|
4 years ago ::
Apr 23, 2009 - 4:12PM
#421
|
|
|
I'm reposting my reply so it isn't swallowed by the spam. Something about hitpoints and stuff.
This is irrelevant. The fact is that we just ignore these things in D&D because they're part of the game. The king should be rezzed every single time that he's assassinated, but he's not because that makes for a crappy story. Similarly, in D&D, you can never have a broken arm or anything like that. Either you're alive with no penalty or you're unconscious and dying.
Fair enough. Which is all the more reason to make it more then a single feat.
...No. You're not going to get full XP for setting off traps with your familiar. Then again, I wouldn't allow familiars to auto-form during a short rest. I'd lessen the harsh penalties in 3e, but I'd make you perform a ritual costing gold proportional to your level to get it back.
Trained monkeys don't come back after death. Also they require a monkey and training time, and you can't store your monkey off in elsewhere.
Completely missing the point.
So now I ask why do you need one feat to do all that? Why shouldn't you be able to spend one feat to gain massive benefits instead of one feat per feat worthy benefit?
Because a familiar isn't a "massive" benefit, at least in the games that I play. Whoo, the rogue can have her monkey use Aid Another. Wow, a +2 bonus on some skill checks. That's pretty...game-breaking. And then the moneky can feed her CLW potions if she drops. ...Why does this matter? She's not invulnerable. She regains 1d8+1 HP. If the monkey rolls well, she'll be conscious again. If not, she's stable but unable to act.
Those aren't massive benefits at all. The "massive" benefits in 3e involved cheese--UMD, polymorph into win, and so on. And yes, those things were somewhat overpowered, but a familiar still has half its master's HP (making it an easy target), and the DM should probably just ban the use of UMD (Oberoni, yes, but that's an edge case and I think it is acceptable to do so).
But, in 4e, you don't have the ability to polymorph others. And even if you did, the familiar could still be a crummy fighter by virtue of the rules themselves making the familiar weak.
|
|
|
|
4 years ago ::
Apr 23, 2009 - 4:13PM
#422
|
Date Joined:
Sep 12, 2008
|
No it's not a massive benefit. The familiar is worth a feat. And you get a feats worth out of it.
Anyhow, getting back to the thread's main crux, QFT.
A familiar is worth a feat. You are more then welcome to add additional feats for familiars that each provide a bonus comparable to a feat, yet when taken together as a package add up to what you desire to see in a familiar.
Moreover, you are also more than welcome to instead replace class features, which are more valuable than feats, to give any familiar certain familiar abilities. For example, in your games, replacing the Ritual Caster class feature (which includes free rituals, and for a Wizard is worth more than for other casters, generally) might give ALL familiars taken with said feature the ability to manipulate objects, be it 2 lb objects like a rat, or more. In this case, you must also re-balance the rat to bring it back into line since it now effectively loses a key ability.
If you instead replace something much more valuable, such as Implement Mastery, a familiar is more than justified having more than 1 hit point, the ability to manipulate objects, and possibly even the ability to exist beyond 10 squares like a cat can. Again, in this case both a rat AND a cat must be re-balanced, given additional abilities until it is brought back into line with the other familiars.
And reposting that response, Smiteasaur, is utterly worthless.  Why? Because gaining +2 to even one skill AND some additional ability, is in fact utterly in-line with the power level of a feat especially a heroic-tier feat.
|
|
|
|
4 years ago ::
Apr 23, 2009 - 4:19PM
#423
|
|
|
Oh, another house rule I intend to implement is that it costs a Healing Surge to re-summon your familiar. Not a huge drawback (not like XP loss or anything), but at least there is *some* penalty for your familiar dying.
|
|
|
|
4 years ago ::
Apr 23, 2009 - 4:21PM
#424
|
|
|
I used familiars in every game edition besides 3e which just sucked and I returned all my books for that edition. 3.5 was a blast with them. You had to spend more feats to make it worth while.
|
|
|
|
4 years ago ::
Apr 23, 2009 - 4:22PM
#425
|
Date Joined:
Jun 10, 2008
|
Alternatively, you could make a ritual that allows you to summon and bind a spirit companion with somewhat more robust capabilities to you. If it was destroyed you'd have to spend the ritual cost and time to retrieve it.
There's another potential avenue to achieve a "familiar" theme.
|
|
|
|
4 years ago ::
Apr 23, 2009 - 4:25PM
#426
|
Date Joined:
Sep 28, 2006
|
Alternatively, you could make a ritual that allows you to summon and bind a spirit companion with somewhat more robust capabilities to you. If it was destroyed you'd have to spend the ritual cost and time to retrieve it.
There's another potential avenue to achieve a "familiar" theme.
I'd suggest fiddling with the undead servitor ritual for that.
Well... At least we got custom avatars....
|
|
|
|
4 years ago ::
Apr 23, 2009 - 4:34PM
#427
|
|
|
Alternatively, you could make a ritual that allows you to summon and bind a spirit companion with somewhat more robust capabilities to you. If it was destroyed you'd have to spend the ritual cost and time to retrieve it.
There's another potential avenue to achieve a "familiar" theme.
So now we've got three avenues for enhanced familiars:
1) Ritual-based (costs money each time the familiar dies, and should probably be based on the level of the familiar)
2) Feat-based (costs one or more feats to get various special abilities)
3) Feature-based (replace a class feature with an enhanced familiar.)
Seems like there's a lot of room for good house rules there.
|
|
|
|
4 years ago ::
Apr 23, 2009 - 4:39PM
#428
|
Date Joined:
Sep 12, 2008
|
So now we've got three avenues for enhanced familiars:
1) Ritual-based (costs money each time the familiar dies, and should probably be based on the level of the familiar)
2) Feat-based (costs one or more feats to get various special abilities)
3) Feature-based (replace a class feature with an enhanced familiar.)
Seems like there's a lot of room for good house rules there.
Also, magical items such as Figurines of Wondrous Power, or items with a similar power-level. It lasts for 8 hours per day in one continuous go. If "killed", your "familiar" comes back the next day when you call it.
|
|
|
|
4 years ago ::
Apr 23, 2009 - 4:58PM
#429
|
Date Joined:
Jun 18, 2003
|
Let's not derail this further. In the sense of pure mechanics--and mechanics alone--there's no way to break an arm.
You don't play the Mechanics, you play the game.
Resident Logic Cannon
|
|
|
|
4 years ago ::
Apr 23, 2009 - 5:29PM
#430
|
Date Joined:
Oct 19, 2008
|
You don't play the Mechanics, you play the game.
In Soviet Russia, Game Plays You!
. . . Ok, I got nothin'.
But you are right. The mechanics enable the game to be played, but the mechanics themselves are not the be-all end-all of the game.
"I don't know the key to success, but the key to failure is trying to please everybody." --Bill Cosby (1937- )Vanador: OK. You ripped a gateway to Hell, killed half the town, and raised the dead as feral zombies. We're going to kill you. But it can go two ways. We want you to run as fast as you possibly can toward the south of the town to draw the Zombies to you, and right before they catch you, I'll put an arrow through your head to end it instantly. If you don't agree to do this, we'll tie you this building and let the Zombies rip you apart slowly. Dimitry: God I love being Neutral. 4th edition is dead, long live 4th edition.Salla: opinionated, but commonly right. fun quotes
Show
You have to do the work first, and show you can do the work, before someone is going to pay you for it.
If you can't understand how someone yelling at another person would make them fight harder and longer, then you need to look at the forums a bit closer.
quote author=56832398 post=519321747]Considering DnD is a game wouldn't all styles be gamist?
|
|
|
