I find the new Rules for a familliar interesting except for one thing. Why do the powers invested in the bond for one partner need to be activated by the other?

Seems a bit useless as a limitation and quite bothersome. The fact that the magic can only affect one, the other or both creatures linked by the bond is already limiting I find that activation sould be detailed in the invesment of the power itself.

//Why do the powers invested in the bond for one partner need to be activated by the other?//

IMO its a role playing device to stress that the bond between magus and familiar belongs equally to both.
Would it be fun if an overzealous player has his magus enchant the bond with only effects under the magus' control and benefiting the magus, and then has him just lock the familiar up in the lab?

Kind regards,

Berengar

//Would it be fun if an overzealous player has his magus enchant the bond with only effects under the magus' control and benefiting the magus, and then has him just lock the familiar up in the lab?\\

I would tend to answer YES.

I would then arrange so that the Familliar gets the Magus in trouble or stops cooperating untill the situation is reversed as punisment. I personally think that the familliar has the edge in the relation.

I think that if the bond supports an enchantment to render invisible the familiar, it should be under the control of it not the magus. Meaby have it go both ways where the Magus can undo the invisibility at will.

I find it ridiculous that the magus needs the permission of the familiar to render himself invisible thru an investment thru a bond. In fact most applications of this rule seem out of sync with a normal relation of a magus-familiar. The only case where I see it fit would be healing.

Balancing the powers should be roleplay, not rule play... then again, it could be only me that finds this rule too limitative...

//I would then arrange so that the Familliar gets the Magus in trouble or stops cooperating untill the situation is reversed as punisment.//
But exactly to do this the familiar needs control over something the magus values.

//I find it ridiculous that the magus needs the permission of the familiar to render himself invisible thru an investment thru a bond.//
As the rule stands he needs more than the permission: he has to communicate with the familiar and then the familiar makes him invisible.
I do not find this ridiculous, for the reason I gave above. If the magus wishes to become invisible under his own control, he can enchant something different from the bond, after all.

//Balancing the powers should be roleplay, not rule play...//
Uffa, that's a very radical statement. Did you ever find a game where all the balance of character power was achieved through role playing?

Kind regards,

Berengar

//Balancing the powers should be roleplay, not rule play...//
Uffa, that's a very radical statement. Did you ever find a game where all the balance of character power was achieved through role playing?

I agree with Berengar.

A familiar is not an organic magical enchantment, compelled by it's creator to produce mystic affects. It is an individual who prior to forgeing a bond, agreed to link itself to a magus. This link benifits both individuals, but remember that the two remain individuals capable of choice. The choices the individuals make must be able to carry some weight, they must be able to influence the other. That is one element of the link between the two, the rule of denial.

Let's say this familiar is played by a player rather than the GM. While I would love to believe that a player through the sheer brilliance of role playing could tell the magus, "No I'm not going to turn you invisible"

Without a rule to make that decision carry weight, the magus player need only say, "Well that's interesting." And promptly become invisible.

What can the familiar in the hands of a player do if there is no rule to enforce thier decision? You said role play? But role play what? What resources are left to the familiar if the magus player just ignores them? Can the familiar fight the magus and win? Not likely. Can the familiar go to another magus and have them act as a sponsor to fight them? Certainly, but why should a familiar have to do that?

Remember, the familiar isn't a normal character in the game. It's a character mystically linked to the magus. If you rob the familiar of the rule of denial, then what sort of link is left? It's a link that gives a magus some extra powers without reprocussion or need for the familiar. I no longer think this is a familiar anymore.

//I would then arrange so that the Familliar gets the Magus in trouble or stops cooperating untill the situation is reversed as punisment.//

Stops cooperating sounds like the rule of denial. This needs to be concrete in the game or then it just becomes an idea.

Familiar, "I strongly protest!"

Magus, "I don't care."

I have a proposal. If you remove the rule of denial, then this would follow for all familiars everywhere through out time. This would mean one or two things.

One, semi intelligent creatures may know they have no power over magi and would be more reluctant to link with magi. This means familiars would be incredibly rare in the game as animals have no reason to make the link.

Two, animals that are duped into becoming familiars quickly become resentful of the magi they are linked to and often turn on them as they are ingnored and dismissed. Familiars have an air of Golems, and may in time turn on their masters.

Material to consider,

Chuck

None of my players have yet to even consider binding a familiar, so this hasn't popped up in my saga yet, but I had similar opinions of the rules when I first read them and thought they sounded a bit odd, though I can see where the developers are coming from. I found, however, that I was more accepting of the question of who controls the power than I was over the fact that a magus has to assume control over a power (such as speech) at sunrise and sunset in order to continue allowing the familiar to use it.

My plan, when this issue arises in my saga, is to use a joint control. As the familiar is the actual bearer of any enchantments, it has sole control over whether a given enchantment IS used or not, regardless of whether the power affects the familiar or the magus. By virtue of the mystical link that binds the magus to his familiar, and by the fact that the magus enchanted all of the powers himself, he has sole control over whether a given enchantment CAN be used.

Thus, only the familiar can actually activate a power, and can thus refuse to use them if he is not on friendly terms with the magus, but the magus can deny the powers to the familiar, preventing him from being able to use them at all. So, if the magus doesn't want his familiar turning invisible on him (or talking to him, etc.) he can deny the power, but by the same token (and a seperate power), the familiar doesn't have to turn the magus invisible when the magus demands it.

The rules mention that powers are limited to those that affect the familiar, the magus, or both, but doesn't seem to provide much detail on whether "both", in this case, implies anything specific. The sample powers that allow two-way communication, for example, imply that it is two seperate powers: one to affect the familiar, the other to affect the magus.

I am considering using "both" as a special connection type for powers that cannot be denied by either party. Thus, if the magus enchanted the familiar with a power that would allow either of them to find the other, then neither would be able to deny this power and effectively hide from the other. I have to think on this further and determine what effects are suitable and such. It obviously wouldn't be intended to allow a loophole to bypass the control question.

"Thus, only the familiar can actually activate a power, and can thus refuse to use them if he is not on friendly terms with the magus, but the magus can deny the powers to the familiar, preventing him from being able to use them at all."

This would solve the 'Familiar in a box' problem. It also describes better the relation one should have with a familiar. By that I mean that it better suits my view.

I understand the complicity that the rules are trying to force uppon us but I don't think it will have the intended effect.

If the familiar wants to surprise the magus and do him a favor, he can't since all his powers need to be activated by the magus. I find that the rules from the book will actually force the familiar in a box since without the magus he can only rely on his own powers if any.

Yes some magus will invest more powers onto their own side but some will give more to their loyal familiar then to themselves...

Leaving the activation of all powers in the hands of the familiar solves the problem & allows us to consider allowing the magus & familiar to benefit from the bond without the concious act of the other to activate the power without it risking to have a familiar in a box.

Merinita taught this power and she was an animal lover so it makes sence she protected the familiars this way... it make more sence than the fact that she was actually interested in 'complicity' between the two... aldo it could also be an option.

Familiar, "I strongly protest!"

Magus, "I don't care."

Familiar "Well Enchant it yourself!"

Magus, "I sure Will!"

Magus then spends an extra season to finish the project since the familiar was expected to help in the lab...

It takes some time to make a familiar a relevant help in the lab: more than a magus who just is looking for a way to save Vis on enchantments by exploiting the Bond's unlimited capacity would be willing to invest.

Kind regards,

Berengar

It is worth noting that these enchantments are neither on the magus or the familiar - they are on the bond.

Also (IIRC), you can still use linked triggers and enviromental triggers on familiar enchantments...

"It takes some time to make a familiar a relevant help in the lab: more than a magus who just is looking for a way to save Vis on enchantments by exploiting the Bond's unlimited capacity would be willing to invest."

Okay.. so a magus that wanted to save a few vis for personnal targetted spells and is willing to risk the vis used & if the bond is broken?

Seems to me that this magus is a risky person. He invest in a bond for which he has no respect of and expect that all will be fine.

I think that a magus prefers to spend a few seasons training the familiar & maintain a good relation since this familiar will be his friend till the final twilight which can be for a long time. The help in the lab provided will quickly cloud the benefit of a few vis, not to mention the benefit of having a friend you can thrust.

//Okay.. so a magus that wanted to save a few vis for personnal targetted spells and is willing to risk the vis used & if the bond is broken?//
Its not 'a few vis', if that magus is after enchantments for personal enhancements, but only the sky is the limit for these savings as the capacity of the bond is unlimited and opening costs were paid in full when the familiar was bonded. With your initially suggested rules change he does not risk anything - but a peeved and vindictive SG, of course - when he picks his familiar appropriately (think toad, turtle or snail) and then refrains from empowering it or letting it out of the lab.

//Seems to me that this magus is a risky person. He invest in a bond for which he has no respect of and expect that all will be fine.//
Yes - a typical PC of an overzealous player gaming your initially suggested rules change. So best keep the rules in place which generate that minimum respect essential to roleplaying a relationship between familiar and magus.

Kind regards,

Berengar