Best familiar is...the toad?
Randy Patton
After two decades of being dissed by their peers, mages with toad
familiars are getting the last laugh in 3E.
+2 CON? Geez! It's not even a +2 bonus to certain rolls, but +2 to the
ability score itself!
Let's see.... Since you get an ability score bonus for every two points
over 10, a Wizard or Sorcerer who snags a toad familiar gets one bonus
hit point per level, +1 to Fortitude saves, and +1 to all skills based
on CON, including the vital-to-mages Concentration skill. Not bad for a
familiar that can live in your pocket.
Of course, the toad is listed as having no attacks, but given the dire
consequences of losing a familiar I doubt most mages are going to be
sending them out as front-line fighters anyway. Anyone know what the
official rule is on a creature delivering touch-based spells if it has
no natural attacks?
The familiar that really sucks (no pun intended) is the bat. Sure, it's
got flight, but it has no attacks and grants its master no special
benefits! Compared to the hawk, which flies and fights circles around
it, the bat's a dud.
Eli Fenton
> ability score itself!
Why would a toad give a constitution bonus?
You also have to take into account the rather short lifespan of a toad,
and their low HP (I assume).
> The familiar that really sucks (no pun intended) is the bat. Sure, it's
> got flight, but it has no attacks and grants its master no special
> benefits! Compared to the hawk, which flies and fights circles around
> it, the bat's a dud.
Wouldn't a bat give sonar-ability? That can be pretty useful in the dark.
Of course, caring for a bat in the daytime above ground could be a pain.
Beau Yarbrough
Randy Patton <randy....@vt.edu> wrote:
>
> After two decades of being dissed by their peers, mages with toad
> familiars are getting the last laugh in 3E.
TREVOR!
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
Peter Seebach
Eli Fenton <else...@beast.toad.net> wrote:
>> +2 CON? Geez! It's not even a +2 bonus to certain rolls, but +2 to the
>> ability score itself!
>Why would a toad give a constitution bonus?
Durable little buggers.
>You also have to take into account the rather short lifespan of a toad,
>and their low HP (I assume).
That would be the *animal* toad. This is the *magical beast*, and, like any
familiar, it has half the mage's hit points.
BTW, the cgen demo seems to give familiars 1/2 of your hit-points-before-con,
or maybe 1/2 of your hit-points-from-wizard-levels-only. Anyone know exactly
what it's supposed to be?
-s
--
Copyright 2000, All rights reserved. Peter Seebach / se...@plethora.net
C/Unix wizard, Pro-commerce radical, Spam fighter. Boycott Spamazon!
Consulting & Computers: http://www.plethora.net/
Eli Fenton
> Durable little buggers.
Not *that* durable. +2 con? That would mean the average toad could take
the same beating as the top 10% of humans (if I remember my
standard-deviation curves right).
Hm... I think I'll have to rewrite that Find Familiar spell before one of
my characters uses it.
The wizard character I DM is a LN necromancer who is quickly being
corrupted by his magic, and who has little patience for much of anything.
Wouldn't it be funny if I gave him a fish as a familiar? :)
Ben Buckner
Necromancer's familiar should be a maggot (or group thereof).
Ben B.
Randy Patton
No idea.
> You also have to take into account the rather short lifespan of a toad,
> and their low HP (I assume).
A familiar has effective Hit Dice equal to the master's level, half the
master's hit points, and its choice of its own saving throw in each
category or the master's. They also save for zero damage against
attacks that normally allow a save for 1/2.
I don't know how long a magical toad lives...and I suppose no one else
does, either. ;-)
>
> Wouldn't a bat give sonar-ability? That can be pretty useful in the dark.
> Of course, caring for a bat in the daytime above ground could be a pain.
>
The bat is listed as giving no special ability to the master. With no
special attack (or indeed any attack at all) the bat's a bummer.
C. Eric Nastav
Randy Patton <randy....@vt.edu> wrote in message
news:randy.patton-79B5...@news.vt.edu...
>
> The familiar that really sucks (no pun intended) is the bat. Sure, it's
> got flight, but it has no attacks and grants its master no special
> benefits! Compared to the hawk, which flies and fights circles around
> it, the bat's a dud.
I haven't read the new book yet. But it seems like the bat would be quite
helpful to mage who don't have infravision or against darkness spells
because of their sonar.
Eric N.
Eli Fenton
> > The wizard character I DM is a LN necromancer who is quickly being
> > corrupted by his magic, and who has little patience for much of anything.
> > Wouldn't it be funny if I gave him a fish as a familiar? :)
> Necromancer's familiar should be a maggot (or group thereof).
Hm... Special power gained by the wizard: Ability to eat and enjoy rotting
flesh. :) What happens after a day or two, when the magot turns into a
fly? Or a week or two after that, when the fly dies? Maybe a whole colony
of flies could be considered one familiar.
Kyle Thomason
>
> After two decades of being dissed by their peers, mages with toad
> familiars are getting the last laugh in 3E.
>
> ability score itself!
>
> over 10, a Wizard or Sorcerer who snags a toad familiar gets one bonus
> hit point per level, +1 to Fortitude saves, and +1 to all skills based
> on CON, including the vital-to-mages Concentration skill. Not bad for a
> familiar that can live in your pocket.
>
Just think about the Dwarven mage (wizard, whatever) with a 20 CON & a
toad familiar....+6 HP/level, fort saves, Concentration skill, give him
a couple of levels in Rogue, and you'll have a character that's almost
as good as a monk with saving throws.
Kyle
-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 80,000 Newsgroups - 16 Different Servers! =-----
Patrick Berry
> >
> > After two decades of being dissed by their peers, mages with toad
> > familiars are getting the last laugh in 3E.
>
I had the same thought. Perhaps Neville Longbottom is wiser than we
give him credit for.
Beau Yarbrough
Patrick Berry <patric...@usa.alcatel.com> wrote:
> > > After two decades of being dissed by their peers, mages with toad
> > > familiars are getting the last laugh in 3E.
> >
> > TREVOR!
>
> I had the same thought. Perhaps Neville Longbottom is wiser than we
> give him credit for.
IIRC, he didn't choose Trevor, just as Ron didn't choose Scabbers. But
good old Neville may not be doomed to failure in any case. (Now to make
up a plant-dedicated spell list for the boy ...)
C. Eric Nastav
Ben Buckner <tar...@imap2.asu.edu> wrote in message
news:39982611...@imap2.asu.edu...
>
> Necromancer's familiar should be a maggot (or group thereof).
>
fluid? They don't have any real developed sense except touch and possibly
taste.
And they aren't nearly as intelligent as a hawk or a toad. How about a
larger then normal dragonfly or horse fly? Or actually a rat rat be good.
Eric N.
Eli Fenton
> Umm...and what would the maggot's special ability be? Spit digestive
> fluid? They don't have any real developed sense except touch and possibly
> taste.
> And they aren't nearly as intelligent as a hawk or a toad. How about a
> larger then normal dragonfly or horse fly? Or actually a rat rat be good.
How about a dust-mite? Jellyfish? Rhinocerous? Rhubarb? Tapeworm? Or
everyone's favorite familiar -- a DM.
Ben Buckner
>
> Ben Buckner <tar...@imap2.asu.edu> wrote in message
> news:39982611...@imap2.asu.edu...
> >
> > Necromancer's familiar should be a maggot (or group thereof).
> >
> fluid? They don't have any real developed sense except touch and possibly
> taste.
Resist Disease for the necromancer (ever see a sick maggot?), which we
should all agree is pretty useful for a guy who spends a lot of time
around rotting corpses. I guess the maggots and the flies would make
more sense, basically a Swarm with respect to HD etc.
Ben B.
Duane Vanderpol
news:Pine.LNX.4.10.100081...@beast.toad.net...
> > >Why would a toad give a constitution bonus?
>
>
> Not *that* durable. +2 con? That would mean the average toad could take
> the same beating as the top 10% of humans (if I remember my
> standard-deviation curves right).
>
> Hm... I think I'll have to rewrite that Find Familiar spell before one of
> my characters uses it.
Boy, you are so not getting the point. Nitpick: it's not a spell it's a
given ability for sorcerers and wizards to summon a familiar, though it does
have a 100gp materials cost. Anyway, what's so gawdawfully bad about a
wizard having a USEFUL familiar that won't place his already fragile life in
even greater peril because his familiar might go and die on him. I guess I
wouldn't have a problem with you saying "there will be no familiars in my
world because they just don't fit in properly" but saying that you're gonna
rewrite it before someone uses it is like saying "gosh! 5d6 for a fireball?
Better rewrite that sucker before some uppity mage gets to be 5th level!"
A +2 to your con looks pretty outrageous on the surface but what it gets
you isn't much more than a mere +1 hit point increase. Wee hah! That 4 hit
point first level wizard now has a rockin' 5 points! Yep. Better put a
stopper on that real quick! That could lead to a wizard actually surviving!
Who knows what hideous events it could lead to?
I am assuming that you probably don't yet have the PH or haven't
bothered to actually find out the details of what you've already decided has
to be rewritten so I'll give you some more information. Other benefits to
having a familar include Alertness while the familar is within arm's reach
and telepathic link allowing communication (within the limited intelligence
of the creature). These _might_ contribute to the wizard staying alive at a
lower level but other familiar effects have to be instituted in order to see
to it that the familiar itself survives or the point of allowing a caster to
have a familiar at all is utterly wasted. Nobody ever bothered with them
before because they were FAR, FAR more of a liability than any benefit you
could gain.
Part of the survival is allowing the familiar the equivalent of half the
casters hit points. For a decent con wizard with a toad his hit points
might be all of 6 and the toad's all of 3 at first level. At 5th level you
might be talking about an 11 hit point toad. Yeah, it's better than a human
nobody but then this is a wizards familiar not a human nobody. It's
supposed to be able to survive or there's no point to it's being in
existence.
> The wizard character I DM is a LN necromancer who is quickly being
> corrupted by his magic, and who has little patience for much of anything.
> Wouldn't it be funny if I gave him a fish as a familiar? :)
Well obviously a familiar is not a _requirement_. Just because you
might have a character who can summon Cthulhu doesn't mean he thinks it'd be
a keen idea. It's something that can expand the wizards options and as the
wizard gains levels can become a genuinely useful servant, not a constant
source of danger because it might die.
Would I run a wizard with a familar? Possibly. I still can't quite
think admiringly about the powers of a wizard who has a toad in his pocket
like Dennis the Menace or Huck Finn. However, now at least I DO consider it
an option, not a completely laughable notion.
--
Duane VanderPol
http://home.earthlink.net/~duanevp
Alea jacta est. In omnia paratus. Ars gratia artis.
Duane Vanderpol
> > Wouldn't a bat give sonar-ability? That can be pretty useful in the
dark.
> > Of course, caring for a bat in the daytime above ground could be a pain.
>
> The bat is listed as giving no special ability to the master. With no
> special attack (or indeed any attack at all) the bat's a bummer.
Just because it can't cause damage doesn't mean it's useless. At third
level it could still deliver touch attacks on the other side of a combat
from where the caster is. And don't rule out the usefulness of flight -
being able to send a small, flying rodent where you yourself could not go,
having it describe what it sees and so forth.
Ben Buckner
Duane Vanderpol wrote:
>
> "Randy Patton" <randy....@vt.edu> wrote in message
> news:randy.patton-739C...@news.vt.edu...
> > > Wouldn't a bat give sonar-ability? That can be pretty useful in the
> dark.
> > > Of course, caring for a bat in the daytime above ground could be a pain.
> >
> > The bat is listed as giving no special ability to the master. With no
> > special attack (or indeed any attack at all) the bat's a bummer.
>
> Just because it can't cause damage doesn't mean it's useless. At third
> level it could still deliver touch attacks on the other side of a combat
> from where the caster is. And don't rule out the usefulness of flight -
> being able to send a small, flying rodent where you yourself could not go,
> having it describe what it sees and so forth.
It ain't a rodent.
Ben B.
Brightshade
Ben Buckner wrote in message <39982611...@imap2.asu.edu>...
>Necromancer's familiar should be a maggot (or group thereof).
>
I personally like to give my necromancer's a skeletal rat for a familiar.
Matt Frisch
scribed into the ether:
>> +2 CON? Geez! It's not even a +2 bonus to certain rolls, but +2 to the
>> ability score itself!
>
>Why would a toad give a constitution bonus?
>
>You also have to take into account the rather short lifespan of a toad,
>and their low HP (I assume).
Familiars in 3E are not normal animals in service to the wiz/sorc. They are
magical creatures that are superior to their "normal" counterpart in every
way.
Here is the toad: Master gains +2 constitution
Hit dice: Treat as the master's character level (for effects related to hit
dice). Use the familiar's normal total if it is higher. Meaning: Your
familiar gets resistance to things like dragonfear, cloudkill, etc, based
on your hit dice once you get to about 2nd-3rd level.
Hit points: One half the master's total, rounded down. As you get stronger,
so does your familiar. All the more so with that con bonus the toad would
provide.
Attacks: Usethe master's base attack bonus. Use the familiar's dexterity or
strength modifier, whichever is greater, to get the familiar's melee attack
bonus with unarmed attacks. Damage equals a normal creature of the type
(the toad doesn't benefit much from this, but a cat/hawk/snake would).
Saves: Use the master's if they are better than the familiars (which start
F+2 R+2 W+0)
Skills: Use the animal's or the master's, whichever is better. So your cat
uses its own climb and move silently, but your own swim or spellcraft.
Familiars get stronger, and give their master's more power as the master
goes up in level: Familiars gain a point of AC, and a point of intelligence
(ending at +10 AC, 15 int at levels 19-20) every other level.
At level one, the master gets: alertness (great feat, helps avoid
surprise), improved evasion (this is godlike ability to avoid damage from
fireballs, dragonbreath, etc), the ability to share spells with the
familiar (cast fly on yourself and the toad at the same time with a single
spell), and an empathic link to the familiar.
Level 3, you can have the familiar deliver spells by touch instead of you.
Snake slithers through the crack in the door, and delivers a shocking grasp
to the guard on the other side...
Level 5: Familiar can speak intelligably to the master
Level 9: Can communicate with other animals of the same type
Level 11: Familiar gains magic resistance, which improves as the master
gets higher level
level 13: You can scry your familiar once per day without using up a spell
slot to do so. Ultimate spy anyone?
Peter Newman
the Move Silently Skill should get size bonuses and size
penalties on their checks.
Just as it is harder to Hide if you are larger so is it
harder to Move Silently if you are larger. Bigger, heavier
creatures make more noise and smaller, lighter creatures
make less noise. The Listen skill says that a cat has about
a +15 Move Silently bonus. I would suggest that it has about
a +7 to skill and a + 8 from being Tiny.
There are a few magical creatures that are large but are not
heavy but in general larger creatures make more noise. While
some large creatures are quieter than most people this simply
means they have a high enough Dex and enough skill ranks to
negate their size penalty.
Autolycus
<tar...@imap2.asu.edu> wrote:
*snip* re: bats
>It ain't a rodent.
True, but it sure as heck looks like one - hence, 'der fliedermaus'.
autolycus
--
. . **********************************************************
/b /| * Autolycus: Lone Wolf * email auto...@pacific.net.sg *
/ 3b-'-':| ==========================================================
.d~ .:::; * *
C "o\,::@::: * "God is my Master," the Patriarch said. "It makes *
C |:::::; * for simplicity. I commend it. For that is your *
`( \ _`::; * trouble, isn't it?" - Dunnett, 'Caprice & Rondo' *
~`\`\::; * *
`~~' **********************************************************
Eli Fenton
Wow. I didn't realize a little comment would get me flamed that badly!
Well, just for fun, I'll explain myself...
> > Hm... I think I'll have to rewrite that Find Familiar spell before one of
> > my characters uses it.
> Boy, you are so not getting the point. Nitpick: it's not a spell it's a
...
> wizard having a USEFUL familiar that won't place his already fragile life in
...
> rewrite it before someone uses it is like saying "gosh! 5d6 for a fireball?
> Better rewrite that sucker before some uppity mage gets to be 5th level!"
I have nothing against powerful spells, but every spell I allow in my
campaign has to make sense to me. My only gripe was the +2 con, which I
don't think is a reasonable ability to receive from a toad. I wasn't even
saying that +2 con is too powerful for a wizard -- just that it's too
powerful for a toad. I think that 5d6 for a fireball is perfectly
reasonable. In fact, I have a general trend in my house rules toward
making wizards *more* powerful.
> stopper on that real quick! That could lead to a wizard actually surviving!
In my campaign, a 1st level wizard has no trouble surviving, as long as
he's smart. Magic is rare enough that showing a glimpse of it to a common
townsperson is protection enough. (then again, using carelessly will get
you burned at the stake). :)
> I am assuming that you probably don't yet have the PH or haven't
I have the 2E PH, and that's all I really want. Find Familiar is a spell
in 2E too, remember? All the benefits you list in your post were already
available in 2E, and I doubt I'll be getting rid of any of those. I was
just saying I'll have to look over the spell, and maybe make some
modifications before I allow it to a player, like I do with many spells.
I'm generally very flexible when it comes to spells, powering them up and
down depending on circumstances. For example, I recently allowed a
character to pick a lock using Enlarge (he shrunk the lock mechanism,
holding it in place with a stick).
> have a familiar at all is utterly wasted. Nobody ever bothered with them
> before because they were FAR, FAR more of a liability than any benefit you
> could gain.
I don't know. The 2E wizard I'm DMing wants that spell.
> > The wizard character I DM is a LN necromancer who is quickly being
> > corrupted by his magic, and who has little patience for much of anything.
> > Wouldn't it be funny if I gave him a fish as a familiar? :)
>
> Well obviously a familiar is not a _requirement_. Just because you
> might have a character who can summon Cthulhu doesn't mean he thinks it'd be
> a keen idea. It's something that can expand the wizards options and as the
> wizard gains levels can become a genuinely useful servant, not a constant
> source of danger because it might die.
That was a joke -- hence the :). The character wants a familiar, and I
just thought it would be funny to make it a fish. I didn't say I'd
actually *DO* that, and I probably wouldn't ,especially considering that
the spell can only be cast once a year, and in my SLOW PBeM, that could be
many years of real-time.
Randy Patton
"Duane Vanderpol" <dua...@earthlink.net> wrote:
> Just because it can't cause damage doesn't mean it's useless.
No, but there are other familiars on the list that *do* cause damage,
and which give their masters special abilities to boot. Witness the
owl, which flies, sees in the dark, has an effective attack *and* grants
his master a skill bonus.
Compared to the other familiars, the bat's not just deficient in one
area; it's deficient in all.
Tim Martin
C. Eric Nastav wrote in message <8n9hr0$h0d$1...@hercules.iupui.edu>...
>>
>fluid? They don't have any real developed sense except touch and possibly
>taste.
>larger then normal dragonfly or horse fly? Or actually a rat rat be good.
>
>
>
>
The rules are not set up currently to allow mulitple familiars in that
sense. Also, the maggot is a stage in the life cycle of a fly, and thus only
lasts anywhere from a few hours to a few days. Not a practical familiar.
You might be thinking rot grub, as that does not seem to be a larval stage
of anything. Better necromatic familiars would be rats, ravens, or vultures.
Tim
Come visit Mazaron's Castle
http://personal.lig.bellsouth.net/lig/t/f/tf_martn/
New spells, monsters, and campaign settings.
Dilandau Albatou
>Better necromatic familiars would be rats, ravens, or vultures.
Cats too. Cats fit all types of wizards.
Necromancers should be able to have undead familiars.
- d -
Any orthographical error above the "d" has
been made with my full knowledge and intent.
Eli Fenton
> Cats too. Cats fit all types of wizards.
> Necromancers should be able to have undead familiars.
Undead should be able to have necromantic familiars.
Matt Frisch
Albatou) scribed into the ether:
>On 15 aug 2000 tf_m...@bellsouth.net (Tim Martin) wrote:
>
>>Better necromatic familiars would be rats, ravens, or vultures.
>
>Cats too. Cats fit all types of wizards.
>
>Necromancers should be able to have undead familiars.
They do...see the "create greater undead" spell. You just get clerical
necromancers instead of wizard ones.
C. Eric Nastav
Dilandau Albatou <dilandau-...@another.com> wrote in message
news:8F91C52ACdila...@130.133.1.4...
> On 15 aug 2000 tf_m...@bellsouth.net (Tim Martin) wrote:
>
> >Better necromatic familiars would be rats, ravens, or vultures.
>
> Cats too. Cats fit all types of wizards.
>
> Necromancers should be able to have undead familiars.
>
Maybe a Quasit.
Eric N.
Dilandau Albatou
>> Necromancers should be able to have undead familiars.
>
>Undead should be able to have necromantic familiars.
Familiars should be able to have undead necromancers.
Dilandau Albatou
>> Necromancers should be able to have undead familiars.
>>
> That would be a waste as the undead are typical brainless.
Maybe an incorporeal undead? Say, the ghost of an owl or something.
It's a posibility. A corny posibility, but still...
Eli Fenton
> On 15 aug 2000 else...@beast.toad.net (Eli Fenton) wrote:
> >> Necromancers should be able to have undead familiars.
> >Undead should be able to have necromantic familiars.
> Familiars should be able to have undead necromancers.
To be familars should undead necromancers have able.
Joseph Michael Bay
>*snip* re: bats
>>It ain't a rodent.
>True, but it sure as heck looks like one - hence, 'der fliedermaus'.
Deflate her mouse? I hardly know her!
--
Joe Bay Slimeford University Physarum Biology
While nobody would volunteer to be a slime mold, a primitive species
without etiquette would scrape slime off the tiles in the bathroom, like
pigs who wade in dirt and slime, singing, "Try not to slip on slime!"
Blackberry
16:47:21 -0400 reached theears of the unsuspecting...
Take the tablets, Tiger...
--------------------
"It's enough to make you wonder sometimes if you're on the right planet."
-- Frankie Goes to Hollywood
Brian -- le...@NOnwlinkSPAM.com -- remove "NOSPAM"
Mike Harvey
No, but it can speak to rodents, which is a useful ability.
Mike
noel hughes
Eli Fenton wrote:
> On 15 Aug 2000, Dilandau Albatou wrote:
>
> > On 15 aug 2000 else...@beast.toad.net (Eli Fenton) wrote:
>
> > >> Necromancers should be able to have undead familiars.
>
> > >Undead should be able to have necromantic familiars.
>
> > Familiars should be able to have undead necromancers.
>
> To be familars should undead necromancers have able.
Familiar Undead Necromancers should have to be able.
-Dafe
Ben Buckner
Eli Fenton wrote:
>
> On 15 Aug 2000, Dilandau Albatou wrote:
>
> > On 15 aug 2000 else...@beast.toad.net (Eli Fenton) wrote:
>
> > >> Necromancers should be able to have undead familiars.
>
> > >Undead should be able to have necromantic familiars.
>
> > Familiars should be able to have undead necromancers.
>
> To be familars should undead necromancers have able.
Abel should be familiar to undead necromancers.
Peter Newman
> On 15 aug 2000 tf_m...@bellsouth.net (Tim Martin) wrote:
>
> >Better necromatic familiars would be rats, ravens, or vultures.
>
> Cats too. Cats fit all types of wizards.
I though everyone knew cats were evil :)
As such they are inappropriate familiars for good wizards.
Peter Newman
>
> On 15 aug 2000 else...@beast.toad.net (Eli Fenton) wrote:
>
> >> Necromancers should be able to have undead familiars.
> >
> >Undead should be able to have necromantic familiars.
>
> Familiars should be able to have undead necromancers.
Shouldn't they have to buy them some dead roses and some moldy
chocolates first?
Stephenls
> Abel should be familiar to undead necromancers.
LoL!
--
Stephenls
Geek
Nockermensch
dilandau-...@another.com (Dilandau Albatou) wrote:
> On 15 aug 2000 cna...@iupui.edu (C. Eric Nastav) wrote:
>
> >> Necromancers should be able to have undead familiars.
> >>
>
> Maybe an incorporeal undead? Say, the ghost of an owl or something.
>
> It's a posibility. A corny posibility, but still...
And talking about corny possibilities >:-)
Illusionists could have a sentient illusion as familiar (a phantasmal
force at first, which gains more powers as its master gains levels -
produce sound, touch and termal effects, etc. "It" could look as
anything it pleases, and could be disbelieved - not existing to
determinated people or not existing _at all_ until disbelievers leave
the scene...)
And now my evoker wants a magic missile familiar...
@ @ Nockermensch,
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
Nockermensch
Randy Patton <randy....@vt.edu> wrote:
>
> After two decades of being dissed by their peers, mages with toad
> familiars are getting the last laugh in 3E.
>
> +2 CON? Geez! It's not even a +2 bonus to certain rolls, but +2 to
the
> ability score itself!
Toads are probably the beings most associated with witchcraft. Owls,
cats, snakes and bats come next, but toads are still more "mystical".
Is WoTC rendition of toad and owl familiars a mean to reflect this in
D&D worlds? Now that wizards and sorcerers can choose their familiars,
there must be a *reason* to choose toads and owls instead, let's say,
hawks and weasels.
> The familiar that really sucks (no pun intended) is the bat. Sure,
it's
> got flight, but it has no attacks and grants its master no special
> benefits! Compared to the hawk, which flies and fights circles
around
> it, the bat's a dud.
I'll use the rule posted here sometime ago, hawks give +2 spot bonus,
bats give +2 listen.
Maybe Monstrous Manual brings a "familiar" paragraph in all non
inteligent beasts and monsters' entries, stating the benefits given to
a wizard who manage to get that creature as familiar. This would be in
same spirit of having info about making characters of all inteligent
beasts'
Maybe not. There's a pokemon thing about this idea which scares me...
Rupert Boleyn
wrote:
>In article <Pine.LNX.4.10.100081...@beast.toad.net>,
>Eli Fenton <else...@beast.toad.net> wrote:
>>
>> Why would a toad give a constitution bonus?
>
>
>No idea.
Ever try killing a Cane Toad? You can stomp 'em flat and they just get
up and wander away. They're currently my number one reason to not move
to Queensland, Australia.
--
Rupert Boleyn <rbo...@paradise.net.nz>
"Inside every cynic is a romantic trying to get out."
Varsil Savai
Boleyn) wrote:
>On Mon, 14 Aug 2000 13:03:55 -0400, Randy Patton <randy....@vt.edu>
>wrote:
>
>>In article <Pine.LNX.4.10.100081...@beast.toad.net>,
>>Eli Fenton <else...@beast.toad.net> wrote:
>>>
>>> Why would a toad give a constitution bonus?
>>
>>
>>No idea.
>
>Ever try killing a Cane Toad? You can stomp 'em flat and they just get
>up and wander away. They're currently my number one reason to not move
>to Queensland, Australia.
>
That's what a weed burner is for :).
----------------------------------------------------
Consider yourself flamed.
I have erected a spamblocker. Simply remove the
#$% characters if you feel the need to email me.
Robert Baldwin
Albatou) wrote:
>On 15 aug 2000 else...@beast.toad.net (Eli Fenton) wrote:
>
>>> Necromancers should be able to have undead familiars.
>>
>>Undead should be able to have necromantic familiars.
>
>Familiars should be able to have undead necromancers.
Next of Jerry Springer: Necromancers who get familiar with undead.
;-)
--
Saint Baldwin, Definer of the Unholy Darkspawn
-
"Everyone dies someday; the trick is doing it well." [St. B]
"Don't be so open minded that your brains fall out" [MSB]
"Pain is inevitable; Misery is an option".
-
Remove the spam-block to reply
mark...@io.com
Stephenls
> As such they are inappropriate familiars for good wizards.
3e gnome wizard. Riding cat as a familiar.
I can't wait.
--
Stephenls
Geek
Dilandau Albatou
>Dilandau Albatou wrote:
>
>> Cats too. Cats fit all types of wizards.
>
>I though everyone knew cats were evil :)
>
>As such they are inappropriate familiars for good wizards.
Heresy!! How DARE you call cats evil!!? Now you must die.
Eli Fenton
> >> Why would a toad give a constitution bonus?
> Ever try killing a Cane Toad? You can stomp 'em flat and they just get
> up and wander away. They're currently my number one reason to not move
> to Queensland, Australia.
That doesn't mean they have higher constitution -- just that they're more
flexible. By that reasoning, a sponge (the animal) would have something
like 200 constitution, because you can push a wire mesh through it and
it'll come out whole on the other side, and you can chop it into bits,
each of which will grow into a new sponge.
Eli Fenton
> Eli Fenton wrote:
> > On 15 Aug 2000, Dilandau Albatou wrote:
> > > On 15 aug 2000 else...@beast.toad.net (Eli Fenton) wrote:
> > > >> Necromancers should be able to have undead familiars.
> > > >Undead should be able to have necromantic familiars.
> > > Familiars should be able to have undead necromancers.
> > To be familars should undead necromancers have able.
> Familiar Undead Necromancers should have to be able.
Able, have necromancers been familiar to Should Undead?
Eli Fenton
> Dilandau Albatou wrote:
> >
> > On 15 aug 2000 else...@beast.toad.net (Eli Fenton) wrote:
> >
> > >> Necromancers should be able to have undead familiars.
> > >
> > >Undead should be able to have necromantic familiars.
> >
> > Familiars should be able to have undead necromancers.
>
> Shouldn't they have to buy them some dead roses and some moldy
> chocolates first?
Perhaps in some of the more advanced familiar societies, but IMC, most
familiars don't bother anyway.
Randy Patton
rbo...@paradise.net.nz (Rupert Boleyn) wrote:
> Ever try killing a Cane Toad? You can stomp 'em flat and they just get
> up and wander away.
Actually, the CON bonus comes from licking the toad. You don't actually
get tougher; you just stop feeling pain.
C. Eric Nastav
Stephenls <step...@dccnet.com> wrote in message
news:399A5CE5...@dccnet.com...
> Peter Newman wrote:
>
> > As such they are inappropriate familiars for good wizards.
>
>
cats. I suppose you could have one. It's have to be a big cat, though. A
mountain lion/cougar at least.
Personally I liked the old monster manual picture of a gnome/leprechaun
riding a giant slug.
Eric N.
Patrick Berry
> Maybe not. There's a pokemon thing about this idea which scares me...
Good heavens! The Bag of Beans is actually a Pokeball! It all makes
sense now.
Deykin ap Gwion
>
> Peter Newman wrote:
>
> > As such they are inappropriate familiars for good wizards.
>
> 3e gnome wizard. Riding cat as a familiar.
A gnome would be a good familiar. And the first good use of
one, to boot.
--
Deykin ap Gwion
My E-mail service may be cheesy, but my email address isn't.
"Those who beat their swords into ploughs will plow for
those that don't"
Deykin ap Gwion
>
> On Mon, 14 Aug 2000 13:03:55 -0400, Randy Patton <randy....@vt.edu>
> wrote:
>
> >In article <Pine.LNX.4.10.100081...@beast.toad.net>,
> >Eli Fenton <else...@beast.toad.net> wrote:
> >>
> >> Why would a toad give a constitution bonus?
> >
> >
> >No idea.
>
> Ever try killing a Cane Toad? You can stomp 'em flat and they just get
> up and wander away. They're currently my number one reason to not move
> to Queensland, Australia.
Yes, but how many licks does it take to get to the
psychedelic center of a cane toad?
A - one...
A - two...
A - three.
*crunch*
It takes three. *ribbit*
Stephenls
> I saw riding dogs for small humanoids in the new book, but not any
> riding cats. I suppose you could have one. It's have to be a big
> cat, though. A mountain lion/cougar at least.
> Personally I liked the old monster manual picture of a
> gnome/leprechaun riding a giant slug.
Well, I figure since halflings can ride dogs, and gnomes are about half
as big as halflings...
It'll just be his regular cat. He'll ride it. If gnomes are to big,
I'll have to ask if I can play a midget gnome...
--
Stephenls
Geek
Duane Vanderpol
news:Pine.LNX.4.10.100081...@beast.toad.net...
>
> Wow. I didn't realize a little comment would get me flamed that badly!
> Well, just for fun, I'll explain myself...
And just for the sake of exercising my humility (which gets used less
and less all the time) I'll apologize for being as heavy-handed as I was.
I'd been reading four days worth of ridiculous nitpicks (just got back from
GenCon) that were being passed off as genuinely valid criticism and you
wound up the target of my frustrations. You didn't deserve it and you have
been very gracious in not responding in kind.
> I have nothing against powerful spells, but every spell I allow in my
> campaign has to make sense to me. My only gripe was the +2 con, which I
> don't think is a reasonable ability to receive from a toad. I wasn't even
> saying that +2 con is too powerful for a wizard -- just that it's too
> powerful for a toad. I think that 5d6 for a fireball is perfectly
> reasonable. In fact, I have a general trend in my house rules toward
> making wizards *more* powerful.
Well, the toad _doesn't_ get it except in the sense that it gets half
the spellcasters hit points which do benefit from the additional Con
recieved from the toad. It ISN'T exactly the sort of benefit one might
expect to recieve from a toad but it's way more interesting than "wide angle
vision" and I'm still willing to bet there's angles I haven't yet sussed to
familiars like toads and bats beyond a con bonus or no bonus at all. For
example, elsewhere in this thread it was noted that these creatures have
skills like Spot and Listen that would begin to be appliccable and quite
possibly more valuable in the long run than a hit point per level.
> > I am assuming that you probably don't yet have the PH or haven't
>
> I have the 2E PH, and that's all I really want.
Which would beg the question of why you would have any problem whatever
with 3E, but I'm sure there's more to it than is readily apparant.
> > > The wizard character I DM is a LN necromancer who is quickly being
> > > corrupted by his magic, and who has little patience for much of
anything.
> > > Wouldn't it be funny if I gave him a fish as a familiar? :)
> >
> > Well obviously a familiar is not a _requirement_. Just because you
> > might have a character who can summon Cthulhu doesn't mean he thinks
it'd be
> > a keen idea. It's something that can expand the wizards options and as
the
> > wizard gains levels can become a genuinely useful servant, not a
constant
> > source of danger because it might die.
>
> That was a joke -- hence the :).
I missed that.
--
Duane VanderPol
http://home.earthlink.net/~duanevp
Alea jacta est. In omnia paratus. Ars gratia artis.
Dilandau Albatou
>Well, I figure since halflings can ride dogs, and gnomes are about half
>as big as halflings...
In 3E gnomes are taller than ˝lings.
Duane Vanderpol
> In article <gC%l5.2397$Cc2.1...@newsread1.prod.itd.earthlink.net>,
> "Duane Vanderpol" <dua...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>
> > Just because it can't cause damage doesn't mean it's useless.
>
> and which give their masters special abilities to boot. Witness the
> owl, which flies, sees in the dark, has an effective attack *and* grants
> his master a skill bonus.
>
> Compared to the other familiars, the bat's not just deficient in one
> area; it's deficient in all.
By which limited criteria it would certainly be a mistake on the part of
a player to choose one for his character. I guess what I'm saying is that a
familiar shouldn't be chosen solely on the basis of it's combat skill and
excessive special abilities. Obviously as good powermongers we're all drawn
to that but I suspect that the MM entries for these critters will show
further differentiation. The bat will still probably come out shorter on
the power scale than an owl but there will likely be SOME reason for
choosing a bat despite it's lack of powerups.
Rupert Boleyn
wrote:
>In article <3999f78b...@news.paradise.net.nz>,
>rbo...@paradise.net.nz (Rupert Boleyn) wrote:
>
>> Ever try killing a Cane Toad? You can stomp 'em flat and they just get
>> up and wander away.
>
>
>Actually, the CON bonus comes from licking the toad. You don't actually
>get tougher; you just stop feeling pain.
There is that :)
Peter Newman
>
> On 16 aug 2000 pne...@gci.net (Peter Newman) wrote:
>
> >Dilandau Albatou wrote:
> >
> >> Cats too. Cats fit all types of wizards.
> >
> >I though everyone knew cats were evil :)
> >
>
Ask any mouse or small bird, they'll tell you cats are evil.
If you need a human source I would refer you to the writings
of most any 16th or 17th century witch hunter.
> Now you must die.
While I hope otherwise I suspect that even before saying this
I was, eventually, going to die anyway.
Stephenls
> In 3E gnomes are taller than ˝lings.
Oh.
Then I guess I'll be playing a midget halfling mage...
--
Stephenls
Geek
Tim Martin
>And talking about corny possibilities >:-)
>
>Illusionists could have a sentient illusion as familiar (a phantasmal
>force at first, which gains more powers as its master gains levels -
>produce sound, touch and termal effects, etc. "It" could look as
>anything it pleases, and could be disbelieved - not existing to
>determinated people or not existing _at all_ until disbelievers leave
>the scene...)
>
A sentient illusion is a TOON!
Tim
Come visit Mazaron's Castle
http://personal.lig.bellsouth.net/lig/t/f/tf_martn/
New spells, monsters, and campaign settings.
Peter Seebach
Tim Martin <tf_m...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>>Illusionists could have a sentient illusion as familiar (a phantasmal
>A sentient illusion is a TOON!
Oh, dear.
I think there's going to be rather a run on gnomes.
-s
--
Copyright 2000, All rights reserved. Peter Seebach / se...@plethora.net
C/Unix wizard, Pro-commerce radical, Spam fighter. Boycott Spamazon!
Consulting & Computers: http://www.plethora.net/
S. Delerme
wrote:
>Autolycus <auto...@pmail.ntu.edu.sg> writes:
>
>>*snip* re: bats
>
>>>It ain't a rodent.
>
>>True, but it sure as heck looks like one - hence, 'der fliedermaus'.
>
>Deflate her mouse? I hardly know her!
And in French, it's a "chauve-souris" (bald mouse)
Nockermensch
se...@plethora.net (Peter Seebach) wrote:
> In article <80Km5.7271$Gs.3...@news4.atl>,
> Tim Martin <tf_m...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
> >>Illusionists could have a sentient illusion as familiar (a
phantasmal
>
> >A sentient illusion is a TOON!
>
> Oh, dear.
>
> I think there's going to be rather a run on gnomes.
>
> -s
Woo hoo! I like toons! Now I may actually USE this in my campaign... :-)
Bryant Berggren
Albatou) wrote:
>On 16 aug 2000 pne...@gci.net (Peter Newman) wrote:
>
>>Dilandau Albatou wrote:
>>
>>> Cats too. Cats fit all types of wizards.
>>
>>I though everyone knew cats were evil :)
>>
>>As such they are inappropriate familiars for good wizards.
>
>Heresy!! How DARE you call cats evil!!? Now you must die.
Eh. Dogbert has stated it's a known fact that all cats are evil, and
since he and his ruling elite will be running the world Real Soon Now,
we may as well take it as truth.
BRB
Stephenls
> Eh. Dogbert has stated it's a known fact that all cats are evil, and
> since he and his ruling elite will be running the world Real Soon Now,
> we may as well take it as truth.
Oh oh. I'm a member of the DBNR, yet I like cats. What am I to do?
--
Stephenls
Geek
Deykin ap Gwion
> tolerance for evil people like you. :]
>
> BRB
But are you a member of DNRC? Dennis will give you a dollar
if you are =)
Stephenls
> But are you a member of DNRC? Dennis will give you a dollar
> if you are =)
I don't know. Will Dogbert dislike my not-having-complete-faith-in-him,
or will he reward my craftiness and hedging-of-bets?
I'm gonna stick with Dogbert's New Ruling Class - for now, ant least...
Man, I can't wait for my #e PHB to arrive...
--
Stephenls
Geek
Robert Baldwin
Albatou) wrote:
>On 16 aug 2000 pne...@gci.net (Peter Newman) wrote:
>
>>Dilandau Albatou wrote:
>>
>>> Cats too. Cats fit all types of wizards.
>>
>>I though everyone knew cats were evil :)
>>
>>As such they are inappropriate familiars for good wizards.
>
>Heresy!! How DARE you call cats evil!!? Now you must die.
Slowly.
Painfully.
For Kira's entertainment.
Hmm....maybe they *are* Evil.
;-)
--
Saint Baldwin, Definer of the Unholy Darkspawn
-
"Everyone dies someday; the trick is doing it well." [St. B]
"Don't be so open minded that your brains fall out" [MSB]
"Pain is inevitable; Misery is an option".
-
Remove the spam-block to reply
Robert Baldwin
wrote:
>Dilandau Albatou wrote:
>
>> On 15 aug 2000 tf_m...@bellsouth.net (Tim Martin) wrote:
>>
>> >Better necromatic familiars would be rats, ravens, or vultures.
>>
>> Cats too. Cats fit all types of wizards.
>
>I though everyone knew cats were evil :)
>
>As such they are inappropriate familiars for good wizards.
It is, actually, the good wizard who is inappropriate for the cat
Familiar. let's keep our priorities in order.
Robert Baldwin
<tigych...@my-dejaCHEDDAR.com> wrote:
>Stephenls wrote:
>>
>> Peter Newman wrote:
>>
>> > As such they are inappropriate familiars for good wizards.
>>
>> 3e gnome wizard. Riding cat as a familiar.
>
>A gnome would be a good familiar. And the first good use of
>one, to boot.
Why are you booting a gnome? Did it crash?
Bryant Berggren
Alexander Grover
> In 3E gnomes are taller than ˝lings.
But not lawn gnomes! NEVER forget the lawn gnomes!
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Alexander B. Grover
B.A. Psychology
"We don't want any nancy-boys in Heaven, you understand."
-- G vs. E
Alexander Grover
> > 3e gnome wizard. Riding cat as a familiar.
> I saw riding dogs for small humanoids in the new book, but not any riding
> cats. I suppose you could have one. It's have to be a big cat, though. A
> mountain lion/cougar at least.
> Personally I liked the old monster manual picture of a gnome/leprechaun
> riding a giant slug.
I can't get this image of an animated lawn gnome (with red pointy cap)
riding around on a house cat...