Topic: One Familiar, 2 familiar, 3 Familiar, 4...

[Setorn]

OK, for the following question I assume that the answer is “No, you cannot have more than one familiar.”

I am looking for a RMC answer without input from other systems or viewpoints.  I have looked over Spell Law again and again.  I have found nothing that clearly limits an essence user to one familiar.  Am I missing something within the rules set?  I am prepared to make a setting ruling, but I have tried to remain as true to the plan text of the rules as possible for this group of new comers to RM.  Has an official errata been produced for Spell Law and if no, please, include something about this? 

I am aware that RMSS/FRP has additional rules on familiars, but I am limiting myself to RMC.  The group that I am playing with is new to RMC and I don’t want to confuse them with all the RMSS, RMFRP, RMC, RM2, RMX and so forth.  So, please limit responses to what can be found in published RMC (not even RM2) material. 

My player’s question is “I have one familiar and reading the spell from Gate Mastery, I don’t see any limitations on a second one.  Is that right?  Can I get another familiar?”   I would say no as a setting concern, but would like a rules' answer. 

[Old Man]

Heya,

Given that RMC I's Familiar's Law list has Second Familiar at 11th (3rd at 20th), then I would gather the intent was 1 at a time. I could see adding those 2 spells to Gate Mastery (and similar lists) at applicable levels.

Alternately, you could allow multiples up to the Will of the caster per "Will to Control" in RMC IV.

Ciao,
Old Man

[ictus]

A familiar is meant to be much more than a creature to do your bidding, it is linked to it's master and it's loss is devastating to the master.

And in general risking only one at a time makes sence, as controling and interacting at such a basic level with more than one creature would be difficult at best.

If you wanted to spice up your game with more than one, go for it, it's your world, you may want to add limiting factors, such as penalties to other activities while your familiars are active.

Maybe 1 familiar zero penalty and every additional one would be -10%, and the loose could be equally magnified making it a dangerous past time.

[Rasyr-Mjolnir]

Rolemaster Companion I is not part of RMC, Old Man, so I doubt that he would be considering that. Also RoCoI was not written by ICE, so it cannot actually be used to say that that was the intent of the original authors.


As for RMC, it appears that Familiar are left out in the cold as it were. There are actually a number of questions regarding Familiars that need answering, and RMC does not seem to hold any answers for these questions...

1) Can you have more than one familiar?
2) That 10% of weight limit, is that only for time of casting? Or is that the most that the Familiar can ever weigh?
3) If 10% is the max weight, can you have multiple familiars as long as they are less than 10%?
4) If 10% is not the max weight, then how large can the familiar get in relationship to the caster?


I think that these are all good questions, and I will be talking with Heike regarding them, before we give any sort of official answers...   

[Marc R]

Is the max weight always relational?

Like, you go on jenny Craig, go from 400 to 200 pounds, and loose your 35 pound coyote familiar?

Most of those % of caster weight limits lead to weirdness. . . .or jabba the 1,000 pound travel mage who can transport huge amounts of gear (especially since there are no given limits or disadvantages to being grossly fat, I've seen that one abused often.)

I'd think the drawbacks of a familiar are at least equal to it's benefits.  .. .I don't see much abusive advantage in getting 2 or 10.

[vroomfogle]

I'd think the drawbacks of a familiar are at least equal to it's benefits.  .. .I don't see much abusive advantage in getting 2 or 10.

And if it does get abusive it's easy for the GM to get abusive right back and kill off 3 of them for a nasty -90 to the caster for 3 weeks.

But I think that's what you meant.  It may be advantageous to have a few familiars for scouting, but it's risky.

[Setorn]

I'd think the drawbacks of a familiar are at least equal to it's benefits.  .. .I don't see much abusive advantage in getting 2 or 10.

The player has been up front about what he wants.  He has a ferret right now and has used the familiar rather effectively.  Now he would like a hawk or raven, flying animal.  

Rasyr was right; I am not using any RoCos.  Ictus, I understand your point and it would be part of the basis for my “no.”  LM, my issue with multiple familiars is that it runs counter to the seeming spirit of the spell (see ictus), and nearly creates a beast master (all small animals though).    

[vroomfogle]

I didn't mention though I agree with LM about the advantage/disadvantages I would never allow more then 1 familiar for the reasons ictus mentioned.

And I would use 10% weight at time of casting then ignoring weight limits after that.  That could be an advantage to getting a familiar as a baby animal, raising it, and having it for a long time. Not a short term advantage.

[Rasyr-Mjolnir]

And I would use 10% weight at time of casting then ignoring weight limits after that.  That could be an advantage to getting a familiar as a baby animal, raising it, and having it for a long time. Not a short term advantage.

Personally, I agree with this. Cause it will require the caster to care for the animal for some time before the Familiar can become useful to him...... 

[Setorn]

3) If 10% is the max weight, can you have multiple familiars as long as they are less than 10%?

This idea may be a good way to say both yes and no.  Think of the idea of a swarm of locus as a familiar or flies.  Think of a small flock of sparrows. 

Also, how long does the familiar live?  As long as the caster, a normal life span for a domesticated type of the animal. 

If my player is going to question the common understanding of how many, then should not all assumptions be on the table.   

[Marc R]

I generally don't allow it, in one instance I did, but only via the list Old Man referenced above.

A lot depends on the gameworld logic of what a familiar is, generally for me it is something akin to "Sorry, you only have one familiar port, and it's occupied." with various explainations of why depending on the situation.

Most of my mage players are paranoid about their familiars, increasingly so as they go up levels, as they are a ripe target if you want to go after the mage. (And the results of an area effect spell are usually some variation of familiar on a stick, well done.)

[ictus]

The 10%, was a MM penalty, per familiar, not a weight penalty, and would be all the time you where concentrating on your familiars, as that would be a hard thing to do. Though that was only a suggestion, I would stick with one as that is how I feel the spell should be used.

But it is your world, you choose.

As for RMC1, TGC will be reprinting it in the guise of RoCo1, and I'll be getting back to work on the layout very soon.

[Rasyr-Mjolnir]

The spell says that a caster can control the familiar (and view through its senses) by concentrating on it.

Concentrating on a spell (which is what I would class this sort of concentration as) requires 50% of your activity for a round.

This means that, at most, you would only be able to concentrate on two familiars in a given round (if more than one familiar is allowed).

When you are not concentrating on a familiar, it would most likely be acting as a tamed (and slightly trained) animal would act. It would follow its master around, but it would be more likely to run at trouble than anything else.

So, that would be something of an inherent limitation to the spell and to having familiars.

Also, how long does the familiar live?  As long as the caster, a normal life span for a domesticated type of the animal. 

I would say that they live a normal lifespan. No more, no less. The spell doesn't extend the animal's life.

[RandalThor]

I say do waht is good for your setting/story. Forget the rules. If it makes sense that the ranger guy/gal has a timber wolf as a familiar, go for it. If you have a nation that utilizes dragonriders, and you want there to be a special bond between the two (like Eragon), have the dragon riders have their dragons as familiars. Whatever you feel works. If you think the familiar rules make the familiar too powerful, tone it down - not powerful enough, give 'em more. Heck, make your own Familiar Law spell list and say whenever you get to the next Familiar spell (i.e. Familiar II, Familiar III, etc.) then they can get another familiar without having to replace the one they got.

[Rasyr-Mjolnir]

I say do waht is good for your  setting/story. Forget the rules.

Bingo!! The rules are there to provide you with guidelines, not enforce a straight-jacket upon you.

If a rule clashes with your setting, change the rule, not your setting.

 

[Setorn]

I say do waht is good for your  setting/story. Forget the rules.

Bingo!! The rules are there to provide you with guidelines, not enforce a straight-jacket upon you.

If a rule clashes with your setting, change the rule, not your setting.

 

I agree with that, and I will do that.  However, I am attempting, for my players, to run as an unadorned RMC game as possible.  I want to do this so that they can buy the rules, look them up and have a strong sense of confidence that they can count on what they learn.  RMC is a detailed and sometimes labyrinthine system, and I really want to be running RMC(2) games again.  In the past, when I attempted to bring others into RMSS, it overwhelmed players.  RMC and back to basics are assisting me in returning home.  Be assured though that in my next RMC game with this group gamers, I will have many options used and many home rules. 

I believe that I am going to say “no” to the multiple familiars.  My player is very happy that he searched the books out, did not find an answer hidden in some remote part of RMC that he missed, and had to ask me for a settings ruling.  He has greater faith in the system, his ability to navigate and understand it.     

[Old Man]

Rolemaster Companion I is not part of RMC, Old Man, so I doubt that he would be considering that. Also RoCoI was not written by ICE, so it cannot actually be used to say that that was the intent of the original authors.
...

LOL, didn't someone post RMC as the abbrev for Rolemaster Companions as well? Or are we back to using RoCo? (I had read it as a Companion question... ).

Ciao,
Old Man

[Rasyr-Mjolnir]

I have been attempting to use "RoCo" for the various Companions since RMC (Rolemaster Classic) came out. Sometimes I slip, but at least I try. 

[Old Man]

Also RoCoI was not written by ICE, so it cannot actually be used to say that that was the intent of the original authors.

Btw, off-topic, this was an odd statement to make. I recall Coleman reviewing my material for RoCo IV. I would assume same happened for earlier content. So even if the authors were not in-house, it still was vetted (?) and published by ICE.

Ciao,
Old Man

[Rasyr-Mjolnir]

Btw, off-topic, this was an odd statement to make. I recall Coleman reviewing my material for RoCo IV. I would assume same happened for earlier content. So even if the authors were not in-house, it still was vetted (?) and published by ICE.

The old ICE had something of a rep of vetting material in regards to itself and grammar/punctuation, not for how well it fit into the overall scheme of things nor how well it was balanced against the core rule.

Plus, just because you intended one thing when you wrote something, that does not say that those who "vetted" intended the same thing. It is quite possible that they thought it meant something else and just didn't delve into the issue far enough to find out.

All I was trying to say was that you cannot presume that the original authors of ICE meant something if they did not actually write themselves. To presume otherwise is an iffy proposition.