Depth vs versatility is all good when that's all your trading.
But it's not all your trading in this instance. You are trading consistency and depth for liability and versatility. Half the things you can have a familiar do either takes you out of range for the other features it can do as well or makes it a potential target.
I think if you could gain it back with your daily preparation instead of a week that would be a much easier pill to swallow.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Depth vs versatility is all good when that's all your trading.
But it's not all your trading in this instance. You are trading consistency and depth for liability and versatility. Half the things you can have a familiar do either takes you out of range for the other features it can do as well or makes it a potential target.
I think if you could gain it back with your daily preparation instead of a week that would be a much easier pill to swallow.
Name me one 1st lvl class feat that gives as many options and oppertunities as a fimiliar?
There needs to be a downside or everyone and their dogs would have a fimiliar it would be auto take.
There are no familiar abilities currently in existence than cannot be picked up with the single 1st level feat, so technically, it costs exactly 1 feat to have any feature on that list.
If you want more, then yes, you have to take more feats. But at that point we're back to making comparisons to animal companions. Bottom line is that where investing in the AC gives combat power, investing in the familiar gives versatility. It's a depth vs. breadth design.
I really don't think you understood. Every familiar ability you spend keeping the familiar alive is a familiar ability you can't spend on those versatility options.
And I've already pointed out that you need two of those familiar abilities getting the durability benefits that used to be baked in (and you only GET two familiar abilities without investing resources).
So its more like "spend 2 feats, get half a feat worth of versatility."
Sure, Spell Battery, Familiar Focus, and Extra Cantrip are nice but are they worth spending two feats to get?
Depth vs versatility is all good when that's all your trading.
But it's not all your trading in this instance. You are trading consistency and depth for liability and versatility. Half the things you can have a familiar do either takes you out of range for the other features it can do as well or makes it a potential target.
I think if you could gain it back with your daily preparation instead of a week that would be a much easier pill to swallow.
Name me one 1st lvl class feat that gives as many options and oppertunities as a fimiliar?
There needs to be a downside or everyone and their dogs would have a fimiliar it would be auto take.
Maybe, that just means it probably some have been a caster specific feature and not a feat.
As it stands I'll always opt for consistency and reliability in my feat choice's unless I simply has no other use for the feat slot
Ok. Let me really look at this.
Are familiars worth it?
For me, yes. But not in the way most would use it. I would only sink one feat in for my familiar. It would gain movement type because that's required. Then I would take the familiar focus ability.
That's it. It would stay in my pouch. I wouldn't use it for anything other than a way to regain some focus.
Wich I will add that to my gnome evocation wizard build actually. Means by level 14 I'll be able to use force bolt 6 times before needing to refocus. Nice
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
That's it. It would stay in my pouch. I wouldn't use it for anything other than a way to regain some focus.
Have you tried a pet rock?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
That's it. It would stay in my pouch. I wouldn't use it for anything other than a way to regain some focus.Have you tried a pet rock?
You know... Try as I might for some reason the pet Rock doesn't help me "focus"
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I honestly never want to play in game where familiars weren't useful. Sounds like a boring group.
Not everything has to have numerical values attached to be worthwhile, and the non-combat capabilities of familiars (which are changeable on a day to day basis) are significant.
In my game, familiars are extremely worthwhile. If they're not in yours, chuck it on the pile of other options that your group likely can ignore due to table variation.
It has nothing to do with it not having a +20 to hit and more with it not even having an ability to hit anything without giving up half your class feats in some super niche cookie cutter shenanigans that Alchemists do.
As for their non-combat capabilities, I personally disagree. Darkvision won't help you unless you yourself can see the threats because a Familiar can't appropriately react in a way that you as a character can justify reacting in kind (such as avoiding a deadly pit trap). Extra speed just means they're either leaving you behind or they're just trying to keep up (a fast Wizard is one that is still alive). Flight is good until you stop to realize that a Familiar is small enough to be on your person anyway to not warrant just making yourself fly. Then its usefulness fades faster than Haste after 11 rounds. Speech helps if you're in two places at once, with some Deception shenanigans, or have to convey things that lacking words can't do, which makes it perhaps the most useful of the powers, if not for the RP possibilities alone. But when its usefulness is intrinsically tied to how well your Familiar is decked out in its own special abilities, it creates the feat tax paradigms of PF1 all over again. You want speech to be extremely useful? Gotta take Flight, Darkvision, Fast Movement, et. al. Oof. Outdated design that does not belong in this edition. Though I will say that the Master abilities aren't much better, they are serving the character more, which is really what the main purpose of the class feature is.
I mean, in PF1 we had a Weasel suplexing goblins and contributing to being an effective scout and group combatant with modest investment with magic items and feats, being one of the most iconic Pathfinder experiences we've had due to it simply being a Weasel and the player completely changing our expectations on familiars. Can neither replicate or match that level of cool with the current Familiar rules, which makes them pretty dang weaksauce in my opinion.
I'm sincerely confused as to how spell battery and the focus master abilities don't singlehandedly justify a familiar.
Spell Battery doesn't even become an option until 7th level, when you're 1/3 of the way through your character's career, the levels that most everyone is bound to play, no less. Even then, you're getting only a bonus 1st level spell to start, and a lot of 1st level spells are useless by now.
The focus stuff is generally dependent on what your focus powers can do. A focus power like Evocation's is pretty weak. But if you can get a Familiar through another source (such as Dedication feats) with a class that has strong Focus powers (like Tempest Druids or certain Sorcerers and especially Champions), it's definitely useful. But is it worth the mental gymnastics and/or feat investments? A fair amount of people will probably tell you no. This is amplified further when said features can be taken away by a familiar being frozen or burned to death. A poor fate for something so cuddly, truly.
Also keep in mind that this assumes a player will always have access to both simultaneously. Even with the 2 feat investment, it's difficult. In my example, with the Familiar Thesis, I can only select either Spell Battery or Familiar Focus, since 3 of my 4 current power slots (the same as taking a 2 feat investment!) occupy Familiar functions. And a Bat familiar for a Cavern Elf Wizard is both thematic and flavorful. I could have chosen a different one, like a gopher or a prairie dog, but 1. It didn't occur to me, and 2. I thought a Bat familiar by the name of Gloomdread was much cooler than a gopher named Scoops, as an example.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Ignoring all mechanical/numerical effects, here are some things a familiar can be used for:
Low level flying reconnaissance.
Item retrieval from hard to access places (burrow/flight).
Low risk infiltration as a species common to an area.
Non-threateningly approach and calm a frightened child.
Delight patrons at a bar while you gather info.
Keep watch.
Deliver messages to the princess who's under lock and key.
Start a fire on the other side of the castle.
Gather information from wildlife.
Gain favor with the Familiar fanatics at the wizard academy.
Signal the second team when to start the attack.
...
I mean, if your game has nothing similar to any of these, I'm glad I'm not playing in it.
Flight can be useful at low level, but at points in time where flying at the regular is expected, there are other more viable workarounds. There's also the possibility that it can just be shot at and killed quite easily, since it has weak AC and HP. Have had close to 0 uses with burrowing though since it has less uses and is far more impractical (for example, I can't breathe if I try to use burrowing movement)
A lot of familiars don't simply look like their non-magical counterparts, and the concept art in the Core Rulebook supports this concept greatly. Even if we disavow that point, it would at best be an opposed Deception versus Perception, and since Familiars can't be arsed to be good in anything except Perception, Acrobatics, and Stealth, it fails here very quickly, even on a good roll.
As I've said before, I don't get a +4 Circumstance Bonus to Diplomacy checks for having a cuddly animal on my shoulder, so it's not like it's supposed to be actually helpful on this regard. Heck, it can't even reliably aid me until 10th level, and by that point I probably shouldn't be messing around in basic taverns doing parlor tricks with magical animal creatures.
Familiars still have to sleep and eat like everything else. Chances are it will be keeping watch as its Master does. It might be able to roll its own Perception check. It might be able to roll to aid your Perceeption check. Or it might not do anything. Really depends on what GM allows here, which creates a whole other issue.
So many ways for this to go bad that I can't even begin to describe it as being anything other than trying to win the lottery. Guards will notice that a creature carrying a vial of red liquid is approaching the castle stables and attack it. It might not have a viable way to get there. It might not have the powers to do this (can't carry any objects without a power, remember!). Or you might not have any bombs to do this with. (Also, they're not proficient so they can't reasonably utilize the item to begin with.)
Party members will have Nature checks or Speak with Animals as a feature for gathering wildlife information. I fail to see how a Familiar can reasonably fulfill this role compared to another PC. (Yes, I know, it's not supposed to replace a PC, but it can't even reasonably aid them, either, and that's a whole other problem.)
This has the same problem with the tavern parlor tricks. The only difference is that a fair GM might actually apply a +4 Circumstance Bonus to my Diplomacy check here. Pretty niche though, since a lot of us are a bunch of apparent familiar dislikers, though.
We've tried to do this one once. It was a bunch of shenanigans that no sane GM should've allowed to begin with because it was super meta-game. Even with the proper powers, splitting the party is generally a big no-no with these kinds of games, and honestly it's a bit tedious when a Message spell could've probably did the same thing for you.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
In the end Darksol if you don't care for what a fimiliar offers you don't need to take the feat and your wizard/sorc/druid ect will be fine. Fimiliars are not what they used to be but nether is the game.
You can ether take the benifits that have been pointed out that obvously you seem to want access to along with the "risk" of loosing said familiar occasionally or not and take another feat and still do fine.
...or not and take another feat and still do fine.
Or play a witch and watch the game give you a giant middle finger.
Playing a witch is also a choice you could just as easily play a sorcerer or druid or cleric and skin her as a witch if that's what you want and not worry about pesky pets.
Playing a witch is also a choice you could just as easily play a sorcerer or druid or cleric and skin her as a witch if that's what you want and not worry about pesky pets.
While I'm in agreement that familiars have uses.
The liability when everything your character has is tied to said little guy is very... Scary. Not in a good way.
That said it was my understanding that witch is getting changes before release regardless.
I mean witch as is currently I'd almost have to role play someone so obsessively worried and filled with anxiety as to the care if my familiar as to overruling so much else I could do. When most of your most important features are tied to something easily killed.
|
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
Call me jaded I guess but much of the complaints here seem to be grounded in the fact that people cannot recreate the Familiar Archetypes that were released near the end of the PF1 lifespan which made their Familiars as powerful as a Summoners Eidolon and more effective as combatants than an equivalent level Fighter and in some circumstances nigh-invincible.
Familiars at their base level have historically never been combat companions, those options were always specialist features that came in splatbooks. Expecting these types of niche rules so early in the release of the system is asking a bit much, the system isn't even a year old yet.
Playing a witch is also a choice you could just as easily play a sorcerer or druid or cleric and skin her as a witch if that's what you want and not worry about pesky pets.While I'm in agreement that familiars have uses.
The liability when everything your character has is tied to said little guy is very... Scary. Not in a good way.
That said it was my understanding that witch is getting changes before release regardless.
I mean witch as is currently I'd almost have to role play someone so obsessively worried and filled with anxiety as to the care if my familiar as to overruling so much else I could do. When most of your most important features are tied to something easily killed.
This could be in intresting and fun to play character. A witch who is super paranoid about her familiar dieing and builds her spells and abilitys accordingly. You could even give the familiar a reckless personality so he/she has to constantly "save" it.
This could be in intresting and fun to play character. A witch who is super paranoid about her familiar dieing and builds her spells and abilitys accordingly. You could even give the familiar a reckless personality so he/she has to constantly "save" it.Playing a witch is also a choice you could just as easily play a sorcerer or druid or cleric and skin her as a witch if that's what you want and not worry about pesky pets.While I'm in agreement that familiars have uses.
The liability when everything your character has is tied to said little guy is very... Scary. Not in a good way.
That said it was my understanding that witch is getting changes before release regardless.
I mean witch as is currently I'd almost have to role play someone so obsessively worried and filled with anxiety as to the care if my familiar as to overruling so much else I could do. When most of your most important features are tied to something easily killed.
Fun yes. But binary as that's how I'd feel forced to play all of them. Also your idea while funny is mechanically and cooperatively not sound to group play if you're willingly risking making yourself useless for a week due to the fun of it
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
But you really don't have to. As has been stated if you just want the "benifits" of the fimiliar then take your little cricket familiar and put him in a metal box with some fluf to cushon him and never take him from your renforced beltpouch. You now have access to an extra cantrip and a focus point. Take the extra feat and alchemest dedication after lvl 5 and now you get an extra 1st lvl spell and an extra reagent with next to no risk to yourself. Heck Im sure you could even convince your gm to let you take a pet rock as ppl have joked about earlier in the fourms.
If you always look for the worst that's what you will find. Try being a glass half full kinda guy and just enjoy this flexable feat or not and just don't take it if you feel it's not worth the risk.
But you really don't have to. As has been stated if you just want the "benifits" of the fimiliar then take your little cricket familiar and put him in a metal box with some fluf to cushon him and never take him from your renforced beltpouch. You now have access to an extra cantrip and a focus point. Take the extra feat and alchemest dedication after lvl 5 and now you get an extra 1st lvl spell and an extra reagent with next to no risk to yourself. Heck Im sure you could even convince your gm to let you take a pet rock as ppl have joked about earlier in the fourms.
If you always look for the worst that's what you will find. Try being a glass half full kinda guy and just enjoy this flexable feat or not and just don't take it if you feel it's not worth the risk.
I was specifically talking about witch. Wich does far more for them than what you described
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Reminder that we haven't seen the final version of witch.
Playing a witch is also a choice you could just as easily play a sorcerer or druid or cleric and skin her as a witch if that's what you want and not worry about pesky pets.
Or maybe, and this is a real shocker, I know, maybe. JUST MAYBE. I don't want to play a sorcerer, druid, or cleric.
Maybe I want to be a crazy old bat who makes potions in a cauldron and offers people free cookies. They definitely aren't poisonous. I swear. Or made out of people.
Probably.
Maybe I like the hex mechanic (ok, I like PF1's take on it, not PF2's). Maybe I like the dubious morality built into the class's features, cursing my foes, offering the paladin stat cookies, and being a little...off.
I don't get that from a sorcerer or a druid or a cleric. The closest approximation would be a bard. But even a bard doesn't fit.
Its a concept known as Boffo. People expect a witch to behave a certain way (and a cleric another and a druid another and a sorcerer another). You can twist that expectation, but only so far. If an X doesn't behave like an X, its no longer strong/powerful/useful.
Reminder that we haven't seen the final version of witch.
Yes I did already mention that.
Reminder that we haven't seen the final version of witch.
Oh I know. But in the absence of the final version all we have is all we have. And what we have is a class that is required to take a familiar. It isn't a feat, its a feature: required and baked in.
And I've seen no indication that that won't change.
I have no issue with it being baked in. What I have issue with is how bloody useless they are. The playtest document even notes that there aren't that many familiar/master abilities and that the APG will add more, but that doesn't really solve the underlying problem.
And that underlying problem is that they can't survive.
"Don't use it that way, then!" you shout, to which I reply, "then why does spell delivery exist?"
Well, there was talk specifically about offering things like a book familiar, or a totem familiar, which would give people a built-in way to not *really* have a familiar.
There are also going to be class archetypes in the future, which could easily remove the familiar.
|
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
The Witch Familiar isn't useless, it's literally their "Spellbook" and saying that they can't survive is 100% up to player agency since there are countless things a PC can actively do to protect their Familiar.
The more this thread goes on, the more I suspect that this is an issue relating to risk aversion.
They already have more HP than a Spellbook after the first few levels (And also get to roll Saves to prevent death), can be directed to stay out of danger, can be replaced for free (Unlike a Spellbook which you'd have to pay 100% of the cost to recoup the contained Spells), and also has Damage Avoidance that can be taken that is akin to the Evasion of yore but you can choose any type of Save. They're more durable than most any almost any other physical objects that a Character relies upon.
Also, the Spell Delivery feature doesn't only exist for you to cast Touch Range spells on enemies, it's also great for beneficial effects like Restoration, Mending, Lock, Disrupting Weapons, Invisibility and dozens of other effects at a range of 25-40 feet. That is some truly incredible utility with near-limitless ways it can play out but you seem to be casting it in the light that its only function should be to cast offensive spells when that perspective is ignoring the vast majority of the useful functions of Spell Delivery.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The Witch Familiar isn't useless, it's literally their "Spellbook" and saying that they can't survive is 100% up to player agency since there are countless things a PC can actively do to protect their Familiar.
The more this thread goes on, the more I suspect that this is an issue relating to risk aversion.
They already have more HP than a Spellbook after the first few levels (And also get to roll Saves to prevent death), can be directed to stay out of danger, can be replaced for free (Unlike a Spellbook which you'd have to pay 100% of the cost to recoup the contained Spells), and also has Damage Avoidance that can be taken that is akin to the Evasion of yore but you can choose any type of Save. They're more durable than most any almost any other physical objects that a Character relies upon.
Also, the Spell Delivery feature doesn't only exist for you to cast Touch Range spells on enemies, it's also great for beneficial effects like Restoration, Mending, Lock, Disrupting Weapons, Invisibility and dozens of other effects at a range of 25-40 feet. That is some truly incredible utility with near-limitless ways it can play out but you seem to be casting it in the light that its only function should be to cast offensive spells when that perspective is ignoring the vast majority of the useful functions of Spell Delivery.
1- the related discussion to witch familiar was that it was so important that to risk it's demise by having to do anything is folly.
2- as for your player agency argument. That's silly. Of course they won't actively try to get it killed. It's just many of it's features combined with the very aspect of the familiar itself means in doing many of it's possible activities you risk losing your spell book for a week.
No manner the precaution you take unless you keep it well away from harm at all times you risk losing your spells. So it's best to just not use any of those features
Playing a witch is also a choice you could just as easily play a sorcerer or druid or cleric and skin her as a witch if that's what you want and not worry about pesky pets.Or maybe, and this is a real shocker, I know, maybe. JUST MAYBE. I don't want to play a sorcerer, druid, or cleric.
Maybe I want to be a crazy old bat who makes potions in a cauldron and offers people free cookies. They definitely aren't poisonous. I swear. Or made out of people.
Probably.
Maybe I like the hex mechanic (ok, I like PF1's take on it, not PF2's). Maybe I like the dubious morality built into the class's features, cursing my foes, offering the paladin stat cookies, and being a little...off.
I don't get that from a sorcerer or a druid or a cleric. The closest approximation would be a bard. But even a bard doesn't fit.
Its a concept known as Boffo. People expect a witch to behave a certain way (and a cleric another and a druid another and a sorcerer another). You can twist that expectation, but only so far. If an X doesn't behave like an X, its no longer strong/powerful/useful.
Agreed, which is to say that we shouldn't have a Witch class, after all the most prominent example of a Witch in Media ever, the greatest shaper of our expectations for that word, comes from a setting where Witch is just the feminine of Wizard... or in other words, how far can you twist a Witch from this before it no longer behaves like a Witch?
/s obviously, my point is that the Boffo concept is less helpful here because the notion of a Witch isn't very distinct from Wizards/Sorcerers/Druids/Clerics in popular culture or in other words.
Tris Merigold is called a sorcerer but would also fit people's description of a Witch in a practical sense.
Hermione Granger would indeed be a wizard, or all the wizards in her setting would be witches.
The Red Witch from Game of Thrones is unquestionably a cleric.
Your conceptualization from a Witch would be is far from universal, and Pathfinder 1e hardly qualifies as a source of iconic witchery.
They're more durable than most any almost any other physical objects that a Character relies upon.
One thing you're missing though is that, as creatures rather than objects, they can get hit incidentally much more easily.
They're more durable than most any almost any other physical objects that a Character relies upon.One thing you're missing though is that, as creatures rather than objects, they can get hit incidentally much more easily.
And fireballs (and many, many, many other spells and effects) don't Target Objects. There are maybe a dozen ways to damage objects and almost universally they are single-target.
And fireballs (and many, many, many other spells and effects) don't Target Objects. There are maybe a dozen ways to damage objects and almost universally they are single-target.
Yeah, that's generally my point. There are very few ways to damage an attended object and the few ways I can think of all involve directly targeting the object.
Effectively, a GM can go out of their way to destroy a spellbook, but a familiar can take damage and potentially die just by being in the vicinity.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
But you can protect your familiar as easily as your spellbook can you not? Even if for some reason it's not safely on your person in your pack or other safe haven it can be told to go somewhere and hide or come back to you or whatever. If your spellbook is in your pack and your pack for some reason gets taken from you your spellbook can't escape anc come back on it's own... a familiar might and likely would. They have stealth and could be easily overlooked.
But you can protect your familiar as easily as your spellbook can you not?
Not if you're using Spell Delivery. One of the bonuses you can have for having a familiar.
it can be told to go somewhere and hide or come back to you or whatever.
That takes an action and your familiar only gets two actions as a result. Two actions may not be enough.
If your spellbook is in your pack and your pack for some reason gets taken from you your spellbook can't escape anc come back on it's own... a familiar might and likely would.
Questionable assumption at best. "Familiars have the 'Minion' trait, which means that in order for them to act you need to spend an Action to command them."
They have stealth and could be easily overlooked.
Stealth is not as powerful in PF2 as you think it is. Solo-on-solo a Stealth character has about a 50% chance of being observed by a randomly chosen Moderate challenge monster (i.e. against the average perception score of all credible threats). This is definitely not high enough to warrant the phrase "easily overlooked."
Oh, and it doesn't actually get the +2 from being Trained. Its treated as untrained, but still gets the full Level part of proficiency.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
If a minion is not given any commands for I think it's a minute it acts on it's own with it's own intelligence/instincts to defend itself or flee.
AS for Stealth it gets spellcasters lvl plus caster ability mod so 4+lvl most cases that's a good stealth score. Also if a guard sees a cat or a bird he is not gonna immediately cry "familiar" and go kill it.
Playing a witch is also a choice you could just as easily play a sorcerer or druid or cleric and skin her as a witch if that's what you want and not worry about pesky pets.Or maybe, and this is a real shocker, I know, maybe. JUST MAYBE. I don't want to play a sorcerer, druid, or cleric.
Maybe I want to be a crazy old bat who makes potions in a cauldron and offers people free cookies. They definitely aren't poisonous. I swear. Or made out of people.
Probably.
Maybe I like the hex mechanic (ok, I like PF1's take on it, not PF2's). Maybe I like the dubious morality built into the class's features, cursing my foes, offering the paladin stat cookies, and being a little...off.
I don't get that from a sorcerer or a druid or a cleric. The closest approximation would be a bard. But even a bard doesn't fit.
Its a concept known as Boffo. People expect a witch to behave a certain way (and a cleric another and a druid another and a sorcerer another). You can twist that expectation, but only so far. If an X doesn't behave like an X, its no longer strong/powerful/useful.
Well in the end if a familiar is part and parcel to being a witch then you will ether have to suck it up and use a familiar or play something else and aside from the "Hex" mechanic which I have no clue about everything you just described can be done by another class without a familiar.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
2nd Edition has more or less killed the concept of RAW.To be fair, RAW's never really been a thing outside CharOp forums anyways.
Yeah, but we are the kind of people invested enough that we routinely post on the game's forum. Demographically, I think we skew towards the LN of rule lawyers.
That, and RAW provides a baseline for discussion, since everyone can say "Well, we don't do that at OUR table". While the 'GM decides' rule is a useful restatement of the status quo of table top games, it doesn't change the dynamics of these forums much.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
But you can protect your familiar as easily as your spellbook can you not?
No, not really. There's nothing really in the rules that particularly provide for the ability to protect your familiar at all, outside spending actions to order it to move away and hide.
That's probably your best bet, but it's not really a great look for the rules when you're best off just ordering your familiar to hide behind a rock 50 feet away every time enemies show up.
Admittedly, in practice what ends up happening a lot is that the GM forgets the familiar is there and the players kinda just don't say anything if a fireball goes off in its face, but "just lie to the GM and hope they don't notice" isn't really a glowing endorsement for the rules as they are either.
Actually the same rules that protect your spellbook protect your familiar as long as it is in your pack or in a carry case. Take it out for any reason and it is in danger though.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Actually the same rules that protect your spellbook protect your familiar as long as it is in your pack or in a carry case. Take it out for any reason and it is in danger though.
Except for the fact that, you know, Fireball doesn't effect objects.
Exactly...
So if my character is in a giant sack, at I protected from fireball as well?
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
So this thread is getting a bit long in the tooth so I'm gonna try to do a summary of what we have covered so far.
Is a Familiar worth it?
Cost: a first lvl feat/Class feature/Racial Feat
Pros:
A cute RP sidekick.
An extencion of the character's reach/presence.
Bonus abilitys dependint on choices you make every day (many of which are easily worth a feat themselves).
Expandable with a 2nd lvl class feat or continued Class feature support.
Cons:
Relatively fragile and could be easily killed requiring the player a week to get another wile being deprived of above Pros.
Some animal/creature templates for Familiar take up all your "power" options leaving you with a mobile, perceptive, flying familiar that gives only the first 2 "Pros" unless you invest deeply into class features/extra feat.
Not as "good" as PF1 familiars.
If used with some "features" leaves them exposed.
In debate/up to the GM:
How often their fragility will come into question?
Is a familiar safe in a players pack when they are hit by an AoE?
How autonomous can they be out of combat?
Can they use/carry things?
In the end it's up to the player to decide if the Pros outweigh the cons after being informed by their GM how they will be treated in most cases.
Personally I believe they are very worth it so much that I will likely have a familiar any chance I can get one in game that fits with my character concept, but that's just me.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
If fireball doesn’t hurt the book because the backpack is blocking it then it would protect the familiar as well.
Fireball doesn't hurt the book because you can't attack attended items specifically. Whether or not it's in a bag doesn't matter: your armor and backpack don't take damage from fireballs either after all.
Creatures don't have any such protection.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
If fireball doesn’t hurt the book because the backpack is blocking it then it would protect the familiar as well.Fireball doesn't hurt the book because you can't attack attended items specifically. Whether or not it's in a bag doesn't matter: your armor and backpack don't take damage from fireballs either after all.
Creatures don't have any such protection.
But if the bag is unaffected and the items inside are unaffected ....I would guess most GM's would rule the familiar inside the object that is unaffected is also unaffected.
EG: I have a wax document seal in my backpack. I am fireballed and survive. Is the wax seal destroyed? 95% of GM's would say no it is not unless the player was informed beforehand that this was going to be a thing so they could act appropriately and maybe store it in a small waterproof bag inside a water skin of cold water.
Same goes for the Familiar I would say 95% of GM's would say it is unharmed and the 5% leftover "should" inform their players that items/creatures in their packs are not safe so they can try to make other arrangements to make them safe or not take a familiar if that's too much risk.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
Going to have to search far and wide for a GM that will let the fireball kill the familiar in a brown paper bag, but leave the bag untouched.
If you have such a GM, yeah, familiars aren't a good idea.
I'd be incredibly unsurprised if familiars were made slightly more durable, and immediately every one claiming that they're useless would start planning cheesey in-combat hijinks well in excess of 1 feat's worth of utility.
Mean GMs who have a vendetta against familiars might just be the reality that some people are going to have to live with. I'd rather Paizo didn't get in an arms race against such GMs, and turn familiars into Animal Companion Lite again.
2nd Edition has more or less killed the concept of RAW.To be fair, RAW's never really been a thing outside CharOp forums anyways.Yeah, but we are the kind of people invested enough that we routinely post on the game's forum. Demographically, I think we skew towards the LN of rule lawyers.
That, and RAW provides a baseline for discussion, since everyone can say "Well, we don't do that at OUR table". While the 'GM decides' rule is a useful restatement of the status quo of table top games, it doesn't change the dynamics of these forums much.
Lawful Good imo, but I'm a Game Master who prefers to offer my players consistency, and who wants to focus on creating and running enjoyable content for my players, rather than having to make rulings every time we try to do anything at all.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
It would be nice to see an action listed in the APG that familiars can take called “hunker down” that only works when they are sharing a space with their master, that lets them be immune to any AoE ability as long as they take no additional future actions and are not separate from their master. That would eliminate the need for any unnecessary arbitration on the side of the GM or cheese on the side of the player about when the familiar is protected and when it isn’t.
It would be nice to see an action listed in the APG that familiars can take called “hunker down” that only works when they are sharing a space with their master, that lets them be immune to any AoE ability as long as they take no additional future actions and are not separate from their master. That would eliminate the need for any unnecessary arbitration on the side of the GM or cheese on the side of the player about when the familiar is protected and when it isn’t.
That would be nice to have, definitely.
|
If fireball doesn’t hurt the book because the backpack is blocking it then it would protect the familiar as well.Fireball doesn't hurt the book because you can't attack attended items specifically. Whether or not it's in a bag doesn't matter: your armor and backpack don't take damage from fireballs either after all.
Creatures don't have any such protection.
Is the book in your backpack attended?
It just really hurts my suspension of disbelief that fireball will phase through your backpack in search of living flesh but will leave everything else untouched.