Judge Trabe

Alchemy_Dad's page

4 posts. No reviews. No lists. 1 wishlist.


Ok staying on topic.... Uses for a familiar, how intelligent is it?

Well if I also have to only speak of the exact words in the CRB then I guess I concede the argument and will just go play Pathfinder...


1 person marked this as a favorite.
The ShadowShackleton wrote:
graystone wrote:
John Lynch 106 wrote:
So either graystone's interpretation of the rules is absurd or the rules are absurd. Pick one.

IMO, it's "rules are absurd". I complained about these same things in the playtest too. There are a LOT of things that make no sense once you add the minion trait to themLOL This is something I complained about in the playtest: mounts mean you don't an action exploration... Janky is putting it mildly.

Yeah, Animal companions/familiars/mounts took a big hit as the rules seem to treat them as mindless for the most part.

Ok so to anyone casually looking at this thread it would be easy to get the impression that this is a few moderates commenting on reasonable limitations and GM judgment but mostly it appears to be a rules zealot in Graystone who is defending the ruleset’s inflexibility.

I had not read enough when I said I thought Graystone might be right on some counts. I do think the rules apply some limits on familiars but Graystone is creating a straw man of epic proportions here specifically because they do NOT like the rules on familiars and therefore are positioning the rules in the least reasonable light possible.

If anyone doesn’t see that, this quote should make that crystal clear.

If you search the forum and find all the familiar discussions you will find they often devolve to this level. Many times the same posters do it. But if you are careful you can find posts where the Devs speak or are quoted. They feel the familiar is more about story and flavor as apposed to battle buddy. It was even pointed out that they feel you could have a owl that doesn't take fly and could only sit on your shoulder. Then went on to say if you did that then you likely didn't really want an owl. I feel like they are more like when I say "Bob the Monk run over to the table, backflips on top, jumps into the rafters and hides." Now if the DM made him action out that outside if combat would show that the DM is a rules zealot. That would be an athletics, a acrobatics, and a stealth check. And if he was not rushed he could try several time unless he crit failed.

So to summarize:
1. Devs think familiars are not battle buddies, get an animal companion.
2. Devs think familiars are cool story telling devices.
Example: "Howard, my green sting scorpion, Dodge's his way through the crowd and delivers my chill touch spell to that ogre! " I am so glad I am not over there...." Oh and while he is there Howard will dance on his shoulder before pinches his nose and he comes back"......and all he did was move deliver and then move back.... That is what "Roleplaying" games are about, not Rolls!!!!!!

And one last thing, if your not homebrewing your rules then you play Monopoly without money on free parking

HammerJack wrote:
They gain the trip weapon trait (which is quoted in the 1st post of this thread), not a free trip with the attack. Any trip attempt is completely separate from attacks.

Thinking this is meant to be knockdown or improved knockdown.

Erik Mona wrote:

This is something I've been thinking about doing since we decided to put Sandpoint in the Beginner Box in the first place.

It's not on the schedule, it's not something I've even really discussed with folks, but it's a damn good idea.

Erik......ERIK!!!! can you here me now??!?.....