Counterfeit Mage

Timeshadow's page

118 posts. No reviews. No lists. No wishlists.


1 to 50 of 118 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | next > last >>

Remoraz scales?

I think wizards have plenty of skills but I wouldn't disagree with giving them a free extra Lore feat to make them more of a know it all at least about one subject.

3 people marked this as a favorite.

From my read through I would say drop duplicate (mandatory) skills from the classes. As far as I can see you get both attribute bonuses at first lvl but since the Basic rule book says you can only increase an attribute once per step then you cannot increase the same attribute with the two class core stats. That said there are many classes that allow a choice so just take 2 different attributes. If you decide to dual with two classes that have the same attribute like Cleric/Druid then you loose out....but honestly the dbled spell slots and metric ton of other abilities kinda makes up for it.

2 people marked this as a favorite.

At levels 1-3 before you get expert it will underperform in most cases but after you get expert and lvl 4 it hits 18+ which accounts to anything with a +8 or under ref/fort save and there are a good amount of those as long as they are at even or lower lvl to you. Also it allows for climbing most normal walls/cliffs ect with ease. Yes you are never gonna smash a boss with it but ass a 3rd action option or a sure fire jump action it's very useful. At lvl 7 you can hit Master and then you are dinging anything with a +13 ref/fort or less and can just waltz up cliffs/walls. If you ever get one of the feats/ancestries that boost success to crit success for climbing like vine Leshy or the Cliffscail Lizardfolk it can be cool as well.

5 people marked this as a favorite.

I see nothing wrong with that. It's just ether the wizard noticing that the fighter's trip didn't work or even the fighter just saying dam this guy is agile when he fails and using that knowledge. Now if a player says "hay don't use that spell use this one that creature is weak to this" when none of the characters have encountered one or made any recall knowledge rolls that I'd tell the speaking player that he is unaware of that info and the player told I'd tell to use what he would normally have used. If this happens a few times I'd likely just straight up change the creatures to prevent this unless the players change their ways.

One thing about assurance athletics is it covers more than just combat and allows characters who would never normally be able to do things like climb or swim effectivly to do so. I mentioned earlier a Halfling Wizard with a str of 8. He has skills for days but normally athletics wouldn't be an option as the related att would always leave him behind but toss in assurance and wam you have a ton of options that just wouldn't be possable without it.

Anyone think of other cool uses of assurance like say for Thevery allowing you to pick easier locks with your no penelty for not using the correct tools.

3 people marked this as a favorite.

Where Assurance shines is for the Halfling wizard with a Str of 8, or really any time you have a character you want to be decent at a skill but don't have the correct attribute for it.

1 person marked this as a favorite.

10 5th lvl wizards

One casts invisibility sphere to cover the group. They all approach from a flank with a 5th lvl ranger or scout who has Silent allies and was also effected by invis sphere. Once in range say 300' or so they all cast "Widened" Fireballs for two rounds for a total of 20 fireballs that each have a 25' blast radius utterly devastating the opposing archers (even if there are 20 lvl 5 Fighters among them) each ball covers a 50' radius and they can overlap them quite a bit with 10 at a time.

On the 3rd turn they all cast personal invisibility spells or whatever to cover their retreat back to the main lines.

4 people marked this as a favorite.
Combat Monster wrote:
Ched Greyfell wrote:
Squiggit wrote:

The second use of the hero point allows you to use it to "avoid death."

It seems kind of mean spirited and contrary to the written intent of the mechanic for a GM to let someone spend a hero point, stabilize, then rule that they immediately drown.

That's just my 2c tho.

Avoid death for how long, tho?

You're avoiding death while in the middle of a situation that will just cause death again.

Can they avoid death, take a nap, and get their spells back after a good night's sleep in the lake?

I wouldn't say it's a matter of how long. The hero point gets the hero out of that particular situation. It's the GM's job to figure out how.

"Oh look, the hero landed in some reeds and gets to not drown."

Or maybe

"Some fishermen who heard the commotion helped the hero while his pals fought off the baddies. Now they are wondering if the heroes can help them do XYZ."

Hm, the player doesn't lose their hero arbitrarily and the GM has an adventure hook to boot.

Fishermen catch an adventurer with a plot hook.......

"Look Salty Bob. You just gotta know how to use the right bait and where to toss in your line. I've caught 3 Paladins and a wizard just today".....

Familiars are mystically bonded creatures tied to your magic. Most familiars were originally animals, though the ritual of becoming a familiar makes them something more. You can choose a Tiny animal you want as your familiar, such as a bat, cat, raven, or snake. Some familiars are different, usually described in the ability that granted you a familiar; for example, a druid’s leshy familiar is a Tiny plant instead of an animal, formed from a minor nature spirit.

The big standouts of this description are "Familiars are mystically bonded creatures tied to your magic"

and "Most familiars were originally animals, though the ritual of becoming a familiar makes them something more"

Though not RAW I would say this indicates that Familiars are a part of the character's magic and therefore as long as they are being carried by the character (inside a pack or carrier) they count as part of the character.

I would allow a character to use a hero point to stabilize wile in the water which would make the character float to the surface face up (if at all possible) and not drown for a "wile" depending on the situation maby be washed ashore with possible int and wis penalties for a wile to represent some brain damage. If it doesn't make sense for the character to float up (ie they are in full plate or in an underwater cave or just way to far underwater) then I as the GM would "try" to invent a situation where the character could possibly survive... it is a fantasy world after all (magic kelp that grants water breathing/magic air bubbles/passing silkie or murfolk/Swallowed by a whale) but I'd make sure the player understands this is an exceptional circumstance and not to expect this kind of thing all the time I'd be more lenient if the player had multiple hero points being spent since you spend all current hero points to stabilize.

1 person marked this as a favorite.

So most times this come down to the difference between exploration mode and encounter mode.

Until the encounter starts you are in exploration mode and the situation is being described by the GM.

As you said your fighter/Rogue is approaching a door and hears the orcs on the other side (you are using the seek exploration activity).

When you are told the situation and decide to enter encounter mode you are given options for initiative.

You roll the appropriate skill for initiative and there you go.

For stealth if you beat the creature's perception DC you are not detected by the creature until you do something that makes you detected.

So if you got a lower initiative than the opponent but were still hidden the opponent depending on the situation will ether do nothing wasting it's turn or if it thinks there is something going on it can take seek actions to try to find you or maybe take defensive actions.

Ishyna wrote:
Aratorin wrote:
It's not really a punishment though. Once they take their turn, they are no longer susceptible to a Rogue's Surprise Attack feature, as they have already acted. In addition, if the have Attack of Opportunity, or some other useful reaction, they will be able to use it, whereas their slower compatriots won't.

They also have the option of delaying. They can go at any point they want. If they know something is up then going first isn't a disadvantage at all.

But that's only if you rule that they "know something is up" which to me reads that the PC is undetected. If all of their precise and imprecise senses (vision + hearing) are countered how does the PC go from unnoticed to undetected?

That's my biggest concern with the original example. Invisibility + silence. I guess you could say they saw a footprint or something. But then that's the hidden condition, not undetected. And then we go round and round again trying to interpret rules that don't come out and give us the answer.

If the opponents are completely unaware of the player/s then I'd still consider them flat footed to the rogue's attacks. Now it's completely different if the enemies know there is something hidden approaching them. They can take defensive actions go back to back raise shields take experimental shots at likely squares or take actions to search.

2 people marked this as a favorite.

In the end it's not really punishing the most aware person as that person acts first on the next round. It does give attackers a chance to take out the high initive person before he can act but that's the same if he had rolled low so no issue there. As I mentioned above if one or two enemies are going first, then the player, then one or two other enemies the player has the option of delaying till all the enemies have gone but it gives no advantage unless he can kill them all in one attack somehow or strike and move back into stealth somehow as now all the enemies will be going before the player in the 2nd turn.

2 people marked this as a favorite.

The only issue I see here is the fragility of certain magical shields that have powers that make you shield block to use them. These should be given sturdy shield stats comparable to their level (or the next lowest version of sturdy from them).

I would also agree that a "destroyed" magical shield should still keep it's magical properties for another 50% of it's HP allowing it to be repaired with the proper tools and skills and a broken or damaged magical shield should auto repair itself after a nights rest.

First 2 gobs don't get to do anything as they are unaware of the threat the player could even delay his initive if he wanted to avoid all the gobs attacks that round but that just puts him last next round so it really doesn't matter.

1 person marked this as a favorite.

I would have made a secret Perception Check for the lead player and/or anyone using the "Seek" action. If they succeeded they would have noticed sounds of digging up ahead giving the party a chance to change their actions to stealth or whatever. If they failed the check just the sneaky guy could roll stealth the others would have to roll initive as normal. I might give the diggers a penalty to their ini roll if they were very engrossed in what they were doing and making a lot of noise.

Considering it takes a craftsman 4 days with the proper equipment and formulas to make anything he can make then I'm inclined to allow most common items regardless of lvl (if they can find a craftsman of high enough ability) with the caveat that it might take 4 days to get/make it.

This is very interesting. It lets you know right up front that in most cases you are not gonna save money crafting an item over buying it unless you take a ton of downtime unless it's something you can't get any other way. Honestly I think it's cheaper to just have an item commissioned and just work the $ off in most cases. And these #'s don't include the cost of the formula even.

You could always take all the current monsters copy them all out and put them in any organisation you wanted then print them out in a book or binder in any style you wish.......:-)

What I would do is allow the single class character more uncommon/rare options than the dual classed players. Let them be creative in qualifying for regional feats/ racial feats. Maby even give them a magic item to start with that grows with them as they level or a special animal companion/familiar with slightly boosted abilities or a 3 for 1 action economy. It really depends on how "Powerful" the dual combos are.

7 people marked this as a favorite.

Remember way back in 2nd ED when we got the Monster manual binder and could just add in the expansions as we got them, put them in any "order" you wanted or take out a few monsters for an encounter.... Of course then you got the holes ripped on frequently used pages or the rings of the binder got messed up after frank stepped on it.....

Good times ... lol

3 people marked this as a favorite.
Zapp wrote:
Ravingdork wrote:

This is my spell wand. It is made of sharp slender metal, is balanced, and can serve as a dagger in a pinch. The handle also happens to be threaded. This is my spell staff. See the notch at the end? When the wand is screwed into the staff, it functions as a spear. I call it the "dagger-staff spear-wand."

So you have a player that wants to do something creative and a little out there. What's more, the player is really passionate about the idea and, if you're being honest with yourself, it actually sounds kind of cool. However, you have concerns about balance or how it might impact the draw of more traditional options. After all, why doesn't everyone have a dagger-staff spear-wand?

What do you, as a reluctant GM, do? And don't say you just say "no." Denial without explanation tends to upset players, and upset players tend to upset GMs. This is a discussion about diplomacy; we're looking for a happy ending for all parties here.

(The dagger-staff spear-wand is merely an illustrative example meant to promote discussion. You needn't focus on that alone.)

First off, I wholeheartedly agree with your philosophy. It really is sound GMing advice: don't say no, say "yes, but..."

That said, PF2 is unfortunately entirely incompatible with this philosophy. I still consider myself new to gamesmastering PF2, but I have already on multiple occasions found myself saying yes, only to be bitten by the fact that what I allowed as an improvised action, exists as a feat in the game.

That is, you might allow a creative player to do this thing, but you are probably invalidating a feat down the line, perhaps a feat for a completely unrelated character class, perhaps one only available ten levels later.

In other words, Paizo has reserved the right to wring every single ounce of crunch out of their rules construction, to the point where there really isn't much space left for improvisation.

Everything not allowed by the rules will be covered by a feat if not already, meaning...

Even if it is covered by a feat I would allow a player to try to do it just with a hightened difficulty.

1 person marked this as a favorite.

I would love this, and I'm a huge fan of X-Com 2 style grid + action + turn based idea.

Claxon wrote:
PossibleCabbage wrote:
It does seem like "rather than the heavily armed people or the person throwing fire around, I will instead choose to direct my aggression towards that cat over there" is a weird thing for a person in the setting to decide and would indicate a particularly vindictive GM.

Up until the point the familiar starts delivering spells, I agree with you.

After the familiar starts doing that, they've made themselves a major target that can be easily dispatched.

Otherwise, as a GM I would generally ignore a familiar in combat that isn't really doing anything, but if I have a combat with a lot of weak enemies that happen to be near the familiar....well it still might become a target. Though I generally try to make combats with the number of NPCs roughly equal in number to the number of PCs.

This I can 100% agree with.

The-Magic-Sword wrote:

Maybe we shouldn't police the GM so much? we already discussed the possibility of AOE.

I am a good and reasonable GM, I would also willingly target a familiar because the possibility of it going down, and the associated rules to get it back up are a part of the feature, so it obviously isn't just bad GMs who don't have ironclad house rules arbitrarily protecting familiars.

It isn't policing it's pointing out that familiars can be useful and are not gonna get killed by a cold breeze.

As I said if an enemy has a good reason to go for a familiar and it's not protected in some way then go for it but the situations where an enemy is lying in wait to snipe the essentially harmless familiar so the wizard can't get an extra focus point or use an extra cantrip are very few and far between.

If familiars had old 2nd ed or 3rd ed penalties associated with them dyeing maybe but the risk vs reward for the enemies is stupid when the same attack can hit the wizard himself(same AC and saves as familiar and also kinda squishy).

Gaterie wrote:
The-Magic-Sword wrote:
Rysky wrote:
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.
I fling a fireball, or line up a dragon's breath into the middle of the party, where the familiar is standing beside their wizard or whatever, in the middle of all the other targets I would normally attack. RAW, the familiar rolls a save and takes damage like everyone else, so I'm not sure that's what people are worried about.

No, because [insert here any houserule protecting the familiar]. Since any DM who doesn't use this houserule is the worst DM ever, there's no need to include this houserule in the rule.

Anyway, the only consensus here is:
1/ the best familiar abilities are the pet rock abilities (the abilities that doesn't involve familiar's senses or familiar's move or even familiar's existence).
2/ a pet rock in your backpack isn't affected by AoE.
3/ if your familiar does anything a pet rock can't do (like delivering spells our moving around), then it's fair play to kill it.

Hence, choose any familiar, put its eyes out and pull its legs off, now it's a pet rock and you're golden. I think everyone can agree on this.

The question if it's an awesome game design or not is unrelated.

1/ Agreed but only to the point that there is good benifit with very little risk

2/ Agreed

3/ No not kill it, it becomes a valid target in the enemies threat matrix. Again as has been mentioned risk vs reward. There are many situations where a familiar could be a great help as well as many roleplaying situations that couldn't be possable without your trusty little mystic sidekick. Many enemies will ignore active familiars due to their lack of threat but if the enemy wizard can line up 3 PC's and the familiar in a lightning bolt he's gonna do it unless there is a 4th PC that could be hit insted, cause there is no negetive to him to do so.

If a GM has monsters target essentully harmless familiars over PC's then yes he is doing something wrong....unless the enemy has a specific reason to do so. IE all the PC's are med or larger and the enemy has a swallow whole ability and the fimiliar just happens to be the best target in range. This happened in my game with the rangers animal companion and the players went out of their way to save poor butterscotch the bear before the warg ran away. It added so much tension it just made the session.

Draco18s wrote:
Timeshadow wrote:

the animal companions and familiars of the party are really starting to shine.

Currently the Sorcerer now almost never uses spell touch anymore after her familiar almost got killed after she used it [once]

Those two statements do not support each other.

I ment one time when she used it not the only time.

She has had alot of mileage from her familiar giveing her an extra focus point every day and an extra cantrip. As a Fimiliar thesis she often has speach, climb and spell touch on it as well (she has improved familiar). It gives her an extra option with her cantrips and lets her pop her halo (Divine Sorcerer) for extra healing as needed. The familiar has only taken damage when she actully put it into harms way ie when she used spell touch with chill touch cantrip and only after doing so several times as the enimies had bigger conserns than this little thing nipping at their toes. When it did get smacked she called it back and is now a bit more catious but still uses the heck out of all the other benefits.

Edit: Plus a ton of roleplay as it is a little camelion called Kewi.

ZomB wrote:

How does this work with creatures that are described as having different dimensions to their nominal base size? Particularly many gargantuan creatures and huge+ winged creatures.

For example a Roc is described as having an 80ft wing span and 30ft length and therefore should be immune from a box based on 120ft length of wall (unless standing with wings furled). A Tyrannosaurus is described as 50ft long and therefore 120ft would not quite encircle it, never mind box it.

I think this is the key here. Most bigger creatures fill more area than their base size. Tails/Wings/height all effect how this would work and walls need uninterrupted lines to work. So if a wing or tail crosses over the line of effect the spell fizzles or has to take a new larger path. If several wizards working together did this it might work but a single wizard is likely not gonna be able to cover the area needed plus as a flying creature unless it has been grounded or is sleeping this would be very difficult to pull off (But not impossible if planned for properly)

When I first read the minion rules I hated them. Thought they were way too weak and made familiars and animal companions completely useless as well as summoned creatures. After GMing going on 9ish sessions so far the animal companions and familiars of the party are really starting to shine. WE have a ranger with a bear companion and a druid with a tiger and sorcerer with a lizard familiar. All of them have had moments to shine and all have been nearly killed several times making the players become more protective and cautious with their use. Currently the Sorcerer now almost never uses spell touch anymore after her familiar almost got killed after she used it to chill touch an enemy she keeps it safely in her pack/shirt but she occasionally is tempted to use it again. The bear is doing great for the Archer ranger by running up using it's support then the ranger hunts and hunted shots the adj enemy for massive damage 3d8+1 when he connects(1d8arrow,1d8percice,1d8bear +1str) and if he happens to hit with the second arrow that's another 2d8+1(arrow/bear) all added together for the purposes of damage resistance (Though I have been keeping the bear damage separate for this ie not dbling as it's from a second source). The Tiger is hit and miss but since the druid is very melee based it is a great flanking buddy and has pulled off some finishers and chased down a fleeing enemy once it has definitely been useful.

A little power goes a long way and yes the party is still low lvl (lvl 3 currently almost lvl 4) and I'm guessing the usefulness/power of them will lessen as the party lvls but currently they are really doing well to the point the players who don't have animal companions/familiars are wondering how they can get one lol.

Themetricsystem wrote:

One thing to bear in mind for Barding with Companions that many people miss out on is that the Maximum ItemBonus that you Companion can get to AC caps out at +2, so there is really not much benefit in ever giving them Heavy Barding of any type as you'll be simply trading +1 AC for a -5 Speed Penalty which is FAR more impactful to Animal Companions than it ever would be on a PC since they only ever get 2 Actions per turn in Combat.

Just something to keep in mind if you're looking to give your AC Barding.

This exactly which means leather or studded leather (bone studs) should be the heaviest armor you are gonna want anyway.

Squiggit wrote:
Timeshadow wrote:
It's not "Vindictive" if the player knowingly puts the familiar at risk

Yeah but "knowingly putting the familiar at risk" is literally just having it around, in this case.

...Are there even any rules for putting a creature in a bag to avoid AoEs in the first place?

Well rules as RAW say attended/carried objects are not damaged by AoE's which means if the familiar is inside such an object then it "should" be unharmed as well aside from a few cases where an AoE specifically damages carried objects as well.

I agree if a familiar is doing things in the combat like spell touch, feeding potions, scouting ect it is open to attack if it is somehow a priority or the only target. As has been mentioned most enemies will not target a tiny animal over the barbarian in their face or the wizard controlling the familiar. For AoE's I let my players know if the familiar is out and about it could be hit then it's their responsibility to position them as safely as possibly and weigh the risks of actively using them in dangerous situations.

It's not "Vindictive" if the player knowingly puts the familiar at risk in a combat situation and it gets hit by an AoE spell. But if the player is being cautious with their familiar keeping it safe in a backpack or dedicated carry bag then I'm not gonna kill it just cause she got hit by an AoE. If she is incinerated (IE instantly killed like takes dbl hp and dies) then of course the familiar will die as well but situations like that are fairly few and far between.

The-Magic-Sword wrote:
Rysky wrote:
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.
I fling a fireball, or line up a dragon's breath into the middle of the party, where the familiar is standing beside their wizard or whatever, in the middle of all the other targets I would normally attack. RAW, the familiar rolls a save and takes damage like everyone else, so I'm not sure that's what people are worried about.

This is fine as long as the familiar is "out" and active but most ppl are worried about their pocket familiars dieing to said fireball when the familiar is safely tucked away in their backpack or carrying pouch.

1 person marked this as a favorite.

There are some heavy armors that can be not made of metal. Dragon scale or plate armor are the first to come to mind. If a spell/ritual makes glassteel a thing in 2nd back in D&D there was anknekeg plate armor. It all depends on your GM and the release of further. Light and Med armors no problem as there is already Hide/leather/studded leather and even scail if the GM is feeling generous. Or you could have some types of bone armors.

Looking into it a bit I've found currently there are rules for Darkwood and dragonhide armors both are lvl 12 for standard, lvl 19 for high grade with no low grade options. So depending on your GM you might be able to convince him to allow you to get darkwood or dragonhide armor for your druid or companion of nearly any type including heavy armor like half or full plate though its gonna be very costly unless you have a generous GM and you can get someone to make it from materials you acquire during your adventures. (As a GM myself I'd likely be fairly lenient in cases like this but your mileage may vary).

I kind of like the idea of a familiar pouch though and you could even give it actual hardness/HP so if a clever opponent that was specifically hunting your familiar for some reason could target it and eventually be able to break it and harm the plushy inside. Of course again there would need to be a real reason to do this.

Here is what the object in question stats would look like in my mind

Item (lvl 1) Familiar pouch
Burden: 1 bulk, Cost: 3GP
Hardness: 5 Hp 20 Broken 10

This item is a comfortable protected carrier for a familiar or a tiny animal. A familiar or other tiny creature can take a manipulate action to enter and another to close itself in or the barer can take the 2 manipulate actions to do so effectively placing the creature in the pouch and closing it. Wile inside the creature is insulated from the elements and from most effects of the outside world. Any AoE attacks that effect you wile carrying this item do not effect the pouch unless it would also effect the equipment you are wearing and then the pouch's HP must be taken to the broken level before the occupant can take damage. Some environmental effects will effect the occupant at the GM's discretion (such as traveling underwater without giving the creature an ability to breath or through extreme cold or heat, or falling from any distance that would damage the carrier though if a spell or effect would protect all your belongings from these effects it also will protect the familiar pouch.

They have athletics and wolves even get trip when flanking so I would say yes.

The-Magic-Sword wrote:

It's also worth considering that a lot of GMs like me, view the fact that it can die as being a balancing mechanic for the feature? Like, I generally don't target them specifically (on one occasion a familiar actually took a bullet for their PC, the player was actually relieved because they likely would have gone down under the circumstances if I hadn't raised the monster's MAP before attacking them) but I think it should be possible.

Then again I think we've defaulted to a "if your familiar doesn't come out of the pouch and start doing things it isn't on the field" mentality, except not really because we started using a token for them i just copy and paste onto the field.

TLDR, an official way to basically remove the familiar from play in exchange for keeping it safe would be appreciated.

I agree that if they had in innate power or maybe a special item you could take say like a "Familiar pouch" that as long as they are safely inside they are not effected by anything other than something that would destroy all the master's belongings (as well as the master most likely).

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Squiggit wrote:
Rysky wrote:
If fireball doesn’t hurt the book because the backpack is blocking it then it would protect the familiar as well.

Fireball doesn't hurt the book because you can't attack attended items specifically. Whether or not it's in a bag doesn't matter: your armor and backpack don't take damage from fireballs either after all.

Creatures don't have any such protection.

But if the bag is unaffected and the items inside are unaffected ....I would guess most GM's would rule the familiar inside the object that is unaffected is also unaffected.

EG: I have a wax document seal in my backpack. I am fireballed and survive. Is the wax seal destroyed? 95% of GM's would say no it is not unless the player was informed beforehand that this was going to be a thing so they could act appropriately and maybe store it in a small waterproof bag inside a water skin of cold water.

Same goes for the Familiar I would say 95% of GM's would say it is unharmed and the 5% leftover "should" inform their players that items/creatures in their packs are not safe so they can try to make other arrangements to make them safe or not take a familiar if that's too much risk.

2 people marked this as a favorite.

So this thread is getting a bit long in the tooth so I'm gonna try to do a summary of what we have covered so far.

Is a Familiar worth it?

Cost: a first lvl feat/Class feature/Racial Feat

A cute RP sidekick.

An extencion of the character's reach/presence.

Bonus abilitys dependint on choices you make every day (many of which are easily worth a feat themselves).

Expandable with a 2nd lvl class feat or continued Class feature support.

Relatively fragile and could be easily killed requiring the player a week to get another wile being deprived of above Pros.

Some animal/creature templates for Familiar take up all your "power" options leaving you with a mobile, perceptive, flying familiar that gives only the first 2 "Pros" unless you invest deeply into class features/extra feat.

Not as "good" as PF1 familiars.

If used with some "features" leaves them exposed.

In debate/up to the GM:

How often their fragility will come into question?
Is a familiar safe in a players pack when they are hit by an AoE?
How autonomous can they be out of combat?
Can they use/carry things?

In the end it's up to the player to decide if the Pros outweigh the cons after being informed by their GM how they will be treated in most cases.

Personally I believe they are very worth it so much that I will likely have a familiar any chance I can get one in game that fits with my character concept, but that's just me.


Actually the same rules that protect your spellbook protect your familiar as long as it is in your pack or in a carry case. Take it out for any reason and it is in danger though.

Draco18s wrote:
Timeshadow wrote:
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.

Or maybe, and this is a real shocker, I know, maybe. JUST MAYBE. I don't want to play a sorcerer, druid, or cleric.

Maybe I want to be a crazy old bat who makes potions in a cauldron and offers people free cookies. They definitely aren't poisonous. I swear. Or made out of people.


Maybe I like the hex mechanic (ok, I like PF1's take on it, not PF2's). Maybe I like the dubious morality built into the class's features, cursing my foes, offering the paladin stat cookies, and being a

I don't get that from a sorcerer or a druid or a cleric. The closest approximation would be a bard. But even a bard doesn't fit.

Its a concept known as Boffo. People expect a witch to behave a certain way (and a cleric another and a druid another and a sorcerer another). You can twist that expectation, but only so far. If an X doesn't behave like an X, its no longer strong/powerful/useful.

Well in the end if a familiar is part and parcel to being a witch then you will ether have to suck it up and use a familiar or play something else and aside from the "Hex" mechanic which I have no clue about everything you just described can be done by another class without a familiar.

1 person marked this as a favorite.

If a minion is not given any commands for I think it's a minute it acts on it's own with it's own intelligence/instincts to defend itself or flee.

AS for Stealth it gets spellcasters lvl plus caster ability mod so 4+lvl most cases that's a good stealth score. Also if a guard sees a cat or a bird he is not gonna immediately cry "familiar" and go kill it.

1 person marked this as a favorite.

But you can protect your familiar as easily as your spellbook can you not? Even if for some reason it's not safely on your person in your pack or other safe haven it can be told to go somewhere and hide or come back to you or whatever. If your spellbook is in your pack and your pack for some reason gets taken from you your spellbook can't escape anc come back on it's own... a familiar might and likely would. They have stealth and could be easily overlooked.

1 person marked this as a favorite.

But you really don't have to. As has been stated if you just want the "benifits" of the fimiliar then take your little cricket familiar and put him in a metal box with some fluf to cushon him and never take him from your renforced beltpouch. You now have access to an extra cantrip and a focus point. Take the extra feat and alchemest dedication after lvl 5 and now you get an extra 1st lvl spell and an extra reagent with next to no risk to yourself. Heck Im sure you could even convince your gm to let you take a pet rock as ppl have joked about earlier in the fourms.

If you always look for the worst that's what you will find. Try being a glass half full kinda guy and just enjoy this flexable feat or not and just don't take it if you feel it's not worth the risk.

Martialmasters wrote:
Timeshadow wrote:
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.

This could be in intresting and fun to play character. A witch who is super paranoid about her familiar dieing and builds her spells and abilitys accordingly. You could even give the familiar a reckless personality so he/she has to constantly "save" it.

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.

1 person marked this as a favorite.

In the end Darksol if you don't care for what a fimiliar offers you don't need to take the feat and your wizard/sorc/druid ect will be fine. Fimiliars are not what they used to be but nether is the game.

You can ether take the benifits that have been pointed out that obvously you seem to want access to along with the "risk" of loosing said familiar occasionally or not and take another feat and still do fine.

1 to 50 of 118 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | next > last >>