Familiars in 5e are very powerful. I wouldn't say they're "deceptively" so, they just are.
They provide excellent recon abilities. They can potentially do things like check ahead for traps (even if they trigger them you basically just used a 10gp component cost disarm trap ritual that outperforms Find Traps), expand your perceptions, spy on or sneak past your enemies as an inconspicuous critter, easily reach places you can't, call out targets inside of a fog cloud, create distractions, and more.
They can provide Help and reliably give you Advantage on one attack per round. Even if they are attacked, features like Flyby means that they usually aren't too convenient to take out and (unless caught in an AoE that would have been positioned the same way anyways) are reducing the damaging actions taken against your party for a rather affordable cost. And of course you still get the benefit of all the things that the familiar has done up until they were successfully attacked.
They provide an extra body under your command that can take actions and perform tasks... something that's not to be underestimated.
They can be milked for poisons in-between adventures to potentially give the entire party damage bonuses to their weapon attacks from harvested poisons (or even just sell them). This is really significant at lower levels and probably was not intended by the developers, but it is nonetheless a thing readily available by the rules as written. You don't even need to sacrifice having an owl or what-have-you to do this, since you can just recast the spell to make the familiar change into a new form when you're ready to actually delve into the dungeon.
They can deliver touch spells from a safer distance (or even just reaching someplace you couldn't with their extra movement options and the like). Given that being in melee range is so very often a much more dangerous place in D&D, this is can be pretty meaningful.
If by chance the DM allows variant familiars, an already-powerful ability gets a significant upgrade and allows you to get major benefits such as "Magic Resistance," the strength of which likely needs no introduction.
Any one of these things would be a useful power. Together they are quite strong indeed.
Another thing to factor in, if the familiar is proving too effective, is that the familiar doesn't have to be competent and is under the command of the DM. "Your familiar acts independently of you, but it always obeys your commands." The familiar might have fundamental misunderstandings about what information is valuable to the party. In the campaign I'm playing, we make heavy use of an invisible recon Sprite, which sounds REALLY powerful. Outside of the 100 foot range, the Sprite can be sent on its own to then return within range and report back. Except that the Sprite frequently reports back "I saw a tree and then some deer and then a rock and it was a big rock with a crack in it and inside the crack was a little spider and I saw a puddle!" which quickly results in the warlock dismissing the Sprite to its room for a time out.
If I was the Warlock player, I would 1st find that funny. 2nd time find it annoying and point out the Sprites have Int 14, which is vastly superior in comprehension then a 4 year old.
If the familiar "always obeys your command", then why is the DM controlling the familiar? It sounds to me like it's an extension of the player.
Familiars are not that powerful by, and of, themselves. They are exceedingly useful tools and can really make a DM stretch their muscles when considering how to handle the newest member of the party. The trick of it is how to make the benefits of the familiar also come with drawbacks.
I have a player who's going to be grabbing a psuedodragon as a familiar this level. It's going to make my life miserable as a DM, 6 level 6 players and a psuedodragon familiar, that's the equivalent of 7 players in some aspects. However, it's going to be a blast having her try to explain why this strange creature is following her or having people try to capture it as a prize. It'll be fun changing it's disposition toward her depending on how she treats it, if she's careless it may become belligerent until apologies are made, but not during a situation that means life or death (unless she treats it like a bullet sponge).
DMs who punish their players for using every tool at their disposal are doing it wrong. I say this because I used to do it myself. Reward the good choices, let that familiar do most of the antics that the players want. However, there is a risk involved, familiars are frail creatures, they can die easily, dimensional anchor could stop them from plane shifting, and with enough familiarity a bad guy could scry it. It's not our job to punish the players because they make some of our designs obsolete, it's our jobs to adapt the story/game to their new tools and we have all the tools necessary without punishing the players.
DMs who punish their players for using every tool at their disposal are doing it wrong. I say this because I used to do it myself. Reward the good choices, let that familiar do most of the antics that the players want. However, there is a risk involved, familiars are frail creatures, they can die easily, dimensional anchor could stop them from plane shifting, and with enough familiarity a bad guy could scry it. It's not our job to punish the players because they make some of our designs obsolete, it's our jobs to adapt the story/game to their new tools and we have all the tools necessary without punishing the players.
I agree with this. My original query was about a specific interpretation. The group talked about it last weekend and we all agreed that the visual and audio access was also limited to 100 feet. (Apparently Matt Mercer, of Critical Role, started allowing the Pact of the Chain unlimited access to be the norm for all familiars, which is where this group picked it up).
Another thing to factor in, if the familiar is proving too effective, is that the familiar doesn't have to be competent and is under the command of the DM. "Your familiar acts independently of you, but it always obeys your commands." The familiar might have fundamental misunderstandings about what information is valuable to the party. In the campaign I'm playing, we make heavy use of an invisible recon Sprite, which sounds REALLY powerful. Outside of the 100 foot range, the Sprite can be sent on its own to then return within range and report back. Except that the Sprite frequently reports back "I saw a tree and then some deer and then a rock and it was a big rock with a crack in it and inside the crack was a little spider and I saw a puddle!" which quickly results in the warlock dismissing the Sprite to its room for a time out.
If I was the Warlock player, I would 1st find that funny. 2nd time find it annoying and point out the Sprites have Int 14, which is vastly superior in comprehension then a 4 year old.
It probably wouldn't work as well in your game as it does in ours, then.
If the familiar "always obeys your command", then why is the DM controlling the familiar? It sounds to me like it's an extension of the player.
It can be magically compelled to obey your commands while also being an NPC with a will of its own. I feel like the most appropriate way to play it depends on context. For example, if it's a warlock's familiar and their relationship with their patron is less than friendly, the patron-themed familiar can act as an extension of that relationship.
I will agree that the familiar can be very similar to NPC status; personality quirks, feelings, and other nuances lending to that. The catch I have with what you're implying is that a DM can take a familiar and make it ineffective because "it's an npc". It's not an npc, it's an extension of the caster, nothing else.
Playing tug o' war with a familiar is unfair to the player for choosing a tool designed to help the caster. Today it will be belligerent because it's a fiendish pact familiar, the next session the player doesn't use the familiar because it was acting up, the third session the familiar does the exact wording of the caster because it's mad that it was left in the pocket dimension. Go scout ahead of us and tell us what you see when you return, "I saw a tree, some dirt, there were leaves, a squirrel crossed the road....", well, I'd not use that familiar, it's worthless.
I love to use RP events to mess with my players, I try to avoid mechanical things. Would the familiar get a bad attitude because it's been treated poorly, yes. Would it disobey the caster, no, mechanically it can't. Would it always act dumber, weaker, or otherwise opposite it's attribute scores, no, mechanically it cant. In the long run, as a DM we're technically only allowed to say what happens after the familiar does what the caster requested of it. All that other stuff, attitude, personality quirks, how it interacts with the caster and other people, all of that is purely fluff.
It's either a spell effect or a gods forsaken class feature, the player is PAYING FOR. The player's Book of Shadows doesn't decide to not open because it hasn't been read recently, and the Pact Blade won't refuse to leave it's extradimentional space because the DM decided the Warlock and Patron have having a "strained relationship" Fireballs don't decide they don't "feel" like casting because it's raining.
It should be a tool to improve play, never a cudgel to beat a player with.
It's either a spell effect or a gods forsaken class feature, the player is PAYING FOR. The player's Book of Shadows doesn't decide to not open because it hasn't been read recently, and the Pact Blade won't refuse to leave it's extradimentional space because the DM decided the Warlock and Patron have having a "strained relationship" Fireballs don't decide they don't "feel" like casting because it's raining.
It should be a tool to improve play, never a cudgel to beat a player with.
Playing devil's advocate here, but that is actually a compelling role-play scenario. The Warlock has made a pact with a Patron to serve it. In exchange, the Patron grants it a small portion of its powers. If the Warlock and Patron come to a disagreement and the Patron doesn't like it, as a DM, I would definitely prevent some of the Warlock's class features from being used. It would provide some interesting role-play opportunities after the fact on how do I regain my Patron's favor.
Warlocks and Divine casters are funny little things as they get many of their class features from an outside source. If that outside source isn't happy with them, then they can stop being that character's "Sugar daddy".
THAT BEING SAID.... I would not "pull" this trick if the only reason for doing such a thing is because I feel like one class feature is over powered... I'd only do that if within the story the Patron is unhappy with the character.
Now Mike M. talks about how it's "up to the GM" (but everything is), but the developer's intent is that the features can't be "messed with". especially at the 2 minute 15 second mark of the video explains it's a risk for both patron and character.
These are class features the player pays for and he says in the opening that in his game the player's Patron is the villain in his game, but it's not there to mess with the player but to be an interesting story point. A character's class and features shouldn't be a cudgel to beat the player because the GM thinks the player not role-playing the player's character the way the GM thinks the player should be. It's the player's character not the GM's NPC.
Now... if you go to your player and say "I have this thing I want to do, are you on board?" then you have mutual consent. If the GM told the player before she makes the character, there is explicit buy in. (A Wizard in Dark Sun can't be surprised that's just how magic works in that setting)
In the video he talks about how when the Pact if Formed, neither side can revoke the deal. It's a *deal* the Warlock isn't an at-will employee. They explicitly aren't a "Sugar Daddy" that can revoke the power, that power is in cosmological escrow. They are Bargains that are struck, and bargain with a capital B. Mike M. explicitly states that Warlock is supposed to be able to go "rogue" against the Patron.
Now Warlocks are great tools for pushing the story because there is an otherwordly NPC which can communicate plot point or hooks, but that is not a cudgel.
Playing devil's advocate here, but that is actually a compelling role-play scenario. The Warlock has made a pact with a Patron to serve it. In exchange, the Patron grants it a small portion of its powers. If the Warlock and Patron come to a disagreement and the Patron doesn't like it, as a DM, I would definitely prevent some of the Warlock's class features from being used. It would provide some interesting role-play opportunities after the fact on how do I regain my Patron's favor.
Warlocks and Divine casters are funny little things as they get many of their class features from an outside source. If that outside source isn't happy with them, then they can stop being that character's "Sugar daddy".
First part:
That would be fun scenario, as long as everyone's on board. I had considered throwing something like this for one of my players, especially since her patron is Great Old One. The idea of a relationship with the patron is a really intriguing thing for her. I feel that it creates an interesting story device since I created my own patron who is a denizen of Limbo but has taken on the mantle of bringing balance to the cosmos. With that said:
Part 2:
Technically there is no lasting relationship with a Warlock patron as is compared to the Paladin/Cleric. It's a small detail, but one to note none the less. Yes there is a pact, but a pact is not quite a contract. There is nothing in the descriptor of a Warlock that creates a precedent that their powers could be removed for failing/rebuking in the pact.
I wouldn't ever remove a Warlock's powers, because as others have said, the bargain is the bargain. However, I would consider prohibiting a player's further advancement as a Warlock if there was a significant disagreement with the patron.
Well if Mike Mearls says it. Nope, I would still potentially mess with features... If it makes since within the confines of the story being told. That is the important part. I also realize I have a very different gaming group that is story driven and uses class features, feats, and combat to drive the story. For example, I had one player ask if he can delay taking his 4th level Ability Score Improvement until he reached at least level 5 because it didn't make sense for him to magically get a +2 in Dexterity all of a sudden.
A little backstory, yes, that can be abused and I agree with the premises that you should not be messing with class features just because you want to. I have been GMing for over 10 years, and though I know relative to the life of D&D and some other GMs that isn't long, it is still long enough.
Over my GMing career I have yet to revoke and / or muddle with a character's class features. I did come close when a Paladin met his deity and the deity gave him an ultimatum on following him wholeheartedly. If the Paladin had walked away then the deity would have revoked his patronage and he would have become an Oathbreaker Paladin.
Playing devil's advocate here, but that is actually a compelling role-play scenario. The Warlock has made a pact with a Patron to serve it. In exchange, the Patron grants it a small portion of its powers. If the Warlock and Patron come to a disagreement and the Patron doesn't like it, as a DM, I would definitely prevent some of the Warlock's class features from being used. It would provide some interesting role-play opportunities after the fact on how do I regain my Patron's favor.
Warlocks and Divine casters are funny little things as they get many of their class features from an outside source. If that outside source isn't happy with them, then they can stop being that character's "Sugar daddy".
First part:
That would be fun scenario, as long as everyone's on board. I had considered throwing something like this for one of my players, especially since her patron is Great Old One. The idea of a relationship with the patron is a really intriguing thing for her. I feel that it creates an interesting story device since I created my own patron who is a denizen of Limbo but has taken on the mantle of bringing balance to the cosmos. With that said:
Part 2:
Technically there is no lasting relationship with a Warlock patron as is compared to the Paladin/Cleric. It's a small detail, but one to note none the less. Yes there is a pact, but a pact is not quite a contract. There is nothing in the descriptor of a Warlock that creates a precedent that their powers could be removed for failing/rebuking in the pact.
Well it all depends on the Patron, Great Old Ones are interesting Patrons because they are so immensely powerful that in all likelihood they may not even realize they are someone's patron. Imagine taking an eye drop of water from the ocean. The ocean itself probably doesn't notice. Now what will be interesting is if that Great Old One does find out what will be its reaction? Great Old Ones have such otherwordly minds from our own that it would be an immensely fascinating story to explore.
Unlike most birds, owls are incredibly quiet and stealthy. But they lack the oil most birds have on their feathers, so owls are miserable when they get wet.
I'd say the 100-foot limit clearly applies to everything in THAT paragraph. The familiar can go farther away, if told to, and come back if instructed to before it goes, but once outside that 100-foot range, no telepathic orders or communications are possible. One exception might be the master's ability to dismiss the familiar, either temporarily or permanently, regardless of distance.
My biggest problem is familiars used to be moderately intelligent, and there was true two-way telepathic communication between master and familiar. But in 5e, there is some serious doubt as to whether this is true two-way communication. It doesn't say it is. The master can telepathically issue commands, and while within 100', they can choose to look through its eyes and hear through its ears (while being blind and deaf themselves for that turn (6 seconds), but nothing really suggests the familiar can decide for itself to report what it finds interesting to its master and allow the master to then decide if it's worth the time looking through. And nothing really suggests something of animal intelligence can really go out, look around, and come back and make a meaningful report like a more intelligent being. Even Speak with Animals grants the extra ability to communicate with dumb animals, and even then in a limited way (very vague stuff), but it's not a certainty the dumb familiar can remember and accurately relay anything it saw or heard while outside the 100 foot limit. The Find Familiar spell seems to want the master to "look through" and get that information first-hand. Besides, that now only takes a turn (6 seconds) and is actually quicker than the sort of mental but vague description one could get in a real time conversation, even if that were allowed to work. This limits the familiar in that way. It can see farther than 100 feet, sure, but only when within 100 feet of its master can the master use the better perception abilities through it.
A bigger problem is the familiar can be "pocketed" (temporarily dismissed into a pocket universe) and brought back within 30 feet, but line of sight is NOT a requirement. One could resummon them behind a closed door, for example, then "look through," then pocket them, and resummon them again on the right side of the door with the master. It takes time, but so what? However, when resummoning them in the blind like that, if the space is already occupied, your DM might do damage, might kill it, or more forgivingly, might just have the resummon fail that turn, only to be used later. One DM even said if that happens, they can be resummoned, but only after the master takes a short or long rest.
Finally, suggested house rule, one might allow the Find Familiar spell to be cast with spell slots higher than 1st. Doing so could grant higher INT and higher HPs to the familiar. (INT = 2+spell slot level) and HPs = Normal + spell slot level).
The reason to do this is to recapture the old sense of a familiar, a friend, and a companion to the master. The way 5e has it, it's more like a dumb, disposable tool. However, unless their is allowed greater two way telepathic communication, there is little reason to have a higher INT familiar since it doesn't really use it or improve the one-way ability to see or hear through it.
I would discourage any the idea that "familiars" themselves make good spies, scouts, or guards, as if the familiar is acting like an intelligent, independent agent. It's really the master who can make good use of the familiar to spy, to scout, or to guard - though the latter may be possible to issue instructions to keep watch and wake the sleeping master up if anything comes near, by making noises and flapping it wings, or bumping the master awake. or however it does it. I don't think it could telepathically wake the master up, or silently do it, since again, there is nothing that really suggests the telepathic communication is two-way.
Maybe at higher levels, the DM could reestablish some of the old empathy and two-way telepathy familiars had before to recapture that flavor. It really doesn't add to the power since the ability to see/hear in detail is already a function of the spell. Higher INT just makes them a better companion and friend.
My biggest problem is familiars used to be moderately intelligent, and there was true two-way telepathic communication between master and familiar. But in 5e, there is some serious doubt as to whether this is true two-way communication. It doesn't say it is. The master can telepathically issue commands, and while within 100', they can choose to look through its eyes and hear through its ears (while being blind and deaf themselves for that turn (6 seconds), but nothing really suggests the familiar can decide for itself to report what it finds interesting to its master and allow the master to then decide if it's worth the time looking through.
Huh. This is an interesting wording interpretation I'd never thought of. For me, communicating telepathically seems to heavily imply two-way communication (such as possible with a being of very low, basic intelligence)...but I'll admit that the interpretation being that it means a one-way channel to give orders is valid given the text of the spell description.
Has Mearls, Crawford, etc., chimed in on this topic at all? Not that we're beholden to agree or abide by what they say, but it'd be helpful to see what the game designers had in mind.
That has always been my biggest challenge regarding familiars. The player of course wants the familiar to report everything back on its own turn so that the character doesn't have to spend an action looking through the familiar's perception. I usually try to have the familiar report back basic concepts (It was in a big room. There were several humanoid creatures) while respecting the low int stat block of the creature.
Do remember that familiars are not actually animals, but are generally celestial, fiend, or fey beings that just happen to take the form of animals and use animal stat blocks for ease of use. There is no reason to think that these otherworldly creatures are of actual animal intelligence just because they use the stat block of a common beast.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"The mongoose blew out its candle and was asleep in bed before the room went dark." —Llanowar fable
There is no reason to think that these otherworldly creatures are of actual animal intelligence just because they use the stat block of a common beast.
...except the rules tell us explicitly that they are. The intelligence they have might not be animal intelligence, but it's the equivalent score. I don't think the RAI mean to convey these are highly intelligent beings masquerading as animals with limited intellect.
There is no reason to think that these otherworldly creatures are of actual animal intelligence just because they use the stat block of a common beast.
...except the rules tell us explicitly that they are. The intelligence they have might not be animal intelligence, but it's the equivalent score. I don't think the RAI mean to convey these are highly intelligent beings masquerading as animals with limited intellect.
Not highly intelligent....just not normal animal intelligent.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"The mongoose blew out its candle and was asleep in bed before the room went dark." —Llanowar fable
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Familiars in 5e are very powerful. I wouldn't say they're "deceptively" so, they just are.
Any one of these things would be a useful power. Together they are quite strong indeed.
Ludic: adjective (formal). showing spontaneous and undirected playfulness.
If the familiar "always obeys your command", then why is the DM controlling the familiar? It sounds to me like it's an extension of the player.
Familiars are not that powerful by, and of, themselves. They are exceedingly useful tools and can really make a DM stretch their muscles when considering how to handle the newest member of the party. The trick of it is how to make the benefits of the familiar also come with drawbacks.
I have a player who's going to be grabbing a psuedodragon as a familiar this level. It's going to make my life miserable as a DM, 6 level 6 players and a psuedodragon familiar, that's the equivalent of 7 players in some aspects. However, it's going to be a blast having her try to explain why this strange creature is following her or having people try to capture it as a prize. It'll be fun changing it's disposition toward her depending on how she treats it, if she's careless it may become belligerent until apologies are made, but not during a situation that means life or death (unless she treats it like a bullet sponge).
DMs who punish their players for using every tool at their disposal are doing it wrong. I say this because I used to do it myself. Reward the good choices, let that familiar do most of the antics that the players want. However, there is a risk involved, familiars are frail creatures, they can die easily, dimensional anchor could stop them from plane shifting, and with enough familiarity a bad guy could scry it. It's not our job to punish the players because they make some of our designs obsolete, it's our jobs to adapt the story/game to their new tools and we have all the tools necessary without punishing the players.
I will agree that the familiar can be very similar to NPC status; personality quirks, feelings, and other nuances lending to that. The catch I have with what you're implying is that a DM can take a familiar and make it ineffective because "it's an npc". It's not an npc, it's an extension of the caster, nothing else.
Playing tug o' war with a familiar is unfair to the player for choosing a tool designed to help the caster. Today it will be belligerent because it's a fiendish pact familiar, the next session the player doesn't use the familiar because it was acting up, the third session the familiar does the exact wording of the caster because it's mad that it was left in the pocket dimension. Go scout ahead of us and tell us what you see when you return, "I saw a tree, some dirt, there were leaves, a squirrel crossed the road....", well, I'd not use that familiar, it's worthless.
I love to use RP events to mess with my players, I try to avoid mechanical things. Would the familiar get a bad attitude because it's been treated poorly, yes. Would it disobey the caster, no, mechanically it can't. Would it always act dumber, weaker, or otherwise opposite it's attribute scores, no, mechanically it cant. In the long run, as a DM we're technically only allowed to say what happens after the familiar does what the caster requested of it. All that other stuff, attitude, personality quirks, how it interacts with the caster and other people, all of that is purely fluff.
I'm with DMThac0,
It's either a spell effect or a gods forsaken class feature, the player is PAYING FOR.
The player's Book of Shadows doesn't decide to not open because it hasn't been read recently, and the Pact Blade won't refuse to leave it's extradimentional space because the DM decided the Warlock and Patron have having a "strained relationship"
Fireballs don't decide they don't "feel" like casting because it's raining.
It should be a tool to improve play, never a cudgel to beat a player with.
Playing devil's advocate here, but that is actually a compelling role-play scenario. The Warlock has made a pact with a Patron to serve it. In exchange, the Patron grants it a small portion of its powers. If the Warlock and Patron come to a disagreement and the Patron doesn't like it, as a DM, I would definitely prevent some of the Warlock's class features from being used. It would provide some interesting role-play opportunities after the fact on how do I regain my Patron's favor.
I disagree with you Grizzlebub,
I recommend the video from D&D Beyond Video on Warlocks: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iiS5mkIff_8
Now Mike M. talks about how it's "up to the GM" (but everything is), but the developer's intent is that the features can't be "messed with".
especially at the 2 minute 15 second mark of the video explains it's a risk for both patron and character.
These are class features the player pays for and he says in the opening that in his game the player's Patron is the villain in his game, but it's not there to mess with the player but to be an interesting story point.
A character's class and features shouldn't be a cudgel to beat the player because the GM thinks the player not role-playing the player's character the way the GM thinks the player should be. It's the player's character not the GM's NPC.
Now... if you go to your player and say "I have this thing I want to do, are you on board?" then you have mutual consent. If the GM told the player before she makes the character, there is explicit buy in. (A Wizard in Dark Sun can't be surprised that's just how magic works in that setting)
In the video he talks about how when the Pact if Formed, neither side can revoke the deal. It's a *deal* the Warlock isn't an at-will employee. They explicitly aren't a "Sugar Daddy" that can revoke the power, that power is in cosmological escrow. They are Bargains that are struck, and bargain with a capital B.
Mike M. explicitly states that Warlock is supposed to be able to go "rogue" against the Patron.
Now Warlocks are great tools for pushing the story because there is an otherwordly NPC which can communicate plot point or hooks, but that is not a cudgel.
I wouldn't ever remove a Warlock's powers, because as others have said, the bargain is the bargain. However, I would consider prohibiting a player's further advancement as a Warlock if there was a significant disagreement with the patron.
Well if Mike Mearls says it. Nope, I would still potentially mess with features... If it makes since within the confines of the story being told. That is the important part. I also realize I have a very different gaming group that is story driven and uses class features, feats, and combat to drive the story. For example, I had one player ask if he can delay taking his 4th level Ability Score Improvement until he reached at least level 5 because it didn't make sense for him to magically get a +2 in Dexterity all of a sudden.
A little backstory, yes, that can be abused and I agree with the premises that you should not be messing with class features just because you want to. I have been GMing for over 10 years, and though I know relative to the life of D&D and some other GMs that isn't long, it is still long enough.
Over my GMing career I have yet to revoke and / or muddle with a character's class features. I did come close when a Paladin met his deity and the deity gave him an ultimatum on following him wholeheartedly. If the Paladin had walked away then the deity would have revoked his patronage and he would have become an Oathbreaker Paladin.
Unlike most birds, owls are incredibly quiet and stealthy. But they lack the oil most birds have on their feathers, so owls are miserable when they get wet.
I'd say the 100-foot limit clearly applies to everything in THAT paragraph. The familiar can go farther away, if told to, and come back if instructed to before it goes, but once outside that 100-foot range, no telepathic orders or communications are possible. One exception might be the master's ability to dismiss the familiar, either temporarily or permanently, regardless of distance.
My biggest problem is familiars used to be moderately intelligent, and there was true two-way telepathic communication between master and familiar. But in 5e, there is some serious doubt as to whether this is true two-way communication. It doesn't say it is. The master can telepathically issue commands, and while within 100', they can choose to look through its eyes and hear through its ears (while being blind and deaf themselves for that turn (6 seconds), but nothing really suggests the familiar can decide for itself to report what it finds interesting to its master and allow the master to then decide if it's worth the time looking through. And nothing really suggests something of animal intelligence can really go out, look around, and come back and make a meaningful report like a more intelligent being. Even Speak with Animals grants the extra ability to communicate with dumb animals, and even then in a limited way (very vague stuff), but it's not a certainty the dumb familiar can remember and accurately relay anything it saw or heard while outside the 100 foot limit. The Find Familiar spell seems to want the master to "look through" and get that information first-hand. Besides, that now only takes a turn (6 seconds) and is actually quicker than the sort of mental but vague description one could get in a real time conversation, even if that were allowed to work. This limits the familiar in that way. It can see farther than 100 feet, sure, but only when within 100 feet of its master can the master use the better perception abilities through it.
A bigger problem is the familiar can be "pocketed" (temporarily dismissed into a pocket universe) and brought back within 30 feet, but line of sight is NOT a requirement. One could resummon them behind a closed door, for example, then "look through," then pocket them, and resummon them again on the right side of the door with the master. It takes time, but so what? However, when resummoning them in the blind like that, if the space is already occupied, your DM might do damage, might kill it, or more forgivingly, might just have the resummon fail that turn, only to be used later. One DM even said if that happens, they can be resummoned, but only after the master takes a short or long rest.
Finally, suggested house rule, one might allow the Find Familiar spell to be cast with spell slots higher than 1st. Doing so could grant higher INT and higher HPs to the familiar. (INT = 2+spell slot level) and HPs = Normal + spell slot level).
The reason to do this is to recapture the old sense of a familiar, a friend, and a companion to the master. The way 5e has it, it's more like a dumb, disposable tool. However, unless their is allowed greater two way telepathic communication, there is little reason to have a higher INT familiar since it doesn't really use it or improve the one-way ability to see or hear through it.
I would discourage any the idea that "familiars" themselves make good spies, scouts, or guards, as if the familiar is acting like an intelligent, independent agent. It's really the master who can make good use of the familiar to spy, to scout, or to guard - though the latter may be possible to issue instructions to keep watch and wake the sleeping master up if anything comes near, by making noises and flapping it wings, or bumping the master awake. or however it does it. I don't think it could telepathically wake the master up, or silently do it, since again, there is nothing that really suggests the telepathic communication is two-way.
Maybe at higher levels, the DM could reestablish some of the old empathy and two-way telepathy familiars had before to recapture that flavor. It really doesn't add to the power since the ability to see/hear in detail is already a function of the spell. Higher INT just makes them a better companion and friend.
Huh. This is an interesting wording interpretation I'd never thought of. For me, communicating telepathically seems to heavily imply two-way communication (such as possible with a being of very low, basic intelligence)...but I'll admit that the interpretation being that it means a one-way channel to give orders is valid given the text of the spell description.
Has Mearls, Crawford, etc., chimed in on this topic at all? Not that we're beholden to agree or abide by what they say, but it'd be helpful to see what the game designers had in mind.
That has always been my biggest challenge regarding familiars. The player of course wants the familiar to report everything back on its own turn so that the character doesn't have to spend an action looking through the familiar's perception. I usually try to have the familiar report back basic concepts (It was in a big room. There were several humanoid creatures) while respecting the low int stat block of the creature.
"Not all those who wander are lost"
Do remember that familiars are not actually animals, but are generally celestial, fiend, or fey beings that just happen to take the form of animals and use animal stat blocks for ease of use. There is no reason to think that these otherworldly creatures are of actual animal intelligence just because they use the stat block of a common beast.
...except the rules tell us explicitly that they are. The intelligence they have might not be animal intelligence, but it's the equivalent score. I don't think the RAI mean to convey these are highly intelligent beings masquerading as animals with limited intellect.
Not highly intelligent....just not normal animal intelligent.