Discussing it with the player is always good too. However it is usually best to use in world whenever possible. And one does not have to treat such a response in a binary fashion. There are degrees and the character could (and should) get in character clues that there is an issue well before any more significant changes in familiar behavior and any such changes could (and should) ramp up gradually.
If it was a normal NPC instead of a familiar and they were treated like cannon fodder, would you likewise get upset at the NPC reacting negatively to it?
Mechanically, this is irrelevant. The spell says it obeys your commands, the only limiting factors being its ability and intelligence (which is implied in the spell description). Since in this case the familiar is not technically "alive" (it is a spirit), your comparison is apples to oranges anyway. Now, for living familiars, I agree with you wholeheartedly they will resent such treatment, but the spell does not summon living familiars, so again, not relevant to this discussion.
Most familiars are pretty squishy. Just remember that during combat, a familiar may be in the range of a monster, especially if they are engaging in an assist, so it can easily be killed.
Same goes with using a familiar to scout ahead. It may end up alerting the monster that there are intruders, eliminating the element of surprise. (and the familiar gets killed in the process)
Discussing it with the player is always good too. However it is usually best to use in world whenever possible. And one does not have to treat such a response in a binary fashion. There are degrees and the character could (and should) get in character clues that there is an issue well before any more significant changes in familiar behavior and any such changes could (and should) ramp up gradually.
If it was a normal NPC instead of a familiar and they were treated like cannon fodder, would you likewise get upset at the NPC reacting negatively to it?
Mechanically, this is irrelevant. The spell says it obeys your commands, the only limiting factors being its ability and intelligence (which is implied in the spell description). Since in this case the familiar is not technically "alive" (it is a spirit), your comparison is apples to oranges anyway. Now, for living familiars, I agree with you wholeheartedly they will resent such treatment, but the spell does not summon living familiars, so again, not relevant to this discussion.
And it says exactly how it obeys your commands where? I seem to have missed that in the rules.
Second Paragraph "Your familiar acts independently of you, but it always obeys your commands." As I said, the "how" is limited to the creatures ability and intelligence (see my post #31 on this thread for how I interpret that), but the "always" implies no room for dissent, malicious subversion, or the possibility that it disobeys. I would add that most spells involving commands indicate if any command can be refused (usually for self-preservation purposes; see Suggestion for an example). Find Familiar does not specify any "excluded" commands so we have to assume that any command is valid, so Iong as it can be understood and is achievable via the creatures abilities.
My apologies if I misinterpreted your original comment...I inferred from your statement "If it was a normal NPC instead of a familiar and they were treated like cannon fodder, would you likewise get upset at the NPC reacting negatively to it?" that you implied resentment, and the only external (read: actually relevant to the game) expression of said resentment would be dissent, subversion, or defiance.
But back to your most recent comment. In every game I've ever played and DM'ed, the player controlled their familiars actions, so the "how" is always invariably linked to the command via however the player wants it to be. If in your games the DM controls the familiar (the spell actually doesn't say who holds the stats or "controls" the creature, so it could be interpreted either way I guess), I could see the "how" varying so long as the end result is the same. But in my games, the player controls the familiar, and the DM narrates the result, calling for rolls as needed, the same as they would a PC or anything else under the PC's control. So in one of my earlier examples, if my player commands their rat familiar to scout the building ahead for enemies, the rat will do it going in the directions the player decides, and as a DM, I'm going to run it like I would if the character itself was scouting, except I'm likely to return information on the cat and snake situation just as much as on humanoids (based on the intelligence of the rat). I would also inform my player as they issue the command if I feel the command goes beyond the creatures ability. But to me, when the player controls the familiar, the "how" is not necessarily to the "discretion" of the familiar as the controlling force is still the player.
Yeah, Im playing a character with Find Familiar, and it has kind of become our exploration cure-all. I also just stopped using it in combat much, because it just became an extra thing to keep track of.
Im about to send my familiar off for a few sessions to deliver hate mail to my sworn enemy. Let the bear totem barbarian and the druid use their pets for a while.
I agree with a lot of what has been said before, just wanted to add that:
10 gp is actually quite a bit a low level.
The largest hindrance is usually the casting time, one hour chanting can be a bit long depending on the circumstances.
Adversaries of even medium intelligence fear wizards and can be quick to recognise one as such, an animal not in its natural habitat or acting peculiarly. See for example Fafhrd and the Grey Mouser...
And if you enforce the limitations as showns by the other contributors, it's actually fairly well balanced especially at mid+ level when the adversaries vastly overshadow the meager skills of the familiar at stealth.
That being said, I agree that the wonderful age of this is now gone... :D
Lol if I remember correctly in AD&D if your familiar died you took damage. And magic-users had 1d4 hp/level and you rolled at level one, not at max hp like later additions.
I agree with a lot of what has been said before, just wanted to add that:
10 gp is actually quite a bit a low level.
The largest hindrance is usually the casting time, one hour chanting can be a bit long depending on the circumstances.
Adversaries of even medium intelligence fear wizards and can be quick to recognise one as such, an animal not in its natural habitat or acting peculiarly. See for example Fafhrd and the Grey Mouser...
And if you enforce the limitations as showns by the other contributors, it's actually fairly well balanced especially at mid+ level when the adversaries vastly overshadow the meager skills of the familiar at stealth.
That being said, I agree that the wonderful age of this is now gone... :D
I'd also point out the whole issue of needing a brass brazier as a spell component. RAW isn't clear about whether its possible to obtain one to carry around with you, so its really up to a DM whether or not its just a tiny incense burner that just comes in a component pouch, or if its a big heavy thing you find lighting the streets of large cities. So a GM concerned about it being spammed could say "oh, and you can't cast the spell unless you can create a brass brazierre with another spell first, or take a trip to someplace large enough to at least have a guard tower."
Is that true when it is a necessary part of using the gold cost items? Like, if I need 100 gold of powdered diamond for a spell, can a diamond worth 100 gold replace it, or is the circumstance of the items use also tied to the gold price restriction?
Is that true when it is a necessary part of using the gold cost items? Like, if I need 100 gold of powdered diamond for a spell, can a diamond worth 100 gold replace it, or is the circumstance of the items use also tied to the gold price restriction?
Unless there is an explicit means of circumventing a material component, it needs to be exactly what it says. The DM has the final word, if there is any ambiguity.
For example: "10gp worth of incense" could either mean a TON of cheap incense, or a little bit of very expensive incense.
Expensive material components can lead to important plot developments, so while a DM may choose to be less strict, it isn't necessarily in anyone's best interest to do so.
"100 gp of powdered diamond" is a different component than "a single 100 gp diamond," both of which are specific subsets of "diamonds worth 100 gp." Whatever the spell asks for, you have to provide that, since they have costs.
But there's a difference between asking for a costly which has been the subject of an earlier process ("100 gp of powdered diamond") and asking for a process to be performed on a costly component during the casting of a spell ("a 100 gp diamond, which the caster crushes with a hammer during casting"). If the component were "a 100 gp diamond, which must be wrapped in a piece of lamb's wool", then the lamb's wool is a component with no cost, and can be stricken with the use of a focus.
Material (M)
Casting some spells requires particular objects, specified in parentheses in the component entry. A character can use a component pouch or a spellcasting focus (found in “Equipment”) in place of the components specified for a spell. But if a cost is indicated for a component, a character must have that specific component before he or she can cast the spell.
If a spell states that a material component is consumed by the spell, the caster must provide this component for each casting of the spell. A spellcaster must have a hand free to access a spell's material components -- or to hold a spellcasting focus -- but it can be the same hand that he or she uses to perform somatic components.
Of course a DM could rule otherwise, but as written, a Focus allows you to bypass the normal way a costly material component is manipulated/interacted with using other non-cost components, allowing you to instead just sort of get by with having it and interacting with the Focus instead.
So normally, you have to burn your costly incense, charcoal, and herbs in a brazier for Find Familiar. With a focus, you just need to have the incense, charcoal, and herbs, no brazier or burning required. But those components will still be consumed (somehow).
Is that true when it is a necessary part of using the gold cost items? Like, if I need 100 gold of powdered diamond for a spell, can a diamond worth 100 gold replace it, or is the circumstance of the items use also tied to the gold price restriction?
Unless your DM is generous with you, a 100gp diamond isn't a substitute for 100gp of diamond dust. If you took drastic action and crushed it into dust, you would end up with diamond dust worth considerably less than 100gp. Exactly how much it would be worth would depend on why the diamond was worth 100gp, if it was valuable because it was small but "perfect" it would be worth considerably less than if it were large and flawed.
Considering the difficulty of crushing diamonds without specialized magics or tools, I would consider that you would have quite a bit MORE than 100 gp of diamond dust after crushing a 100 gp diamond. It’s a value added product, like jam.
Considering the difficulty of crushing diamonds without specialized magics or tools, I would consider that you would have quite a bit MORE than 100 gp of diamond dust after crushing a 100 gp diamond. It’s a value added product, like jam.
Diamonds are resistant (practically immune) to scratching, but aren't particularly resistant to being crushed.
I personally find material components a PITA. In earlier editions they were used as a mechanic to reign in the power of magic users, because so many spells were potentially game breaking.
In 5E, spells are much weaker, so I think an arcane focus is a reasonable trade off.
I feel the same way about the Thaumaturgy spell. I have a player that will use that all the time to open literally everything.
The spell specifically says it only works on unlocked doors so I don't see the problem. They could open it by hand anyway. And it specifically says it flies open or slams shut - which means noise - which means it's alerted anyone nearby.
Mechanically, this is irrelevant. The spell says it obeys your commands, the only limiting factors being its ability and intelligence (which is implied in the spell description). Since in this case the familiar is not technically "alive" (it is a spirit), your comparison is apples to oranges anyway. Now, for living familiars, I agree with you wholeheartedly they will resent such treatment, but the spell does not summon living familiars, so again, not relevant to this discussion.
Most familiars are pretty squishy. Just remember that during combat, a familiar may be in the range of a monster, especially if they are engaging in an assist, so it can easily be killed.
Same goes with using a familiar to scout ahead. It may end up alerting the monster that there are intruders, eliminating the element of surprise. (and the familiar gets killed in the process)
Second Paragraph "Your familiar acts independently of you, but it always obeys your commands." As I said, the "how" is limited to the creatures ability and intelligence (see my post #31 on this thread for how I interpret that), but the "always" implies no room for dissent, malicious subversion, or the possibility that it disobeys. I would add that most spells involving commands indicate if any command can be refused (usually for self-preservation purposes; see Suggestion for an example). Find Familiar does not specify any "excluded" commands so we have to assume that any command is valid, so Iong as it can be understood and is achievable via the creatures abilities.
My apologies if I misinterpreted your original comment...I inferred from your statement "If it was a normal NPC instead of a familiar and they were treated like cannon fodder, would you likewise get upset at the NPC reacting negatively to it?" that you implied resentment, and the only external (read: actually relevant to the game) expression of said resentment would be dissent, subversion, or defiance.
But back to your most recent comment. In every game I've ever played and DM'ed, the player controlled their familiars actions, so the "how" is always invariably linked to the command via however the player wants it to be. If in your games the DM controls the familiar (the spell actually doesn't say who holds the stats or "controls" the creature, so it could be interpreted either way I guess), I could see the "how" varying so long as the end result is the same. But in my games, the player controls the familiar, and the DM narrates the result, calling for rolls as needed, the same as they would a PC or anything else under the PC's control. So in one of my earlier examples, if my player commands their rat familiar to scout the building ahead for enemies, the rat will do it going in the directions the player decides, and as a DM, I'm going to run it like I would if the character itself was scouting, except I'm likely to return information on the cat and snake situation just as much as on humanoids (based on the intelligence of the rat). I would also inform my player as they issue the command if I feel the command goes beyond the creatures ability. But to me, when the player controls the familiar, the "how" is not necessarily to the "discretion" of the familiar as the controlling force is still the player.
Yeah, Im playing a character with Find Familiar, and it has kind of become our exploration cure-all. I also just stopped using it in combat much, because it just became an extra thing to keep track of.
Im about to send my familiar off for a few sessions to deliver hate mail to my sworn enemy. Let the bear totem barbarian and the druid use their pets for a while.
Lol if I remember correctly in AD&D if your familiar died you took damage. And magic-users had 1d4 hp/level and you rolled at level one, not at max hp like later additions.
EZD6 by DM Scotty
https://www.drivethrurpg.com/en/product/397599/EZD6-Core-Rulebook?
I'd also point out the whole issue of needing a brass brazier as a spell component. RAW isn't clear about whether its possible to obtain one to carry around with you, so its really up to a DM whether or not its just a tiny incense burner that just comes in a component pouch, or if its a big heavy thing you find lighting the streets of large cities. So a GM concerned about it being spammed could say "oh, and you can't cast the spell unless you can create a brass brazierre with another spell first, or take a trip to someplace large enough to at least have a guard tower."
No gp cost is listed for the brazier, so it can be replaced by a Spell Focus. The 10 gp of "charcoal, incense, and herbs" cannot.
dndbeyond.com forum tags
I'm going to make this way harder than it needs to be.
Is that true when it is a necessary part of using the gold cost items? Like, if I need 100 gold of powdered diamond for a spell, can a diamond worth 100 gold replace it, or is the circumstance of the items use also tied to the gold price restriction?
Unless there is an explicit means of circumventing a material component, it needs to be exactly what it says. The DM has the final word, if there is any ambiguity.
For example: "10gp worth of incense" could either mean a TON of cheap incense, or a little bit of very expensive incense.
Expensive material components can lead to important plot developments, so while a DM may choose to be less strict, it isn't necessarily in anyone's best interest to do so.
"100 gp of powdered diamond" is a different component than "a single 100 gp diamond," both of which are specific subsets of "diamonds worth 100 gp." Whatever the spell asks for, you have to provide that, since they have costs.
But there's a difference between asking for a costly which has been the subject of an earlier process ("100 gp of powdered diamond") and asking for a process to be performed on a costly component during the casting of a spell ("a 100 gp diamond, which the caster crushes with a hammer during casting"). If the component were "a 100 gp diamond, which must be wrapped in a piece of lamb's wool", then the lamb's wool is a component with no cost, and can be stricken with the use of a focus.
Of course a DM could rule otherwise, but as written, a Focus allows you to bypass the normal way a costly material component is manipulated/interacted with using other non-cost components, allowing you to instead just sort of get by with having it and interacting with the Focus instead.
So normally, you have to burn your costly incense, charcoal, and herbs in a brazier for Find Familiar. With a focus, you just need to have the incense, charcoal, and herbs, no brazier or burning required. But those components will still be consumed (somehow).
dndbeyond.com forum tags
I'm going to make this way harder than it needs to be.
True. There is a Crawford tweet somewhere confirming that, but the spell is written as though it "must" be burned in a brass brazierre.
Unless your DM is generous with you, a 100gp diamond isn't a substitute for 100gp of diamond dust. If you took drastic action and crushed it into dust, you would end up with diamond dust worth considerably less than 100gp. Exactly how much it would be worth would depend on why the diamond was worth 100gp, if it was valuable because it was small but "perfect" it would be worth considerably less than if it were large and flawed.
Considering the difficulty of crushing diamonds without specialized magics or tools, I would consider that you would have quite a bit MORE than 100 gp of diamond dust after crushing a 100 gp diamond. It’s a value added product, like jam.
dndbeyond.com forum tags
I'm going to make this way harder than it needs to be.
Diamonds are resistant (practically immune) to scratching, but aren't particularly resistant to being crushed.
I personally find material components a PITA. In earlier editions they were used as a mechanic to reign in the power of magic users, because so many spells were potentially game breaking.
In 5E, spells are much weaker, so I think an arcane focus is a reasonable trade off.
I feel the same way about the Thaumaturgy spell. I have a player that will use that all the time to open literally everything.
Show your player the rules as written and ask them to point out where it says they can open anything other than an unlocked door or window.
<Insert clever signature here>
The spell specifically says it only works on unlocked doors so I don't see the problem. They could open it by hand anyway. And it specifically says it flies open or slams shut - which means noise - which means it's alerted anyone nearby.
Mega Yahtzee Thread:
Highest 41: brocker2001 (#11,285).
Yahtzee of 2's: Emmber (#36,161).
Lowest 9: JoeltheWalrus (#312), Emmber (#12,505) and Dertinus (#20,953).
Is there a provision for using a spell focus to replace part of the material component, but not another part?
"Not all those who wander are lost"