|
1 combat critter, plus 5 other players with 1 combat critter. That's plenty. Spotlight should be on player actions rather than PC minions.
The problem it poses with this class is they are losing a lot of spell and ability availability by not having all their pets there. Like, it would be a pretty major detriment to taking the archetype.
|
Oh, I realize that, but to me that means the archetype isn't really appropriate for Organized Play then. When one player gets to roll half the dice in a combat, it's unfair to the other 5 players. None of your summoned monsters or other pets drove to the game, paid registration at the con, or will buy books at your FLGS. ;)
|
I would also expect to work such that the non-combat jin would be in the background, granting spell access, but just not something you could control or try to position on the battlefield.
I tried briefly looking for the "one combat creature" rule to read what it says but I didn't see it on my search. I know I have seen it, but wanted to see how it was worded because I couldn't recall non-combat creatures needing to be nowhere near the combat.
|
|
I would also expect to work such that the non-combat jin would be in the background, granting spell access, but just not something you could control or try to position on the battlefield.
I tried briefly looking for the "one combat creature" rule to read what it says but I didn't see it on my search. I know I have seen it, but wanted to see how it was worded because I couldn't recall non-combat creatures needing to be nowhere near the combat.
Here is the FAQ Blazej, i should have likely included it in the first place.
Animal companion FAQ
Thank you. I could be reading that incorrectly but I don't read "cannot participate in combat at all" as "can't be near you during combat". If a familiar just stayed on a shoulder the entire session with no intent on leaving, I wouldn't count that against the one combat creature limit.
The Sha'ir doesn't greatly benefit from these as if you select which companion you want as your combat companion at the start of the session. It does not read to me that you can change your combat creature mid-session for any reason including the death of the jin. So you wouldn't be able to focus on another of the jin, but live being down your combat companion for the scenario.
What is so bad about 1 animal companion per player? No PFS scenario is hard enough to even need that.
It isn't the question of difficulty. The sha'ir is an occultist archetype that uses familiar-like creatures (jin) to cast spells. If they aren't within 30 feet, the spellcasting becomes much more difficult and prone to failure. Each hin grants a subsection of spells so if you did not have your fire jin, you would not be able to reliably cast fireball. Within the context of normal society scenarios, a 6th level Sha'ir would have at most two jin (third jin comes into play at 14th level).
|
|
It's that this archetype needs to have his pets for his abilities and spells. But if you let him have the effects if they are non-combat then what's the difference between a familiar giving it's benefits to it's owner that uses a combat horse?
Static benefits don't clog the table and don't take up time die rolling, which is most of the reason for the one pet thing.
|
|
It's that this archetype needs to have his pets for his abilities and spells. But if you let him have the effects if they are non-combat then what's the difference between a familiar giving it's benefits to it's owner that uses a combat horse?Static benefits don't clog the table and don't take up time die rolling, which is most of the reason for the one pet thing.
so are you saying I can have a familiar granting me a will save bonus and have a mount that I actually fight with? That is opposed to what I've heard from my local players so I'd love to find out I could do that
AFAIK yes the will save bonus from a newt in ones pouch, (yes i know its not a newt.) would not be negated simply because your horse is making attacks. But no having your newt leap from the pouch to deliver touch spells.
|
|
so are you saying I can have a familiar granting me a will save bonus and have a mount that I actually fight with? That is opposed to what I've heard from my local players so I'd love to find out I could do thatIt's that this archetype needs to have his pets for his abilities and spells. But if you let him have the effects if they are non-combat then what's the difference between a familiar giving it's benefits to it's owner that uses a combat horse?Static benefits don't clog the table and don't take up time die rolling, which is most of the reason for the one pet thing.
Its up for a little interpretation but i think thats how most hete read it
Venture-Captain, California—Sacramento
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
At low levels I used to have a riding gecko (purchased, not class feature) and a pack gecko, with the understanding that the pack gecko stayed out of combat, and at the end of the combat, if the riding gecko was dead, I would switch to riding the pack gecko. No one batted an eye at that. (And after level 5 they both started dieing within the first third of the scenario, so I shifted tactics anyway.)
But yeah, if your one jin rides your shoulder, and the other sits on the side lines and does nothing in combat, you are fine. (Or better yet rides in a familiar pouch.)
You get to roll dice, and you get one pet that rolls dice, and anything beyond that can't roll dice, but is fine as long as it doesn't disrupt the table.
(I think there is a thread somewhere on here about a guy who has 6 bison as a baggage train, and he stows them in his handy haversack with carry companion at the start of each adventure.)
|
Venture-Agent, Netherlands—Utrecht
|
A jin in its natural form has the base statistics of a Small elemental of the chosen type with the young simple template and without the air mastery, burn, drench, earth glide, earth mastery, vortex, water mastery, or whirlwind abilities.
I see it (meaning, "minor, insubstantial genie") more as flavour text than as actual rules text. Maybe they're insubstantial on their home plane, but you clearly manifest them here. Treat them pretty much how you would a familiar.
I've always wanted to make a Sha'ir work, but their restrictions to schools are so incredibly limiting, you're pretty much crippling yourself. If you have a build, I'd like to see it!|
Venture-Agent, Netherlands—Utrecht
|
Oh yeah, the flavour is amazing, and they get some sweet spells (I like Earth), but they give up a LOT of versatility in their regular schools. At level 11 in PFS, you have 2 implement schools and 2 elemental schools, while a regular Occultist gets 5 schools. You really need to think which to get, as most Occultists have several running at the same time. Both of my Occultists are running 2 primary ones and 2 secondary, I don't think giving up half your schools for elemental powers is a good trade. You can send your familiar in combat, but it's kinda squishy and your spellcasting depends on it.
|
I honestly feel that the current policy on critters isn't restrictive enough.
An encounter with 12 combatants on the allied side and one with 4 are ENTIRELY different beasts and the first is a real pain the neck to GM and completely throws off the balance of the game if everyone has a combat pet. If I had my way we'd have a cap on total combatants of like 7 or at most 8.
So I would say just take what you can get here.
|
Venture-Agent, Netherlands—Utrecht
|
ShawnieBoy: You're right, you're only missing out on one school, but you're indeed missing out on a lot of implement powers. I'd say the access to more focus powers is worth way more than an elemental spell list. Focus powers essentially give you pseudospells for free in addition to your regular spells. And yeah, you can put more focus in your other implements, but I've found I regularly cap out my main implements, even when I'm not that INT-focused.
Douglas: Seems fair, but there's one problem: you can't regulate that. Not everyone has another character in tier, and some characters are really focused on their companion. It's pretty hard to play your Hunter properly if your critter is missing, for instance. I totally agree with the fact that it throws off the balance and draws out combats, but I don't really see an easy way of regulating it.
|
I've never had a problem with too many people bringing permanent pets to the same table. In fact, I can't remember seeing more than one permanent combat pet at a table at the same time. Non-combat pets are a different story - I remember one table with 3 familiars, on top of an eidolon, but the familiars rarely take separate actions in a fight, so they didn't slow things down.
The bigger problem for me is summoning focused spellcasters. I knew one guy who would summon 1d3 beasties EVERY ROUND of combat. That's all his PC ever did, other than healing (he was a cleric). It wasn't just time consuming, but it also prevented other PCs from getting into melee range half the time, because he'd be clogging up the battlefield, thus making melee PCs useless.
|
Venture-Agent, Netherlands—Utrecht
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I once ran a game for what was later dubbed "the zoo." Mammoth Rider Hunter, Inquisitor with Roc companion, Summoner with Eidolon, Bladebound Sword with Magus (the Magus got possessed, blade counter-possessed, so he was now roleplaying as his own sword), necromancer who raised a t-rex after the first combat, and a Lunar Oracle with a tiger. They roflstomped all over the scenario.