|
I found this a bit odd. In the Pathfinder Society FAQ it asks:
Can my animal companion or familiar wear or use magic items?
It is intended that animal companions or familiars can not activate magic items. An animal companion could benefit from an item with a continuous magical effect like an amulet of natural armor if its master equipped the item for the animal companion. Animal companions of any type may not use manufactured weapons.
Animal companions are also limited by their individual anatomies. In Pathfinder Society Organized Play, animal companions always have access to barding and neck-slot items so long as they have the anatomy. For example, a horse and pig can always have access to barding and neck-slot items. A snake does not have access to either. However, an item called out to be used by a specific animal is usable by that animal regardless of slot.
Additionally, animal companions have access to magical item slots, in addition to barding and neck, as listed on the inside front cover of the Animal Archive so long as they select the Extra Item Slot feat. The Animal Magic Item Slots table found in Animal Archive is not a legal except under the following conditions. First, an animal companion, familiar, or bonded mount, may choose one slot listed under its body type when taking the Extra Item Slot feat (this feat may be taken multiple times, each time selecting a different available magic item slot based on the creature’s anatomy). Second, access to specific magic item slots may be granted at a later date by another legal source. If you do not own a copy of the Animal Archive, your animal companion may only use barding and neck-slot items.
An animal or familiar has to have an intelligence of 3+ to activate an ioun stone. If the animal or familiar has less than a 3 intelligence, they may not activate an ioun stone.
The brownie, faerie dragon, imp, lyrakien azata, mephit, quasit, sprite familiars, granted by the Improved Familiar feat, use the Biped (hands) section of the chart. The carbuncle and voidworm protean, familiars granted by the Improved Familiar feat, uses the Serpentine section of the chart. If you do not own a copy of the Animal Archive, your animal companion may only use barding and neck-slot items.
The Additional Resources state:
...the improved familiars on pages 28–29 and the inside back cover are legal for play, except augur kyton, beheaded, ceru, coral capuchin, doru div, dweomercat cub, faerie dragon
So the Faerie Dragon isn't even legal for play.*
Pseudodragon is, however, allowed.
Familiars: all familiars listed on pages 131-133, and imp, pseudodragon, quasit
Is it possible that the first quoted bit actually meant to be referring to Pseudodragons? I am left a bit confused about the differences between Pseudodragons and Faerie Dragons and Wand use. Why would there be something allowing a specific restriction be lifted for a familiar that isn't normally even allowed in PFS play? Especially while there is something remarkably similar that IS allowed in PFS play and they don't get the nod for Wand use?
I am baffled. Can someone please offer a bit of clarification?
|
|
I don't know what the "that" is that you are talking about.
Also, I'm not personally certain that any of this was intended being that Pseudodragons only recently became allowed. I think it is very possible that it was oversight to have not allowed them on the list with their dragon brethren. I also think it could have been a mistake to have allowed Faerie Dragons on the original list to begin with being that they aren't even a legal choice for familiars in PFS.
I mean, are we just talking about our opinion on intent here?
Venture-Lieutenant, Netherlands—Leiden
|
Pseudodragons have been allowed for a while now. The change is that some books had listed them as allowed for a long time already, while others didn't; it's a bit more consistent now. And in all that time, they've never been able to use wands.
The list of which familiars can use wands is quite arbitrary; it became fixed many years ago, and was never expanded even while new bestiaries were published. There have been a lot of calls to update/expand the list, but I suspect campaign leadership would much rather roll it back and stop all familiars from using wands. The thought being, that PCs shouldn't have "second characters".
|
Heh... if PCs shouldn't have "second characters", we should ban the Druid and Hunter classes, and some archetypes of Cavalier. Also the Boon Companion feat.
BUT! I don't really think that. I think that the idea is that an animal companion is a much more major class feature than a familiar. Druids and Hunters have less personal cool stuff than wizards and sorcerers to balance the fact that their animal companions become so powerful. Letting a familiar do too much makes a familiar too powerful for the size of class feature it is.
I'm also not sure I agree with that thinking. I fully agree that familiars and not nearly as powerful as animal companions, at least in combat. (Out of combat, they're probably more useful.) A familiar that participates in combat is probably very soon a dead familiar. However, activating a wand once a round is probably not all that hugely powerful. The only wands that aren't extremely expensive are first-level wands, with a CL of 1. Yeah, you can find some exceptions on chronicle sheets, but not a whole lot. So it really wouldn't be all that big a deal.
Although wizards get a (pretty big) discount, the cost for a random character to have an improved familiar is four feats. (Iron Will, Familiar Bond, Improved Familiar Bond, Improved Familiar.) You can reduce that to three if you take a trait from Distant Shores, although I personally would feel dirty taking that trait if the background of my character didn't include having grown up and done the right things in the relevant city. (I am seriously considering it for a Ganzi character, however... as it makes a whole lot of sense for Ganzi to be from there.)
|
Venture-Lieutenant, Netherlands—Leiden
|
I recently got my own faerie dragon, and I have to say, I was a bit taken aback with how powerful it was. He provides a second set of actions to harass people with Grease and Silent Image (a clever image may cost the BBEG a round's actions to handle, which is fatal if he's already outnumbered).
And don't underestimate the damage you can do with a Wand of Ill Omen, or Deja Vu. And I'm thinking that Scorching Ray is affordable...
|
|
Pseudodragons have been allowed for a while now. The change is that some books had listed them as allowed for a long time already, while others didn't; it's a bit more consistent now. And in all that time, they've never been able to use wands.
The list of which familiars can use wands is quite arbitrary; it became fixed many years ago, and was never expanded even while new bestiaries were published. There have been a lot of calls to update/expand the list, but I suspect campaign leadership would much rather roll it back and stop all familiars from using wands. The thought being, that PCs shouldn't have "second characters".
Where is the list of familiars that can/can't use wands? Had a quick look and didn't see it! :)
Although wizards get a (pretty big) discount, the cost for a random character to have an improved familiar is four feats. (Iron Will, Familiar Bond, Improved Familiar Bond, Improved Familiar.) You can reduce that to three if you take a trait from Distant Shores, although I personally would feel dirty taking that trait if the background of my character didn't include having grown up and done the right things in the relevant city. (I am seriously considering it for a Ganzi character, however... as it makes a whole lot of sense for Ganzi to be from there.)
I'm pretty sure a random class can't even take Improved Familiar as it is written, as it requires an Arcane Caster Level, which Familiar Bond doesn't give you. Same thing for divine casters with a familiar - it's pretty silly.
|
Venture-Lieutenant, Netherlands—Leiden
|
Eh, a wand of scorching ray is only 4d6 damage. I did buy mine a Wand of Suppress Charms and Compulsions, though. It has come in handy since then.I recently got my own faerie dragon, and I have to say, I was a bit taken aback with how powerful it was. He provides a second set of actions to harass people with Grease and Silent Image (a clever image may cost the BBEG a round's actions to handle, which is fatal if he's already outnumbered).
And don't underestimate the damage you can do with a Wand of Ill Omen, or Deja Vu. And I'm thinking that Scorching Ray is affordable...
The little rascal has BAB +3, size +2 and Dex +3; combine that with SLA Greater Invisibility (+2 and negate Dex/Dodge to AC), and the to-hit rate is excellent.
4d6 won't drop a lot of enemies, but it stands a fair chance of interrupting spellcasting.
|
Venture-Lieutenant, Netherlands—Leiden
|
Where is the list of familiars that can/can't use wands? Had a quick look and didn't see it! :)Pseudodragons have been allowed for a while now. The change is that some books had listed them as allowed for a long time already, while others didn't; it's a bit more consistent now. And in all that time, they've never been able to use wands.
The list of which familiars can use wands is quite arbitrary; it became fixed many years ago, and was never expanded even while new bestiaries were published. There have been a lot of calls to update/expand the list, but I suspect campaign leadership would much rather roll it back and stop all familiars from using wands. The thought being, that PCs shouldn't have "second characters".
This is the ruling that most needs to be revised and/or properly enshrined in a Clarifications, FAQ or Guide to Organized Play format.
Thanks for finding the link...
Essentially the FAQ itself does not actually convey any rule about allowing Wands for "Faery Dragon + friends",
(it does convey a default blanket ban on activating magic items besides Ioun Stones and Body Slot items [req'ing Feat if not Barding/Neck])
The only basis for the rule is Mike Brock's FORUM POST stating that the "Faery Dragon + friends" list is (uniquely) able to use Wands.
The FAQ itself merely states they belong to Biped (Hands) group, but does not bar other creatures from belonging to Biped (Hands),
nor from belonging to Biped (Paws/Claws) or Avian groups which all have equal status of "Grasp/Carry = Yes"
EDIT: BTW, as far as the idea that Faery Dragons are allowed to use Wands because they are Sorcerors, I doubt that rationale because the rest of the list are not Sorcerors, and Mike Brock himself said "[Faery Dragon + friends] use their master's UMD when activating a wand.", i.e. ignoring the Sorceror status of Faery Dragons (which would enable them to activate Wands without using UMD at all).
QUESTION: Are Voidworm and Carbuncle familiars also meant to be able to use Wands?
Voidworms can Shapechange into a Tiny Animal form which could be Avian, allowing Grasp/Manipulate, as well as Vocal activation. They also can Speak (Common/Protean).
Carbuncles do not seem to have Hands or any justification for Grasp/Manipulate=Yes status, nor do they speak any language (normally deemed a pre-requisite of Vocal activation).
Are either of them in fact intended to be in the exclusive Wand use club?
Sure, the point being was that the "forum ruling" was somehow supposed to be tangentially based on FAQ wording,
Mike Brock was explaining what the FAQ was supposed to mean re: Wand activation etc.
Said FAQ mentions Voidworm and Carbuncle right next to Faery Dragon + friends, albeit they are not Bipeds (Hands)
[which has no clear relation to Wand usage exclusivity]
But if we are to believe the FAQ is secretly conveying Wand ability for Faery Dragon and friends
(thru it's tangential/irrelevant reminder of their Body Type for Slot purposes), why not also for Voidworm and Carbuncle?
Mike Brock suggests the purpose of listing Faery Dragon + friends in the FAQ is to enable Wand use,
and there isn't really any other reason to list them (nobody's suggested PFS has uniquely given them a different Body Type vs. standard ruling), and Voidworm and Carbuncle are similarly listed and detailed in the FAQ.
Anyhow, the whole situation re: the forum ruling is pretty awkward, time for a real FAQ that addresses the issue, incl. other Improved Familiar types.
(IMHO they would at minimum want to keep Wand usage behind the Improved Familiar Feat Tax, just as Body Slot Items are behind Feat Tax, even though by RAW Wands should be usable by base familiar Ravens with Grasp/Manipulate and Speech... Still, even assuming an Improved Familiar requirement, Celestial/Fiendish/etc Ravens could plausibly qualify... Which depending on how they rule re: Shamans and Improved Familiar, may very well be significant.)
|
|
Where is the list of familiars that can/can't use wands? Had a quick look and didn't see it! :)Pseudodragons have been allowed for a while now. The change is that some books had listed them as allowed for a long time already, while others didn't; it's a bit more consistent now. And in all that time, they've never been able to use wands.
The list of which familiars can use wands is quite arbitrary; it became fixed many years ago, and was never expanded even while new bestiaries were published. There have been a lot of calls to update/expand the list, but I suspect campaign leadership would much rather roll it back and stop all familiars from using wands. The thought being, that PCs shouldn't have "second characters".
This is the ruling that most needs to be revised and/or properly enshrined in a Clarifications, FAQ or Guide to Organized Play format.
Thanks! :) So many rulings are hidden away in the forums like this, really hope the Campaign Clarifications document helps out with this type of thing more in the future :) And hopefully they'll update the list too! :) I'll change my GM-credit wizard over to an Azata then - seems like a good choice for a wand-using Improved Familiar, and no-one should be able to complain if I have a FAQ saying they can use it. Only question is: the final line of that FAQ states that the Improved Familiar uses the master's UMD when activating the wand - is that ranks in UMD, or total UMD modifier? It makes quite a difference, with CHA 7 on me, and CHA 20 on the Azata! :)
