|
Well, as you can see from subject title, I think archetypes for companions and familiars should be there for beginning :D I also think improved familiars should by raw be able to have archetypes, in 1e its not worth it to take improved familiar with feat since normal familiar with archetype is more likely to be useful.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Personally, I'd like to see core familiars and animal companions included in the core rulebook so we don't have to refer new players to an entirely different book for information.
And we can cut out the arguments about whether or not something is "core" if it's not in the core rulebook.
I wouldn't mind "build-a-companion" rules being core, so essentially everyone with a companion gets an "Eidolon," just flavored as a cat or whatever the player is going for. Because PF1 showed us that if Paizo makes a giant table of predefined animals only 5% of them are going to be useful (the ones with Pounce or that can be used as mounts) and the rest will be trash and not see play. Don't gimp me out of having a flavorful deer or triceratops companion that is also actually good!
EDIT: I'm curious what is going on with gaining companions in general. They've left hints that maybe it won't be class based and instead just a feat for being trained in Nature? Not sure how I feel about that, because if anyone can get one then they'll have to be weaker for balance.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Build your own companion rules would be interesting.
Hopefully vermin and plant companions will options for core.
Magical beast companions would be awesome as well.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Well, as you can see from subject title, I think archetypes for companions and familiars should be there for beginning :D I also think improved familiars should by raw be able to have archetypes, in 1e its not worth it to take improved familiar with feat since normal familiar with archetype is more likely to be useful.
That was the point. Improved familiars are quite strong because of all they can do. Archetypes were a way to try and make base familiars more useful to not have it be an automatic yes of Should I get an improved familiar.
I'd be very happy to see familiar archetypes in core, but I can see space constraints not allowing it. Last time around, archetypes were introduced in the second book, so that might be a good spot for familiar/companion archetypes.
That said, it'd probably be good if the class feature's name were such that "animal companion" for something was clear in referring to the companion, rather than a PC with that feature.
|
|
Well, as you can see from subject title, I think archetypes for companions and familiars should be there for beginning :D I also think improved familiars should by raw be able to have archetypes, in 1e its not worth it to take improved familiar with feat since normal familiar with archetype is more likely to be useful.That was the point. Improved familiars are quite strong because of all they can do. Archetypes were a way to try and make base familiars more useful to not have it be an automatic yes of Should I get an improved familiar.
Umm, that doesn't really make sense because improved familiars aren't strong, they don't even get normal familiar's bonus to master's skills or initiative, they are flavor options. And with archetypes making normal ones straight up better, you are forced to choose between flavor and good options if you want to go for improved familiars.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I'd rather they got rid of Companions altogether.
I wouldn't mind "build-a-companion" rules being core, so essentially everyone with a companion gets an "Eidolon," just flavored as a cat or whatever the player is going for. Because PF1 showed us that if Paizo makes a giant table of predefined animals only 5% of them are going to be useful (the ones with Pounce or that can be used as mounts) and the rest will be trash and not see play. Don't gimp me out of having a flavorful deer or triceratops companion that is also actually good!
EDIT: I'm curious what is going on with gaining companions in general. They've left hints that maybe it won't be class based and instead just a feat for being trained in Nature? Not sure how I feel about that, because if anyone can get one then they'll have to be weaker for balance.
I hope they do some sort of combination. aka a skill feat in nature allows anyone to get a companion (similar to handle animal now but better) and then a class feat for the druid/ranger/paladin enhances your animal companion to be a better meat-shield/scout/mount or whatever.
Umm, that doesn't really make sense because improved familiars aren't strong, they don't even get normal familiar's bonus to master's skills or initiative, they are flavor options. And with archetypes making normal ones straight up better, you are forced to choose between flavor and good options if you want to go for improved familiars.Well, as you can see from subject title, I think archetypes for companions and familiars should be there for beginning :D I also think improved familiars should by raw be able to have archetypes, in 1e its not worth it to take improved familiar with feat since normal familiar with archetype is more likely to be useful.That was the point. Improved familiars are quite strong because of all they can do. Archetypes were a way to try and make base familiars more useful to not have it be an automatic yes of Should I get an improved familiar.
Improved familiars are very strong. The reason they don't grant bonuses to their master is because they are far superior to non-improved and they wanted it to have some trade to not ALWAYS be the best option. Some can use wands. Some have their own spells. Some have other cool stuff like at will self teleport, constant detect evil/magic, truespeach, at will invisibility. Some can use weapons and armor. Also they often will have better stats than non-improved familiars.
I feel you'd be hard pressed to show any familiar without archetypes that is better than an improved familiar option. And that it'd be impossible to show that many non-improved familiars are better than any improved options.
Somebody who views things solely based on bonuses to master is going to ignore all the active options a good familiar can do without even having those. Like you said, almost all Improved Familiars can use wands and other magic items by RAW. They come with a range of passive and active abilities whose DCs auto-scale. Sure, there is some strong Familiar Archetypes. If they also applied to Improved Familiars, they would be alot less strong to remain balanced.
Anyways, not seeing the case for inclusion in Core Rules. OK, you like this kind of rule, great reason to buy the splat product it comes out in. Core is meant to be simple enough to make "core only game" relevant, NOT to cover every angle that people enjoy from splat material. OK, people will ask for what they like, and not really care about bigger picture system like that. OK, Paizo will smile and do what they do for good system design.
|
|
Umm, that doesn't really make sense because improved familiars aren't strong, they don't even get normal familiar's bonus to master's skills or initiative, they are flavor options. And with archetypes making normal ones straight up better, you are forced to choose between flavor and good options if you want to go for improved familiars.Well, as you can see from subject title, I think archetypes for companions and familiars should be there for beginning :D I also think improved familiars should by raw be able to have archetypes, in 1e its not worth it to take improved familiar with feat since normal familiar with archetype is more likely to be useful.That was the point. Improved familiars are quite strong because of all they can do. Archetypes were a way to try and make base familiars more useful to not have it be an automatic yes of Should I get an improved familiar.Improved familiars are very strong. The reason they don't grant bonuses to their master is because they are far superior to non-improved and they wanted it to have some trade to not ALWAYS be the best option. Some can use wands. Some have their own spells. Some have other cool stuff like at will self teleport, constant detect evil/magic, truespeach, at will invisibility. Some can use weapons and armor. Also they often will have better stats than non-improved familiars.
I feel you'd be hard pressed to show any familiar without archetypes that is better than an improved familiar option. And that it'd be impossible to show that many non-improved familiars are better than any improved options.
Aaand all of those things are something master can do at those levels without spending a feat and you don't really want to bring familiars to combat to spam wands as they are rather easy targets to destroy. As I said, none of them are worth feat and lack of familiar archetype.
And sure, some of improved familiars have good scouting abilities, but the thing is that you can do same scouting with normal ones as well or even without familiar. Heck there are diminutive familiars, nobody is gonna kill random bug because they fear its familiar.