toss familiar kibble once in a while. It never gets targeted (no fragility), you never pull it out (no complexity, just a passive bonus) and it doesn't combat (sheet = passive bonus).
It's only an issue as much as a spellbook is an issue, unless they do something dumb, like take it out and throw it at an enemy, it's just there.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
have your familiar fly of in to a different area of the dungeon where there is nothing that can fly, and just have him wait on the ceiling.
Fightbro: Yo wizbro, where's your bat been?
Wizbro: Oh you know, hanging around...Bardbro: Ba'dum tis!
And, obviously, I meant 'juggle' only one character sheet ...
I think they dropped the ball at a cavalier archetype that doesn't have a pet. I found the 3rd party archetype Inspirng Commander to be an adequate substitute.
And, obviously, I meant 'juggle' only one character sheet ...
I understood what you meant. If the familiar never leaves the pocket, never attacks or gets attacked and doesn't interact at all, there is no need for stats or any 'juggling' since you don't even have to keep stats/abilities and can have the passive ability already figured in. in essence it sits in the pack right next to the spellbook but having less impact since the familiar never has to be pulled out.
I know, but I felt embarrassed about the typo.
No familiars were harmed in the making of this thread.
I know, but I felt embarrassed about the typo.
LOL Oh that's what you meant. I did snicker a bit at that. No worries, it happened to everyone. :)
RPG Superstar 2010 Top 8
|
I have to say, a player really doesn't have to worry about "Fragility, complexity, and [another] character sheet". Pick a Diminutive familiar, put in pocket and toss familiar kibble once in a while. It never gets targeted (no fragility), you never pull it out (no complexity, just a passive bonus) and it doesn't combat (sheet = passive bonus).
It's only an issue as much as a spellbook is an issue, unless they do something dumb, like take it out and throw it at an enemy, it's just there.
This is the solution I was going to suggest--grab a toad.
They have no attacks and a 5-ft move speed--they're not participating in combat. You keep it in your pocket, and when you camp for the night you pull it out and say "my, we had quite the adventure today, didn't we Clarence?" and feed it some crickets or something.
If the GM ever kills it, you're out the three bonus hp it gives you, that's about it.
Yep, it's as vulnerable is that spellbook you pull out every day. Unless you're expecting THAT book to get blown up on a daily basis, you should have no worries over a familiar.
LOL Just list it as equipment. Toad, wt -, +3hp. That's as complicated as it has to get.
PS: I go for the hedgehog. +2 will save, 6" and 1/8 lbs. Plus it's cuter than the toad! :P