I was curious about how others feel about special familiars. I hadn't dealt with warlocks prior to 5E, but in 5E, one of the warlock options is getting a special familiar: imp, quasit, sprite, or pseudodragon. All of them are intelligent and three out of four of them can be invisible at will.

Having a tiny invisible spy is an incredibly useful non-combat power. In general, I like giving the players lots of information, so I don't tend to restrict it, but it does stand out to me as potentially overpowered particularly for any intrigue. I have to approach intrigue in the game differently if there is a warlock with a familiar in the party compared to anyone else.

Do other people tend to restrict this from working as written? Or are there other approaches you take?

I also like giving players more information than not.  I want my players to engage in creative thinking and like to reward that if it is plausible.

If the campaign is low magic, I agree it could be quite powerful.

If it's a moderate to high magic campaign, there might be defenses against invisibility.  Surely others might use that as a method of getting information in more protected circles, such as palaces, guilds, and the like.  Maybe someone sends an invisible creature to follow the PCs pseudodragon and turn the tables by spying on the players.

There could also be interesting angles with the "incomplete information" that the familiar hears about.  Maybe the familiar comes partway into a conversation, maybe someone makes his perception check or uses detect magic or whatever and finds out there is an unwanted visitor and knowingly gives misleading information.

I would be careful about foiling this too often however.  Having the players think through the possibility that their spy might be not be as hidden as once thought could be interesting.

I don't have an issue with special familiars since its usually a class schtick to have those familiars anyway.  So why not let them have some fun

The imp and quasit were a thing as far back as AD&D and were even more potent back then.

In AD&D you could get a special familliar on a roll of 15 on a d20. Quasit, Imp, Pseudo Dragon or Brownie based on alignment.
Quasits and Imps could become invisible at will, regenerate 1hp/round, and are immune to fire cold and electric spells.
Pseudodragons had a camo power 80% likely to not be detected and 35% magic resistance. Brownies had a similar power outdoors.

Invisibility back then was alot more potent a threat.

Having an invisible spy works both ways of course. Villains loooooove this trick. And a special familliar can be integral to such plots.

Even things as simple as small size or being able to polymorph into small animals can be an immense boon to friend and foe.

I have not had a warlock type character in any of my games yet. My thought is that having a demonic familiar is a double edged sword. The familiar is loyal, to a point, and will obey, to a point, but if given a chance, in a moment of the master's weakness would not hesitate to steal their soul. They might help their master, but twist the information for their own ends. To say, put a person in a bad light if it would further the familiar's own goals.

For "good" familiars, their own goals will probably be more benign, but their help will still be influenced by their agendas. A sprite might refuse to spy on a gathering in a fairy ring, or hold back information that they feel their master shouldn't know.

Quote from: Omega on April 05, 2022, 07:01:58 PM
The imp and quasit were a thing as far back as AD&D and were even more potent back then.

In AD&D you could get a special familliar on a roll of 15 on a d20. Quasit, Imp, Pseudo Dragon or Brownie based on alignment.
Quasits and Imps could become invisible at will, regenerate 1hp/round, and are immune to fire cold and electric spells.
Pseudodragons had a camo power 80% likely to not be detected and 35% magic resistance. Brownies had a similar power outdoors.

Yup. But as you say, it was only a 1 in 20 chance, and you basically only ever get one chance since you lost permanent hp if you lose one. I never saw a special familiar in actual play of 1E.

As a DM I never met anyone interested in the special familliars. And few interested in familliars at all.
As a player they didnt interest me either and even normal ones seemed a bit of a risk. The Homunculus on the other hand some of my characters have delved into and made use of. Though some editions either lacked them or did not count them as familliars.

I do enjoy the weird little ones the Artificer in 5e can make.

Well if you follow RAW, Invisible creatures 'can always try to hide', but remain easy to detect (somehow). Sprites don't have Darkvision, which limits scouting in dark dungeons. And doors are a thing.

I agree it is an issue, along with stuff like Arcane Eye - https://roll20.net/compendium/dnd5e/Arcane%20Eye#content

Any scouting magic is going to be a back and fourth between utility and countermeasures.

It is great against any group that are either unaware of, or unprepared for, or just cant deal with, these things. Be it invisible, intangible, scrying, polymorphed or just plain really sneaky.

But the more prepared an opponent is the more useless these powers become. AD&D even lists some counters to certain scrying spells.

It becomes a matter of how determined one side is vs the other.

There are some articles in Dragon that touch on this way back.

Quote from: jhkim on April 05, 2022, 05:52:05 PM
Having a tiny invisible spy is an incredibly useful non-combat power. In general, I like giving the players lots of information, so I don't tend to restrict it, but it does stand out to me as potentially overpowered particularly for any intrigue.

Spot on. It isn't about hiding information, it is exactly what you are saying. It removes intrigue, tension, and atmosphere having an invisible scout on a 100ft cord that can a player can see and hear through. Unfortunately, I had to deal with a warlock in our party who used it extensively.

Anecdotally, the same player was also a chaotic evil. So...

On the GM side of the table, I fortunately have not had to directly deal with it as I do not allow Warlocks.

You don't even need the 'special' familiars. Many common familiars can be practically invisible in the right setting or biome. Nobody notices a stray cat in a city, or a crow perched on a tree.

Quote from: jhkim on April 05, 2022, 05:52:05 PM
I was curious about how others feel about special familiars. I hadn't dealt with warlocks prior to 5E, but in 5E, one of the warlock options is getting a special familiar: imp, quasit, sprite, or pseudodragon. All of them are intelligent and three out of four of them can be invisible at will.

Having a tiny invisible spy is an incredibly useful non-combat power. In general, I like giving the players lots of information, so I don't tend to restrict it, but it does stand out to me as potentially overpowered particularly for any intrigue. I have to approach intrigue in the game differently if there is a warlock with a familiar in the party compared to anyone else.

Do other people tend to restrict this from working as written? Or are there other approaches you take?

I always allow my PC's to have "special familiars" in my D&D games. As far back as 1e. The whole cat/toad/rat thing was never really a thing for me. But I also make my players go through some extra effort to get a special familiar, usually making it a ritual with special material components, requires a location appropriate to the familiar etc.

Familiar's I've allowed: Monkey Spiders (Spelljammer), Pseudo Dragons, Quasits, Homonculi, Demon/Ice/Shadow drakes (Dragon Magazine),  Space Owls (Spelljammer), Sleeks (Spelljammer) and I'm sure there are a dozen other such things.

Invisibility? Sure no problem. My current campaign (Savage Worlds Forgotten Realms) has a PC with a Shadow Drake - sucker in always invisible, and can Planeshift himself and the PC when in danger. They have a telepathic link and he's often the lead scout for the party in certain cases.

The thing is - I play these familiars with specific personalities, including their own desires and general idiosyncrasies the PC's have to deal with and manage, but they also gain the obvious benefits from having such a partner. Of course most of these familiars are not particularly tough or anything, (though the link helps a lot), their natural fragility is its own constraint. For instance - the Shadow Drake collects and eats gems, so the PC has to deal with that out of his cut... heh.

It's not a real problem for any GM that has experience dealing with PC's using those abilities - so its not really an issue. And hey, PC's with cool familiars love it. So why not?

Quote from: FingerRod on April 06, 2022, 07:45:35 AM

Spot on. It isn't about hiding information, it is exactly what you are saying. It removes intrigue, tension, and atmosphere having an invisible scout on a 100ft cord that can a player can see and hear through. Unfortunately, I had to deal with a warlock in our party who used it extensively.

I don't see it as removing intrigue at all. In fact, I find it creates intrigue. Because having a familiar sneak ahead allows me to convey the familiars own instincts - including fears and curiosities to the PC (which always affects the PC) and it allows me to give exposition (both good and bad) to things that the PC may/may not correctly interpret.

Also - the worst things an invisible familiar can come in contact with can and often do pose serious threats to such familiars. Invisibility alone is no sure thing. Any wizard that risks their familiar without those kinds of considerations are asking for problems in my games. While yes, it should be assumed that such skills and abilities are nearly foolproof, this *should* allow such PC's with those familiars and incredible amount of intelligence-data gathering... it's *fine* that's what being a knowledgeable wizard is all about. Until those familiars get in over their heads... its no different than the solo-rogue that fucks up.

Quote from: tenbones on April 06, 2022, 10:39:30 AM

Quote from: FingerRod on April 06, 2022, 07:45:35 AM

Spot on. It isn't about hiding information, it is exactly what you are saying. It removes intrigue, tension, and atmosphere having an invisible scout on a 100ft cord that can a player can see and hear through. Unfortunately, I had to deal with a warlock in our party who used it extensively.

I don't see it as removing intrigue at all. In fact, I find it creates intrigue. Because having a familiar sneak ahead allows me to convey the familiars own instincts - including fears and curiosities to the PC (which always affects the PC) and it allows me to give exposition (both good and bad) to things that the PC may/may not correctly interpret.

Also - the worst things an invisible familiar can come in contact with can and often do pose serious threats to such familiars. Invisibility alone is no sure thing. Any wizard that risks their familiar without those kinds of considerations are asking for problems in my games. While yes, it should be assumed that such skills and abilities are nearly foolproof, this *should* allow such PC's with those familiars and incredible amount of intelligence-data gathering... it's *fine* that's what being a  knowledgeable wizard is all about. Until those familiars get in over their heads... its no different than the solo-rogue that fucks up.

I hear you, and what you are saying is valid. But so is what I am saying. So yes, it can remove intrigue when every 10 minutes our party warlock would send in the gimp. And that thing probably died a hundred times. That is what makes it different from hero rogue. It got to the point where the GM would just start by asking if he was sending it places. Snooze.

But what you are describing WOULD have been interesting, which is why I see what you are saying. My guess is you are at worst an above average player and most likely an elite role player when not running games. I'll let you guess what the average player probably does with it 

Quote from: FingerRod on April 06, 2022, 08:40:21 PM

Quote from: tenbones on April 06, 2022, 10:39:30 AM

Quote from: FingerRod on April 06, 2022, 07:45:35 AM
Spot on. It isn't about hiding information, it is exactly what you are saying. It removes intrigue, tension, and atmosphere having an invisible scout on a 100ft cord that can a player can see and hear through. Unfortunately, I had to deal with a warlock in our party who used it extensively.

I don't see it as removing intrigue at all. In fact, I find it creates intrigue. Because having a familiar sneak ahead allows me to convey the familiars own instincts - including fears and curiosities to the PC (which always affects the PC) and it allows me to give exposition (both good and bad) to things that the PC may/may not correctly interpret.

Also - the worst things an invisible familiar can come in contact with can and often do pose serious threats to such familiars. Invisibility alone is no sure thing. Any wizard that risks their familiar without those kinds of considerations are asking for problems in my games. While yes, it should be assumed that such skills and abilities are nearly foolproof, this *should* allow such PC's with those familiars and incredible amount of intelligence-data gathering... it's *fine* that's what being a  knowledgeable wizard is all about. Until those familiars get in over their heads... its no different than the solo-rogue that fucks up.

I hear you, and what you are saying is valid. But so is what I am saying. So yes, it can remove intrigue when every 10 minutes our party warlock would send in the gimp. And that thing probably died a hundred times. That is what makes it different from hero rogue. It got to the point where the GM would just start by asking if he was sending it places. Snooze.

But what you are describing WOULD have been interesting, which is why I see what you are saying. My guess is you are at worst an above average player and most likely an elite role player when not running games. I'll let you guess what the average player probably does with it 

Actually, I more agree with tenbones here. Having the familiar always scout means giving the players more information up front, but that hasn't made sessions boring in my experience.

As a GM, I try to concentrate on making the interesting part not them looking around and seeing stuff, but more on the decisions they have to make based on what they see. So, for example, when the players come to a town or outdoor ruins, I just give them a map of the area rather than having them work it out piece by piece since the familiar can fly over it all. There's still plenty to do - it just gives them choices and information about how to approach it instead of going in blind.