Your argument is that the familiar being behind the NPC should grant flanking, thereby conferring a benefit on you simply by threatening. But then you want the NPC to not attack the familiar because doing so would somehow be unfair.
If you want to use your familiar in battle to give you flanking (which it can do, so your GM is wrong there), then you run the risk of the familiar getting whacked.
The flanking familiar is making the half-orc more deadly. If you get rid of all the distractions (like the familiar), you can focus more fully on the larger threat. It's a perfectly valid tactic.
1. A small familiar can flank, if it is in the right position, and it is considered armed (can use a melee attack).
2. You get the flank bonus regardless if someone is "paying attention" to it or not. You can't just say since you're not focusing on a flanker, that somehow that creature is no longer flanking.
3. Im getting confused on this next one... There is no definite facing in pathfinder, the phrase "behind someone" has no meaning.. The only way to flank any character is to have two allied creatures on opposite sides of it, as explained in the flanking diagram. There's no way to get flanking bonuses from "being behind someone". Furthermore, no, you can't get a flanking bonus if you are not attacking. I'm not sure how it would make any difference though. You can help to *provide* a flanking bonus for an ally though, even if you are not attacking. I'm not sure what you meant.
4. Again, there is no definite facing in pathfinder, a creature doesn't have to "turn" to attack. And yes, obliterating the familiar is a perfectly valid tactic in this situation. The familiar has half the HP *of a sorcerer* and so it is much easier to destroy than the half-orc, and will make the half-orcs attacks less likely to hit.
If you bring your familiar out you have to be prepared that it might die. Go ahead and use it to it's fullest potential.. but if your GM kills it, realize that that was the risk you took.
|
Now, I could be wrong about what you're saying and I apologize in advance. Also, you sound upset and we're only hearing your interpretation of what your GM said. That said:
1. I'm not sure your GM is saying you "can't" use your familiar/ability. I suspect he's really warning you that he, like many GMs, ignore familiars if they are not actively involved in combat, but once you start using them in combat, you take the risk that they will be attacked or will die.
2. Your question: "With a "small" familiar you can get a flank bonus if it has the ability to threaten another square."
As phrased, I'd say NO. Having the ability to threaten another square is not enough. It has to actually threaten to provide a flank bonus. This doesn't necessarily mean that it must attack, but it must present a threat. For example, a big goofy friendly labrador retriever who slobbers over everyone like they're his best friend in the world, even if standing behind your opponent, probably doesn't threaten since the goof-ball dog won't attack or even appear willing to attack the opponent. A snarling, growling Dachshund, on the other hand, is a threat, even if it doesn't actually attack. (I've seen a miniature dachshund take down a 200 lb construction worker [then run for its life when the guy got up off the ground spitting mad!], and remember that regular dachshunds are used for hunting badgers.)
3. Your question: "Another question is if you or your familiar stealth behind someone with weapons "drawn" and are directly behind someone can you get a flank bonus when not attacking?"
There are threads dedicated to arguments over this (see awp832 above for example), but my answer is that if you stealth behind someone, you do not provide a flanking bonus because I see flanking as (1) threatening and (2) perceiving the threat. Since the opponent doesn't know you're there, I'd say you do not provide a flanking bonus. On the other hand, since your opponent does know that your ally is on the other side, your ally does provide you with a flanking bonus. Once you attack, the opponent knows you are there and you start providing a flanking bonus. In other words, a Brownie that is hiding under a mushroom on the other side of an opponent, where the opponent doesn't even know the Brownie is there, does not provide a flank bonus. As for awp832, I agree with him that you can "choose" to ignore a threat, but I do think it's different if you don't know about a threat. Now, as I said, people will split on this issue (and many others), but the point is, that your GM is within the realm of reasonable interpretation of the rules (where some GMs go one way and some go the other).
4. Your question: "Next he says if your familiar is behind the target I am going to turn and attack that. This makes no sense to me.. If it is behind you only providing a flank and the real threat is the half orc smashing your face in are you seriously going to turn and randomly attack a small familiar? I find this extremely unlikely."
I gotta agree with fretgod. The GM runs NPCs and the NPC may decide taking out the low-AC, low-hp flanker is a good idea. Threat assessment and tactics are subjective. If nothing else, the opponent might kill your cat familiar because he HATES cats, and for no other reason! Now, if every opponent on the battlefield converges on your familiar, every archer takes aim, etc., and they all concentrate on killing your familiar every time it makes an appearance, then yes, Virginia, there is an Anti-Claus, and he doesn't like your familiar!
This doesn't seem like a "quit playing" type situation to me. I'd speak some more with your GM to clarify how he handles familiars in combat. But in the end, you use your familiar in combat, you risk losing it.
|
|
That being said. If you do try to use it in combat scenarios. What is the best way to keep it alive / buff it up. Or use it in other creative manners?
Thanks for the advice guys.
Your familiar can share spells, like Shield - You can cast any spell that has a range of "You", like shield, on your familiar.
Share Spells: The wizard may cast a spell with a target of “You” on his familiar (as a touch spell) instead of on himself. A wizard may cast spells on his familiar even if the spells do not normally affect creatures of the familiar's type (magical beast).
You can also cast Mage Armor. If you're using a small familiar, like a Brownie, you can buy it armor. The rules for barding cover small animals too. Most things you can do for a PC you can probably do for a familiar.
Regular hp buffs might not be too good since the familiar (unlike an animal companion) doesn't go up in hit dice, but even a couple of hp might keep it alive. You could look at spells that provide temporary hp not based on HD.
And don't forget stuff like stoneskin.
Finally, search the forums. There are many posts by people who use their familiars in combat and you can probably glean many ideas, both offensive and defensive, from them.
Well, Improved Familiar feat is a great place to start. The Arbiter is a great choice. The little thing has Regeneration2/Chaotic, which makes the little bugger practically impossible to actually kill, which might be just what you're looking for.
points have already been covered but if your DM deliberately focus-fires on your Familiar...just because he doesn't like you using your familiar tactically, then I would tell him to shove off and find someone with a brain.
He sounds like a hot head. A GM should make the bad guys attack what makes sense. In most combats it wouldn't make sense to attack the little dog nipping at your backside instead of the sorcerer who is blasting your face with spells.
YES your familiar should be in danger. That is the nature of getting into melee combat. NO your DM shouldn't a jerk and focus on your familiar just because...