|
While a raven can carry a wand, and may even be able to speak a command word or take ranks in UMD, it can not properly wield a wand. In the same manner, it could carry a dagger in its beak or in its feet, but couldn't use said dagger to make an attack roll.
Thanks for the swift reply.
Does the prohibition against weapon wielding raven familiars and ape animal companions extend to monkey familiars as well?
|
While a raven can carry a wand, and may even be able to speak a command word or take ranks in UMD, it can not properly wield a wand. In the same manner, it could carry a dagger in its beak or in its feet, but couldn't use said dagger to make an attack roll.Thanks for the swift reply.
Does the prohibition against weapon wielding raven familiars and ape animal companions extend to monkey familiars as well?
And while we are on the topic, pseudo-dragons and imps. Mostly Imps actually who can talk, have hands, etc...
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Request for official ruling:
Now that we are adressing animals with incresed intelligence and their capabilities; Are raven familiars wielding wands with UMD legal?
No.
:)
Hyrum.
|
|
And while we are on the topic, pseudo-dragons and imps. Mostly Imps actually who can talk, have hands, etc...
Being non-animal and thus sentient I would not place the same restrictions on those creatures. They have both the intelect and anatomy to do so, and since players have already invested feats and money into having those familiars, I do not se a balance issue either.
Incidentally i recall an adventure (not sure which) with a wand wielding imp/quasit/mephit. Was it Erylium?
|
|
And while we are on the topic, pseudo-dragons and imps. Mostly Imps actually who can talk, have hands, etc...Being non-animal and thus sentient I would not place the same restrictions on those creatures. They have both the intelect and anatomy to do so, and since players have already invested feats and money into having those familiars, I do not se a balance issue either.
Incidentally i recall an adventure (not sure which) with a wand wielding imp/quasit/mephit. Was it *****?
Yes, there was a wand wielding quasit in one of the Paizo APs.
I ask because I know a fair number of the folks who love familiars like them because they can do useful things in combat including using wands. This gives them a viable option for doing it. It is also a pretty significant bump in power compared to a familiar that cannot use wands.
And while we are on the topic, pseudo-dragons and imps. Mostly Imps actually who can talk, have hands, etc...Being non-animal and thus sentient I would not place the same restrictions on those creatures. They have both the intelect and anatomy to do so, and since players have already invested feats and money into having those familiars, I do not se a balance issue either.
Incidentally i recall an adventure (not sure which) with a wand wielding imp/quasit/mephit. Was it Erylium?
A small point but a raven familiar is not an animal either.
Likewise they are sentient having INT scores of 6 or higher. Expressly they can speak as well as communicate with their master.
Not that it changes the ruling, but as these things are about splitting hairs you should get them right.
The point is that certain forms are not going to be allowed to use certain items. It's then not the case that a raven familiar can't use a wand but rather anything (PC/NPC) in raven form cannot use a wand. So if a PC (or NPC) druid were in the form of a raven they could not successfully manipulate a wand to activate it.
-James
I always ruled if you want your Raven familiar to use a wand it has to UMD it. Targeting with it is another issue. Magic missile probably fine. Scorching ray probably not. Now an imp would have no problem.
|
For OP, it seems that a consistent, somewhat blanket rule could eliminate all the questions. Something like...
"Animal companions and familiars are not permitted to wield weapons or activate magic items. They can hold or carry these items on behalf of their master, but cannot use them."
While it may not jive will all the PF rules and what you can do in a home-game environment, we have to think about the logistics of this in the OP game. The more GM caveat rules we have, the more likely it is that a player, who has been developing a PC for many levels, will be hosed at a table where a GM has a different interpretation.
Yes, it might be a bit limiting, but AC/familiars seems to have A LOT of questions and Hyrum/Mark cannot possibly answer them all.
|
|
For OP, it seems that a consistent, somewhat blanket rule could eliminate all the questions. Something like...
"Animal companions and familiars are not permitted to wield weapons or activate magic items. They can hold or carry these items on behalf of their master, but cannot use them."
Please be careful with your blankets. My Ranger wants his animal companion to have an Amulet of Mighty Fists. Some may consider it a weapon, as it behaves like one. I also don't mind the companion bear wearing spiked gauntlets, like one of the WotC minis, and those could have an magical enhancement on them as well.
Now, with a little tweaking, I like your idea.
-Swiftbrook
|
|
If we had a rule such as this, perhaps it would not include always-active items, such as rings of protection, Belts of enhancement, etc. These would be things that enhance what the AC/familiar already does, but does not grant them abilities that are denied to other AC/companions based on physicality. So an Amulet of Mighty Fists might improve the natural attacks they already have.
Director of Brand Strategy
|
| 4 people marked this as FAQ candidate. Answered in the FAQ. 7 people marked this as a favorite. |
The intent is that animal companions or familiars can not activate magic items that require activation. Something like an amulet of natural armor does not require activation; it's always on (unless it's in an antimagic field or someone dispels it or whatever). That said, a creature is limited by its anatomy. Something without shoulders can't wear a cloak, and something without fingers can't wear a ring. For the sake of PFS, animal companions can wear barding and neck-slot items. All other slots aren't really appropriate for animals (or even magical beasts). The only exception to this would be an imp or quasit familiar gained with the Improved Familiar feat. One could reasonably face either of these wielding a wand or wearing a circlet of persuasion in combat, and after investing a feat to gain their service, they are not limited by the same restrictions as normal bonded creatures like animals (whether treated like animals or magical beasts and regardless of Int scores).
|
More than just this, it seems to dictate against playstyle which seems, imo, to be a mistake. Different groups play with different styles and one is not 'right' while the other is 'wrong'. One of the more enticing parts of organized play is exposure to these different gaming styles.
Yeah, there seems to be a weather change. We've gone from the idea that PFS uses the rules without change other than as needed for organized play to either a much different view of what rules need to be changed for organized play or a perspective which instead dictates a particular style of play.
|
Director of Brand Strategy
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Different groups play with different styles and one is not 'right' while the other is 'wrong'. One of the more enticing parts of organized play is exposure to these different gaming styles.
The fact that different groups play with different styles isn't at issue. But the "group" for Pathfinder Society Organized Play is the entire campaign. Since a player focused on optimizing his raven to use wands might end up playing under a GM that feels this simply isn't his style, having some sort of guidelines for the campaign as a whole is necessary. And when people specifically ask about given situations, we'll certainly provide those guidelines and clarifications. Until it's in the published campaign documentation, however, it remains a suggestion, not a hard and fast rule.
And when people specifically ask about given situations, we'll certainly provide those guidelines and clarifications. Until it's in the published campaign documentation, however, it remains a suggestion, not a hard and fast rule.
That's why I kind of wince every time I see a rules question in the PFS forum. I'd much rather see a certain amount of table variation than have rules interpretations (which really belong in the FAQ, if anywhere) seeping into the PFS campaign document.
|
|
The intent is that animal companions or familiars can not activate magic items that require activation. Something like an amulet of natural armor does not require activation; it's always on (unless it's in an antimagic field or someone dispels it or whatever). That said, a creature is limited by its anatomy. Something without shoulders can't wear a cloak, and something without fingers can't wear a ring. For the sake of PFS, animal companions can wear barding and neck-slot items. All other slots aren't really appropriate for animals (or even magical beasts). The only exception to this would be an imp or quasit familiar gained with the Improved Familiar feat. One could reasonably face either of these wielding a wand or wearing a circlet of persuasion in combat, and after investing a feat to gain their service, they are not limited by the same restrictions as normal bonded creatures like animals (whether treated like animals or magical beasts and regardless of Int scores).
This is a good rule. I will be sure to forward this on to my group.
|
|
And when people specifically ask about given situations, we'll certainly provide those guidelines and clarifications. Until it's in the published campaign documentation, however, it remains a suggestion, not a hard and fast rule.That's why I kind of wince every time I see a rules question in the PFS forum. I'd much rather see a certain amount of table variation than have rules interpretations (which really belong in the FAQ, if anywhere) seeping into the PFS campaign document.
I agree.
On the other hand... how do you deal with a convention situation? If a player shows up at a table and has a radically different idea of how familiars work than the GM does who's variation over-rides?
|
Director of Brand Strategy
|
Is this a dictation of play style or merely trying to make decisions that a table GM would?
See here for more on how we're distinguishing rulings from suggestions or clarifications. When someone, whether a GM or player, asks for clarifications on a rules issue, our responses give the campaign's participants a glimpse into how we would rule things were we GMs, what the intent of the rules is as we interpret them, and possibly the direction official rules may take in future updates of the published campaign documentation.
I generally agree that the PFS-specific rules should adhere as closely to the core rules as possible, but there are countless specific elements of the rules set that defer to the GM to make rulings; in these instances, it's the PFS staff's job as coordinators of the campaign to decide how these will be handled within our campaign. That's just a fact of organized play.
|
|
Until it's in the published campaign documentation, however, it remains a suggestion, not a hard and fast rule.
I think a lot of the confusion is due to the fact that way back when Josh said something that implied forum postings were hard and fast rules.
Edit: I just read the above linked comments on Forum Suggestions/ Rules, etc which is a great improvement.
On the other hand... how do you deal with a convention situation? If a player shows up at a table and has a radically different idea of how familiars work than the GM does who's variation over-rides?
You say in advance "There's going to be inevitable table variation, so keep that in mind when basing your character around a particular trick." In case of a conflict, the GM overrides the player, of course; I've never played in a game where the expectation was the opposite.
There will be people who aren't satisfied by that, but it's still much more preferable to me.
|
|
I intend on saying, "It's not an official ruling yet but Mark said in a forum post that animal companions can only wear barding and neck slot items. If another DM told you that your companion's belt was okay they weren't necessarily wrong but I'm going to go with Mark's suggestion at this table. If you'd like you can treat your bear/badger/elephant's Belt of Giant Strength as an equivalent cost neck slot item instead for this game".
|
|
The intent is that animal companions or familiars can not activate magic items that require activation. Something like an amulet of natural armor does not require activation; it's always on (unless it's in an antimagic field or someone dispels it or whatever). That said, a creature is limited by its anatomy. Something without shoulders can't wear a cloak, and something without fingers can't wear a ring. For the sake of PFS, animal companions can wear barding and neck-slot items. All other slots aren't really appropriate for animals (or even magical beasts). The only exception to this would be an imp or quasit familiar gained with the Improved Familiar feat. One could reasonably face either of these wielding a wand or wearing a circlet of persuasion in combat, and after investing a feat to gain their service, they are not limited by the same restrictions as normal bonded creatures like animals (whether treated like animals or magical beasts and regardless of Int scores).
So my wolf animal companion can't wear a cloak of resistance then? Do I get a refund or do I suck it up and sell it for half?
|
|
The intent is that animal companions or familiars can not activate magic items that require activation. Something like an amulet of natural armor does not require activation; it's always on (unless it's in an antimagic field or someone dispels it or whatever). That said, a creature is limited by its anatomy. Something without shoulders can't wear a cloak, and something without fingers can't wear a ring. For the sake of PFS, animal companions can wear barding and neck-slot items. All other slots aren't really appropriate for animals (or even magical beasts). The only exception to this would be an imp or quasit familiar gained with the Improved Familiar feat. One could reasonably face either of these wielding a wand or wearing a circlet of persuasion in combat, and after investing a feat to gain their service, they are not limited by the same restrictions as normal bonded creatures like animals (whether treated like animals or magical beasts and regardless of Int scores).So my wolf animal companion can't wear a cloak of resistance then? Do I get a refund or do I suck it up and sell it for half?
Well this is just a 'suggestion' for now so at this point that's between you and any judges that rules against you at any particular table.
If this eventually gets put in the FAQ database thingy and becomes official I think this falls under the not-actually-a-rules-change category and you're just out of luck.
|
|
Can a Wildshaped Druid in a form that could speak the command word (such as a raven or parrot) activate a wand?
Can an ape Animal Companion drink a potion (which requires an activation action)?--If necessary, assume that the Druid rolled arbitrarily high on Handle Animal to convince the ape that it should drink it.
|
|
This has become a pointless questions game that is really going nowhere.
What people need to do is keep doing what they have been doing and if there is an unsolvable conflict at a local level bring it up. Mark's post above is pretty much a free license to work things out on the regional level unless they are explicitly in the guide.
In other words, most likely the way you've been playing for the past couple years is working fine and keep doing it that way.
|
|
This has become a pointless questions game that is really going nowhere.
What people need to do is keep doing what they have been doing and if there is an unsolvable conflict at a local level bring it up. Mark's post above is pretty much a free license to work things out on the regional level unless they are explicitly in the guide.
In other words, most likely the way you've been playing for the past couple years is working fine and keep doing it that way.
I don't think it's pointless. Some of Mark's posts in this thread have been directly contrary to the way people have been playing for some time. These aren't hypothetical questions.
The animal companion magic item slots thing is a ruling we've needed for some time.
|
|
This has become a pointless questions game that is really going nowhere.
What people need to do is keep doing what they have been doing and if there is an unsolvable conflict at a local level bring it up. Mark's post above is pretty much a free license to work things out on the regional level unless they are explicitly in the guide.
In other words, most likely the way you've been playing for the past couple years is working fine and keep doing it that way.
I don't think it's pointless. Some of Mark's posts in this thread have been directly contrary to the way people have been playing for some time. These aren't hypothetical questions.
The animal companion magic item slots thing is a ruling we've needed for some time.
If you have been playing that way for some time and no-one has a problem...
What is the issue? Why do you need Mark to answer anything?
|
|
This has become a pointless questions game that is really going nowhere.
What people need to do is keep doing what they have been doing and if there is an unsolvable conflict at a local level bring it up. Mark's post above is pretty much a free license to work things out on the regional level unless they are explicitly in the guide.
In other words, most likely the way you've been playing for the past couple years is working fine and keep doing it that way.
I don't think it's pointless. Some of Mark's posts in this thread have been directly contrary to the way people have been playing for some time. These aren't hypothetical questions.
The animal companion magic item slots thing is a ruling we've needed for some time.
Agreed. Animal companion and what item slots they had was a question that I had since my ranger hit 4th and could get one. I got a bunch of answers that amounted to whatever you felt comfortable with and whatever your DM allowed. So I went with the old LG ruling on such things, which was neck, barding, and cloak(and horseshoes for horses). Apparently, I was wrong for doing so.
Atleast now, we have some kind of answer.
Cloaks on animals is pretty silly since this is not a Disney cartoon. ;)
But seriously, if you want your wolf wearing that cloak, just have the fit modified so that it is worn in the same way as barding and you have a legit item, at least in my opinion.
|
|
But seriously, if you want your wolf wearing that cloak, just have the fit modified so that it is worn in the same way as barding and you have a legit item, at least in my opinion.
Except now Mark has stated that cloaks are not acceptable for animals. Of course, for now, it is just a suggestion, but I expect it will make it to the updated Guide at GenCon. Feel free to use a cloak on fido for now (if your GM allows it), but you'll likely lose it August and probably won't be a rebuild, so sell it for half price.
|
|
Except now Mark has stated that cloaks are not acceptable for animals. Of course, for now, it is just a suggestion, but I expect it will make it to the updated Guide at GenCon. Feel free to use a cloak on fido for now (if your GM allows it), but you'll likely lose it August and probably won't be a rebuild, so sell it for half price.
But seriously, if you want your wolf wearing that cloak, just have the fit modified so that it is worn in the same way as barding and you have a legit item, at least in my opinion.
When did TK get upgraded to Bob Jonquet, Venture Captain?
Damn... I'm slow.
|
It doesn't matter if they are Int 30.
Anything that is still an animal requires Handle Animal to use.
that would be the most straightforward approach, I agree; sure it understands your language if it has Int 30, but it's still an animal with the physical limitations of an animal, and you haven't rehearsed this, so I would have the PC roll a "push" check with Handle Animal...
(i.e. imagine someone transforms you into a horse, and tells you to go over there and bring down the castle's drawbridge.... hmmmmmmmmmmm...)
|
|
It's the former I think. It's the "quick! go to formation Delta 5!" skill... a pre-rehearsed choreography that comes automatic with a trigger word or phrase. In game terms, it's also the syncing of two beings' initiatives to allow for either mounted combat or flanking or other routines.
Handle Animal is a skill. A cha-based skill.
See the end of the skill desc:
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.
As far as I'm concerned Handle Animal should be used "on a creature that is not an animal, but the DC of any such check increases by 5."
Removing the intelligence bit in that section would allow for Handle Dragon, Handle Giant, and Handle Oozes checks.
|
|
It doesn't matter if they are Int 30.
Anything that is still an animal requires Handle Animal to use.
that would be the most straightforward approach, I agree; sure it understands your language if it has Int 30, but it's still an animal with the physical limitations of an animal, and you haven't rehearsed this, so I would have the PC roll a "push" check with Handle Animal...
(i.e. imagine someone transforms you into a horse, and tells you to go over there and bring down the castle's drawbridge.... hmmmmmmmmmmm...)
That would be great stock for a terrible/great comedy routine. Man who is turned into horse tries to bring down a drawbridge when he doesn't even know how to use his own hooves to gallop yet.
|
|
sure, if you want to bypass handle animal with speak with animals, as a DM, I wouldn't give you any trouble for it; but the previous training part needs to be done via handle animal.
the way I would houserule it: if it's a known trick the animal goes on your initiative as you've practiced in the past and both rider/mount are in sync with each other; if it's not on its list of tricks, the mount/animal companion goes on a separate initiative (just like a PC issuing a command to a cohort)
|
|
sure, if you want to bypass handle animal with speak with animals, as a DM, I wouldn't give you any trouble for it; but the previous training part needs to be done via handle animal.
the way I would houserule it: if it's a known trick the animal goes on your initiative as you've practiced in the past and both rider/mount are in sync with each other; if it's not on its list of tricks, the mount/animal companion goes on a separate initiative (just like a PC issuing a command to a cohort)
Even with Speak with Animal, you gotta make yourself understood to the animal. Just saying, "Attack the man in Red" might not mean anything to the animal. You might have to use at least a move equivalent action to explain to the animal what you want it to do. I am not sure I'd require a handle animal check, but just because the animal can understand the words coming out of your mouth, doesn't mean it understands their intent.
|
|
I agree with you Andrew, but I think james_maissen's comments may have been made in reference to more intelligent animals (i.e. Int 6 with Speak with Animal, according to him, shouldn't even require Handle Animal)
That's what I understood from his comments anyways.
My reply was "fine, but pet gets to act on a different initiative; if you want to keep the rider/mount team on the same init, you need Handle Animal, which turns out can work on non-animals with -5 to the check"