I agree that these sorts of tricks do not necessarily make things boring. It usually just means the DM has to plan around the presence of these powers.

One thing to consider is that the more the players use these things the more likely someones going to catch on and start developing counters. Or that they already have some counters in place due to someone else using similar tactics or just plain paranoia.

One example from AD&D were the "gorgon bricks" made by adding some gorgon or medusa blood to the mix that prevents etherial access. While you cant cover the while building. You can screen out rooms or even make traps to catch etherial intruders. Same for anti-scrying defenses. I believe in AD&D it was sheets of lead. I'd have to look up how thick. But you could come up with anything appropriate to create a defense for areas large or small.

That and things like traps and explosive runes dont care if you are invisible.

Pulling off a successful inviso-scouting might require some planning to defeat such measures.

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

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 

Okay I'm hearing you. Let me go a level deeper, because there's definitely levels to this and experience does matter.

One of the things less experienced GM's wrestle with are the context in which anything outside their assumptions of the setting that lands in the hands of the players. What does that mean? It means that GM's are focusing on their PC's and worrying about how they're going to react to some planned event or encounter, and when the PC's do things "off script" it sends them into panic mode.

Why? (well lemme tell ya!) Because all GM's start GMing by learning small procedural interactions starting with combat, and work outward from there. Players new to the game - and often not new to TTRPGS - tend to engage at the specific level of interaction that their GM's have placed before them.

So Combat>Non-Combat>RP>everything else. Most "average" players/GM's rarely get past Non-Combat (skill checks etc). But the gold-standard for me is simple: Make the setting reflect itself to the players at *all* times.

Is it boring if the Hero Rogue has insane stealth-skills and goes scouting ahead of the party to learn X,Y,Z? I hope not. But it's the job of the GM to make it Fun, Interesting, Intriguing, and *perhaps* Challenging. That means if it exists anywhere in your game, it *can* and *might* be in your PC's hands. It does *not* mean that you should curate each and every single point of interaction to *challenge* whatever the status-quo of the party is, unless those elements are *specifically* there to challenge the party. Now full disclosure - I maintain this claim because I run sandbox. BUT! If I'm doing a convention one-shot, or running a module, I'll still adhere to making things fun and intriguing - even while I'm removing the assumed intrigue on the player's part. Because the reward of having some special "ability" is that it is special, and players should have that benefit and rightfully should expect to benefit from it. (there is a caveat to this below)

Let's circle this back round to familiars.

Having a familiar that can sneak around (or some something else super-useful) like another PC or whatever doesn't remove intrigue unless the thing you as a GM believe is intriguing really isn't, and maybe that's a sign for you as a GM to up your ante. If for instance you're in a dungeon/wilderness and your wizard sends his shadowdrake ahead, teleporting from shadow-to-shadow, basically invisible, and scouts the Orc camp up ahead... and learns all the look-out-positions, learns where they're keeping prisoners, learns the disposition of the enemy.

What is the *real* problem? Is the argument - that the Rogue in the party is being denied "his role"  (which is a potentially fair claim - but I'll address that too!)? Or is it the claim that the challenge of the whole encounter is "lessened" because the surprise of figuring all this out after an assumed major battle is spoiled?

This is a pretty generic example, but please understand this is just an example, I'm not trying to strawman anyone, I'm only using this for illustrative purposes. So in this example there are a LOT of unspoken points of interest. But first and foremost for me is that the PC's are the stars of the show - not my setpieces, not my carefully constructed NPC's, not my NPC's or their children - everything is fair game for exploitation, interaction and destruction. Maybe the loss of assumed intrigue is gained by:

1) The Orc camp has guests there that were completely unsuspected? (Envoys from a Lizardman camp? A bunch of NPC's adventurers?)
2) Captives! Who are they? What if they're not what the Familiar or its master *thinks* they are? What if they're something totally incongruous with their expectations - this is totally fair game and builds *intrigue*.
3) What if the Orc camp is in a vulnerable state - more vulnerable than even the Orcs realize, and the PC's could stealth-kill the whole thing, without any combat but they'll have to do some sneaky-ass setup (you figure it out). And give the PC's a chance at a win without formal combat, but with risks.

Likewise - I don't think there is an "overuse" of abilities. If the PC's have it - they can do it. And YES that's going to make them GOOD at that "thing". They earned it. Here's the thing, that means if PC's get good at something, word of how good they are will spread. *Real* enemies of the PC's that are worth their salt, will not underestimate them. Their methods *will* become known. Then you have your NPC's act accordingly. The next time your PCs gets free and wild with their Familiar and it doesn't return and it's screaming telepathically in utter panic to it's master (who should suitably should be panicked as well) - will definitely build intrigue. But you need to make sure you as the GM are playing fairly on this.

The point of it is this GM's need to learn to "let go" and let the PC's play with and enjoy their toys. This *always* works in reverse TOO. Ever have a sneaky familiar run into an NPC's sneaky familiar doing the *exact* same thing? Try it... it's a blast. I swear.

Tenbones, I won't quote everything so other readers do not need to scroll through it. But I want you to know that I read everything you wrote, and I appreciate the effort you put in to writing all of that out. There is not a thing I would disagree with. There is a lot of good advice in there which would apply outside familiars.

Where I am vexed a little is... where are you aiming the GM advice? Basically, it seems like you are disagreeing with the experience and observations I had, as a player, and using your GM approach as the basis.

There is very little chance that feelings will get hurt, so I'll say it. Yes, the GM was shit. He supposedly had nearly 30 years of GM experience. But it was 18 months with wild swings between some good, a lot of bad, and a fair amount of terrible gameplay. I had personal reasons to stick it out with less than great gaming.

But that isn't the point. Yes, it would have been better if he employed your ideas. He didn't, and I cannot change that.

Here is where you and I can adjust the conversation. Let's factor player and GM perspective out of the equation, and go from a design/theory angle. Where would you disagree:

I believe there is inherently less intrigue with a 5e Warlock's familiar than there is with the hero rogue, if for no other reason than the fact that mortal danger is at least a possibility, on occasion, for the rogue. Both could be caught, alert the authorities, fail to get the poison into the heiresses tea. The warlock player may be risking an hour ritual to get his little prick back if things go tits up. The rogue player may be risking his character. I find the rogue situation more intriguing.

Quote from: jhkim on April 07, 2022, 02:26:05 AM

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.

Alright, brother, same thing here. Love your GM approach. Different question for you. When you originally posted this thread you said,

Quote"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."

When you said it was potentially overpowered, particularly for any intrigue, what did you mean?

Quote from: FingerRod on April 07, 2022, 08:32:54 PM
When you said it was potentially overpowered, particularly for any intrigue, what did you mean?

Dont know about the person you asked.

But for me it can be powerful IF you can position your familliar/minion/scrying in the right place at the right time. Via this you can learn someones plans or discern who members are and that alone can be immensely powerful.

Theres a moment in Overlord, heavily based on 3e D&D where Momonga stops and casts a series of anti scrying and anti-detection spells before doing any scrying of his own. Citing the back and fourth of magical espionage and the need to take precautions. So before casting Locate Object they prepare against things like Detect Locate, Fake Cover, and Counter Detect. So they do the same, casting Fake Cover, Counter Detect, etc before finally casting Locate Object to figure out where the target is. Then Clairvoyance to see that location and get an idea of what they are up against. The books mention use of invisible scouts more than a few times as well to get the measure of a foe.

Eavesdropping on someones plans can really really derail said plans if they do not catch on and take measures to counter. Star Trek Wrath of Khan. You know the enemy is listening in. So exaggerate the times needed for repairs so they underestimate you.

And various editions of D&D have a chance that scrying will be noticed without any magic use at all. Same for invisibility. They arent always infallible.

Quote from: FingerRod on April 07, 2022, 08:32:54 PM
Alright, brother, same thing here. Love your GM approach. Different question for you. When you originally posted this thread you said,

Quote"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."

When you said it was potentially overpowered, particularly for any intrigue, what did you mean?

I meant that it is much more powerful than the non-combat abilities of most other classes. So a party with a path-of-the-chain warlock will probably be much better at intrigue than a party with a mix of other classes. But having powerful stuff doesn't necessarily break the game or make it less fun.

Personally, I find non-combat balance isn't as much of a problem as combat balance. My parties haven't been into backstabbing each other, so the non-combat stuff is more of a group resource for everyone. Everyone gets the information, and they can discuss and share together in stuff they do in non-combat time.

I do also tend to emphasize the non-combat advantages of other classes, and will often make available powerful non-combat perks or items to other characters. Socially, warlocks are typically at the bottom of the ladder, whereas bards and clerics are typically towards the top. For example, NPCs will come to and trust in a cleric, because people respect the gods.

Tenbones gave some really good advice on how to keep the adventure fun even when PC abilities are shaving off part of the expected experience.  But, to put it simply, I don't want to have to ad lib that every single encounter.  If an ability is removing an experience from the game that the players (including the DM) want to have, it's better to not have that ability in the game.  And it's best to remove it from the get-go rather than once a PC has acquired it because having your character's abilities taken away sucks.  The worst case scenario is when players want different experiences.  To use the thief example, if Allen wants to have a lot of stealth / scouting activities in the game and Bob wants to just skip to the fight so he buys a foolproof magic scout, then at least one and probably both players are going to be unhappy.

Quote from: FingerRod on April 07, 2022, 08:30:22 PM

Where I am vexed a little is... where are you aiming the GM advice? Basically, it seems like you are disagreeing with the experience and observations I had, as a player, and using your GM approach as the basis.

There is very little chance that feelings will get hurt, so I'll say it. Yes, the GM was shit. He supposedly had nearly 30 years of GM experience. But it was 18 months with wild swings between some good, a lot of bad, and a fair amount of terrible gameplay. I had personal reasons to stick it out with less than great gaming.

But that isn't the point. Yes, it would have been better if he employed your ideas. He didn't, and I cannot change that.

Oh I didn't mean for you to be vexxed, but I'm merely pointing out (for anyone that cares to read my scribbles) that the conceits of the thread's question shouldn't be a concern for GM's and why. And if it is - how a GM can change their perception so players don't have the experience you had. (I've had them too!). I totally ratify your experience, which is why I advocate for GM's to seriously look at this example - and apply it more broadly.

How many times on this very forum do we see GM's that say they've been GMing for decades, but their posts indicate their skills at GMing are stagnant - or they're stuck in these odd framing of their games that produce results exactly as you indicate. My only response is as a GM - and hopefully if you as a GM will consider it. But even more, I'm always hoping someone as a player will say "Ohhh... maybe I should get in the GM chair and try this!" So I'm not aiming my response directly at ya, I'm just talking from my perspective on how I deal with it.

The reality is I don't treat Familiars as some special "edge" issue in gaming. I'm more holistic in my approach, which is why my response is so expansive. And I realize that my view comes with experience that others might not have, and may not ever get without more experience - but I hope my words stand as a signpost on how to get there.

Quote from: FingerRod on April 07, 2022, 08:30:22 PMHere is where you and I can adjust the conversation. Let's factor player and GM perspective out of the equation, and go from a design/theory angle. Where would you disagree:

I believe there is inherently less intrigue with a 5e Warlock's familiar than there is with the hero rogue, if for no other reason than the fact that mortal danger is at least a possibility, on occasion, for the rogue. Both could be caught, alert the authorities, fail to get the poison into the heiresses tea. The warlock player may be risking an hour ritual to get his little prick back if things go tits up. The rogue player may be risking his character. I find the rogue situation more intriguing.

I do not disagree with this at all.

My contention is this: It's the GM's job to create intrigue. It's the GM's job to raise the bar based on the context of the game. And so by your example, absolutely, that framing is an intrigue-drainer on its face. My response as a GM - that currently runs a game with a very competent player with an insanely tricky familiar (Shadowdrake) that is arguably as dangerous as a full PC - is that what, if anything, would make this scenario more interesting?

Part of your framing is a very serious issue with me - does setting match the mechanics used to describe the setting? 5e to me sucks for that very reason. It's a great example of what "familiars" are to me (which is informed by earlier editions of D&D) vs. what 5e's videogame mechanics have made it become. The setting assumptions of Familiars do not match the assumptions of the setting, where a Warlock can simply whip out a familiar with a ritual. Whereas the conventions I work from are that the bond between the Familiar and it's master is deep, so deep that such risks have serious repercussions.

Now it would be *cheating* and disingenuous for me to simply take your example and say "I would never use 5e, that's your problem." The reality is no system is perfect. Ever. So if I was committed to using 5e, I'd change the rule. I'd ground the new rule into making Familiars operate the way I want them to operate in the setting. And I would apply it consistently. But I'd have to evaluate what downstream effects it would have on the rest of the game and other casters with Familiars. I'd have to evaluate whether it was was worth my time and effort, and how would it benefit the immediacy of the player's experience.

Case in point - in my own current game of Savage Worlds Forgotten Realms, I'm using the Savage Worlds Pathfinder rules. Well a lot of the rules are directly translating things that are strictly Pathfinder conceptions of "D&D" that are not how I want them expressed in the Forgotten Realms that *I* envision for the setting. Namely - Clerics in Pathfinder are uber-healbots regardless of the Deity and their spheres of influence. And I had a player playing a Cleric...

So it became important for me that the mechanics represent holistically how I want Clerics to operate. And I re-wrote the Cleric Class Edge. But in doing so... I realized I had to write the *entirety* of Spheres, Domains, Domain Powers, I had to list out all the major Gods and list their dogmas and what I thought was a simple paragraph change turned out to be a nearly 60-page document. Some people might think this is overkill? But then I'd say this is the difference between a GM that really wants to make their game the best it can be, vs. someone that is just taking what they're served.

On the same token - nothing says a player can't do this too and offer it up to their GM for use with their group. Familiars, to me, should be taken just as seriously IF it's a thing in your setting. But I say that anything that is a "thing" should have good mechanical support in a game. This is something PC's will enjoy, and GM's should put the effort out there for because it makes for better gaming. I'm sure we both can agree with that!

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. ...

Yes, it is. Very powerful.

If the DM allows them, and you don't get one; The rest of the table should tell you to pick another class...

Quote from: Krugus on April 05, 2022, 06:33:29 PM
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 problem here is that familiars are largely a literary device used for flavor, exposition, and alternate point of view narratives.

In RPG's; They are skip buttons.

"We need to scout the enemy camp."

"Hold on guys, I have an app for that..."

Quote from: tenbones on April 08, 2022, 11:38:00 AM

Quote from: FingerRod on April 07, 2022, 08:30:22 PM

Where I am vexed a little is... where are you aiming the GM advice? Basically, it seems like you are disagreeing with the experience and observations I had, as a player, and using your GM approach as the basis.

There is very little chance that feelings will get hurt, so I'll say it. Yes, the GM was shit. He supposedly had nearly 30 years of GM experience. But it was 18 months with wild swings between some good, a lot of bad, and a fair amount of terrible gameplay. I had personal reasons to stick it out with less than great gaming.

But that isn't the point. Yes, it would have been better if he employed your ideas. He didn't, and I cannot change that.

Oh I didn't mean for you to be vexxed, but I'm merely pointing out (for anyone that cares to read my scribbles) that the conceits of the thread's question shouldn't be a concern for GM's and why. And if it is - how a GM can change their perception so players don't have the experience you had. (I've had them too!). I totally ratify your experience, which is why I advocate for GM's to seriously look at this example - and apply it more broadly.

How many times on this very forum do we see GM's that say they've been GMing for decades, but their posts indicate their skills at GMing are stagnant - or they're stuck in these odd framing of their games that produce results exactly as you indicate. My only response is as a GM - and hopefully if you as a GM will consider it. But even more, I'm always hoping someone as a player will say "Ohhh... maybe I should get in the GM chair and try this!" So I'm not aiming my response directly at ya, I'm just talking from my perspective on how I deal with it.

The reality is I don't treat Familiars as some special "edge" issue in gaming. I'm more holistic in my approach, which is why my response is so expansive. And I realize that my view comes with experience that others might not have, and may not ever get without more experience - but I hope my words stand as a signpost on how to get there.

Quote from: FingerRod on April 07, 2022, 08:30:22 PMHere is where you and I can adjust the conversation. Let's factor player and GM perspective out of the equation, and go from a design/theory angle. Where would you disagree:

I believe there is inherently less intrigue with a 5e Warlock's familiar than there is with the hero rogue, if for no other reason than the fact that mortal danger is at least a possibility, on occasion, for the rogue. Both could be caught, alert the authorities, fail to get the poison into the heiresses tea. The warlock player may be risking an hour ritual to get his little prick back if things go tits up. The rogue player may be risking his character. I find the rogue situation more intriguing.

I do not disagree with this at all.

My contention is this: It's the GM's job to create intrigue. It's the GM's job to raise the bar based on the context of the game. And so by your example, absolutely, that framing is an intrigue-drainer on its face. My response as a GM - that currently runs a game with a very competent player with an insanely tricky familiar (Shadowdrake) that is arguably as dangerous as a full PC - is that what, if anything, would make this scenario more interesting?

Part of your framing is a very serious issue with me - does setting match the mechanics used to describe the setting? 5e to me sucks for that very reason. It's a great example of what "familiars" are to me (which is informed by earlier editions of D&D) vs. what 5e's videogame mechanics have made it become. The setting assumptions of Familiars do not match the assumptions of the setting, where a Warlock can simply whip out a familiar with a ritual. Whereas the conventions I work from are that the bond between the Familiar and it's master is deep, so deep that such risks have serious repercussions.

Now it would be *cheating* and disingenuous for me to simply take your example and say "I would never use 5e, that's your problem." The reality is no system is perfect. Ever. So if I was committed to using 5e, I'd change the rule. I'd ground the new rule into making Familiars operate the way I want them to operate in the setting. And I would apply it consistently. But I'd have to evaluate what downstream effects it would have on the rest of the game and other casters with Familiars. I'd have to evaluate whether it was was worth my time and effort, and how would it benefit the immediacy of the player's experience.

Case in point - in my own current game of Savage Worlds Forgotten Realms, I'm using the Savage Worlds Pathfinder rules. Well a lot of the rules are directly translating things that are strictly Pathfinder conceptions of "D&D" that are not how I want them expressed in the Forgotten Realms that *I* envision for the setting. Namely - Clerics in Pathfinder are uber-healbots regardless of the Deity and their spheres of influence. And I had a player playing a Cleric...

So it became important for me that the mechanics represent holistically how I want Clerics to operate. And I re-wrote the Cleric Class Edge. But in doing so... I realized I had to write the *entirety* of Spheres, Domains, Domain Powers, I had to list out all the major Gods and list their dogmas and what I thought was a simple paragraph change turned out to be a nearly 60-page document. Some people might think this is overkill? But then I'd say this is the difference between a GM that really wants to make their game the best it can be, vs. someone that is just taking what they're served.

On the same token - nothing says a player can't do this too and offer it up to their GM for use with their group. Familiars, to me, should be taken just as seriously IF it's a thing in your setting. But I say that anything that is a "thing" should have good mechanical support in a game. This is something PC's will enjoy, and GM's should put the effort out there for because it makes for better gaming. I'm sure we both can agree with that!

Oh yeah, fully tracking with you. And wow, that Cleric write-up is comprehensive.

Thanks!

But I'm like that with anything I don't like. I think it's a GMing tradition to house-rule. But House Rules should be codified so all your players know you're not just winging it, and that you're not being aribtrary. I cant' stress this enough to new GM's that part of what GMing life easier is to earn the trust of your players. This has a two-fold effect of making their gaming experience much better, which feedbacks into your desire to keep GMing.

Win/Win.

As for the powerful familiars, and people that don't like them for whatever reason, does it help to simply consider them in-group NPC's? Does that suddenly change the parameters of the question?

In theory I agree.

In practice... I found the warlock is not generally powerful and I'd be very careful to nerf it. I had no issue with the invisible familiar either.

Quote from: Eric Diaz on April 08, 2022, 06:11:46 PM
In theory I agree.

In practice... I found the warlock is not generally powerful and I'd be very careful to nerf it. I had no issue with the invisible familiar either.

Heh I don't have a Warlock option in my Savage Worlds game. There has been a lot of talk about creating a Class Edge for it, but frankly I think the conception of it is poor. I think it could be an Edge for any character to make a Pact with a Planar power... but it is kind of close to the Cleric... but the distinction is small.

I don't think pact really is in theme that simmilar to divine worship - at least not in D&D like sense. but I sort of agree going warlock should be widely accessible option.
Right hand powers vs. Left hand. Organised religion vs. private power seeking.