I mean if someone is saying the Protector Archetype is useless because the best thing to do with it previously was deemed too good and banned, it's best not to show that person the Egotist (which is hilarious and flavorful but... not strong.)
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Were any new archetypes added in or was it just reprints of the ones in the folio?
I don't have Familiar Folio, but the familiar archetypes in UW are: Ambassador, Animal Exemplar, Egotist, Emissary, Figment, Infiltrator, Mascot, Mauler, Pilferer, Prankster, Protector, Sage, Soulbound Familiar, and Valet. I think some of those are new.
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
My Bloodrager has a Sage hedgehog. I didn't think to make it a Figment. I didn't realize they stacked until this thread. That would have been great. As is, whenever a knowledge check comes up, my Bloodrager will wave everyone quiet, hold up the familiar, and proclaim, "My hedgehog has something to say. The owlbears are not what they seem." Or something like that.
Having it be a Figment would have been even better. I don't think it's worth the 10 prestige to retrain into it, though.
Also, the new archetypes Ambassador, Egotist, and Prankster are all compatible with Improved Familiars.
(Well, maybe not Egotist, since it alters the variable familiar bonus... But it's a suboptimal archetype anyway.)
I mean if someone is saying the Protector Archetype is useless because the best thing to do with it previously was deemed too good and banned, it's best not to show that person the Egotist (which is hilarious and flavorful but... not strong.)
It's still fantastic on an Occultist using Soulbound Puppet to spam multiple familiars in one day that you don't care about dying.
|
Was any element of the supposed problem with the tumour-protector down to a misreading of the rules?
It looks to me, from some posts in this thread, as if some people may have misunderstood what "attached" means in the context of the tumour familiar. I will agree that the wording of the rules is not as clear as it could be.
An "attached" tumour familiar is merged with its host (the character). It is attached in the sense that it is merely a lump or growth. In this state, it only provides its static abilities. Specifically, these are whatever bonus a normal familiar of the same type would provide (typically a bonus to a skill or saving throw, or initiative) and alertness. Whilst attached the tumour familiar also has Fast Healing 5. In this state it cannot take any actions. It also cannot take damage for its master if it is a protector archetype. I'll say it again, the rules are written less clearly than they could be: but it's always been daft to think that a lump on your flesh could take any actions, like AoO's with the protector archetype's Bodyguard ability.
A tumour-protector familiar can only use Bodyguard and Shield Master when it's active. I'd agree that allowing Shield Master to work whilst the tumour-protector is a lump ("attached") is overpowered, but I don't think that was ever the intended rule.
(Full disclosure: I have a melee alchemist with a tumour-protector familiar. I have never thought that Shield Master or Bodyguard should work unless the familiar was "detached" and active.)
|
|
Tumor familiar, snowball, vine strike, wolf savage, plant immunities, thundercaller, that's 6; any other nerfs in UW?
Shapechanging familiars must have the same archetype in all of their forms (if they have an archetype). Since shapechanging familiars are usually improved familiars this rules out a lot of archetypes (all those that replace "speak with others of its kind"). This is a pretty big nerf to the Magical Child vigilante.
Was any element of the supposed problem with the tumour-protector down to a misreading of the rules?
It looks to me, from some posts in this thread, as if some people may have misunderstood what "attached" means in the context of the tumour familiar. I will agree that the wording of the rules is not as clear as it could be.
An "attached" tumour familiar is merged with its host (the character). It is attached in the sense that it is merely a lump or growth. In this state, it only provides its static abilities. Specifically, these are whatever bonus a normal familiar of the same type would provide (typically a bonus to a skill or saving throw, or initiative) and alertness. Whilst attached the tumour familiar also has Fast Healing 5. In this state it cannot take any actions. It also cannot take damage for its master if it is a protector archetype. I'll say it again, the rules are written less clearly than they could be: but it's always been daft to think that a lump on your flesh could take any actions, like AoO's with the protector archetype's Bodyguard ability.
The only requirement to share damage is that the tumor be touching its master, no actions necessary. Obviously an attached tumor is touching its master.
|
|
The only requirement to share damage is that the tumor be touching its master, no actions necessary. Obviously an attached tumor is touching its master.Was any element of the supposed problem with the tumour-protector down to a misreading of the rules?
It looks to me, from some posts in this thread, as if some people may have misunderstood what "attached" means in the context of the tumour familiar. I will agree that the wording of the rules is not as clear as it could be.
An "attached" tumour familiar is merged with its host (the character). It is attached in the sense that it is merely a lump or growth. In this state, it only provides its static abilities. Specifically, these are whatever bonus a normal familiar of the same type would provide (typically a bonus to a skill or saving throw, or initiative) and alertness. Whilst attached the tumour familiar also has Fast Healing 5. In this state it cannot take any actions. It also cannot take damage for its master if it is a protector archetype. I'll say it again, the rules are written less clearly than they could be: but it's always been daft to think that a lump on your flesh could take any actions, like AoO's with the protector archetype's Bodyguard ability.
I can see that being a logical interpretation of the rules as written. And if that is how the tumour-protector has usually been played, then I can see the case for a nerf tbh.
But straight-up banning the combination seems unnecessary. Imho, the way I have played the combo is strong but not broken. The better "fix" is to require that a tumour-protector be detached but touching in order to use Shield Master and the other abilities of the protector archetype.
We might even suggest a "clarification" that the only familiar abilities that work whilst a tumour familiar is attached are the bonus to the master, alertness, and fast healing.
An "attached" tumour familiar is merged with its host (the character). It is attached in the sense that it is merely a lump or growth. In this state, it only provides its static abilities. Specifically, these are whatever bonus a normal familiar of the same type would provide (typically a bonus to a skill or saving throw, or initiative) and alertness. Whilst attached the tumour familiar also has Fast Healing 5. In this state it cannot take any actions. It also cannot take damage for its master if it is a protector archetype. I'll say it again, the rules are written less clearly than they could be: but it's always been daft to think that a lump on your flesh could take any actions, like AoO's with the protector archetype's Bodyguard ability.
Where are you getting that an attached familiar can't take actions? Have you seen the Die for your Master feat that came out in the same book as the tumor familiar. It makes it pretty clear that the familiar can take actions while attached.
My Bloodrager has a Sage hedgehog. I didn't think to make it a Figment. I didn't realize they stacked until this thread. That would have been great. As is, whenever a knowledge check comes up, my Bloodrager will wave everyone quiet, hold up the familiar, and proclaim, "My hedgehog has something to say. The owlbears are not what they seem." Or something like that.
Having it be a Figment would have been even better. I don't think it's worth the 10 prestige to retrain into it, though.
Can't you dismiss (or otherwise dispatch) your familiar and get a new one. I believe there's a week long rest period and a gold cost, but no PP cost.
|
|
Well perhaps I've been too "realistic" in my reading.
I was aware of Die for Your Master but had only given it a cursory reading, having decided I didn't ever want to take a character option that would be likely to lead to the death of my familiar. It does indeed say that the tumour familiar must take an immediate action whilst attached to make use of the feat.
There's no specific rules text saying that a tumour familiar can't take actions. But it's a tumour. When attached, it's a lump on your flesh. As such, I have always viewed it as unreasonable to expect that it would take actions because a lump on your flesh can't take actions.
So, my alchemist's tumour familiar is a monkey. (When detached) it sits on my PC's shoulders, using its Bodyguard AoOs and fetching items like alchemical weapons and potions from a handy haversack. When it takes too much damage via Shield Master (or area attacks, just as often) it merges (reattaches) to heal with Fast Healing.
Can this tumour monkey also get items out of the handy haversack when it's attached?
What actions are legal for an attached tumour familiar, and what actions are not legal?
To answer these questions I have relied upon a straightforwards understanding of (or perhaps an imagining of) what the tumour familar is: a lump of flesh, that when animate resembles an animal and can do what the animal could do, but when attached is just a lump of flesh.
Tumor Familiar (Ex) The alchemist creates a Diminutive or Tiny tumor on his body, usually on his back or stomach. As a standard action, the alchemist can have the tumor detach itself from his body as a separate creature vaguely resembling a kind of animal suitable for a familiar (bat, cat, and so on) and move about as if it were an independent creature. The tumor can reattach itself to the alchemist as a standard action. The tumor has all the abilities of the animal it resembles (for example, a batlike tumor can fly) and familiar abilities based on the alchemist’s caster level (though some familiar abilities may be useless to an alchemist). The tumor acts as the alchemist’s familiar whether attached or separated (providing a skill bonus, the Alertness feat, and so on). When attached to the alchemist, the tumor has fast healing 5. An alchemist’s extracts and mutagens are considered spells for the purposes of familiar abilities like share spells and deliver touch spells. If a tumor familiar is lost or dies, it can be replaced 1 week later through a specialized procedure that costs 200 gp per alchemist level. The ritual takes 8 hours to complete.
If I have got this wrong, or if I am in the minority in my understanding of an ambiguous rule, that would certainly explain the decision to nerf.
There's a lot of oddities in the tumor familiar.
the alchemist can have the tumor detach itself from his body
The tumor detaches itself. This implies that the familiar could detach itself of its own volition, since it's the one who does the detaching. It's not even completely clear if it's the tumor's standard action or the master's standard action that does this, but the tumor does the detaching, and it's not otherwise stated what action it takes to do this.
The tumor can reattach itself to the alchemist as a standard action.
Here it seems more clear that the tumor is the one performing the standard action. But also, it doesn't say that the tumor ceases being an independent creature when it reattaches. We could really use a FAQ here, because it doesn't say anything about the qualities of the tumor when reattached. For instance, people assume the tumor can't be attacked in this state, but there seems to be no text to suggest this. We can be sure the tumor still counts as a creature while attached though, because otherwise it wouldn't be able to benefit from its fast healing.
The tumor acts as the alchemist’s familiar whether attached or separated (providing a skill bonus, the Alertness feat, and so on).
"and so on" is incredibly vague and powerful language. It's why the protector tumor was so powerful.
|
Can't you dismiss (or otherwise dispatch) your familiar and get a new one. I believe there's a week long rest period and a gold cost, but no PP cost.My Bloodrager has a Sage hedgehog. I didn't think to make it a Figment. I didn't realize they stacked until this thread. That would have been great. As is, whenever a knowledge check comes up, my Bloodrager will wave everyone quiet, hold up the familiar, and proclaim, "My hedgehog has something to say. The owlbears are not what they seem." Or something like that.
Having it be a Figment would have been even better. I don't think it's worth the 10 prestige to retrain into it, though.
Dispatch Sonny the Hedgehog! That would be cruel!
I forgot that was an option. I’ve already established him as real in game, though. Maybe if Sonny ever meets an untimely demise, he’ll live on as a figment. Because Osa is too attached.
Can't you dismiss (or otherwise dispatch) your familiar and get a new one. I believe there's a week long rest period and a gold cost, but no PP cost.My Bloodrager has a Sage hedgehog. I didn't think to make it a Figment. I didn't realize they stacked until this thread. That would have been great. As is, whenever a knowledge check comes up, my Bloodrager will wave everyone quiet, hold up the familiar, and proclaim, "My hedgehog has something to say. The owlbears are not what they seem." Or something like that.
Having it be a Figment would have been even better. I don't think it's worth the 10 prestige to retrain into it, though.
Dispatch Sonny the Hedgehog! That would be cruel!
I forgot that was an option. I’ve already established him as real in game, though. Maybe if Sonny ever meets an untimely demise, he’ll live on as a figment. Because Osa is too attached.
Sonny will live forever inside you after you kill him and eat his tender flesh. Then you will be the all-knowing Sage!
|
|
I made a thread over on the PFS section of the boards looking for clarification.
Thread is here.
I've put it in the PFS section because the PFS campaign will at some point be making a decision on what gets implemented from Ultimate Wilderness, so it seems like a good impetus for a clarification or an FAQ. Also, my Alchemist is a PFS character.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
My hope would be that PFS would allow the current tumor protectors to stay, but disallow future ones.
Failing that, I feel this should be grounds for a free rebuild, since many people who used this had built around it.
Sonny will live forever inside you after you kill him and eat his tender flesh. Then you will be the all-knowing Sage!Can't you dismiss (or otherwise dispatch) your familiar and get a new one. I believe there's a week long rest period and a gold cost, but no PP cost.My Bloodrager has a Sage hedgehog. I didn't think to make it a Figment. I didn't realize they stacked until this thread. That would have been great. As is, whenever a knowledge check comes up, my Bloodrager will wave everyone quiet, hold up the familiar, and proclaim, "My hedgehog has something to say. The owlbears are not what they seem." Or something like that.
Having it be a Figment would have been even better. I don't think it's worth the 10 prestige to retrain into it, though.
Dispatch Sonny the Hedgehog! That would be cruel!
I forgot that was an option. I’ve already established him as real in game, though. Maybe if Sonny ever meets an untimely demise, he’ll live on as a figment. Because Osa is too attached.
Not an option in PFS. Well, it is, but you wouldn't be able to play the character on the grounds of him being Evil now...
Not an option in PFS. Well, it is, but you wouldn't be able to play the character on the grounds of him being Evil now...
I figure though if Sonny gets killed, eating his tasty corpse would be okay, right? Since it's basically autocannibalism, and if you want to eat parts of you that aren't attached and vital/living anymore that's probably not evil.
|
|
Not an option in PFS. Well, it is, but you wouldn't be able to play the character on the grounds of him being Evil now...I figure though if Sonny gets killed, eating his tasty corpse would be okay, right? Since it's basically autocannibalism, and if you want to eat parts of you that aren't attached and vital/living anymore that's probably not evil.
Don't snakes prefer their food alive?
There are people out there who eat parts of family members out of respect for their passing. Honestly, cannibalism, is Not necessarily evil, if you can justify it properly. :3
The nature bound magus archetype can almost replicate the tumor familiar and protector combo, just without the fast healing.
When the plant is attached it cannot be targeted.
Doesn't make the archetype fantastic since it loses arcane pool, but it's something.
|
My Bloodrager has a Sage hedgehog. I didn't think to make it a Figment. I didn't realize they stacked until this thread. That would have been great. As is, whenever a knowledge check comes up, my Bloodrager will wave everyone quiet, hold up the familiar, and proclaim, "My hedgehog has something to say. The owlbears are not what they seem." Or something like that.
Having it be a Figment would have been even better. I don't think it's worth the 10 prestige to retrain into it, though.
Can't you rechoose your familiar anytime your familiar dies? And I believe they said you can dismiss your familiar.
So 200 gp per level to summon a new familiar, and you can have your figment.
Justification to self of actions in order to take them is practically the definition of evil.
Nice try, "Dracala"
XD sure, its totally evil to them, uh huh.... You go tell that to the people who believe in it, just because its evil to you, doesn't mean its evil to everyone. Its a difference in culture.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Justification to self of actions in order to take them is practically the definition of evil.
That's a weird definition of evil. That would mean that a person who justifies risking their own life to save a child has now made that an evil act.
|
|
Sorry. Didn't mean to cause things to derail into a cannibalism discussion.
I'll think about dismissing and swapping to a Figment. Thanks waltero and Flite. That's a good suggestion I hadn't thought of.
Also, this whole conversation has made me think of what it must be like for Silver Crusade agents when they get stuck in scenarios trying to infiltrate the Aspis Consortium.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Justification to self of actions in order to take them is practically the definition of evil.That's a weird definition of evil. That would mean that a person who justifies risking their own life to save a child has now made that an evil act.To self. To self.
"If I don't take his food, then I'll be hungry and I'm more useful."
"His money is just sitting there in a bank when I could make better use of it."
"I owe it to myself to be happy, and burning things brings me the most joy."
"If I kill him, it's more convenient. The law would just let him get away with it. Probably."
"I was only following orders. The ones giving the orders are bad, I just carried them out."
None of those compare to "someone is on trouble I should help them not die." You don't need to try to justify actions that are already justifiable.
What makes an act intrinsically justifiable? And to whom is it justified if not your self? Ethics isn't nearly as simple as you are asserting. "Eating dead humans is always evil" and "risking your life to save a child is always good" are actually hard statements to defend. But I don't want to derail this thread any more.
Justification to self of actions in order to take them is practically the definition of evil.That's a weird definition of evil. That would mean that a person who justifies risking their own life to save a child has now made that an evil act.To self. To self.
"If I don't take his food, then I'll be hungry and I'm more useful."
"His money is just sitting there in a bank when I could make better use of it."
"I owe it to myself to be happy, and burning things brings me the most joy."
"If I kill him, it's more convenient. The law would just let him get away with it. Probably."
"I was only following orders. The ones giving the orders are bad, I just carried them out."
None of those compare to "someone is on trouble I should help them not die." You don't need to try to justify actions that are already justifiable.
Well the question is, are you alive and them dead worth more then both of you maybe dying, or if you need to die to save them, are they worth more than you.
That's what you'd be trying to justify.
It's also fun how Cavall doesn't care whether a justification has any weight to it. "I need to steal this bread because I'm a starving beggar and can't pay for it." Totally evil, obviously. Or does stealing need no justification?
"I owe it to myself to be happy, and burning things brings me the most joy."To be fair, this is basically the justification for birthday candles.
Today I learned: Birthday Candles are eeevil.
Justification to self of actions in order to take them is practically the definition of evil.That's a weird definition of evil. That would mean that a person who justifies risking their own life to save a child has now made that an evil act.To self. To self.
"If I don't take his food, then I'll be hungry and I'm more useful."
"His money is just sitting there in a bank when I could make better use of it."
"I owe it to myself to be happy, and burning things brings me the most joy."
"If I kill him, it's more convenient. The law would just let him get away with it. Probably."
"I was only following orders. The ones giving the orders are bad, I just carried them out."
None of those compare to "someone is on trouble I should help them not die." You don't need to try to justify actions that are already justifiable.
What you are describing is Far different than what I was speaking of, that is Personal justification, I was speaking of Cultural Justification. Which is far more of an External Taught Belief than an Internal Self-only Belief.
Also, when I first mentioned it, I meant a RL justification for RP purposes, rather than an in game one. Because the character if it is a part of their culture to eat parts of their dearly departed loved ones, isn't going to see it as them needing a justification....
It’s almost poetic that this thread was started because of a derail and has now become itself derailed.
At the simplest, good is helping others with a cost to yourself and evil is helping yourself at the expense of others. And then there’s infinite shades of grey between those
Tumor familiar, snowball, vine strike, wolf savage, plant immunities, thundercaller, that's 6; any other nerfs in UW?Shapechanging familiars must have the same archetype in all of their forms (if they have an archetype). Since shapechanging familiars are usually improved familiars this rules out a lot of archetypes (all those that replace "speak with others of its kind"). This is a pretty big nerf to the Magical Child vigilante.
Seven then. Packed full of nerfs may have been an exaggeration tho' that's more than a few. Odd that they nerfed wolf savage, it was wolf trip (with ranged trip attacks) that needed a nerf/clarification, not savage.
At least fifty!
Heyoooooo--
It’s almost poetic that this thread was started because of a derail and has now become itself derailed.
Derailception!
I vote Prankster x3
I just looked, I don't see Ultimate Wilderness as official allowed resource at this point in time, and I haven't seen any official ruling banning Protector Tumor Familiars from PFS.
Has this happened?
Not yet.