Intelligent familiars owning items. VoP Questions (help/debate)?

[bean illus]

Clarification? And i think i will invite folks to join a thread on this in the main forum (since i have a few tangential questions also).

Q 246 Can an intelligent familiar own an item?
(http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?497153-Simple-RAW-Thread-for-3-5-32-More-Seasons-than-the-Simpsons&p=21402078#post21402078)

Yes.


Q 247 Would an intelligent familiar owning items violate VoP?


Owning any items other than the whitelisted ones violates a Vow of Poverty.
Citation for how this addresses familiars 'owning' or 'using'?


Q 250 Does "having" a familiar violate VoP? (Does having a familiar count as "owning" an item?


A familiar is a creature, not an item, although items are required to summon one.



A 250 No, having a familiar does not usually violate Vow of Poverty. An Item Familiar probably does though.

However, the Sacred Vows are about the spirit of the law not the letter, hence tricks like getting your familiar to own an item violate them. Indeed, even seriously considering using a trick to get round a vow breaks the basic Sacred Vow and your character loses all exalted benefits.

So, asking the question as to whether you can have a familiar - good question, worrying about the ramifications of your vow ahead of time.
Wondering if the familiar can own an item - goodbye vow.

But as long as i continue to wax philosophically that material possessions are what got us into this trouble in the first place, isn't my intelligent familiar (admittedly the DM) allowed to have philosophical disagreements with me?

VoP"The majority of her share of party treasure "
Q; What is a majority? and where does the other 49% go? Could be a small number, but this loop hole might allow a DM to rationalize party members returning charitable exchange with the VoP, and other ways to increase VoPs access to the game at high levels.

I would be tempted to argue RAW may lack specific rules against VoP familiars owning items.

[PacMan2247]

You make good points, and given the limits of what familiars (generally) have the appendages to manipulate, I don't think it would be particularly game-breaking. I do agree that it violates the spirit of the Vows, but different groups have different dynamics, so it's a situational and personal thing.

In the end, I think I'd come down on the side of "If it isn't entitled to a share of the XP, it isn't entitled to a share of the loot".

[Crake]

In the end, I think I'd come down on the side of "If it isn't entitled to a share of the XP, it isn't entitled to a share of the loot".

Except when it does, like leadership for example. Cohorts don't take a share of xp, but ARE entitled to a share of the loot. Usually it's a portion of your share.

[zergling.exe]

Except when it does, like leadership for example. Cohorts don't take a share of xp, but ARE entitled to a share of the loot. Usually it's a portion of your share.

But cohorts do get a share of the xp, and it is a portion of your xp. It just materializes out of nowhere and doesn't cost you anything.

On the familiar part: even if the familiar owns an item, all the same stipulations apply. And the sacred powers you have taken a vow to would likely frown on (and maybe give warnings or outright strip power for) trying to get around not owning things by having the familiar own them and treating it like a party member for sharing them.

[Cirtona Pox]

My take on it... Call it what you will:

The VoP is a pact between you and your deity. You agree to sacrifice not only all wealth and possessions but all DESIRE to acquire them.

In exchange, said deity grants you the power to act in their interest on the Prime without the need for such things.

A familiar, while a separate entity, is still (in part) an extension of you. Any familiar that came to you, intelligent or not, would, by the very nature of your character, be influenced (at least partially) by your deity.

Simply put, your god would not allow you to have a familiar that could, on his own, break your VoP and it WOULD break your VoP simply to desire possessions.

[PacMan2247]

But cohorts do get a share of the xp, and it is a portion of your xp. It just materializes out of nowhere and doesn't cost you anything.

A cohort's XP is derived from the Leader's, but isn't a portion of it; it's not drawn from the pool awarded to PCs. It's a semantic difference, but an important one in this instance.

[Coidzor]

The VoP is a pact between you and your deity. You agree to sacrifice not only all wealth and possessions but all DESIRE to acquire them.

In exchange, said deity grants you the power to act in their interest on the Prime without the need for such things.

A familiar, while a separate entity, is still (in part) an extension of you. Any familiar that came to you, intelligent or not, would, by the very nature of your character, be influenced (at least partially) by your deity.

Simply put, your god would not allow you to have a familiar that could, on his own, break your VoP and it WOULD break your VoP simply to desire possessions.

Familiars are unrelated to gods, and gods actively interfering in familiar selection or creation would be essentially unique.

Vow of Poverty is also unrelated to one's patron deity, and Sacred Vow only has the possibility of being involved with a deity, not a certainty.

Furthermore, if your interpretation was how the feat actually worked, it would be impossible to violate Vow of Poverty without mind control, because it'd be like Paladins and lobotomizing their ability to feel fear.

[AvatarVecna]

There's a few issues with this particular method around the VoP limitations. Before I begin, I wish to establish something that will be very important, should this discussion be (or become) relevant for a real game: any argument that includes the phrase "technically, RAW says..." in an attempt to dodge around the RAI should attempt to avoid depending on RAI elsewhere; an argument that only holds up if at one point you ignore RAW for RAI, only to also have a point later that ignores RAI for RAW, is going to be a difficult sell...and you the player aren't nearly the diplomancer necessary to make that sale. So, onto the issues I see with "my share of the loot belongs to my familiar":

1) A VoP character doesn't really get to make any mechanical decisions about what happens with their share of the loot. A VoP character who adventures with a party takes a normal share of the loot, and is generally required to get rid of it in some kind of act of charity. Could you attempt to convince the DM that your familiar is a charity case? Well, you could attempt to, but I don't think you'd succeed. This combines with point 2...

2) Familiars do not get a share of the loot, not even a fraction of a share of loot. Since your familiar can't really use your share of the loot either (see point 1), the way to get them a share of the loot would be to convince your allies to give it to your familiar, so they can buy things. Your allies may be reluctant to part with their share of the loot just to help you get around your VoP in a roundabout manner, and the DM isn't likely to be happy with this either.

3) Even beyond just pure mechanics, it's debatable whether a familiar can 'own' things or not. They are highly intelligent members of their base species, but at least in the PHB it's not really clear if this comes along with sapience/sentience, or is just them cribbing off your mental prowess.

4) This one's a "between a rock and a hard place" issue: is your familiar an extension of your character? If they are, then they're probably bound by your Vow same as you are, and they can't really own items. If they aren't, they're a full-blown NPC and the DM gets to choose their personality and desires, which might not happen (or might 'happen' not to) align with the player's desire for them to desire ownership of magic items. Blackwing in OotS, as a raven, has a predilection towards shiny bobbles buried in, but this does not necessarily extend to 'all magic items', ioun stones just happen to be the kind of small, shiny object a raven might be interested in stealing...and other familiars (Owls, Toads, Rats) might not have any interest even in those unless you design them to be so, which your DM probably won't do on your behalf.

5) Without some serious shenanigans personality-wise, a VoP character is likely to have little interest in retaining the service of a greedy, magic-item-hording creature, familiar bond or no. It'd be like a VoP character taking the Leadership feat, and their cohort is a Chaotic Neutral Kender Rogue; sure, it's interesting characterization if the VoPer isn't aware of the kleptomania going on under their nose, but it's difficult to explain why they'd tolerate it if they knew about it.

[zergling.exe]

A cohort's XP is derived from the Leader's, but isn't a portion of it; it's not drawn from the pool awarded to PCs. It's a semantic difference, but an important one in this instance.

That's exactly what I said. The second sentence says it doesn't cost you anything, and anything would include xp.

[AvatarVecna]

Quick note:


Vow of Poverty is also unrelated to one's patron deity, and Sacred Vow only has the possibility of being involved with a deity, not a certainty.

Deity? no. Some kind of highly Good being?


This book introduces a new kind of feat: the exalted feat. Only intelligent characters of good alignment and the highest moral standards can acquire exalted feats, and only as a gift from powerful agents of good--deities, celestials, or similar beings.

Yes.

[Cirtona Pox]

Familiars are unrelated to gods, and gods actively interfering in familiar selection or creation would be essentially unique.

Functionally, you are correct. Familiars are not related by standard rules, however, in having a character with VoP, the character has a philosophy to match. You could have a familiar with a different take on having possessions but my angle is that their attitude towards you would be one of having enough respect to not compromise the integrity of the vow.


Vow of Poverty is also unrelated to one's patron deity, and Sacred Vow only has the possibility of being involved with a deity, not a certainty.

Sorry, that was my mistake. I still associate it to deity rather than actual religion/belief structure. The few monks that have had VoP at the table have always been zealots of some kind or another.


Furthermore, if your interpretation was how the feat actually worked, it would be impossible to violate Vow of Poverty without mind control, because it'd be like Paladins and lobotomizing their ability to feel fear.

Not at all. A Paladin is still free to make bad choices just as anyone who has take VoP is free to acquire wealth. It simply changes the path of their destiny (AKA removes benefits for not adhering to their code). I am simply remarking on the RP aspect. Your character sets out with an ideal in which they reject material wealth manipulation of that rule is getting into a dogma vs spirit argument.

In short (too late) if you are min/maxing and your DM is a rules lawyer then yes, you could have an intelligent familiar with valuables. I am just making the case that from an RP standpoint, you would have to have a pretty detailed story line as to how it happened to get it to pass at many dinner tables.

[daremetoidareyo]

As a DM, my compromise on the issue would be that yes, your familiar can get a (half? maybe) share of the loot, assuming your compatriots agree to such a situation, but the familiar who has such lofty ambitions while simultaneously being an extension of the character would require some sort of atonement quest if the PC cannot convince his familiar to chill out on the material possessions rush.

I don't know your circumstances, but there is an excellent roleplay opportunity between a rift forming between a familiar and a VOP master. Maybe the magic item is corrupted and the familiar becomes covetous leading to some LotR golem type confrontations. Maybe the familiar, as an extension of the PC becomes a manifestation of the PCs doubts about the difference between an exalted idealist who struggles under the duress of such a difficult path in an unjust world and the good aligned pragmatist who can GET STUFF DONE FAST.

In the latter case, the atonement quest would explore that theme and successful completion would lead to the familiar getting a (modified!) WBL inherent enhancement from that diety that provides the same benefits of desired items up to the WBL. If the PC wants a familiar with a sword, just gestalt it with kensai. This obviates the issue of cold hard cash, (the familiar can just summon up whatever GP amount that it kept in "liquid funds" like some sort of lame magical sidekick from He-Man cartoons.

However, as a DM, if I felt this entire interaction was a bold faced power move entirely divorced from roleplay, and this player specifically tries to break the game, I would lean towards simply not allowing it, depending on the relative strength of the other PCs.

[Coidzor]

As you can see, the biggest issue is the reaction of your peers.

Vow of Poverty is garbage that should not have been printed. It isn't worth the interpersonal hassle and argumentation to deal with the invented reasons to block it from mechanically functioning in any form.

[Telok]

2) Familiars do not get a share of the loot, not even a fraction of a share of loot. Since your familiar can't really use your share of the loot either (see point 1), the way to get them a share of the loot would be to convince your allies to give it to your familiar, so they can buy things.

Well, that depends on the familiar. It's not totally germane to the current VoP discussion but in a current game some of the party members gave a quasit (acquired via Improved Familiar) a magic necklace, Hewards Handy Haversack, and about fifteen healing potions. Notably they "forgot" to tell the player whose wizard the quasit belonged to about the necklace and about half the potions. It came up in the next session when the DM mentioned it and had the quasit use the items.

Even the bog standard crow familiar can use a command word item.

[Troacctid]

Don't forget the other big issue, which is that if your familiar ever dies, you can never summon a new one. That's kind of a drag.

[Khedrac]

Well, that depends on the familiar. It's not totally germane to the current VoP discussion but in a current game some of the party members gave a quasit (acquired via Improved Familiar) a magic necklace, Hewards Handy Haversack, and about fifteen healing potions. Notably they "forgot" to tell the player whose wizard the quasit belonged to about the necklace and about half the potions. It came up in the next session when the DM mentioned it and had the quasit use the items.

Even the bog standard crow familiar can use a command word item.

And a character with VoP who takes a quasit as a familiar just fell. Quasits can serve Chaotic Neutral masters, but extremely good ones? See earlier line about "highest moral codes".

[prufock]

VoP"The majority of her share of party treasure "
Q; What is a majority? and where does the other 49% go? Could be a small number, but this loop hole might allow a DM to rationalize party members returning charitable exchange with the VoP, and other ways to increase VoPs access to the game at high levels.
Food, lodging, hirelings, other consumable necessities. At higher levels, of course, the cost of these things is insignificant.

[Telok]

And a character with VoP who takes a quasit as a familiar just fell. Quasits can serve Chaotic Neutral masters, but extremely good ones? See earlier line about "highest moral codes".

Lovely failure there. It's about familiars having, using, and being given items independently of the master character. While a quasit obviously isn't appropriate for a goody foo-foo type character there are good aligned and construct familiars available that can fill the same function.

[KillianHawkeye]

This is just my opinion, but a familiar is basically like a pet that's super-intelligent (relatively speaking anyway), so anything that you get for your pet is actually your property. If you buy a catnip toy for your cat, it's still legally yours because your cat is your property. Same goes for a familiar in my mind.

To push this idea a bit further... consider a 2-year-old toddler. It's a human being who can speak and think independent thoughts. But does it own anything? His parents buy all his toys and his clothes for him, and take care of all his other needs. His parents can take away a toy if the child misbehaves, and no one considers it to be stealing because the toy is theirs to let the boy play with or not.

A familiar's Intelligence score starts at 6, and while it does go up every other level, the familiar is not unlike the child. It, too, is totally dependent on its master for anything beyond its most basic needs. A familiar can in most cases at least hunt or forage for food and weather the elements, but for anything else it needs its master.

In my own personal life, I'm pretty sure I didn't own anything of any value that wasn't given to me as a gift or paid for by my parents until I was at least ten or twelve years old. Not anything that was worth remembering, at any rate. So it's pretty clear to me that a familiar, barring truly exceptional familiars like an imp or a pseudodragon, doesn't own anything at all. That's my take on the situation.

[bean illus]

Colossus' and Titans and Firblogs, oh my! Thanks for coming, folks (everybody).


As you can see, the biggest issue is the reaction of your peers.

Vow of Poverty is garbage that should not have been printed. It isn't worth the interpersonal hassle and argumentation to deal with the invented reasons to block it from mechanically functioning in any form.
Well every VoP discussion is has "This is the worst rule ever", 'It's mechanically impossible to use', and this one is no exception. I agree with your first point. But...

DnD is a ROLE playing game, and VoP an attempt to write an optional role into the rules. It's true that it's more complicated and nuanced than 'My characters role is to kill green skinned humanoids with a sword', and because of it's nuance it requires that the DM and the player enjoy collaborating on the story (oh wait, that's true for every dnd session).

There are two questions: 1. Is the rule balanced (and clear), and 2. Is the fluff playable? As for the first; i assume most know that VoP is under powered compared to full WBL. The interpretation that i propose will leave VoP less powerful than a hundred different fully legal casters builds.

As for the second point, I will address that below.


My take on it... Call it what you will: The VoP is a pact between you and your deity. You agree to sacrifice not only all wealth and possessions but all DESIRE to acquire them. [SNIP]
Simply put, your god would not allow you to have a familiar that could, on his own, break your VoP and it WOULD break your VoP simply to desire possessions.
I disagree. Many goodly folks in history and fiction have struggled with doubt. Momentary thoughts are not enough to nullify a vow. Plotting to outsmart your deity WILL violate your vow, but that's not what i'm asking. Yes my player wants to optimize, but the character is not trying to outsmart her deity.

AND, that's not what the question is. The question is: Is an intelligent familiar able to own items? This question is followed with: Would a familiar have minor disagreements with their owner? and would those disagreements violate the vow?
Obviously, if the character actively encourages the familiar to end run the rules then that's a violation. But if the familiar is agrees morally with the ascetic, but thinks more pragmatically, then it's not the characters fault.


There's a few issues with this particular method around the VoP limitations. Before I begin, I wish to establish something that will be very important, should this discussion be (or become) relevant for a real game: any argument that includes the phrase "technically, RAW says..." in an attempt to dodge around the RAI should attempt to avoid depending on RAI elsewhere; an argument that only holds up if at one point you ignore RAW for RAI, only to also have a point later that ignores RAI for RAW, is going to be a difficult sell...and you the player aren't nearly the diplomancer necessary to make that sale. So, onto the issues I see with "my share of the loot belongs to my familiar":

1) A VoP character doesn't really get to make any mechanical decisions about what happens with their share of the loot. A VoP character who adventures with a party takes a normal share of the loot, and is generally required to get rid of it in some kind of act of charity. Could you attempt to convince the DM that your familiar is a charity case? Well, you could attempt to, but I don't think you'd succeed. This combines with point 2...
I agree with most of the above, but don't plan on using that argument (see below). Though VoP says "The majority of her share of party treasure " i am not suggesting giving 49% to the familiar.


2) Familiars do not get a share of the loot, not even a fraction of a share of loot. Since your familiar can't really use your share of the loot either (see point 1), the way to get them a share of the loot would be to convince your allies to give it to your familiar, so they can buy things. Your allies may be reluctant to part with their share of the loot just to help you get around your VoP in a roundabout manner, and the DM isn't likely to be happy with this either.

Nor am i suggesting urging my compatriots to do so.


3) Even beyond just pure mechanics, it's debatable whether a familiar can 'own' things or not. They are highly intelligent members of their base species, but at least in the PHB it's not really clear if this comes along with sapience/sentience, or is just them cribbing off your mental prowess.
??? All the creatures i know of in DnD that have an Int of 6-15 get to make decisions. It even says that Item Familiars have egos and may disagree (played by the DM of course) with the caster. Improved Familiars/etc often have high int (and social structures, and possessions) of their own. A gold dragon wyrmling has an Int of 14 on it's own! Does it lose sapience when it becomes a familiar?


4) This one's a "between a rock and a hard place" issue: is your familiar an extension of your character? If they are, then they're probably bound by your Vow same as you are, and they can't really own items. If they aren't, they're a full-blown NPC and the DM gets to choose their personality and desires, which might not happen (or might 'happen' not to) align with the player's desire for them to desire ownership of magic items. Blackwing in OotS, as a raven, has a predilection towards shiny bobbles buried in, but this does not necessarily extend to 'all magic items', ioun stones just happen to be the kind of small, shiny object a raven might be interested in stealing...and other familiars (Owls, Toads, Rats) might not have any interest even in those unless you design them to be so, which your DM probably won't do on your behalf.
Now we're getting close to the "role" and farther from the "roll". I personally believe that a familiar is and NPC, and that though usually directed by the player (for convenience), it's open season for the DM to step in if the familiar is somehow mishandled enough (or for other role reasons). Of course this is a collaboration between DM and player (as is the whole story).


5) Without some serious shenanigans personality-wise, a VoP character is likely to have little interest in retaining the service of a greedy, magic-item-hording creature, familiar bond or no. It'd be like a VoP character taking the Leadership feat, and their cohort is a Chaotic Neutral Kender Rogue; sure, it's interesting characterization if the VoPer isn't aware of the kleptomania going on under their nose, but it's difficult to explain why they'd tolerate it if they knew about it.
But we aren't suggesting a "greedy, magic-item-hording creature". We are asking if an intelligent familiar CAN own SOME things without violating the casters vows. Not a knit sweater sewn by a little old lady? How greedy that is interpreted to be would be up to the DM, no?


Functionally, you are correct. Familiars are not related by standard rules, however, in having a character with VoP, the character has a philosophy to match. You could have a familiar with a different take on having possessions but my angle is that their attitude towards you would be one of having enough respect to not compromise the integrity of the vow.
[SNIP]
Your character sets out with an ideal in which they reject material wealth. Manipulation of that rule is getting into a dogma vs spirit argument.

In short (too late) if you are min/maxing and your DM is a rules lawyer then yes, you could have an intelligent familiar with valuables. I am just making the case that from an RP standpoint, you would have to have a pretty detailed story line as to how it happened to get it to pass at many dinner tables./QUOTE]
Of course there would need to be a back story/plot device. Of course the familiar would not be polar opposite to the casters ideals, but that still leaves quite a bit of room.

[QUOTE=daremetoidareyo;21402852]As a DM, my compromise on the issue would be that yes, your familiar can get a (half? maybe) share of the loot, assuming your compatriots agree to such a situation, but the familiar who has such lofty ambitions while simultaneously being an extension of the character would require some sort of atonement quest if the PC cannot convince his familiar to chill out on the material possessions rush.
I don't know your circumstances, but there is an excellent roleplay opportunity . snip . Maybe . snip . Maybe . snip. .

However, as a DM, if I felt this entire interaction was a bold faced power move entirely divorced from roleplay, and this player specifically tries to break the game, I would lean towards simply not allowing it, depending on the relative strength of the other PCs.
Fair enough (though i was thinking less than half. Maybe a third).


Well, that depends on the familiar. It's not totally germane to the current VoP discussion but in a current game some of the party members gave a quasit (acquired via Improved Familiar) a magic necklace, Hewards Handy Haversack, and about fifteen healing potions. Notably they "forgot" to tell the player whose wizard the quasit belonged to about the necklace and about half the potions. It came up in the next session when the DM mentioned it and had the quasit use the items.

Even the bog standard crow familiar can use a command word item.
See? In this example the other party members give a healing potion to the casters familiar. Not hoarding, not min/maxing or TO. The party members thought it was a good idea.


Don't forget the other big issue, which is that if your familiar ever dies, you can never summon a new one. That's kind of a drag.
You've said that twice, and i don't understand it. VoP says you can use XP for material components?


Food, lodging, hirelings, other consumable necessities. At higher levels, of course, the cost of these things is insignificant.Any ascetic who needs a dollar for lodging is not a very good beggar.

===================
As for RAW vs RAI: VoP says 'majority donated to needy'. It was tooooo easy for the writers to say "all" or "90%" but they didn't. SOMEHOW they intend (and wrote) that SOME of the proceeds goes to SOMETHING else.

In my understanding 51%+ should go to charity, and 49%> should go to other [GOOD] causes, and the ascetic gets NONE (he can beg his clothes). BUT A [GOOD] CAUSE CAN INCLUDE HIS ASSOCIATES. I can easily see an ascetic saying to his party cleric 'I don't think it's totally right for me to assume that you should heal me and my familiar for free, so please consider paying for the wand charges you used on us out of that current pile of gold'.

VoP really comes down to role play, and not all people are fluent with the philosophies of asceticism, but i'll give it a try: Have any of you ever noticed that i never capitalize the word "I" (unless i start a sentence with it) even though the rest of my spelling and punctuation is usually spot on? Go ahead, search my post. You'll be lucky to find even a few instances where i've slipped up. I'll wait.
Ok, so why do i do that? because i think the whole world is subtly brainwashing us. Why don't we capitalize "you"? I just happen to be an organic farmer, and a member of a group dedicated to sustaining post-neolithic technologies and integrating them into daily life (think home made paper and pencil).

But i also use technology for my farming (and yes for this forum). I think of myself as fairly fluent in the concepts of asceticism, and the friction that is has with pragmatism. I truly believe that materialism and capitalism and greed are the cause of most (all) other problems, but i don't hate others for being less convinced than i am.

I have given away entire fortunes 3 times in my life (believe it or not), and each time was rewarded with being noticed by 'movers and shakers' who 'promoted' me into bigger game. Each time capital was supplied for me to continue working. The farm i now manage was purchased by a group of benefactors just so these works can continue.

=======================
So that's my pitch.

1. RAW and RAI both leave leeway for the DM and player to collaborate on some portion <49% of the VoP ascetics proceeds to support the ascetic.

2. Among those ways are "beg components from other party members", and reciprocal synergy from grateful NPCs.

3. A familiar is an NPC usually directed by the player, but not always.

4. The character cannot negotiate with the world for these benefits nor actively arrange them, and MUST play the role of the vow at all times.

[Telok]

A clarification on what Toraccid said: The rules state that if your familiar dies you can't summon/get another for a year and a day. This rule is a hold over from old AD&D where month and week long breaks from adventuring were not uncommon and it could take in-game months or years to level up. In modern 3.5, barring unusually large time skips for extreme crafting and travel, characters usually level up every two weeks to a month and a whole campaign can take place in a single year or less.

So in the games of yesterdays long gone losing a familiar for a year and a day could be equal to waiting untill next level for it to return. In modern games a wizard whose familiar is killed may well be epic level before the year is up. Since most games don't go that high the year and a day wait is essentially permanent for that game.

[KillianHawkeye]

A clarification on what Toraccid said: The rules state that if your familiar dies you can't summon/get another for a year and a day. This rule is a hold over from old AD&D where month and week long breaks from adventuring were not uncommon and it could take in-game months or years to level up. In modern 3.5, barring unusually large time skips for extreme crafting and travel, characters usually level up every two weeks to a month and a whole campaign can take place in a single year or less.

So in the games of yesterdays long gone losing a familiar for a year and a day could be equal to waiting untill next level for it to return. In modern games a wizard whose familiar is killed may well be epic level before the year is up. Since most games don't go that high the year and a day wait is essentially permanent for that game.

There is no reason whatsoever that playing a modern incarnation of D&D should mean that you no longer take breaks between adventures.

[Telok]

There is no reason whatsoever that playing a modern incarnation of D&D should mean that you no longer take breaks between adventures.

It doesn't have to, but it does. Simply put, over time and editions leveling has gotten faster and access to reliable magic has gotten easier. Likewise rules that slowed down the rate of adventuring and leveling have been discarded. For example, in 3.5 by the xp guidelines you're looking at about 4 encounters a day and 13 encounters per level. If you were to assume a ratio of two days of downtime per day of adventuring then characters gain 9 levels each year. If your game goes from level 5 to level 15 then it would take just over an in-game year. A wizard that lost his familiar on day 1 can get it back in time for the last 25 days of the campaign.

The rate and style of game play has changed over the last 40 years since that rule was written. A year and a day is often much of a character's adventuring career now because playstyle and assumptions are different. Hence losing a familiar for a year and a day is now essentially permanent.

[KillianHawkeye]

If you were to assume a ratio of two days of downtime per day of adventuring

If you're curious, this right here is your mistake. This assumption is completely baseless, and it has nothing to do with which edition of D&D you are playing.

I'll reiterate. There is no reason why playing 3.5 or 4th or 5th Edition means that an adventuring party doesn't get weeks or months (or even years) of downtime between adventures.

[bean illus]

If you were to assume a ratio of two days of downtime per day of adventuring then characters gain 9 levels each year.


If you're curious, this right here is your mistake. This assumption is completely baseless, and it has nothing to do with which edition of D&D you are playing.

I'll reiterate. There is no reason why playing 3.5 or 4th or 5th Edition means that an adventuring party doesn't get weeks or months (or even years) of downtime between adventures.

I agree with KillianHawkeye. In fact, i think the story makes little sense that someone can become 'the most powerful mage' or a god in 2 years. It would make a lot more sense to write some downtime into the story (and the hobbits hang out in Rivendell for a month). If it takes less than 5 years game world time to become an arcanist of infinite power then. . . . i sorta don't get it. When i DM there are burst of activity in the game world time, and gaps of up to a year or more.

[AvatarVecna]

If you're curious, this right here is your mistake. This assumption is completely baseless, and it has nothing to do with which edition of D&D you are playing.

I'll reiterate. There is no reason why playing 3.5 or 4th or 5th Edition means that an adventuring party doesn't get weeks or months (or even years) of downtime between adventures.

Part of his point is that there's no reason they have to weeks/months/years of downtime between adventures, so saying that it always happens isn't necessarily correct. Particularly in 3.5, there's little reason to not at least go on a road trip every day, because the odds of getting a random encounte (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0145.html)r with enough XP to be worth getting out of bed for are decent enough to give it a go almost every time. Random encounters while travelling are literally built into the rules.

[Telok]

Part of his point is that there's no reason they have to weeks/months/years of downtime between adventures, so saying that it always happens isn't necessarily correct. Particularly in 3.5, there's little reason to not at least go on a road trip every day, because the odds of getting a random encounte (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0145.html)r with enough XP to be worth getting out of bed for are decent enough to give it a go almost every time. Random encounters while travelling are literally built into the rules.

Partially this, but also it's what the game rewards. Note that I didn't say what the DM rewards, that's different. once a 3.5 party hits 9th or 10th level and Scry+Teleport is available there's nothing stopping the characters from literally spending one day to prepare and another day to adventure in a continual cycle.

Another way to look at it is to realize that the plural of anecdote is not data. How any particular DM runs a single game does not define how the game works, only what that particular DM is doing or changing. If two or three people chime in about having years of downtime in their games that doesn't mean that downtime is part of the mechanics of the game, it means that their DM rewards or enforces downtime. My DM doesn't do anything with downtime, so if no players take crafting feats there's no use for downtime. Our current game has seen about eight levels in four in-game months, but we've hit 9th level now so between Teleport and Phantom Steeds travel time is going to disappear.

There's nothing in the game rules or structure, outside of magic item crafting and travel, that causes or encourages downtime. So you can't assume that someone else's game is going to follow the same pattern as a game that adds downtime stuff. Since the xp gain is set up for about 13 encounters a level and character resources are set up to run about four encounters a day you can literally have games where characters level up every four days. That's extreme, but the rules support it. Those same rules don't include year long downtimes, that's the DM's doing.

[Jack_Simth]

So it's pretty clear to me that a familiar, barring truly exceptional familiars like an imp or a pseudodragon, doesn't own anything at all. That's my take on the situation.
A decent way of looking at it... however:

In a world where it's well-known that a rather lot of things are "people", you can reasonably expect that most people who aren't overly racist will treat someone who talks and acts like an adult as a 'person' regardless of shape. The majority of the basic familiars can't speak common, so for most of them, this will apply. When the master of a Common-speaking raven hits 9th? As an Int-10 creature that talks like a person... yeah, the raven can own stuff if the bird can pay for it and identify it as owned in everyone's hearing. Likewise, an Improved Familiar that's of a sort that can normally communicate clearly (such as a Pseudodragon - talks via Telepathy) is fine.

However: Your loot goes to charity - so in general, you can't give your familiar things (as noted by AvatarVecna). I can see a party handing some of the 'group items' (healing potions, wands of utility spells, et cetera) to a familiar that can use them to act as a band-aid box or some such (beats using a PC action in combat) in groups that do a 'party share' by whatever name from the loot, but in general... your familiar isn't going to have the resources to actually own stuff, and if you're trying to rules-lawyer your way around things to give him your share of loot, then you're tripping over the spirit of the Vow.

I suppose if you've got ranks in some money-earning thing (Craft, Profession, Perform), and thus your familiar does as well, then your familiar could potentially take on a trade during down-time and buy stuff with that.... so if you, say, have Craft (Buildings) for when you use Wall of Stone to make bridges and emergency shelters (or some such - I could also see, say, Craft(Weaponsmithing) or Craft (Armorsmithing) to use Major Creation to make useful weapons for a gish; Perform if you plan to get into a bardic PrC [or if you're a bard getting the familiar via feat], perhaps profession (Messenger) if you want to increase your giving during down-time), then your familiar could make a living doing such things, and spend that money for the occasional doohicky ... if the familiar is physically capable of the task, and if the familiar can get itself recognized as a person.

The same would apply to Psicrystals, of course.

[dhasenan]

I'd say it depends on how the person wants to roleplay their familiar.

Can the familiar leave? Can the familiar refuse to obey the player? Do they argue with the player sometimes? Then they're an NPC who happens to have certain synergies with the player. But they're closer than a party member, so I'd expect the player to try to convince the familiar to follow the vow of poverty.

Does the player treat them more as a class feature and an extension of their will? A thrall who can't leave or doesn't demonstrate independence ever? Then they're part of the player, and the familiar accepting possessions would break the player's vow.

However, this happened without the player's knowledge or consent. If a character under a Vow of Poverty were asleep and someone put a Headband of Intellect on them, that shouldn't have the same effect as the person voluntarily and knowingly putting it on.

I'd have a set of rituals for varying levels of interaction with magic or expensive items. The simplest would be little more than washing your hands while saying a prayer. In this situation, I would expect something more significant -- perhaps involving ritual bloodletting, an overnight vigil, a long series of prayers, fasting, or cutting and burning your hair.

[KillianHawkeye]

Part of his point is that there's no reason they have to weeks/months/years of downtime between adventures, so saying that it always happens isn't necessarily correct.

I'm not saying that long periods of down-time always happens, he's the one who said it almost never happens. My entire argument was not to assume how much downtime a particular group sees, especially not based only on which edition they're playing. Because that's irrelevant.

[bean illus]

A decent way of looking at it... [snip]

However: snip. . if you're trying to rules-lawyer your way around things to give him your share of loot, then you're tripping over the spirit of the Vow.

IF someone was rules lawyering and tried to beat the DM than he would get a "NO". I am attempting to show that there is room in VoP for the DM and the player to collaborate on what level of optimizations would allow VoP to be more useful in higher OP games. The rules clearly say "the majority" of the loot to needy, and that leaves a portion for other [GOOD] endeavors to receive some of the loot.
I am not really saying the character gives the familiar money. I'm saying that the DM can write the story to support the ascetic with up to 49% of the WBL, as long as the support is not the ascetic owning or using things, and she doesn't desire them. For instance a wish that the church pays for to boost the PC is legally within the rules as long as it doesn't exceed 40% WBL.


I suppose if you've got ranks in some money-earning thing (Craft, Profession, Perform), and thus your familiar does as well, then your familiar could potentially take on a trade during down-time and buy stuff with that.... so if you, say, have Craft (Buildings) for when you use Wall of Stone to make bridges and emergency shelters (or some such - I could also see, say, Craft(Weaponsmithing) or Craft (Armorsmithing) to use Major Creation to make useful weapons for a gish; Perform if you plan to get into a bardic PrC [or if you're a bard getting the familiar via feat], perhaps profession (Messenger) if you want to increase your giving during down-time), then your familiar could make a living doing such things, and spend that money for the occasional doohicky ... if the familiar is physically capable of the task, and if the familiar can get itself recognized as a person.

That's a clever story mechanic to allow the familar to help boost the PC the point the group needs for the VoP to be viable. Give him ranks in Profession (Business) and he'll do well with his trades. Nevertheless, i believe the spirit of the rule is that there would still be the '49% WBL max' requierment.


I'd say it depends on how the person wants to roleplay their familiar.

Can the familiar leave? Can the familiar refuse to obey the player? Do they argue with the player sometimes? Then they're an NPC who happens to have certain synergies with the player. But they're closer than a party member, so I'd expect the player to try to convince the familiar to follow the vow of poverty.

Does the player treat them more as a class feature and an extension of their will? A thrall who can't leave or doesn't demonstrate independence ever? Then they're part of the player, and the familiar accepting possessions would break the player's vow.

The player is simply NOT allowed to ALWAYS roleplay the familiar. Yes it is traditionally done like that, but NO; a familiar is not required to suicide because the caster goes crazy. The DM is allowed to step in and say the familiar refuses. In the same way, asking an intelligent being (familiar or other) with an alignment to join a VoP does not require the familiar to do so.
In a world where 99.999 percent of all creatures are obsessed with wealth, is it so hard to imagine an ascetic being friends with a being that owns 2-3 items?


I'm not saying that long periods of down-time always happens, he's the one who said it almost never happens. My entire argument was not to assume how much downtime a particular group sees, especially not based only on which edition they're playing. Because that's irrelevant.
I think your point is absolutely correct.

[Telok]

I'm not saying that long periods of down-time always happens, he's the one who said it almost never happens. My entire argument was not to assume how much downtime a particular group sees, especially not based only on which edition they're playing. Because that's irrelevant.
I don't think it's irrelevant. The downtime thing came up because the familiar is out and participating in combat instead of being permanently off–stage and safe. The risk of combat for a familiar is the year long lack of a familiar if it gets hit. If a game doesn't have a DM who is adding months of downtime then that year long wait can be the whole campaign. So it's a risk that needs to be mentioned and taken into consideration. How much downtime the DM adds is a factor to consider when using your familiar for more than just +3 hit points.

[bean illus]

I don't think it's irrelevant. The downtime thing came up because the familiar is out and participating in combat instead of being permanently off–stage and safe. The risk of combat for a familiar is the year long lack of a familiar if it gets hit. If a game doesn't have a DM who is adding months of downtime then that year long wait can be the whole campaign. So it's a risk that needs to be mentioned and taken into consideration. How much downtime the DM adds is a factor to consider when using your familiar for more than just +3 hit points.

I agree that it's not irrelevant. I also think that unless the DM was just refusing to do so, the game could make the caster suffer for two levels, then the DM says 'Peace is upon the land. Six months later a the Sheriff comes to see you.' Poof the suffering player that is making the group suffer from low power gets her familiar back.

Telok, is your point about famiiars in general and DnD in general? or is it directly concerning the VoP aspect?