Honestly,
Isn't Pathfinder supposed to encourage NOT multi-class dipping?
I think the Pathfinder folks want to stop level dipping for min-maxing characters and prestige classes. They want to make the base classes attractive enough to take all the way.
In this case, the dipping wouldn't be for min-maxing (unless Dennis is right and the rogue gets aid bonuses on many skills - which are really their own skills that they've somehow magically shared with their animal friend).
If a player wants an intelligent friend as a role-playing or character development trait I think that's great. All they need to do is take a level of sorcerer or wizard and off they go.
Some rogues in lore, stories, and video games have been portrayed as having a magical aptitude. So there is a minor argument for the talent (and the other magic talents) but most rogues are merely highly skilled mundane folk.
I personally don't see the need for the talents when a mechanic exists to give the rogue similar abilities - they'll just come at a more significant cost. If the talents stay great. If they go great. Regardless many people will just house rule them one way or the other.
To me these are as thematically incorrect as the barbarian's elemental damage. Some people think they're on the mark, other's think they're not even on the target.
Cheers
|
Honestly,
it seems those who object to this because of the Familiar's association with Arcane Casters,
should focus their attention against the Minor/Major Magic Tricks.Those Tricks effectively make the Rogue an Arcane Caster of sorts,
so I don't see a problem with them needing one more Trick to get a Familiar
(that is "Level appropriate", opposed to 1-level Sorceror dip)
Isn't Pathfinder supposed to encourage NOT multi-class dipping?
You bring up a very good point, which is why I'm very much in favor of REMOVING these magic talents from the class altogether. As many have said, the Rogue is NOT a spell caster and should not be casting spells.
As for a feat allowing some kind of non magical animal sidekick or cohort ... that sounds more in line with the class.
Animal Companion? Yes, sure. Familiar? Not so much.
Agreed.
And the player has a background? Go for it. I'd even suggest a magic item that would allow Speak with Animal.
How would this animal sidekick communicate with the rogue? The problem isn't what it's called, the problem is the inherently the magical nature of the familiars (abnormally high intelligence, HP, empathic link, etc). Basically everything that makes a familiar a familiar rather than a bat or a cat. Take away the magical intelligence and empathic bond and suddenly the 'animal companion' is just an animal and needs to be controlled using handle animal, cannot aid skills, etc.The other problem is now you have to have a whole new section in the book on 'animal sidekicks' in addition to the Animal Companion, and Familiar sections of the book.
Actually, this suggestion comes on top of having the minor and major magic talents...so....ya know...the rogue has spells and stuff. So that actually explains a familiar quite well.
And, even if not, we're talking about a setting where comedians can joke people to death, 6-legged, tentacled, mirage-distorted pumas attack , and ageless kung fu masters can fall from the atmosphere without getting a bruise. Come on, I think an intelligent animal is one of the least over-the-top things that's ever occurred in a D&D/Pathfinder game.
If you can't accept that, think of a bit like a Daemon. I really don't see why this is such an issue for most people. If you don't want one, don't get one.
I agree, I don't care for the whole concept of rogues getting a familiar, it just doesn't belong in the class feature list. A more generic feat that could be taken by anyone would be ok but not something specific to rogues.
I agree with making it a feat; it doesn't seem unbalancing to me but it doesn't seem like an integral rogue concept and it should be open to other arcane classes.
Going by the non-core Obtain Familiar feat in Complete Arcane, a rogue with the minor magic talent could get a familiar anytime after 6th level (caster level 3), and a bard or sorcerer could take it at 3rd level.
A familiar has skill ranks equal to it's master. At the very least they can 'aid another' on most skills basically giving the master a +2 on any skillcheck. Otherwise they can act as a second set of hands, eyes, ears with all the sames skills the rogue has.Compared to the other rogue tricks a familiar it would be well worth it. A trained animal could not pick locks, steal things from the enemy, do recon, etc.
Fear the awesome power of +2!!!!! Seriously? And yes, it would be a pretty good talent...if not for having to take the two underpowered talents before it. Really, I've seen a ton of combat rogues, so I think this assessment is off.
I think the Pathfinder folks want to stop level dipping for min-maxing characters and prestige classes. They want to make the base classes attractive enough to take all the way.In this case, the dipping wouldn't be for min-maxing (unless Dennis is right and the rogue gets aid bonuses on many skills - which are really their own skills that they've somehow magically shared with their animal friend).
If a player wants an intelligent friend as a role-playing or character development trait I think that's great. All they need to do is take a level of sorcerer or wizard and off they go.
Some rogues in lore, stories, and video games have been portrayed as having a magical aptitude. So there is a minor argument for the talent (and the other magic talents) but most rogues are merely highly skilled mundane folk.
I personally don't see the need for the talents when a mechanic exists to give the rogue similar abilities - they'll just come at a more significant cost. If the talents stay great. If they go great. Regardless many people will just house rule them one way or the other.
To me these are as thematically incorrect as the barbarian's elemental damage. Some people think they're on the mark, other's think they're not even on the target.
Cheers
Honestly, it's very common for a rogue to have some magical aptitude. If part of the game is making the core classes attractive, and a lot of rogues are level dipping 1 level (which I've seen), we have to ask why they're doing it. I think that's part of what the minor and major magical talents are about.
And, again, if people don't like it, their rogues don't have to take it.
Fear the awesome power of +2!!!!! Seriously? And yes, it would be a pretty good talent...if not for having to take the two underpowered talents before it. Really, I've seen a ton of combat rogues, so I think this assessment is off.
A familiar has skill ranks equal to it's master. At the very least they can 'aid another' on most skills basically giving the master a +2 on any skillcheck. Otherwise they can act as a second set of hands, eyes, ears with all the sames skills the rogue has.Compared to the other rogue tricks a familiar it would be well worth it. A trained animal could not pick locks, steal things from the enemy, do recon, etc.
Seriously. Clearly you don't think +2 to every skill in the rogues toolkit is worth much, I disagree.
The question was put out there "Is this really useful?" I was pointing out that yes indeed it is quite useful.
I hadn't even realized we were assuming prereqs. I'm guessing minor and major magic? I reject your notion that they are underpowered but that's a different discussion.
A sidekick? Perhaps
A familiar - no.
A monkey familiar - no way. Familiars with hands is bad news.
An overpowered problem.
Honestly, it's very common for a rogue to have some magical aptitude.
I have no doubt many players take a level or sorcerer or wizard for spells that they think will make them better rogues. I also imagine many players take a level or two of many classes to make themselves better in some way.
That's where we got the term level dipping right?
Most of the time that phrase has a slightly negative connotation. Players tend to level dip to focus on the G part of RPG and min-max their characters. I think it’s great that some players level dip for the RP part of RPG. Either case is why the game has multi-classing rules. To creat a mechanic that lets the players customize their characters so that the game can appeal to the largest audience possible.
Jason posted…
Although I can see the thought behind this idea, I do not think that a familiar is appropriate for the rogue theme. That said, I am open to debate.
And I agree with him on this point. I don’t think a familiar (or a familiar like companion with a new and improved name) is appropriate as a class feature for a rogue. I think is appropriate as a feat, as a multi-class benefit, as gift from the god of roguery, as a house rule, as the result of black mailing your DM, and many other game mechanic or role-playing things.
I’m glad you (and it seems other DMs) have players that think outside the box and bring fresh takes to base classes. But the BOX is the rogue class and the familiar is outside the box.
And, again, if people don't like it, their rogues don't have to take it.
I agree. That’s why I said…
If the talents stay great. If they go great. Regardless many people will just house rule them one way or the other.
Cheers
A familiar has skill ranks equal to it's masSeriously. Clearly you don't think +2 to every skill in the rogues toolkit is worth much, I disagree.
The question was put out there "Is this really useful?" I was pointing out that yes indeed it is quite useful.
I hadn't even realized we were assuming prereqs. I'm guessing minor and major magic? I reject your notion that they are underpowered but that's a different discussion.
Oh yes. My assumption is that there will be prereqs of the existing minor and major magic talents. I agree, it's too much without prereqs.
I have no doubt many players take a level or sorcerer or wizard for spells that they think will make them better rogues. I also imagine many players take a level or two of many classes to make themselves better in some way.That's where we got the term level dipping right?
Most of the time that phrase has a slightly negative connotation. Players tend to level dip to focus on the G part of RPG and min-max their characters. I think it’s great that some players level dip for the RP part of RPG. Either case is why the game has multi-classing rules. To create a mechanic that lets the players customize their characters so that the game can appeal to the largest audience possible.
Well, I think the problem with that is that a lot of rogues would like to do some dabbling without really screwing themselves over (which, I think level dipping just for a familiar is kind of doing). it's about opportunity cost, and I just think dipping for a level 1 spell and a familiar is too high a cost. I'm aware opinions of this vary.
Although I can see the thought behind this idea, I do not think that a familiar is appropriate for the rogue theme. That said, I am open to debate.And I agree with him on this point. I don’t think a familiar (or a familiar like companion with a new and improved name) is appropriate as a class feature for a rogue. I think is appropriate as a feat, as a multi-class benefit, as gift from the god of roguery, as a house rule, as the result of black mailing your DM, and many other game mechanic or role-playing things.
I’m glad you (and it seems other DMs) have players that think outside the box and bring fresh takes to base classes. But the BOX is the rogue class and the familiar is outside the box.
Yes...the god of roguery. In all seriousness, it doesn't feel outside the box as long as those magic talents exist. If they don't, I see where you're going with it. But, given that we have examples of rogues with intelligent pets, and examples of rogues who dabble a tiny tiny bit in the dark arts, it doesn't feel outside the box to me. It feels like the fun variation.
If the talents stay great. If they go great. Regardless many people will just house rule them one way or the other.
And I agree with you. It does largely depend on the magic talents (which are beloved by some players and loathed by others. I see both sides). I just don't feel that it's fair for some players to dismiss the potential option for others because 'it just doesn't feel like a rogue thing', which amounts to 'I don't like it.'
A sidekick? Perhaps
A familiar - no.
A monkey familiar - no way. Familiars with hands is bad news.
An overpowered problem.
Overpowered is a big word. Would you like to tell us how? I'm open to it.
I agree, I don't care for the whole concept of rogues getting a familiar, it just doesn't belong in the class feature list. A more generic feat that could be taken by anyone would be ok but not something specific to rogues.I agree with making it a feat; it doesn't seem unbalancing to me but it doesn't seem like an integral rogue concept and it should be open to other arcane classes.
Going by the non-core Obtain Familiar feat in Complete Arcane, a rogue with the minor magic talent could get a familiar anytime after 6th level (caster level 3), and a bard or sorcerer could take it at 3rd level.
Leadership is an existing feat. I could see expanding that so any class could gain some sort of animal assistant.
Overpowered is a big word. Would you like to tell us how? I'm open to it.A sidekick? Perhaps
A familiar - no.
A monkey familiar - no way. Familiars with hands is bad news.
An overpowered problem.
Well since you seem to think that +2 on all skill rolls is a trivial bonus I'm not sure it's really worth digging into.
Well since you seem to think that +2 on all skill rolls is a trivial bonus I'm not sure it's really worth digging into.Overpowered is a big word. Would you like to tell us how? I'm open to it.A sidekick? Perhaps
A familiar - no.
A monkey familiar - no way. Familiars with hands is bad news.
An overpowered problem.
It's not trivial. It's also not in any way overpowered. In fact, it's one of the reasons to get it (and take the preceding crappy minor magic talent) and your response is a patent "I can't back this up" type of response.
So if this goes through and the Rogue can get the minor arcana, major arcana and then get a familiar, what abilities does the familiar get? I'm suggesting that the rogue be treated as a caster with 1/2 his rogue level as caster level for the purposes of the what the familiar gets, and improved familiar feats. This would mean that the rogue would have to be 10th level to have a small elemental.
Barring that maybe not letting the caster level scale at all for the familiar's abilities, you get the familiar as a first level caster would and it doesn't get better, which would fit the "small minor helper" idea.
It's not trivial. It's also not in any way overpowered. In fact, it's one of the reasons to get it (and take the preceding crappy minor magic talent) and your response is a patent "I can't back this up" type of response.
If you don't see a rogue talent that gives a class a blanket +2 to all skill checks as overpowered then there is nothing I or anyone else can say that will change your mind.
There is no point in having a huge debate about it because you've already decided.
It's not trivial. It's also not in any way overpowered. In fact, it's one of the reasons to get it (and take the preceding crappy minor magic talent) and your response is a patent "I can't back this up" type of response.If you don't see a rogue talent that gives a class a blanket +2 to all skill checks as overpowered then there is nothing I or anyone else can say that will change your mind.
There is no point in having a huge debate about it because you've already decided.
Wizards can get this +2 as well, as can wizard/rogues. I don't really recall a lot of threads about arcane tricksters getting +2 to skills destroying anyone's game. Hell, I don't think I've ever heard anyone talk about it.
Can I ask you a question? How often have you actually used a familiar? Because, I swear, in another thread, you said you'd basically not played with one. I ask because, given how easily it can be lost, and the associated penalties, it kind of provides its own opportunity cost. But if you've never played with one...
So if this goes through and the Rogue can get the minor arcana, major arcana and then get a familiar, what abilities does the familiar get? I'm suggesting that the rogue be treated as a caster with 1/2 his rogue level as caster level for the purposes of the what the familiar gets, and improved familiar feats. This would mean that the rogue would have to be 10th level to have a small elemental.
Barring that maybe not letting the caster level scale at all for the familiar's abilities, you get the familiar as a first level caster would and it doesn't get better, which would fit the "small minor helper" idea.
I'd be ok with either half level or with caster level 1 for this. It'd still serve its purpose. Maybe it should stipulate that the rogue can't take improved familiar.
Wizards can get this +2 as well, as can wizard/rogues. I don't really recall a lot of threads about arcane tricksters getting +2 to skills destroying anyone's game. Hell, I don't think I've ever heard anyone talk about it.
Arcane Tricksters and Wizards have far fewer skill points than rogues. They also make sacrifices in their rogue class and skill progressions to get to that point. Arcane tricksters have 4 skill ranks, they need to take 5 levels of wizard or 6 levels of sorcerer to get there which means they have had a lot of levels where they only had 2 skill ranks per level. Rogues get 8 ranks per level.
You still have the choice of taking wizard or arcane trickster and getting the familiar. The thing is, and I suspect the reason you don't want to do it, you make sacrifices in your core rogue class to do so.
Can I ask you a question? How often have you actually used a familiar? Because, I swear, in another thread, you said you'd basically not played with one. I ask because, given how easily it can be lost, and the associated penalties, it kind of provides its own opportunity cost. But if you've never played with one...
Is it possible for you to just once have a conversation without attacking people and being confrontational?
Arcane Tricksters and Wizards have far fewer skill points than rogues. They also make sacrifices in their rogue class and skill progressions to get to that point. Arcane tricksters have 4 skill ranks, they need to take 5 levels of wizard or 6 levels of sorcerer to get there which means they have had a lot of levels where they only had 2 skill ranks per level. Rogues get 8 ranks per level.
You still have the choice of taking wizard or arcane trickster and getting the familiar. The thing is, and I suspect the reason you don't want to do it, you make sacrifices in your core rogue class to do so.
Uhhh...assuming they have at least 18 int, they're going to be getting at least 8 skill ranks a level. That's a lot of +2s.
And...uhhh...I don't play a rogue. One of my players does. I see no reason for her to sacrifice a rogue level over something so minor when she's willing to sacrifice 2 talents and a feat. I suspect you...oh forget it.
Can I ask you a question? How often have you actually used a familiar? Because, I swear, in another thread, you said you'd basically not played with one. I ask because, given how easily it can be lost, and the associated penalties, it kind of provides its own opportunity cost. But if you've never played with one...Is it possible for you to just once have a conversation without attacking people and being confrontational?
That really wasn't very confrontational...and it really wasn't much of an attack. I was very gently pointing out that, given your lack of experience with familiars you might be dismissing the opportunity cost of keeping one alive a bit too easily and overplaying the amount of help they can actually give. I always assume by default that, if people are talking about something, they have actually used it, which is why I've only posted once about the monk. I was nice enough not to point out your druid ranting or your dislike of pets that crops up thread after thread and might be coloring your responses. And...uhhh...I've seen you get pretty darn confrontational youself when people backing down for you...plus you seem to be deflecting from what I actually said...by, of course, not having any responses for what I actually said.
Dennis, I'm noticing that you keep avoiding questions. Please stop this behavior, as it derails the thread and is counter-productive to discussion.
Would demonstrate how having a familiar is overpowered? A blanket "+2" on skill checks? That doesn't even matter. At low-levels, it gives the rogue an edge. At higher levels, it doesn't matter. 3e is all about things getting such huge check modifiers that a +1 or +2 isn't noticeable.
Well, just to completely side-track this thread,
assuming a Rogue with Minor & Major Magic Tricks DOES take one level of Arcane Sorceror (with Familiar),
would they STACK half their Rogue levels (their Caster Level for Major Magic Trick) with the Sorceror level,
to determine the Arcane Caster Level-linked properties of the Familiar?
Or if not STACKING, could they use that INSTEAD of Sorceror level, if higher?
muahahaha :-)
Well, just to completely side-track this thread,
assuming a Rogue with Minor & Major Magic Tricks DOES take one level of Arcane Sorceror (with Familiar),would they STACK half their Rogue levels (their Caster Level for Major Magic Trick) with the Sorceror level,
to determine the Arcane Caster Level-linked properties of the Familiar?
Or if not STACKING, could they use that INSTEAD of Sorceror level, if higher?muahahaha :-)
Ack. Well, if a green dragon leaves Absalom going at 80 MPH and a red dragon....bah nevermind. Anyway, If one goes at 1/2 rogue progression, I'd have them stack for purposes of familiar level, the way a ranger and druid used to stack for purposes of AC. Of course, I would probably tell this young rogueling that 6 levels is far too much to take in rogue when the Arcane trickster will be updated shortly. Heh.
Ack. Well, if a green dragon leaves Absalom going at 80 MPH and a red dragon....
42! And...
I just don't feel that it's fair for some players to dismiss the potential option for others because 'it just doesn't feel like a rogue thing', which amounts to 'I don't like it.'
Well honestly that's all both sides of the argument are. Yes, you can show that letting a Rogue take a familiar helps them and adds some diversity to the game but in the end neither side of this argument can prove whether a familiar is or isn't a 'rogue thing'.
Add to this that none of us can say whether a familiar for a Rogue is over powered or not since we haven't gotten to the chapter that covers them.
The animal companions and the Paladin mount got an overhaul, I have no doubt the familiar will as well.
I imagine this issue will go unresolved at least until the Sorcerer and Wizard review happens and probably until after the feat review happens.
So for now hopefully we can all agree to disagree on the topic until we have a few more answers.
Cheers
Dennis, I'm noticing that you keep avoiding questions. Please stop this behavior, as it derails the thread and is counter-productive to discussion.
I am avoiding conversations where people attack me personally. You seem more interested in me than in actually discussing the topic.
A blanket "+2" on skill checks? That doesn't even matter.
Then a feat for example that gives a rogue +2 to all skill checks would be balanced? Why bother with a monkey, just a single feat. This would save a ton on the page count of the final game. Skill Focus (All)
I just don't feel that it's fair for some players to dismiss the potential option for others because 'it just doesn't feel like a rogue thing', which amounts to 'I don't like it.'Well honestly that's all both sides of the argument are. Yes, you can show that letting a Rogue take a familiar helps them and adds some diversity to the game but in the end neither side of this argument can prove whether a familiar is or isn't a 'rogue thing'.
yes, I suppose you're right.
My feeling is just that I'd rather err towards more options that the DM has to reign in than less options that the DM has to figure out a way to rule.
A lot of this does depend on how much of a redesign the familiar gets. As it stands, it doesn't seem like anything a rogue couldn't have. However, if we got to see it become more magical or help out with magic more (Or the silly improved familiar feat removed) I could see how it could become inappropriate.
A blanket "+2" on skill checks? That doesn't even matter.Then a feat for example that gives a rogue +2 to all skill checks would be balanced? Why bother with a monkey, just a single feat. This would save a ton on the page count of the final game. Skill Focus (All)
Well, considering that the rogue would have to spend three talents on it, and that players can, in fact, aid one another, and that magical items giving a +2 bonus are cheap, I think you're being a tad dramatic.
As for my "personal attack", I think people who post about a feature should have some experience with it. I don't really see that being all that aggressive.
I am avoiding conversations where people attack me personally. You seem more interested in me than in actually discussing the topic.
Actually, Dennis, I have posted several times to this topic, and I haven't attacked you at all. I was merely commenting that you keep avoiding questioning. If you would mind answering Velderan's questions...?
To restate them:
1. How often do you use familiars?
2. Do you understand how familiars can be a combat liability?
3. How is a +2 bonus overpowered?
Then a feat for example that gives a rogue +2 to all skill checks would be balanced? Why bother with a monkey, just a single feat. This would save a ton on the page count of the final game. Skill Focus (All)
Actually, Dennis, there two things you aren't considering.
1. Some of us enjoy having familiars because we like them. Not because of any power brought to the character, but because they're an RP thing.
2. Skill Focus has been revamped to be more powerful, eventually giving a +6 bonus on checks (so your statement is inaccurate).
My feeling is just that I'd rather err towards more options that the DM has to reign in than less options that the DM has to figure out a way to rule.
I agree. Options are good. And when I did get to play more than I do now I loved options. Of course I had a great DM and everyone that played was creative, mature and reasonable. Reading these forums I realize how lucky I was. How lucky we didn’t have a rule book lawyer. How lucky we had a DM committed to making the game fun for everyone (himself included).
Options are great but like many things they end up abused. If I have to choose between a new option that could lead to trouble or an established mechanic that is understood, I’ll take the latter in this case. I’d rather err on the side of caution and do something to make it harder for anyone to say “But the rulebook says it’s OK” or “That’s not what the rules say”.
Some of us enjoy having familiars because we like them. Not because of any power brought to the character, but because they're an RP thing.
I agree. Role-playing – to me – is what an RPG is about. Honestly though Psychic_Robot few of your posts have ever lead me to believe it was important to you. I’m happy to be proven wrong in this case.
My one comment though, is that to the best of my knowledge there is no penalty for having your familiar die in Pathfinder. It used to be pretty severe but there is nothing I ever read in the Arcane Bond write up to suggest you suffer the hit point damage and other side effects anymore. From what I read ONLY the Paladin suffers when their special, hairy friend is lost.
Note: Just to make sure I just went over the Familiar section of the Wizard class and I still can’t find anything to suggest the old penalties are in effect.
So with that in mind, I’ll answer your questions:
1) Never. I’ve wanted to play a wizard (well a sorcerer really) but never got the chance. The party was always short of healing and I enjoy playing clerics.
2) From what I’ve read in Pathfinder they can’t be any more of a liability then an animal companion. If there is something that makes them a liability, please point me in the right direction.
3) A single +2 or even a couple isn’t unbalancing (I prefer that to over-powered). But a +2 on every skill means that a rogue can save a few points from many skills and use them to raise a couple of skills to unusual levels. I’m sure we’ve all had to deal with the rogue with WAY too many points in hide in shadows and move silently. And now with the skill consolidation rogues have even more points to spend. Hopefully, like you, they’ll be role-players and will spend them on that aspect of the game.
Cheers
1. How often do you use familiars?
Oh, I thought we were talking about the rules to the game, now you want my gaming resume? What exactly qualifies you as a gaming expert?
Incidentally the whole idea of internet credentials is so ridiculous it's laughable. "I've had 35 years of gaming experience, I helped Gary write the game...". Whatever.
2. Do you understand how familiars can be a combat liability?
Please... explain how much of a liability they are. I don't see it.
3. How is a +2 bonus overpowered?
As I've said several times, if I have to explain how a +2 bonus to every skill in the book that stacks with nearly every other bonus available is powerful then it's a lost cause.
1. Some of us enjoy having familiars because we like them. Not because of any power brought to the character, but because they're an RP thing.
Good to hear. Then you wouldn't mind a familiar that had skills that advanced in the same way the animal companions skills advance I assume?
Well another problem with the idea that this is a "+2 to every skill" is of course it can only be a + 2 to one at a time. And only if the aid other check is made. A bigger issue in my book is the base bonus the familiar gives you and the fact that when the familiar is within reach you get alertness as a bonus feat. If you keep the monkey on your shoulder you get +2 to perception check (+4 at higher levels) and the + 3 it gives you to acrobatics, and the possibility of it giving you another + 2 to a skill with the aid other action.
I don't think this nessacarily kills the idea of a rogue with a familiar as a talent after paying two other talents to get there, any more than I think we should prevent multiclassing into sorcerer or wizard to get these bonuses.
The real questions are:
1. "Are three talents equal to multiclassing for one level to gain this advantage?"
2. "Is this advantage so good someone would take it no matter the cost?"
3. "Is there flavor and theme enough to allow this to be a talent?"
I'm sorry but "does this offend someone else's view of the rogue?" doesn't make the list, and my answers to these questions would be
1. Yes
2. No
3. Yes
Just my take on the issue.
1. "Are three talents equal to multiclassing for one level to gain this advantage?"
I'm going to stop you right here. This is a flawed question. It is not 3 talents, it is ONE. If the other two talents are broken they need to be fixed, not used as justification for making one broken talent later in the game. Even if you wanted to count the chain they are more than justified by taking Dispelling Attack which gives you dispel magic all day long.
As presented this ONE talent REQUIRES 2 others. So it takes 3 talents total to get this ability.
I'm not discussing what those talents are or are not or if they are good. I'm just pointing out that they MUST be taken to get this one thereby limiting you from taking a different talent you may want more.
The idea presented here is not a 'fix' for a cheap or broken talent chain it is an indepenant thought on something that maybe worth adding for those who want it.
The other two questions are still important, if they carry good answers that could carry the issue on it's own. So lets not stop so early in the post.
Dennis, I'm heading to bed right now, so I won't answer your questions in detail just yet. However, allow me to note that there are enchantments for armor that give a +15 bonus to skills in 3.5. This throws the entire d20 mechanic so far out of whack that a +2 bonus wouldn't matter.
Again, I'll add more tomorrow.
|
i love the idea of a rogue trick that let you have a familiar (with the minor/major arcana preq)
you CANT give them a animal companion because then they could ACTUALLY FLANK! save the dog, all familiars are tiny size, and therefore to not threaten the 5ft around them. that makes them unable to assist with a flank.
thematically, it is more fun for a rogue to have a familiar than a wizard. ( you get to evade fireballs together, you get to sneak together, your animal may be smarter than you and cover its beak with it wing with embarrassment when you goof up a simple con-job)
its not gamebreaking, and adds something to what sometimes is a lackluster class. please rethink your objections because you are just murdering fun. save the fuzzy wuzzies!!!!!!
|
|
Ummm...you can tell it to be quiet, and with it's human intelligence and use of your skill ranks, it will?
You're right, it wouldn't be used in combat. Amazingly, I was suggesting a nobcombat option, as there are some people who don't play their games in 24-hour battlefields. And, since it's a noncombat suggestion, it wouldn't alter balance in any way. Are you arguing my point?
Really? I'm an animal trainer by profession and when I tell one of my dogs to stfu, they do it even without human intelligence.
I'm not arguing that it's awesome for characters to have such creaturs as a non-combat option, but I'd rather see it fixed through the Handle Animal skill so all characters can take advantage of it rather than just as a rogue talent.
Oh, I thought we were talking about the rules to the game, now you want my gaming resume? What exactly qualifies you as a gaming expert?
Incidentally the whole idea of internet credentials is so ridiculous it's laughable. "I've had 35 years of gaming experience, I helped Gary write the game...". Whatever.
From your posting habits, I surmised that you have had little practical experience with familiars. Since you continue to avoid the question, I will go with this assumption.
Please... explain how much of a liability they are. I don't see it.
Well, Dennis, you see... According to the rules, familiars have 1/2 their master's HP. This means that the familiar's hit point total is much less than the master's--50% less, in fact. Any sort of area attack is going to leave the familiar in a significant amount of pain, unless it happens to make its saving throw.
As I've said several times, if I have to explain how a +2 bonus to every skill in the book that stacks with nearly every other bonus available is powerful then it's a lost cause.
It's not really that powerful. Consider the skill check bonuses from spells and items--the huge bonuses available make a +2 bonus negligible. While a +2 bonus is decent at low-levels, at higher-levels, your stat bonuses and skill ranks go into crazytown, so it doesn't matter.
Good to hear. Then you wouldn't mind a familiar that had skills that advanced in the same way the animal companions skills advance I assume?
No, actually, I wouldn't mind. I don't see the need for a nerf, mind you, but I wouldn't throw a huge hissy fit about it.
Actually I would take an AC over a familiar hands down any day if that's what you are willing to give me.
A flanking buddy with more HP, trip if I get the wolf, and still having decent skills/ tricks that doesn't cost me a thing when it dies compared to a fast fading monkey that gives a paltry + 2 to whatever skill I use that round and costs me an arm and a leg if it dies?
IF the familiar was include as an option after you spend the two other talents on minor and major arcana would you never pick up pathfinder again?
That's the point I'm at on this issue, it doesn't hurt any class, it does have theme and flavor, and it's not a huge power boost especially considering what must be taken to get to it. If it's something that would drive people away from the game all on its own then I'm against it (maybe) otherwise let them have an option.
At least it's not all about the combat for once.
costs me an arm and a leg if it dies?
Where did you find this? It used to be painful to lose a familiar but I can't seem to find any side-effects in the rules.
Cheers
|
|
there is no cheese in this proposition, so i will just assume its about people not liking new things. I will house rule this even if its not published because it is clever and harmless. I just dislike shutting down an idea because...it doesnt fit with your vision of D&D? maybe you need to open up to a little more fun being added. (I guess if you hate the minor/major arcana than that would offend you, but then why not pick on the paladins holy weapon option, or druids elemental domain option?)
I would rather have it printed so i dont forget its an option ( and some stupid fascination with canon :P )if you dont like it, just say no to it entering game ( i do that with MANY feats and options that i hate, but others may like them, so i dont burn them)
costs me an arm and a leg if it dies?Where did you find this? It used to be painful to lose a familiar but I can't seem to find any side-effects in the rules.
You're right, I can't find this either. It looks like, rather than modified, the 'familiar death' text was completely removed. That being said, even if the only cost is "I have to wait 24 hours to replace it". It's still a liability. Your assistant can die at any time, very very easily. You have to be careful to keep it alive. And that's not going into RP ramifications. Having somebody assist you (which can be done without a familiar) shouldn't be treated like a floating +2. It honestly sounds like a very flimsy excuse not to have one.
That's the point I'm at on this issue, it doesn't hurt any class, it does have theme and flavor, and it's not a huge power boost especially considering what must be taken to get to it. If it's something that would drive people away from the game all on its own then I'm against it (maybe) otherwise let them have an option.At least it's not all about the combat for once.
Yes, if it would cause people not to play, I would agree. But, of course, it won't.
Here's what I ask myself:
1:Do enough people want it to warrant it?
2:Does it encroach heavily on another classs
3:Is it underpowered/overpowered/broken/breakable
Answers being that:
1:A lot of people seem to want it
2:No, it's a relatively minor feature, and rogues don't have the spells to make it anything else.
3:No, and anyone who's said otherwise is grasping at straws, or giving nonsensical responses like "Well, if you don't agree with me, there's no hope for you". There is a small possibility of UMD cheese, but this needs to be taken out for the familiar anyway.
So, I'm really not getting the opposition.
there is no cheese in this proposition, so i will just assume its about people not liking new things. I will house rule this even if its not published because it is clever and harmless. I just dislike shutting down an idea because...it doesnt fit with your vision of D&D? maybe you need to open up to a little more fun being added. (I guess if you hate the minor/major arcana than that would offend you, but then why not pick on the paladins holy weapon option, or druids elemental domain option?)
I would rather have it printed so i dont forget its an option ( and some stupid fascination with canon :P )if you dont like it, just say no to it entering game ( i do that with MANY feats and options that i hate, but others may like them, so i dont burn them)
I don't even think it's about not liking new things. It fits so well that I can only assume it's about some people trying to control other people's options. Or people who don't like familiars in the first place trying to keep 'yet another one' from being at their table. We saw the same things at the druid discussion.
Personally, I'm the same way. If I really hate something, I'll just say no to it. And yes, you have to keep some limits so players don't say "well, it's in the book..." But this concept isn't even in the remote neighborhood of broken. And it makes so much sense.
There is this:
"If the subject of an arcane bond is lost or destroyed, it can be replaced after 1 week’s time in a special ritual that costs 200
gp per wizard level. This ritual takes 8 hours to complete."
Bolded by me for emphasis. Subject means either the familiar or the item that the arcane bond is formed with. Meaning if your pet passes away it's going to cost you at least 600 GP (since you can only take this talent at the earliest at level 6) and a week + 8 hours to replace it, even if you level which then means you are paying more to get it back. Granted 200 GP per level gets to be a paltry amount but you are down some time and it does still cost to do the ritual, and being a ritual I imagine this is something like creating a magic item where you need to be in a secure place to do it.
There is this:
"If the subject of an arcane bond is lost or destroyed, it can be replaced after 1 week’s time in a special ritual that costs 200
gp per wizard level. This ritual takes 8 hours to complete."Bolded by me for emphasis. Subject means either the familiar or the item that the arcane bond is formed with. Meaning if your pet passes away it's going to cost you at least 600 GP (since you can only take this talent at the earliest at level 6) and a week + 8 hours to replace it, even if you level which then means you are paying more to get it back. Granted 200 GP per level gets to be a paltry amount but you are down some time and it does still cost to do the ritual, and being a ritual I imagine this is something like creating a magic item where you need to be in a secure place to do it.
So THAT's where it is. I was looking in the familiar description like a dummy.
I saw the money part.
Velderan, I think you and I both were remembering the much more serious consequences of losing a familiar in the older version.
Losing some money is an inconvenience and, if as many people say, the familiar is really just a role-playing thing and not a useful game mechanic losing access to it for a week is also just an inconvenience.
So it's still not a liability just an inconvenience. Unless of course during the Sorcerer/Wizard review Jason realizes the loss of familiar side-effects were omitted by accident and puts them back in (the Paladin mount is the closest thing to a familiar and they suffer a penalty when it dies so it seems natural to me a Sorcerer or Wizard (or potentially Rogue) should suffer a real penalty).
Cheers
Uhh...no. I completely disagree with you.
Having a pet that may die that easily IS a liability. Because, the floating +2 you guys want to pretend the familiar is acting as (As if other players can't assist you) may be gone very easily, unless the party wants to sit around waiting for a week so you can get it back. You certainly can't say that about the other feats or talents.
200 gp/level might SEEM like an inconsequential amount of wealth, but it's not if the pet begins to die every day. So...it's a liability that must be handled carefully
And, from a roleplaying perspective, nobody wants their beloved pet to die.
So, even if a floating +2 to one skill at a time was actually that powerful (it's not), you'd still be acting like the familiar was much stronger than it really is. Remember, the actual issue is whether or not it's a bad idea for the rogue. And it's not.