PHB and MM familiars

[Millstone85]

Lately, I have seen quite a few people say how good the Pact of the Chain is because of the imp, pseudodragon and quasit familiars sharing their Magic Resistance trait with their master.

Now, I love PotC, I really do, but... My impression is that the PHB and the MM rules are not meant to be combined in that way.

There is what you get with the find familiar spell plus PotC, a spirit in the form of an imp, pseudodragon or quasit, and there is what happens when you meet and ally with the genuine articles.

There is a trade-off too. The PHB says nothing about the familiar deciding to leave your service because you betrayed an agreement, because you were a mean master or just because. The MM does.

What do you think?

[Regitnui]

My impression is that the PHB and the MM rules are not meant to be combined in that way.

:smallconfused: The Core rulebooks aren't supposed to be used together? Guess that means I'm playing wrong.

Seriously though. It's an optional rule. Don't use it if it bothers you. For my ruling; I'd say that a Fiend warlock with a familiar does have an actual imp/quasit. Said familiar is an agent of their patron/sign of their bond, and has all the abilities in the MM. If that means it leaves when it thinks you've broken the terms of the agreement or it feels unappreciated, then it leaves. The patron could send it right back with a stern warning or a disintegrate spell still smoking off its skin, but it can leave.

[Orvir]

Jeremy Crawford tweeted about this:


The familiar variants in the Monster Manual are for monster and NPC spellcasters. PC spellcasters use the PH.

http://www.sageadvice.eu/2016/05/23/does-a-familiar-summoned-by-pact-of-chain-follow-players-handbook-or-monster-manual-rules/

[Millstone85]

:smallconfused: The Core rulebooks aren't supposed to be used together? Guess that means I'm playing wrong.I heard of DMs who would forbid players to even touch the MM or the DMG. Mine hasn't but it does annoy him a little bit. If the game designers are of the same mind, those rules probably don't mix.


Seriously though. It's an optional rule. Don't use it if it bothers you.Not my call. I am trying to decide if I should mention that rule's existence.


For my ruling; I'd say that a Fiend warlock with a familiar does have an actual imp/quasit. Said familiar is an agent of their patron/sign of their bond, and has all the abilities in the MM. If that means it leaves when it thinks you've broken the terms of the agreement or it feels unappreciated, then it leaves. The patron could send it right back with a stern warning or a disintegrate spell still smoking off its skin, but it can leave.I like that.


Jeremy Crawford tweeted about this:


The familiar variants in the Monster Manual are for monster and NPC spellcasters. PC spellcasters use the PH.http://www.sageadvice.eu/2016/05/23/does-a-familiar-summoned-by-pact-of-chain-follow-players-handbook-or-monster-manual-rules/Now, this is worse than I thought. My impression was that the MM familiars were designed as living magic items for the PCs. Guess not.

[RickAllison]

So I think we have a conflict of fluff and rules. On the one hand, the familiar has the rules of Find Familiar indicating it's a spirit in that form (and so I would view it as not having the MM stuff). On the other, it's the Pact of the Chain. The fluff of the name seems that unprisoning a sentient familiar could very well be part of it.

[JackPhoenix]

So I think we have a conflict of fluff and rules. On the one hand, the familiar has the rules of Find Familiar indicating it's a spirit in that form (and so I would view it as not having the MM stuff). On the other, it's the Pact of the Chain. The fluff of the name seems that unprisoning a sentient familiar could very well be part of it.

I think you're reading too much into a simple name. Pact of the Blade doesn't force you to create bladed weapon. Daylight doesn't create actual daylight that would harm vampires. Thief rogue doesn't have to steal stuff.

[RickAllison]

I think you're reading too much into a simple name. Pact of the Blade doesn't force you to create bladed weapon. Daylight doesn't create actual daylight that would harm vampires. Thief rogue doesn't have to steal stuff.

But the combination with Chains of Carceri and VotCM just seem to reiterate the dominance of the warlock using the pact. I don't think it is enough to justify giving that ability on its own (and I haven't seen any corroborating evidence elsewhere), but it does give it some measure of backing.

[Millstone85]

So I think we have a conflict of fluff and rules. On the one hand, the familiar has the rules of Find Familiar indicating it's a spirit in that form (and so I would view it as not having the MM stuff). On the other, it's the Pact of the Chain. The fluff of the name seems that unprisoning a sentient familiar could very well be part of it.http://s14.postimg.org/c42r52gkh/motivator9ab5b0194fba9904e7ae70cf445669fa4b4324c.j pg
But the combination with Chains of Carceri and VotCM just seem to reiterate the dominance of the warlock using the pact. I don't think it is enough to justify giving that ability on its own (and I haven't seen any corroborating evidence elsewhere), but it does give it some measure of backing.In all seriousness, it does. Also, find familiar uses a celestial, fey or fiendish spirit, and PotC familiars are already fey and fiends.

[Regitnui]

Strictly speaking, imps, quasits, sprites, and with the Undying warlock, 'celestial' familiars are all spirits; they change shape, turn invisible, and cast spells. Importantly, they're not killable on the Material plane (I'm not sure about the fey). The fiends just return to their home plane, reform, and return. They're not intangible undead, but going by the loose definition of spirit as 'magical being', they qualify.

[Gastronomie]

Jeremy Crawford tweeted about this:
http://www.sageadvice.eu/2016/05/23/does-a-familiar-summoned-by-pact-of-chain-follow-players-handbook-or-monster-manual-rules/ WHO CARES.
At least I would not care. I haven't seen a single DM who does not permit this variant rule, and besides, it makes Chainlocks REALLY terrible in contrast to Tomelocks. It makes no sense and is a terrible example of a game creator dictating s***ty rulings.

The DM has the final say anyways. I am not listening to whatever the creators say.

[TentacleSurpris]

If you read the errata file for the PHB, in the last line it states that in case the PHB and monster manual contradict each other, the Monster Manual is to be taken as correct. The Familiar's Resistance is the only instance in which (that I know of) that they contradict each other. Therefore the PHB stats are incorrect, use the MM stats which includes the resistance. Pretty clear RAWErrata. I'm a DM and that's how I ruled it for the Warlock in my game. At least it encouraged him to dip 3 levels of warlock in his sorlock build instead of just 2 like every other lock in existence.

[Millstone85]

Strictly speaking, imps, quasits, sprites, and with the Undying warlock, 'celestial' familiars are all spirits; they change shape, turn invisible, and cast spells. Importantly, they're not killable on the Material plane (I'm not sure about the fey). The fiends just return to their home plane, reform, and return. They're not intangible undead, but going by the loose definition of spirit as 'magical being', they qualify.Okay so they are spirits too.


WHO CARES.
At least I would not care.
The DM has the final say anyways. I am not listening to whatever the creators say.Nothing wrong with trying to figure out the rules of the game and its creators before that final DM call is made. Let's calmly discuss the RAW, the RAI and the RAF. Although I think much has been said already.


I haven't seen a single DM who does not permit this variant rule, and besides, it makes Chainlocks REALLY terrible in contrast to Tomelocks. It makes no sense and is a terrible example of a game creator dictating s***ty rulings.The Pact of the Tome is just that strong. It can mimic much of the other two pacts at the same time, with shillelagh and find familiar, and do its own thing too. But I still like the other pacts for what they do.

Also, what about the sprite? It is already on the weak side of PotC familiars and the variant rule doesn't apply to it.


If you read the errata file for the PHB, in the last line it states that in case the PHB and monster manual contradict each other, the Monster Manual is to be taken as correct. The Familiar's Resistance is the only instance in which (that I know of) that they contradict each other. Therefore the PHB stats are incorrect, use the MM stats which includes the resistance. Pretty clear RAWErrata. I'm a DM and that's how I ruled it for the Warlock in my game. At least it encouraged him to dip 3 levels of warlock in his sorlock build instead of just 2 like every other lock in existence.It has been argued that the stat blocks are actually the same. The variant rule has its own rectangle.

[Segev]

Jeremy Crawford tweeted about this:



http://www.sageadvice.eu/2016/05/23/does-a-familiar-summoned-by-pact-of-chain-follow-players-handbook-or-monster-manual-rules/


Now, this is worse than I thought. My impression was that the MM familiars were designed as living magic items for the PCs. Guess not.

I tend to be very displeased by rules which are so flagrantly different for NPCs than PCs. Especially when they're essentially saying, "NPCs get cooler toys than PCs, even when theoretically emulating the same thing."

Why is it that NPCs can find better familiars than PCs? Why even talk about creatures befriending and becoming familiars to characters if it's meant just for NPCs? Why waste the descriptive wordcount, instead of just saying, "A quasit/imp/pseudodragon can bond with another monster to share its spell resistance," or something?

I am, frankly, rather displeased with the lack of even suggestions for how various monsters which are stated to be creations or companions can be created or befriended. Crawling Claw and Homonculus are particularly egregious about this, in my opinion, but the rules about familiar-creatures bonding with characters are awkward, too, since it's highly unclear whether this is an additional means or something that is just acknowledging that Pact of the Chain exists. (I mean, can a pseudodragon become a familiar to a Ranger or Cleric or Fighter? Is it a power of the monster, with Pact of the Chain and find familiar being a different sort of bond entirely? Or at least a different power that creates the bond differently?)

[Gastronomie]

Nothing wrong with trying to figure out the rules of the game and its creators before that final DM call is made. Let's calmly discuss the RAW, the RAI and the RAF. Although I think much has been said already.Well, nyeh, I'm the sort of DM who ignores all rulings and figures out what's best for my table, so I hardly care about RAW, and think all discussions about RAW are really pointless.

Also, what about the sprite? It is already on the weak side of PotC familiars and the variant rule doesn't apply to it.Which is where I'd say "how about houseruling that the sprite familiar gives you magical resistance as well?"

And yeah, basically what Segev said. If an NPC can do it, no way a PC can't do it.

That being said, the Variant Familiar may be an interesting "reward" (form of treasure) for completing some mission or milestone. Like, the pseudodragon who the wizard met during the quest might become good friends with the wizard and agree to become his new familiar.

[Shaofoo]

I tend to be very displeased by rules which are so flagrantly different for NPCs than PCs. Especially when they're essentially saying, "NPCs get cooler toys than PCs, even when theoretically emulating the same thing."

Why is it that NPCs can find better familiars than PCs? Why even talk about creatures befriending and becoming familiars to characters if it's meant just for NPCs? Why waste the descriptive wordcount, instead of just saying, "A quasit/imp/pseudodragon can bond with another monster to share its spell resistance," or something?

I am, frankly, rather displeased with the lack of even suggestions for how various monsters which are stated to be creations or companions can be created or befriended. Crawling Claw and Homonculus are particularly egregious about this, in my opinion, but the rules about familiar-creatures bonding with characters are awkward, too, since it's highly unclear whether this is an additional means or something that is just acknowledging that Pact of the Chain exists. (I mean, can a pseudodragon become a familiar to a Ranger or Cleric or Fighter? Is it a power of the monster, with Pact of the Chain and find familiar being a different sort of bond entirely? Or at least a different power that creates the bond differently?)

I think it is intended for NPCs and PCs to be made under different rules and have different things. I find it to be easier to balance when you have two metrics to balance things. If a monster is too strong then you can weaken it without affecting the balance of the PCs whereas if both were made under the same metric then you must perform much more balancing acts since affecting one affects both sides.

Also I must state that the only book that a player should have access is the PHB, the MM and the DMG are off limits when it comes to players because anything in that book can be changed by the DM at will. Any flavor text about being able to make or befriend that is in the MM should be disregarded by the players. If you want to make a crawling claw or a homonculus then talk to the DM and see what you both can come up with.

Also the familiar is created from a spirit not an actual creature that you find, it takes the shape and stats of the creature but a real psudodragon cannot be turned into a familiar. There bond is between an unnamed spirit and you, not a creature.

Besides I wouldn't complain too much about PCs not getting any options when it comes to familiars, PCs can gain Simulacrum which is just plain broken, what better minion than yourself?

[Dr. Cliché]

:smallconfused: The Core rulebooks aren't supposed to be used together? Guess that means I'm playing wrong.

Seriously though. It's an optional rule. Don't use it if it bothers you. For my ruling; I'd say that a Fiend warlock with a familiar does have an actual imp/quasit. Said familiar is an agent of their patron/sign of their bond, and has all the abilities in the MM. If that means it leaves when it thinks you've broken the terms of the agreement or it feels unappreciated, then it leaves. The patron could send it right back with a stern warning or a disintegrate spell still smoking off its skin, but it can leave.

This.

Whilst 5th has a lot of things I like, there are also a lot of mechanics that seem very different to the fluff. It makes no sense to me that Warlocks don't gain proper Imp/Quasit familiars when they make a pact with a fiend.

Then again, a Warlock who regrets making a pact can use True Polymorph to erase it entirely.

[Millstone85]

Well, nyeh, I'm the sort of DM who ignores all rulings and figures out what's best for my table, so I hardly care about RAW, and think all discussions about RAW are really pointless.As a player, it reassures me to know the whole table is on the same page, which is to say a page from that book we purchased or that file we printed. Pretty hard to play a game otherwise. But if you are really open and thorough about your house rules, I suppose it works.


That being said, the Variant Familiar may be an interesting "reward" (form of treasure) for completing some mission or milestone. Like, the pseudodragon who the wizard met during the quest might become good friends with the wizard and agree to become his new familiar.That's how I had originally understood it. Also a possible upgrade for a PotC familiar.


I tend to be very displeased by rules which are so flagrantly different for NPCs than PCs. Especially when they're essentially saying, "NPCs get cooler toys than PCs, even when theoretically emulating the same thing."
And yeah, basically what Segev said. If an NPC can do it, no way a PC can't do it.
I think it is intended for NPCs and PCs to be made under different rules and have different things. I find it to be easier to balance when you have two metrics to balance things. If a monster is too strong then you can weaken it without affecting the balance of the PCs whereas if both were made under the same metric then you must perform much more balancing acts since affecting one affects both sides.I haven't quite wrapped my head around what would make PCs different from / similar to NPCs in a mechanically and narratively satisfying way.


Also I must state that the only book that a player should have access is the PHB, the MM and the DMG are off limits when it comes to players because anything in that book can be changed by the DM at will.It depends on what you mean by "access" and "off limits". I think it is ridiculous to forbid players to read them, especially if the DM's world is unfettered by them to begin with.


Any flavor text about being able to make or befriend that is in the MM should be disregarded by the players. If you want to make a crawling claw or a homonculus then talk to the DM and see what you both can come up with.For example, I wouldn't know about crawling claws and homonculi if I hadn't read the MM. It is a great source of inspiration.


Also the familiar is created from a spirit not an actual creature that you find, it takes the shape and stats of the creature but a real psudodragon cannot be turned into a familiar. There bond is between an unnamed spirit and you, not a creature.As discussed in this thread, PotC familiars are already fey or fiends and possibly spirits too. Perhaps it is actually the point of the pact to let you summon the real deal.


Besides I wouldn't complain too much about PCs not getting any options when it comes to familiars, PCs can gain Simulacrum which is just plain broken, what better minion than yourself?Jamie Madrox (the Marvel superhero, not the singer) might disagree. :smallbiggrin:

[coredump]

Well, nyeh, I'm the sort of DM who ignores all rulings and figures out what's best for my table, so I hardly care about RAW, and think all discussions about RAW are really pointless.

Then why are you wasting your time, and our time, by taking part in a thread devoted to what the *rules* say?

The OP wanted to know about the rules..... and your response is to yell 'who cares about rules'

[Millstone85]

Then why are you wasting your time, and our time, by taking part in a thread devoted to what the *rules* say?

The OP wanted to know about the rules..... and your response is to yell 'who cares about rules'Thank you but it is alright. The thread has convinced me to tell the DM about shared magic resistance, knowing RAW and RAI do not support it but it is a popular RAF.

Edit:

nope ;-)Well, that settles it for me.

[Shaofoo]

I haven't quite wrapped my head around what would make PCs different from / similar to NPCs in a mechanically and narratively satisfying way.



It is more because it is easier to balance.



It depends on what you mean by "access" and "off limits". I think it is ridiculous to forbid players to read them, especially if the DM's world is unfettered by them to begin with.

I can't forbide anyone from reading the DMG or MM, feel free to memorize the books from cover to cover if that floats your boat.

But if I change something in the DMG or MM from the text and you bring it up then I will disregard you and mention the various parts where the DM can change anything. The DMG or MM is not set in stone and the books encourage changing things to best suit the game world.

Basically don't be meta gaming or forcing the DM to change or add things that he didn't want or wasn't planning. You can't force me to say that all Orcs are murderous beasts if I want them to be noble beings even though the MM says different.


For example, I wouldn't know about crawling claws and homonculi if I hadn't read the MM. It is a great source of inspiration.


Sure if you want that in your game then go ahead. But then you can only add stuff in your own game and no one else's.

On another game then you must ask the DM for what you want and it is up to the Dm to accept or reject you.


As discussed in this thread, PotC familiars are already fey or fiends and possibly spirits too. Perhaps it is actually the point of the pact to let you summon the real deal.

They find familiars like anyone else, they have no other ways to gain familiar that isn't from the Find Familiar Spell, the only difference is the added familiars and being able to attack with the familiar. If you wish to refluff it so you can gain the real deal then go ahead and do that but there it is basically a ribbon change, nothing substantial.

[Segev]

It's less that I insist that PCs and NPCs be made with the same rules (though I do prefer that to be the case), and more that having special rules that are "meant for NPCs only" which essentially do the same conceptual thing that PCs do, but are better/more interesting, is really aggravating.

"Well, no, you can't learn how to walk on clouds with your ki, Mr. Monk PC, because you're not an NPC with access to that particular monster ability," is obnoxious. The only difference is that the NPC is an NPC, and yet he gets cool abilities I can't have. Not even for some solid narrative reason (though even those rub a bit raw, depending: "He studied a super-secret art to which you have no access" feels pretty cheap, too), but just because he's controlled by the DM.

It feels little different than the DM's super-special pet NPC getting unique powers that the players are only allowed to stand in awe of.

[Dr. Cliché]

It's less that I insist that PCs and NPCs be made with the same rules (though I do prefer that to be the case), and more that having special rules that are "meant for NPCs only" which essentially do the same conceptual thing that PCs do, but are better/more interesting, is really aggravating.

"Well, no, you can't learn how to walk on clouds with your ki, Mr. Monk PC, because you're not an NPC with access to that particular monster ability," is obnoxious. The only difference is that the NPC is an NPC, and yet he gets cool abilities I can't have. Not even for some solid narrative reason (though even those rub a bit raw, depending: "He studied a super-secret art to which you have no access" feels pretty cheap, too), but just because he's controlled by the DM.

It feels little different than the DM's super-special pet NPC getting unique powers that the players are only allowed to stand in awe of.

Agreed.

The fluff here really annoys me: "Imps can be found in the service to mortal spellcasters, acting as advisors, spies and familiars."

No they bloody well can't. There isn't a single spellcasting class in the PHB that allows an actual Imp or Quasit as a familiar. Even Warlocks - where the entire point of the class is them basically selling their souls for power - can only acquire a cheap impersonation of an Imp/Quasit.

Where are these spellcasting classes that can get proper Imp/Quasit familiars? Can I reroll my character and play as one of them instead?

[jas61292]

Agreed.

The fluff here really annoys me: "Imps can be found in the service to mortal spellcasters, acting as advisors, spies and familiars."

No they bloody well can't. There isn't a single spellcasting class in the PHB that allows an actual Imp or Quasit as a familiar. Even Warlocks - where the entire point of the class is them basically selling their souls for power - can only acquire a cheap impersonation of an Imp/Quasit.

Where are these spellcasting classes that can get proper Imp/Quasit familiars? Can I reroll my character and play as one of them instead?

I think that is a bad way of looking at it. The "cheap impersonation" is a class feature. The actual thing is an NPC. You don't get to roll up a character and just give yourself loyal, powerful, NPC companions. Any spell casting class can have one, but they don't just get to have one cause they want one, just as they don't just get a wand of the warmage, or a pet gold dragon because they want one of those.

[Dr. Cliché]

The "cheap impersonation" is a class feature.

Meaning what exactly?


The actual thing is an NPC. You don't get to roll up a character and just give yourself loyal, powerful, NPC companions.

First off, since when are Imps/Quasits powerful?

Second, this "powerful" NPC has the same stats as the class feature.


Any spell casting class can have one, but they don't just get to have one cause they want one, just as they don't just get a wand of the warmage, or a pet gold dragon because they want one of those.

So what's even the point of that text then?

By your logic, a warlock could have a ancient gold dragon as his familiar.

[jas61292]

Meaning what exactly?

Basically, you are getting far, far too hung up on the word "familiar."

The familiar that a Chain Warlock gets (just like that of a Wizard, Tome Warlock, Bard, or anyone else with the right feat) is a spirit. It is not the actual creature. The class feature (or feat) gives you access to a spirit that follows you loyally, with specific limitations.

What is talked about in the Monster Manual sidebar is something completely different, and the only thing making them even be together in the same conversation is that they both use the word "familiar." That familiar is not a spirit. It is an actual creature. And, just like any actual creature, it can be treated as an NPC and act however it would make sense for it to act. Yes, that means you could befriend and have a dragon as a "familiar" just as much as you could have a Quasit. But this kind of familiar is completely and totally distinct from the familiar granted by a class feature (or feat). Yeah, a PC is just as capable of having one as an NPC is. But just like a magic item, since it is not a class feature or other part of character creation, it is ultimately up to the dungeon master whether or not you get one.

What the side bar in the Monster Manual is really about is not how these creatures are special for being able to be a familiar. Any creature can follow you loyally and be your "familiar." No, what its about is special traits that these real creatures can grant their master if and when they so choose to serve as a familiar.

As a side note, I can't help but feel that anyone thinking pact of the chain is in anyway underpowered without this blatantly unintended ability is woefully lacking in imagination. I can't stop thinking of wonderful things to do with these familiars. Between their awesome abilities and the invocations you get, they have near endless utility. Yeah, that utility is mostly out of combat. That doesn't make it any less ridiculous.

[Millstone85]

That familiar is not a spirit. It is an actual creature. And, just like any actual creature, it can be treated as an NPC and act however it would make sense for it to act.This raises the question of how the spirit of find familiar should be treated. As a remote controlled drone? As a second PC?


As a side note, I can't help but feel that anyone thinking pact of the chain is in anyway underpowered without this blatantly unintended ability is woefully lacking in imagination. I can't stop thinking of wonderful things to do with these familiars. Between their awesome abilities and the invocations you get, they have near endless utility. Yeah, that utility is mostly out of combat. That doesn't make it any less ridiculous.Very true.

[Regitnui]

All this debating about how to treat familiars reminds me of Blackwing and Vaarsuvius. Which is a better in-game treatment of "living class features"; early Vaarsuvius or post-dragon V?

[Shaofoo]

It's less that I insist that PCs and NPCs be made with the same rules (though I do prefer that to be the case), and more that having special rules that are "meant for NPCs only" which essentially do the same conceptual thing that PCs do, but are better/more interesting, is really aggravating.

"Well, no, you can't learn how to walk on clouds with your ki, Mr. Monk PC, because you're not an NPC with access to that particular monster ability," is obnoxious. The only difference is that the NPC is an NPC, and yet he gets cool abilities I can't have. Not even for some solid narrative reason (though even those rub a bit raw, depending: "He studied a super-secret art to which you have no access" feels pretty cheap, too), but just because he's controlled by the DM.

It feels little different than the DM's super-special pet NPC getting unique powers that the players are only allowed to stand in awe of.

It sounds like bad DMing and being obnoxious than anything wrong with the system. I have said numerous times learn how to differentiate problem people from problems in the system. If the DM is just showing off his pet BBEG then just step out and let him finish pleasuring himself to his own character before coming back or just don't, tell him that you would like to skip the attack animations.

Also the problem with your argument is that you come across as someone that wants everything that he sees regardless on how can it be acquired or even if it is feasable. Would you accept a player wanting to breathe fire like a dragon, or how about getting into someone's brain like the Intellect Devourer or wielding 6 swords like the Marilith?

Like I said I like the separation between players and NPCs because I don't have to worry about balancing someone wanting to get into someone else's brain if the PHB doesn't have anything about it, if the monster is too powerful then I can weaken the ability or vice versa and not worry that someone might want to pick it up and then deal with complaints of it being too strong/weak.

You want something beyond the book then talk to your DM, I think that being able to communicate with your DM would solve a lot of problems.

[Segev]

It sounds like bad DMing and being obnoxious than anything wrong with the system. I have said numerous times learn how to differentiate problem people from problems in the system. If the DM is just showing off his pet BBEG then just step out and let him finish pleasuring himself to his own character before coming back or just don't, tell him that you would like to skip the attack animations.It's a problem with the DM if he does it as his house rule, special exceptions and privileges for his special NPC.

It's a problem with the system if the system actively tells DMs, "Your monsters and NPCs can have these abilities, but PCs should never be permitted them." It is particularly egregious when the only difference between "NPC described as a mage" and "PC described as a mage" is that one is an NPC and the other a PC, and yet the NPC can have a list of cool powers the PC will forever be denied because the PC has no way of getting them.

"Wait, why can he make friends with a pseudodragon and get those powers, but I either can't make friends with one, or if I do, I can't get those same benefits?"


Also the problem with your argument is that you come across as someone that wants everything that he sees regardless on how can it be acquired or even if it is feasable. Would you accept a player wanting to breathe fire like a dragon, or how about getting into someone's brain like the Intellect Devourer or wielding 6 swords like the Marilith?Your argument is becoming a straw man. If I am playing a dragon, I do expect to be able to breathe fire like one. If I am playing a Marilith, I expect to be able to wield six swords. If I am playing an elf priest of Max Golfin, god of games-played-with-sticks, I expect that enacting the same ritual as that NPC elf priest of that same god will get me similar results.

If the NPC mage's pseudodragon familiar gives him magic resistance, I want to know why mine does not, and what I can do to get one like his, since his is better than mine. If the answer is, "He's a Shaman, not a Wizard, and you're not allowed to play a Shaman," that starts to rub me the wrong way. Especially if this "Shaman" seems an awful lot like a "Wizard, but better."


Like I said I like the separation between players and NPCs because I don't have to worry about balancing someone wanting to get into someone else's brain if the PHB doesn't have anything about it, if the monster is too powerful then I can weaken the ability or vice versa and not worry that someone might want to pick it up and then deal with complaints of it being too strong/weak.It's not likely to come up, because few players are going to expect that their non-intellect-devourer PC would have intellect-devourer racial features.

What is likely to come up is when Captain Swordguy, the NPC, can perform a technique that lets him attack with a sword and send an air-slash to strike everybody in a line, but PC Fighterton, swordmaster of swordness, can never ever learn how to do that because he's a PC and not an NPC. "Why can he do that?" "It's a monster ability." "Well, how did he learn it?" "Talent" "So...he's just better than I can ever be?" "Yup." "..."


You want something beyond the book then talk to your DM, I think that being able to communicate with your DM would solve a lot of problems.Of course it does. What irks me is when you have to go beyond the book to have the fluff implied by the book work consistently. The whole point of mechanics is to tell you how to translate fluff into playable things. If they don't do that, they're failing at their job.

[Shaofoo]

It's a problem with the DM if he does it as his house rule, special exceptions and privileges for his special NPC.

It's a problem with the system if the system actively tells DMs, "Your monsters and NPCs can have these abilities, but PCs should never be permitted them." It is particularly egregious when the only difference between "NPC described as a mage" and "PC described as a mage" is that one is an NPC and the other a PC, and yet the NPC can have a list of cool powers the PC will forever be denied because the PC has no way of getting them.

The system does not prohibit this and in fact the system encourages you to be as creative as you want, in fact there is no system as you say. The system literally says that if you want to give a ring of invisibility (legendary item) to a level 1 group then do so but beware that things can get out of hand. The system is less about putting restrictions and putting up warnings, do what you want but don't complain if things get out of hand (you will complain anyway so why bother).

Sounds to me that you have a case of "The grass is always greener on the other side".


"Wait, why can he make friends with a pseudodragon and get those powers, but I either can't make friends with one, or if I do, I can't get those same benefits?"

Because then you'd be stepping over the toes of the person who went to the proper channels to get that ability. If you wish to circumvent that in your games then go ahead but if you really want something and the game gives you the option to do so then why are you complaining when you don't take the steps to get it and end up not getting it?

Also you don't make friends, you conjure a spirit.


Your argument is becoming a straw man. If I am playing a dragon, I do expect to be able to breathe fire like one. If I am playing a Marilith, I expect to be able to wield six swords. If I am playing an elf priest of Max Golfin, god of games-played-with-sticks, I expect that enacting the same ritual as that NPC elf priest of that same god will get me similar results.

If the NPC mage's pseudodragon familiar gives him magic resistance, I want to know why mine does not, and what I can do to get one like his, since his is better than mine. If the answer is, "He's a Shaman, not a Wizard, and you're not allowed to play a Shaman," that starts to rub me the wrong way. Especially if this "Shaman" seems an awful lot like a "Wizard, but better."

It is less of a strawman and more that you never set a limit as to how much is enough. When does it become obvious that you can't do it? Sure those examples are obvious but what if the other guy's familiar has a special ability that let him be more in touch with the psudodragon than you can ever be (because shamans and wizards are different). Why can't in his world the DM say that shamans are more in tune and you can never get to such a deep connection because as a wizard you weren't trained in such a way. If that isn't enough for you then I guess you just won't be happy then.


It's not likely to come up, because few players are going to expect that their non-intellect-devourer PC would have intellect-devourer racial features.

What is likely to come up is when Captain Swordguy, the NPC, can perform a technique that lets him attack with a sword and send an air-slash to strike everybody in a line, but PC Fighterton, swordmaster of swordness, can never ever learn how to do that because he's a PC and not an NPC. "Why can he do that?" "It's a monster ability." "Well, how did he learn it?" "Talent" "So...he's just better than I can ever be?" "Yup." "..."

It seems that now it is you that has dipped into the strawman well, putting up a scenario as a catch all scenario with an obviously bad DM. I could've handled this much better.

Want to learn how to create air slashes, well then *insert plot hook while docking a couple of magic items off the table that was meant for the fighter*.

Or if you don't really want him to create air slashes then just state that it is part magic and part technique and if the Fighter happens to be an EK then make up a spell that lets him do the attack then. Easy.

There is a ton of reasons why you can't have something as I have said before.


Of course it does. What irks me is when you have to go beyond the book to have the fluff implied by the book work consistently. The whole point of mechanics is to tell you how to translate fluff into playable things. If they don't do that, they're failing at their job.

I don't get what you are saying here, as a player the MM and the DMG are not books meant for you because both are to be modified by the DM as he sees fit. You want the mechanics for the players then do them or talk to your DM about it but I can't think of a D&D system that somehow lets you combine various aspects of monsters into one PC.

Like I said, you seem to have a severe case of "the grass is greener on the other side"-itis. As a player you have a ton of nice things, even a Champion Fighter has access to some cool things as well. If you want more then talk to your DM and if you can't get the stuff that you want then either just deal with it or quit the game. Like I said I can't think of a D&D game that ever acts the way that you did without some massive homebrew.

[Segev]

Sounds to me that you have a case of "The grass is always greener on the other side". Hardly. When there are actual trade-offs, I examine them and make my choices. There are games I've been in where I've looked into how an NPC did something, and I decided the price was too high. And, in the good ones, the GM had, in fact, made the NPC pay the price, and it was something you could tell had happened. In the bad ones, the price was an informed flaw for the NPC, which only was there to make it so PCs wouldn't want it (even though the NPC never suffered for it).

But that IS a case of GM quality.


Because then you'd be stepping over the toes of the person who went to the proper channels to get that ability. If you wish to circumvent that in your games then go ahead but if you really want something and the game gives you the option to do so then why are you complaining when you don't take the steps to get it and end up not getting it?I never said I wasn't willing to take the steps. I asked what the steps were, and was told by the rules that I am fundamentally not allowed to take them, by virtue of step one being "be an NPC."

If I can go out and make friends with a psuedodragon, great! I'll be happy to, if I want the benefits the NPC who did the same thing got. How do I go about that? As long as my PC is able to do it, I don't have a complaint. I only have a complaint if my PC cannot do it because he's not got an "N" in front of his "PC."


It is less of a strawman and more that you never set a limit as to how much is enough. When does it become obvious that you can't do it? Sure those examples are obvious but what if the other guy's familiar has a special ability that let him be more in touch with the psudodragon than you can ever be (because shamans and wizards are different). Why can't in his world the DM say that shamans are more in tune and you can never get to such a deep connection because as a wizard you weren't trained in such a way. If that isn't enough for you then I guess you just won't be happy then.You either missed or ignored that the reason the explanation of "he's a shaman and you're not" is not acceptable is that "only NPCs can be shamans." If the explanation was "he's a shaman and you're not," and my reply of, "Okay, then I want to be a shaman" is met with a means of seeking to play one, my complaints go away.

This is not the case if you take the sage advice at face value, and assume that "pseudodragons occasionally befriend and serve as familiars and give these traits to their master" is "for NPCs only."



Want to learn how to create air slashes, well then *insert plot hook while docking a couple of magic items off the table that was meant for the fighter*.This gets into my complaint about why the SYSTEM is flawed: it requires you, the DM, to make up this ability that is only given to NPCs by the system as a PC-able thing. Now you have to decide if it's a full subclass, a substitution, a feat, a "magic item" equivalent...and how to value it. Now, the easiest thing in 5e is probably to call it a magic-item-equivalent perk, and be done with it.


Or if you don't really want him to create air slashes then just state that it is part magic and part technique and if the Fighter happens to be an EK then make up a spell that lets him do the attack then. Easy.Okay; can the EK in the party learn that spell? Could I build an EK who learns it? Could I multi-class to wizard to learn that spell (if I was foolish enough to not realize that playing a champion was a mistake)?


There is a ton of reasons why you can't have something as I have said before.Sure. But the more those become contrived excuses to hide that the real reason is "because you're a PC," the more dissatisfying it is.



Like I said, you seem to have a severe case of "the grass is greener on the other side"-itis. As a player you have a ton of nice things, even a Champion Fighter has access to some cool things as well. If you want more then talk to your DM and if you can't get the stuff that you want then either just deal with it or quit the game. Like I said I can't think of a D&D game that ever acts the way that you did without some massive homebrew."Grass is always greener-itis," as you call it, is solved by letting people try the "other side." The complaint is quite simply one of verisimilitude and wanting to have freedom to do neat stuff.

I have no problem with an NPC wizard having a spell my wizard does not. I have a problem with the NPC wizard having a spell my wizard can never, ever hope to learn. I don't have a problem with the NPC orc warboss having a super-cool magic axe. I have a problem with that magic axe being something my party's half-orc barbarian can't pick up and use. I don't even have a problem with "real pseudodragons can become familiars by deciding to work with a spellcaster" being distinct from "casting find familiar as a fae pact of the chain warlock gets you a spirit that looks like a pseudodragon;" I have a problem with only NPC spellcasters being allowed to go out and make friends with real pseudodragons.

[Democratus]

I doubt my PC will ever have Legendary actions. But I don't see this as a flaw in the game.

PCs are different from monsters and NPCs. This is as designed.

[Shaofoo]

Hardly. When there are actual trade-offs, I examine them and make my choices. There are games I've been in where I've looked into how an NPC did something, and I decided the price was too high. And, in the good ones, the GM had, in fact, made the NPC pay the price, and it was something you could tell had happened. In the bad ones, the price was an informed flaw for the NPC, which only was there to make it so PCs wouldn't want it (even though the NPC never suffered for it).

But that IS a case of GM quality.

And thus not a system problem if it is dependant on the quality of DM.


I never said I wasn't willing to take the steps. I asked what the steps were, and was told by the rules that I am fundamentally not allowed to take them, by virtue of step one being "be an NPC."

The rules say nothing of the sort, you can have your Fighter burrow into the brain of others like an Intellect Devourer if the DM wills it so. Of course the rules don't say you can't but rather don't say you can so it is you can't until it says you can.


If I can go out and make friends with a psuedodragon, great! I'll be happy to, if I want the benefits the NPC who did the same thing got. How do I go about that? As long as my PC is able to do it, I don't have a complaint. I only have a complaint if my PC cannot do it because he's not got an "N" in front of his "PC."

You either missed or ignored that the reason the explanation of "he's a shaman and you're not" is not acceptable is that "only NPCs can be shamans." If the explanation was "he's a shaman and you're not," and my reply of, "Okay, then I want to be a shaman" is met with a means of seeking to play one, my complaints go away.

A shaman and a wizard are different classes because they learn in very different ways (shaman commune with the spirits and wizards learn with books, hence why shamans can become closer to their familiars or the reason I would put out). You might as well say "Why can't I learn metamagic like the sorcerer?" because it is a similar complaint to me.


This gets into my complaint about why the SYSTEM is flawed: it requires you, the DM, to make up this ability that is only given to NPCs by the system as a PC-able thing. Now you have to decide if it's a full subclass, a substitution, a feat, a "magic item" equivalent...and how to value it. Now, the easiest thing in 5e is probably to call it a magic-item-equivalent perk, and be done with it.

The system expects you to make up a lot of things to get the things that you want and make a lot of rulings, even things that seem to be straightfoward can need some rulings depending on the circumstance because things can change especially when you try to be creative. If you call that a flaw of the system then D&D 5e is not for you.


Okay; can the EK in the party learn that spell? Could I build an EK who learns it? Could I multi-class to wizard to learn that spell (if I was foolish enough to not realize that playing a champion was a mistake)?

Those are questions I can't answer. They can never be answered. And I won't try because I believe they will never be satisfactory to you.


Sure. But the more those become contrived excuses to hide that the real reason is "because you're a PC," the more dissatisfying it is.



"Grass is always greener-itis," as you call it, is solved by letting people try the "other side." The complaint is quite simply one of verisimilitude and wanting to have freedom to do neat stuff.

I have no problem with an NPC wizard having a spell my wizard does not. I have a problem with the NPC wizard having a spell my wizard can never, ever hope to learn. I don't have a problem with the NPC orc warboss having a super-cool magic axe. I have a problem with that magic axe being something my party's half-orc barbarian can't pick up and use. I don't even have a problem with "real pseudodragons can become familiars by deciding to work with a spellcaster" being distinct from "casting find familiar as a fae pact of the chain warlock gets you a spirit that looks like a pseudodragon;" I have a problem with only NPC spellcasters being allowed to go out and make friends with real pseudodragons.

Like I said the problem is that you can already do neat stuff already. How would I know that you won't be happy until you can do everything? The shaman that is friendly with the spirits probably can't cast a tenth of the spells that you can.

Don't want a wizard to cast a particular spell, have it have a gruesome or very hard to find material component, which limits how many times you can cast or have some dire consequences.

The magic axe is even easier, your half orc is not a full blood orc and definetely not worshipping Grummish. Or I could even "soft ban" it by having the elves become hostile that you don't want to give up a weapon that has slaughtered so many of their kind, you can keep the axe but there are some repercussions. I think the best restrictions are social ones.

You want to become closer to the psudodragons and learn the ways of the shamans, go ahead and spend years finding and learning to become shamans. NPCs already spent the required years to do so while you need to get started, an NPC shaman that wanted to be a wizard would have to do the exact same thing. Of course the world won't stop and the party might just go on without you while you are studying shamanism. It would make a good retirement for the character but a very poor way to get progression.

[Segev]

I doubt my PC will ever have Legendary actions. But I don't see this as a flaw in the game.

PCs are different from monsters and NPCs. This is as designed.

I doubt you'll face somebody who is fundamentally the same order of being as your PC who has legendary actions, either. Those tend to be reserved for truly monstrous creatures.

And they are, as well, a fairly transparent mechanical construct to solve the problem of action deficit. If you can demonstrate that the thing reserved for NPCs is something they MUST have to counterbalance known problems with PC v. NPC conflicts, maybe I'll be persuaded it's necessary. But "because legendary actions, which serve a definite purpose for a definite problem, are NPC/monster-only, anything can be NPC/monster-only" is not sound reasoning.

[Vogonjeltz]

At least I would not care. I haven't seen a single DM who does not permit this variant rule, and besides, it makes Chainlocks REALLY terrible in contrast to Tomelocks.

It's useful because Crawford informs on what the correct rule is. That isn't intended to stop DM's from doing whatever they want anyway.

Anyway, the variants are all clearly stated as being examples for the real deal and all contain reasons the familiar might choose to end its service (violation of the terms of a contract or any time for any reason at all).

So no, by the rules the Warlock isn't getting the magic resistance trait shared, but those variant familiars are already better than the normal versions for most things.

[Democratus]

I doubt you'll face somebody who is fundamentally the same order of being as your PC who has legendary actions, either. Those tend to be reserved for truly monstrous creatures.

And they are, as well, a fairly transparent mechanical construct to solve the problem of action deficit. If you can demonstrate that the thing reserved for NPCs is something they MUST have to counterbalance known problems with PC v. NPC conflicts, maybe I'll be persuaded it's necessary. But "because legendary actions, which serve a definite purpose for a definite problem, are NPC/monster-only, anything can be NPC/monster-only" is not sound reasoning.

There is nothing that MUST be in D&D. There's just the game as designed. And as designed...there are things NPCs and monsters have that PCs do not.

It's up the the individual DM to rule what they want at their table. But this is a deviation from the base state of the game as written in the rules and clarified by the writers.

[Segev]

There is nothing that MUST be in D&D. There's just the game as designed. And as designed...there are things NPCs and monsters have that PCs do not.

It's up the the individual DM to rule what they want at their table. But this is a deviation from the base state of the game as written in the rules and clarified by the writers.

I can't tell if you're deliberately missing the point or not.

"Must," in this case and context, means "to solve the problem it was designed to solve."

To say that because this is the case for Legendary Actions, it must be the case for everything that is specified as NPC-only, is bad logic. Unless you can point to the problem it is meant to solve, and why extending it to PCs would undermine that or cause additional problems greater than the problem it was meant to solve, there remains little reason to say, "Nope, this should be NPC-only."

The very specific example of this thread's topic is such a case, where there's no reason why it is both okay for NPCs but not PCs, and is solving a problem such that it must needs be there to keep the problem from recurring.

[Shaofoo]

I can't tell if you're deliberately missing the point or not.

"Must," in this case and context, means "to solve the problem it was designed to solve."

To say that because this is the case for Legendary Actions, it must be the case for everything that is specified as NPC-only, is bad logic. Unless you can point to the problem it is meant to solve, and why extending it to PCs would undermine that or cause additional problems greater than the problem it was meant to solve, there remains little reason to say, "Nope, this should be NPC-only."

The very specific example of this thread's topic is such a case, where there's no reason why it is both okay for NPCs but not PCs, and is solving a problem such that it must needs be there to keep the problem from recurring.

I am not even sure if "NPC can get things PC can't" is even a problem. Would "PC can get things that NPCs can't" be also a problem as well?

Like I said there is nothing that the game designs as NPC only, the DM is free to give you a great wyrm dragon breath, the ability to wield 6 swords and burrow into the brains of others like an Intellect Devourer if the DM wants to.

I already gave a reason our of a multitude of reasons why even a simple ability might not fly because of a number of reasons that might not even touch balance.

You are basically bringing your grievance to every single ability without distinction. But even then the problem is that it is a DM problem and not a game problem because the game never tries to combine both NPcs and PCs together.

[Segev]

I am not even sure if "NPC can get things PC can't" is even a problem. Would "PC can get things that NPCs can't" be also a problem as well?I have never seen this implemented. Even when the PCs are somehow unique and special (e.g. Exalted), there exist NPCs in the setting of a similar order of being.

Even in 5e, if a PC has a power, it can be given to an NPC or monster as a special ability.

So I'm not going to try to argue whether it would be a good or a bad thing, since it isn't a thing that happens, and therefore is not a fruitful thought experiment.


Like I said there is nothing that the game designs as NPC only, the DM is free to give you a great wyrm dragon breath, the ability to wield 6 swords and burrow into the brains of others like an Intellect Devourer if the DM wants to.There is nothing that stops the DM from letting you play a great wyrm red dragon, either, but the rules of the game and its design actively recommend against it. Nor is there anything that stops the DM from letting your first level rogue from casting polymorph just because you want to say he does.

"The DM can make something up or let you break the rules" is not an argument that the RAW are well-designed.


I already gave a reason our of a multitude of reasons why even a simple ability might not fly because of a number of reasons that might not even touch balance.You have. And your prowess at defeating straw men you set up to tackle is impressive. Pity none of them represent the point I'm actually making.

Which is that the creation of things which are NPC-only on the grounds that they're...NPC-only...is insufficient justification, and leads to verisimilitude-breaking and a frustration that the game is willing to set up something as "too good for players to have."

You can't play a dragon? Okay, fine.

The NPC/monster needs to be able to handle action deficit problems, and giving the legendary abilities to PCs would unbalance things? Sure, I can accept that.

You're not an NPC, so you can't befriend that pseudodragon and get him as a familiar with the benefits that NPC gets for doing so? That's where I start to get annoyed.

You're not an NPC, so you can't perform that ritual that NPC just did, in front of you, when you've got his notes on doing so, and both of you are members of the Secret Order of Magic Entities Backing Over Demons Yesterday and being S.O.M.E.B.O.D.Y. is how both of you learned your magical trade... Really?


You are basically bringing your grievance to every single ability without distinction. But even then the problem is that it is a DM problem and not a game problem because the game never tries to combine both NPcs and PCs together.No, you're bringing my grievance to every single ability without distinction. I've been fairly specific: my objection is when the sole difference amounts to "you're a PC, and this is an NPC."

[Shaofoo]

I have never seen this implemented. Even when the PCs are somehow unique and special (e.g. Exalted), there exist NPCs in the setting of a similar order of being.

Then this sentence is a contradiction. If the PCs are unique but there exists others like it then they aren't unique.


Even in 5e, if a PC has a power, it can be given to an NPC or monster as a special ability.

And vice versa. It depends on the DM. I can have a world where the PCs are unique just like I can have a world where the PCs are dime a dozen but with monster abilities.


So I'm not going to try to argue whether it would be a good or a bad thing, since it isn't a thing that happens, and therefore is not a fruitful thought experiment.

Except you say that it is a bad thing all this time.


There is nothing that stops the DM from letting you play a great wyrm red dragon, either, but the rules of the game and its design actively recommend against it. Nor is there anything that stops the DM from letting your first level rogue from casting polymorph just because you want to say he does.

The rules say nothing, the game does discourage you and consider balance but there is nothing in the rules that prohibits DMs from doing what they want. If you want something you will have to consider a lot of things.


"The DM can make something up or let you break the rules" is not an argument that the RAW are well-designed.

This has nothing to do with RAW, this goes beyond RAW. If the DM lets you break the rules then the RAW is irrelevant because the Rules as Written are being broken. It is a pointless endeavor to consider RAW


You have. And your prowess at defeating straw men you set up to tackle is impressive. Pity none of them represent the point I'm actually making.

Which is that the creation of things which are NPC-only on the grounds that they're...NPC-only...is insufficient justification, and leads to verisimilitude-breaking and a frustration that the game is willing to set up something as "too good for players to have."

You can't play a dragon? Okay, fine.

The NPC/monster needs to be able to handle action deficit problems, and giving the legendary abilities to PCs would unbalance things? Sure, I can accept that.

You're not an NPC, so you can't befriend that pseudodragon and get him as a familiar with the benefits that NPC gets for doing so? That's where I start to get annoyed.

You're not an NPC, so you can't perform that ritual that NPC just did, in front of you, when you've got his notes on doing so, and both of you are members of the Secret Order of Magic Entities Backing Over Demons Yesterday and being S.O.M.E.B.O.D.Y. is how both of you learned your magical trade... Really?

So you complain about me putting up strawmen while you yourself are quite happily putting up strawmen yourself. Nice arguing there.

Look above as to the psudodragon reason.

You want me to give you a reason why you can't perform the ritual? Just because you have the notes does it say that you can decipher it? There is a long way between getting the notes and actually understand it. How can you be so sure that just because you both came from the same school that you know everything that he does? Did you both follow the same paths with the same choices made? Maybe the notes are magically enchanted so that on the opponent's death they become illegible. While you were leveling up in your special school of choice big bad was leveling up in another school that let him gain the power (and before you start bellyaching about NPCs getting unique subclasses the Oathbreaker and the Death Cleric are both DMG subclasses so the concept of locked subclasses already has precedent).

Also do you really want to learn the ritual that the big bad was doing, even if it was only to bring misery and pain into the world. Would you be willing to risk what the NPC already did to gain the power, and this isn't whether you'll succeed or fail learning it is because you might end up being the next BBEG as a result. WHo is to say that the ritual will end up corrupting you? Do you want to risk it? It is a great way to retire your character but if you want progression there is nothing worse than forcing to your character to NPC status because he can never play in the group again.

Basically your strawman is a DM that is failing at his job by not providing an in world reason as to why you can't have something (not just because your character can't but because you'll lose your character if you do. People might say that you can't eat cyanide but nothing stops you from taking it but you will die as a result).


No, you're bringing my grievance to every single ability without distinction. I've been fairly specific: my objection is when the sole difference amounts to "you're a PC, and this is an NPC."

Because you basically are arguing over the system in general so at what point does it consider to be ridiculous, I bring up the extreme examples but there are a ton of other characters with unique abilities that a DM might or might not want to give to the PCs.

[Segev]

Congratulations, Shaofoo, you've managed to focus so completely on the minutia in an effort to prove that you're right and I'm wrong on umpteen technical details that you continue to utterly miss my point. So utterly and completely that I am not going to bother trying to clarify it, as by this point, you've demonstrated that it will just be ignored in favor of finding some other nit to pick.

I get it. You don't agree with me. And you wish to dismiss my objections as those of a whiny child unworthy of anything but your scorn. Feel free. I don't enjoy arguing to prove a person is right; I enjoy arguing to persuade or to be persuaded. Since you would rather argue to prove you're right and insult me with snide insinuations and outright insults to my maturity, I shall grant you the victory you desire and bow out of the discussion with you on this matter.

[Shaofoo]

Congratulations, Shaofoo, you've managed to focus so completely on the minutia in an effort to prove that you're right and I'm wrong on umpteen technical details that you continue to utterly miss my point. So utterly and completely that I am not going to bother trying to clarify it, as by this point, you've demonstrated that it will just be ignored in favor of finding some other nit to pick.

I get it. You don't agree with me. And you wish to dismiss my objections as those of a whiny child unworthy of anything but your scorn. Feel free. I don't enjoy arguing to prove a person is right; I enjoy arguing to persuade or to be persuaded. Since you would rather argue to prove you're right and insult me with snide insinuations and outright insults to my maturity, I shall grant you the victory you desire and bow out of the discussion with you on this matter.

Here is my main point.

What you have described is a DM problem, not a system problem. The system does not prohibit DMs anything and in fact lets them do whatever they want, of course they do warn that doing outlandish things will break the game balance that was established but if you don't care you can have your Human Fighter wield 6 swords, burrow into brains and breathe for 20d6 fire damage, how? who cares!

Your outburst of only focusing on the technicals is because your point on the broad picture is virtually useless. I have presented a scenario that has invalidated your entire point because there can be a reason why something is NPC only. A DM that basically says that something is only for NPCs and nothing else is a bad DM, it is the same kind of DM that would say that you miss on a roll that hit before because shut up or the same kind of DM that will have you ambushed by three hill giants and an ettin in the middle of a wide field because the random rolls said so. A good DM would provide a reason as to why things are like that, even on a random encounter table a good DM should have some build up and not just make them appear out of thin air..

I will agree that saying something is "NPC only" and leave it at that is bad but if it is "NPC only because XYZ" then I can accept that because a reason exists. But regardless this stems that this is a problem with the DM not the game.

And I will say that your outburst does you no favors, I honestly didn't question anything until now.

[Gastronomie]

*Grabs popcorn* But really, this argument is never gonna end because all the DMs in the world have the authority to do whatever they want, regardless of whether they win or lose in some random and irrelevant internet forum.

[Kite474]

.... Well that was interesting. But I did come out with something. It seems pact of the chain is sitll pretty subpar .
and pact of the toam still reigns supreme. Good to know.

[Saeviomage]

I personally think that Jeremy is in error. After all - whats the point of the rule if it's for NPCs only? The DM can already have any monsters he wants to work together, and magic resistance is a fairly minor boost to a monster compared with, say, replacing weapons or adding spells.

That said, I think that the warlock pact of the chain (and the find familiar spell) and the MM rules are separate things. One is clearly a voluntary association, while the other is a magical summoning/creation and compulsion.

[Millstone85]

For what it is worth, I find Segev's arguments here much more convincing than Shaofoo's.

Nobody is complaining that the intellect devourer and the marilith were not designed as playable races, so the repeated mocking of a hypothetical player wanting to burrow into brains or wield six swords does feel like a straw man fallacy. And yes, it is up to the DM to make these races playable if they want, but that is a distinct matter altogether.

On the other hand, we have a familiar spirit mimicking every ability of a creature except the ability the creature would get for being a familiar. Even if the DM finds a way to justify this in their story, it will probably feel like a major hand wave compared to the real reason: that one was designed as a tool for PCs and the other as a tool for NPCs.

I can try, though. The shared magic resistance is not an aspect of the imp, pseudodragon or quasit ('s form) but an aspect of the magical contract with a mortal spellcaster. The spell find familiar, together with the chain pact boon, is a different magical contract with different advantages.


That said, I think that the warlock pact of the chain (and the find familiar spell) and the MM rules are separate things. One is clearly a voluntary association, while the other is a magical summoning/creation and compulsion.And that would be an excellent way to further explain why these magical contracts are so different. Consent does tend to change how magic works in many stories.

[Shaofoo]

For what it is worth, I find Segev's arguments here much more convincing than Shaofoo's.

Nobody is complaining that the intellect devourer and the marilith were not designed as playable races, so the repeated mocking of a hypothetical player wanting to burrow into brains or wield six swords does feel like a straw man fallacy. And yes, it is up to the DM to make these races playable if they want, but that is a distinct matter altogether.

I never said anything of the sort.

I said the ability to wield 6 swords or burrow into people's brains for your character, not to play as a monster. This has nothing to do with playing monsters but gaining the abilities piece-mail.

A Human fighter being able to wield 6 swords or burrow into people's brains, why is that too much to ask? It is too much to ask but I want to know why?

It was probably my fault for trying to put out the exaggerated version first because in the interest of argumentation people will take that as a baseline and not bother to think things through.


On the other hand, we have a familiar spirit mimicking every ability of a creature except the ability the creature would get for being a familiar. Even if the DM finds a way to justify this in their story, it will probably feel like a major hand wave compared to the real reason: that one was designed as a tool for PCs and the other as a tool for NPCs.

So then you have abilities that are obvious that players can't get because of self evident reasons but then there are abilities that players could probably get but can't because of explained reasons. And there are a ton of other abilities in between the spectrum, at what point does it become ridiculous to get the ability and at what point does it become a hand wave even with an explanation?

I did say that a DM giving no explanation as to why is bad but I find that if he does give an explanation and you don't accept it then the problem goes to you. And I did say that the DM can grant the players any ability that he wishes from just saying "Okay you got it" to basically putting it as a reason to retire your character (Is it okay if you could gain the ability even if you were to never play your character again as he learns the secrets, there is a difference between gaining an ability and gaining progression).

Like I said the problem stems from the players wanting to read DM material and apply it to themselves, it is the same complaint as to why can't a player play an Oathbreaker or a Death Cleric, a DM could grant the ability just like he could grant any other ability but that is for the DM to decide.

[Gastronomie]

Like I said the problem stems from the players wanting to read DM material and apply it to themselves, it is the same complaint as to why can't a player play an Oathbreaker or a Death Cleric, a DM could grant the ability just like he could grant any other ability but that is for the DM to decide.I think that this actually applies to all optional/variant rules, regardless of whether the half-official-ish (or, whatever, the supposedly official) twitter or whatever gives an ok or not.

That being said, I generally don't like DM's that don't listen to the personal requests of the players (as long as the players aren't idiots), so that's probably a difference in playstyle/DM'ing style that no amount of arguing or constructive discussion can actually hope to get to a shared conclusion.

[Millstone85]

A Human fighter being able to wield 6 swords or burrow into people's brains, why is that too much to ask? It is too much to ask but I want to know why?Because the human fighter does not have six arms, nor are they a weird creation of illithid magic. Why would a player ever ask that question, other than trolling? But when a human warlock with an imp familiar meets another human warlock with an imp familiar and notices that the two master-familiar bonds do not work the same, the warlock will want to know why and so will the warlock's player.


It was probably my fault for trying to put out the exaggerated version first because in the interest of argumentation people will take that as a baseline and not bother to think things through.
And there are a ton of other abilities in between the spectrum, at what point does it become ridiculous to get the ability and at what point does it become a hand wave even with an explanation?To be blunt, I do not see how your examples would even share a spectrum with the familiar issue. Nor would I care if they did, because then your examples would clearly be on the ridiculous end.


I did say that a DM giving no explanation as to why is bad but I find that if he does give an explanation and you don't accept it then the problem goes to you.
a DM could grant the ability just like he could grant any other ability but that is for the DM to decide.There is no DM in this thread. It is not a game session in need to move on. It is, among other things, a good place to discuss which story explanations suck and what would break game balance. Do you think I am having an argument with my DM for ruling the shared magic resistance out? I am not.

[Tanarii]

Jeremy Crawford tweeted about this:

http://www.sageadvice.eu/2016/05/23/does-a-familiar-summoned-by-pact-of-chain-follow-players-handbook-or-monster-manual-rules/
Oh good. That means we can finally put to rest the ridiculous notion that PCs can get *reads rest of thread* damn it! :smallyuk: :smallbiggrin:

[Gastronomie]

Oh good. That means we can finally put to rest the ridiculous notion that PCs can get *reads rest of thread* damn it! :smallyuk: :smallbiggrin:What part of it is rediculous? It's honestly an overrated ability.

[Millstone85]

Like I said the problem stems from the players wanting to read DM material and apply it to themselves, it is the same complaint as to why can't a player play an Oathbreaker or a Death Cleric, a DM could grant the ability just like he could grant any other ability but that is for the DM to decide.Also, I personally would avoid the table of a DM who gets irritated when players ask about "secret" classes or magic items they would like to have. Yes, I am a supporter of the "Dear Santa" magic item list. It is the DM's right to say no, even "Hahaha, no!", but discouraging the DMG and the MM seems like a power trip.

[tieren]

If the wizard takes 7 levels of OotA paladin they can get magic resistance, problem solved.

[Segev]

The crux of it really does come down to whether the game tells the DM he should not let PCs even try for something, or gives them advice on how to go about it if he wants to.

It's not a "DM problem" if the DM is just trusting the system to give him good advice. It's a system problem.

[Wymmerdann]

Shaofoo's repeated conflation of different categories of discretion seem to lie at the heart of their disagreement with other contributors [IMO], though I think Segev's parting remark seems quite accurate.

A Player being allowed to use a villainous class from the DMG lies within the DM's discretion, as does granting any other ability they wish to allow, as does allowing feats, as does running the game at all. Ten minutes before the sessions starts, the DM might decide to walk into traffic, rendering such minutae irrelevant. Each of these decisions is, in turn, different in character to allowing the NPC rules for a Quasit/Imp familiar, and yet each represents a form of decision making that is not open to rebuttal or overturning. People seem to mistake the fact that a decision lies within the DM's discretion, for the idea that analysing the merits of the decision is pointless. In point of fact, the decision the DM makes will still be some grade of restrictive or permissive, and in some cases reasonable or unreasonable. Determining that grade, even in the abstract, does nothing to diminish that discretion.

DM Discretion is so that some snotty brat of a player can't shove some hack of a game-designer's half-baked tweet in the face of the guy who's trying to run the game and demand they bend to their whim. It doesn't make the unreasonable reasonable and it doesn't relegate everything not explicitly allowed/disallowed to some incoherent purgatorial realm into which the light of deliberative inquiry cannot penetrate. It lets us move past the minutae, the pedantry, and resolve our differences undemocratically, like God intended. It does this because the hobby isn't a debate club.


The degree to which discretionary rulings are incorporated within existing structures [a villainous class is a class, after all] has some bearing on how reasonable or unreasonable it might be to include them. For that reason alone, conflating a discretion-to-include option that has significant structural support within both the DMG and PHB to one that does not ["my fighter is allergic to vowels! They Polymorph him into Cerberus"] is spurious.

Although the decision to allow players to narrate every second round of combat without adhering to system rules ["I climb onto the Dragon's back and shear off it's wings with my greatsword, causing it to die of shock!"] is as much within the DM's discretion as giving PC ChainLocks access to the same Quasits as NPC Chainlocks, one of these decisions is clearly less reasonable in light of the system we are discussing. The refusal or incapacity to perceive this seems to be crux of about 1/3 of the disagreements in the 5e forum. This distinction is also probably clearer to those who have spent significant time as both DM and Player, but is not necessarily so.

"Discretion" also tends to be the catch-cry of the moral or intellectual coward.

Just my $0.02

[Shaofoo]

Because the human fighter does not have six arms, nor are they a weird creation of illithid magic. Why would a player ever ask that question, other than trolling? But when a human warlock with an imp familiar meets another human warlock with an imp familiar and notices that the two master-familiar bonds do not work the same, the warlock will want to know why and so will the warlock's player.

And if they find out, what then? Would you be happy with whatever excuse (besides lol NPC only).


To be blunt, I do not see how your examples would even share a spectrum with the familiar issue. Nor would I care if they did, because then your examples would clearly be on the ridiculous end.

Like I said, my fault. I should've known better.


There is no DM in this thread. It is not a game session in need to move on. It is, among other things, a good place to discuss which story explanations suck and what would break game balance. Do you think I am having an argument with my DM for ruling the shared magic resistance out? I am not.

If there is no DM then there is no argument or problem at all. The main problem is that something is considered to be NPC only, the only person that can dictate that is a DM. A DM is essential for D&D, no DM no D&D. So if there is no DM then there was never a problem in the first place (Unless there is some no-DM system of D&D, I would like to see that).

Of course I am not talking about a particular scenario, I was speaking in broad terms as I assumed was everyone else.


Also, I personally would avoid the table of a DM who gets irritated when players ask about "secret" classes or magic items they would like to have. Yes, I am a supporter of the "Dear Santa" magic item list. It is the DM's right to say no, even "Hahaha, no!", but discouraging the DMG and the MM seems like a power trip.

That is what it says in the book, even the PHB can have some elements locked by the DM by the book (Feats, Multiclassing and Variant Human, all of them very popular options in this forum).

I have no problem if a player said if he wanted to be a Death Cleric or an Oathbreaker or a specific magic item and he could convince me as well. But if I were to say no I would hope that will be the end of it. if the player insists then I will have a problem, if a person is the kind of person that can't take no for an answer then I would be glad that the person doesn't want to be at my table.

[Shaofoo]

The crux of it really does come down to whether the game tells the DM he should not let PCs even try for something, or gives them advice on how to go about it if he wants to.

It's not a "DM problem" if the DM is just trusting the system to give him good advice. It's a system problem.

The books says nothing of the sort, unless you can point out something that says that the DM shouldn't do anything then the system isn't telling anything.

The system encourages creativity and even has systems where you can make your own things. The book even says that if you want to break the established balance curve then do so but you risk having an unbalanced game.

The DM has free reign to do whatever it wants and the books say so. That the book doesn't say anything is not a restriction. If the DM takes the lack of advice as advice then that is the DM's fault for trying to read something that is literally not there. If you want a better system to give such things then say that. The system is not foolproof and has a lot of things lacking but I also expect the DM to exercise some common sense as well, and to even make mistakes and learn from them.

[Segev]

The books says nothing of the sort, unless you can point out something that says that the DM shouldn't do anything then the system isn't telling anything.

You will note that my objection was raised in response to the tweet or whatever it was for sage advice saying "this is for NPCs only."

[Millstone85]

And if they find out, what then? Would you be happy with whatever excuse (besides lol NPC only).I actually opened this thread with one, that the PHB familiar is not a real imp, pseudodragon or quasit like the MM familiar, but I wasn't really satisfied with it. Now I am of the mind that it is more about the nature of the magical connection between the spellcaster and the familiar. As Saeviomage said, the MM describes a voluntary association, while the PHB version seems to involve summoning/creation and compulsion. Yeah, I like that explanation well enough.


If there is no DM then there is no argument or problem at all. The main problem is that something is considered to be NPC only, the only person that can dictate that is a DM. A DM is essential for D&D, no DM no D&D. So if there is no DM then there was never a problem in the first place (Unless there is some no-DM system of D&D, I would like to see that).That brings us back to Gastronomie's decrying of all RAW/RAI discussions. Is there really any point to discussing the game system as it exists before a particular DM puts their hands on it? Should we care about a tweet from one of the game designers? In my opinion, yes. I like to understand the printed rules and how they are supposed to work, even if they are never applied exactly as such.

As far as I am concerned, I already got the answers I was looking for. RAW is a bit unclear. RAI is that sharing a familiar's magic resistance is only for NPCs. RAF, it is probably harmless to allow it for PCs.


That is what it says in the book, even the PHB can have some elements locked by the DM by the book (Feats, Multiclassing and Variant Human, all of them very popular options in this forum).

I have no problem if a player said if he wanted to be a Death Cleric or an Oathbreaker or a specific magic item and he could convince me as well. But if I were to say no I would hope that will be the end of it. if the player insists then I will have a problem, if a person is the kind of person that can't take no for an answer then I would be glad that the person doesn't want to be at my table.Again, I don't think anyone here has been challenging a DM's right to say no to a player. That's not what is meant by "What do the rules/creators say?" or "Should this variant rule be allowed for PCs?". I think you might be fighting windmills.

[Vogonjeltz]

I personally think that Jeremy is in error. After all - whats the point of the rule if it's for NPCs only? The DM can already have any monsters he wants to work together, and magic resistance is a fairly minor boost to a monster compared with, say, replacing weapons or adding spells.

That said, I think that the warlock pact of the chain (and the find familiar spell) and the MM rules are separate things. One is clearly a voluntary association, while the other is a magical summoning/creation and compulsion.

There's no particularized reason the DM couldn't offer a player the opportunity to make a deal with the Imp or Quasit for them to become their familiar, or for them to save the life of the pseudodragon, earning its friendship.

But how is a player specifically going to pursue this on their own? It's not like they can make the pseudodragon agree to join them, nor can they really dictate the terms of a bargain with those darker powers, even assuming the character could locate an Imp or Quasit to bargain with in the first place...which seems flat out impossible at low levels without applying some seriously suspension of disbelief damaging DMing.

The balance issue is: If those familiars die...they are truly dead. Whereas the Find Familiar spell and the pact are merely summoning up a spirit that can be recreated, and even reshaped, inumerable times. It's not as powerful as the real deal, which is a fair balancing trade off, and makes sense thematically.


I think that this actually applies to all optional/variant rules, regardless of whether the half-official-ish (or, whatever, the supposedly official) twitter or whatever gives an ok or not.

Generally agreed, all the variants in the game are DM discretion because not every DM wants to employ all the rules. Maybe they want to streamline and not use the lingering damage variant, or they don't want to have humans with feats (or feats at all) or they want to do heroic rules or gritty realism etc...

As to those disparaging the Pact of the Chain vis the Pact of the Tome, Find Familiar on its own doesn't allow the Pseudodragon, Sprite, Imp, or Quasit forms, which are substantially tougher than the other familiars, and they can have that familiar act as a combatant (not dissimilar from the Animal Companion of the Ranger) which is impossible for all the other find familiar users.

[Petrocorus]

I have a technical question. where is it said the Imp can share his resistance with his master? I found the sidebar about the Qasit, but didn't found a sidebar about the Imp.


All this debating about how to treat familiars reminds me of Blackwing and Vaarsuvius. Which is a better in-game treatment of "living class features"; early Vaarsuvius or post-dragon V?

This is base on 3.5 familar rules, which where very different. I actually preferred them, and in this edition, the familiar was the actual creature, not a spirit inpersonating it and it make a big difference fluffwise.

[Millstone85]

I have a technical question. where is it said the Imp can share his resistance with his master? I found the sidebar about the Qasit, but didn't found a sidebar about the Imp.Yeah, for some reason, the Imp's sidebar is on page 69 of the MM, while the Imp's main block is on page 76.

[Petrocorus]

Yeah, for some reason, the Imp's sidebar is on page 69 of the MM, while the Imp's main block is on page 76.

Oh! Thanks.