Revising familiars? (was: A VERY positive review of 4E)

"Keith Davies" <keith.davies DeleteThis @kjdavies.org> wrote in message
news:slrnft2gis.e6c.keith.davies@kjdavies.org...
> Hadsil <forumite DeleteThis @netzero.com> wrote:
>>
>> I would like them to develop the familiar into something useful. Now
>> all they are really good for is scouting and the occasional touch
>> spell attack if you can ensure their absolute safety. I wouldn't want
>> them to become like the druid's animal companion to become another
>> melee combatant, but since they are a wizard's familiar, they should
>> emphasize magic assistance to the wizard. A wizard player should
>> seriously consider wanting to have one without them becoming a must
>> have.
>
> I've thought about this from time to time. I'd like to see them become
> more resilient and magical... not necessarily more *powerful*, but more
> interesting.
>
> I've had some ideas around the matter, and IIRC I've posted the start of
> my explorations here. I'll see if I can find them.

I tend to picture the classic familiar not as an animal that can be called
or found, but as a piece of the wizard's soul in animate form - something
like the daemons in Philip Pullman's His Dark Materials series, but just an
aspect of the person's soul rather than the whole thing.

Why a spellcaster would divide his essence like that, and what advantages he
gains from it, I haven't developed yet. I'll think some more about it and
post again if I come up with something workable.

--
Mark.
 >> Stay informed about: Revising familiars? (was: A VERY positive review of 4E) 

Keith Davies wrote:
> Hadsil <forumite.TakeThisOut@netzero.com> wrote:
>
>>I would like them to develop the familiar into something useful. Now
>>all they are really good for is scouting and the occasional touch
>>spell attack if you can ensure their absolute safety. I wouldn't want
>>them to become like the druid's animal companion to become another
>>melee combatant, but since they are a wizard's familiar, they should
>>emphasize magic assistance to the wizard. A wizard player should
>>seriously consider wanting to have one without them becoming a must
>>have.
>
>
> I've thought about this from time to time. I'd like to see them become
> more resilient and magical... not necessarily more *powerful*, but more
> interesting.

I never understood the issue with using one's familiars, once they
finally introduced the GOOD familiars (not your standard cat, toad,
etc.). I got ACRES of use out of the familiars I had; the standard
"mage want!" familiar was the Pseudodragon, but the Wanderer had a
Brownie familiar who was excellently useful throughout the campaign --
in fact, the others treated him more as a secondary PC for me than
anything else.


--
Sea Wasp
/^\
;;;
Live Journal: http://seawasp.livejournal.com
 >> Stay informed about: Revising familiars? (was: A VERY positive review of 4E) 

Mark Blunden wrote:
[...]
> I tend to picture the classic familiar not as an animal that can be
> called or found, but as a piece of the wizard's soul in animate form -
> something like the daemons in Philip Pullman's His Dark Materials
> series, but just an aspect of the person's soul rather than the whole
> thing.
>
> Why a spellcaster would divide his essence like that, and what
> advantages he gains from it, I haven't developed yet. I'll think some
> more about it and post again if I come up with something workable.

Some guy named Tolkien proposed a fairly good model for how that would
work, in the previous millenium.

--
Peter Knutsen
sagatafl.org
 >> Stay informed about: Revising familiars? (was: A VERY positive review of 4E) 

"Peter Knutsen" <peter.TakeThisOut@sagatafl.invalid> wrote in message
news:47d1a3fc$0$15898$edfadb0f@dtext01.news.tele.dk...
> Mark Blunden wrote:
> [...]
>> I tend to picture the classic familiar not as an animal that can be
>> called or found, but as a piece of the wizard's soul in animate form -
>> something like the daemons in Philip Pullman's His Dark Materials series,
>> but just an aspect of the person's soul rather than the whole thing.
>>
>> Why a spellcaster would divide his essence like that, and what advantages
>> he gains from it, I haven't developed yet. I'll think some more about it
>> and post again if I come up with something workable.
>
> Some guy named Tolkien proposed a fairly good model for how that would
> work, in the previous millenium.

Yes, but I don't think every wizard who creates a familiar is going to do so
with the goal of using it to rule all other familiars and bind them in his
dark domain.

Some of them, granted. But not all of them.

--
Mark.
 >> Stay informed about: Revising familiars? (was: A VERY positive review of 4E) 

Mark Blunden wrote:
> "Peter Knutsen" <peter RemoveThis @sagatafl.invalid> wrote in message
>> Mark Blunden wrote:
>> [...]
>>> Why a spellcaster would divide his essence like that, and what
>>> advantages he gains from it, I haven't developed yet. I'll think some
>>> more about it and post again if I come up with something workable.
>>
>> Some guy named Tolkien proposed a fairly good model for how that would
>> work, in the previous millenium.
>
> Yes, but I don't think every wizard who creates a familiar is going to
> do so with the goal of using it to rule all other familiars and bind
> them in his dark domain.
>
> Some of them, granted. But not all of them.

It was more general than that.

--
Peter Knutsen
sagatafl.org
 >> Stay informed about: Revising familiars? (was: A VERY positive review of 4E) 

Mark Blunden wrote:
> Yes, but I don't think every wizard who creates a familiar is going to do so
> with the goal of using it to rule all other familiars and bind them in his
> dark domain.
>
> Some of them, granted. But not all of them.

Yes! Go forth, my army of squirrels, and subjugate your former masters!
The wizards at the academy called me mad, they _laughed_ at me! Well
who's mad now? Aaah-hahahaha!
 >> Stay informed about: Revising familiars? (was: A VERY positive review of 4E) 

Sea Wasp wrote:
> I never understood the issue with using one's familiars, once they
> finally introduced the GOOD familiars (not your standard cat, toad,
> etc.). I got ACRES of use out of the familiars I had; the standard
> "mage want!" familiar was the Pseudodragon, but the Wanderer had a
> Brownie familiar who was excellently useful throughout the campaign --
> in fact, the others treated him more as a secondary PC for me than
> anything else.

I've been getting prepped to play a wizard in a seafaring campaign and
having a hard time picking a worthwhile familiar. First time I've played
a wizard in a long time so I'm new at the niggling little details. I
just know I'm going to wind up shipwrecked at some point and I want to
be able to get dumped in the water without worrying about my pocket
weasel drowning. I was thinking rat initially, since they've got both a
swim speed and a climb speed, then pondering parrot instead. The
downside of parrot is that I do a reasonably good Gilbert Gottfried
impression and I just know the parrot will turn out to be Iago.

Then I rediscovered Improved Familiar. If I can just hang on until 5th
level I can get a water elemental. No worries about drowning then.

I'm sure it's been addressed before, but the description for Improved
Familiar says I can get an improved familiar "only when they could
normally acquire a new familiar." Does that mean I have to dismiss my
old familiar first? That imposes an XP penalty and a waiting period of a
whole year, which strikes me as a terrible tradeoff for an active
adventurer. One pretty much has to decide from the moment of character
creation that one's going to be taking improved familiar later on and
going without a regular familiar until then.
 >> Stay informed about: Revising familiars? (was: A VERY positive review of 4E) 

On Mar 7, 7:29 pm, "Mark Blunden"
<markATmarkdbDOTplusDOT....RemoveThis@addresss.invalid> wrote:
> "Keith Davies" <keith.dav....RemoveThis@kjdavies.org> wrote in message
>
> news:slrnft2gis.e6c.keith.davies@kjdavies.org...
>
>
>
> > Hadsil <forum....RemoveThis@netzero.com> wrote:
>
> >> I would like them to develop the familiar into something useful. Now
> >> all they are really good for is scouting and the occasional touch
> >> spell attack if you can ensure their absolute safety. I wouldn't want
> >> them to become like the druid's animal companion to become another
> >> melee combatant, but since they are a wizard's familiar, they should
> >> emphasize magic assistance to the wizard. A wizard player should
> >> seriously consider wanting to have one without them becoming a must
> >> have.
>
> > I've thought about this from time to time. I'd like to see them become
> > more resilient and magical... not necessarily more *powerful*, but more
> > interesting.
>
> > I've had some ideas around the matter, and IIRC I've posted the start of
> > my explorations here. I'll see if I can find them.
>
> I tend to picture the classic familiar not as an animal that can be called
> or found, but as a piece of the wizard's soul in animate form - something
> like the daemons in Philip Pullman's His Dark Materials series, but just an
> aspect of the person's soul rather than the whole thing.
>
> Why a spellcaster would divide his essence like that, and what advantages he
> gains from it, I haven't developed yet.

Well, wizardry could just work that way. You can't memorize/cast
spells
if you don't split your personality/soul/whatever and store the
"splinter"
in your familiar. Would be tough on the wizards if the familiars
wouldn't
be a lot less likely to die than now.

LL
 >> Stay informed about: Revising familiars? (was: A VERY positive review of 4E) 

In article <25qAj.57345$pM4.18576@pd7urf1no>,
Bryan Derksen <bryan.derksen.TakeThisOut@shaw.ca> wrote:

> I've been getting prepped to play a wizard in a seafaring campaign and
> having a hard time picking a worthwhile familiar. First time I've played
> a wizard in a long time so I'm new at the niggling little details. I
> just know I'm going to wind up shipwrecked at some point and I want to
> be able to get dumped in the water without worrying about my pocket
> weasel drowning. I was thinking rat initially, since they've got both a
> swim speed and a climb speed, then pondering parrot instead. The
> downside of parrot is that I do a reasonably good Gilbert Gottfried
> impression and I just know the parrot will turn out to be Iago.

I think you need to figure out how much water activity the familiar will
be involved in. Decide how important that swim movement rating is.

The familiars given are only examples. I'd suggest working with the DM
to pick a suitable one.

Thoughts that come to mind:

sea snake
small monitor lizard
small water spider
crab
puffin

or sillier examples like

duck
beaver

maybe even a nixie at the right level.

If you want the functionality of a familiar without the same
restrictions, you might work with your DM on a homonculus that can serve
the same function.

- Allen
 >> Stay informed about: Revising familiars? (was: A VERY positive review of 4E) 

Allen Wessels wrote:
> maybe even a nixie at the right level.

Nixie look roughly on par with small water elementale, it's definitely
on my list for consideration. They're freshwater fae but the rules don't
draw a distinction so hopefully that means it's not a big deal for them.

At 7th level a water mephit also looks good, they can swim _and_ fly,
except that they don't really look so good (little bat-winged fish-men
that vomit acid. They're supposed to have a highly cheerful attitude,
though, so they evidently don't let it get them down.

I like to let my characters develop organically so planning more than a
few levels ahead is often futile, but with the potential for that
one-year waiting period getting in the way I'm definitely going to
explore all my options here.
 >> Stay informed about: Revising familiars? (was: A VERY positive review of 4E) 

Bryan Derksen wrote:
> Allen Wessels wrote:
>
>> maybe even a nixie at the right level.
>
>
> Nixie look roughly on par with small water elementale, it's definitely
> on my list for consideration. They're freshwater fae but the rules don't
> draw a distinction so hopefully that means it's not a big deal for them.
>
> At 7th level a water mephit also looks good, they can swim _and_ fly,
> except that they don't really look so good (little bat-winged fish-men
> that vomit acid. They're supposed to have a highly cheerful attitude,
> though, so they evidently don't let it get them down.
>
> I like to let my characters develop organically so planning more than a
> few levels ahead is often futile, but with the potential for that
> one-year waiting period getting in the way I'm definitely going to
> explore all my options here.

Water Mephits also have hands and can speak, so if you manage to get
your hands on some ranks in UMD they can be VERY useful indeed.

OTOH, for the feat you spend to get one you're probably much better off
just taking Leadership instead and getting a cohort. This is almost
always true, and the thing that really annoys me about Improved
Familiar. Unless the DM has specifically banned Leadership in his
campaign, the only way Improved Familiar seems really useful is if
you've already got Leadership and a cohort.

- Ron ^*^
 >> Stay informed about: Revising familiars? (was: A VERY positive review of 4E) 

Bryan Derksen <bryan.derksen DeleteThis @shaw.ca> wrote:
> Mark Blunden wrote:
>> Yes, but I don't think every wizard who creates a familiar is going to do so
>> with the goal of using it to rule all other familiars and bind them in his
>> dark domain.
>>
>> Some of them, granted. But not all of them.
>
> Yes! Go forth, my army of squirrels, and subjugate your former masters!
> The wizards at the academy called me mad, they _laughed_ at me! Well
> who's mad now? Aaah-hahahaha!

Squirrel Girl was a Marvel 'heroine'. Who beat Deadpool. A few times.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Squirrel_Girl


Keith
--
Keith Davies below you, right now: radioactive magma
keith.davies DeleteThis @kjdavies.org above you, right now: hard vacuum
keith.davies DeleteThis @gmail.com probably somewhere near you: a product with
http://www.kjdavies.org/ label warning you it is unsafe if misused
 >> Stay informed about: Revising familiars? (was: A VERY positive review of 4E) 

Werebat wrote:
> OTOH, for the feat you spend to get one you're probably much better off
> just taking Leadership instead and getting a cohort. This is almost
> always true, and the thing that really annoys me about Improved
> Familiar. Unless the DM has specifically banned Leadership in his
> campaign, the only way Improved Familiar seems really useful is if
> you've already got Leadership and a cohort.

Well, it's also a flavor thing. But you're right that just looking at
the numbers there's a strong advantage to going the Leadership route. An
improved familiar and a cohort appear to start out at very roughly the
same ECL but the familiar's progression after that sucks by comparison.
I'm not a powergamer by any stretch of the imagination but it does seem
like a waste of a feat in this light.

I'll bounce this off my DM at some point and see what he thinks. Perhaps
we can house-rule up a variant that combines the two feats so that they
have more similar effects.
 >> Stay informed about: Revising familiars? (was: A VERY positive review of 4E)