In the Beta game I currently run, I have a player who wants to play a straight rogue (unless shadowdancer gets de-sucked), with a noncombat emphasis (she's more interested in sneaking than stabbing). The only thing she wanted to do in-game was to give her character a monkey sidekick to help her in thievery, I guess similar to Aladdin or some Thora Birch flick she kept talking about. Anyway, while I'm more likely to bend rules than I am to completely make up new rules, I'm pretty willing to accommodate players who want to do something for RP, as long as it's not to 'get away with things' and doesn't really take too much from another class's niche. So I decided that, if she took the minor and major magic talents (which are terrible), I would let her take the obtain familiar feat from complete arcana.
Anyway, this got me to thinking, why not make "acquire familiar" a rogue talent, which one can take after major magic? It synergizes with rogue well, because familiars use their masters' skill ranks instead of their own, which would make it a very useful assistant. And there's precedent in literature for a roguish character with a small, intelligent animal sidekick. The familiar can't deliver touch spells, so it's not going to be big power boost. And it gives the rogue a reason to take the magic talents (as it stands, other than true strike, those talents are terrible. Dispelling attack is the only thing worth even considering). This also doesn't really steal from other classes. Conceptually, the familiar is a very very tiny oft-unused part of the wizard class, which sorcerers can already get. Really, I've never seen a familiar-based character. And, in terms of helping the rogue with their skills, all it does is make them better at what they already do best, it doesn't change anyone's niche or unique abilities.
What do you guys think?
Agreed. Obtain Familiar in CArcane set a precedent for characters other than wizards and sorcerers having a familiar, so why not give rogues the option? I can just see a rogue with a little monkey thief. Or maybe a pirate with a parrot familiar.
Animal Companion? Yes, sure. Familiar? Not so much.
I'm willing to +1 this. However I would point out in the 3.5 optimization threads are some threads based solely on making a "familiar-zilla".
This is still a nice idea in my opinion though.
I like the idea of limited animal companions for some people, but familiars are magically linked pets for arcane casters. Let's not distract from that.
This should be enough for a pet. It is not enhanced in any way. Animal companions are advanced. Familiars are linked. Just go with a straight pet.
Handle Animal (Cha; Trained Only)
Check
The DC depends on what you are trying to do.
Handle an Animal
This task involves commanding an animal to perform a task or trick that it knows. If the animal is wounded or has taken any nonlethal damage or ability score damage, the DC increases by 2. If your check succeeds, the animal performs the task or trick on its next action.
“Push” an Animal
To push an animal means to get it to perform a task or trick that it doesn’t know but is physically capable of performing. This category also covers making an animal perform a forced march or forcing it to hustle for more than 1 hour between sleep cycles. If the animal is wounded or has taken any nonlethal damage or ability score damage, the DC increases by 2. If your check succeeds, the animal performs the task or trick on its next action.
Teach an Animal a Trick
You can teach an animal a specific trick with one week of work and a successful Handle Animal check against the indicated DC. An animal with an Intelligence score of 1 can learn a maximum of three tricks, while an animal with an Intelligence score of 2 can learn a maximum of six tricks. Possible tricks (and their associated DCs) include, but are not necessarily limited to, the following.
Attack (DC 20): The animal attacks apparent enemies. You may point to a particular creature that you wish the animal to attack, and it will comply if able. Normally, an animal will attack only humanoids, monstrous humanoids, giants, or other animals. Teaching an animal to attack all creatures (including such unnatural creatures as undead and aberrations) counts as two tricks.
Come (DC 15): The animal comes to you, even if it normally would not do so.
Defend (DC 20): The animal defends you (or is ready to defend you if no threat is present), even without any command being given. Alternatively, you can command the animal to defend a specific other character.
Down (DC 15): The animal breaks off from combat or otherwise backs down. An animal that doesn’t know this trick continues to fight until it must flee (due to injury, a fear effect, or the like) or its opponent is defeated.
Fetch (DC 15): The animal goes and gets something. If you do not point out a specific item, the animal fetches some random object.
Guard (DC 20): The animal stays in place and prevents others from approaching.
Heel (DC 15): The animal follows you closely, even to places where it normally wouldn’t go.
Perform (DC 15): The animal performs a variety of simple tricks, such as sitting up, rolling over, roaring or barking, and so on.
Seek (DC 15): The animal moves into an area and looks around for anything that is obviously alive or animate.
Stay (DC 15): The animal stays in place, waiting for you to return. It does not challenge other creatures that come by, though it still defends itself if it needs to.
Track (DC 20): The animal tracks the scent presented to it. (This requires the animal to have the scent ability)
Work (DC 15): The animal pulls or pushes a medium or heavy load.
Train an Animal for a Purpose
Rather than teaching an animal individual tricks, you can simply train it for a general purpose. Essentially, an animal’s purpose represents a preselected set of known tricks that fit into a common scheme, such as guarding or heavy labor. The animal must meet all the normal prerequisites for all tricks included in the training package. If the package includes more than three tricks, the animal must have an Intelligence score of 2.
An animal can be trained for only one general purpose, though if the creature is capable of learning additional tricks (above and beyond those included in its general purpose), it may do so. Training an animal for a purpose requires fewer checks than teaching individual tricks does, but no less time.
Combat Riding (DC 20): An animal trained to bear a rider into combat knows the tricks attack, come, defend, down, guard, and heel. Training an animal for combat riding takes six weeks. You may also “upgrade” an animal trained for riding to one trained for combat riding by spending three weeks and making a successful DC 20 Handle Animal check. The new general purpose and tricks completely replace the animal’s previous purpose and any tricks it once knew. Warhorses and riding dogs are already trained to bear riders into combat, and they don’t require any additional training for this purpose.
Fighting (DC 20): An animal trained to engage in combat knows the tricks attack, down, and stay. Training an animal for fighting takes three weeks.
Guarding (DC 20): An animal trained to guard knows the tricks attack, defend, down, and guard. Training an animal for guarding takes four weeks.
Heavy Labor (DC 15): An animal trained for heavy labor knows the tricks come and work. Training an animal for heavy labor takes two weeks.
Hunting (DC 20): An animal trained for hunting knows the tricks attack, down, fetch, heel, seek, and track. Training an animal for hunting takes six weeks.
Performance (DC 15): An animal trained for performance knows the tricks come, fetch, heel, perform, and stay. Training an animal for performance takes five weeks.
Riding (DC 15): An animal trained to bear a rider knows the tricks come, heel, and stay. Training an animal for riding takes three weeks.
Rear a Wild Animal
To rear an animal means to raise a wild creature from infancy so that it becomes domesticated. A handler can rear as many as three creatures of the same kind at once.
A successfully domesticated animal can be taught tricks at the same time it’s being raised, or it can be taught as a domesticated animal later.
See also: epic usages of Handle Animal.
Action
Varies. Handling an animal is a move action, while pushing an animal is a full-round action. (A druid or ranger can handle her animal companion as a free action or push it as a move action.) For tasks with specific time frames noted above, you must spend half this time (at the rate of 3 hours per day per animal being handled) working toward completion of the task before you attempt the Handle Animal check. If the check fails, your attempt to teach, rear, or train the animal fails and you need not complete the teaching, rearing, or training time. If the check succeeds, you must invest the remainder of the time to complete the teaching, rearing, or training. If the time is interrupted or the task is not followed through to completion, the attempt to teach, rear, or train the animal automatically fails.
Try Again
Yes, except for rearing an animal.
Special
You can use this skill on a creature with an Intelligence score of 1 or 2 that is not an animal, but the DC of any such check increases by 5. Such creatures have the same limit on tricks known as animals do.
A druid or ranger gains a +4 circumstance bonus on Handle Animal checks involving her animal companion.
In addition, a druid’s or ranger’s animal companion knows one or more bonus tricks, which don’t count against the normal limit on tricks known and don’t require any training time or Handle Animal checks to teach.
If you have the Animal Affinity feat, you get a +2 bonus on Handle Animal checks.
Synergy
If you have 5 or more ranks in Handle Animal, you get a +2 bonus on Ride checks and wild empathy checks.
Untrained
If you have no ranks in Handle Animal, you can use a Charisma check to handle and push domestic animals, but you can’t teach, rear, or train animals. A druid or ranger with no ranks in Handle Animal can use a Charisma check to handle and push her animal companion, but she can’t teach, rear, or train other nondomestic animals.
I think that Familiars tend to be smaller and smarter than Animal Companions, and so are a great fit for the rogue. With their urban emphasis, the traditional animal companion progression seems out of place with the rogue.
I also know with 100% certainty that my party's rogue would take this power in a heartbeat.
If I played a rogue I would take it just for the "cool" factor.
I like the idea of limited animal companions for some people, but familiars are magically linked pets for arcane casters. Let's not distract from that.
The idea IS to make it a magically linked pet. I would personally make the magic talents required in order to get it. That way, it makes sense AND you're paying for it.
This should be enough for a pet. It is not enhanced in any way. Animal companions are advanced. Familiars are linked. Just go with a straight pet.
Not really, the concept and precedent we're talking about is an advanced pet. Why can't a rogue with a little magic have a linked pet?
I'm willing to +1 this. However I would point out in the 3.5 optimization threads are some threads based solely on making a "familiar-zilla".
This is still a nice idea in my opinion though.
I'm not very familiar with those threads. I'm aware there's some cheese with share spells and polymorph. How could a rogue familiar-zilla (aside from sharing skill ranks, which is just cool)?
A rogue can't have a magically linked pet because that's not a rogue *thing*. If a rogue wants a magically linked pet that badly, the rogue needs to take a level in wizard, or sorcerer-arcane bloodline. Otherwise, the rogue can have a normal pet via the handle animal rules.
|
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.
Why not have a rogue talent that encourages dabbling? If a rogue took a level of wizard, have a talent that grants half his rogue levels to his effective wizard level for familiar abilities.
You could expand this to other class abilities - arcane bond, hunter's bond, nature's bond, monk unarmed attacks, etc. You'd want to be careful to not allow abuse of this, but a talent might be able to unlock some of these features ...
A rogue can't have a magically linked pet because that's not a rogue *thing*. If a rogue wants a magically linked pet that badly, the rogue needs to take a level in wizard, or sorcerer-arcane bloodline. Otherwise, the rogue can have a normal pet via the handle animal rules.
mmmm...that doesn't really make sense. There is conceptual precedent for it, so I don't see why it can't be a rogue 'thing'. There's nothing innately 'wizard' about an intelligent animal. There's something innately magical about it, and that's what the magic talents are for. I see no reason to punish a rogue by making them lose rogue levels over something like a familiar, and there are already talents to let the rogue 'dabble' in sorcerer or wizard.
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.
Jason Bulmahn
Lead Designer
Paizo Publishing
My reasoning is, it seems to be a very popular option (I've got one player who wants this, and, according to this thread, so do other players), and it's a nice mechanical fit. However, it doesn't really seem to be affecting game in one way or another, as spells are needed to break the familiar. And, there's a big cost involved, so it's not something that "I can't imagine not taking".
More importantly, right now, there are issues with the minor/major magic talents (going by all the threads listed for it). The idea seems to be that, you never know what tricks a rogue is going to pull. He/she might have dabbled in a bit of spellcraft, but they weren't really devoted enough to waste a whole level to it. Just enough to pick a little something up. However, the execution is a bit weak, and a lot of players don't like it. I would say, instead of axing it, go for it a bit more. This provides a bit of a payoff for those players, and it enhances the 'dabbled in magic' feeling without tacking on more spells. And really, this makes all kinds of sense for a rogue who has dabbled. This is naturally the kind of thing they WOULD want to get. A helpful assistant to pick pockets for them, or a clever creature smart enough to distract the guards. In a way, it makes more sense for a rogue than it does for a wizard, people are just hung up on the word "familiar".
As for the people who say 'just get a pet and use handle animal'. Huh? and how? In order to keep it with you while you adventure, or take it with you while robbing, you need an animal smart enough to know to keep quiet, and skilled enough to do it. Why would a rogue take a normal pet with them anywhere?
You, your friend and five others in this thread hardly qualifies as very popular, you know.
Why would a rogue take a normal pet with them anywhere?
Aladdin took his monkey with him all the time (at least in the Disney cartoons). So did Barbosa (sp?) from the Pirates of the Carribean quadrilogy. And so did the guy in Swashbuckler. And none of them were magical (one was undead, but not especially smart).
Take ranks in handle animal and train the pet. Though I have to admit, the handle animal skill isn't exactly simple to adjudicate as a DM, it can be done. There's no point in adding more complications to the rules.
Besides, if you really want a magical animal, take a level of rogue, sorcerer, or druid; the rules are already there.
You, your friend and five others in this thread hardly qualifies as very popular, you know.
Yes, and you disagreeing doesn't make it unpopular. But if all we have to go on is this thread, it seems to be more popular than not.
I think the handle animal skill is plenty, all we really need is a chart in the goods and equipment for animal costs.
Umm...what about it dying in five minutes...or being loud...
Why would a rogue take a normal pet with them anywhere?Aladdin took his monkey with him all the time (at least in the Disney cartoons). So did Barbosa (sp?) from the Pirates of the Carribean quadrilogy. And so did the guy in Swashbuckler. And none of them were magical (one was undead, but not especially smart).
Take ranks in handle animal and train the pet. Though I have to admit, the handle animal skill isn't exactly simple to adjudicate as a DM, it can be done. There's no point in adding more complications to the rules.
Besides, if you really want a magical animal, take a level of rogue, sorcerer, or druid; the rules are already there.
Aladdin's monkey had human intelligence, which is why it was of use to him. Barbosa wasn't really a rogue (at least, he never did any sneaking or scouting, he basically just fought and told people what to do). I'm not familiar with swashbuckler. And I think you're getting too hung up on the concept of "magical" or "familiar". I'm basically just saying an intelligent sidekick to help the rogue. Without touch spells to deliver or self-buffs to share, it's not all that magical.
I really don't see how this is adding complication to the rules. All it is doing is allowing a class to use a previously existing ruleset. It's one of the least complicated adjustments possible.
And yes, my player COULD take a level in sorcerer or wizard, but I already explained why that was silly (IE, it's a minor class feature and there's already ample explanation for it in the minor/major magical talents).
I really don't see how this is adding complication to the rules. All it is doing is allowing a class to use a previously existing ruleset. It's one of the least complicated adjustments possible.
The previously existing ruleset is for classes with animal companions or familiars, both of which are magical ehancements to a regular animal. The rules are balanced to work with those classes; they are not balanced to work with the rogue class.
Handle animal, however, is balanced to work with all classes. Rogues can also get very good at it; take skill mastery and you can take 10 to "push" the pet, which is something that not even druids can do. It's cross-class for rogues, but you can always take skill focus (handle animal) as a feat if you need to be better at it.
In short, there's no reason to create new rules because the rules already exist.
I really don't see how this is adding complication to the rules. All it is doing is allowing a class to use a previously existing ruleset. It's one of the least complicated adjustments possible.The previously existing ruleset is for classes with animal companions or familiars, both of which are magical ehancements to a regular animal. The rules are balanced to work with those classes; they are not balanced to work with the rogue class.
Handle animal, however, is balanced to work with all classes. Rogues can also get very good at it; take skill mastery and you can take 10 to "push" the pet, which is something that not even druids can do. It's cross-class for rogues, but you can always take skill focus (handle animal) as a feat if you need to be better at it.
In short, there's no reason to create new rules because the rules already exist.
Umm...have you actually read the rules for familiar? I mean, yes, they weren't balanced with the rogue [i]in mind[/], but they work quite well with the rogue as is. They use the master's skill ranks, get half master's HP, and get human int; all of which stacks with the rogue just fine. You don't need to make up new or alter existing rules in any way ASIDE from allowing the rogue to get it. No matter what they were intially balanced around, you can't possibly come up with a reason, in regards to balance that they can't be given to the rogue.
Handle animal won't even begin to do what the people in favor of this want. Suggesting it repeatedly isn't going to make that any less true.
In short, there is no rule creation involved or balance issue, and the existing stuff doesn't work.
The previously existing ruleset is for classes with animal companions or familiars, both of which are magical ehancements to a regular animal. The rules are balanced to work with those classes; they are not balanced to work with the rogue class.
Handle animal, however, is balanced to work with all classes. Rogues can also get very good at it; take skill mastery and you can take 10 to "push" the pet, which is something that not even druids can do. It's cross-class for rogues, but you can always take skill focus (handle animal) as a feat if you need to be better at it.
In short, there's no reason to create new rules because the rules already exist.
What the f*ck?
Seriously, no. No. NO.
There are two main ways in which familiars are overpowered.
1. Old polymorph rules + share spell.
2. Having the familiar use UMD.
Considering that the majority of the familiar's usefulness comes from its ability to enhance its master's magical abilities (via touch spells and whatnot), and considering that the rogue can't really do any of that, I'm going to have to say that you are categorically incorrect.
The idea that rogues should just use a normal animal and use Handle Animal is idiotic for one simple reason:
Normal animals die very, very quickly on adventures.
Oh, look, the rogue has a monkey! See the monkey run. Run, monkey, run! Look, monkey, look! That wizard is casting fireball! See the monkey on fire. Stop, drop, and roll, monkey! See the dead monkey. Lay, monkey, lay!
So, yeah, that idea is patently ridiculous, so please don't ever suggest it again.
If the Minor Magic Talents are being kept, this makes perfect sense,
as the Rogue *IS* an Arcane Caster, albeit a weak one.
If Rogues lose the Magic Talents, then I don't see so much place for this.
/shrug
|
I think the handle animal skill is plenty, all we really need is a chart in the goods and equipment for animal costs.Umm...what about it dying in five minutes...or being loud...
I don't see how a magical arcane parrot is any less quiet than a regular parrot. As far as it 'dying in five minutes' there's no way anyone should be using one of these things in combat even if we went with your idea.
I'd rule that if a tiny or smaller creature is sharing space with its master (like a monkey or something on your shoulder) and the owner makes the reflex save then said pet would also take half (or no damage if there's evasion).
The idea that rogues should just use a normal animal and use Handle Animal is idiotic for one simple reason:Normal animals die very, very quickly on adventures.
Another solid point from Psychic_Robot, tactlessly delivered. Solid nonetheless.
Much as the Heal skill fails to be useful, I can't remember the last time I saw Handle Animal used with non-class-feature pets.
Therefore— the Handle Animal skill should be able to touch the bottom end of the class features or it's not worth taking. Let Handle Animal give animals the what they need to survive. Let Heal skill return HP as long as it's too slow to use in combat. Look at use magic device, if you need a precedent.
Stop making skills people don't use! It's wasted ink!
So.. your argument as to why said individual needs a new talent so they can take an animal for flavor purposes is because using handle animal isn't powerful enough? Did I about sum that up correctly? Yeah, I think I did.
Normal monkeys are reasonably smart. A normal monkey could assist it's creator with theiving. I really don't see why it needs to be better than this.
I think the handle animal skill is plenty, all we really need is a chart in the goods and equipment for animal costs.Umm...what about it dying in five minutes...or being loud...I don't see how a magical arcane parrot is any less quiet than a regular parrot. As far as it 'dying in five minutes' there's no way anyone should be using one of these things in combat even if we went with your idea.
I'd rule that if a tiny or smaller creature is sharing space with its master (like a monkey or something on your shoulder) and the owner makes the reflex save then said pet would also take half (or no damage if there's evasion).
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?
I don't see how a magical arcane parrot is any less quiet than a regular parrot. As far as it 'dying in five minutes' there's no way anyone should be using one of these things in combat even if we went with your idea.I'd rule that if a tiny or smaller creature is sharing space with its master (like a monkey or something on your shoulder) and the owner makes the reflex save then said pet would also take half (or no damage if there's evasion).
Hurf-durf-durf, let's use our thinking caps for this one, shall we? Familiars start with very low human intelligence and an empathic link to their masters, meaning that you could instruct them to STFU and, surprisingly enough, they would do so.
Furthermore, while a familiar is not particularly combat-applicable, that doesn't stop it from being caught in a fireball or draconic breath weapon or some other area effect.
Lastly, your final ruling is a house rule and is thus not applicable.
Thanks for participating.
So.. your argument as to why said individual needs a new talent so they can take an animal for flavor purposes is because using handle animal isn't powerful enough? Did I about sum that up correctly? Yeah, I think I did.
Normal monkeys are reasonably smart. A normal monkey could assist it's creator with theiving. I really don't see why it needs to be better than this.
Keep that condescending strawman bullsh*t to your lessers, boy. The reason that the rogue should have a talent for this instead of just buying a monkey is because normal pets will die horribly in combat. Furthermore, it's a fantasy trope for non-spellcasters to have intelligent companions.
The only thing you managed to "sum up" is that your mental faculties are clearly lackluster. Please refrain from emitting torrents of verbal diarrhea in the future.
Thanks for participating.
The way I see it, the more magic options you give rogues the more it blurs the lines between rogues and bards. If a rogue would like a 'familiar' a bard would probably love one.
A monkey in a fez to go with his +1 grinder box of charming. He could use his perform and bardic songs (augmented by the familiars picking of pockets) to make tons of money. He'd never have to adventure.
I agree some fantasy rogues have had magical abilities but I would venture more have not. Options are great but blurring the lines between the rogue and an already ill-defined class doesn't seem like a good option to me.
Especially when there are rules for multi-classing and prestige classes.
Cheers
The way I see it, the more magic options you give rogues the more it blurs the lines between rogues and bards. If a rogue would like a 'familiar' a bard would probably love one.
A monkey in a fez to go with his +1 grinder box of charming. He could use his perform and bardic songs (augmented by the familiars picking of pockets) to make tons of money. He'd never have to adventure.
I agree some fantasy rogues have had magical abilities but I would venture more have not. Options are great but blurring the lines between the rogue and an already ill-defined class doesn't seem like a good option to me.
Especially when there are rules for multi-classing and prestige classes.
Cheers
And why couldn't a bard get one? I'd let a bard get one with the obtain familiar feat. I'm not sure what this has to do with this discussion. And there's already line blurring going on with the talents.
I'm sorry, I'll be more clear.
I don't think the talent is a good idea (nor do I think the minor and major arcana talents are) as it further blurs the line between the rogue and the bard class.
They already overlap enough as it is.
I agree, almost anyone would like a companion they can communicate with telepathically. Traditionally the familiar has been the purview of the pure arcane casters. If you wish to grant that ability to a dabbler that sets a precedent for granting other abilities for other instances of dabbling.
I believe that way lies madness, or 4e.
Of course you do propose a steep cost, 30% of the rogues talents. Arguably, many of them are not worth taking but 30% is still a significant portion.
Should a fighter be able to give up 30% of their bonus feats for something similar? Should any class be able to give up 30% of their unique abilities for something that traditionally belonged to another class?
Again, that's what I thought multi-classing and prestige classes were for - diversity and expanding abilities and possibilities both for min-maxing and for role-playing.
Cheers
|
|
Sorry, but I also hate the idea of a Familiar for a Rogue. An animal companion of some sort using Handle Animal etc would be an interesting thing, but not a Familiar. Familiars, as others have said, are very specific magical creatures magically tied directly to their Wizard master.
We don't want Rogues getting MORE magical. For the record, I don't like the Rogue magic talents currently in the Beta either. Rogues are not Wizards. Why blur the lines?
Like I said ... I see where the OP is going and like the idea of a Rogue with a cool animal sidekick ... but, in my opinion, a Familiar is DEFINITELY not the way to achieve it.
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.
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 see that several people are suggesting animal companion as being preferable to a familiar. I see several problems with that:
-First of all, the rogue is already quite similar to the ranger, and something as considerable as an animal companion is going to make them far too similar.
-Second of all, a familiar is a relatively minor class feature, and an animal companion is a relatively major class feature. Unless doing some pretty hardcore rules abuse, a familiar adds little-nothing to the power/combat presence of the game, while an animal companion actually has a moderate combat presence (unless, of course, you're buffing it to hell). Effectively, the familiar talent is easy to grant, because it doesn't affect balance, while there are serious issues to granting yet another class an AC. As much as a loathe balance-mongering, the AC is too strong to be made a rogue talent.
-Most importantly though, an AC doesn't do what a rogue would want a familiar to do. It either can't use the skills it would need, doesn't have the skill points to do so, or can't contribute to complex schemes.
I'm curious why people are so concerned of the familiar as a magical creature rather than a smart animal bonded to the user. I mean, yes, the word familiar seems to be pretty heavily attached to spellcasters, but, statistically, it actually works really well for other things. You can say 'It's not a rogue thing,' but it must be for some rogues, or there wouldn't be people who want it. Ultimately, letting her get a familiar hasn't changed the game. I would rather err on the side of giving people more options than taking away options just because other people don't like them. Especially when those people are numerically and conceptually unable to display that granting the option creates a problem.
The only real problem seems to be the word familiar. I agree that that word is not appropriate for a rogue.
Just rename it "Animal Sidekick." Different in power level from animal familiar, no arcane association. I don't see why it would be problematic.
The problem seems to be from the word familiar. I agree that that word is not appropriate for a rogue.
Just rename it "Animal Sidekick." Different in power level from animal familiar, no arcane association.
Heh, it's like the 'domestic partner' of the Pathfinder world. In all seriousness though, I have no problem with this. It just needs to be a small animal with human intelligence and shared skill ranks. Don't call it a familiar.
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?
This COULD be a Feat, though, since the Bard is just as appropriate as the Minor/Major Magic Rogue.
The Feat could simply require 1st level Arcane Magic casting, = Maj. Magic Rogue & Bard.
The only real problem seems to be the word familiar. I agree that that word is not appropriate for a rogue.
Just rename it "Animal Sidekick." Different in power level from animal familiar, no arcane association. I don't see why it would be problematic.
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.
leadership? Couldn't you just take leadership and have an awakened monkey (or whatever) cohort?
Honestly,
it seems those who object to this on the basis of the Familiar's association with Arcane Casters,
should focus their attention against the Minor/Major Magic Tricks.Those Tricks 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)
To be honest, I'm not keen on this idea, but in terms of balance I think the build-up in Rogue tricks is probably worth the minor effect of a familiar. I will, however, take this opportunity to point out the flack I got for suggesting similar changes to the bard. ;)
I'm going to come at it from another angle. Is the familiar really worth it? Unless the rogue's level counts as his/her caster level, the familiar will only have a few abilities here or there, no direct communication, and little survivability. The rogue would have few to no touch spells to deliver through the familiar. The penalities for its death will be dire. A trained animal would be cheaper, easier, and more replaceable.
To be honest, I'm not keen on this idea, but in terms of balance I think the build-up in Rogue tricks is probably worth the minor effect of a familiar. I will, however, take this opportunity to point out the flack I got for suggesting similar changes to the bard. ;)
I'm going to come at it from another angle. Is the familiar really worth it? Unless the rogue's level counts as his/her caster level, the familiar will only have a few abilities here or there, no direct communication, and little survivability. The rogue would have few to no touch spells to deliver through the familiar. The penalities for its death will be dire. A trained animal would be cheaper, easier, and more replaceable.
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.