Who roleplays a Familiar?

[Yael]

I have always wondered if this was explained in any guidebook, but for the animal companion is easy, they are animals that obey; what then about intelligent magical beasts that can sometimes even speak (raven and thrush iirc)? The player roleplays them? The DM does? It isn't technically an NPC but a class feature, what would you gain from a raven familiar with the intelligence of a toddler, or the same raven, years later, bypassing Einstein's IQ?

[Zaydos]

In theory I think it is supposed to fall to the DM (might have been in Tome and Blood), in practice it usually falls to the player if the familiar does anything of note.

[Mr.Kraken]

A question I've always wandered about too. And it could also be asked about followers and cohorts.

[Necrovosh]

I have always wondered if this was explained in any guidebook, but for the animal companion is easy, they are animals that obey; what then about intelligent magical beasts that can sometimes even speak (raven and thrush iirc)? The player roleplays them? The DM does? It isn't technically an NPC but a class feature, what would you gain from a raven familiar with the intelligence of a toddler, or the same raven, years later, bypassing Einstein's IQ?

I've usually left it up to the player, except where the familiar ends up acting on it's own in a non-tactical way. If the raven goes off to scout and comes back, I (as DM) would do the reports. Additionally, when the player has a loss of control (domination, confusion, etc) I will often co-op the familiar to have it illustrate the emotional link to the other players (though I usually let the player roleplay the loss of control where possible.) If a player doesn't mention their familiar at least once a session (when appropriate) I'll sometimes have the familiar talk about how it wants to help or what have you.

tl;dr: it's up to the DM, but I say the player should give it a shot.

[nyjastul69]

I don't have the DMG handy, but I believe the DM controls all creatures that aren't PC's. IME though the PC usually controls the familiar. I always allow that as a DM. I also reserve the right to over rule a familiars action as a DM.

[Mr.Kraken]

I don't have the DMG handy, but I believe the DM controls all creatures that aren't PC's. IME though the PC usually controls the familiar. I always allow that as a DM. I also reserve the right to over rule a familiars action as a DM.

You could argue that the familiar actually is the PC - an extension of his soul. By that reasoning, then the PCs would control them.

[Malimar]

As I've seen Curmudgeon say on many an occasion, the RAW is clear on this point, based on this line from the DMG, page 103:
It's [the DM's] job to portray everyone in the world who isn't a player character. The DM plays all characters who are not PCs, which includes familiars, animal companions, special mounts, psicrystals, intelligent items, summons, cohorts, followers, thralls, believers, hirelings, allies, and so on.


That said, I've never played at a table that followed this bit of RAW so strictly. Usually, if a PC is granted an NPC buddy by a class feature, we let the PC play them, with the caveat that such NPCs are fair game for the DM to hijack and use if he so desires.

[Flickerdart]

The familiar inherits some things from the magic bond with its master - skills, including knowledge. However, they are still a creature with its own thoughts (unlike a psicrystal, which is literally just a personality fragment). Given their low Intelligence, I would treat their personality like that of a child, somewhere between that of the master and the animal of the type that they are. However, there's no reason not to let the PC control its actions, unless you're the kind of DM who also usurps control over summoned creatures, cohorts, and mounts (and even if you are, given that a familiar is extremely fragile and its death carries a serious penalty, strongly consider making an exception).

[P.F.]

I have always wondered if this was explained in any guidebook, but for the animal companion is easy, they are animals that obey; what then about intelligent magical beasts that can sometimes even speak (raven and thrush iirc)? The player roleplays them? The DM does? It isn't technically an NPC but a class feature, what would you gain from a raven familiar with the intelligence of a toddler, or the same raven, years later, bypassing Einstein's IQ?

Generally speaking, the familiar is controlled by the player. To paraphrase the PHB, the familiar and its master are essentially the same creature, which is why spells with a range of "self" affect the familiar too, the familiar can deliver touch spells held by the caster, etc.

Often the familiar will have skills such as spot and listen which are as good as or better than the master's. Because they share an empathic link, the caster is frequently able to benefit form the familiars's check results. The player is essentially able to roll these checks twice, once to see if the player notices, and again to see if the familiar notices. An exceptionally bright familiar might be able to assist in spell research, search, make knowledge checks, negotiate using bluff or diplomacy, and so on.

Of course, we have also played in a different style where another player controls the familiar (and the player/familiar is commensurately better than a regular familiar). Some balk at this arrangement, while others leap at the prospect of not having to micro-manage the familiar's actions and abilities.

[nyjastul69]

You could argue that the familiar actually is the PC - an extension of his soul. By that reasoning, then the PCs would control them.

I couldn't make that argument actually. ;) It's clearly a creature even if obtaining one is a class feature or feat. I rule the same way with cohorts/followers as well. Again though, unless the player is particularly callous in playing these types of NPC's they are allowed full control of them.

[Coidzor]

Much like Cohorts, Animal Companions, and Special Mounts, I've seen everything from the DM to the Player that controls the master character to another player in the group to someone who is acting as a sort of assistant DM.

[Chronos]

In the groups I've played in, the rule in practice turns out to be "the player controls the familiar, unless the DM thinks it would be funny to take over". This is especially true for creatures with mischievous personalities like ravens, cats, and pseudodragons.

[Curmudgeon]

It's always the DMs in the games I play or DM. It's interesting to see how players go about trying to use "only general emotional content" to communicate with their familiars. For instance, what's the general emotional content of "half a mile to the north"? :smallamused:

[Flickerdart]

For instance, what's the general emotional content of "half a mile to the north"? :smallamused:
Cold, like your peasant parents' attitude towards you when you told them you were going to leave the farm and become a book learnin' good-for-nothing.

[Spore]

My DM played the Quasit of our PF Witch. But it's mainly because it feels stupid and lackluster to converse with yourself. I guess it's a combination of player and DM that works best. DM for dialogue, player for actual actions.

[Hiro Quester]

My DM played the Quasit of our PF Witch. But it's mainly because it feels stupid and lackluster to converse with yourself. I guess it's a combination of player and DM that works best. DM for dialogue, player for actual actions.

That's about how we do it. I, playing a Druid, say that I ask my riding dog animal companion to bite and try to trip the zombie. I make a handle animal check. The DM responds that because of the low roll, he's confused, and rather afraid, and hides behind me instead of biting the Zombie.

[Snowbluff]

I sure as hell do. I love making up familiar characters, particularly in PbP.

I had a pseudodragon named Zoe, who would pester other familiars and psycrystals like a cat.

I also had a rat named Larry, who was a bit of a memetic badass, and was always sniffing around something.

[Zanos]

Given their low Intelligence
At higher levels, there's a pretty decent chance that the familiar is the second smartest person in the party, other than the Wizard. Familiars have average int starting at Wiz 9, and it goes up to 15.


At every table I've played at, I've always had players control any creature they were given access to as part of a class feature. I've got enough stuff on my plate and I don't really care enough to argue about animals not being smart enough to flank or a 6 int familiar not knowing what an orc looks like.

[Flickerdart]

At higher levels, there's a pretty decent chance that the familiar is the second smartest person in the party, other than the Wizard. Familiars have average int starting at Wiz 9, and it goes up to 15.
By that time, it's likely that your familiar will already have developed a personality around their earlier stats, and would you really throw the excuse to poop in your party members' boots away like that?

[Almarck]

I've had this one friend of mine who really would just want to play an animal companion or familiar instead of say, a normal class.

[jjcrpntr]

I think the player should roleplay the familiar.

However, it can be hilarious when the DM does it. Played in a group where our party wizard had a raven familiar (think it was a raven) and the DM roleplayed the raven as basically a giant ******* that didn't like the wizard and would complain every time the wizard told it to do something. He'd do it but he'd complain the entire time. Drove the wizard nuts but it sure was funny.

[Kraken]

At higher levels, there's a pretty decent chance that the familiar is the second smartest person in the party, other than the Wizard. Familiars have average int starting at Wiz 9, and it goes up to 15.


At every table I've played at, I've always had players control any creature they were given access to as part of a class feature. I've got enough stuff on my plate and I don't really care enough to argue about animals not being smart enough to flank or a 6 int familiar not knowing what an orc looks like.

It's not just the int score to keep in mind, it's the shared skill ranks. If the master has been investing in knowledge skills, once the familiar reaches average intelligence, it'll be the most knowledgeable being of average intelligence in many towns. Once it gets to int 12 and 14, it's likely that few people other than other casters will be either more intelligent or knowledgeable. This can be very fun to roleplay if you have a speaking familiar.

[Almarck]

It's possible for sorcerers to have familiars smarter than them, that's for sure. One person I knew had terrible wisdom and so his familair was the one that had to reign him in.

[Crake]

My DM played the Quasit of our PF Witch. But it's mainly because it feels stupid and lackluster to converse with yourself. I guess it's a combination of player and DM that works best. DM for dialogue, player for actual actions.

I have to echo this sentiment. I have a player who has 3 familiars (i houseruled to allow you to take multiple copies of the obtain familiar feat) so the player has a quasit, a tibbit and a coure eladrin, covering the whole chaotic alignment spectrum (CE, CN, CG). In combat, the player decides their actions, but out of combat, or dangerous scenarios, when the player is spending time with them, I roleplay how they act.

[Milo v3]

I don't think I've been in a game where the GM ran the familiars.

Also this thread has given me the inspiration to play as a warrior with "his" familiar as his master rather than the other way around.

[Almarck]

I don't think I've been in a game where the GM ran the familiars.

Also this thread has given me the inspiration to play as a warrior with "his" familiar as his master rather than the other way around.
I friend to who did this. What made it even more humorous was that said familiar was a wizard aand my friend was a sorcerer.

It is not legal by any means but the dm thought it was a funny prank to pull. Said character even had a familiars evasion and share spells.

[Tiri]

My DM generally lets us play any animals we own even if they are not animal companions or familiars. I think he's just too busy trying to handle six players at once.

[Psyren]

Pathfinder has guidelines on this. (http://paizo.com/pathfinderRPG/prd/ultimateCampaign/campaignSystems/companions.html#aspects-of-control) Long quote is long:


Aspects of Control

Whether you or the GM controls a particular companion depends largely on the creature's intelligence and level of independence from you.

Nonsentient Companions: A nonsentient companion (one with animal-level intelligence) is loyal to you in the way a well-trained dog is—the creature is conditioned to obey your commands, but its behavior is limited by its intelligence and it can't make altruistic moral decisions—such as nobly sacrificing itself to save another. Animal companions, cavalier mounts, and purchased creatures (such as common horses and guard dogs) fall into this category. In general they're GM-controlled companions. You can direct them using the Handle Animal skill, but their specific behavior is up to the GM.

Sentient Companions: A sentient companion (a creature that can understand language and has an Intelligence score of at least 3) is considered your ally and obeys your suggestions and orders to the best of its ability. It won't necessarily blindly follow a suicidal order, but it has your interests at heart and does what it can to keep you alive. Paladin bonded mounts, familiars, and cohorts fall into this category, and are usually player-controlled companions.

Eidolons: Outside the linear obedience and intelligence scale of sentient and nonsentient companions are eidolons: intelligent entities magically bound to you. Whether you wish to roleplay this relationship as friendly or coerced, the eidolon is inclined to obey you unless you give a command only to spite it. An eidolon would obey a cruel summoner's order to save a child from a burning building, knowing that at worst the fire damage would temporarily banish it, but it wouldn't stand in a bonfire just because the summoner said to. An eidolon is normally a player-controlled companion, but the GM can have the eidolon refuse extreme orders that would cause it to suffer needlessly.

Magical Control: Charm person, dominate person, and similar effects turn an NPC into a companion for a limited time. Most charm-like effects make the target friendly to you—the target has to follow your requests only if they're reasonable, and has its own ideas about what is reasonable. For example, few creatures consider "hand over all your valuables" or "let me put these manacles on you" a reasonable request from a friend. You might have to use Diplomacy or Intimidate checks to influence a charmed ally, and the GM has the final say as to what happens. Though the target of a charm effect considers you a friend, it probably feels indifferent at best toward the other PCs and won't listen to requests from them. A creature under a dominate effect is more of a puppet, and you can force it to do anything that isn't suicidal or otherwise against its well-being. Treat it as player-controlled, with the GM making its saving throws to resist inappropriate commands.

Common Exceptions: Some companions are exceptions, such as an intelligent companion who doesn't bear exceptional loyalty toward you (for example, a hired guard), a weaker minion who is loyal to you but lacks the abilities or resources to assist in adventuring tasks, and a called outsider (such as from planar ally) who agrees to a specific service but still has a sense of self-preservation. You can use Bluff, Diplomacy, and Intimidate to influence such companions, but the GM is the final arbiter of their actions. For example, a PC might use threats to convince a caravan guard to hold back an ogre for a few rounds or to prevent her zealous followers from attacking a rival adventurer, but the GM makes the decision whether the guard runs away after getting hit once or the followers attack when provoked.

The GM may deviate from the above suggestions, such as allowing a druid to control an animal companion directly, creating a more equivalent or even antagonistic relationship between a summoner and an eidolon, or roleplaying a mentoring relationship between a veteran warhorse and the young paladin who inherited his loyalty. Before you create a character with a companion creature (or decide to add a companion in play), the GM should explain to everyone how much influence you and the GM each have over the creature's actions. That way, everyone is fully informed about all aspects of dealing with the companion.

The specifics of controlling a companion vary for different campaigns. A gritty campaign where animal companions can't do anything that real animals can't do forces the GM to act as a check against you pushing the bounds of creativity. A high-fantasy game where familiars are nearly as important to the storyline as the PCs—or are played as near-PCs by other players—is a very different feel and can create interesting roleplaying opportunities. An evil campaign where companions are unwilling slaves of the PCs creates a dynamic where the PCs are trying to exploit them as much as possible—perhaps even sacrificing and replacing them as needed—and treat them more like living tools than reluctant allies.

Issues of Control

The GM should keep in mind several factors when it comes to companions, whether handling them as suggested above or altering the balance to give you more or less control.

Ease of Play: Changing who controls a companion can make the game easier or harder for the GM. Controlling a cohort in combat is one more complex thing for the GM to deal with. The GM must keep track of a cohort's tactics and motivations and how those affect it in combat while keeping her own knowledge of the monsters separate from the cohort's knowledge; otherwise, the cohort will outshine the PCs with superior tactics. Giving you control over these decisions (while still allowing the GM to veto certain actions) alleviates some of the burden and allows you to plan interesting tactics between yourself and your cohort, much as you would have mastered during times you trained together.

Conversely, giving a player full control over the actions of two characters can slow down the game. If you're prone to choice paralysis, playing two turns every round can drag the game to a halt. If this is a problem, the GM should suggest that another player help run the companion or ask you to give up the companion and alter yourself to compensate (such as by choosing a different feat in place of Leadership, taking a domain instead of a druid animal companion, or selecting the "companions" option for a ranger's hunter's bond ability instead of an animal).

Game Balance: Even a simple change like allowing players to directly control companions has repercussions in the game mechanics. For example, if a druid has complete control over an animal companion, there's no reason for her to put ranks in Handle Animal, freeing up those ranks for other valuable skills like Perception. If a wizard with a guard dog doesn't have to use a move action to make a Handle Animal check to have the dog attack, he has a full set of actions each round and a minion creature that doesn't require investing any extra time to "summon" it. If companion animals don't have to know specific tricks, the PC can use any animal like an ally and plan strategies (like flanking) as if the animal were much smarter than it actually is.

With intelligent companions such as cohorts, giving you full control means you're controlling two characters and can take twice as many actions as the other players. The GM can create a middle ground, such as requiring you to put ranks in Handle Animal but not requiring you to make checks, or reducing the action needed to command an animal, but these decisions should be made before the companion joins the group.

Sharing Information: Whenever you control multiple creatures, there are issues of sharing information between you and your companions. Some companions have special abilities that facilitate this sort of communication, such as a familiar's empathic link or an eidolon's bond senses ability, but most companions are limited to what they can observe with their own senses. For example, if a wizard using see invisibility knows there is an invisible rogue across the room, he can't just direct his guard dog to attack the rogue; he has to use the seek command to move the dog to the general area of the rogue, and even then he can't use the attack command to attack the rogue because the rogue isn't an "apparent enemy." If the GM allows the wizard to make the dog fight the invisible rogue, that makes the animal much more versatile than normal, and also devalues the special nature of a true empathic or telepathic bond with a companion. If the dog is allowed to work outside the PC's line of sight, it devalues abilities such as a wizard's ability to scry on his familiar. Of course, intelligent companions using speech can bypass some of these limitations (such as telling a cohort there's an invisible rogue in the corner).

What it boils down to is that "the GM controls them by default, but for very close companions like familiars or eidolons, generally they should follow both the letter and spirit of your commands unless doing so would be totally unreasonable." (And being intelligent, these creatures do have a sense of reason.) But it then goes on to say that "the GM should feel free to let the player control them when it makes the game easier to run."

[prufock]

I always run sidecar characters (cohorts, followers, animal companions, special mounts, wild cohorts, familiars, etc) as run by the DM for the purpose of roleplay and personality, but the sidecar does what the PC wants, so the PC controls its actions in and out of combat for utility purposes. The former eliminates the player talking to himself, but the sidecar is an aspect of that character (through class abilities, feats, or whatever), so the player gets ultimate control.

[Spore]

It's possible for sorcerers to have familiars smarter than them, that's for sure. One person I knew had terrible wisdom and so his familair was the one that had to reign him in.

This sounds like a fun concept. I can imagine the sorcerer trying to charm person the hot chick BBEG while the familiar is frantically flailing its tiny arms and screaming and trying to get the sorcerer to pay attention and to kill the ogre about to wipe the melees.

[Zaydos]

So this conversation got me to actually make a PrC for dying and becoming your familiar I had been kicking around in my head for a few months.

And I think my favorite time with a familiar was when the DM suggested I have a pixie familiar (it was broken), it was fun to have an invisible companion which could make mischief alongside my wild mage. The DM let me play it for ease, of course.

[Psyren]

So this conversation got me to actually make a PrC for dying and becoming your familiar I had been kicking around in my head for a few months.

And I think my favorite time with a familiar was when the DM suggested I have a pixie familiar (it was broken), it was fun to have an invisible companion which could make mischief alongside my wild mage. The DM let me play it for ease, of course.

In Pathfinder, the Beast-Bonded Witch (http://www.d20pfsrd.com/classes/base-classes/witch/archetypes/paizo---witch-archetypes/beast-bonded) archetype can do this - riding shotgun in her familiar if she is about to die, or vice-versa.

[Flickerdart]

This sounds like a fun concept. I can imagine the sorcerer trying to charm person the hot chick BBEG while the familiar is frantically flailing its tiny arms and screaming and trying to get the sorcerer to pay attention and to kill the ogre about to wipe the melees.
Isn't that pretty much the relationship between Vaarsuvius and his raven?

[Aegis013]

Isn't that pretty much the relationship between Vaarsuvius and his raven?

Well it's kind of backwards, Vaarsuvius tends to be on the ball regarding what he needs to do while the raven goofs off. The only time he wasn't was when he was dealing with his own personal regrets that I won't describe in detail because spoilers.

[Zaydos]

Isn't that pretty much the relationship between Vaarsuvius and his raven?

Isn't that pretty much the relationship between every mage and their raven? I mean the raven tends to be the voice of wisdom... when it's not distracted by shiny things.

[Zaq]

Whatever the RAW is, I've never been part of a group that doesn't give control of the familiar to the character that familiar is attached to. Ever.

[JaminDM]

I've always done it as the player controlling the familiar as the player is the master of the familiar.

[Chronos]

Along the same lines as a familiar smarter than its sorcerer, I've also seen a party where the paladin's mount was smarter than the paladin.

[Zaq]

Along the same lines as a familiar smarter than its sorcerer, I've also seen a party where the paladin's mount was smarter than the paladin.

I played in a party where the Healer's pet unicorn was hands down the strongest party member in all three mental stats. That was funny.

[Chronos]

Well, a unicorn has Wis 21 and Cha 24, so that's not too hard-- It just means that all of the bipeds in the party dumped Int.

[thematgreen]

I have never played a familiar, but I played a character who pretended to be a familiar. He was a mutant kobold sorcerer who was only 14" tall and never spoke to anyone but other kobolds. He would just chill with the Drow of the party and pretend to be a familiar becasue it was easier than trying to get anyone to listen to a 14" tall lizard person. It was also for safety because he had a monsters sense of justice...if he was offended he would burn down the building and eat people, so allowing another person to handle business was just sensible.

[Psyren]

It's hard to beat Tibbit Psion for pretending to be a familiar. You can even be a commoner's "familiar" and have him spout gibberish and wave his arms around whenever you manifest something. Then when he gets inevitably slaughtered (because the adventuring life is dangerous!) you find a new one. Repeat until high level.


I played in a party where the Healer's pet unicorn was hands down the strongest party member in all three mental stats. That was funny.

Polish my magic horn!

Weeeee....

WEEEEEeeee....

[Nibbens]

I have a strange relationship with familiars/cohorts/animal companions etc. For the sake of ease of game play and strategy from my PCs I allow them full control of their companions - while every now and again, I act as the voice of the companion, or I describe what they do while the PC is generally focusing on his own characters actions, instead of his companions. It's sort of a dual control thing, and of course, some actions I flat out have the companion actually say "no" to when they are being stubborn, or if a suicidal command is given - depending on situation of course.

It usually creates more memorable role play situations, while creating ease of play among my players.

[Hand_of_Vecna]

Polish my magic horn!

Weeeee....

WEEEEEeeee....

and then magical unicorn mayonnaise comes out. That's what I used to make these sandwiches.


I've always allowed people to control their own spells and class features unless they try to do something more complex that their control/communication technique and the animals intelligence would allow.

The one exception was in a game that started at 0-level and someone made a pet cat they already owned and that I'd roleplayed, at their reuest, reacting like a cat to things their familiar. After becoming a familiar it had to learn things like that it couldn't hunt smaller familiars and that larger familiars weren't going to eat him. This was generally well received until around the 5th session the player protested something and petitioned to have control citing the rules on familiars in the PHB. My response was "Normally yes, but Mittens has a history as a DM controlled NPC going back to before he was a familiar. It's been esssTABlished."

That last part is a reference to the American Dad episode where Roger and Francine roleplay together which was a running joke in our group at the time.