What is the official in-game description for familiars?

[SteveMaurer]

I recently received a Tell from a GM that many types of familiars could not speak, and that this was in the Lore somewhere.

I've done a very thorough search of the Lore, and saw nothing that would even hint at this.   In NWN, all familiars are magical, connected to the mage, and capable of speech.  This is why a mage can possess them, and speak while possessing them.   They also, of course, speak when you click on them.   In Layonara, there are even special commands to support speaking through your familiar: "/o f".

I would like some clarification as to what exactly a familiar is, in Layonara.  I have been RPing up my own description (that, unlike a ranger's animal companion, which is a normal animal - a familiar is a magical reflection of the mage's own soul embodied by Al'Noth - which explains some of the odder special effects associated with them).   But that may or may not be what Leanthar or Ed want, so I'd like a writeup of what they really are.   And whether they can speak.

Depending on the answer, this might be the subject of a CDQ.

[Link092]

I could clarify a bit... (not an official source though...)

Layonara has it's own rules regarding familiars and speech, as addressed in previous discussions.

http://forums.layonara.com/458275-post33.html


Fae familiars can speak, and others cannot due to lack of vocal cords...

my one concern was the Fae Dragon, whom I've received multiple responses as to whether or not they speak, but from my understanding, they can....


// oops, forgot imps.

[ycleption]

From this thread: http://forums.layonara.com/general-discussion/112827-do-familiars-talk.html

 With the exceptions of Faerie Dragons, Imps and Pixies, familiars do not speak common.

Edit: I'm too slow...

[Link092]

Edit: I'm too slow...

I only got that link quick because L sent it to me. :p

[Gulnyr]

I recently received a Tell from a GM that many types of familiars could not speak, and that this was in the Lore somewhere.

I've done a very thorough search of the Lore...

It's difficult for me to tell how you're using the word "lore" in the quote and you may already know this, but there is a difference between the lore of Layonara and the LORE (Layonara Official Reference Encyclopedia).  The limits on which familiars can speak Common is (and has been for a long time as shown by the links provided by previous posters) part of the lore of the world, though it may not be written down anywhere on LORE.  There are probably a lot of things like that, and some of them probably aren't even written on the forum anywhere.  It does make learning things and research about the world hard sometimes since it's possible to search the pants off LORE and still miss important bits of lore.

[wisper]

Hope I'm not stirring up trouble by asking this but why wouldn't the eyeball/mini-beholder familiar be able to speak?  I get all the rest, including mephits, but these seem as likely as imps and fey.

[Dorganath]

Meh, probably an oversight, having forgotten completely about the Eyeball when that thread was active.

[ShiffDrgnhrt]

Thought it's more likely the Eyeball would speak "Undercommon" or some other language and not "common"

[Script Wrecked]

In Layonara, there are even special commands to support speaking through your familiar: "/o f".

It can also be used to emote the actions of your familiar, in a similar fashion to emoting the actions of your ox. No one is suggesting an ox can speak, unless perhaps, his name is "Mister Ed", and the character is named "Wiilll-bbbbuuuuurrrrrr!".

Regards,

Script Wrecked.

[Dorganath]

Thought it's more likely the Eyeball would speak "Undercommon" or some other language and not "common"

We don't have an "undercommon" and most sentient Deep races speak Common in our lore.

[Gulnyr]

We don't have an "undercommon" and most sentient Deep races speak Common in our lore.

I thought I remembered that being true, but the Deep Gnome LORE page still lists Undercommon as a language Deep Gnomes know, though it does say there is no in-game Undercommon language for use.

So, there's an example of LORE not being quite in line with lore, I guess.

[Dorganath]

Hehe...yes, but we're talking here for "mechanical" and RP usage.

[Gulnyr]

Ah, so I should have read that to be something like, "We don't have an Undercommon ear, so no character is ever going to be able to use that with an Eyeball familiar.  Also, since most Deep races speak Common on Layonara, there's no reason to suspect that their familiars that are capable of speech would not also know Common, too, and since familiars aren't restricted by race, there's no reason Eyeballs shouldn't speak Common regardless of their masters' origins," rather than, "We don't have an Undercommon, period.  Deep races have their racial languages, and most know Common, too."

[Dorganath]

Probably.  Clearly you were much more awake than I was last night.

[SteveMaurer]

Well, I did go back and review that thread, and some of my questions were answered.   This is my understanding:

Layonara is not NWN.  It has its own mythology, and where the mythology is absent, it uses D&D 3.0.  Only if it is undetermined in both, do you use D&D 3.0.   In addition, lore isn't merely LORE.  You have to read through years old historical threads in the forums to be able to understand the Layonaran world (don't like it? - play a dumb fighter who can barely speak).

The following is (my understanding up) Lore specific to Layonara that is different from D&D 3.0.

For speech:

• Imps, Pixies, and Layonaran specific Faerie Dragons - Speak common
• Ravens - Despite speaking a language in D&D 3.0, they can't speak any language.  Layonaran ravens do not have vocal chords.  They emote-speak Animal.
• Natural Animals - Emote-speak the animal tongue.   It would be up to a GM to allow communication between animal familiars and other natural animals of the same type, as in D&D 3.0.
• Pseudodragons - Do not speak common.  Whether they speak an animal language, or draconic, is undetermined.  They do not have the telepathy abilities in D&D, even with their master.
• Eyeballs - Presently undetermined, but they probably speak common.

For communication between Mage and Familiar:

• It is NOT telepathy!!! - Dorganath is very adamant on this point
• There is an empathic bond - Interpret the "What do you want me to do" menu you get for familiars that way.
• Communication as a non-speaking animal should be done as emotes
• Possession is not telepathy.  When a mage possesses a familiar, the familiar "becomes an extension" of the PC.  This means if you scout an area as a possessed familiar, and then unpossesses (instantly transporting back to the mage), the mage knows everything because the mage was the familiar.
• Whether a mage can speak through their own mouth while possessing a familiar is undetermined.
• Mages as familiars are limited to their mental abilities and their familiar's physical abilities.  When possessing an animal familiar, a mage cannot speak Common for lack of vocal chords, and cannot speak Animal for lack of knowledge (unless she knows Animal tongue).

Other aspects of familiars:

• How a familiar manifests is undetermined.
• Whether a familiar has a separate existence anywhere when not manifested is undetermined.
• What makes up a familiar's physical body (and how a familiar is able to resurrect after being "killed") is undetermined.
• Whether the standard mage practice of "healing" a familiar by unmanifesting it and remanifesting it is ok in Layo is undetermined
• Whether a familiar is a "true" example of its species subtype, or merely an artificial creation of the spell (for example, could you learn Infernal from your imp?) is undetermined.
• Whether, if your familiar is not a "true" example of its species, a mage could create their own "species" of familiar is undetermined.
• The specifics of the alignment restrictions presently default to NWN's loose (one diagonal move) limit.  (As a TN, you can have any type of familiar you want, you aren't limited to NG/LN/NE/CN.)
• There are no CN and CE familiars.

Have I got that right?

[miltonyorkcastle]

"We don't have an Undercommon ear, so no character is ever going to be able to use that with an Eyeball familiar. Also, since most Deep races speak Common on Layonara, there's no reason to suspect that their familiars that are capable of speech would not also know Common, too, and since familiars aren't restricted by race, there's no reason Eyeballs shouldn't speak Common regardless of their masters' origins," rather than, "We don't have an Undercommon, period. Deep races have their racial languages, and most know Common, too."

A new Familiar/Animal Companion page and a new Languages page will be added to LORE shortly. I'll post here again when they're done.

[Dorganath]

Close, in my opinion.

For speech:

• Imps, Pixies, and Layonaran specific Faerie Dragons - Speak common
• Ravens - Despite speaking a language in D&D 3.0, they can't speak any language.  Layonaran ravens do not have vocal chords.  They emote-speak Animal.
• Natural Animals - Emote-speak the animal tongue.   It would be up to a GM to allow communication between animal familiars and other natural animals of the same type, as in D&D 3.0.
• Pseudodragons - Do not speak common.  Whether they speak an animal language, or draconic, is undetermined.  They do not have the telepathy abilities in D&D, even with their master.
• Eyeballs - Presently undetermined, but they probably speak common.

Pseudodragons, unless Ed overrides me, do not speak Draconic or any other sort of formal language.  They are animals and could "speak" the Animal "language" (quoted because it's not really a full language but a rudimentary means of communication) with the cooperation of all parties.

Eyeballs can speak Common (again, unless Ed chooses to override me).

For communication between Mage and Familiar:

• It is NOT telepathy!!! - Dorganath is very adamant on this point
• There is an empathic bond - Interpret the "What do you want me to do" menu you get for familiars that way.
• Communication as a non-speaking animal should be done as emotes

It should be noted that it's OK for the creature to make type-appropriate sounds as part of its communication.  These are of course emoted, but I don't want people to think that non-speaking familiars have to be stone silent.

• Possession is not telepathy.  When a mage possesses a familiar, the familiar "becomes an extension" of the PC.  This means if you scout an area as a possessed familiar, and then unpossesses (instantly transporting back to the mage), the mage knows everything because the mage was the familiar.
• Whether a mage can speak through their own mouth while possessing a familiar is undetermined.

The way I've always seen it is that "possession" is utilizing the link between mage and familiar to see through and direct the familiar.  I've also always treated this as a "full-time" sort of activity, requiring one's full concentration to maintain it.  That would imply that a mage cannot speak through his/her own mouth while possessing the familiar.  This is somewhat mechanically enforced as well.

• Mages as familiars are limited to their mental abilities and their familiar's physical abilities.  When possessing an animal familiar, a mage cannot speak Common for lack of vocal chords, and cannot speak Animal for lack of knowledge (unless she knows Animal tongue).

Correct.

Other aspects of familiars:

• How a familiar manifests is undetermined.
• Whether a familiar has a separate existence anywhere when not manifested is undetermined.

In "classic" terms, the familiar is always nearby unless the mage tells it to stay put or something of the like.  NWN mechanics use a "summoning" sort of thing, but I think that's just for convenience.  My own RP has my character's familiar lurking about in the trees or generally within range of their link, unless circumstances make that rather tenuous (meaning he tells his familiar to stay put).

Familiars (and animal companions) are not "summons".  They're terrestrial in origin.

• What makes up a familiar's physical body (and how a familiar is able to resurrect after being "killed") is undetermined.

This has come up before and the gist is they have the good sense to get away before they actually die, then go off an heal, making them unavailable to their master's call for a longer than usual time.

• Whether the standard mage practice of "healing" a familiar by unmanifesting it and remanifesting it is ok in Layo is undetermined

I don't think that's mechanically possible, as the "Summon Familiar" functions only once/day.

• Whether a familiar is a "true" example of its species subtype, or merely an artificial creation of the spell (for example, could you learn Infernal from your imp?) is undetermined.

It's not a creation of the spell, and you can't learn Infernal or any other language from it.

• Whether, if your familiar is not a "true" example of its species, a mage could create their own "species" of familiar is undetermined.

Nope, they can't, at least not without some OOC approval and a WLDQ of some sort.

• The specifics of the alignment restrictions presently default to NWN's loose (one diagonal move) limit.  (As a TN, you can have any type of familiar you want, you aren't limited to NG/LN/NE/CN.)
• There are no CN and CE familiars.

I believe those to be correct.

[EdTheKet]

I am in agreement with Dorganath.

[Hellblazer]

I don't think that's mechanically possible, as the "Summon Familiar" functions only once/day.

 
 If you sleep while you companion/familiar is present, then you can unsumon it and resumon it instantly. I've stopped using that a while ago since it felt a bit like an abuse.

[SteveMaurer]

The way I've always seen it is that "possession" is utilizing the link between mage and familiar to see through and direct the familiar.  I've also always treated this as a "full-time" sort of activity, requiring one's full concentration to maintain it.  That would imply that a mage cannot speak through his/her own mouth while possessing the familiar.  This is somewhat mechanically enforced as well.

I'm happy about this, but do feel compelled to point out that it is perilously close to telepathy.   Mechanically, I can have a familiar "speak" through the Party talk, RPing it as my mage using her own voice to say what she sees with her familiar's eyes to inform the rest of the party.   But if you explicitly say this isn't legal, I won't do it.

I also need to point out that mechanically, if you unpossess a familiar who has moved into another map, the familiar instantly transports back to the summoning mage and manifests via a summon.   I previously integrated this effect into my RP, but if this isn't the way it works, will instead now have to start using OOC comments to people, saying "you didn't see my familiar just appear - she's really miles away".

Familiars (and animal companions) are not "summons".  They're terrestrial in origin.

Including Outsiders?   Somehow I don't see a Mephit as being particularly terrestrial.     So I'll assume that what you really mean is that once you've gotten the familiar onto the Mortal Coil, it never ventures off.

(And the special effects of NWN make this pretty nonobvious to people who don't read the discussion pages obsessively, so I really think this needs to be put prominently as part of the spell description. )

I also have to point out that this also somewhat conflicts with the "no familiars in cities" rule.   What you're saying is that a mage who goes to the docks without their familiar, really is going with their familiar (scaring all the townsfolk along the way), and doing the same on the boat.

This has come up before and the gist is they have the good sense to get away before they actually die, then go off an heal, making them unavailable to their master's call for a longer than usual time.

 Got you. Familiars have in-game GM fiat to never really die, no matter what kind of trouble they get into.

But this raises another question: if you die, is your familiar yanked back with your body, as part of being Dragoncalled?    If not, should you wait some particular amount of time before summoning your familiar, to simulate that you just died on a different continent?      And how exactly should I explain how my panther was able to book a ticket on a ship?   (I will say it's an amusing vision of a mage/panther pair departing the docks, with only a somewhat singed panther, wearing a "my master is an idiot" expression on her face, return to the ship.)

I don't think that's mechanically possible, as the "Summon Familiar" functions only once/day.

Mechanically, it's quite easy.  Summon familiar resets every time you rest, so if you're in a Safe Rest area, they come and go as you will.

Further, familiars do not unsummon when you rest.  (They can guard you - I like that.)   And when you rest, you get your "Summon" back.    If you then venture out and your familiar gets wounded, you can unsummon them, and then resummon them fully healed.

Even if you altered the game engine so that familiars were unsummoned while you rested, you would still be able to summon them back at full health every time you rested, regardless of any HP loss or status affliction they had.

It's not a creation of the spell, and you can't learn Infernal or any other language from it.

I figured you wouldn't want to support that.   As a PnP GM, I don't either.   However, since you have decided that familiars fully "real" (in my own campaign, they're not), you need to come up with an actual in-game explanation for why your Imp, who is fully intelligent and speaks Common and Infernal, can't teach it to their master.  Same thing, potentially, for Pixies and their languages.   I need your in-game explanation so I don't screw up the RP of it.

Nope, they can't, at least not without some OOC approval and a WLDQ of some sort.

I figured "A talking (typically non-speaking familiar)" would more be on the CDQ type of level.   But it makes sense that if familiars are "real" that this would be more WLDQ type difficulty.