Topic: Animal Bonding / Animal Bond+Familiar

[Donutz]

From RMC2, I'm curious about the intent of the Animal Bonding list having the Familiar spells also stacked into them.

Those feel like two separate concepts.   If I read the descriptions of each, These two spells aren't similar.
An animal bond is not a familiar and a familiar is not a bonded animal.

Is the intent of this spell list (say at rank 5) to provide the beastmaster with the possibility of a Bonded Animal (say a wolf, a pig, an eagle, etc) + a familiar (a cat or a mouse or something, 10% of your weight is the limit).

Where a bonded animal is your faithful companion with perhaps much stronger protection instints goals over your typical befriended animal (i.e. a pet). Like where your animal bonded pig may balk at the concept of attacking some creature of supernatural nature, an animal bonded creature may have no such compulsions. 

(Like another way I describe it is.. a farmer isn't likely to react well to a ghoul in his pasture, whereas a seasoned adventurer is going to go out there and kick some butt, I see a pet like the farmer, and an bonded animal like the adventurer)

And a familiar is in a way part of you almost, through the magical results of the spell, you actually share senses with if you concentrate and in range for example which you can't do with a bonded animal.

Is the intent for the beastmster to have access to these two separate things at rank5 of this list?

[brole]

Yes. I think it is definitely the intent. The Beastmaster is a profession where they are surrounded by animals and this list enables the Beastmaster to gain various animals for variety of tasks.

Sent from my E6883 using Tapatalk

[Majyk]

You got it.

it is akin to a Warrior Mage(WM) having a single list with multiple elemental bolt and ball spells on it, versus needing to invest in multiple spell lists like a Magician - at the expense of all the kewl “glue” spells on said lists the WM spells are coming from.

You’ll see a lot of spell lists from different professions that follow this kind of cobbling of Open/Closed/Base Spell Realm lists into single Base Lists to help with DP allocation during Leveling Up.

[Donutz]

Hey thanks so much for the replies!


Ok so I get that Animal Bonding spell list from RMC2 is intended to bring together just the spells necessary for the flavor of the BeastMaster... as Majyk is saying.


But what do you think is the intent of Animal Bonding I and Familiar being on that list..


Obviously Animal Bonding I lets you make a deep friend of an animal.  Deeper than what you would be able to do with just animal handling.  But what is the purpose of the Familiar spell being on that list @ Rank 5?.. and they provide all rank up versions too.. Familiar II and Familiar True.


(an aside on Familiar True @ rank 25.. there's a dead end reference here.. Familiar True says as Master II on Dark Summons list.. but Dark Summons list from RM2 spell law doesn't have Master II or Master Anything.... it does have Demon Master I/II/etc but that doesn't seem appropriate at all)




By a strict reading of the spell descriptions.. these two spells cast individually give you two separate creatures
a) an animal of unspecified size/level/etc that is your besty-friend.. will willingly give up its life for yours for example. But has no magical relationship to you (i.e. you can't sense its presence afar, or see through its eyes, or sense its feelings or read its mind etc). Though there is some evidence of a continuing magical relationship of the animal bond because at rank 8 you can start summoning it with Call Bond.


and


b) a familiar with very limited size (1/10th the caster's body mass).  This animal you can control almost directly by concentration including viewing the world through its senses.  I don't see it in the spell description but I thought I read that you can sense its thoughts also but.. that may be me imaging things or its somewhere else in that ruleset.


Was it intended that these two spells would be combined on the same target?  That would limit your animal bond to only 10% of your body mass?  that's pretty darn small.  1/10th of a 150lb to 180lb humanoid is only 15 to 18 pounds.  A small sized dog or less perhaps?  A Miniature Schnauzer for example can get up to 20lbs .. that is already outside the parameters of Familiar I. so.. by small. I mean really small.  So if you are supposed to combine Animal Bond I with Familiar ... its gonna be a ferret or something ya.. if you are limited to that 10% mass.




Or was it intended that the use of these spells are totally separate targets, would end up with two distinct animals by rank 5.. a close animal friend w/ Animal Bond (wolf, horse, pig, whatever you can find and realistically care for in the game) and then a separate tiny familiar animal of some sort (bird, mouse, ferret, cat) that you are magically connected to?


And notice the penalties for losing an animal bond and a familiar are separate.  If we go with the option of them being separate targets then that makes sense. But if they are the same target (which isn't how i read the rules as written but.. maybe that is what was intended?) do they stack? 




An interesting question I've posted before and haven't had any satisfactory answers are..



[/size]Ok.. in RM2 and esp in RMU (lets say you converted animal bonding I into an RMU game).. what can you do with Animal Bonding that you couldn't do with Animal Handling?   My brief answer to this is... Animal Handling doesn't give you any magical power over the animal or any ability to change the animal from its base attitude/instincts/behaviors.  So with Animal Handling only, your friendship is limited to the underlying nature of the animal.. so a domesticated Cat or a [/size]domesticated[/size] [/size]Dog or a [/size]domesticated[/size] [/size]Horse.. no problem.  But a wild animal... you've got basically no chance of becoming a "friend" to that animal with only animal handling.  Maybe a modifier of like.. -200 or something to override the animals natural inclinations without magic or special circumstances... and you've got to be successful many times in a row.. good luck.  [yes I am aware of real life examples of becoming friends with wild animals.. the lion comes to mind for example. but he lived with that animal from birth practically, that is going to offset your rolls with big bonuses but you also spent years not days or weeks in the effort -- again.. good luck]



[/size]Reason I'm digging into all this is I'm actually playing a BeastMaster conversion into RMU and I'm trying to get a sense for what was the original intent so the conversion tries to follow along with that intent, in so much that its not breaking the system.

[Majyk]

Looks like you could interpret it both ways, if you like, but looking at the pic on Pg.71 - next to the spell list - shows a Beastmaster with a Wolf(Animal Bond) and a raptor(Familiar due to mass limits).

I’d play it as such - the only time I’d allow more than one creature to be summoned, getting rid of all the other higher level spells allowing for a menagerie and possibly incrementing the abilities or stats of the single animal.

That is my GMing lesson for once allowing a multiple summoning Summoner in a campaign.
Combat was so bogged down that other players would literally go and have a lie down on the couch to zone out...

From then on in, I’d rule for max level creatures to be summoned, but if not wanted, lesser leveled ones were fine: by their lonesomes!

[brole]

But what do you think is the intent of Animal Bonding I and Familiar being on that list..

To me it looks like they are intended for separate target animals.

Familiar is cast on a small creature that acts as the Beastmaster's spy, his/her eyes and ears so to speak. Its small size means it has better chance of sneaking up on a target and listening in unnoticed. Depending how detailed you want to be you could consider the familiar's risk of being hunted by a natural predator.

The familiar spell does not say it can read the animal's thoughts, only that the caster can control the animal and see through its senses. Another spell caster could possibly use a telepathy spell on the familiar while it is being controlled to detect its thoughts.
I'd play it as the Beastmaster can comprehend things such as the scent of another animal detected by the familiar. If the Beastmaster or familiar are acquainted with the animal scent then the Beastmaster will know that the scent belongs to this type of animal and maybe even down to the individual itself.

The bonding spell is for an attack animal or even a mount animal. Once the Beastmaster has gathered their information from the familiar they can then attack from an advantageous position, with the bonded animal charging in first.

As for stacking these spells I can't really see why not if you really want to, the advantage of stacking could be that the familiar would defend a Beastmaster of its own volition.

Familiars are controlled through concentration and may not help the Beastmaster being attacked as their animal instinct to flee might take over and the Beastmaster would be too preoccupied being attacked to concentrate on controlling the familiar's actions.

Being a bonded animal as well as a familiar, they would defend a Beastmaster to uphold the pact they have without the need of concentrated control.

Also it would allow the Beastmaster to spy using the animal as a familiar and if the Beastmaster sees the desired target or opportunity he/she could then immediately order the bonded familiar to attack, the Beastmaster would then be able to break concentration as the attack unfolded.

The downside of stacking would be stacked penalties for the animal's demise.

Spell mastery could be developed with the Familiar spell to increase the size of the animal allowed to further make this 'stacked bonded familiar' more viable.

[rdanhenry]

That is my GMing lesson for once allowing a multiple summoning Summoner in a campaign.
Combat was so bogged down that other players would literally go and have a lie down on the couch to zone out...

I take it that you were allowing the Summoner to run the summoned creatures? A better way to handle it would be to share them out among all the players. After all, they are still independent creatures, if subject to command, and won't necessarily act exactly as the summoner expects. Then, you can have a group of summoned allies while keeping everyone involved. (Same thing if somebody buys a pack of dogs or hires a squad of mercenaries. Don't let that player puppet them all. And having other players handle their actions avoids it becoming GM load [though the GM can always intervene if and when necessary].) I prefer this to arbitrary "only one" constraints, because while that may work for magic, you can still get a bunch of supporting cast through mundane means, and arbitrary limits there tend to break plausibility.

[jdale]

You know, I've had the GM run summoned creatures and familiars etc, or the player, but it never occurred to us to split it up between the PCs. That's interesting especially when the player is summoning a ton of stuff.

[Majyk]

I prefer this to arbitrary "only one" constraints, because while that may work for magic, you can still get a bunch of supporting cast through mundane means, and arbitrary limits there tend to break plausibility.

Nice thinking for a possible fix but, for me, “only one” has worked for every campaign since with zero complaints. 
Once I saw how much less muddled combat was, and how happy players are to get their turns for their own PCs, I was a happy GM.
As for mundane ways of acquiring help, that doesn’t happen in my games either. The heavy hand of this GM quickly gets rid of crutches that aren’t player/character-solved, though my players know me since our high school years and know not to bother with retinues of henchmen/hirelings/pets/(insert extra NPC time wasters here).


Could be my Gygaxian 1e days as a kiddo!