Forums of the Megaverse®

I remember in Rifts Conversion Book 2: Pantheons of the Megaverse that it talked about Odin having 2 ravens as a familiar.

I think that's the only instance of an NPC having more than 1 familiar, and I don't think the "Familiar Link" spell ever explicitly discussed simultaneous uses by a single mage (only consecutive uses for replacements) so there seems to be at least an impression/assumption that you can only have one familiar at a time (with Odin perhaps being a rare exception)

That said, I'm trying to remember if there was text in a book or online (maybe errata/FAQ) explicitly disallowing having two or more familiars simultaneously through casting the Familiar Link spell more than once.

I feel like it's something I might have come across a long time ago (but I might be imagining it) and if anyone might remember seeing it.

The only place I do remember is Through the Glass Darkly but it doesn't use the familiar link spell, instead it just allows any mage to PERMANENTLY invest PPE into a familiar, so I don't know if that limit would apply to the temporary-PPE spellcasting.

And your question Is What?

I will presume since you have no answer for my question that the OP is a troll's bate for an argument.
------------
Debunking...
*Odin: PB cheated with this NPC to make the NPC fit the mythological details of the figure. Not avalible for defining what the rules are.

*NB style familiars: the Familiar Wrangle class says that it is breaking the Only One at a Time rules within it's text

There both ideas you have to break the rules are debunked.

It's not a good idea to use the head of a pantheon as a reason to justify your powergaming.

drewkitty ~..~ wrote:And your question Is What?

I'm trying to remember if there was text in a book or online (maybe errata/FAQ) explicitly disallowing having two or more familiars simultaneously through casting the Familiar Link spell more than once.

I feel like it's something I might have come across a long time ago (but I might be imagining it) and if anyone might remember seeing it.

I thought it was obviously, but if you'd prefer it explicitly phrased with a question mark:

Does anyone know where to find prohibitions of multiple familiar links by a mage?

drewkitty ~..~ wrote:I will presume since you have no answer for my question that the OP is a troll's bate for an argument.

Sometimes people take longer than 24 hours to return to check a thread. Perhaps Palladium could enact that new 'notifications' option for browsers like some other forums? I definitely don't want to do the 'email' option.

drewkitty ~..~ wrote:PB cheated with this NPC

To define it as cheating we'd need to have rules prohibiting 2 ravens to begin with, which is what I was trying to ask for.

drewkitty ~..~ wrote:NB style familiars:
the Familiar Wrangle class says that it is breaking the Only One at a Time rules within it's text
There both ideas you have to break the rules are debunked.

TTGD-style familiars are different than familiars fight the FL spell though, since you don't need to know that spell and you permanently spend PPE to do this.

Heart of Magic sort of blurred these lines since it allowed the TTGD options for mages who used the FL spell though. Interestingly though, in doing so, HOM did not appear to reprint TTGD's explicit "one at a time" rules.

The Beast wrote:It's not a good idea to use the head of a pantheon as a reason to justify your powergaming.

Odin could risk permanently losing 8 HP compared to his starting point for the benefit of getting 12 HP, assuming he used FL twice.

Familiar Link is powerful if you can secure your familiars but it comes with risks too.

Axelmania wrote:

drewkitty ~..~ wrote:NB style familiars:
the Familiar Wrangle class says that it is breaking the Only One at a Time rules within it's text
There both ideas you have to break the rules are debunked.

TTGD-style familiars are different than familiars fight the FL spell though, since you don't need to know that spell and you permanently spend PPE to do this.

Heart of Magic sort of blurred these lines since it allowed the TTGD options for mages who used the FL spell though. Interestingly though, in doing so, HOM did not appear to reprint TTGD's explicit "one at a time" rules.

I am very familiar with the TtGD familiar rules. I have a 1st printing of that book. And I have one of every rifter.
And.....Yes there is text saying that there is a Only one familiar rule. Even when using the TtGD rules. If you didn't just glance over my post you would of seen where.

Axelmania wrote:

The Beast wrote:It's not a good idea to use the head of a pantheon as a reason to justify your powergaming.

Odin could risk permanently losing 8 HP compared to his starting point for the benefit of getting 12 HP, assuming he used FL twice.

Familiar Link is powerful if you can secure your familiars but it comes with risks too.

The are reasons you do not go looking at the exceptions that prove the rule, to set the rule to the exception.
One of them is that if do do that people start thinking you are a munchkin, and start to deliberately excluding you from games.

In every table top RPG I have played the writer made NPC almost always break the rules.

To properly masquerade as Odin he would need two Ravens, an eight legged flying horse, and a giant wolf.

drewkitty ~..~ wrote:I am very familiar with the TtGD familiar rules. I have a 1st printing of that book. And I have one of every rifter.
And.....Yes there is text saying that there is a Only one familiar rule. Even when using the TtGD rules. If you didn't just glance over my post you would of seen where.

I don't think you gave a page number or an actual Rifter number, you mentioned the Familiar Wrangler which I know is in Rifter 21, and the TOC on pg 4 doesn't mention CN Constantin's "Familiars of Rifts Earth" article is canon.

Pg 27 says "optional rules" so if you're referring to pg 39's "Unlike the traditional spell caster, the
Familiar Wrangler can have more than one familiar" one could view that as introducing an absent limitation to make the OCC more unique.

My first post said "The only place I do remember is Through the Glass Darkly" so I acknowledge remembering a limit from that book. Your saying "even when using" is strange, since my view was we had 1-only rules for TTGD but maybe not for the FL spell.

drewkitty ~..~ wrote:The are reasons you do not go looking at the exceptions that prove the rule,
to set the rule to the exception.

NPCs tend to own less than 100 guns but that doesn't mean there's a rule against owning 100 guns. Multiple familiars would be an exception to the NORM, but there's no rule just because NPCs seem to abide by a pattern.

There might be an NPC or two out there with multiple spouses but I can't actually remember one. It's probably rare also.

Oh gee wow, the poster that didn't like me saying that there were no official conversion for Spirit Foxes to be played in the PF game is now turning about his objection about me leaving out the Rifter text in my statement about that, is not saying that the rifter text is not of value when it goes against his desires to twist the game rules. yada yada yada.

In nowhere in the text where it talks about familiars, there is no text allowing the mages to have more than one. And yet all the context of the text about them only talks about the mage having one familiar. As such there is nothing for a Player to stand on when trying to argue that the standard should change from what it is.


There is only one Canon character class that has the ability to have more then one familiar. That class in the Beast master class. This is an example of a positively explisive text for having more than one familiar in a mage or magic user. However, the beast master class is not a magic class (it says so in the class text) so it can not be used to support an assumption that a mage or other magic user can have more then on familiar. Another thing, the text you need to find needs to be, unlike the text in beast master text, not class specific.

In other words, you need to prove that they can, from positively specific text.

By the way the distraction of multiple wives or weapons is not in any way shape or form examples of what is being talked about in this topic. Because there is a soul link between the master and familiar.

Mairage does not create any link like what is being talked about. And owning an object is like you having clothes, there is no soul-link joining the two into one.

drewkitty ~..~ wrote:Oh gee wow, the poster that didn't like me saying that there were no official conversion for Spirit Foxes to be played in the PF game

PF is an SDC setting, I was asking about MDC settings like Rifts.

If you mean my July 6 reply I don't think I said I didn't like it, just that it becomes even more critical to understand what 0 SDC means to spirit foxes since it's much easier to be reduced to 0 SDC in an MD setting, so it would probably happen more often.

drewkitty ~..~ wrote:is now turning about his objection about me leaving out the Rifter text in my statement about that,
is not saying that the rifter text is not of value when it goes against his desires to twist the game rules.

I believe in both cases I established that neither Rifter article had text indicating officiality.

drewkitty ~..~ wrote:In nowhere in the text where it talks about familiars,
there is no text allowing the mages to have more than one.

You could probably say the same of 'Magic Warrior' or 'Summon Shadow Beast' or 'Summoner Lesser Being' though. Spells focus on effects of a single casting of PPE and not always the effects of casting it multiple times.

drewkitty ~..~ wrote:And yet all the context of the text about them only talks about the mage having one familiar.

Excepting one NPC example (Odin) where there are two.

Whereas with stuff like Golem we have NPCs like thoth who amass hundreds of them. There's probably a non-god NPC with multiple golems too, I just can't think of one off hand. I believe Rama-Set (merely dragon) had hundreds of mummies/zombies. With other 'creates indefinite minion' type spells there does seem to be sense of greater evidence.

drewkitty ~..~ wrote:As such there is nothing for a Player to stand on when trying to argue that the standard should change from what it is.

My point is that there seems to be an assumed standard rather than an explicit one.

drewkitty ~..~ wrote:There is only one Canon character class that has the ability to have more then one familiar. That class in the Beast master class. This is an example of a positively explisive text for having more than one familiar in a mage or magic user. However, the beast master class is not a magic class (it says so in the class text) so it can not be used to support an assumption that a mage or other magic user can have more then on familiar.

I'll need to review the OCC to see if there's any text there that would have implications on the FL spell, like "unlike wizards, can have multiple" or so forth. Will check WB7:Adventures in the Yin Sloth Jungles later I guess.

drewkitty ~..~ wrote:In other words, you need to prove that they can, from positively specific text.

Would that apply the Magic Warrior / Shadow Beast / Summon Lesser Being / Summoner Greater Familiar too?

drewkitty ~..~ wrote:there is a soul link between the master and familiar.

Found a direct quote for 'soul' in respect to familiars yet?

drewkitty ~..~ wrote:Mairage does not create any link like what is being talked about. And owning an object is like you having clothes, there is no soul-link joining the two into one.

Perhaps the Absurdd Life Node is a better analogy then? Has the exact 'two are now one' phrase, involves a physical bond (albeit this one requires contact, not -bonded at a distance- like FL spell) so what are your thoughts on the Life Node comparison?