| T O P I C R E V I E W |
| Stout Heart |
Posted - 10 Dec 2009 : 20:40:27
If recollection servers druids and rangers can have animal companions or familiars. My question is this since familiars are mostly a wizard / sorcerer kind of thing, what is it called when druids and rangers do it? Also is there a clerical extent of an animal companion or familiar perhaps some type of celestial animal. |
| 30 L A T E S T R E P L I E S (Newest First) |
| Wooly Rupert |
Posted - 26 Dec 2009 : 21:17:08
quote:
Originally posted by Stout Heart
quote:
Originally posted by Wooly Rupert
I seem to recall a short story, in fact, where a wizard was slain by someone killing his familiar...
City of splendors before the sorcer turns evil he has a snake familiar that gets killed when he tries to leave through a candel keep teleportation circle or something like that.
No, I think this was one of the Realms of anthologies. It certainly predated City of Splendors. |
| woodwwad |
Posted - 26 Dec 2009 : 04:07:29
quote:
Originally posted by MrHedgehog
True...and in real world mythology aren't familiars supposed to be demons taking the form of an animal? That would make more sense.
I do something like that with familiars. Not just demons, but different sorts of spirits that have been bound in flesh. Make the familiar special not just an amped up animal, that's pretty lame.
As for getting familiars on more characters, if you can cast arcane spells, such as a bard. You can buy a feat that will give you a familiar. I think it is in the complete arcane. |
| MrHedgehog |
Posted - 16 Dec 2009 : 21:39:29
Would that displace poor actual homonculi though :- ( ?
And what if someone's familiar is a quasit or imp... or I guess then that'd just be a different kind or something. |
| Cleric Generic |
Posted - 16 Dec 2009 : 20:21:59
Thats rather like the 3e psion's psi-crystals worked, isn't it? They were formed from a fragment of the psion's personality and functioned otherwise like a familiar, getting more and more intelligent and developing weirder abilities as you levelled.
I like the idea of a wizard having a wonky little haemonculus embodying an aspect of their personality tottering about... |
| MrHedgehog |
Posted - 16 Dec 2009 : 19:24:21
I like that 4th Edition way of familiars working. That makes more sense to me.
With the idea of them being a spirit, they could also be a non-planar spirit...like an extension of the wizard...like an avatar. |
| Stout Heart |
Posted - 16 Dec 2009 : 16:03:56
quote:
Originally posted by Wooly Rupert
quote:
Originally posted by Diffan
quote:
Originally posted by Wooly Rupert
2E did the same thing, and I suspect 4E will also follow that path. They already are, to an extent, by putting different classes in different PHBs.
Too true. As with every edition i've played in D&D it comes to the point that one option is almost always favored above another. But I do believe that with the huge push for balance in 4e, the "power-gamer" grade is significantly less prominent than with previous editions. Before, PrCs only shared one common element and that was prerequisites of a base class (and those are very loose elements) where as Paragon Paths have a very similiar scale to power as others. This tends to make people believe that "if there is no difference in power, then what's the point of taking one over the other beside the RP aspect? Bah, communism!" lol.
I'll admit I lean towards that latter viewpoint... But that's because I grew up when certain classes were more powerful than others at certain levels, and to me it still makes a lot of sense. Yeah, it can suck if you're one of the low-power guys, but I think that makes more sense than all of the classes having identical damage output at the same levels. But that's just me. 
quote:
Originally posted by Diffan
quote:
Originally posted by Wooly Rupert
Back on topic, I've never been a huge fan of familiars, myself. I thought 3E did it better than 2E, but I still saw them as a liability more than an asset.
Again, very true. Our DM allowed us to trade up our familiar with a bonus feat at 1st level because of how useless the feature is to a straight up sorcerer/wizard. With other arcane classes such as the Duskblade or Hexblade, familiars can be very helpful and are a solid choice.
To throw in some additional info about Familiars and their role in 4e, they're an option any Arcane powered class (Artificer, Bard, Sorcerer, Swordmage, Warlock, or Wizard) can choose for the cost of a feat. They give you slight bonuses but have very limited potential in battle. Yet, if they die there is no huge penalty and they return on the following Extended Rest.
I really like this adapatation for a few reasons: First, it allows the player an option if he actually wants one or not. Second, they provide useful bonuses and (with the proper feats) can lend some aid in combat as well as non-combat encounters. Thrid, there is no penalty for one dying on you. Fourth, they're no longer a pain to keep a record sheet for, no leveling up, no unnecessary math for the sake of a few HP, Saves, and Skills. It's simple and easy and still provides wonderful Role-playing.
I like the idea of scaling up familiars as the wizard levels... I've never liked the penalities if a familiar dies, though, nor have I liked the fact that familiars generally have to stick close to their master (though 2E was worse about this than 3E). I don't have any thoughts on how to make the system better; I've just always thought that the penalty for losing a familiar was worse than the benefit of having one. I seem to recall a short story, in fact, where a wizard was slain by someone killing his familiar...
It prolly doesn't help that I've seen more ridiculous ideas for familiars in the fiction than I've seen reasonable ones... I've seen a talking horse, a big cat that turned into a person, and in one of the Endless Quest books, a little dude, all as familiars. The only non-ridiculous one that I can recall off the top of my head was the tressym in Blackstaff.
There was a nice Dragon article in 2E that listed spells for souping up a familiar as the wizard gained levels... I thought that was a good system.
City of splendors before the sorcer turns evil he has a snake familiar that gets killed when he tries to leave through a candel keep teleportation circle or something like that. |
| Sian |
Posted - 16 Dec 2009 : 13:06:47
quote:
Originally posted by Wooly Rupert
quote:
Originally posted by MrHedgehog
True...and in real world mythology aren't familiars supposed to be demons taking the form of an animal? That would make more sense.
I've heard that one... But I'm not sold on it. Having a myth like that makes it real easy to justify harsh actions that may or may not be warranted. If we ported an idea like that into a fantasy setting, it would basically mean that all magic was infernal in origin.
Can easily be handwaved as that each Wizards Familiar is acutally a planar being in hiding ... it could be a demon yeah ... but it could also be a Archon or a Elemental ... theres enough to choose from |
| Cleric Generic |
Posted - 15 Dec 2009 : 09:03:46
the demon cliche could just be one distributed by those that don't like arcane spellcasters, and familiars could be spirits of other persuasions just as easily... Now I want a tiny fire elemental following my next wizard around... |
| Wooly Rupert |
Posted - 15 Dec 2009 : 05:25:24
quote:
Originally posted by MrHedgehog
True...and in real world mythology aren't familiars supposed to be demons taking the form of an animal? That would make more sense.
I've heard that one... But I'm not sold on it. Having a myth like that makes it real easy to justify harsh actions that may or may not be warranted. If we ported an idea like that into a fantasy setting, it would basically mean that all magic was infernal in origin. |
| MrHedgehog |
Posted - 15 Dec 2009 : 04:37:18
True...and in real world mythology aren't familiars supposed to be demons taking the form of an animal? That would make more sense.
|
| Wooly Rupert |
Posted - 15 Dec 2009 : 00:14:43
quote:
Originally posted by MrHedgehog
I liked them having stats. But somehow it seemed silly to have a cat be super powered because its master was level 20...a cat is a cat...
Well, the flipside is that if the cat never becomes better than a regular housecat, than a single goblin with a dagger can cause serious damage to a wizard -- without ever coming near him. |
| Wooly Rupert |
Posted - 15 Dec 2009 : 00:12:24
quote:
Originally posted by Diffan
quote:
Originally posted by Wooly Rupert
2E did the same thing, and I suspect 4E will also follow that path. They already are, to an extent, by putting different classes in different PHBs.
Too true. As with every edition i've played in D&D it comes to the point that one option is almost always favored above another. But I do believe that with the huge push for balance in 4e, the "power-gamer" grade is significantly less prominent than with previous editions. Before, PrCs only shared one common element and that was prerequisites of a base class (and those are very loose elements) where as Paragon Paths have a very similiar scale to power as others. This tends to make people believe that "if there is no difference in power, then what's the point of taking one over the other beside the RP aspect? Bah, communism!" lol.
I'll admit I lean towards that latter viewpoint... But that's because I grew up when certain classes were more powerful than others at certain levels, and to me it still makes a lot of sense. Yeah, it can suck if you're one of the low-power guys, but I think that makes more sense than all of the classes having identical damage output at the same levels. But that's just me.
quote:
Originally posted by Diffan
quote:
Originally posted by Wooly Rupert
Back on topic, I've never been a huge fan of familiars, myself. I thought 3E did it better than 2E, but I still saw them as a liability more than an asset.
Again, very true. Our DM allowed us to trade up our familiar with a bonus feat at 1st level because of how useless the feature is to a straight up sorcerer/wizard. With other arcane classes such as the Duskblade or Hexblade, familiars can be very helpful and are a solid choice.
To throw in some additional info about Familiars and their role in 4e, they're an option any Arcane powered class (Artificer, Bard, Sorcerer, Swordmage, Warlock, or Wizard) can choose for the cost of a feat. They give you slight bonuses but have very limited potential in battle. Yet, if they die there is no huge penalty and they return on the following Extended Rest.
I really like this adapatation for a few reasons: First, it allows the player an option if he actually wants one or not. Second, they provide useful bonuses and (with the proper feats) can lend some aid in combat as well as non-combat encounters. Thrid, there is no penalty for one dying on you. Fourth, they're no longer a pain to keep a record sheet for, no leveling up, no unnecessary math for the sake of a few HP, Saves, and Skills. It's simple and easy and still provides wonderful Role-playing.
I like the idea of scaling up familiars as the wizard levels... I've never liked the penalities if a familiar dies, though, nor have I liked the fact that familiars generally have to stick close to their master (though 2E was worse about this than 3E). I don't have any thoughts on how to make the system better; I've just always thought that the penalty for losing a familiar was worse than the benefit of having one. I seem to recall a short story, in fact, where a wizard was slain by someone killing his familiar...
It prolly doesn't help that I've seen more ridiculous ideas for familiars in the fiction than I've seen reasonable ones... I've seen a talking horse, a big cat that turned into a person, and in one of the Endless Quest books, a little dude, all as familiars. The only non-ridiculous one that I can recall off the top of my head was the tressym in Blackstaff.
There was a nice Dragon article in 2E that listed spells for souping up a familiar as the wizard gained levels... I thought that was a good system. |
| MrHedgehog |
Posted - 14 Dec 2009 : 19:22:28
I remember when I first played D&D being so happy to have my cat and her exploring the dungeons LOL (I first "played" before I could read, or knew what was actually going on)
I liked them having stats. But somehow it seemed silly to have a cat be super powered because its master was level 20...a cat is a cat...
I haven't tried to learn 4th Edition rules (yet, or ever...not sure) |
| Diffan |
Posted - 14 Dec 2009 : 15:08:47
quote:
Originally posted by Wooly Rupert
2E did the same thing, and I suspect 4E will also follow that path. They already are, to an extent, by putting different classes in different PHBs.
Too true. As with every edition i've played in D&D it comes to the point that one option is almost always favored above another. But I do believe that with the huge push for balance in 4e, the "power-gamer" grade is significantly less prominent than with previous editions. Before, PrCs only shared one common element and that was prerequisites of a base class (and those are very loose elements) where as Paragon Paths have a very similiar scale to power as others. This tends to make people believe that "if there is no difference in power, then what's the point of taking one over the other beside the RP aspect? Bah, communism!" lol.
quote:
Originally posted by Wooly Rupert
Back on topic, I've never been a huge fan of familiars, myself. I thought 3E did it better than 2E, but I still saw them as a liability more than an asset.
Again, very true. Our DM allowed us to trade up our familiar with a bonus feat at 1st level because of how useless the feature is to a straight up sorcerer/wizard. With other arcane classes such as the Duskblade or Hexblade, familiars can be very helpful and are a solid choice.
To throw in some additional info about Familiars and their role in 4e, they're an option any Arcane powered class (Artificer, Bard, Sorcerer, Swordmage, Warlock, or Wizard) can choose for the cost of a feat. They give you slight bonuses but have very limited potential in battle. Yet, if they die there is no huge penalty and they return on the following Extended Rest.
I really like this adapatation for a few reasons: First, it allows the player an option if he actually wants one or not. Second, they provide useful bonuses and (with the proper feats) can lend some aid in combat as well as non-combat encounters. Thrid, there is no penalty for one dying on you. Fourth, they're no longer a pain to keep a record sheet for, no leveling up, no unnecessary math for the sake of a few HP, Saves, and Skills. It's simple and easy and still provides wonderful Role-playing. |
| Stout Heart |
Posted - 14 Dec 2009 : 11:39:21
I was reading about the Samurai class and I like the sound of a Dwarven Samurai. |
| MrHedgehog |
Posted - 14 Dec 2009 : 05:34:33
In my opinion Druids should only be able to be Druids of...Material Planes...
I have inherited my parents campaign binders, and in their campaigns Druids had no spells or special abilities on other planes of existence :o
My friends who play D&D (I have never felt I had free time to spend a day playing a game :S) talk about how they choose classes like Samurai and are pixies...with like five prestige classes then get like 18 attacks per round sort of thing. So confusing. |
| Wooly Rupert |
Posted - 14 Dec 2009 : 04:29:46
quote:
Originally posted by Diffan
quote:
Originally posted by MrHedgehog
Hmmm, I think a lot of prestige classes aren't balanced in some sourcebooks and if I were a DM I would disallow most of them. Just created to sell more sourcebooks! "Oh I need this sourcebook to get this better prestige class!!!"
Hehe, it's one of the big flaws of 3rd edition and yet another reason I've changed to 4e.
2E did the same thing, and I suspect 4E will also follow that path. They already are, to an extent, by putting different classes in different PHBs.
Back on topic, I've never been a huge fan of familiars, myself. I thought 3E did it better than 2E, but I still saw them as a liability more than an asset. |
| Diffan |
Posted - 13 Dec 2009 : 22:46:48
quote:
Originally posted by MrHedgehog
Hmmm, I think a lot of prestige classes aren't balanced in some sourcebooks and if I were a DM I would disallow most of them. Just created to sell more sourcebooks! "Oh I need this sourcebook to get this better prestige class!!!"
Hehe, it's one of the big flaws of 3rd edition and yet another reason I've changed to 4e. But to give 3e credit, there are alot of good, well balanced, PrCs out there and only a few are extreamly "broken" in terms of balance. The Planar Shepard comes to mind which allows a druid to choos a plane of existance and the ability to Wild Shape into creatures of that plane. So a druid who chooses "Celestia" for example can now wild shape into an Astral Deva or a Solar and have all their nice, special abilities lol. |
| MrHedgehog |
Posted - 13 Dec 2009 : 20:54:27
Hmmm, I think a lot of prestige classes aren't balanced in some sourcebooks and if I were a DM I would disallow most of them. Just created to sell more sourcebooks! "Oh I need this sourcebook to get this better prestige class!!!" |
| Diffan |
Posted - 13 Dec 2009 : 16:48:23
quote:
Originally posted by MrHedgehog
I didn't know there were other dual spellcasting Prestige Classes! To be honest I have hardly ever actually played Dungeons and Dragons, I just read the books. . . Did they try to create the class balanced and made it TOO balanced?
Well, when you go strictly with "core" (just the Player's Handbook, Monster Manual, and Dungeon Master's Guide) then perhaps it's a favorable PrC since you get to level up both but with the other sourcebooks out there, it's doesn't compete. There are many other classes that dual-spellcast such as the Arcane Heirophan (which I mentioned earlier), True Necromancer, Eldritch Disciple, Eldritch Theurge, Ultimate Magus, etc...
quote:
Originally posted by MrHedgehog
Are there alternate actually balanced Mystic Theurge write ups somewhere?
What I did was require the character to have the turn undead special ability. Then, I gave the class d6 HD, average BAB, and two good Saving throws (Fort and Will) plus levels for this class stack with levels to improve your turn undead class feature and domain powers and your familiar abilities. |
| Stout Heart |
Posted - 13 Dec 2009 : 15:39:11
Realms of magic maybe? |
| MrHedgehog |
Posted - 11 Dec 2009 : 21:38:11
I suppose that explains why Halistra Melarn is a Bard 9 / Cleric 9 instead of say a Cleric 6 / Bard 6 / Mystic Theurge 6 (or something)... I'd always wondered about that. |
| MrHedgehog |
Posted - 11 Dec 2009 : 20:51:13
I didn't know there were other dual spellcasting Prestige Classes! To be honest I have hardly ever actually played Dungeons and Dragons, I just read the books. . . Did they try to create the class balanced and made it TOO balanced?
Are there alternate actually balanced Mystic Theurge write ups somewhere? |
| Stout Heart |
Posted - 11 Dec 2009 : 19:11:23
Gauntlet Guardians are pretty sweet, Hate to refrence old Lavender eyes but I was thinking more along the lines of familiars or companions tide to items like Gwyen. |
| Diffan |
Posted - 11 Dec 2009 : 18:55:37
quote:
Originally posted by MrHedgehog
What if someone was a druid/wizard mystic theurge? Or would there familiar and animal companion not increase in power at all then D: ?
Unfortunately no. The Mystic Theurge is probably one of the weakest, if not the weakest, dual spellcasting PrCs in 3e. The requirements aren't all that hard to achieve but you gain absolutely no class benefits aside from leveling up in two spellcasting classes. You also receive poor HD, poor BAB, and poor saving throw progression. |
| MrHedgehog |
Posted - 11 Dec 2009 : 18:05:36
What if someone was a druid/wizard mystic theurge? Or would there familiar and animal companion not increase in power at all then D: ? |
| Stout Heart |
Posted - 11 Dec 2009 : 17:40:52
Your right there celestials the item comment was mostly non related lol. A way for my sword dancer to cheat at not being able to have animal companion. |
| sfdragon |
Posted - 11 Dec 2009 : 17:24:38
..... lets se I always thought the Lantern archon was a being and not an item.
there were some crafted companions of sorts listed in the 3.x complete warrior I think, one of those could go with a cleric.. |
| Stout Heart |
Posted - 11 Dec 2009 : 14:42:56
quote:
Originally posted by Cleric Generic
I've never heard any official term for druid/ranger familiars other than animal companion, nore have I heard of any equivalent for clerics. It would be kinda cool having a lantern archon or some such following you around, with loads of them wafting about in large temples.
Excatly even if it didnt do anyhing majorly special I would love just having one, I became fascinated with lantern archon's after reading The empyrean odyssey. Do you guys know where I would find examples of or information on item familiars? |
| Diffan |
Posted - 11 Dec 2009 : 09:53:17
Druids/Rangers only have access to Animal Companions while only Wizards/Sorcerers gain access to Familiars as a class feature. A multiclassed Druid/wizard or other variation would allow a character both, but it's abilities would be hindered since the creature's power is derived from the class level.
Now the Arcane Heirophant from Races of the Wild is an extreamly potent PrC for combinint the familiar and animal companion into one big, bad-a$$ companion to have at your side. It's also an extreamly powerful PrC when done correctly. I like going Druid 4/wizard 3 to gain access to the class. Then when you've gone all 10 levels, finish it out with the Druid to max out their powereful spells at 9th level. |
|
|
