|
What am I missing? this seems straightforward.
Animal companions are explicitly animals and bound by the monkey see blog.
familiars are explicitly no longer animals and are not bound by it. I cannot see any reference to familiars in the monkey see blog.
Without a rule telling us that familiars cannot wield weapons, we must be left with the conclusion that they can - assuming they are physically able to.
Monkeys can physically wield weapons although without intelligence to back it up they may well hit things with the flat of the blade (or so it appears) or otherwise largely ineffectively.
|
What am I missing? this seems straightforward.
Animal companions are explicitly animals and bound by the monkey see blog.
familiars are explicitly no longer animals and are not bound by it. I cannot see any reference to familiars in the monkey see blog.
Without a rule telling us that familiars cannot wield weapons, we must be left with the conclusion that they can - assuming they are physically able to.
Monkeys can physically wield weapons although without intelligence to back it up they may well hit things with the flat of the blade (or so it appears) or otherwise largely ineffectively.
They are explicitly still animals. When you write up a character sheet for a monkey that has become a familiar, in the box for creature type, you write animal. They are animals... with the exception that for effects, they are not animal. So, any spell that targets animals but not magical beasts does not target them.
@andreww
I am not presenting anything more than the MSMD post says directly or follows logically from what is said directly. From the blog, it states that for the same reason an animal with higher intelligence doesn't use weapons, you must use handle animal to control them. That is not me throwing two disparate things together and presenting them as an illogical argument. It is plain english from the Devs.
In essence, the MSMD blog post states that the Intelligence stat functions differently for animals than it does for any other creature. Since, despite the fact that between int 2 and int 3 is defined as the line between sentience and non-sentience... animals do not gain that benefit.
Either they are animals, and thus follow all rules for animals, except those which they are exempt from(none that i'm aware of, explicitly), or they are sentient and follow all rules for sentient creatures except those which they are exempt from(wand usage and magical item usage). How does that statement contain anything except pure fact from Pathfinder/PFS/FAQ rules?
This being true, then, since an animal is non-sentient no matter how high its intelligence is and does not use weapons... then you must also use handle animal to control it. If it is an animal and not more than that.
@Nefreet
Thank you for adding to the conversation. Unfortunately the blog post changes that part of UC. Since a paladins mount is an animal, it is not sentient despite the fact that general Pathfinder rules would say they should be(Honestly, they should be magical beasts). This holds true for animal familiars(since they are still typed animals). The devs decided they needed to give animals room to gain intelligence for feats but not room to gain sentience without Awaken(which means they can not be ACs or familiars).
I honestly believe that familiars are meant to be sentient and that the blog post was generated with ACs in mind and did not take into account the rest of the can of worms it opened.(as is usually impossible to do completely with rule shifts)
|
|
You are spinning in an over-analyzing circle. This isn't opened can of worms, it's about something that you disagree with.
I'm barely analyzing, much less over-analysing. My analysis is this, familiars never needed handle animal and thus do not have the support HA classes typically have. (druids link, HA as class skill for the class) The MSMD post does not address this and thus does not appear to mean to change the basics of how familiars work. The rest I've said is pretty straight forward repeating of rules.
"Either they are animals, and thus follow all rules for animals, except those which they are exempt from(none that i'm aware of, explicitly), or they are sentient and follow all rules for sentient creatures except those which they are exempt from(wand usage and magical item usage). How does that statement contain anything except pure fact from Pathfinder/PFS/FAQ rules? "
Is not an analysis. It is restating facts.
Please don't disparage others questions. It is rude and, frankly, you are wrong in saying that I'm disagreeing with any rulings. I don't care which way the coin lands, I just want to know if it is heads or tails.
|
Please don't disparage others questions. It is rude and, frankly, you are wrong in saying that I'm disagreeing with any rulings. I don't care which way the coin lands, I just want to know if it is heads or tails.
No one is disparaging your question. You have stated an argument analysis and everyone else has given counter-arguments. The consensus is that familiars do not need the master to use Handle Animal. You are literally the only one arguing otherwise.
However from your posts it seems like the absolute minimum you will be happy with is Tonya Woldridge posting a PFS-specific ruling. I took a look at your posting history, I see you have only been playing PFS for about a year. Historically (since 2010) Paizo employees have not given direct responses on messageboards to questions unless there is widespread confusion about something they thought was clear or an obvious editing error that changed the meaning of a rule.
If you wish to get an official response to this I suggest you create a post in the "Rules" messageboard with the question clearly stated. Click the FAQ button and encourage others to do so.
|
|
It retains the appearance, Hit Dice, base attack bonus, base save bonuses, skills, and feats of the normal animal it once was..
...but is no longer
Nothing in there saying it retains type. The blog is all about ACs mentions nothing about familiars. I think some people are over thinking this.Familiars are not ACs. Something that applies to ACs does not necessarily apply to familiars.
|
It retains the appearance, Hit Dice, base attack bonus, base save bonuses, skills, and feats of the normal animal it once was.....but is no longer
Nothing in there saying it retains type. The blog is all about ACs mentions nothing about familiars. I think some people are over thinking this.Familiars are not ACs. Something that applies to ACs does not necessarily apply to familiars.
I can understand the logic. If something specifically calls out that it is now a magical beast for effects that depend on type, then by definition it is unchanged for anything that isn't an effect depending on type.
Given several sources state they're sentient though, they definitely are sentient. Further evidence is the Spirit Binder archetype for Wizards, where you can literally put a loved one's - a sentient creature - personality inside of an animal, making it a familiar. If the familiar is not sentient, I would doubt it could have the personality of a sentient being.
|
|
It retains the appearance, Hit Dice, base attack bonus, base save bonuses, skills, and feats of the normal animal it once was.....but is no longer
Nothing in there saying it retains type. The blog is all about ACs mentions nothing about familiars. I think some people are over thinking this.Familiars are not ACs. Something that applies to ACs does not necessarily apply to familiars.
I can understand the logic. If something specifically calls out that it is now a magical beast for effects that depend on type, then by definition it is unchanged for anything that isn't an effect depending on type.
Given several sources state they're sentient though, they definitely are sentient. Further evidence is the Spirit Binder archetype for Wizards, where you can literally put a loved one's - a sentient creature - personality inside of an animal, making it a familiar. If the familiar is not sentient, I would doubt it could have the personality of a sentient being.
@dragonhunterq
Much as a familiar never increases its HD, but is considered to have the HD of their master for effects... the creature type does not actually change. It is only 'considered' a magical beast for effects(such as a spell that targets animals would not target an animal familiar as it is a magical beast for effects). But, it would not be able to pick up feats that require it to be a magical beast, only animal. Any research into that terminology will reveal Dev responses which will say that clearly.@Arcaian
They should be sentient. Yes. By no means am I arguing that that is not true. (Though, they may have meant to make them no longer sentient... but that is beyond what I can say for sure, as that is a consequence of the MSMD blog post) The only thing I am speaking about is that technically, due to the MSMD blog post invalidating sentience gained through intelligence increases for animals(and thus the only RAW reason an animal familiar is sentient) that animal familiars are not techincally sentient(Though, once again, should be)... because there is not a single rule that makes them sentient that the MSMD blog post does not do away with.
Not one single rule I can find. Seriously, find one. Post it. Please. Because I can not find one actual rule that says they are that is not invalidated by the MSMD blog post.(Though, there are some flavor and non-pfs legal guides, which indicate they should be. I don't expect GMs to require handle animal checks... but it does seem that it should be technically true)
Oh, and also, that archetype is not PFS legal. But the familiar would have to be sentient... because though it is an animal type it is not an animal consciousness. Though, the base creature would not have to be. The mind input is from a creature that was sentient meaning the familiars sentience is not gained through intelligence gains(Which the MSMD post says does not happen for animals) but through sentience transference.