I haven't got an official answer, but I would most certainly allow it. I mean, my players would surely feel great for figuring out how to effectively use such a spell; why would I take that away?

Personally I accept Jeff's ruling as "official", but I wouldn't have allowed it anyway.  I consider familiars to be spirits bound in flesh - I even give them alignments matching their master or mistress, rather than making them automatically Neutral like a normal animal - so I don't regard them as subject to a spell intended to kill mere vermin.  To take some of the sting out of this ploy failing, I would probably have the familiar lose an action and do something arguably entertaining like vomiting maggots.  But it wouldn't die.

Last edited by Blackadder23 (3/07/2014 8:25 am)

I think I definitely wouldn't let it work against a witch's familiar. But a magician's . . . hmm. I like the idea of making my players sad--but I also like the idea of a familiar vomiting maggots! It's so hard to choose.

Thanks, all!

DMPrata wrote:

Handy Haversack wrote:

I think I definitely wouldn't let it work against a witch's familiar. But a magician's . . . hmm. I like the idea of making my players sad--but I also like the idea of a familiar vomiting maggots! It's so hard to choose.

Thanks, all!

I agree extermination should be effective against a magician's familiar, but not a witch's. The former is more like the AD&D familiar, whilst the latter is something... different.

I would not allow it there, either, personally, but do what thou wilt, shall be the whole of the law. My contention is this: Even the magician's familiar is noted as a "singular" creature, and that word choice is by intent.

Singular: remarkable, extraordinary, exceptional, outstanding, signal, notable, noteworthy; rare, unique, unparalleled, unprecedented, amazing, astonishing, phenomenal, astounding.

When I consider the supernatural bond with its master, and that it is rare and exceptional, I feel it should be exempt; though I must admit, I do enjoy BA23's resolution above.

DMPrata wrote:

Blackadder23 wrote:

Personally I accept Jeff's ruling as "official"...

So, Jeff, when can we begin cataloguing your every message board post and endlessly debating your apparently contradictory statements?

Maybe I can answer questions with questions! Everbody loves that:

Q: "What happens if a thief picks a lock while wearing chain mail?" 
A: "What do you think should happen?"

;)