[Advice] One of players wants to modify Find Familiar

[Capt Spanner]

On the surface the modification doesn't look too bad:


could I suggest that, instead of the current list of creatures, I can summon 'any Tiny creature with CR equal to, or less than, 1/10 of my wizard level'?
It doesn't add a whole lot of new creatures, but it does mean I get access to the same familiar list as npc casters with the same spell.

Is it as benign as I think, or could this get awfully broken?

I think I probably want to swap "beast" out for "creature", but apart from that I can't think of anything wrong.

[MrFahrenheit]

Doesn't seem *too* bad, until they hit level 10, at which point the idea rivals the most powerful options of what's available to the chainlock. Outclasses the lock at 20. So I'd rule no.

[90sMusic]

I suppose it depends on a lot of things.

For instance, familiars can't attack and many creatures have attacks as well as abilities that count as types of attacks.

Ya know, the very firs thing that popped into my head was an intellect devourer. They are tiny and CR 2, but damn they are strong and through one of those bad boys you could potentially have any creature that exists as your faithful little pet. But that isn't until level 20.

Other than that, any other creatures that fit the bill of being 1/10 wizard level and "tiny" size are just typical little animals (which would be totally fine), but also include advanced familiars available to pack of chain warlocks.

With Volo's guide, it adds another few possibilities like the Gazer, Neogi hatchling, Quickling, Vargouille, Cranium rats...

Most wouldn't matter but something like a Gazer or Vargouille could be pretty rough if you let them use their abilities.

I would never just blanket allow something like that personally, i'd ask him specifically what creature he had in mind then look at the specific creature. When someone wants vague generalizations granted to them, it sometimes means they're planning something you wouldn't allow and then they try to sneak it in and point back to you saying they could.

[robbie374]

This sounds reasonable to me, but there are some obstacles.

The Pact of the Chain warlock would need to be similarly adjusted. Warlocks can already get CR 1 familiars. If wizard familiars are expanded to higher levels, warlock familiars should be, too. Unfortunately, there really aren't very many Tiny creatures with CR 1 or higher. There are only three at CR 2 and one at CR 4, and that's it other than Demilichs at CR 18/20. Even increasing the option to include Small creatures doesn't help much: it adds four CR2, two CR3, and one CR 7.

Under the 1/10 wizard level guideline, a wizard would have access to:


CR

Wizard Level




1



1/8

2



1/4

3



1/2

5



1

10



2

20




This scales very quickly. In fact, by level 3, when warlocks get familiars, the wizard can already get two of the four special options available to warlocks! If warlocks, getting CR 1 at level 3, followed a 1/3 rule, they would get CR 2 at level 6, the only CR 4 at level 12, and that's it.

A better scaling might be to eliminate the 1/10 rule and replace it with a rule to track ASIs:


CR

Wizard Level




1



1/8

4



1/4

8



1/2

12



1

16



2

19




And giving Warlocks access to Small creatures:


CR

Warlock Level



1

3



2

8



3

12



4

16



7

19




Now, warlock familiars can attack, whereas wizard familiars cannot. It's probably worth adding that buffed wizard familiars should not be allowed to cast spells. (I don't know if they are allowed to now or not.) If you let warlocks gain access to Small familiars, that helps a little bit. You could give warlocks the Voice of the Chain Master invocation for free, which would be a reasonable upgrade. You could also improve warlock familiar HP: a Conjuration wizard would get temp HP for his familiar at level 14. Give that to PoC warlocks at level 14 as an Invocation option.

In summary:
Familiars should improve as you level, and Pact of Chain warlocks' familiars should be better than wizards'. Increase CR slowly along with ASIs, block wizard familiar spellcasting, and buff warlocks with Small familiars and free/additional PoC invocations.

PS. As always, you should retain the DM's right to block particularly OP familiars. Don't gimp the player if the familiar acts in ways you don't expect, but don't let it get too out of hand, either.

[Findulidas]

Sounds like a dangerous idea. Its a very good spell already and opening up for more choices could easily be exploited. You got to have fun though. So really depends on how the player is and how relaxed your game is in the homebrewing.

[Theodoxus]

Are you playing to 20? Are you playing to 10?

As DM, you have all the power. If the player picks an option that ends up OP (an Intellect Devourer certainly falls under that heading), explain why it's not going to work and work together on a different solution...

In general though, I don't see a problem. I similarly approached a DM for the MM list of familiars. He allowed it, but I had to find a familiar that wasn't on the PHb list out in the wild. My imp was hard won, but totally worth it.

[xroads]

I'd lean toward labeling it "broken".

It uses a mechanic that you don't really see in 5e; conjuring/summoning animals based on caster level. In fact the conjuring spells seem to go out of their way to avoid doing something like this.

Seems like it would be like trying to shove a square peg into a round hole.

I think players are better off just re-skinning their options. For example, a player can say his toad familiar is really a jerboa with the supernatural ability to breathe underwater.

[Millstone85]

In your campaign, is it actually common for NPC spellcasters with find familiar to break the limits of that spell?

Or is it just that one apprentice wizard who somehow summoned a pseudodragon, and now some people are suspecting him to have made a pact?

The player might be trying to fix a problem that doesn't exist.

[Maxilian]

IMHO No.

Just apply the DMG and MM rules for special familiars (like the Pseudodragon familiars rules in the MM and the Fairy Dragon, basically they make some sort of pact, and those familiars can be lost -they can't just be resummoned- *if they die, they die, unless you go with some special ritual to bring it back*)

[Maxilian]

I think players are better off just re-skinning their options. For example, a player can say his toad familiar is really a jerboa with the supernatural ability to breathe underwater.

I would also vote for this.

Note: Though this may bring the problem of every familiar being a reskin of the Owl.

[Zorku]

Talk with the guy and figure out what he actually thinks this will allow him to do.

Having more hp on a familiar usually doesn't matter since these things safely scout an area (or if you're a cool dm with amusing flavor, they scuffle with an opposing familiar or similar creature that's not party grade combat material, in a way that doesn't involve rolling initiative,) and they act as a distant hand to deliver touch spells. At CR 1, the quasit is probably the most durable and still useful thing this guy's gonna get, but at level 10, 7hp is unlikely to survive through an additional hit, even with the hp buffer from polymorphing into a toad/bat/centipede.

This leaves abilities. Aside from the already-mentioned intellect devourer, I can't think of anything that's interesting in the higher CRs. From level 4 on he would have permanent access to a pixie, which can spit out a fairly broad range of spells. If you don't mind a whole lot of detect thoughts, dispel magic, fly, polymorph, and sleep, all deliverable by an invisible familiar, that's not terrible, but it is kind of a crazy number of spell slots to effectively dump onto a level 4 wizard.

[Millstone85]

IMHO No.

Just apply the DMG and MM rules for special familiars (like the Pseudodragon familiars rules in the MM and the Fairy Dragon, basically they make some sort of pact, and those familiars can be lost -they can't just be resummoned- *if they die, they die, unless you go with some special ritual to bring it back*)There are actually two sets of rules here:
* Variant: Quasit/Imp/Pseudodragon Familiar (MM pages 63, 69 & 254). You meet the creature and it decides to serve as your familiar. I am not clear on whether all quasits, imps and pseudodragons can do this, or just variant ones.
* Variant: Familiars (MM page 347). This one expands the list of find familiar for NPC spellcasters.

Either way, I think it is the DM's responsibility to avoid making it look like PCs are bad at finding familiars for some reason.

[Temperjoke]

I'd say no to the rule with how it has been presented. At low levels it may not seem like much, but it can escalate pretty quickly. It's almost Conjure Animals level of power, which is a 3rd level slot, aside from being a single animal. Especially if you get into the cheese of dismissing it and re-summoning it in a different shape to get around certain challenges, which is much easier to do with Find Familiar, since it's a ritual spell. NPCs have different and stronger familiars for a reason, they actually have those creatures, and not via the Find Familiar spell.

[8wGremlin]

Ask them exactly what creatures they will be getting at each level.

Remember that fine familiar can be recast when ever they need and a new familiar selected, this gives a great amount of versatility.

Ways of limiting or up'ing the cost: - say that they can have the feature for the cost of a feat/asi or that it applies to all find familiar spells for all people, and then use the same tricks that they do, on their party.

Here is what they get from Monster Manual and Volo's




Name ◇
Size ◇
Type ◇
Tags
Alignment ◇
Challenge ◇
XP ◇
Source ◇


Frog
Tiny
Beast

Unaligned
0
0
mm 322


Sea Horse
Tiny
Beast

Unaligned
0
0
mm 337


Badger
Tiny
Beast

Unaligned
0
10
mm 318


Bat
Tiny
Beast

Unaligned
0
10
mm 318


Cat
Tiny
Beast

Unaligned
0
10
mm 320


Crab
Tiny
Beast

Unaligned
0
10
mm 320


Cranium Rat
Tiny
Beast

LE
0
10
vg 133


Crawling Claw
Tiny
Undead

NE
0
10
mm 44


Hawk
Tiny
Beast

Unaligned
0
10
mm 330


Homunculus
Tiny
Construct

N
0
10
mm 188


Lizard
Tiny
Beast

Unaligned
0
10
mm 332


Owl
Tiny
Beast

Unaligned
0
10
mm 333


Quipper
Tiny
Beast

Unaligned
0
10
mm 335


Rat
Tiny
Beast

Unaligned
0
10
mm 335


Raven
Tiny
Beast

Unaligned
0
10
mm 335


Scorpion
Tiny
Beast

Unaligned
0
10
mm 337


Spider
Tiny
Beast

Unaligned
0
10
mm 337


Weasel
Tiny
Beast

Unaligned
0
10
mm 340


Flying Snake
Tiny
Beast

Unaligned
1/8
25
mm 322


Neogi Hatchling
Tiny
Aberration

LE
1/8
25
vg 179


Poisonous Snake
Tiny
Beast

Unaligned
1/8
25
mm 334


Slaad Tadpole
Tiny
Aberration

CN
1/8
25
mm 276


Stirge
Tiny
Beast

Unaligned
1/8
25
mm 284


Pixie
Tiny
Fey

NG
1/4
50
mm 253


Pseudodragon
Tiny
Dragon

NG
1/4
50
mm 254


Sprite
Tiny
Fey

NG
1/4
50
mm 283


Velociraptor
Tiny
Beast

Unaligned
1/4
50
vg 140


Gazer
Tiny
Aberration

NE
1/2
100
vg 126


Imp
Tiny
Fiend
devil, shapechanger
LE
1
200
mm 76


Quasit
Tiny
Fiend
demon, shapechanger
CE
1
200
mm 63


Quickling
Tiny
Fey

CE
1
200
vg 187


Vargouille
Tiny
Fiend

CE
1
200
vg 195


Young Faerie Dragon
Tiny
Dragon

CG
1
200
mm 133


Adult Faerie Dragon
Tiny
Dragon

CG
2
450
mm 133


Intellect Devourer
Tiny
Aberration

LE
2
450
mm 191


Will-o-wisp
Tiny
Undead

CE
2
450
mm 301

[Lysiander]

could I suggest that, instead of the current list of creatures, I can summon 'any Tiny creature with CR equal to, or less than, 1/10 of my wizard level'?
It doesn't add a whole lot of new creatures, but it does mean I get access to the same familiar list as npc casters with the same spell.

The thing I'm not seeing here is what he actually wants and without that, there is no way to really answer your question. So far, he suggested a rule without context. Call me paranoid, but when a player does that he usually knows exactly what he wants but is afraid you're going to shoot it down.

If I were you, I'd ask him what exactly he wants out of this and why. Then check the rules interactions between his specific desire and the rest of his character and the group. The vast majority of possible wants can be achieved with a simple reskin that doesn't touch mechanics at all, but the way the question was framed makes me think that he is after mechanics and not flavor.

[TheUser]

The thing I'm not seeing here is what he actually wants and without that, there is no way to really answer your question. So far, he suggested a rule without context. Call me paranoid, but when a player does that he usually knows exactly what he wants but is afraid you're going to shoot it down.

If I were you, I'd ask him what exactly he wants out of this and why. Then check the rules interactions between his specific desire and the rest of his character and the group. The vast majority of possible wants can be achieved with a simple reskin that doesn't touch mechanics at all, but the way the question was framed makes me think that he is after mechanics and not flavor.

Nailed it.

[McNinja]

On the surface the modification doesn't look too bad:



Is it as benign as I think, or could this get awfully broken?

I think I probably want to swap "beast" out for "creature", but apart from that I can't think of anything wrong.
I personally wouldn't have a problem with it, as long as the player comes up with a good reason why that specific creature would want to be his familiar. If it's another beast, maybe not. You could also make a quest out of it; somehow, the wizard knows of a spell that binds a more powerful creature to you, but it's in the basement alchemy lab of an archmage who has long since passed away. Or something.

[GlenSmash!]

The thing I'm not seeing here is what he actually wants and without that, there is no way to really answer your question. So far, he suggested a rule without context. Call me paranoid, but when a player does that he usually knows exactly what he wants but is afraid you're going to shoot it down.

If I were you, I'd ask him what exactly he wants out of this and why. Then check the rules interactions between his specific desire and the rest of his character and the group. The vast majority of possible wants can be achieved with a simple reskin that doesn't touch mechanics at all, but the way the question was framed makes me think that he is after mechanics and not flavor.

Yup. What you have here is a version of a player stating their approach but not their goal. In game it make sit harder to decide if the approach succeeds or fails, or set an appropriate DC.

Here it makes it hard to judge if the game game will be more or less fun for the whole table (DM included) by implementing the houserule.

[rbstr]

Regardless of other mechanical broken-ness that might happen I wouldn't let a level 1 spell scale for free like that. A single CR2 critter for an hour is a level 3 concentration spell. You don't get a permanent CR2 with a level 1 spell even if you're level 20.

I'd say better familiars have to be summoned from an up-cast slot and it can't be done with a ritual.
Level 3 spells can pick a 1/4 (Warlock-level familiars)
Level 6 a 1
Level 9 a 2
and double the component cost each tier.
At least then he doesn't get to keep summoning concentration-free minions every time one dies.