|
Can a familiar based off an animal proficient in a bow use a bow, so long as it can wield it?
I ask because the difference between an animal companion and familiar is often blurred in the FAQs and an animal familiar is still tecnically an animal and thus could be considered only 'animal intelligence'.
Now, important to note... animal intelligence means that the creature must be coaxed to act via handle animal among the other things it does. So, it is either they can use manufactured weapons so long as they can hold them or they can not and must be convinced to do things via handle animal.
|
|
so, back to the OP... "what animal (that can be a familiar) is proficient with a bow?"
Any animal familiar that gets feats passed to it by another class. Such as the eldritch guardian fighter archetype. All combat feats gained by the EG are shared to the familiar. There are several ways for it to happen, including a teamwork feat. There is even an ioun stone that can give weapon proficiency.
Honestly, how the familiar gets the proficiency is meaningless to the question. What is important is, given the fact that a familiar is proficient with a weapon... can it wield said weapon even if it is an animal. Such as a monkey.And as I said in the original post... if an animal familiar can not use a weapon because it is considered animal intelligence then they would also not be able to act on their own any more than an animal companion of a druid could. Thus, a wizard would need handle animal to get them to act as was described in the blog post Monkey See, Monkey Do.
|
|
Can a familiar based off an animal proficient in a bow use a bow, so long as it can wield it?
Does that parse to a pixie familiar, or a squirrel familiar with weapon proficiency: longbow feat?
Pixie's are the fey creature type. Squirrels are the animal creature type. I am asking about animal familiars.
Due to the Monkey See, Monkey Do blog post, animal companions are not allowed to use manufactured weapons and must be commanded with handle animal. The reasoning behind this is that no matter how much intelligence an animal has it still has non-sentient animal intelligence. Due to the confusing nature of 'animal companion' and 'familiar' being seen used interchangeably in the FAQs, it is hard to tell if a familiar would be considered sentient or not.Now the thing is familiars are not stated to require handle animal to control and, while not being magical beasts, are "now a magical beast for the purpose of effects that depend on its type."
Venture-Lieutenant, Netherlands—Leiden
|
Familiars
A familiar is an animal chosen by a spellcaster to aid him in his study of magic. It retains the appearance, Hit Dice, base attack bonus, base save bonuses, skills, and feats of the normal animal it once was, but is now a magical beast for the purpose of effects that depend on its type. Only a normal, unmodified animal may become a familiar. An animal companion cannot also function as a familiar.
Arguments that a monkey familiar can't use weapons because it's an animal aren't really that solid.
However, a typical argument is that animals lack the right anatomy to hold and wield weapons.
|
Venture-Lieutenant, Netherlands—Leiden
|
Arguments that a monkey familiar can't use weapons because it's an animal aren't really that solid.Its pretty good. Being able to use a weapon is not something that affects your type, its a result of somethings gross anatomy.
I was trying to distinguish between the "type" and "anatomy" arguments. Animals have a weird sentience problem preventing them from using weapons, AND generally lack anatomy. Other monsters have okay type, just lack proper anatomy.
When people say a snake familiar can't use weapons because it's an animal, I twitch. It's not an animal anymore but that's not the reason it can't play the world's tiniest violin.
|
|
Sometimes there are going to be rules that just are. This is one of those times. Familiars and AC's cannot use weapons. Familiars do not require Handle Animal. That is simply the way it is.
That's not actually true, though.
The same thing that states that a thing being an animal means it can not use weapons also says that they must be controlled with handle animal. They are not separate issues from different sources. We are at a binary junction of rulings. Either an animal familiar is just a regular animal with all things that go with being just an animal, or they are more than an animal. There is no third set of rules to give the case you are speaking of. A case where familiars are just animals but are exempt from the handle animal rule that all animals fall under.Now, I'm not saying it would be a terrible thing if there were such rules and thus refuse to admit they exist. They just don't simply exist as far as I'm aware.
Now, a familiar without hands would not be able to wield a weapon, this has been mentioned but it is pretty obvious. Except in the case of a monkey which, being a tool user, does have hands that could wield weapons. There are sure to be other cases that can be made, but I'm not going to run the exhaustive list. I only wish to state one case which validates asking the question.
|
|
doesn't the eldritch fighters ability specify that they gain the use of any feat they could use? and Campaign Management says they cant use weapon proficiency right? So no weapon proficiency ?
Yes, it is true that they do not get proficiency granted from CLASS sources since those proficiencies are not feats. But, if you get martial weapon proficiency(longbow) that would pass along to the familiar because it is a combat feat. If you have a feat and it is a combat feat, your familiar gets access to it even if they don't meet the reqs for the feat.(Though, there is a blurb that states that if their form can not utilize the feat then they can not use the feat even though they still gain access to it)
There is not a lack of ways to make it happen, honestly, and I will leave an exhaustive list for some other thread.|
|
For what it's worth, I'd feel comfortable betting on a properly motivated gorilla or chimpanzee being able to learn to swing a sword or fire a bow.
Nonhuman great apes are treated weirdly in Pathfinder anyway -- their stats are much less strong and much less intelligent than they should be if they're meant to be closely based on real-world great apes. As written, chimpanzees are as intelligent as a dog, whereas real chimpanzees are much closer to humans in intelligence than they are to dogs.
Still, the rules are as they are.
|
|
Animal type familiars probably can't use weapons, but some Improved Familiars probably can. Why couldn't an imp or mephit use a weapon for an instance. It would have to use a proper small or tiny weapon and possible lack of weapon proficiency might give it a hefty minus on it.
The biggest issue that I am finding with animal familiars not being able to use weapons is that it comes part and parcel with being controlled with handle animal. Also meaning that they would need tricks to perform. Now, I believe there is sufficient evidence to state that familiars are exempt from the general animal rule due to their unique natures(and the fact that they are not "animal companions" but are companions which are animals and almost but not quite magical beasts. But it really is something that needs an official response. Otherwise it is a GM call at each table whether or not animal familiars are sentient or not. That is a pretty big deal, especially because familiars do not grant speedy handle animal checks.
Also, so long as it is an outsider it gets tons of weapon proficiencies. It's one of the traits of being an outsider. Which, most familiars that can use weapons are outsiders. But that is outside of the question.
Fun fact, outside of PFS, (in ultimate campaign, I think) both the familiar and paladin mount are listed as sentient companions.
|
|
For what it's worth, I'd feel comfortable betting on a properly motivated gorilla or chimpanzee being able to learn to swing a sword or fire a bow.
Nonhuman great apes are treated weirdly in Pathfinder anyway -- their stats are much less strong and much less intelligent than they should be if they're meant to be closely based on real-world great apes. As written, chimpanzees are as intelligent as a dog, whereas real chimpanzees are much closer to humans in intelligence than they are to dogs.
Still, the rules are as they are.
There is no reason outside of gm fiat that a sufficiently intelligent ape could not use weapons. Which is an understandable call.
|
Arguments that a monkey familiar can't use weapons because it's an animal aren't really that solid.Its pretty good. Being able to use a weapon is not something that affects your type, its a result of somethings gross anatomy.
No, it's not good at all. LINK. And these aren't even "magically intelligent" monkeys.
|
No, it's not good at all. LINK. And these aren't even "magically intelligent" monkeys.Arguments that a monkey familiar can't use weapons because it's an animal aren't really that solid.Its pretty good. Being able to use a weapon is not something that affects your type, its a result of somethings gross anatomy.
I love that clip.
There's also one with a chimp firing an AK47.
|
|
There is no reason outside of gm fiat that a sufficiently intelligent ape could not use weapons. Which is an understandable call.For what it's worth, I'd feel comfortable betting on a properly motivated gorilla or chimpanzee being able to learn to swing a sword or fire a bow.
Nonhuman great apes are treated weirdly in Pathfinder anyway -- their stats are much less strong and much less intelligent than they should be if they're meant to be closely based on real-world great apes. As written, chimpanzees are as intelligent as a dog, whereas real chimpanzees are much closer to humans in intelligence than they are to dogs.
Still, the rules are as they are.
The way it was explained in the blog posts I recall reading, was that the only way to get an animal companion/animal/whatever to use a weapon/shield was to use Awaken on it. Awaken is banned in PFS.
I interpreted increasing an animal companion's intelligence with stat boosts and headbands as adding a new CPU or RAM to a computer. It works better, faster, can process some more complex requests, but the OS is still Ape 1.5
If you want Ape 2.0, you'll need Awaken(tm)!
|
|
No, it's not good at all. LINK. And these aren't even "magically intelligent" monkeys.Arguments that a monkey familiar can't use weapons because it's an animal aren't really that solid.Its pretty good. Being able to use a weapon is not something that affects your type, its a result of somethings gross anatomy.I love that clip.
There's also one with a chimp firing an AK47.
I know, I considered linking that one too, but it doesn't actually help the point 'cause it's literally just waving the gun around and accidentally firing (because the soldiers were too stupid to think it through and gave it a gun). Whereas this one is literally monkeys that were trained, and continued training new generations on their own to use machetes.
|
|
I considered linking that one too, but it doesn't actually help the point 'cause it's literally just waving the gun around and accidentally firing (because the soldiers were too stupid to think it through and gave it a gun). Whereas this one is literally monkeys that were trained, and continued training new generations on their own to use machetes.
Umm... Not quite.
Those two clips were promotional material for the Planet of the Apes movie.
The chimp with the machete was trained to twirl around a dull machete, not capably wield it as a weapon.
|
|
A familiar is an animal chosen by a spellcaster to aid him in his study of magic. It retains the appearance, Hit Dice, base attack bonus, base save bonuses, skills, and feats of the normal animal it once was, but is now a magical beast for the purpose of effects that depend on its type. Only a normal, unmodified animal may become a familiar. An animal companion cannot also function as a familiar.
Once a spellcaster chooses an animal as their familiar, the creature is no longer an animal, it is a magical beast with a minimum intelligence score of 6 that increases with the spellcaster's level.
Now, note the text I bolded regarding the fact that animal companion's cannot be familiars. There is no argument that animal companions are animals with animal intelligence that require tricks, training and Handle Animal to perform tasks. It's just that it's easy to gloss over the fact that classes with animal companions tend to always have the Link ability that makes the handle check all but moot after a point and easy to forget is needed. Familiar's don't require that check because they are no longer animals.
|
Venture-Captain, California—Sacramento
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I considered linking that one too, but it doesn't actually help the point 'cause it's literally just waving the gun around and accidentally firing (because the soldiers were too stupid to think it through and gave it a gun). Whereas this one is literally monkeys that were trained, and continued training new generations on their own to use machetes.Umm... Not quite.
Those two clips were promotional material for the Planet of the Apes movie.
The chimp with the machete was trained to twirl around a dull machete, not capably wield it as a weapon.
On the other hand, Chimps can learn to use an oven
|
|
@Lorewalker
I haven't read entire topic completely and I am not sure who exactly told you this but familiars do not require Handle Animal checks. The description alone explains that familiars are vastly more intelligent beings which can assist their master even via Knowledge checks or other skills. If they were treated merely as animals, they would not be able to do any of the things that they get through level progression.
Now that I think about it, I am not sure why wouldn't a familiar be able to use the manufactured weapons provided that he has limbs to use it. You can for example give monkey a Acid Flask to throw, so why not bow. Hm.
|
Venture-Lieutenant, Netherlands—Leiden
|
Animalistic familiars can't use weapons in PFS because the rules for what familiar can do what are old and crummy; it's basically the same discussion as "why can't this familiar that's specifically skilled at UMD use wands?".
On the one hand there's a sense that familiars are already very powerful class features and need tight bounds to keep them balanced.
On the other hand there's a plausibility thing going on: sure, a snake can't hold a bow, but can a monkey? I don't know. It's a blanket ruling to cut down on table variance.
And on the gripping and it's also about a backlog of things for campaign management to update; with more improved familiars added (many of them less powerful than the Bestiary 1 set) it's about time for a revision of the list of ones that can use items.
|
|
Sometimes there are going to be rules that just are. This is one of those times. Familiars and AC's cannot use weapons. Familiars do not require Handle Animal. That is simply the way it is.That's not actually true, though.
The same thing that states that a thing being an animal means it can not use weapons also says that they must be controlled with handle animal. They are not separate issues from different sources. We are at a binary junction of rulings. Either an animal familiar is just a regular animal with all things that go with being just an animal, or they are more than an animal. There is no third set of rules to give the case you are speaking of. A case where familiars are just animals but are exempt from the handle animal rule that all animals fall under.
Actually there is and you are ignoring it for reasons of your own that I will not speculate on.
The evidence that familiars do not require handle animal is quite clear. Classes with familiars do not always get the skill as a class skill. Further the skills rules in the CRB specifically make special allowances for classes with AC's only using the skill untrained. Also Handle Animal specifically only works on animals per its own description while familiars are magical beasts "for the purpose of effects that depend on its type." So you cannot use Handle Animal on a familiar since it isn't the right type of thing.
That's not a rule that says familiars are sentient creatures. That is conjecture based on the existence of rules that could point to them being sentient despite the fact there are rules that point that could be saying they are not. There is a difference between a concept you can conjecture and a hard rule.
In PFS if your character is based on conjecture and not hard rules, then often enough the gm is going to shut you down.|
|
Animalistic familiars can't use weapons in PFS because the rules for what familiar can do what are old and crummy; it's basically the same discussion as "why can't this familiar that's specifically skilled at UMD use wands?".
On the one hand there's a sense that familiars are already very powerful class features and need tight bounds to keep them balanced.
On the other hand there's a plausibility thing going on: sure, a snake can't hold a bow, but can a monkey? I don't know. It's a blanket ruling to cut down on table variance.
And on the gripping and it's also about a backlog of things for campaign management to update; with more improved familiars added (many of them less powerful than the Bestiary 1 set) it's about time for a revision of the list of ones that can use items.
First, you win ten internets for using 'gripping hand', second the thing is, familiars aren't just animals and are not animal companions. Most of the PFS specific information about animals could very well not apply to them. Honestly, this wouldn't even be an issue if they just left in familiars and paladin mounts changing into magical beasts(and then not giving them changed hit die and darkvision, to keep what they seemed to want with not making them MBs).
|
|
Sometimes there are going to be rules that just are. This is one of those times. Familiars and AC's cannot use weapons. Familiars do not require Handle Animal. That is simply the way it is.That's not actually true, though.
The same thing that states that a thing being an animal means it can not use weapons also says that they must be controlled with handle animal. They are not separate issues from different sources. We are at a binary junction of rulings. Either an animal familiar is just a regular animal with all things that go with being just an animal, or they are more than an animal. There is no third set of rules to give the case you are speaking of. A case where familiars are just animals but are exempt from the handle animal rule that all animals fall under.
Actually there is and you are ignoring it for reasons of your own that I will not speculate on.
The evidence that familiars do not require handle animal is quite clear. Classes with familiars do not always get the skill as a class skill. Further the skills rules in the CRB specifically make special allowances for classes with AC's only using the skill untrained. Also Handle Animal specifically only works on animals per its own description while familiars are magical beasts "for the purpose of effects that depend on its type." So you cannot use Handle Animal on a familiar since it isn't the right type of thing.
That's not a rule that says familiars are sentient creatures. That is conjecture based on the existence of rules that could point to them being sentient despite the fact there are rules that point that could be saying they are not. There is a difference between a concept you can conjecture and a hard rule.
In PFS if your character is based on conjecture and not hard rules, then often enough the gm is going to shut you down.
|
|
Actually there is and you are ignoring it for reasons of your own that I will not speculate on.
The evidence that familiars do not require handle animal is quite clear. Classes with familiars do not always get the skill as a class skill. Further the skills rules in the CRB specifically make special allowances for classes with AC's only using the skill untrained. Also Handle Animal specifically only works on animals per its own description while familiars are magical beasts "for the purpose of effects that depend on its type." So you cannot use Handle Animal on a familiar since it isn't the right type of thing.
That's not a rule that says familiars are sentient creatures. That is conjecture based on the existence of rules that could point to them being sentient despite the fact there are rules that point that could be saying they are not. There is a difference between a concept you can conjecture and a hard rule.
In PFS if your character is based on conjecture and not hard rules, then often enough the gm is going to shut you down.Actually there is a rule that familiars are sentient. Familiars start at INT 6 and can reach at least INT 15 and after a certain point can communicate verbally with their master and some can talk in at least one language with others.
I have no idea why you are doing this, if you would stop dancing around the bush and come out and say what your end goal is you could get a definitive no and we could all be done with this, but it is clear that you are ignoring every rule about familiars and AC's that does not fit your particular idea.
I'm not looking for a no. I'm hoping for a yes.
I'm not ignoring any rules at all. Though, I don't know every rule so I could have missed something. You have yet to show me one I have not accounted for. The rule that states int above 2 leads to sentience was nixed by the monkey see monkey do blog post, in regards to animals. It states that any int, even 50 int on a horse, is still just a non-sentient, instinct lead, creature with 'animal intelligence'. Though, with a bunch of skill points. PFS uses that blog post in the FAQ.That means anything an animal won't use tools or weapons beyond their natural weapons and only follow their instincts.
BUT, my question is fueled by the fact that familiars are not completely animals anymore. Though, they do have the creature type animal, even if though they are treated like magical beasts.
So, if you could point me to a rule that states animal familiars are sentient, directly, without being nixed by the MSMD blog post I would appreciate it. But, until you can do that, please don't speak against my person.
Read my next post for a restating of what I'm seeking out of this thread.
|
|
I would also recommend speaking up what exactly are you trying to accomplish. There are usually other ways that can help you make your concept work.
I don't have a concept. I'm not trying to make something work. I spent some time building a couple characters based on the archetypes in the familiar folio and realized there was a potential issue regarding the animal subtype in PFS and familiars.
The Monkey See Monkey Do blog post was created to plug a hole in Animal Companion use when they are above Int of 2.(Armored gorillas with greatswords were a viable build before the post) But, it also hits animal familiars and paladin mounts since it declares that the INT stat does not work for animals like it does for every other creature type.
I want to know if the full rules for animals applies to quasi-magical beasts who are technically still creature type animals(IE: familiars). If yes, no manufactured weapons and needs handle animal, among other things. If no, then they are sentient and may act like any other creature type with int above 2.
It is a straight up rules question.
|
|
I can understand your need to question the rules, but long ago have I learned not to bother myself with the rules unless I really have to. If this set of rules doesn't affect any of your current or future characters, why stretch it any further? I am generally not against familiars wielding weapons from a personal perspective, but forcing the answer usually provides answer that you don't wanna hear.
|
|
It is a straight up rules question.
This is how Ultimate Campaign advises we handle Animal Companions, Paladin Mounts, and Familiars.
A nonsentient companion (one with animal-level intelligence) is loyal to you in the way a well-trained dog is—the creature is conditioned to obey your commands, but its behavior is limited by its intelligence and it can't make altruistic moral decisions—such as nobly sacrificing itself to save another. Animal companions, cavalier mounts, and purchased creatures (such as common horses and guard dogs) fall into this category. In general they're GM-controlled companions. You can direct them using the Handle Animal skill, but their specific behavior is up to the GM.
A sentient companion (a creature that can understand language and has an Intelligence score of at least 3) is considered your ally and obeys your suggestions and orders to the best of its ability. It won't necessarily blindly follow a suicidal order, but it has your interests at heart and does what it can to keep you alive. Paladin bonded mounts, familiars, and cohorts fall into this category, and are usually player-controlled companions.
Animal Companions (except Paladin Mounts) require Handle Animal, and are ultimately controlled by the GM (though for ease and expediency of organized play most GMs do handwave this; just don't expect every GM to do so).
Familiars and Paladin Mounts are ultimately controlled by the player and do not require Handle Animal (though Paladin Mounts, which rely on the Animal Companion chart, still do operate off of Tricks known; fortunately having an Int of 6 gives them almost every Trick).
The Blog adds to this by stating that having an Int of 3+ doesn't turn a non-sentient Companion into a sentient one. They are still GM-controlled. On top of that, non-sentient Companions still cannot wield weapons (but we're given no guidance whether sentient ones can).