I have a small dinosaur. Obviously it can't use wands, but could I place a scroll in front of it and then it use UMD?
I've always said yes, provided that they can lift and manipulate the item. I don't see why a familiar couldn't use a wand.
RAW, no, but I've seen DMs allow it.
Note that via the share spells ability, you can cast spells on the familiar even if they don't normally work on magical beasts. So you can then cast Anthropomorphic Animal on it to give any familiar human hans and speech, allowing for UMD use.
Wands require speech not just hands. Animals do not have speech.
- Gauss
So only an Anthropomorphic Raven can use UMD?
familiars by 5th level can speak with their masters, by level 7th familiars can speak with other creatures of it's kind, and presumably they can understand any language their master speaks. If the animal in question was unable to make noise (like a female toad for example) then I might agree with the lack of speech as a determent. Familiars can speak, it's just that most creatures can't understand them. I doubt magic items require a specific language, and even if it did, if you can fake race, alignment, or class with UMD why would an intelligent creature be stymied by language?
Guy Humual: That is not speech. That is not the ability to speak a command word. But, in a non-PFS game the GM can rule anything he wants. However, unless I am mistaken PFS has stated that familiars with actual languages are required. Perhaps a PFS player can provide the quote.
- Gauss
This is why people get Improved Familiars.
I prefer Imps and Raktavarnas.
The homunculus rocks too.
"harmor"So only an Anthropomorphic Raven can use UMD?[/QUOTE wrote: Ravens have speech, but so do parrot and thrush familiars. And all thee have opposable digits, so your GM may allow them a degree of manipulative powers too.
What do you need to "do" with a wand anyway, 'cept hold it and speak?
blackbloodtroll wrote: I prefer Imps and Raktavarnas. Lyrakien FTW!
Oh, does your Lyrakien shape into a masterwork revolver?
Nope. On the other hand, she doesn't reek of cheese.
|
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
Not cheese. That is exactly what that creature was designed to do.
Become a masterwork weapon usable in combat.
It's like you can enchant it, or even cast magic weapon on it.
blackbloodtroll wrote: Not cheese. That is exactly what that creature was designed to do.
Become a masterwork weapon usable in combat.
It's like you can enchant it, or even cast magic weapon on it.
Bestiary 3 wrote: Change Shape (Su) As a full-round action, a raktavarna can take the shape of a handheld object, most often an ornamental light, a one-handed weapon, or a piece of treasure. If the rakshasa remains stationary in such a form, it can attempt Stealth checks even while being observed. It can remain motionless in object form indefinitely, but reverts to its true form as soon as it takes any action. I don't see "masterwork" in that piece of text.
The AP it was introduced had a NPC that used it as a silver dagger.
blackbloodtroll wrote: The AP it was introduced had a NPC that used it as a silver dagger. It wasn't masterwork, and I think it only "looked" silver. At most it would have been simple dagger damage.
Hmm, I guess I assumed the masterwork portion from that.
Well, revolver is still an option.
It looked silver but, if I recall exactly, the monster description did say that it would not bypass DR/Silver. I am a bit perplexed on the revolver part (lots of moving parts) but it should be fully capable to replicate a muzzle loader.
Note that a silver weapon isn't automatically masterwork.
Gauss wrote: Guy Humual: That is not speech. That is not the ability to speak a command word. But, in a non-PFS game the GM can rule anything he wants. However, unless I am mistaken PFS has stated that familiars with actual languages are required. Perhaps a PFS player can provide the quote.
- Gauss
The term used throughout the familiar section is speak:
"A raven familiar can speak one language of its master's choice as a supernatural ability."
"Speak with Master (Ex): If the master is 5th level or higher, a familiar and the master can communicate verbally as if they were using a common language. Other creatures do not understand the communication without magical help."
"Speak with Animals of Its Kind (Ex): If the master is 7th level or higher, a familiar can communicate with animals of approximately the same kind as itself (including dire varieties): bats with bats, cats with felines, hawks and owls and ravens with birds, lizards and snakes with reptiles, monkeys with other simians, rats with rodents, toads with amphibians, and weasels with ermines and minks. Such communication is limited by the Intelligence of the conversing creatures."
There is no ability "speech" that I'm aware of, and it seems to me that if that were a qualifier to using magic items nobody would be able to use wands as no class or race has "speech" as an ability. I have no idea what the ruling for PFS is but seeing as this isn't a PFS thread I'm not entirely sure why it would matter. PFS is a good yardstick for interpreting the rules but keep in mind there are quite a few rulings for PFS that have been added to the books to speed the game along. Perhaps familiars aren't allowed to use the UMD skill in PFS, but it could be that they've been disallowed the option simply to reduce the number of actions any given player can take and not because familiars simply can't use that skill. I've never played a wizard or a witch in PFS so I've never bothered to look at the rules for familiars in organized play.
Alright, lets go through it a different way:
Speak with Master does not allow the animal to speak normally. I think we can agree on that?
CRB p458 wrote: Spell Trigger: Spell trigger activation is similar to spell completion, but it’s even simpler. No gestures or spell finishing is needed, just a special knowledge of spellcasting that an appropriate character would know, and a single word that must be spoken. Spell trigger items can be used by anyone whose class can cast the corresponding spell. This is the case even for a character who can’t actually cast spells, such as a 3rd-level paladin. The user must still determine what spell is stored in the item before she can activate it. Activating a spell trigger item is a standard action and does not provoke attacks of opportunity.[/b]
So, the creature needs to speak a word. Since the familiar cannot speak normal words it cannot speak the word.
- Gauss
Gauss wrote: Alright, lets go through it a different way:
Speak with Master does not allow the animal to speak normally. I think we can agree on that?
CRB p458 wrote: Spell Trigger: Spell trigger activation is similar to spell completion, but it’s even simpler. No gestures or spell finishing is needed, just a special knowledge of spellcasting that an appropriate character would know, and a single word that must be spoken. Spell trigger items can be used by anyone whose class can cast the corresponding spell. This is the case even for a character who can’t actually cast spells, such as a 3rd-level paladin. The user must still determine what spell is stored in the item before she can activate it. Activating a spell trigger item is a standard action and does not provoke attacks of opportunity. So, the creature needs to speak a word. Since the familiar cannot speak normal words it cannot speak the word.
- Gauss
I think this is where we draw our different opinions. I believe that a familiar can speak by 5th level, albeit incomprehensible without magic, and that it's the intent and vocalization of that intent that's more important then the actual word. There are all sorts of monsters with strangely shaped bodies and dozens of strange languages, I'd rather not say intelligent devourers can't use wands because they don't have mouths (or at least don't in any illustrations I've seen). it's much easier to say that if a creature is intelligent and is capable of making noise then they should be able to full the language requirement. Otherwise you'd need to go through the monster manual and figure out on a case by case basis which creatures can talk and which ones can't.
Guy Humual:
Can a bird talk? Can a weasel? Toad? Answer to all of that is no.
The text on Speak with Master indicates that the animals can 'communiciate'. It does not state that it grants them the ability to speak in any general sense. The animal barks, the master understands. The human speaks, the animal understands.
Put another way: Since only the master understands what the familiar says the wand does not. The wand is unable to understand whatever gibberish the familiar is speaking. The wand is not the master.
Get an improved familiar, use a familiar with real language. :)
- Gauss
This is a kind of undefined area for me.
There are creatures like nagas that don't have hands, and are full spellcasters (not talking spell like abilities).
How exactly do they cast spells, period? I suppose you could say they wiggle their tails or something for the somatic part, but how do they access components?
Also the UMD issue would come up for them, if they had skill points in that, which they could do.
I think is is all in what your GM wants to do. To me it really isn't covered by the rules too well.
Gauss wrote: Guy Humual:
Can a bird talk? Can a weasel? Toad? Answer to all of that is no.
The text on Speak with Master indicates that the animals can 'communiciate'. It does not state that it grants them the ability to speak in any general sense. The animal barks, the master understands. The human speaks, the animal understands.
Put another way: Since only the master understands what the familiar says the wand does not. The wand is unable to understand whatever gibberish the familiar is speaking. The wand is not the master.
Get an improved familiar, use a familiar with real language. :)
- Gauss
Rather then get into animal behavior (most people that study animals believe they do talk albeit not the same way we do) or philosophical debate (what actually defines language) I think we're just going to have to agree to disagree on this one.
Recent threads in Rules Questions
|
