I feel like what a lot of this discussion is missing is the assumption of good faith. I do not believe a GM, acting on good faith, would have you get hit by a fireball, which does not damage the nice shirt you're wearing or your spellbook in your bag, but would harm your familiar who is hiding in your shirt/bag, your GM is probably not operating in good faith.
It's a silly debate to begin with because if your using your familiar it's not hiding on your person anyways.
Or we play with GMs who have opponents go after the bigger threats to themselves (the PCs) rather than ignore the Barbarian introducing the greatsword to their face in favor off going after Smoog the party mascot.
Hey the creature downed those guys that the familiar is trying to save. It is not out of character in the slightest to stop that
I find use for the familiar as a focus battery.
While I do not think the feat is weak. I think the familiar is weak.
Basically most of it's "features" and tactics with them either risk combat or is something you do in combat that would make it a Target.
Giving it items, stabilizing players, delivering touch attacks. All of these mean any intelligent creature is going to see the familiar as something worth taking out. Do ok, let's not do any of that basically ever.
Scouting, really dependant on the familiar form (Wich means you have the time to switch it's form), the possible enemies, and the DM.
The DM is probably a big one. If I played PFS, I'd never use a familiar because I don't know how the DM is going to handle it's use.
You all talk about, not playing with a DM who *hates* familiars.
I just think if you play most things in terms of even relative common sense and the DM properly role plays the enemies that have a brain... Then familiars are just a liability for many things, your likely to spend more time with 1-2 dead feats then with functioning ones.
I can't help but get the feeling many DMS in here play with soft hands. I guess my groups are a bit more...gritty? I dunno
1- the related discussion to witch familiar was that it was so important that to risk it's demise by having to do anything is folly.
2- as for your player agency argument. That's silly. Of course they won't actively try to get it killed. It's just many of it's features combined with the very aspect of the familiar itself means in doing many of it's possible activities you risk losing your spell book for a week.
No manner the precaution you take unless you keep it well away from harm at all times you risk losing your spells. So it's best to just not use any of those features
Weird that they would be silent.
I guess best suggestion I have is make sure everyone voice's their opinion before such actions in the future and make sure they say something.
As for the DM, only thought I have is maybe ask what kind of campaign he expects so you know how to taper your actions accordingly.
I was specifically talking about witch. Wich does far more for them than what you described
Fun yes. But binary as that's how I'd feel forced to play all of them. Also your idea while funny is mechanically and cooperatively not sound to group play if you're willingly risking making yourself useless for a week due to the fun of it
On a side note, dedications make fast great use of focus points.
Monk with wild order druid dedication can easily have 3 focus by level 6 and have effective wild shape animal forms until level 11 where you could have taken thousand faces by 8 to gain it's heighten effect of enlarging you and since it's with wild shape you still get the +2 to hit, or after 11 morph on a monk is great to add 2d6 bleeding persistent to your attacks.
Playing a witch is also a choice you could just as easily play a sorcerer or druid or cleric and skin her as a witch if that's what you want and not worry about pesky pets.
While I'm in agreement that familiars have uses.
The liability when everything your character has is tied to said little guy is very... Scary. Not in a good way.
That said it was my understanding that witch is getting changes before release regardless.
I mean witch as is currently I'd almost have to role play someone so obsessively worried and filled with anxiety as to the care if my familiar as to overruling so much else I could do. When most of your most important features are tied to something easily killed.
Play by post or discord? Sounds like some kind of online session the way your just described things.
Easy to have miscommunication in those medium's. Best I can suggest is hold off until everyone has a vote in unless the DM is actively pressing you for time
Sounds like you have a tendency to decide for the group on when to barge into a unlikely to survive scenario in hopes for a heroic moment but more often than not you end up dead or someone else.
Unless I missed the part where the rest of the party agreed to the suicide mission, in Wich case the fighter is the odd one out on these tactics as he is the one that spoke out in complaint of them.
Either way the DM isn't giving you your hero moments just because your brave in the face of danger. I can only assume he wants you to earn it instead.
This is just what I can gather from the main post.
Very interesting. I think current ability scores are better than they used to be clearly. Not perfect.
I'd be curious to trying out those variant rules.
Any of you use it? What was your thoughts?
From my experience. As a healing font cloistered cleric with the medicine skill at level 1.
My heals while appreciated. They were honestly far less impactful than battle medicine.
Given the nature of the encounter's it wasn't often where I had the need to ranged heal spell for 2 actions.
So do I think they are necessary? I think it depends on group composition and group tactics.
Even with 18 ac I was bright from 17hp to dying... Twice in the same day.
My monk with 21ac 19hp. Dying one hit.
Then most encounter's where this didn't happen I or another party member were brought under 5hp in a single round.
Rather than battle medicine to conserve my heals I healed to conserve my battle medicine lol.
Thanks for the replies.
I like the concept of morph and after several people here discussed the value of starting with a different order, I wondered, that's kinda like taking wild order as a dedication? Lightbulb! Though it strays away from druid a bit.
By level 6 I can spend a focus point in morph and gain 2d6 bleed damage as a monk not a druid.
At 6 I can wild shape and get a +2 to hit on top of martial to hit getting temporarily up to fighter levels of hit bonus?
The user is by level 16 or so your probably just better off using morph but by that point you've gained fly and a massive persistent bleed effect.
Seems pretty cool
My understanding is the rules on combining morph with shape is that the shape has to not have the feature in order to gain the morphs version.
No granting morph wings to a flying Shape as it already has them. Etc.
So a snake doesn't have a claw attack or wings was my thought.
First World Bard wrote:
My current theorized build is taking monk dedication at 2 and 4/6 taking ki powers so I have 3 by level 6. Plus I can use my unarmed strikes when not shifted if need be and take advantage of the handwraps I would invest in.
Not perfect, probably be a last d in ditch thing to do. But it helps streamline and without form control there isn't really any feats I want at those levels regardless.
If that is how you feel that's fine, but I still disagree. In the end all it means is outside of taking Mountain style I won't ever be building a monk with a secondary stat and goal other than strength/dexterity because to be starting with under 18 in my to hit/damage/Athletics (as if I'm going to need to put points in str I'm not going to dump the only skill it grants) because i can never actually make it up later.
As for me telling you what your ideas are, sorry, phrased it poorly. Rather it was supposed to be how I interpreted your comments because in the end that's what it amounts to me.
As a non charisma based class, if my charisma isn't 16 at the start I don't have much interest in trying to be a face.
The fact you phrase your last bit as (probably be ok) just reinforces my feelings. As you yourself are not certain it will be fine. Looking at the math, you won't be fine, you will be subpar, why would I invest months if not years into such a form of self inflicted woe, as I see them.
Role play comes fairly easily to me. So it is the mechanics I build upon as I can routinely miss finer points to a system otherwise.
I see no game play value in a monk statted differently than the examples I have given.
If I want to play a monk. 18str/16dex/12con (unless I want ki blast or more DC based ki powers are introduced).
If I want to play a sorcerer?
But then the really crazy stuff.
Warpriest cleric? 16str/12dex/16cha dump wisdom
Wild order druid? 16str/14dex/14con
Despite their inherent martial deficiencies while trying to emulate one, I like these characters more because to make their mechanical shtick work you need to tank their main stat and pick spells accordingly. I think druid does this a bit better due to wild shape giving you +2 to hit.
This has little directly to deal with Monk's Dex to damage argument. Merely trying to show how my mind works. I see little value in making a
12str/18dex/16cha monk as I won't be a good damage dealer at start of the game, Wich is my purpose, and will always be behind the curve for both my main role in the party as well as my chosen secondary.
Appreciate everyone's viewpoints TBH, in a different game I may agree but in 2e I'll stay within the Little boxes created for me
I'll play a Bard to face next time. :)
If you feel I belittled anyone I'm sorry. I tried to phrase it so that it was apparent as to being my opinion. I messed up with claxon in trying to make a point that fell flat.
Ok. Let me really look at this.
Are familiars worth it?
For me, yes. But not in the way most would use it. I would only sink one feat in for my familiar. It would gain movement type because that's required. Then I would take the familiar focus ability.
That's it. It would stay in my pouch. I wouldn't use it for anything other than a way to regain some focus.
Wich I will add that to my gnome evocation wizard build actually. Means by level 14 I'll be able to use force bolt 6 times before needing to refocus. Nice
Maybe, that just means it probably some have been a caster specific feature and not a feat.
As it stands I'll always opt for consistency and reliability in my feat choice's unless I simply has no other use for the feat slot
I see where you are coming from Unicore but I still can't seem to agree.
First hurdle is giving myself 16 charisma at level 1 as a monk. Outside of mountain style Wich still has to make sacrifices but I am willing to their. But without I'm beholden to 18 in either str or dexterity and 16 in the other. This is because as a Monk your first and foremost purpose is being a mobile damager. To willfully hurt your main purpose seems folly.
So no, I'm not weighing 16cha monk face because I cannot justify it unless I'm playing a non combat game. Rather it would be a 12 or if tanking 2 stats in order to get 14. Despite me seeming like a possible mechanically driven min/maxer I'm against going to such extreme measures for a +1, I'm not that much of a min maxer.
So comparing 12 Cha face monk to 18cha face sorcerer is what I have going. And that 3 modifier variance not vs the sorcerer but vs the social DC's of deception, intimidation and diplomacy means you are more of a liability at a job you had to sacrifice and invest more into than the sorcerer or Bard.
I'm actually ok with a +1/-1 variation in 2e. +2/-2 is very hard for me to stomach. Beyond that, just no, it's not even a conversation to really be had with me (in a general sense not in the sense we should cease our discussion)
Dex to damage means, boom. I have a 18dex/16cha level 1 monk and I can justify it. This is why my face monk is my mountain style. Because I can tank dexterity. It didn't break anything. The inverse can be true.
Depth vs versatility is all good when that's all your trading.
But it's not all your trading in this instance. You are trading consistency and depth for liability and versatility. Half the things you can have a familiar do either takes you out of range for the other features it can do as well or makes it a potential target.
I think if you could gain it back with your daily preparation instead of a week that would be a much easier pill to swallow.
Unless ancient elf can take the perfections path dedication at start. 4 is the fastest you will aquire focus points.
I mean technically it costs more than one feat to maximize a familiar and I think he's questioning the value you get from that investment.
Role playing is the easy bit. What I'm looking for is non liability benefits.
Someone mentioned that there drain familiar ability for a focus point does not replace drain bond linked focus feat but adds to it.
That has potential use for me as I love going gnome for the action to regain focus and drain bond with linked focus feat to do the same.
But in my experience, familiars are combat liability and one week without my feats is a potential deal breaker.
Scouting is occasionally useful. But more often their are spells that can do that or better.
Everything else I've seen mentioned the familiar does quite poorly, so am not sold on those benefits.
Thanks for the reply.
What's your thought on form control? I feel while it's neat to extend your focus points that the lowering of spell level of the form hurts it's combat ability too much to make you viable since your ac will be worse than your base form Wich will already scale poorly and your to hit won't be any better than base form. Literal only saving Grace is if you're DM let's you apply your striking runes to the form and the ability to sink a second focus point to gain claws and wings from morph into a form that has neither (snake comes to mind). But even then, while awesome sounding. The numbers just don't seem to hold up.
The Raven Black wrote:
I think if you are ok with such deficiencies and want to role play it and you group is ok with one of your damage oriented character's doing low damage out of the gate. It's fine.
And even then play how you want.
I can only State my groups expectations as well as my own out of character performance.
Good everyone was able to help.
As much as I'd like seedpods with a str modifier. It even makes sense given how they would be"thrown" or "shot" from the leshy body. Maybe even propulsive.
But as currently written I'd probably side with no strength for now but would match it's range to what's in the bestiary since their is zero relative info.
Wich is it really that bad? Most ranged weapons don't get it, you have the added safety of range, it's built in to work with handwraps letting you be a switch hitter without expecting higher than average wealth levels.
Leshy seem like amazing Monk's in this regard since you can flurry of blows at range out of the gate.
I find 2e's druid to be an oddball. Shield block at base shocked me especially with the low skills and no innate crafting skill to repair. Medium armor but limited to hide. D8hp so no bonus spell slots.
Then you have wild order. I find the transformation spells interesting.
If I made a gnome druid with voluntary flaws
And I increase strength, con, wisdom and your choice of Cha or int.
Getting handwraps of mighty fists with appropriate runes as I level.
My Max spell level forms will have the same to hit as my base form, Wich is that of a caster.
The damage won't always be better due to striking runes. But I guess jury is out on whether striking runes can enhance the die number of certain low die number forms.
So why not just play 18 wisdom and say only increase strength for feats? Why not rely on these forms for your combat?
Well because your a wild order druid!
It seems the entire value of this druid is in its focus powers.
Morph scales with your handwraps resulting in the ability to do a massive 4d6+3d6 runes+4d6 bleeding by high level. 11d6+6 seems pretty good! You get some interesting benefits based on other forms, and with DM consent can combine them with some wild shapes (flying snake with claws says hi). Seems one of it's big benefits is you don't become huge. But your ac and to hit is that of a caster. -2 or -3 behind a martial.
Wild Shape, the same thing as your spell slot forms but if you use your own to hit you get a +2, Wich if your build is as the one I shown, basically result's in you improving your to hit to almost that of a equal level 18 starting strength barbarian. Wich seems quite good.
So thus the real value seems to be in using your focus point to wild shape for martial to hit rating, or when size is an issue, morph.
Issue is you only have 1 focus point. In comes monk dedication. Giving us powerful fist and easy access to 3 focus points by level 6. Monk's flurry at 10 if you'd like.
By 5 your gnome ancestry let's you regenerate 1 focus point as an action per day,. Level 6 you can go wild shape 4 times before you need to refocus/rest. Then you still have your Max rank spell slots for backup forms. 7 forms before needing a rest.
Form control is interesting though hard to fit, I'm hesitant due to the reduction in ac and general combat viability just for a longer duration form that's basically slightly worse than me just using a spell slot (but again it lasts longer)
Other issue is my feats are pretty taken up. Levels to gain more forms seems to be
Why those? Primarily for morph effects. Flying and reach with a damaging claw attack.
Once your out of focus points and Max level slots your relegated to mostly buffing and utilities with either ranged cantrips or foolishly trying to powerful fist flurry of blows something.
Am I missing anything? I'm basically learning druid today. Ideas, opinions? Am I better off just playing a animal instinct barbarian?
Ahh see this is where my mechanic mind gives way for a want to role play.
I don't need feat support I just wanted to be a face monk because the image was appealing.
But given my stat constraints, I choose not to
I've mentioned before that after level 4 the variance becomes less of an issue. But if I start a game within those levels I will stat accordingly.
It does not sound interesting to me. It sounds like a mistake. Though I do mountain style for 16 Cha build. That's as close as I can get and only thanks to said style.
Still disagree. 2 less ac your taking a dirt nap at level 1.
You've given up on being perceptive I guess and your not intimidating many formidable opponents being that far behind.
This games tight math leads to my responses. I view a deviation greater than 2 from optimal as unacceptable/non viable for my means.
Still have fun with the game. I'll just play a sorcerer if I want to get l face and a fighter/champion if I want to tank ac. Etc. I'll stay in the little boxes the game outlines for me.
Unicore, read it all but still disagree. Not much else to say. 2e I'll only play a monk if I'm ok with no face/tertiary skills and features because the base mechanics no longer support it.
But if face DC's scale the same way as saves and AC? 14 starting Cha is secondary face at best. The emergency face when the Bard or sorcerer cannot be found.
Captain Morgan wrote:
I feel like it is worth noting that your 10 strength monk does the same damage as a 10 strength archer. Yeah, the archer gets to do it at range, but they still have the risk of rolling all ones on their d6s or d8s and doing crap damage.
As you said. They get docked for the safety of range.
I said I wouldn't go below 14 ever. But much more likely not below 16.
It's only self inflicted on the sense that the game allows you from levels 1-4 to trap yourself into a fun little game play loop of hope to hell you don't roll low for damage. Nothing more impressive than watching that produce flame double your damage while rolling minimum.
But some people like role playing mechanical deficiencies, I suppose that's valid and should be supported
Claxon, I now know your idea of interesting is being unable to build the character you want. According to you interesting is making a face monk with 10-12 to charisma and wondering why you keep failing your DC checks to be a face. Or being a damage dealer at level 1 and doing poor damage because you rolled 1s and had no static modifier. Or being in melee with crappy ac.
These things don't read as interesting to me. They read as frustrating and restrictive.
So 2e, outside of mountain style, every single one is just 18str/16dex or 16str/18dex. 12 in con or wisdom. Every ASI those 4 stats will get bumped, and this will be the only way I play a monk because that is how they are built.
Personally I do not buy your definition of interesting
Given what you quoted I'm not following but to address your reply, that is fair?
1- playable is not the same thing as interesting.
2- if you had Dex to damage they would still have things that the other cannot do.
3- most martial builds I build with general guidelines.
No armor non monk? 18 Dex, 16 if I cannot get 18. Monk I'll do 16 Dex 18 str and still maintain fighter level ac but with better action economy and mobility. Either way whichever stat is 18 str or Dex. The other is 16.
Light armor? 16 Dex, 18str
Medium armor? 12 Dex, 18str
Heavy armor? 10dex,18str
Any time I pick a class in melee that cannot have 18str I do 16.
Boosting both attributes is not interesting and it is not an interesting choice to make over other stats. Being able to pick one and tank the either means you have points to spare if you want more hp. Better perception. More skills. Better face skills. Etc.
That's more interesting, suddenly my monk can be a minor tank. Or better ki DC. Or actually be a monk face.
This goes for making More interesting builds opening up dedications earlier like sorcerer/Bard etc.
It's to the point where I'll voluntary flaw my int/Cha just to start with 14con or wisdom. Though I don't always.
I too advocate that.
My example if just levels 1-4 10str vs 18.
I don't want to spend 4 levels dealing with that personally.
Because average assumes your dice will agree with you. The amount of times I've done negligible damage just due to dumb luck is heart baking
4 is the modifier for the str rogue
You all can base your values off of average and that's fine. But I'm not optimistic enough in my rolls to tank my minimum.
Gonna have to steal that scoundrel build.
But I still disagree in the creation of interesting builds. Nothing you said you couldn't do while still having Dex to damage. If you think interesting is doing less damage than I'll stand corrected. Because that's really the only difference.