|
I'm sticking to the rules here. All of this is RAW.
Sliska Zafir wrote:
#1 "Familiars are mystically bonded creatures tied to your magic." "The familiar serves you." That's all that is necessary for it to accept speech given commands.
#1 It's not my Command an Animal action, it's the familiar's Sneak and Seek command that repeats.
Graystone wrote:
#1 and? It could be master and slave and it serves because it HAS to not because it wants to. As we have no insight into what kind of magic bond it is, it's a total leap of logic to assume it's a friendly one. The familiar could treat it as a 9-5 job and the second you stop commanding it, it does what it pleases without any concern for you. Just pointing to 'mystic bond' tells us nothing.
Graystone - a familiar serves you, whether it is a forced servitude, or based on a mystical bond, or because it likes your smell, or because you know where to pet it...it just doesn't matter if its friendly or slavery - it "directly serves" (CRB) the master, allowing the master to give it commands it will follow, because servitude means obeying.
"During an encounter, it gets 2 actions in around if you spend an action to command them."
How many actions does it get to take in exploration mode when you command them?
Use Improvising New Exploration Activities [CRB498]: "If the activity is similar to an action used in an encounter, such as Avoid Notice, it usually consists of a single action repeatedly roughly 10 times per minute (Sneak), or an alternation of actions, such as Search, which alternates Strike and Seek." So the familiar can take the Sneak action 10 times per minute.
A servant familiar with Speech would take as many actions it could to follow and complete the command that was given by its master, by the nature of its servitude. It only "acts how it pleases" if it is left *unattended* after a minute. While it is following a command, it is not *left* unattended; it is performing a Sneak and Seek alternating action for its master as servitude. So while it is serving, it is not "left unattended". It understands, through Speech, explicitly what action(s) to be taking while serving under the command.
This is why I said, it's not the Command an Animal action that needs repeating, because once the animal receives the command, it knows what to do, especially since it *understands Speech* and will serve you.
The Improvising New Exploration Activities guidelines allow repetition of actions. Sneak and Seek will be the actions the familiar is repeating over the course of time until the service is rendered to the master. This is an alternating type action listed above.
As for its intelligence, if the player gives it Speech, the master can Command it to Recall Knowledge (which can be used untrained), so it could share what it thinks the creature is. It's effective "intelligence" for this check is a modifier of +1 for a 1st level wizard, +1 for every level.
While that's not as smart, it still allows the familiar with Speech to make a skill check to relate what it knows to its master, because it now has the ability to *relate information* through speech to its master. Including erroneous recall knowledge checks. Funny how it works, but there it is.
This is 100% not true. The rules say what a minion or familiar can do in an encounter. They are 100% silent on what occurs in exploration mode.
"If the activity is similar to an action someone could use in an encounter, such as Avoid Notice, it usually consists of a single action repeated roughly 10 times per minute (such as using the Sneak action 10 times) or an alternation of actions that works out similarly (such as Search, which alternates Stride and Seek)."
To me, that reads as a default way to deal with unknown actions in exploration. With no exception for familiars or minions, it's looks like the only RAW there is. That's why I say 100%, as there is NO evidence on the other side of this argument: we either have default rules or complete dm fiat.
Then the rules are not clear as to how the minion trait works because it shouldn't highlight "this is how it works in encounter mode" it should just say "this is how it works".
But it does. Any unknown action "usually consists of a single action repeated roughly 10 times per minute". There is no mention of exceptions or abilities working differently, do they don't. I can't read that as anything other than 10 command actions per minute. I'd LOVE it if someone could come up with something in the rules that pointed to minions being more useful than they are with default guidelines for exploration activities: It would make my life easier if there was.
Likewise the rules give us no guidance whatsoever as to how intelligent a familiar is
Now on this you have my total agreement. All we know is that "It doesn’t have or use its own ability modifiers". Even speech doesn't really require smarts, as gnomes can talk to "badgers, ground squirrels, moles, and prairie dogs" with a feat.
Now if you want to accept graystone's position as RAW then you must admit that by RAW riding a horse and leading a different horse exhausts you if you do it for 11 minutes. If you think that's an absurd situation then you either need to interpret the rules differently or house rule them.
Yep, that's were I'm at. I've been asking for things to be clarified, explained fixed, ect since playtest because it leads to these kinds of illogical situations like someone with an animal companion is exhausted if they also use a mount... It requires me to ask for another houserule in my ever growing list of them to play the game... :P
Sliska Zafir: first off, you made it VERY hard to follow your post without breaking things up with proper quotes.
#1 It's not my Command an Animal action, it's the familiar's Sneak and Seek command that repeats.
It's both. You have to use an action so it can move and they have to spend a n action on whatever exploration activity they are doing. If they attempt 2 actions, they are exhausted or of limited use: just because command allows 2 actions doesn't mean they can take them. After all, PC's get 3 and can only take 1.
Graystone - a familiar serves you, whether it is a forced servitude, or based on a mystical bond, or because it likes your smell, or because you know where to pet it...it just doesn't matter if its friendly or slavery - it "directly serves" (CRB) the master, allowing the master to give it commands it will follow, because servitude means obeying.
And? We were talking about what it does when it's out of your command area: What does this have to do with any of that. How does any of that affect "sapient minions act how they please". Sure when you spend an action, it does what you say: I was replying to someone that said because the familiar loves you so much it's do what you want without command.
How many actions does it get to take in exploration mode when you command them?
2, but if they use more than one they get fatigued or what they do is of limited use.
Use Improvising New Exploration Activities [CRB498]: "If the activity is similar to an action used in an encounter, such as Avoid Notice, it usually consists of a single action repeatedly roughly 10 times per minute (Sneak), or an alternation of actions, such as Search, which alternates Strike and Seek." So the familiar can take the Sneak action 10 times per minute.
They sure can as long as you command them. "If given no commands, minions use no actions except to defend themselves or to escape obvious harm." Remember, we're repeated single actions and minions only get those "once per turn, when you spend an action to issue it commands".
A servant familiar with Speech would take as many actions it could to follow and complete the command that was given by its master, by the nature of its servitude.
Yep, until the end of a round, then it stops dead. It's servitude means "once per turn, when you spend an action to issue it commands" it follows commands: nothing says any different and there are no rules allowing command actions to work differently. Why assume they work differently? You're allowed MORE latitude in what you do in encounter mode as you're doing it a limited amount of times because "because combat lasts such a short time"
This is why I said, it's not the Command an Animal action that needs repeating, because once the animal receives the command, it knows what to do, especially since it *understands Speech* and will serve you
If this was true, it's work that way for encounter mode too. it's 10 single actions a minute not an single action that lasts a minute. See the difference.
Nothing in the rules allows a familiar to act differently in the various modes. Why do you thing the creators of the game kept close track of the action economy for encounter mode but you think they don't care about it in exploration mode by allowing only pet users to gain twice the activities as non-pet users?
|
|
The designers allowed for Improvising New Exploration Activities. Nothing in Encounter Mode applies. We're in Improvise territory.
Exploration Activities don't have rounds or turns, nor do they have a designated amount of time.
Your argument is that if I use Command an Animal during Exploration Mode, it is limited by Encounter mode. But Encounter Mode doesn't apply.
During Exploration Mode, nothing says that you have to Command it in order for it to follow the Sneak and Seek command you gave. It can repeat that without needing further commands because you haven't told it to do anything else, it serves you, it is not unattended, and it has the extra time offered by Exploration mode to do so.
Well, we’re getting Witch in under a year. It’ll be covered in more detail by then, I imagine. In the meantime, your familiar probably takes a minute or so to wind down after combat.
Nothing in Encounter Mode applies.
There is a full stop here: Improvising New Exploration Activities clearly tells you that you use actions from Encounter Mode. They do NOT reinvent actions to use:
Avoid Notice doesn't alter how stealth works.Detect Magic doesn't change how Detect Magic works.
Defend doesn't change how raise a shield works.
Investigate doesn't change how Recall Knowledge works.
Repeat a Spell doesn't alter how the spell works.
Search doesn't change how Seek works.
Why would Command suddenly differ from this pattern of encounter actions being used in exploration or the pattern given for improvised ones: "it usually consists of a single action repeated roughly 10 times per minute". You're ignoring precedent from other actions AND the improvised action guidelines.
Exploration Activities don't have rounds or turns, nor do they have a designated amount of time.
Again, incorrect. Several actions have time limits. Affix a Talisman is 10 min. Hustle is a number of minutes equal to your Constitution modifier × 10 (minimum 10 minutes). Repeat a Spell can only can be sustained for 10 min. Even if they didn't, Minion's do and Encounter Mode doesn't alter the base action or duration: it talks about repeating the action and not extending a single action. It's Repeat a Spell instead of 'cast a single spell and ignore the duration'.
But Encounter Mode doesn't apply
Actions HAVE to apply as they're the framework they give for making your own and the premade ones rely on that mode to explain how they work. You want to know how seek work for search, you HAVE to look at the action that gets repeated 1/round. For instance, Detect Magic is "You cast detect magic at regular intervals" and NOT 'you cast detect magic once and...'. It's because the duration DOES matter.
During Exploration Mode, nothing says that you have to Command it in order for it to follow the Sneak and Seek command you gave.
IMO, this is a ridiculous argument. They also don't say that PC's can fly, so can we also assume that they can? Can I breathe fire too while I'm at it? 'it doesn't say I can't' just isn't a winning argument to me. I just don't get why people would think they suddenly become SO much more useful than they where because the mode changed.
Let me ask you this? Do you really think the intent was for pet users to have double the exploration actions when they were so careful with actions in encounter mode? Why would they suddenly not care about action economy?
Well, we’re getting Witch in under a year. It’ll be covered in more detail by then, I imagine. In the meantime, your familiar probably takes a minute or so to wind down after combat.
It'd be great to have more detail for them then but I'd like some kind of FAQ at least to tide us over until then.
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Nothing in Encounter Mode applies.There is a full stop here: Improvising New Exploration Activities clearly tells you that you use actions from Encounter Mode.
Wrong - full stop. "If a player wants to do something not covered by other rules, here are some guidelines. *If the activity is similar to an action someone could use in an encounter*, such as Avoid Notice...etc" CRB
These actions aren't necessarily limited to encounter actions only, though some take their cues from it.
Why would Command suddenly differ from this pattern of encounter actions being used in exploration or the pattern given for improvised ones: "it usually consists of a single action repeated roughly 10 times per minute". You're ignoring precedent from other actions AND the improvised action guidelines.
On the contrary, you're limiting exploration activity based on encounter actions. There are no such limitations, only guidelines.
Exploration Activities don't have rounds or turns, nor do they have a designated amount of time.
Again, incorrect. Several actions have time limits. Affix a Talisman is 10 min. Hustle is a number of minutes equal to your Constitution modifier × 10 (minimum 10 minutes). Repeat a Spell can only can be sustained for 10 min. Even if they didn't, Minion's do and Encounter Mode doesn't alter the base action or duration: it talks about repeating the action and not extending a single action. It's Repeat a Spell instead of 'cast a single spell and ignore the duration'.
Wrong. Exploration activities are not *limited by such increments as rounds and turns.* Some have consequences for using the activity for a certain period, such as fatigue, but not all.
I'm not trying to guess intent. I'm trying to extrapolate exploration activities given the rules that are listed in the CRB. I've tried to pull and assemble from 6 or 7 areas to see how exactly a speech/darkvision familiar could work as a scout, if possible. This is from both sides of the screen, mind you. I don't have an ulterior motive to grant powers to familiars; I want an answer, so that when my table has a player that wants a familiar, I know how to rule on it. I want a FAQ to address this.
I see your point rather clearly. I mainly disagree with the notion that you have to keep Commanding an Animal Speech familiar every 6 seconds to get it to do something in exploration mode. I think I've made the case you could reasonable interpret the rules to support it; you don't believe they do, and you've made your case. Unless we receive more clarity by the designers, we're free to disagree.
We can use the general stats for the base animal of a familiar and be in pretty safe territory. So if you have a monkey familiar, use a monkey's strength score to calculate its bulk capacity.
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Fact 1: for balances reasons, a familiar require constant attention from its master.
That's an assumption you're making. Calling your opinion "fact" doesn't make it so.
Fact 2: even a rogue can't gather information about next encounter; when a rogue scouts, he gives a bonus to init.
That's true of the (poorly-named) Scout activity, however any PC can use Avoid Notice and choose to travel well ahead of the rest of the party; if they beat the Perception DCs of the next group of enemies they're Unnoticed, and can gather info, Sneak away, and report back. The downside is that they're splitting the party and putting themselves in danger-- if they fail one of their rolls and get caught they're in big trouble.
Your conclusion: as a free exploration activity while its master is doing something else, the familiar can gather information about next encounter.
Sounds legit I guess...
... Or maybe you should simply accept the familiar isn't about gaining free action - be it in encounter mode, in exploration mode or in downtime mode. The familiar can't explore without the constant supervision of its master, and even with the supervision of its master it can't perform any "super-special-awesome new exploration tactic no one else can do".
More strawmanning. Not worth a response
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
This isn't strawmaning. People here are litteraly trying to explain they can use their familiar to engage in two exploration activities at the same time; they are litteraly inventing new familiar-only exploration tactic that no other PC can do.
Balivernes!
It's called "splitting the party".Let's say the party rogue or ranger decides to scout far ahead. He becomes a party of one. Let's say he's using avoid notice (stealth) as his exploration activity. All by himself, he will roll stealth as his initiative, as well as using the same number against the adversaries' perception DC. If he rolls poorly, the adversaries may attack or even kill him before he can scurry back and inform his friends. If he rolls well, the adversaries won't even see him, and he can scurry back before they get any actions.
So the question is, can a familiar be sent to perform a task like scouting far ahead, separate from the PCs, or indeed to perform any action away from its master.
The answer is, we don't know. The rules don't say. Some folks argue the familiar is on a 2-action leash to its master. Some folks argue that the DM can allow any plausible action outside of combat, and that the minion rules only govern round-by-round action economy during encounter mode.
Until or unless we get a clarification on using familiars outside of encounter mode, we can't cut through this gordian knot. This thread has shown ample evidence that there are two opposing views of how to interpret the RAW.
Yeah, I guess it would be legal RAW but try to imagine the awkwardness of someone feeding you a potion while you're doing something else...
EDIT: I figured the caveat regarding using it on another was specifically to force-feed an unconscious character a healing potion. And that only works (logically, if there is logic to be applied to magic) because by the very nature of healing potions, you wouldn't be able to drown someone with one. Try giving an unconscious person a glass of water and you're not helping them, though.
Feeding someone else with a potion is a core mechanism for the Alchemist and his ability to heal. So, it's far more than just healing an unconscious ally, it's something you can't change without removing a main class feature from the game.
The more I read about it in the CRB the more the minion rules are strange. It is clear that the rules have been written in a certain way to not disturb the deliberate action economy, however they apparently do a poor job in doing so while still being close to "natural" behavior.
So I have this animal companion dog and command him to attack an enemy some 120 feet away. Taking two actions the dog will move 80 feet and then stop dead in his tracks until I order him to move and attack again in a later round? Not at all plausible behaviour, especially for a trained or semi-intelligent animal. Guard dogs anyone?
I feel they should have granted minions their own action even when not actively commanded if they are already conducting a commanded "continuous action".
Something like this: If you actively command your minion it will do two actions, if you do not actively command your minon and it has received a command for a continuous action in an earlier round it will do one action instead.
And while I know that 2+2 or 3+1 actions are not exactly the same at least a minion could continue any given task on his own, albeit at a slower rate.
I'm reading through this thread, and this idea is brilliant. If I was running a home game I would use this.
Yes, but that doesn't mean it's realistic.
In general, realistic means "was already there in previous editions". Most of the game features are unrealistic but we just got used to it. Things as obvious as poison killing someone in less than a minute, a blind character still fighting, making a Reflex save without moving out of the fireball explosion, taking a hit from a giant and surviving, casting Shocking Grasp on a full plate character and still having to meet its AC, Monks deflecting arrows with bare arms, casting a cure spell on someone without first removing the arrow from his guts, etc...
The difference being that I've never experienced any of that other stuff in real life, maybe.
You have already drunk a potion in the middle of a fight Oo
The scout activity doesn't indicate any distance; scouting *far* ahead is the same as scouting ahead, it's covered by the scout activity and it doesn't split the party. The only way I see to split the party is to have the other PC stopping the adventure and going home. If they are still exploring, then the scouting PC provide a bonus to init and no information.
Lol. Forced party cohesion in exploration mode?
Well if faced with arbitrary GM decisions like this I'll just stay in initiative the complete adventure, thank you. And with complete I mean complete, even in the roleplaying scenes.
"Exploration mode and its stupid rules? Never heard of..."
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
This exploration activity doesn't exist - or maybe you can point it in the rules?
The scout activity doesn't indicate any distance; scouting *far* ahead is the same as scouting ahead, it's covered by the scout activity and it doesn't split the party. The only way I see to split the party is to have the other PC stopping the adventure and going home. If they are still exploring, then the scouting PC provide a bonus to init and no information.
I'm not sure what planet Gaterie has been playing on, but of course this sort of thing happens all the time. Splitting the party isn't an exploration activity, of course, it's an action that players can take simply by stating they are doing it. If you need hard evidence, watch Jason Bulmahn running "Pathfinder: Knights of the Everflame". IIRC, it's in episode 3 that two of the PCs separate from the others, who are escourting a group of refugees from Lastwall in a wagon, and they go off on their own and investigate a shack in the woods.
And your disingenuous supposition that simply because initiative was rolled, the adversaries know someone is out there, even if their stealth roll beat all their perception DCs doesn't hold water.
I'm not sure why I bother making counterarguments when it is becoming more and more clear that we are in the presence of an argument ad absurdum, where the goal is to show that the RAW are so ridiculously restrictive that they simply don't work.
Sure, we could do with a few clarifications, like how minions (specifically familiars and animal companions) can carry out their instructions beyond the two-action leash that some folks want to impose on them. The minion rules could use a good deal of clearing up, certainly, but any clever DM can easily adjudicate such things without resorting to the iron-clad restrictions that this line of argumentation tries to impose.
YMMV.
|
It scares the hell out of me to think of some new player or GM stumbling into a thread like this and see the rules being used like a club to bludgeon the players with, and think that is what 2E is all about. Sigh.
The rules provide some limitations and guidelines but to take them to this extreme is clearly not what was intended.
|
|
I'm not sure why I bother making counterarguments when it is becoming more and more clear that we are in the presence of an argument ad absurdum, where the goal is to show that the RAW are so ridiculously restrictive that they simply don't work.
This seems to be a theme in several threads. People painting the rules in the most ridiculous light possible to make the rules look like they are inherently ridiculous. It is incredibly frustrating.
The only way to stop it is for Paizo to step up with some rules clarifications on some of the more absurd assumptions. Even then I feel like we will be dealing with this trolling behaviour for a while.
Well if faced with arbitrary GM decisions like thisTo follow the rules isn't arbitrary. It's, you know, to follow the rules.
My reply was not in relation to the familars rules, but in relation to the "not-allowed-to-split-the-party-in-exploration-mode" post. I am perfectly fine with the familiar rules as written, even if they do not make sense apart from game mechanics.
|
|
My reply was not in relation to the familars rules, but in relation to the "not-allowed-to-split-the-party-in-exploration-mode" post. I am perfectly fine with the familiar rules as written, even if they do not make sense apart from game mechanics.Well if faced with arbitrary GM decisions like thisTo follow the rules isn't arbitrary. It's, you know, to follow the rules.
As was mine. The rules are fine as they are. Some clarification would be helpful so people don't interpret them to this extreme.
|
|
What extreme? The fact that people are trying to follow the rules? Or that some want to ignore them?
Also no one is using the rules to "bludgeon" players. But this is a rules forum, which just as a reminder, is a place to talk about the rules.
When people start claiming you "can't split the party in exploration mode or the adventure ends for those characters" That is most definitely extreme.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
This isn't a video game. Let's not restrict it like it was one.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Good to know that not liking a rule, or thinking it needs more guidance is arguing in bad faith. Since apparently "mods should erase any argument against paizo" (I'm paraphrasing)
If you're trying to argue that your positions aren't in bad faith, maybe don't put words in people's mouths like this, because this absolutely makes you look like you're arguing in bad faith.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
This isn't a video game. Let's not restrict it like it was one.
Well, the thing is that many of those rectrictions (and therefore threads in this forum) are directly linked to the topic how exploration mode should be handled respectively on how written-in-stone the respective rules are seen by different people.
When we first received a copy of the rules a friend of mine and I had a huge argument if exploration mode would only be valid for overland travel (where is seems to work better, due to increased time scale) and/or dungenoneering and I called him nuts for trying to apply such a set of strict rules for the in-between-encounters parts of the dungeon/adventure, because I felt that would be like going from free-flow exploration to being hand-cuffed and herded through the dungeon.
However following arguments like these and especially while looking how Jason is handling things in his Everflame campaign I have come to the conclusion that all exploration actions are more like mechanical background actions, not prime roleplaying actions. I thus consider them to be "tell me what your character will be doing if you are not telling we what he is currently doing" kind of actions, and I will recommed our GM to handled them as such.
That is, if the party ranger declares that he is constantly vigilant and always looking for enemies while traversing the dungeon he will provide the party the scout action +1 initiative, no matter what he is currently actually doing (at least if he is not too distracted). Or the rogue that announced to be sneaky throughout will be allowed to roll stealth for initiative, even if his last role-played activity wasn't exactly stealth.
And going from there action economy suddenly is of no concern anymore, because if all the official exploration mode activities are just treated as secondary actions and the usual role-playing actions take the drivers seat it does not matter anymore if your rogue, ranger or animal companion tries to sneak into the next room in order to provide some intel. They all will have to roll stealth and the outcome of this roll will determine the further course of events...
However following arguments like these and especially while looking how Jason is handling things in his Everflame campaign I have come to the conclusion that all exploration actions are more like mechanical background actions, not prime roleplaying actions. I thus consider them to be "tell me what your character will be doing if you are not telling we what he is currently doing" kind of actions, and I will recommed our GM to handled them as such.
That is, if the party ranger declares that he is constantly vigilant and always looking for enemies while traversing the dungeon he will provide the party the scout action +1 initiative, no matter what he is currently actually doing (at least if he is not too distracted). Or the rogue that announced to be sneaky throughout will be allowed to roll stealth for initiative, even if his last role-played activity wasn't exactly stealth.
And going from there action economy suddenly is of no concern anymore, because if all the official exploration mode activities are just treated as secondary actions and the usual role-playing actions take the drivers seat it does not matter anymore if your rogue, ranger or animal companion tries to sneak into the...
Hey man, as long as the party scout has the option of going far enough ahead and risking his life to get real intel as described by Wheldrake and others above, and isn't just shoe-horned into a +1 Perception for the party every single time regardless of the player's intent, wishes, or described activity, than that's fine.
However, a GM who says scouts always grant the party +1 and nothing else ever is, well...just wrong. And damned lazy. Not even the game developers play it that way.
Anyone arguing that, that was the intent of the developers (and I'm not saying that anyone has, since I haven't followed this thread too closely) even when we have example videos of play showing the contrary, is arguing in bad faith.