I spent two days rewriting and expanding the explanation of this spell, now the longest spell page on my wiki:
What a headache ... and long overdue, though it's not the first time I've decided to increase the amount of detail. This is one of those bits of AD&D that left way too much up to the DM's fiat, meaning that the exact benefits of the familiar was never available to the player in any real sense. What exactly does "night vision" really mean?
Unfortunately, some of the needed back up links are still unavailable, as they need to be written, notably the pseudo-dragon and the quasit. All I can say is that while the latter might be something like the original, the pseudo-dragon definitely won't be. I've never understood the point in introducing a small dragon that's in no way like a dragon, and assuming the prefix "pseudo" is an effective handwave. In any case, those monsters haven't been created because I have a LOT left to do. They'll get done when I need them, or when they happen to come up.
I added six additional kinds of lesser familiar; obviously, I could have added more, as virtually anything could be one. I considered "rabbit" but I'm not convinced on that one yet. I marginally advanced the powers and knowledge conferred on the caster by the familiar and narrowed the gap considerably between what a lesser familiar can bestow and what a greater familiar can. I think it's important for players to want every familiar for some reason, so that it's not just a lottery of winning big or getting the booby prize. Personally, I'll take a chameleon, dog or mongoose quite happily. I think the monkey needs one more small benefit, but I'm worn down by making this spell fit into the sage system and other parts of the game, and I can't think of something.
Anyway, have a look. It's technically a first draft, so there are probably spelling errors and the occasional missing word. Feel free to point them out.
This is one of those spells that I dont think should have ever been a spell in the first place; Like the summon steed spell for paladins(which I think only became a spell in the wotc era?). Get rid of the 1st level spell part and it's still a complex ritual(I do like your rewrite of it). Why is there a need for it to be treated the same as any other 1st level spell when it isn't executed in the same way? If it's going to be a ritual that you have to play out during the game anyway, just have it be that. It's not like other class abilities have to be spells.
ReplyDeleteI can't speak for other games, but ...
ReplyDeleteMy spell rules dictate that as a mage the spells you choose are absolute; they cannot be changed day to day. Getting three spells at first level, those you choose are your ONLY spells ... and you must get on until you climb to the next level to get another choice. I know the original rules were that you could pick different spells from your spellbook each day, but this way my method of greatly hamstringing the mage class, thus reducing its power and making it more dependent on the other characters.
The benefit to treating find familiar as a "spell" is that once you have obtained the familiar, you are one spell in the hole. The familiar may give you certain benefits and all, but those too are constrained and unchangable. So you surrender one spell for these benefits.
If, on the other hand, I were to make "find familiar" into a sage ability, it wouldn't subtract the spell from the mage's repertoire, and by the rules of my sage ability system, you don't get magical benefit abilities until expert status: 60 points of knowledge. That's an average of 9-10th level, by which time most of the familiar benefits are so beneficial. I do this deliberately with the sage system, so that once those magic abilities roll in, the character has already established themselves.
Lance, your point was made by my friends way back in 1979, when we started playing AD&D; it's been around for a long time, and you're right. On the level you claim, it doesn't make sense. Nevertheless, I think it's more "playable" this way; it doesn't have to make sense as long as it's playable.
Ok, that does resolve the issue really if you do spells that way.
ReplyDeleteI think the monkey's ability to manipulate objects would be a pretty hefty benefit all on its own. The other lesser familiars can only drag stuff around in their mouths.
ReplyDeleteAlexis
ReplyDeleteI like the idea of having to sacrifice something for a familiar. Have you considered scaling the cost of sacrifice to the power of familiar?
For example the first level spell slot opens the basic familiar pool: cat, dog, crow, turtle, rat etc. But to get the imp, quasit, brownie, whatever pool, they need something extra. Maybe another spell slot, or a gimpy leg that requires walking with a cane, or loss of two charisma points, or a pound of the caster’s flesh…
That unicorn familiar would cost a lot more…
Also, if the the player does not like the familiar, can they send it away and try for another? How many times would you allow that?
The wiki description includes the following paragraph:
ReplyDelete"Only one familiar may be called by the spell at a time. Once obtained, the spell cannot be used until the familiar dies ... and should the familiar die under suspicious circumstances, suggesting the caster did not appreciate its presence (due to perhaps wishing for a "better" form of familiar), then another spirit will not allow it to be summoned, ever. The familiar is a boon, one that must be appreciated highly by the caster."
I thought that made it clear that no, you cannot exchange the familiar out if you're not pleased. Nor can you conveniently engineer the death of your familiar, unless somehow you can do that AND fool me at the same time. If you can fool me, you deserve another roll.
As far as the "get a brownie or imp at 1st level" thing, it can be a punishment for the player to have to manage something smarter and more powerful than the character; naturally, a more powerful familiar might feel that "serving" it's master involves interpreting the master's immediate orders as "not quite what's really wanted" ... which a familiar like this would be less apt to do with a 10th level mage. There is some leeway for the familiar to act in accordance with its own wishes, ESPECIALLY if the player keeps forgetting the familiar exists, which is very common for D&D players who don't know what to do with one.
I should add that I strongly dislike game metrics that require players to PAY for something that is technically their right to possess. If the unicorn is too much familiar, then we don't make the unicorn a familiar at all. There are other rules that enable the possibility of obtaining a unicorn as a follower or a retainer, that come from other means and methods (sage abilities, reaching name level, etc.).
ReplyDeleteFind Familiar is one of my favorites. However, it's been a long time since I've thought of that table in the PHB as anything but a suggestion.
ReplyDeleteI have some thoughts on your monkey familiar, if you're interested.
An initiative bonus for having a monkey familiar might be nice. Monkeys are very quick.
Alternately, with the number of monkey-snatches-something-from-unsuspecting-tourist videos on YouTube, how about conveying some kind of Pick Pockets skill? Perhaps the monkey has a Pick Pocket capability that the wizard can exploit.
Finally, since monkeys are often used for entertainment purposes and generally greeted positively by humans, how about a Reaction Adjustment boost for a wizard with a monkey familiar?
Personally, the more I play and run these games, I'm glad for stuff that's not as well-defined to give me and my players a vector to make the game our own. Some DMs like fiat. I prefer collaboration and consensus. Rule gaps like this provide me and my groups opportunities for meta-play and I enjoy that.
I have no shortage of rule gaps, Carl. In fact, the wiki identifies 2,500 of them BY NAME, and there's no telling how many there are that haven't been identified.
ReplyDeletePersonally, I find that rule gaps create periods of annoyed discussion, along the lines of, "Why the fuck haven't you figured this out yet, Alexis? We want to play." My players hold me to a high standard. AND they know that whatever address I come up with for the circumstance, it won't be "fiat," it will be "selfless."
On the whole, any time "Running" incorporates something that must be figured out in the here and now, it's a weakness in the momentum, flow and immersion of the game. Sort of like having to pause my Oxygen Not Included game so the programmer can fix something. Not "meta-play." Not play at all. Just a waste of our time.