An open letter To Paizo concerning the Magical Child


Rules Questions

51 to 60 of 60 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>
Scarab Sages

CBDunkerson wrote:


Quote:
If it becomes an elemental... it's not really an elemental. It's something that looks like an elemental and has its abilities. If it becomes a lyrakien... it is not a lyrakien. It just looks like one and shares its abilities.
Semantics. If it quacks like a duck...

Not really... that's how ducks get shot. They hear something that sounds like a duck coming from the hunter.

Sounding like a duck does not a duck make. Neither does looking like or walking like.

Especially in a game like Pathfinder. My wizard can do all that. Doesn't anymore make him a duck than gluing feathers to his arms.

The creature has one body that changes. But it is still the one thing. For example, HP damage is not per form.

CBDunkerson wrote:


Quote:
And, for this spirit guide, when a part is manifest the other parts are not. Thus when a Donkey Rat, Master gains a +2 bonus on Fortitude saves. But when in another form, it does not grant that. Each form only provides what that form provides and not what any other form provides.
This actually agrees with my position... and contradicts the idea that the lack of 'speak with animals' on the improved familiar forms indicates a lack of this ability on the animal familiar form. If the animal familiar form then HAS that ability why can it not swap it out for an archetype which replaces 'speak with animals'? If it is because the improved familiar forms don't have 'speak with animals'... well then we are back to applying things across forms.

I don't believe they are improved familiars at first level. Nothing in the text states that the different aspects exist before they are shown. *shrugs* Nor does it say they aren't.

So picking one concept you happen to like and sticking with it is probably a bad choice.

Lets look at the rules...

The creature is a base familiar when you get it with all that means. It then changes forms into something off the improved familiar list.
That means it is a base familiar with the form of an improved familiar in its vigilante identity. Not an improved familiar. It never stops being the base familiar as that is its social identity. What it gets at 9th is only to change between vigilante identities.

That COULD mean it still has the base familiar bonus. And it COULD mean it still has speak with animals of its kind. The kind probably being from its base form.

It COULD instead mean that it follows all the rules from being an improved familiar at 3rd and any archetypes the familiar has that does not agree with improved familiars becomes deactivated due to no longer being valid.

It COULD mean a lot of things. But there isn't enough rules there to decide definitively one way or another. We need a FAQ or possibly errata to be sure. And instead of picking one side of a no-way-to-know argument and sticking to it... it is better to present reasons why our versions are worth being the real one in case that ends up mattering during the discussion of which way to handle it by the developers.

Scarab Sages

Azten wrote:
Different bodies, different ability scores, different types and subtypes, different feats, different skill bonuses...

Same body. Just different form. Sort of like the old style polymorph.

Whats really weird is the different mental stats.

But... really, the concept is cool but not 'track everything that changes and the things that don't' cool. It is the lazy and easy way to just go with statblock switching and say its the same creature.

I mean, the Wasp Familiar feat does the same thing, without actually changing form.

Liberty's Edge

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Look at it this way;

Possibility 1: Some abilities/limitations of one or more forms are shared across forms.
Possibility 2: All abilities/limitations of each form are self-contained and have no impact on the other forms.

I've been following possibility 2. It seems most (all?) others have been following possibility 1, but disagreeing on which features are shared and/or which form(s) are 'dominant'.

If each form is treated separately then it is fairly easy to follow existing rules to understand how everything works. Possibility 1 on the other hand will require clear rulings on which feature(s) of which form(s) carry over in which circumstances.

Scarab Sages

CBDunkerson wrote:

Look at it this way;

Possibility 1: Some abilities/limitations of one or more forms are shared across forms.
Possibility 2: All abilities/limitations of each form are self-contained and have no impact on the other forms.

I've been following possibility 2. It seems most (all?) others have been following possibility 1, but disagreeing on which features are shared and/or which form(s) are 'dominant'.

If each form is treated separately then it is fairly easy to follow existing rules to understand how everything works. Possibility 1 on the other hand will require clear rulings on which feature(s) of which form(s) carry over in which circumstances.

Those are pretty much the two possibilities.

But neither is more likely from the given rules.

Actually, the easiest way would be self-contained and no archetype.

The ability is unclear because it is a new sort of system and the write-up on it was only a couple paragraphs. It is impossible to tell exactly how it is to go. Like I said earlier, instead of arguing the different ways it could be we should focus on finding out what it is.

Familiar rules are a little convoluted, strict in the weirdest places and just plain weird. So of course a concept that mucks about with the basic concepts of it is going to be funky.

My opinion?
It reads like the familiar never actually stops being the base familiar. It just seems like, for most intents and purposes, like a a different kind of creature.

Scarab Sages

Guys, guys. This wasn't a thread to discuss different magical child builds, I actually already made one in the advice board. I just wanted to campaign for allowing archtypes for a magical child's familiar on a few points. Points I made clear, I feel.

1) Magical children are unique in that they get a familiar that doesn't eventually fully become an improved familiar, but can bounce back and forth between them.

2) Their spell list makes little sense for their class or their inspiration.

3) The versatility of archetypes would help round out the class, help them specialize to the point of being able to become solvent.

I don't want to start a big debate over build optimization or why one 'can't' play magical children.

And why does everyone always cite the mauler familiar? Personally, I just want a protector familiar to help my melee magical child (who, yes, uses leathal grace and an Elven branched spear.)


Something sounds odd about a RPG-line FAQ that answers how it interacts with Player Companion content, has there been a precedent for such a thing?

Liberty's Edge

2 people marked this as a favorite.
VampByDay wrote:
And why does everyone always cite the mauler familiar? Personally, I just want a protector familiar to help my melee magical child (who, yes, uses leathal grace and an Elven branched spear.)

...but you don't want to talk about builds. :]

Anyway, Mauler makes sense for a Magical Child because the animal guide already gets something like five combat abilities that other familiars do not. It'd be nice to be able to actually use those without guaranteeing that the animal guide gets killed.

As to archetypes for animal guides in general... I continue to think they should be able to apply different archetypes to each form. As each form has different abilities and limitations (e.g. the three improved familiar forms don't have 'speak with animals of type') they'd potentially each qualify for different archetypes. Since you also don't necessarily know what the future forms are going to be it could be difficult to pick a single archetype that works for all of them in advance. Ergo... each form can have (or not have) its own separate archetype. The animal guide effectively gets FOUR familiars, but can only have one of them active at a time.

Scarab Sages

CBDunkerson wrote:
VampByDay wrote:
And why does everyone always cite the mauler familiar? Personally, I just want a protector familiar to help my melee magical child (who, yes, uses leathal grace and an Elven branched spear.)

...but you don't want to talk about builds. :]

Anyway, Mauler makes sense for a Magical Child because the animal guide already gets something like five combat abilities that other familiars do not. It'd be nice to be able to actually use those without guaranteeing that the animal guide gets killed.

As to archetypes for animal guides in general... I continue to think they should be able to apply different archetypes to each form. As each form has different abilities and limitations (e.g. the three improved familiar forms don't have 'speak with animals of type') they'd potentially each qualify for different archetypes. Since you also don't necessarily know what the future forms are going to be it could be difficult to pick a single archetype that works for all of them in advance. Ergo... each form can have (or not have) its own separate archetype. The animal guide effectively gets FOUR familiars, but can only have one of them active at a time.

I definitely agree this is the way I'd want it to work. It makes it feel a little like the druid archetype with elemental eidolons. But that isn't necessarily a bad thing.

Though, I worry that it is a bit unfair to other familiar based archetypes.


First:
The Magic Child archetype has a lot of potential, if you're creative. There's a lot of "bad" archetypes out there which I would never consider using - this isn't one of them. Even if you think it's bad... guess what? Most archetypes kinda are, on average. So par for the course.

Second:
By my reading, the familiar's vigilante form is indeed a completely different creature, physically. (apart from keeping existing status effects, and the like) How does this interact with familiar archetypes? That's a very good question and is certainly FAQ worthy.
But in the absence of official guidance, at my tables I won't allow, say, the Mauler archetype to be carried over to the familiar's vigilante's form. I admit that this ruling is my personal interpretation. Expect to see table variation.


Hrothdane wrote:
Honestly, as I said before, two of the best familiar archetypes don't trade out speak with animals of its kind (sage and emissary) and should thus be available, and both even fit the "guide" flavor of the archetype well.

I don't see how that is relevant.

The rules state the familiar changes "into a creature on the Improved Familiar list." No where does it say you either get the feat or loose speak with animals of it's kind. In fact, theoretically you could take both the feat and still have this ability, basically meaning you have two improved familiars to choose from.

What I find more interesting though is not taking the improved familiar feat. Hey, anyone want an Infiltrator Lyrakien or Mauler Liminal Sprite? With the later a few levels in Eldritch Guardian (Which may or may not be worth the spell levels.) and you have a full sized mini-me in your pocket.

EDIT: Oooooh, and I forgot. Shoutout to Decoy Familiar. Decoy Familiar + Social Talents = Profit?

51 to 60 of 60 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder First Edition / Rules Questions / An open letter To Paizo concerning the Magical Child All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.