Cure at 23:29, 13 April 2010

2010-04-13T23:29:45Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 17:29, 13 April 2010
Line 10:		Line 10:

	So, there's no mention of Dread Familiars in 2e, and no mention of Pseudo-familiars in 3e. Latest info from each edition says "everyone gets one". I'm inclined to believe they are the same thing by a different name, (like [[Dread Treant]] vs. [[Evil Treant]], etc.), rather than that Pseudos are more powerful Dreads. They have been depowered in 3e compared to 2e, but familiars in general got a big power up in 3e, so it balances out somewhat. And lots of critters lost or gained abilities in the translation, so that's not too unusual. I'm inclined to just combine them into one entry with a note about their different name and different powers between editions. Thoughts? -- [[User:Gonzoron\|Gonzoron]] 23:10, 13 April 2010 (UTC)		So, there's no mention of Dread Familiars in 2e, and no mention of Pseudo-familiars in 3e. Latest info from each edition says "everyone gets one". I'm inclined to believe they are the same thing by a different name, (like [[Dread Treant]] vs. [[Evil Treant]], etc.), rather than that Pseudos are more powerful Dreads. They have been depowered in 3e compared to 2e, but familiars in general got a big power up in 3e, so it balances out somewhat. And lots of critters lost or gained abilities in the translation, so that's not too unusual. I'm inclined to just combine them into one entry with a note about their different name and different powers between editions. Thoughts? -- [[User:Gonzoron\|Gonzoron]] 23:10, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

			I am persuaded that you are right.[[User:Cure\|Cure]] 23:29, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Gonzoron: Created page with 'On the Talk:Silessa page, Cure asked: "Would she also be a Dread Familiar? Which is also to invite the question of whether all pseudo-familiars are dread familiars. I would …'

2010-04-13T23:10:11Z

Created page with 'On the Talk:Silessa page, Cure asked: "Would she also be a Dread Familiar? Which is also to invite the question of whether all pseudo-familiars are dread familiars. I would …'

New page

On the [[Talk:Silessa]] page, Cure asked: "Would she also be a Dread Familiar? Which is also to invite the question of whether all pseudo-familiars are dread familiars. I would say yes."

I did a bit of research:
* Black Box (1990): Only evil wizards get familiars
* Red Box (1994): Only evil wizards get familiars
* RLMCIII (1994): First mention of Pseudo-familiars... all good/neutral wizards get pseudo-familiars.
* Domains of Dread (1997): Only evil wizards get the familiars ''they want''. Everyone else gets pseudo-familiars.
* RCS(2001): First mention of Dread Familiars. Everyone gets a Dread Familiar.
* RLPH(2003): same as RCS.

So, there's no mention of Dread Familiars in 2e, and no mention of Pseudo-familiars in 3e. Latest info from each edition says "everyone gets one". I'm inclined to believe they are the same thing by a different name, (like [[Dread Treant]] vs. [[Evil Treant]], etc.), rather than that Pseudos are more powerful Dreads. They have been depowered in 3e compared to 2e, but familiars in general got a big power up in 3e, so it balances out somewhat. And lots of critters lost or gained abilities in the translation, so that's not too unusual. I'm inclined to just combine them into one entry with a note about their different name and different powers between editions. Thoughts? -- [[User:Gonzoron|Gonzoron]] 23:10, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Category talk:Pseudo-Familiar - Revision history

Cure at 23:29, 13 April 2010

Gonzoron: Created page with 'On the Talk:Silessa page, Cure asked: "Would she also be a Dread Familiar? Which is also to invite the question of whether all pseudo-familiars are dread familiars. I would …'