dungeons and dragons – When did pets stop giving bonus life?

Pets have usually stopped granting bonus health points in 2nd AD&D

The 1st version of Find familiar grants the bonus of the lucky sorcerer life points equal to those of the pet:

Normal pets have 2-4 hit points and an armor class of 7 (due to size, speed, etc.) (…) The number of hit points of the pet is added to total health of the magic user while within 12 inches of their master, but if the pet were to be killed, the magic user would permanently lose double that number of life.

However, the 2nd version of Find familiar there is no mention of this particular benefit, and the penalty for the death of the pet becomes an immediate system shock test or death regardless of the number of HP that the assistant has. It does, however, introduce the empathetic bond between familiar and master and the master's ability to telepathically instruct instructions, increasing the usefulness of the familiar in other ways.

A bonus of life points bonus East optionally available in 3 / 3.5e D&D, where each type of pet offers a special bonus specific to the master. From the pets available by default, the toad can improve the HP of its master, either by granting a +2 bonus to its constitution (3rd) or simply by granting 3 bonus life points (3.5e). However, other pets offer benefits other than hit points.

4th does not actually have pets in the nucleus, only introducing them into the Arcane Power supplement, but no familiar option benefits the master's hit points. As far as I know, the closest 4th is the Vitality of the familiar feat of the Heroes of the Feywild supplement, which improves the healing of the master's "second breath" when his pet is nearby.

5th restores the pets to the basic set, but they still do not provide any generic health benefits. The closest to the concept is that a Chain Pact warlock can take Gift of living beings Eldritch Summon, which maximizes any healing received while their pet is nearby.

dnd 5th – What pets or livestock would Drow have?

The Drow raises spiders.

The description of Drow in the Monster manual says:

The drow raises and guards giant spiders to help protect their cities from intruders, while draping these cities in a beautiful strap, creating a gossamer trap to catch flying enemies that would otherwise fly over the walls.

Since they worship what is essentially the goddess of spiders, Lolth, it makes sense that they breed arachnids and use their venom, silk, etc.

In addition, the monster manual says about giant lizards:

A giant lizard can be mounted or used as a draft animal. Lizards also keep them as pets, and giant underground lizards are used as mounts and beasts of burden by drows, duergars, and other inhabitants of Outland.

Need for health, grooming, pets, beauty, technology, parental niche blogs

Hi DP members,

I am looking for blogs to publish sponsored articles.

Niche: health, grooming, pets, beauty, technology, parenting, etc.

Traffic: 1000+, DR: 20+ TF: 10+, DA: 20+,

Please email me if you have any. Blogs without details will be ignored.

5th dnd – Do pets breed? If "yes", what types of results result?

The spell Find familiar summon a simple but common creature of the caster's choice (like a cat, a rat, a raven or a weasel). The organs of such a creature all work well, including eating and sleeping. This creature is not a beast though:

Appearing in an unoccupied space within range, the familiar has the stats of the chosen form – whether it's a celestial, a fairy or a demon (your choice) instead of a stupid.

Can a matching (invoked) pet match be reproduced? If not why? If "yes", which offspring is produced (a "common" beast, a 1/2 beast + 1/2 spirit hybrid, or one of three types of spirits)?

dnd 3.5e – How does the contingency spell interact with pets in D & D3.5?

As usual when it is a question of contingencyambiguities abound.

The only thing that is certain is that you can share contingency with a pet. Nothing in contingency prevents you from doing so and otherwise meets the criteria described by the sharing spells. Since it's a single cast that "affects" two targets, all you need is a single focus statuette.

This brings us to the first problem: the statuette must be "of you". Is it "you" the pitcher or "you" the subject? Or do both have to be simultaneously?

If "you" is supposed to be the thrower, no problem: you and the familiar can benefit from the same statuette that describes you.

If "you" should be the subject, it is unclear whether a statuette describing both your person and your pet will count as a statuette "of you" and "your pet" simultaneously, and so will be valid for both of you , or if it would count as a statuette "of you and your pet" and therefore would not work for any of you. I suppose most people would accept that, but as we are concerned with strict RAW, we have to note this ambiguity: RAW does not allow to determine the "correct" interpretation, because the English language used is ambiguous and no between them is given. stricter definitions in the rules of the game.

If "you" must be both the caster and the subject of the spell (plausible given the usual function of the spell), we have the same question as before, but if the answer is "no", the familiar can not get a contingency at all, even if you were willing to deprive you of it.

Then we come to the much bigger problem: you have to take the statuette away so you can contingency To work. We have another ambiguity here: is it possible for you and your pet to do it at the same time? For example, if your pet is wearing the statuette and you wear yours, do you also plan to wear the statuette for this purpose? Nobody knows! But since there is only one statuette, you need an answer.

Another ambiguity: if you are separated from the statuette, then recover it, the contingency CV? This one is less ambiguous: phrasing "must pay attention to the contingency "strongly suggests that not wearing the focus does not dissipate the contingencyit just makes him inactive. Yet we can not be certain. Anyway, it means that even if you do not wear your usual goal, you can trade the statuette to control which of you is the subject of the contingency at the time.

So, basically, this comes down to four unanswered questions RAW unambiguously:

  1. A statuette "of you" that, in the initial context of the spell, must represent the caster of the spell, its subject or an individual who is simultaneously simultaneously?

    • If "caster", there are fewer problems and we can skip question 2.

    • If "subject", we must be concerned about question 2.

    • If both "the caster" and the "subject", we must be concerned about question 2., and if the answer is "no", then your pet will never be able to profit from it, even if you give up your own contingency.

  2. (Moot if 1. is a "caster") Does a statuette of you and your pet count as both a "statuette of you" and a "statuette of your pet"? contingency?

    • If "no", you will never be able to have a contingency on one of you, and which one is fixed at the moment of casting. If the answer to 1. was "the caster and the subject", then only you will benefit.

    • If "yes", it will depend on the answers given in points 3. and 4.

  3. (Moot if 1. is a "thrower" or if 1. is not a "thrower" and 2. is "no") Does your pet wear while your pet is wearing the statuette account as wearing you? – even the statuette for the pleasure of contingency?

    • If "no", you will never be able to have a contingency on any of you, but if 4. is "yes", you can swap which of you two.

    • If "yes", you can benefit simultaneously.

  4. (Not applicable if 1. is "subject" or "thrower and subject" and 2. is "no" or if 1. is "thrower" 3. is "yes" or if 1. is "subject" or "thrower and subject "and 2. and 3. are both" yes ") If you are separated from the statuette, then retrieve it, the contingency resume its effect?

    • If "no", you will never be able to have a contingency on one of you, and which one is fixed at the moment of casting.

    • If "yes", you can exchange which of you benefits from the contingency at any time by exchanging the statuette between them.

The 1st and 3rd are "probably" true, but the 2nd is actually only a draw; it could go both ways. Engages in semantic arguments about "porting" and philosophical arguments about what it means to own an object, and so on.

Note that I have considered an alternative approach, in which you use two separate castings in order to use two separate statuettes. however, contingency says "You can only use one contingency to spell at once, "not that you can only to have a contingency at a time. Thus, the second broadcast will dissipate the first, even if the first one has been shared with another target and is not active on you. This, at least, is unambiguous.

Why do dogs attack courier deliverers?

As a dog who was also a factor, I can explain that.
Dogs are territorial and they often feel the need to keep their home; or they will bark for humans to know that someone is coming.
Usually, visitors approach a house a little less quickly than they walk on the street; they know that this visitor acts as a visitor. It's something they want their humans to know, but it's not threatening.
A factor is different. He is heading quickly towards the house, as he possessed it!
This is more alarming for the dog. He barks and the carrier goes away. This confirms the impression of the dog that the carrier must be hunted. The dog does not know that the wearer would be gone anyway!
We humans know why the carrier is present and, in fact, the path to the mailbox is really his "territory" for business purposes. Human factors are absolutely not threatened by the factor; they hardly notice it!
That said, most dogs do not attack the wearer. Dogs likely to attack are kept confined by their owners. Most dogs bark at this perceived intruder.
Knowing the dogs, I could normally tell if a dog was threatening me or not. Usually, just staying out of the yard and walking would continue to please the dog. Only once, I was bitten and this dog had been trained to attack; Unfortunately, he attacked when he was not supposed to do it. Once, a dog accused me and threatened me, but I blamed him and he returned under the protection of his accursed owner. And once, I was accidentally pinched by a puppy; I was not paying attention because the puppy was playing badly, not aggressive.

dnd 5th – Can pets read and use spell scrolls?

I play an Artificer / Rogue (version 2019 on D & D Beyond, I'm an archivist, but I started the magic and I found Familiar) and I want to get a little more support using scrolls , Cure Wounds, Earth Bind, Cloud Fog, etc. But I wonder if my pet can use these scrolls. Scrolls need to be read before they can be launched, but does that mean aloud or do you just need to understand writing to cast the spell? What if my pet can read and speak, but is not a caster?

pathfinder 2e – How am I supposed to know what abilities naturally have pets?

It's complicated.

The truth is that, as you have discovered, there is no data to canonically define which creatures you can select as familiar. Probably by design, the familiar is currently an undifferentiated set of statistics based on the player. This may change with the Gamemastery or Bestiary 2 guide, but I will not rely on it. In other words, a familiar follows the pattern described in the familiar section regardless of what they are – they have your backups and AC, 5 * your level damage, the tiny size, the vision in low light, and either a speed of movement or a swimming speed of 25 feet. Beyond that, it is an animal (restricted to small animals), unless otherwise indicated by the function that gives you the familiar picture (such as the druid's lehy). As you said, it's the base, and the animal you choose is little more than a dressed ensemble.

I think the obvious intention of the designers was not to make one pet intrinsically better than another – "oh, I'm going to bat because he's blind-eyed and flight "or" I'll take the spider monkey because it has hands ", etc. So, all pets go on an equal footing, and if you want your pet to have a flight or a vision Blindly (not currently available) or opposable inches, you must buy it using the usual abilities.To this end, the rule you are talking about is: if you choose an animal that you (or a reasonable person) would like to have one of these animals you must take abilities, which reduces the number of other abilities you can grant.That, in a way, makes some animals inferior to others because you have fewer and fewer options every day for the selection of your familiar abilities and your master., the implementation does not support the intention, assuming my assumption is correct.

Realistically (with the approval of GM, of course), you can state that your owl has a broken wing (or a congenital anomaly, Finding Nemo) that prevents it from flying normally, so that if you do not want to spend a familiar ability, one day to let it fly, it just can not and you're not penalized for choosing a flying creature as a familiar person (since familiar abilities, like says the book's illustration, allow you to place wings on a cat if you wish so that any pet can fly).

In short, taking a pet that naturally has one of its familiar powers is a penalty under the rules, because you are now obliged to spend these points, where it is optional for a normally less talented animal, hence the reason why I propose trampling an animal. As above, the natural abilities of the creature allow you to have your owl for aesthetic reasons, without your selection of abilities being limited.


More to your question, you are right to say that there are no statistics for an owl. There are statistics for a viper and an eagle (even if they are small), but apart from these statistics, the closest statistics you can get are the animals described in the Animal Companion section, but their size is small (or average). great in the case of the horse) and are supposed to be considerably higher than average examples of their kind, so it provides barely more than an extreme upper limit. Here (and in the statistics block for Eagle), a bird has a flying speed of 60, which you can not even know if you master both Flier and Fast Movement (40's) . So it's far from perfect, and "bird" covers a lot of ground – it would be fair to say that owls have a dark vision, unlike hawks, and none of them are nasty. A blind vision, while bats should be.

The best advice I can give, aside from diving into some Pathfinder 1e books or waiting for more second books (or official online resources) to come out, is simply to choose what makes sense and solve it with your GM. . Cats, owls, hawks, snakes (ignoring poison), etc., are quite easy, but a bat, since it does not have the familiar blind ability, is a beast different (pun). Some would argue that blind vision might be too powerful for a familiar ability, others would say it's just the rule at home, and others might suggest not to allow bald ones until official guidelines are available.

At the end of the day, this is a call from GM, but I will not miss it because you still have to pay for the feature. In fact, it is advantageous for the player to say that owls do not have dark vision (or do not fly) and that cats do not go up, so you can choose these abilities if you wish, without to be forced.

The pet rules state that pets can attack using your level as a modifier, but the lack of statistics means that we are alone in determining the amount and type of damage.

[ Dogs ] Open question: Are people with Down's syndrome smarter than dogs?

[Dogs] Open question: Are people with Down's syndrome smarter than dogs?