The other night our party was hit be a Chaos Hammer trap (20' r burst, Will save for half). Would that affect the wizard's familiar too? This damage could have killed the familiar.
Typically the familiar can avoid most AoE damage, because they have improved evasion. Also they are usually not subject to direct attack unless the wizard/sorcerer intentionally sends them into dangerous situations (attacking bad guys, spying, aiding allies, etc..).
The wizard's player argues that to make familiars viable and fun to play, familiars should be ignored/exempt from spells like Chaos Hammer when the familiar is not being actively used by the wizard.
I am planning to start a game soon and would like to know how other GMs handle familiars. Would you make the familiar subject to damage from a Chaos Hammer? What about environmental hazards like lava or drowning?
If the familiar gets perception checks, survival checks, whatever checks, then it is constantly in use.
So my answer would have to be no, sorry, you picked familiar, it might get fried.
|
I don't know. On one side you're right about the familiars not being viable and fun to play. On the other side, I do love a challenge and it sounds like the wizard's player just doesn't.
There's an alternative familiar in Trailblazer, but it's even more fragile, and the spellcaster would gain a negative level for 24 hours if it is hit.
. . . any effect that kills a familiar more than half-kills the caster that has it.
"It just so happens that your friend here is only MOSTLY dead. There's a big difference between mostly dead and all dead. Mostly dead is slightly alive."
As to the familiars, I agree with Bob Bob Bob that a tiny creature in a medium creature's square usually has total cover. It is how I run it, and how it has mostly been run for me in the past. This is, of course, unless you actively use them for something like wands or delivering touch spells.
If the player thinks familiars aren't viable as is, remind him that he chose that option when he could have had a bound object instead. It was not forced upon him. Why does he think they have saving throws and HP if not to be put into play?
If his familiar is protected from spells when not acting, be sure to tell all players that if they hold their actions then they're temporarily immune to spells, too.
If the player thinks familiars aren't viable as is, remind him that he chose that option when he could have had a bound object instead. It was not forced upon him. Why does he think they have saving throws and HP if not to be put into play?
If his familiar is protected from spells when not acting, be sure to tell all players that if they hold their actions then they're temporarily immune to spells, too.
Not at all. Anybody who gets to hide behind somebody that's anywhere between 4x and 12x their size is going to be shielded from a lot of things. They will also get squished easily if they come out from behind that shield.
And familiars have your ranks or their ranks, which ever is better. That means you always have an aid another for any skill you have ranks in and any skill that can be used untrained. That's pretty nifty on it's own.
Personally i think the familiar is viable one way or the other.
Now , fun to play is another case.
This deppends more on the player and on some level also the group.
Some players prefer a "harder" game following the rules strictly and will enjoy the challange of keeping their familiar alive , some others prefer to not deal with this kind of thing.
For example , on a table i play , a "casual" player always likes to play classes with an AC ,but because of the ways she imagines her AC and her way of playing , lets just say the AC acts with quite the degree of intelligence and other things like that.
In the end , i would say that it is better on things like this to just go with what is more comfortable and fun to that table.
