The high powered option would of course be the fire-breathing Drake, but with Int +3 instead of -3.
A low-powered option is the Int -3 dog without much in the way of cool magial powers.
The set of possible familiars cover a quite wide spectrum of power, and as you note there is a lot of variance even between familiars of roughly equal usefulness.
2 Likes
I did not mean «power gamer» as necessarily negative, so I do not think we disagree. The power gamer expectation is not wrong. It is just the expectation one takes when one wants to make it a high power game. My point was that this expectation is not the one obvious interpretation of RAW.
There are two problems I am addressing.
- When players have different expectations, somebody tends to be disappointed. Sometimes it is the player who plays for a power feature just to find that it is not there. Sometimes it is the player who assumes that the power features are not there and see everybody else outperforming him. It is not fun either way.
- When familiars are high-powered, Bjornar appears under-powered, which is the problem I think spawned this discussion many posts and a couple of threads ago. Now, I don't think it is a problem if nobody plays a Bjornar in the saga (who have a player per house anyway), but it makes some players object.
2 Likes
It's not the generally unfair or power gaming so much. It's if you give this big a statistical boost to non-Bjornaer and don't give something to Bjornaer, you're noticeably favoring non-Bjornaer. It's important to know the baseline against which House Bjornaer's flaw is based so that you're aware you're artificially increasing this flaw. At very least, there is an obligation to let those who are thinking of playing a Bjornaer that they'll be taking a bigger-than-usual penalty.
1 Like
A major potential counter point for that adjustment can be how easily Bjorner can initiate. If standard magi can get a +3 Int familiar readily and house Bjorner is handing out initiations like Halloween candy (especially if there are no ordeals) that could balance fairly quickly.
2 Likes
If only «usual» had been well-defined ...
1 Like
"Usual" in regards to power is the interesting question. Reading the group and the kind of power level they want is important.
Often the powergamer is annoying for other players who haven't rorted the rule book, and also, it often involves a stare down with the GM/SG about how to deal with the power munchkins, and what disads to lean on.
If the whole party are power munchkins, it's fine, otherwise it has problems.
I would highlight two important points that have been made, and on which everyone seems to agree, and add a third.
First, there is no question that some Houses are more or less suited to some tasks and/or require more or less resources of a given type to function effectively. House Bjornaer makes no use of familiars, so the relative strength of its magi wanes if suitable beasts are abundant, and waxes otherwise. House Verditius makes ample use of vis, so its relative strength waxes if vis is abundant, and wanes otherwise. I would add that this differential is about relative "value" not just as sheer "power", but more in general as "game fun": a Verditius with little or no vis is not just weaker, but less fun to play.
Second, troupes certainly have the ability -- and I'd say the responsibility -- to adjust the relative benefits of Houses so as to equalize their relative "game value" correcting the inevitable bias introduced by a particular setting. For example, consider the classic "outpost at the fringes of the Order" saga, with a covenant where all internal disputes will be settled by vote. There, the Tremere benefit of a focus in certamen is of very little value. The troupe can then adjust the relative value of playing the Tremere making the House supportive in terms of books, vis etc. silveroak makes a very good point about how a House Bjornaer more "generous" with its initiations can more than make up the forfeited value of familiars even in a saga with high-powered familiars.
Third, it seems to me that in any case the relative cost/benefit ratio of familiars is often underplayed. Roughly speaking, there are four advantages to familiars:
a. The cords, which are no more beneficial, and generally less, than what you might have with a similar expenditure of effort,
b. Non-warping enchantments -- which from my experience is less of an advantage than it may seem, in that you can keep up a lot of "long-term" enchantments active for the few weeks in a year when you need them without incurring warping. Sure, it's not true for everything, but in the vast majority of cases I have encountered it is.
c. A true friend.
d. A helper in the lab.
And these last two are, I think, the major reason why the cost/benefit ratio of familiars is often undervalued. The familiar is not a slave, but a true friend. This means that for every situation where it spends time and effort helping the magus, there should be a similar situation where the magus spends time and effort helping the familiar. If the familiar is spending season after season studying magic theory and helping in the lab, and the magus is not spending season after season reciprocating (by helping the familiar secure mates, hunt down enemies, satisfy its vanity, or simply avoiding places/people/activities it dislikes) then the relationship is not being played as it should. By the same token, a familiar is not just a strength, but a weakness for its magus -- one more avenue through which you can hurt him. In this light, if all you want is muscle and lab assistance, directly enchanting your lab and keeping well-trained grogs is probably more effective.
4 Likes
Actually, this thread is separate from Unbalanced to let Bjornaer magi have familiars?.
A player in my saga is about to have her Elementalist maga forge a Familiar bond to an Ice Elemental (House rule - the Elementalist virtue allows you to do this). Said Ice elemental has very limited movement, so I was wondering if it could assist in the Lab, but I was asking in the general case.
1 Like
Did you get a satisfactory answer, @lvgreen?
You timed it badly, since everybody has the other problem on their minds ... and we are easily distracted.
In my opinion, unless it is obvious, no change is needed. All core says, after all, is that the familiar can help in the lab. Period.
In my world it is obvious that an elephant familiar needs a very large lab, and the fish familiar needs water. However, what is obvious in any given saga depends on the level of narrative detail ... telling the story about adapting the lab might be interesting.
An ice elemental might be incompatible with superior or excessive heating (either because it can't stand it or because it counteracts it), but I would assume that magic powers make up for most physical shortcomings.
3 Likes
Interestingly, the closest-to-powergamers individuals in my main troupe, are probably the two (main) SGs. It works... fairly well actually.
This of course is also variable depending on the personality of a familiar- which is why it might be better to spend more time developing that relationship before creating the bond. If the familiar is interested in the hermetic theory of magic they might see spending time in the lab working on a project together as a bonding experience rather than the magus taking advantage of the friendship. Also the more grateful the familiar is for the familiar bond (potentially extending its lifespan and bringing other benefits) the greater the imbalance in the relationship- though this may also mean a less useful familiar in terms of bonuses. The fact that such personalities cannot be developed through play is one of my major issues (not complaint, just issue) regarding taking familiars during character creation.
If I can design my own familiar, I shall just design it with the major personality flaw submissive ...
... or at least the personality trait submissive +3.
I like the approach taken in our saga, where two beta-SGs have introduced potential familiars encountered in two separate stories. One has taken a liking to a magus, but the magus has absolutely no clue about its powers yet. The other is a rude and arrogant badger, and the magus in the story does not trust him a bit, as of yet. They are likely to meet again though. Things may change, or they may not. It is by far the best introduction of familiars I have seen yet, if they turn out to become familiars, that is. And if they don't, it was still a good story.
2 Likes
This is just an idea which I'm taking from a campaign I'm playing within, where the group's magical companion had a personality flaw that I decided to get rid of after a couple of stories (and which the companion itself wanted to get rid of, but was incapable of on its own). It's occured to me that the process of transformation described on page 52 can get rid of / develop / transform existing virtues and flaws. So, applied to familiars, I don't see why you couldn't decide to grant / remove a personality flaw by investing teaching time and vis to lower the might in order for the new virtue / flaw to manifest. In this case, I plan to use Mentem vis for this as well as reading some aristolean book on ethics with some occasional tutoring on the character's reflexion, but that's mostly fluff related to how my magi understands learning that would be appropriate to trigger such a transformation, rather than being an actual rule for magical being's advancements.
Well it would obviously depend on whether it was an essential virtue/flaw and whether changing it would make it a more ideal form of the specimen.
1 Like
here's a question- does a daimon familiar require daimon points to fix what they learn as a familiar, by RAW?
By RAW, the normal familiar's ability to learn is defined under the Bound Familiar paragraphs. Skipping true friend, magic resistance, arcane connections and other assorted notes about powers and bond empowerment, we are left with this:
The familiar will not die of old age as long as the magus is alive, and it only suffers ill
effects from aging when the magus does. If it did not previously have human intelligence, it
gains it, with a score of –3. It gains a score equal to the magus in any languages that the
magus speaks; any familiar can understand the languages understood by its master, and can
speak them if it has the relevant vocal equipment. Familiars can learn Abilities in the same
way as humans. They cannot, however, learn magic, although they can learn Magic Theory
and serve as laboratory assistants.
The Theurgic familiar virtue does not have a section for the bound familiar, but refers to the Spirit Familiar mystery which does have that section. The intelligence gain is still there, the language gain is still there, the ability to learn magic theory and assist in the lab is still there. The mention that the spirit familiar learns as human isn't. By RAW, I can't say that either Spirit Familiar or Theurgic Spirit familiar gains XP on a seasonal basis. Whether that was intended or an accidental omission, I can't say. To be frank, since it can learn magic theory, it would be weird to have to sacrifice vis to a spirit familiar to overcome its might in order to let it gain exposure XP from lab work. If that's so, then both familiar types have a significant flaw compared to regular familiars. So I'd be inclined to let both spirit familiars and theurgic spirit familiars to gain XP the same way a familiar would. But that's my interpretation, and not strictly RAW. I couldn't find references to daimonic familiar learning under advancing a daimon either.
1 Like
Interesting question. From what I can find there isn't a clear answer by RAW.
Normal magical creatures bound as familiars learn as humans do (errata for RoP:M), and I assume this applies to ordinary spirit familiars as well - at least as long as they are Magical spirits.
A daimon is a bit of a special case though, in that it only sends out a single Aspect of itself to the magus it bonds with and as far as I can tell there is nothing preventing them from bonding with more than one magus at a time. Aspects of a daimon cannot be permanently changed, so any learning would have to be done by the daimon itself, not just an Aspect of it.
If it was possible for a daimon to learn new things the same way as a human, then I think most daimons would be very eager to bond with just about any magus who asks them, and my impression is that they tend to be a bit more picky than that about who they bond with.
From a game-balance perspective it would seem too generous towards daimons to let them learn as humans if bound as a familiar - unlike normal spirits who can only be in one place at a time, it is not much of a sacrifice for a daimon to become someones familiar.
Since ascended magi follow all the normal rules for daimons, including the rules for learning and for providing familiars, it would be a really sweet deal if they could learn things normally even after ascending.
It would probably become everyones favourite path to immortality then.
So to sum up: RAW is not clear, but I would rule that a daimon familiar would still need daimon points for learning.
That being said, the mystery does say that while only an Aspect attends the magus, the actual bond is with the Daimon itself. So the prohibition of changes to an aspect shouldn't in itself be a problem.
A very good point. I think there are two possible answers to that. The first is that this attitude by the Daimon is not so much the Daimon being picky about the bond, it's just that he considers that the magi probably can't generate a lab total that's sufficient to bind him anyway, so there's no point in making a deal that can't work. Another option is saying that yes, Daimons can't learn as a normal familiar, and so by accepting the deal, they lose a potential summoner and source of Daimon points, but in exchange they get a study source that they can use their Daimon points towards, and they want to ensure that what they are studying is something that is sufficiently high powered for the trade-off to be interesting.
Oh no! I answered to the wrong thread 
My bad. If the int is a negative, it won't be an issue until the magic theory score is higher than the int negative.