| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
1. I don't deal with it at all. Too much hasse. I just assume the Familar either feels on magic of the connection to the owner or gets a negligible part of the owner's rations.
2. I would definitely not allow the player to fly on it, I.e. I wouldn't give it the mount trait. There's also no official hippogriff companion statblock (to my knowledge) so I'd probably reflavor the bird companion and make it large.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
There's a 5gp, 1 bulk item called a Familiar's Satchel. It is a must have. As long as you wear/attend the satchel and the familiar stays inside, it can't be targeted or caught by AoEs. And it has both food and water. I recommend pointing your player to that and then never worrying about it again.
There's a 5gp, 1 bulk item called a Familiar's Satchel. It is a must have. As long as you wear/attend the satchel and the familiar stays inside, it can't be targeted or caught by AoEs. And it has both food and water. I recommend pointing your player to that and then never worrying about it again.
The Familiar Satchel is a low level item, so it is only really good at low level. It has some downsides.
It has hardness 4, 16 HP, a break threshold of 8, and if it takes enough damage to become broken, then the familiar inside also takes damage.
So if your familiar is in its satchel and gets caught in an AOE that deals more than 12 damage, then the familiar is taking damage too. Either full damage under strict RAW, or full damage - 4 if it is run similar to shield block.
It also doesn't magically provide its own food - the character has to provide it. The satchel just has receptacles for it.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
There's a 5gp, 1 bulk item called a Familiar's Satchel. It is a must have. As long as you wear/attend the satchel and the familiar stays inside, it can't be targeted or caught by AoEs. And it has both food and water. I recommend pointing your player to that and then never worrying about it again.The Familiar Satchel is a low level item, so it is only really good at low level. It has some downsides.
It has hardness 4, 16 HP, a break threshold of 8, and if it takes enough damage to become broken, then the familiar inside also takes damage.
So if your familiar is in its satchel and gets caught in an AOE that deals more than 12 damage, then the familiar is taking damage too. Either full damage under strict RAW, or full damage - 4 if it is run similar to shield block.
It also doesn't magically provide its own food - the character has to provide it. The satchel just has receptacles for it.
I didn't mean to suggest it was magically restoring food. I just meant it wasn't worth tracking as a GM.
But you're mistaken about the satchel breaking. Or rather, what you said is true but missing a very important detail. If a satchel is just lying on the ground unattended and gets caught in a fireball, you are correct. If the satchel is carried on a character's person, it is an attended object. It is no more damaged by the fireball than a scroll they are holding would be. Or, if you like, no more damaged than a person hiding in the bag of holding you carry would be.
And because there is an object blocking line of effect, the familiar can't be effected by... Pretty much anything. 99% of the time this will prevent your familiar from ever taking damage.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Captain Morgan has the right of it. Spells can't normally affect attended objects.
Captain Morgan has the right of it. Spells can't normally affect attended objects.
True but technically many spells only affect creatures. The spells that do affect objects almost all leave it to the GMs discretion anyway.
The GM determines any effects to the environment and unattended objects.
Even a Strike doesn't affect an object except at GMs discretion.
Drakes can be familiars?
Drakes can be familiars?
As flavor. It would be a generic animal familiar - probably with Flying.
But you're mistaken about the satchel breaking. Or rather, what you said is true but missing a very important detail. If a satchel is just lying on the ground unattended and gets caught in a fireball, you are correct. If the satchel is carried on a character's person, it is an attended object. It is no more damaged by the fireball than a scroll they are holding would be.
The attended items that don't take damage also don't have their hardness, HP, and break threshold specifically listed (though they would technically have those statistics, but good luck finding them printed somewhere). Those items also aren't being used to protect other creatures that otherwise would be affected by the area damage.
So for example, you don't have characters say that they wouldn't take damage from a fireball because they are hiding behind a scroll. The scroll doesn't take damage, but the character does.
In the case of a familiar satchel, the familiar doesn't take damage - because the satchel does. Much like a shield.
So I think this is a case of specific rule beats general.
That's not a specific rule. That's just specific statistics. The reason for them being called out in print is not specified. It is an assumption that it is because the familiar satchel breaks from the attended item rule.
And the Hardness, HP, and break thresholds for other items are easy to find. Page 577, Table 11-4.
You would have a better argument arguing that this line--
However, an area effect that deals enough damage to break the case also damages the creature inside.
--means any area effect, not just area effects when it is unattended. However, area effects that do damage, also, up for debate, don't normally do damage to unattended objects.
Normally an item takes damage only when a creature is directly attacking it—commonly targeted items include doors and traps.
So it might be overriding that rule.
|
To the OP. As a GM, Unless the player has something super weird or giant that needs a specific or large diet I assume that creature is fed at the same time and by whatever means the player is fed.
For your second question With the Train animal and Ride feats I don't see why a player couldn't have a hippogryph mount. Although I would assume one trained for flight is likely a higher level than the level 2 one straight from the bestiary.
Compared to 1e the feats needed to gain a hippogryph mount(monstrous mount) and required the mount to be 7th level to fly with a rider which for the mentioned Sable Company Marines meant character level 8.
So if the character isn't training this mount itself than they would need to purchase a trained one. So if we assume that said Hippogryph is equivalent to a 7th level permanent magic item it would cost 360gp probably would also assume that it is trained to wear heavy barding and you would want that so add in 50gp to get 410gp for a Combat Trained Mountable while flying Hippogryph. This is probably low balling tho as a level 2 warhorse is 30 gold compared to a level one riding horse of 8gp. If it scaled that way per level it would be more like 6k which makes more sense given that the trainer would have had to provide food and housing and equipment and time for months if not years to have that kind of trained animal.
The Monster Creation rules from the GMG says this about flight
Creatures can have climb and swim Speeds even at low levels. While you can give your creature a fly Speed at those low levels, it’s better to wait until around 7th level (when PCs gain access to fly) to give your creature a fly Speed if it also has ranged attacks or another way to harry the PCs from a distance indefinitely.
So 7th level seems right for a creature that can fly and potentially carry a rider.
As for the argument for the familiar satchel it is easy enough to say and that is I agree with that it doesn't get damaged by the majority of attacks. For the strict reasoning that the majority of your other gear also isn't damaged, if an ability would also damage the characters other mundane gears such as clothes or backpack or worn tools ect. than yes maybe it would damage the case otherwise it wouldn't/shouldn't.
As for the argument for the familiar satchel it is easy enough to say and that is I agree with that it doesn't get damaged by the majority of attacks. For the strict reasoning that the majority of your other gear also isn't damaged, if an ability would also damage the characters other mundane gears such as clothes or backpack or worn tools ect. than yes maybe it would damage the case otherwise it wouldn't/shouldn't.
Does that apply to characters too or only familiars?
I'm fairly sure that this is a known bit of rules cheese:
If the players are approaching a fortified position guarded by archers and wizards, is it a valid tactic to have the players cover themselves in a large burlap sack? At that point they won't be able to see - but there are no penalties for movement when you can't see. And the enemies won't have line of sight or line of effect to the character inside the sack. So they will not be able to be targeted with arrows or take damage from fireballs. And since the sack is an attended object being worn, then it won't take damage either.
As for the argument for the familiar satchel it is easy enough to say and that is I agree with that it doesn't get damaged by the majority of attacks. For the strict reasoning that the majority of your other gear also isn't damaged, if an ability would also damage the characters other mundane gears such as clothes or backpack or worn tools ect. than yes maybe it would damage the case otherwise it wouldn't/shouldn't.Does that apply to characters too or only familiars?
I'm fairly sure that this is a known bit of rules cheese:
If the players are approaching a fortified position guarded by archers and wizards, is it a valid tactic to have the players cover themselves in a large burlap sack? At that point they won't be able to see - but there are no penalties for movement when you can't see. And the enemies won't have line of sight or line of effect to the character inside the sack. So they will not be able to be targeted with arrows or take damage from fireballs. And since the sack is an attended object being worn, then it won't take damage either.
My wizard uses shrink object on his teepee for exactly this purpose. One moment it's a large wizard hat, the next it's total cover.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
A sack does not include this line:
Any creature inside has neither line of sight nor line of effect to the outside world but also cannot be targeted by attacks that require a line of effect while in the satchel.
So, in your rather puzzling example, the worn sack provides no benefit by virtue of being worn and does not break LOS/LOE for anyone outside the sack: the PC can be targeted and is not immune to damage, but if the sack wearing PC is fireballed, the sack takes no damage and the PC does.
Also, being blinded does have penalties to movement.
is it a valid tactic to have the players cover themselves in a large burlap sack?
Perhaps if the burlap sack is a specific magic item that mentions it blocks line of effect, yes.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I swear the next game that I DM, a player starts wearing a burlap sack (with eye holes); that a swarm will be on its way...lol.
I swear the next game that I DM, a player starts wearing a burlap sack (with eye holes); that a swarm will be on its way...lol.