HYPERBOREA / Extermination vs. Familiars

**Posted by Handy Haversack** 3/06/2014 10:14 pm

Hi, all,

Figured I should make my first post about a question that came up as one of my players and I were making characters (our first actual session will be Saturday).

It seems like the lvl. 1 necromantic spell extermination would be a great way to cause some damage to a magician, no? Small animals of 1/4 HD save or die. I wonder if it would affect a witch's familiar, which are daemons in the shape of an animal? Because that's a kind of badass way to kill a witch!

Should the spell be able to do so? I assume someone on this board is quite in the know about such a question!

Glad to be here. Looking forward to playing this weekend!

H

Things I Worked On · **Posted by Ynas Midgard** 3/07/2014 6:18 am

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?

**Posted by Ghul** 3/07/2014 6:40 am

I wouldn't allow it, because the extermination spell clearly states "ordinary" bats, rats, small birds, etc. The witch's familiar is immediatly stated to be a demon; this, to me, disqualifies them from being subject to the spell. Of course, YMMV, and like Ynas Midgard mentions above, it's always great to see players figuring out new and creative ways to use spells.

**Posted by Blackadder23** 3/07/2014 8:24 am

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)

**Posted by Chainsaw** 3/07/2014 8:30 am

Blackadder23 wrote:
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.

I like that!

**Posted by Handy Haversack** 3/07/2014 9:10 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!

**Posted by DMPrata** 3/09/2014 12:27 pm

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.

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?

**Posted by Ghul** 3/09/2014 12:57 pm

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?"

;)