|
So my understanding is it's okay having a familiar granting it's passive bonuses to the player (init boost and awareness feat) and the player having a different Pet as their combat pet.
I'm just wanting to make sure that it also true for a wysp. namely their Resonance ability.
resonance: The wysp grants a +2 competence bonus on attack rolls and damage rolls to all creatures within 30 feet with an elemental subtype that matches the wysp's.
Is it okay to have a wysp granting this bonus while choosing a different Pet to be your combat pet?
|
So my understanding is it's okay having a familiar granting it's passive bonuses to the player (init boost and awareness feat) and the player having a different Pet as their combat pet.
I'm just wanting to make sure that it also true for a wysp. namely their Resonance ability.resonance: The wysp grants a +2 competence bonus on attack rolls and damage rolls to all creatures within 30 feet with an elemental subtype that matches the wysp's.
Is it okay to have a wysp granting this bonus while choosing a different Pet to be your combat pet?
Unless you get a comment from the PTB, I strongly suspect that the answer is "Expect table variation".
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
I would assume as a player and as a gm, that a non combat pet would not influence the combat in anyway. So no buffs, debuffs, skill checks or any other rolls in combat. The FAQ says
Noncombat animals (ponies, horses, pet dogs, and so on) cannot participate in combat at all.
In my mind, giving a buff is participating, so it would not be able to do that.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I would probably allow it, as the main reasoning for the restriction on pets is to keep one person from monopolizing the time in combat by controlling lots of creatures with separate actions. Passive bonuses don't take up the same amount of table time.
The passive bonuses would be allowed if they came from a bonded weapon/item instead of a familiar so it doesn't seem to be unbalancing.
That said, I'm speaking more to the general case of a pocket familiar...I'm not familiar with wysps in particular.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
So those GMs that wouldn't allow it. Do you allow someone to gain the normal familiar bonuses like the +4 init or +2 to saves if they had another combat pet?
I'm curious because I thought no to begin with. But I think I asked before and had a fair amount of people say they were okay with that, having a familiar grant its bonuses if not the combat pet, so I started considering a build for it.
|
Venture-Captain, Germany—Bavaria
|
So my understanding is it's okay having a familiar granting it's passive bonuses to the player (init boost and awareness feat) and the player having a different Pet as their combat pet.
I'm just wanting to make sure that it also true for a wysp. namely their Resonance ability.resonance: The wysp grants a +2 competence bonus on attack rolls and damage rolls to all creatures within 30 feet with an elemental subtype that matches the wysp's.
Is it okay to have a wysp granting this bonus while choosing a different Pet to be your combat pet?
When could/would that be relevant?
And I also tend to say no.
|
|
So those GMs that wouldn't allow it. Do you allow someone to gain the normal familiar bonuses like the +4 init or +2 to saves if they had another combat pet?
I'm curious because I thought no to begin with. But I think I asked before and had a fair amount of people say they were okay with that, having a familiar grant its bonuses if not the combat pet, so I started considering a build for it.
I've never seen it come up. I've really never seen anyone have two animals this way in PFS.
So those GMs that wouldn't allow it. Do you allow someone to gain the normal familiar bonuses like the +4 init or +2 to saves if they had another combat pet?
I'm curious because I thought no to begin with. But I think I asked before and had a fair amount of people say they were okay with that, having a familiar grant its bonuses if not the combat pet, so I started considering a build for it.
I will preface this by saying I have never seen it come up, so I also would be open to some discussion on it at the table.
For this question, I would be inclined to let the player get the bonuses, because they get these abilities when within 1 mile of their companion. A mile is a long way, the familiar could be completely removed from combat trailing super far behind, and still give those bonuses to their master. However with the wysp, it needs to be within 30 feet, If it is affecting the combat, but not able to be targeted or dealt with in any way because it is chosen as the "non combat" companion I see that as a problem.
That is my view on the subject, as such I agree with Fromper that I wouldn't try it as a player at all, as a gm, I would be inclined to disallow it.
|
|
but if it was in a familiar satchel it would be having total cover and still grant it's bonuses to everything within 30ft of it. So even if it was the combat pet, it's not like you'd have much way of targeting it or really knowing it was there.
but it's sounding like I'm hearing yes normal familiar is okay to give bonuses while other combat pet. No on wysp. good to know.
|
resonance: The wysp grants a +2 competence bonus on attack rolls and damage rolls to all creatures within 30 feet with an elemental subtype that matches the wysp's.
Good lord. Those things are legal for PCs? edit: At least they don't stack with bard song. They (and equivalent effects) killed people on both tables of
I've seen.
I also agree with jayder22 that if either a normal familiar or a wysp grants bonuses in combat, it is present in combat and is the player's one and only combat animal. This doesn't change if the wysp sacrifices itself to heal its master.
|
Venture-Agent, Massachusetts—Boston Metro
|
I also agree with jayder22 that if either a normal familiar or a wysp grants bonuses in combat, it is present in combat and is the player's one and only combat animal. This doesn't change if the wysp sacrifices itself to heal its master.
Its one of those things that its irritatingly not really clear on.
|
|
I seem to be on the hard-nose end of the spectrum. My usually ruling is that one pet can be chosen for the scenario. Period. Nothing else can have *any* mechanical or role-play benefit.
Even more than the table-time argument, I worry about the outshining-everyone-else problem. Players that monopolize the glory/fun are enough of a problem without allowing three or four "PCs" per player.
|
|
Per the Pathfinder Society Roleplaying Guide Guide, version 8, p. 38:
Class Feature Entity: Any permanent companion creature (e.g. animal companion, eidolon, familiar, mount, phantom, etc.) that accompanies the PC, can take its own actions in combat, and is acquired through a PC’s class features is referred to as a class feature entity. In the Pathfinder Society Roleplaying Guild, a character may have only one class feature entity active during a session. See the FAQ for more information on interactions between familiars and other class feature entities. See the Pathfinder Society FAQ at paizo.com/pathfinderSociety/faq for information about what magic items such creatures can use.
From the PFS FAQ:
How many animals can I have at any given time?
During the course of a scenario, you may have one combat animal and as many noncombat animals as you like. Noncombat animals (ponies, horses, pet dogs, and so on) cannot participate in combat at all. If you have so many noncombat animals that their presence is slowing a session down, the GM has the right to ask you to select one noncombat animal and leave the rest behind. A summoner's eidolon is considered an animal companion for the purposes of counting combat and noncombat animals. If you have more than one class-granted animal companion (or eidolon), you must choose which will be considered the combat animal at the start of the scenario. In general, a mount, a familiar or mundane pet, and your class-granted animal(s) are acceptable, but more than that can be disruptive.
These two sources have a conflict in that the FAQ says that you can have a familiar and a class-granted animal at the same time, but the new organized play rules say you can have only one. Personally, based on these two sources, I would allow you to use a familiar who does not participate in combat (i.e., takes no actions during combat) plus one combat animal (such as a trained warhorse or dog), provided that it was not a CFE. Even if the familiar does not participate in combat, it would still grant any static bonuses per its normal rules.
|
resonance: The wysp grants a +2 competence bonus on attack rolls and damage rolls to all creatures within 30 feet with an elemental subtype that matches the wysp's.Good lord. Those things are legal for PCs? edit: At least they don't stack with bard song. They (and equivalent effects) killed people on both tables of...
They are legal, but keep in mind that planetouched PCs (Oread, Undine, etc.) don't actually have an elemental subtype. They are outsider (native) only. The only class that gets a resonance bonus from a wysp is the kineticist.
|
|
I've never seen it come up. I've really never seen anyone have two animals this way in PFS.So those GMs that wouldn't allow it. Do you allow someone to gain the normal familiar bonuses like the +4 init or +2 to saves if they had another combat pet?
I'm curious because I thought no to begin with. But I think I asked before and had a fair amount of people say they were okay with that, having a familiar grant its bonuses if not the combat pet, so I started considering a build for it.
<---(points at self)
When I play one particular character I have both an animal companion and a familiar at my disposal. I always say to the GM at the beginning "There's some slightly contradictory language out there but here's the line of the FAQ that says I can have one companion and one familiar (and a mount). I want to make sure you're aware of what I intend to do and talk it over with you before we begin play." Two have not allowed me to use the familiar. One said "sure, whatever." The vast majority have said "OK, you can use it but if it gets disruptive or slows down the game I'm going to ask you to remove one of them."
|
Venture-Lieutenant, Minnesota—Minneapolis
|
They are legal, but keep in mind that planetouched PCs (Oread, Undine, etc.) don't actually have an elemental subtype. They are outsider (native) only. The only class that gets a resonance bonus from a wysp is the kineticist.resonance: The wysp grants a +2 competence bonus on attack rolls and damage rolls to all creatures within 30 feet with an elemental subtype that matches the wysp's.Good lord. Those things are legal for PCs? edit: At least they don't stack with bard song. They (and equivalent effects) killed people on both tables of...
...and every elemental of the matching type summoned by someone at the table.
On the other hand, it doesn't limit the bonus to allies. BBEGs with good enough Knowledge: Planes could use it against the PCs.
|
Venture-Agent, Massachusetts—Boston Metro
|
We could use some more clarity in the definition of combat pet. I'll talk it over with the rest of the PFS team. What I can say for now is that a wysp giving its combat bonuses does count as a combat pet.
Wait so why did you allow the Occultist archetype by the very nature of this ruling would give you three combat pets? Mind you I would like to play it but its such a weird corner case of the rules that I'd am waiting to play it.
EDIT:Mind you I don't disagree its just that the Shai'ir is a weird archetype and any clarifications are appreciated.
