I’m taking find familiar spell for my divine soul sorcerer. I don’t particularly like the look of most of the creatures on the spells list.
Thinking of choosing one of the creatures on the spells description for their stats/traits/proficiencies but cosmetically the familiar will look like another creature.
For example:
- An owl for stats that may look like an eagle or another flying creature.
- A cat for the stats but look like another creature such as a fox.
I’m sticking within the stats of creatures that can be summoned by the spell but just having it look different on a surface level to fit in more with my PC, their personality and their backstory.
Do you think this would be an acceptable change from most DM’s?
I would have no concerns with a reskinning of a familiar, so long as the player didn't try to be functionally different later. Absolutely green light from me.
It's upto the DM. I'd be absolutely fine with it and wouldn't even think about it. There are some DMs that would flat out say no, and others that would have concerns that you'd try to get your alternative creature's abilities via the backdoor. The only person that can meaningfully answer this is the actual DM of your campaign. Just ask them, and they can give a definitive answer. While I'd be perfectly fine with it...it's not my opinion that matters.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
If you're not willing or able to to discuss in good faith, then don't be surprised if I don't respond, there are better things in life for me to do than humour you. This signature is that response.
I’m taking find familiar spell for my divine soul sorcerer. I don’t particularly like the look of most of the creatures on the spells list.
Thinking of choosing one of the creatures on the spells description for their stats/traits/proficiencies but cosmetically the familiar will look like another creature.
For example:
- An owl for stats that may look like an eagle or another flying creature.
- A cat for the stats but look like another creature such as a fox.
I’m sticking within the stats of creatures that can be summoned by the spell but just having it look different on a surface level to fit in more with my PC, their personality and their backstory.
Do you think this would be an acceptable change from most DM’s?
Yes. I absolutely love when players want to favorably and reasonable alter things like this. I'd take you in as a DM if I could.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Enjoy your slop. I'll be enjoying good products elsewhere.
I would hope most DMs would allow this, it seems perfectly reasonable and adds to your fun while impacting no one.
If it's purely a cosmetic thing, it's not an issue, but sometimes you get players who try to wheedle additional features along with something like this, as mentioned above. Technically there's a case to be made about hawk (standing in for eagle) vs owl, as the owl has both blindsight and flyby, but that's not really worth making an issue of. Now, someone trying to angle for a monkey or other animal with more humanlike hands could be a flag, though.
Heck, as a DM I’d just let you take a fox as a familiar, but that’s me. Reskinning a cat as a fox shouldn’t be a problem at most tables, but as others have stated, check with your DM.
There was an imp familiar from the Complete Book of Necromancers back in AD&D 2nd Edition which had been reskinned from looking like Jabba’s pet into a shadowy thing that could also turn into a blood sucking weasel. I fully support a reskin.
I'm going to go against the grain here and say that I think Familiars are useful and risk-free enough without potentially disguising their nature as Familiars. An enemy Wizard should be wary of any owls, bats or hawks hanging out around them, because Find Familiar is a common spell and those are common choices for it, but they shouldn't need to do so around literally every beast or insect in the world. Allowing a familiar to look like whatever you want is absolutely an advantage and breaks verisimilitude a bit for me.
they shouldn't need to do so around literally every beast or insect in the world.
Oh they absolutely should though. The only creatures in the world that need to follow PC rules are PCs, so it's not ever safe to assume that everyone is bound by the same strict magic options.
The only reason FF is limited in its options is because this is a game and needs constraints in order to fit into a book and not overwhelm people. There's no in-game lore as to why only those particular animals would be chosen. And if there were, it would be only logical that those particular creatures would be hunted to extinction so that you'd KNOW that any owl you saw was a familiar.
Having anything as a familiar only breaks verisimilitude for you because you have chosen to believe that Find Familiar works a certain way. Since I disagree with that interpretation, letting PCs choose different animals has no negative impact for me.
It is okay to cosmetically change the appearance of your spells. From TCOE on personalizing spells:
"Just as every performer lends their art a personal flair and every warrior asserts their fighting styles through the lens of their own training, so too can a spellcaster use magic to express their individuality. Regardless of what type of spellcaster you’re playing, you can customize the cosmetic effects of your character’s spells. Perhaps you wish the effects of your caster’s spells to appear in their favorite color, to suggest the training they received from a celestial mentor, or to exhibit their connection to a season of the year. The possibilities for how you might cosmetically customize your character’s spells are endless. However, such alterations can’t change the effects of a spell. They also can’t make one spell seem like another—you can’t, for example, make a magic missile look like a fireball."
I'm going to go against the grain here and say that I think Familiars are useful and risk-free enough without potentially disguising their nature as Familiars. An enemy Wizard should be wary of any owls, bats or hawks hanging out around them, because Find Familiar is a common spell and those are common choices for it, but they shouldn't need to do so around literally every beast or insect in the world. Allowing a familiar to look like whatever you want is absolutely an advantage and breaks verisimilitude a bit for me.
Depends on the GM, but you can rule that familiars are distinctive enough from regular animals that you can tell that it is not a normal animal when you see one, kind of like how you can tell a magic item is magical when you see or touch one.
It is okay to cosmetically change the appearance of your spells. From TCOE on personalizing spells:
"Just as every performer lends their art a personal flair and every warrior asserts their fighting styles through the lens of their own training, so too can a spellcaster use magic to express their individuality. Regardless of what type of spellcaster you’re playing, you can customize the cosmetic effects of your character’s spells. Perhaps you wish the effects of your caster’s spells to appear in their favorite color, to suggest the training they received from a celestial mentor, or to exhibit their connection to a season of the year. The possibilities for how you might cosmetically customize your character’s spells are endless. However, such alterations can’t change the effects of a spell. They also can’t make one spell seem like another—you can’t, for example, make a magic missile look like a fireball."
I'm going to go against the grain here and say that I think Familiars are useful and risk-free enough without potentially disguising their nature as Familiars. An enemy Wizard should be wary of any owls, bats or hawks hanging out around them, because Find Familiar is a common spell and those are common choices for it, but they shouldn't need to do so around literally every beast or insect in the world. Allowing a familiar to look like whatever you want is absolutely an advantage and breaks verisimilitude a bit for me.
Depends on the GM, but you can rule that familiars are distinctive enough from regular animals that you can tell that it is not a normal animal when you see one, kind of like how you can tell a magic item is magical when you see or touch one.
That's fair, but then they couldn't use the thing to scout at all without alerting every mook it comes across. I've always run them as looking like normal animals, so most of the Nobodies wouldn't think much of them. Reasonably intelligent people and most casters would, though. I guess the obviously magical-looking ones could make stealth checks to accomplish the same thing though.
I'm going to go against the grain here and say that I think Familiars are useful and risk-free enough without potentially disguising their nature as Familiars. An enemy Wizard should be wary of any owls, bats or hawks hanging out around them, because Find Familiar is a common spell and those are common choices for it, but they shouldn't need to do so around literally every beast or insect in the world. Allowing a familiar to look like whatever you want is absolutely an advantage and breaks verisimilitude a bit for me.
Don't forget about wildshape -- is your wizard assuming that there are no druid threats, only other wizard threats? Because literally any beast or insect in the world could be a druid.
I'm going to go against the grain here and say that I think Familiars are useful and risk-free enough without potentially disguising their nature as Familiars. An enemy Wizard should be wary of any owls, bats or hawks hanging out around them, because Find Familiar is a common spell and those are common choices for it, but they shouldn't need to do so around literally every beast or insect in the world. Allowing a familiar to look like whatever you want is absolutely an advantage and breaks verisimilitude a bit for me.
Don't forget about wildshape -- is your wizard assuming that there are no druid threats, only other wizard threats? Because literally any beast or insect in the world could be a druid.
No, I typically don’t have the random enemies prepared against every eventuality. The idea is that a Wizard would be on guard against familiars in particular because nearly every wizard knows the spell and how it works. If we were talking about Wildshape instead, then yeah, I’d say the same for an enemy Druid.
I’m taking find familiar spell for my divine soul sorcerer. I don’t particularly like the look of most of the creatures on the spells list.
Thinking of choosing one of the creatures on the spells description for their stats/traits/proficiencies but cosmetically the familiar will look like another creature.
For example:
- An owl for stats that may look like an eagle or another flying creature.
- A cat for the stats but look like another creature such as a fox.
I’m sticking within the stats of creatures that can be summoned by the spell but just having it look different on a surface level to fit in more with my PC, their personality and their backstory.
Do you think this would be an acceptable change from most DM’s?
I would have no concerns with a reskinning of a familiar, so long as the player didn't try to be functionally different later. Absolutely green light from me.
DM mostly, Player occasionally | Session 0 form | He/Him/They/Them
EXTENDED SIGNATURE!
Doctor/Published Scholar/Science and Healthcare Advocate/Critter/Trekkie/Gandalf with a Glock
Try DDB free: Free Rules (2024), premade PCs, adventures, one shots, encounters, SC, homebrew, more
Answers: physical books, purchases, and subbing.
Check out my life-changing
It's upto the DM. I'd be absolutely fine with it and wouldn't even think about it. There are some DMs that would flat out say no, and others that would have concerns that you'd try to get your alternative creature's abilities via the backdoor. The only person that can meaningfully answer this is the actual DM of your campaign. Just ask them, and they can give a definitive answer. While I'd be perfectly fine with it...it's not my opinion that matters.
If you're not willing or able to to discuss in good faith, then don't be surprised if I don't respond, there are better things in life for me to do than humour you. This signature is that response.
I would hope most DMs would allow this, it seems perfectly reasonable and adds to your fun while impacting no one.
Yes. I absolutely love when players want to favorably and reasonable alter things like this. I'd take you in as a DM if I could.
Enjoy your slop. I'll be enjoying good products elsewhere.
If it's purely a cosmetic thing, it's not an issue, but sometimes you get players who try to wheedle additional features along with something like this, as mentioned above. Technically there's a case to be made about hawk (standing in for eagle) vs owl, as the owl has both blindsight and flyby, but that's not really worth making an issue of. Now, someone trying to angle for a monkey or other animal with more humanlike hands could be a flag, though.
Heck, as a DM I’d just let you take a fox as a familiar, but that’s me. Reskinning a cat as a fox shouldn’t be a problem at most tables, but as others have stated, check with your DM.
Creating Epic Boons on DDB
DDB Buyers' Guide
Hardcovers, DDB & You
Content Troubleshooting
There was an imp familiar from the Complete Book of Necromancers back in AD&D 2nd Edition which had been reskinned from looking like Jabba’s pet into a shadowy thing that could also turn into a blood sucking weasel. I fully support a reskin.
Heck, Icewind Dale flat-out suggests allowing foxes and hares as find familiar options.
Birgit | Shifter | Sorcerer | Dragonlords
Shayone | Hobgoblin | Sorcerer | Netherdeep
I'm going to go against the grain here and say that I think Familiars are useful and risk-free enough without potentially disguising their nature as Familiars. An enemy Wizard should be wary of any owls, bats or hawks hanging out around them, because Find Familiar is a common spell and those are common choices for it, but they shouldn't need to do so around literally every beast or insect in the world. Allowing a familiar to look like whatever you want is absolutely an advantage and breaks verisimilitude a bit for me.
Oh they absolutely should though. The only creatures in the world that need to follow PC rules are PCs, so it's not ever safe to assume that everyone is bound by the same strict magic options.
The only reason FF is limited in its options is because this is a game and needs constraints in order to fit into a book and not overwhelm people. There's no in-game lore as to why only those particular animals would be chosen. And if there were, it would be only logical that those particular creatures would be hunted to extinction so that you'd KNOW that any owl you saw was a familiar.
Having anything as a familiar only breaks verisimilitude for you because you have chosen to believe that Find Familiar works a certain way. Since I disagree with that interpretation, letting PCs choose different animals has no negative impact for me.
My homebrew subclasses (full list here)
(Artificer) Swordmage | Glasswright | (Barbarian) Path of the Savage Embrace
(Bard) College of Dance | (Fighter) Warlord | Cannoneer
(Monk) Way of the Elements | (Ranger) Blade Dancer
(Rogue) DaggerMaster | Inquisitor | (Sorcerer) Riftwalker | Spellfist
(Warlock) The Swarm
It is okay to cosmetically change the appearance of your spells. From TCOE on personalizing spells:
"Just as every performer lends their art a personal flair and every warrior asserts their fighting styles through the lens of their own training, so too can a spellcaster use magic to express their individuality. Regardless of what type of spellcaster you’re playing, you can customize the cosmetic effects of your character’s spells. Perhaps you wish the effects of your caster’s spells to appear in their favorite color, to suggest the training they received from a celestial mentor, or to exhibit their connection to a season of the year. The possibilities for how you might cosmetically customize your character’s spells are endless. However, such alterations can’t change the effects of a spell. They also can’t make one spell seem like another—you can’t, for example, make a magic missile look like a fireball."
Depends on the GM, but you can rule that familiars are distinctive enough from regular animals that you can tell that it is not a normal animal when you see one, kind of like how you can tell a magic item is magical when you see or touch one.
Check Licenses and Resync Entitlements: < https://www.dndbeyond.com/account/licenses >
Running the Game by Matt Colville; Introduction: < https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e-YZvLUXcR8 >
D&D with High School Students by Bill Allen; Season 1 Episode 1: < https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=52NJTUDokyk&t >
That's fair, but then they couldn't use the thing to scout at all without alerting every mook it comes across. I've always run them as looking like normal animals, so most of the Nobodies wouldn't think much of them. Reasonably intelligent people and most casters would, though. I guess the obviously magical-looking ones could make stealth checks to accomplish the same thing though.
Don't forget about wildshape -- is your wizard assuming that there are no druid threats, only other wizard threats? Because literally any beast or insect in the world could be a druid.
Birgit | Shifter | Sorcerer | Dragonlords
Shayone | Hobgoblin | Sorcerer | Netherdeep
No, I typically don’t have the random enemies prepared against every eventuality. The idea is that a Wizard would be on guard against familiars in particular because nearly every wizard knows the spell and how it works. If we were talking about Wildshape instead, then yeah, I’d say the same for an enemy Druid.
And that other books have offered additional familiar options, like tressym and Abyssal chickens.
Find your own truth, choose your enemies carefully, and never deal with a dragon.
"Canon" is what's factual to D&D lore. "Cannon" is what you're going to be shot with if you keep getting the word wrong.
Yes I totally love this though it's up to your dm but i totally love this idea and have done it my self .