How to Get a Dead Familiar Back?

[MaxiDuRaritry]

We all know that familiars suck, and one of the main reasons they suck is that if they die, you lose that thing for an entire year, which means you've probably lost an entire class feature for the rest of the campaign. And even worse? They're really, really fragile, meaning their loss is nigh inevitable, to boot.

And that's not even including the rather massive loss in XP they represent.

There're reasons why wizard players tend to jump really hard on ACFs that trade out familiars for something else.

So what do you do if you lose your best friend horrible liability? You could spring for a resurrection, but that probably just means you have to twiddle your thumbs for the rest of that year to reinstate it as your familiar again, and it doesn't get you all that XP you lost back, and it's even more liable to die now that it doesn't get the benefits of being your familiar anymore, and you're out 200 lbs of gold for the rez. That's more than $3.7 million in USD.

I mean, dead psicrystals (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?586910-Ruled-as-Written-Psicrystals-only-take-a-standard-action-to-recreate) can be recreated as a standard action, and you're back in business. But what do you when your familiar dies? Are you just S.O.L., or is there something you can do to fix it?

[heavyfuel]

Familiares are bad now? Really? I've always thought of them as a rather strong class feature. Definitely an above average one.

Anyway, back on topic. It's DM dependent but I'm pretty sure most would allow you to Limited Wish your familiar back. Wish/Miracle should definitely work

[Crake]

According to the rules of the game article on familiars (http://archive.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/rg/20050927a), bringing a dead familiar back to life re-establishes the connection unless the method of resurrection is the reincarnate spell:


Death of a Familiar

When a familiar dies, the master must succeed on a DC 15 Fortitude saving throw to avoid losing experience points as noted in page 54 of the Player's Handbook. The master cannot obtain a new familiar for a year and a day. Most familiars can be raised from the dead. (If the familiar is of the elemental or outsider type, it takes a wish or miracle spell to bring it back from the dead.)

Bringing back the familiar from the dead reestablishes the link between master and familiar; however, the reincarnate spell is an exception. The spell brings back the familiar as an independent being and the resulting creature is no longer a familiar.

No matter how the familiar returns from the dead, the process does not erase the experience loss the master suffers. The familiar does not suffer any level or Constitution loss. If the master's experience loss has reduced the master's level, however, the familiar's abilities are reduced accordingly.

[Biggus]

Familiares are bad now? Really? I've always thought of them as a rather strong class feature. Definitely an above average one.


Most people I've played with don't use their familiars much unless the DM waives the XP loss when they die. Generally they just do an occasional bit of low-risk spying, and spend most of their lives asleep in their master's pocket, providing them with some small bonuses.

[heavyfuel]

Additionally, you can protect your familiar in the first place with a Familiar Pocket spell.

The spell grants it total cover (although it wrongly says total cover grants it +4ac) for 1hr/lv. Total cover breaks line of sight and effect, which makes your familiar nearly invincible

[ayvango]

Just animate it. Undead familiar is even more formidable than plain living animal.

[Vizzerdrix]

The best way to revive a familiar is with the blood of a dmpc.

[heavyfuel]

Most people I've played with don't use their familiars much unless the DM waives the XP loss when they die. Generally they just do an occasional bit of low-risk spying, and spend most of their lives asleep in their master's pocket, providing them with some small bonuses.

Sorry I had missed your post.

There's plenty you can do with your familiar. Get one that can fly and speak (Raven, in core), give it a wand of a Long range spell and have it annoy enemies. Have it ready its action to disrupt spellcasters forcing Concentration checks, etc. As long as it's not annoying enough to warrant wasting enemy action to deal with it, you can keep it up for a while.

Also, having a familiar allows you to pick the Improved Familiar feat, which is full of great options.

[Elkad]

We all know that familiars suck...

Whoa, stop right there.

I'm far on the other side of that statement.
Every arcane caster I play takes a familiar. I may trade it away for an ACF, but I'm buying it back with Obtain Familiar, and taking Improved Familiar as soon as possible. Generally L3 and L6 (and not using Improved until L7, for an Imp or similar). If I'm playing something an arcane caster that doesn't have a familiar as a class feature, I'm taking those two feats as well to fix that.
And then I'll spend probably a quarter of my WBL on equipping it.

I don't run it like an Animal Companion, always in the thick of battle, but I do use it in every combat. Archer, WandMonkey. Plus scouting, guard duty, Commune (at L7!), or even mundane things like flying a rope to the top of that cliff.

If it dies, the bit of extra gold for Revive Outsider (SpC) instead of Raise Dead is fine, especially since as a familiar, it won't even lose abilities.
If you are core, it says Limited Wish can Raise an Outsider, though it doesn't actually specify how (or what the cost would be).

[MaxiDuRaritry]

Sorry I had missed your post.

There's plenty you can do with your familiar. Get one that can fly and speak (Raven, in core), give it a wand of a Long range spell and have it annoy enemies. Have it ready its action to disrupt spellcasters forcing Concentration checks, etc. As long as it's not annoying enough to warrant wasting enemy action to deal with it, you can keep it up for a while.

Also, having a familiar allows you to pick the Improved Familiar feat, which is full of great options.It's like swordfighting with a hollow glass sword filled with nitroglycerin. Have fun blowing your own hand (and arm) off and/or losing a ton of XP and gold when it's inevitably destroyed.


Whoa, stop right there.Okay.


I'm far on the other side of that statement.
Every arcane caster I play takes a familiar. I may trade it away for an ACF, but I'm buying it back with Obtain Familiar, and taking Improved Familiar as soon as possible. Generally L3 and L6 (and not using Improved until L7, for an Imp or similar). If I'm playing something an arcane caster that doesn't have a familiar as a class feature, I'm taking those two feats as well to fix that.
And then I'll spend probably a quarter of my WBL on equipping it.I'm sorry for your loss.

[heavyfuel]

It's like swordfighting with a hollow glass sword filled with nitroglycerin. Have fun blowing your own hand (and arm) off when it's inevitably destroyed.

Like I said, as long as it's just annoying enough to grant your team a slight edge in combat, it's not worth for the enemy team to waste actions dealing with it. Is the enemy sorcerer really going to spend his standard action trying to hit your familiar?

What with Improved Evasion and high touch AC, there's a good chance a single spell won't be able to kill it, so why'd he roll the dice (literally) when he could use his action to BFC the raging barbarian trying to get on his face and smack him once for all his HP and then some?

Your familiar should only die if the DM is going out of his way to hurt your character by having his NPCs act in ways that are harmful for them in order to take XP away from you. This isn't a good DM.

[MaxiDuRaritry]

Like I said, as long as it's just annoying enough to grant your team a slight edge in combat, it's not worth for the enemy team to waste actions dealing with it. Is the enemy sorcerer really going to spend his standard action trying to hit your familiar?

What with Improved Evasion and high touch AC, there's a good chance a single spell won't be able to kill it, so why'd he roll the dice (literally) when he could use his action to BFC the raging barbarian trying to get on his face and smack him once for all his HP and then some?

Your familiar should only die if the DM is going out of his way to hurt your character by having his NPCs act in ways that are harmful for them in order to take XP away from you. This isn't a good DM.If I'm being constantly buzzed by mosquitos flying into my eyes and ears, you can sure as heck believe that I'm gonna swat the damned things, especially when not doing so will likely get me killed.

It doesn't take a bad DM to do that, especially given how fragile and easy to kill they are. Low hp, low Fort and Ref saves, not terribly high AC (without a lot of effort), (usually) no miss chances, few to no immunities... It's like you're asking to get it killed.

[heavyfuel]

If I'm being constantly buzzed by mosquitos flying into my eyes and ears, you can sure as heck believe that I'm gonna swat the damned things, especially when not doing so will likely get me killed

Would you still swat the mosquitoes if Mike Tyson in his prime was charging full speed at you? That's my point.

[MaxiDuRaritry]

Would you still swat the mosquitoes if Mike Tyson in his prime was charging full speed at you? That's my point.Considering I can't see him due to the mosquitoes in my eyes? Yeah, I think I'd jump out of the way and then swat.

[heavyfuel]

Considering I can't see him due to the mosquitoes in my eyes? Yeah, I think I'd jump out of the way and then swat.

You're just proving my point. If the Familiar is too annoying, it draws more attention to it than to the raging Barbarian. That's why you make your familiar a few mosquitoes that annoy the enemy instead of a swarm that blinds them.

[MaxiDuRaritry]

You're just proving my point. If the Familiar is too annoying, it draws more attention to it than to the raging Barbarian. That's why you make your familiar a few mosquitoes that annoy the enemy instead of a swarm that blinds them.Is (for example) a -2 to your enemy's AC really worth the possibility of losing 200 XP per level and a ton of gp when the super-fragile class feature gets ganked? It's not hard to kill familiars, generally, and there are plenty of ways to accidentally kill them. One failed save on an AoE means it's probably gonna die, Improved Evasion or no. And AoEs don't have to be Ref saves, so even if it makes its save it might very well still die. And that's not including a rival familiar trying to kill it, or a hiding rogue that happens to be nearby, or a charging barbarian with Cleave that takes a pot-shot that costs nothing to take out the familiar first, before Cleaving into someone else.

Not really worth it, especially when you could be swapping it out for an ACF that won't screw you over no matter what happens.

There are a few ways to use familiars that actually improve your chances (such as a talking familiar that stays hidden and activates your tinfoil hat (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?129012-How-Many-Uses-for-a-Tinfoil-Hat) when needed), but generally they're a VERY bad idea.

[Doctor Awkward]

We all know that familiars suck, and one of the main reasons they suck is that if they die, you lose that thing for an entire year, which means you've probably lost an entire class feature for the rest of the campaign. And even worse? They're really, really fragile, meaning their loss is nigh inevitable, to boot.

And that's not even including the rather massive loss in XP they represent.

There're reasons why wizard players tend to jump really hard on ACFs that trade out familiars for something else.

So what do you do if you lose your best friend horrible liability? You could spring for a resurrection, but that probably just means you have to twiddle your thumbs for the rest of that year to reinstate it as your familiar again, and it doesn't get you all that XP you lost back, and it's even more liable to die now that it doesn't get the benefits of being your familiar anymore, and you're out 200 lbs of gold for the rez. That's more than $3.7 million in USD.

The rules for getting back a dead familiar are quite clear.
They can be raised like any other character.

This is also ignoring the many easy ways a familiar can be protected, such as the 1st-level spell familiar pocket in the SpC which lets you designate any garment or container as extradimensional space that gives your Tiny or smaller familiar total cover and concealment as well as blocking line of sight for one hour per caster level. It's a free action to speak the word to move the familiar in and out, and if the familiar can speak it can even move itself in and out should you be otherwise engaged. Even an imp-- unarguably one of the most powerful familiars-- can make use of this spell since it is a tiny creature. The spell is even nice enough to explicitly grant you the special benefits of having your familiar adjacent to you (including the ability to share spells) while simultaneously rendering it effectively immune to most harm.


I mean, dead psicrystals (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?586910-Ruled-as-Written-Psicrystals-only-take-a-standard-action-to-recreate) can be recreated as a standard action, and you're back in business. But what do you when your familiar dies? Are you just S.O.L., or is there something you can do to fix it?

Of course, as I pointed out in that thread, the unfortunate side effect of that interpretation is that psionic feats in general require a standard action to activate, so unless the feat explicitly states that activating it is part of some other action then most psionic feats do nothing at all.

It's weird to me that you would signal boost that obnoxious rules interpretation while also completely ignoring the response that plainly spells out how to off-set the year-long loss with resurrection magic in favor of continuing to complain about how awful familiars are.

[Elkad]

My Rat familiar isn't going to do much more than a little scouting. With a stellar hide check and a climb speed, it can do that pretty well.

My Imp? It's invisible, has perfect flight, evasion, great saves, and the best AC in the party (28 with no items at all, just a Mage Armor). It's pretty unlikely to die unless the GM puts effort into it.
Give it a longbow and a wand of Benign Transposition, and it's a useful addition to the party already.

The first time it saves a party member's life, it just paid for it's own future resurrection. Teleport them to the Cleric, activate their healing tattoo as they are dying, etc.

If it does that for me, it also more-than-covered my future XP loss from it's own death.
Tossing it a few basic low-level items makes good sense.

[Mordaedil]

In the game I'm in right now, my familiar (an arctic fox) so far has become the party's mascot, we even named our group after it, it has murdered enemy spellcasters (with help) almost dealt the killing blow on a cleric and has made our warblade want to obtain a familiar later and invest money on the safety of my familiar.

This is the goal you want your familiar to achieve if you want to keep one around, I think. If nobody cares about it, then yeah, I gotta agree it isn't worth keeping around.

[heavyfuel]

Is (for example) a -2 to your enemy's AC really worth the possibility of losing 200 XP per level and a ton of gp when the super-fragile class feature gets ganked? It's not hard to kill familiars, generally, and there are plenty of ways to accidentally kill them. One failed save on an AoE means it's probably gonna die, Improved Evasion or no. And AoEs don't have to be Ref saves, so even if it makes its save it might very well still die. And that's not including a rival familiar trying to kill it, or a hiding rogue that happens to be nearby, or a charging barbarian with Cleave that takes a pot-shot that costs nothing to take out the familiar first, before Cleaving into someone else.

Not really worth it, especially when you could be swapping it out for an ACF that won't screw you over no matter what happens.

There are a few ways to use familiars that actually improve your chances (such as a talking familiar that stays hidden and activates your tinfoil hat (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?129012-How-Many-Uses-for-a-Tinfoil-Hat) when needed), but generally they're a VERY bad idea.

I'd like o know what AoE is accidentally blasting your familiar that's over 100ft away from the rest of the team. That also invalidates the Rogue, by taking the familiar out of point blank range. If the Rogue has to take 2 rounds getting to it while hiding and then using his action to kill it, only to find himself away from all of his team, is what I'm saying about NPCs going out their way to stop a minor threat. Like, why'd he shoot the familiar and not the mighty spellcaster himself?

Enemy familiar trying to kill yours? Have it *free action* hide in your familar pocket.

Sure it's not the best strategy in cramped quarters like dungeons, but you can still make it work. Keep the familiar in the other room or whatever.

Anyway, you're clearly not going to change your mind, so I'm gonna leave it at this.

[MaxiDuRaritry]

The rules for getting back a dead familiar are quite clear.And quite expensive.


They can be raised like any other character.Which is, again, quite expensive.


This is also ignoring the many easy ways a familiar can be protected, such as the 1st-level spell familiar pocket in the SpC which lets you designate any garment or container as extradimensional space that gives your Tiny or smaller familiar total cover and concealment as well as blocking line of sight for one hour per caster level. It's a free action to speak the word to move the familiar in and out, and if the familiar can speak it can even move itself in and out should you be otherwise engaged. Even an imp-- unarguably one of the most powerful familiars-- can make use of this spell since it is a tiny creature. The spell is even nice enough to explicitly grant you the special benefits of having your familiar adjacent to you (including the ability to share spells) while simultaneously rendering it effectively immune to most harm.So your solution to not making familiars pocket pets is to make them...pocket pets.

Well done.


Of course, as I pointed out in that thread, the unfortunate side effect of that interpretation is that psionic feats in general require a standard action to activate, so unless the feat explicitly states that activating it is part of some other action then most psionic feats do nothing at all.Note that [psionic] feats that require expenditure of focus tend to be part of another action and require no action on their own to activate. It even says so right in the rules for [psionic] feats.


It's weird to me that you would signal boost that obnoxious rules interpretation while also completely ignoring the response that plainly spells out how to off-set the year-long loss with resurrection magic in favor of continuing to complain about how awful familiars are.Seems to me like none of your arguments invalidate the problems with familiars. They're easily killed, are a huge pain in the arse when that happens, and are expensive to raise.

I don't see how anything you've said invalidates any of that.


My Rat familiar isn't going to do much more than a little scouting. With a stellar hide check and a climb speed, it can do that pretty well.The first, last, and only time I tried that, the familiar came back...

...dead.

That wasn't a good time.


My Imp? It's invisible, has perfect flight, evasion, great saves, and the best AC in the party (28 with no items at all, just a Mage Armor). It's pretty unlikely to die unless the GM puts effort into it.It has your base saves and half your hp. I don't see how a wizard's (or sorcerer's) base saves are "great," and those hp are looking kinda anemic, unless you've got a HUGE Con score.

Imps are one of the few decent familiars, but they require Improved Familiar to get. And they still die to an unlucky shot, or if the opposition has access to see invisibility, touchsight, and similar. Note that invisible enemies are common enough that most decently leveled parties should expect them and plan accordingly, making the imp just as much of a liability as any other familiar.

And if your imp has a higher AC than the rest of the party, either you're in the low single-digits or nobody's bothering with boosting AC at all.

Plus, it's Evil. Elementally so. You can't get one if you're Good-aligned, and the little bastard won't be welcome in most parties, even Evil ones, because having fiends around is an all-around bad idea no matter what your alignment is.


Give it a longbow and a wand of Benign Transposition, and it's a useful addition to the party already.It has a BAB of +3 (that will never improve), and damage on a Tiny longbow (with no bonuses at all for Strength) is pretty pitiful.

The wand would be nice, assuming you've somehow gotten UMD as a wizard, and you've spent enough resources optimizing the imp's skill check. Otherwise, it's just a glowy stick.


The first time it saves a party member's life, it just paid for it's own future resurrection. Teleport them to the Cleric, activate their healing tattoo as they are dying, etc.Again, it's Evil. And not an "I'm a bit psycho sometimes when something triggers me, but I like you, so you can trust me," sort of way. It's literally made of elemental Evil. Unless you've somehow managed to entrap it with an unbreakable contract with wording that it can't wriggle its way around (which isn't likely), it's probably going to find ways to screw your party over for its own amusement, if nothing else.

Devils are not to be taken lightly, even imps.


If it does that for me, it also more-than-covered my future XP loss from it's own death.
Tossing it a few basic low-level items makes good sense.Good luck with entrusting your party members' lives to a literal deal with the devil.

[gogogome]

Of course, as I pointed out in that thread, the unfortunate side effect of that interpretation is that psionic feats in general require a standard action to activate, so unless the feat explicitly states that activating it is part of some other action then most psionic feats do nothing at all.

You didn't point out anything. Expending a focus to activate a feat is a free action. Deliberately misreading the text to force a dysfunction and then claiming your interpretation is the sole interpretation possible is not pointing out anything.

[Zaq]

It’s a playstyle thing, honestly. I tried the combat familiar thing exactly once, and despite taking precautions, it got swatted. That kinda sucked. It’s also the only familiar I’ve ever seen die. I’ve seen others that have a small but nonzero battlefield presence not get killed, and I admit I’ve never seen a caster go all-out in buffing the familiar to the nines and then sending it in.

Maxi, it sounds like you’re either in a higher-lethality game than some of the other posters are describing or else you’ve got a GM who finds satisfaction in targeting (or deliberately not sparing) familiars. In a case like that, I 100% agree that a familiar who’s detectable in battle is a liability and that the familiar should then become, as you put it, a pocket pet (or get used as ACF fodder if you don’t find them useful out of combat).

I also agree that the fact that a familiar is noticeably harder to replace than just about any other “pet” (animal companion, psicrystal, etc.) is obnoxious and unnecessarily punishing, and I support houseruling it away. (I like 4e’s solution: familiars have only 1 HP, have the equivalent of evasion/mettle, and automatically come back after a short rest if they die. No XP loss or anything if it dies—you just don’t get its benefits until it’s back. Low impact on both sides.)

That said, I also happen to agree with heavyfuel’s point that a lot of enemies won’t intentionally gun for a familiar when there’s a bunch of PCs who are obviously larger threats. That’s very GM-dependent. Very. If you know your GM doesn’t really make those kinds of decisions, don’t let your familiar ever be present in the encounter. But if your GM isn’t out to kill familiars on principle, any enemy with goals (whether that goal is “self-preservation” or “kill the intruders that Master pointed at” or something in between) is not likely to make the tactical choice to remove a nuisance if removing that nuisance will cost more actions than it’s got available when it needs to deal with a primary threat. Especially when the nuisance is positioned such that they can’t attack it casually.

The tricky part is determining when the familiar rises above the level of “nuisance” and becomes “threat.” And the more actions the enemy gets, the more they can afford to toss an attack in the nuisance’s direction, so good control techniques help a lot. Oh, and if for some reason the familiar is the only thing that’s easy to target, it’s obviously going to take an uncomfortable amount of heat, so that’s a thing.

Yeah, it’s a riskier playstyle than I usually love. Not really my thing these days. I’m much more into the whole “pocket pet used out of combat” style now. But it’s not 100% unfeasible if you don't have a GM who hates familiars and you don’t make unfortunate tactical choices. If your GM hates familiars, give up and just take an ACF.

[Elkad]

The first, last, and only time I tried that, the familiar came back...

...dead.

That wasn't a good time.

Bad luck happens. A rat moving along the top of a wall (so out of reach of many creatures) and using it's stealth abilities is fairly safe at low levels.


It has your base saves and half your hp. I don't see how a wizard's (or sorcerer's) base saves are "great," and those hp are looking kinda anemic, unless you've got a HUGE Con score.
It uses it's own saves if they are better, so that helps a bit. By 9th level I'm casting Extended Greater Resistance on it every other day (alternating with my own). HP are always a problem. Don't get hit.


Imps are one of the few decent familiars, but they require Improved Familiar to get. And they still die to an unlucky shot, or if the opposition has access to see invisibility, touchsight, and similar. Note that invisible enemies are common enough that most decently leveled parties should expect them and plan accordingly, making the imp just as much of a liability as any other familiar.
Invisible, flying, and 100' away. And if anything effectively targets it and doesn't one-shot it, it runs away.
If your DM allows you to customize feats, Darkstalker is a huge boost as well.


And if your imp has a higher AC than the rest of the party, either you're in the low single-digits or nobody's bothering with boosting AC at all.
How does the 7th level Barbarian or Cleric easily beat AC28? That's the all-the-time AC of an Imp familiar of a L7 wizard. (base+Mage Armor). Barkskin (swapped from the druid for Mage Armor on his tiger), a hand-me-down +1 ring, upgrade to Greater Mage Armor, and maybe a Shield spell for heavy combat, and it's headed for AC40.


Plus, it's Evil. Elementally so. You can't get one if you're Good-aligned, and the little bastard won't be welcome in most parties, even Evil ones, because having fiends around is an all-around bad idea no matter what your alignment is.
I'm evil too. It's furthering my goal of power acquisition, to our mutual benefit. No, I can't have one with a Paladin in the party. (though I've successfully hidden an Imp for several levels, thanks to Undetectable Alignment and it staying in Rat form - same as my prior familiar - any time it was visible)


It has a BAB of +3 (that will never improve), and damage on a Tiny longbow (with no bonuses at all for Strength) is pretty pitiful.

It improves. At 8th level when my own BAB passes it. It's also got a couple points from dex, and being Tiny, and whatever buffs are flying around (Haste, Bardsong), and may be attacking from Invisibility for more bonuses. Or just flanking with a Longspear (and an eye on the horizon in case the bad guy turns around) to enable the Rogue.


The wand would be nice, assuming you've somehow gotten UMD as a wizard, and you've spent enough resources optimizing the imp's skill check. Otherwise, it's just a glowy stick.
You can get UMD, via Apprentice feat or a dip, playing a Beguiler or Warlock or Bard, or just flat paying double with your large amount of skillpoints. A Familiar sharing the massive skillpoints of a Beguiler or Bard is good at everything. You don't even have to Improve it, just grab a raven and give it a couple matchstick-sized wands.


Again, it's Evil. And not an "I'm a bit psycho sometimes when something triggers me, but I like you, so you can trust me," sort of way. It's literally made of elemental Evil. Unless you've somehow managed to entrap it with an unbreakable contract with wording that it can't wriggle its way around (which isn't likely), it's probably going to find ways to screw your party over for its own amusement, if nothing else.

Devils are not to be taken lightly, even imps.

Good luck with entrusting your party members' lives to a literal deal with the devil.

See above. We are working together. It's Lawful.

Of course if I want to be Good, I'll probably go with a Coure Eladrin. Giving up at-will Invisibility and 1/wk Commune hurts, but it's got another +5 AC, better Touch AC, spell-likes, better attacks, and is protecting the party from Domination.
Edit: And can go Incorporeal in case of mooks.

[Doctor Awkward]

Note that [psionic] feats that require expenditure of focus tend to be part of another action and require no action on their own to activate. It even says so right in the rules for [psionic] feats.


You didn't point out anything. Expending a focus to activate a feat is a free action. Deliberately misreading the text to force a dysfunction and then claiming your interpretation is the sole interpretation possible is not pointing out anything.

Expending your focus is part of another action. That action is activating a psionic feat.

As is noted under the Concentration skill (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/psionic/skills/concentration.htm#gainPsionicFocus), psionic feats must be activated, which makes them distinctly different than most other feats that provide a continuous passive benefit that is only used in certain circumstances.

Since these feats are explicitly supernatural abilities, activating them is a standard action, unless the feat specifically notes that they are activated as part of another action. Virtually none of them do this, saying only, "When you use this feat, you must expend your psionic focus". Thus expending your focus is part of the necessary standard action to turn on the feat.

Neither of you, nor anyone else in the linked thread, cited anything to dispute any of this. You simply said, "You're wrong", and stopped arguing the point.

[gogogome]

Expending your focus is part of another action. That action is activating a psionic feat.

As is noted under the Concentration skill (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/psionic/skills/concentration.htm#gainPsionicFocus), psionic feats must be activated, which makes them distinctly different than most other feats that provide a continuous passive benefit that is only used in certain circumstances.

Since these feats are explicitly supernatural abilities, activating them is a standard action, unless the feat specifically notes that they are activated as part of another action. Virtually none of them do this, saying only, "When you use this feat, you must expend your psionic focus". Thus expending your focus is part of the necessary standard action to turn on the feat.

Neither of you, nor anyone else in the linked thread, cited anything to dispute any of this. You simply said, "You're wrong", and stopped arguing the point.

No. We said activating supernatural abilities is a standard action unless noted otherwise, and "To use this feat, you must expend your psionic focus" is "noted otherwise." Expending your focus activates the feat and expending your focus requires no action. You're the one who is dismissing this interpretation as incorrect and claiming a rules dysfunction despite being the sole person in both threads who believes "To use this feat, you must expend your psionic focus" is not "noted otherwise".

You seem to be hanging on to this text: "Expending your psionic focus does not require an action; it is part of another action (such as using a feat)." but this text does not say using a feat is a standard action nor does it say the feat can't be activated as a result of the expenditure of the focus.

I will repeat again for emphasis. Activating the feat requires you to expend your focus. This is the action to activate the feat: expend your focus. If you don't perceive this as instructions on how to activate the feat then that's on you.

Whether the default standard action rule exists or not does not matter. Even if that rule did not exist, even if you ignore that rule, it doesn't change the fact that the feat explicitly says activating the feat just requires you to expend your psionic focus. How do people know that the feat does not take an action? Because it is "noted otherwise" in the feat description.

[Twurps]

... and you're out 200 lbs of gold for the rez. That's more than $3.7 million in USD.


Bringing real life physics to the game hasn't ever done the game any good. Bringing actual currency to the game might be even worse.

On topic: I think Zaq described it best. It's a playstyle thing.

[MaxiDuRaritry]

Bringing real life physics to the game hasn't ever done the game any good. Bringing actual currency to the game might be even worse.Just giving a sense of scale as to how much 200 lbs of gold is worth in this economy.

[Doctor Awkward]

No. We said activating supernatural abilities is a standard action unless noted otherwise, and "To use this feat, you must expend your psionic focus" is "noted otherwise." Expending your focus activates the feat and expending your focus requires no action. You're the one who is dismissing this interpretation as incorrect and claiming a rules dysfunction despite being the sole person in both threads who believes "To use this feat, you must expend your psionic focus" is not "noted otherwise".

The only difference between your interpretation and mine is that you are looking at it backwards. And just like the erroneous interpretation of Psiscrystal Affinity, you are doing so because it is the interpretation that most closely matches to your preconceived notion about how you feel the the rules should work.

Nothing in the general rules for supernatural abilities supports your conclusion. Nor do the rules on the use of psionic feats make any sort of "general" exception to how supernatural abilities normally work, and they don't contradict the text found under the Concentration skill either.


And as an aside, "because no one else thinks so" is quite possibly the worst argument in history for dismissing any conclusion regarding any subject.



You seem to be hanging on to this text: "Expending your psionic focus does not require an action; it is part of another action (such as using a feat)." but this text does not say using a feat is a standard action nor does it say the feat can't be activated as a result of the expenditure of the focus.


1. "The rules don't say I can't", is not how they were designed to be read. The rules will tell you if you can do a given thing.
2. The rules indeed do not say using a feat is a standard action, and I never claimed they did. They say that activating a supernatural ability is a standard action, unless the ability says otherwise. And expending a focus is not how you activate a feat. It is a condition that is required of your character in order to activate a feat. It is a cost you have to pay, much like how a maneuver must be readied in order to expend it, and expending that maneuver is part of the action it takes to use it.


I will repeat again for emphasis. Activating the feat requires you to expend your focus. This is the action to activate the feat: expend your focus. If you don't perceive this as instructions on how to activate the feat then that's on you.

I will rebut again for emphasis: you must use your standard action to activate a psionic feat because that's how supernatural abilities work. In order to do this, you must additionally expend your psionic focus as part of the standard action required to activate it. If a feat is used as part of another action, it will say so. If a feat can otherwise be used as a non-standard action, it will also say so-- i.e.: "This ability requires a swift action to activate."

[Thurbane]

Maybe you could petition your DM to treat slain familiars the same way animal companions are handled, or even better, like the Raven Harrier from the Knight of the Raven PrC:


If it is killed, a replacement appears at the next dawn. You suffer no special penalties should your raven fall in battle.

[RoboEmperor]

The only difference between your interpretation and mine is that you are looking at it backwards. And just like the erroneous interpretation of Psiscrystal Affinity, you are doing so because it is the interpretation that most closely matches to your preconceived notion about how you feel the the rules should work.

That's what you're doing not gogogome. His (and mine) argument is that there are no rules for replacing psicrystals so it defaults to a standard action because it's a supernatural ability.

Your argument however is "this rule causes a dysfunction in one feat out of a thousand so we should completely totally and utterly disregard it and pretend it never existed." I'm gonna repeat what gogogome has been saying for the past two threads. Dysfunction in the rules in one area has absolutely no relevance at all to anything. So even if you manage to somehow find one feat out of a thousand that becomes dysfunctional because of this rule, it doesn't matter. "This rule causes a dysfunction in this one tiny place so we should completely disregard its existence because I don't like how it interacts with psicrystal affinity" is, if I use your words, quite possibly the worst argument in history for dismissing any conclusion regarding any subject.

Also why don't you give us an example of how your interpretation causes a dysfunction? I looked at your last example "wounding attack" and it doesn't do what you claim. The feat is clearly saying it takes no action to activate. It doesn't directly say it but it's implying it, which means it is noted otherwise. Just because it isn't spelled out for you doesn't mean its not noted otherwise. Anyone reading the feat can tell it takes no action

And even if you're right, not saying you are, the wounding attack takes a standard action perform. So even if you're right you're still wrong.

And then after we debate about "wounding attack", I must reiterate, what does this have anything at all to do with psicrystal affinity and the supernatural abilities rules? I'm repeating this a lot in this post because you've ignored this everytime gogogome has mentioned it in the other thread. What does a dysfunctional feat have anything to do with psicrystal affinity? Crafting rules break Fabricate wide open. Crafting rules turn Fabricate into a wealth tripler. Does this broken interaction mean we should completely disregard crafting rules? The answer is no. And just like it's no for that, it's no for this too. Finding a dysfunctional interaction between supernatural ability rules and psionic feats accomplishes absolutely nothing.

And if you claim
1. expending the psionic focus does not activate the feat
2. the wounding attack is not the feat
3. the feat does not clearly say activating the feat taikes no action or if it does because it didn't directly spell it out for you it doesn't count as "otherwise noted"
4. and therefore you must spend a standard action to activate the feat
Then this is your interpretation and yours alone, and nothing says your interpretation is the correct one, and even if it is, it doesn't matter because your argument that a rule causing a dysfunction in a feat out of a thousand is grounds to completely remove the rule from the game is quite possibly the worst argument in history for dismissing any conclusion regarding any subject.

So even if you find a glossary definition of "noted otherwise" that says only things that are directly and explicitly spelled out for you qualify as "noted otherwise", it doesn't matter unless you also find a general rule that says "if a rule causes a dysfunction in one feat, then by RAW that rule will be completely removed from the game"

[gogogome]

Body Fuel. Another psionic feat with no stated action. Definitely defaults to a standard action.

[Malphegor]

Most people I've played with don't use their familiars much unless the DM waives the XP loss when they die. Generally they just do an occasional bit of low-risk spying, and spend most of their lives asleep in their master's pocket, providing them with some small bonuses.

Familiars mean that you always have a polymorphed hydra deployable anywhere at a 30ft speed seperate to your normal move actions. Since Polymorph is a touch spell, and you can deliver touch spells, and the familiar can touch itself...

Mobile Hydra Deployment Device.

And other creatures, of course. As a wizard, our physical stats is usually low (unless you're a rage mage, in which case I love everything you do and keep playing that), so the capability to always have the right animal to hand for any task is always handy, without stepping on the toes of our party members.

So, if your group lacks a rogue, that's fine, when all you have is elephants (and they are astonishingly low in HD, I'm not wholly sure how all post CL11 games don't devolve into throwing elephants at problems until they go away), EVERYTHING LOOKS LIKE CARTHAGE, and any problem you have in life can be sorted.

The benefit of doing it to a familiar is that the party doesn't feel like your magics are preventing them feeling like they are adequate meatshields/monks/other worthwhile classes, and lets them shine in that very special way... Whilst letting you Hannibal on the side.

[MaxiDuRaritry]

Familiars mean that you always have a polymorphed hydra deployable anywhere at a 30ft speed seperate to your normal move actions. Since Polymorph is a touch spell, and you can deliver touch spells, and the familiar can touch itself...

Mobile Hydra Deployment Device.Only if your familiar is already of Large, Huge, or Gargantuan size, since polymorph is still restricted by alter self's "within one size category" restriction, since it doesn't specify otherwise. Unless you're already Fine size, of course, in which case you cannot go smaller.

Though getting Improved Familiar to get a Small familiar, giving it the Human Heritage feat to make it count as Humanoid, using alter self to become Medium, enlarge person to become Large, and then boosting to a Huge hydra using polymorph would work, though that takes a minimum of 3 rounds to do without Quicken Spell or something.

[Malphegor]

Only if your familiar is already of Large, Huge, or Gargantuan size, since polymorph is still restricted by alter self's "within one size category" restriction, since it doesn't specify otherwise. Unless you're already Fine size, of course, in which case you cannot go smaller.

Ah, whoops, I think my group have ignored that bit somehow and I assumed polymorph didn't include that bit. hmm.

[Thedez]

Only if your familiar is already of Large, Huge, or Gargantuan size, since polymorph is still restricted by alter self's "within one size category" restriction, since it doesn't specify otherwise. Unless you're already Fine size, of course, in which case you cannot go smaller.

Though getting Improved Familiar to get a Small familiar, giving it the Human Heritage feat to make it count as Humanoid, using alter self to become Medium, enlarge person to become Large, and then boosting to a Huge hydra using polymorph would work, though that takes a minimum of 3 rounds to do without Quicken Spell or something.

Can you Share Spell Spell Matrix w/ a Familiar, and just keep it on you? You'd have to Arcane Eye for scouting instead of sending your free familiar, but it'd bring you back down to one round again.

[ayvango]

Can you Share Spell Spell Matrix w/ a Familiar
You can open matrix for writing both on your and familiar. But putting spells here targets aforementioned matrix, so you could not share them. Therefore familiar would get empty matrix as result.

[Calthropstu]

First find a dead familiar. Then remove the thighs, arms, leg, head and tail. Now cut off the front of the torso and you will have a dead familiar back.

Hope this helps!

[Vizzerdrix]

First find a dead familiar. Then remove the thighs, arms, leg, head and tail. Now cut off the front of the torso and you will have a dead familiar back.

Hope this helps!

/thread.

Follpwup question. How best to cook?

[Malphegor]

/thread.

Follpwup question. How best to cook?

Well, famously four-and-twenty blackbirds work well in a pie, so ravens might work too.

I'm pretty sure I've heard of a ferret stew once.

Hedgehogs can be used for a soup.

I'm pretty sure skewered snake on a stick over a flame would be interesting to try.With garlic.

Imps are basically people but small and fiendish, so treat like pork with a lot of spice to it.

I wouldn't recommend eating coure eladrin. Stringy.

[MaxiDuRaritry]

/thread.

Follpwup question. How best to cook?Baby got back.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GvFjtKPNfNE