So, I know the pf2 familiars are supposed to be pretty wide open, creativity wise - just pick any tiny animal and choose the abilities you want. But there are some things that I think, in organized play, need some clarifications.
- The CRB states that if the base animal of the familiar already has a certain ability (the example states an Owl has flight), then that ability HAS to be selected. There is nothing, however, that says what abilities a particular animal has since there are almost no tiny animals in the bestiary. Some of these 'might' be common sense, but some might not - yes, an owl or other common bird obviously has flight - but does it also have darkvision? What abilities does a snake have? Does a cat have climber? Does a rat have scent? Do any animals have speeds that would require them to have the Fast movement ability?
To me, this is something that is easy enough to solve with either a simple table listing some animals, and the abilities they have, or a pfs specific ruling that says that they do not need to take the abilities of their base form. Otherwise we're open to table variation here.
- The CRB also states that a familiar uses your level when making an attack roll but with no bestiary entries, there is no information anywhere on what their attacks might consist of. Do they have an attack? What is it if they do?
|
| 7 people marked this as a favorite. |
I've been looking over Familiars since I first saw your post, and I actually think Table Variation is fine here. It's intentionally left open, and I can't honestly see any room for abuse, since your Familiar either has one or two of these abilities, or it doesn't.
Amphibious: It gains a swim Speed of 25 feet (or Speed of 25 feet if it already has a swim Speed).
Burrower: It gains a burrow Speed of 5 feet, allowing it to dig Tiny holes.
Climber: It gains a climb Speed of 25 feet.
Damage Avoidance: Choose one type of save. It takes no damage when it succeeds at that type of save; this doesn’t prevent effects other than damage.
Darkvision: It gains darkvision.
Fast Movement: Increase one of the familiar’s Speeds from 25 feet to 40 feet.
Flier: It gains a fly Speed of 25 feet.
Kinspeech: It can understand and speak with animals of the same species. To select this, your familiar must be an animal, it must have the speech ability, and you must be at least 6th level.
Lab Assistant: It can use your Quick Alchemy action. You must have Quick Alchemy, and your familiar must be in your space. This has the same cost and requirement as if you used it. It must have the manual dexterity ability to select this.
Manual Dexterity: It can use up to two of its limbs as if they were hands to use manipulate actions.
Scent: It gains scent (imprecise, 30 feet).
Speech: It understands and speaks a language you know.
The only requirement we're given guidance on is owls taking Flier. As a player, you're going to know this during character creation, because the book tells you so, so I can't see that being a problem. If you want an animal that naturally flies, then you choose Flier.
Player#1: "But, GM, my Familiar is a Kakapo. It's a flightless bird, so I gave it Climber instead of Flier."
GM: "Cool. I think Kakapos are adorable."
Player#2: "What about my Kiwi, GM? I gave it Scent instead of Flier."
GM: "Cool. Did you know kiwis lay the largest eggs in proportion to their body size of any bird?"
Player#3: "My Familiar is a Roadrunner, so is it okay if I gave it Flier and Fast Movement?"
GM: "Yep."
Player#4: "Oh, shoot, I didn't know Roadrunners could actually fly. I just gave mine Fast Movement. Is that okay?"
GM: "I guess a coyote chewed up one of its wings before you found it? That's fine. As long as you know it's not capable of flight, I'm fine with just the movement increase."
Player#5: "Can a bat have Darkvision and Flier?"
GM: "Okay if five of you are casters then figuring out your Familiars' abilities is the least of your concerns..."
Really, with pretty much every ability, you could go any which way. Any animal might have Scent, or it might not. A cat might have Climber, or it might be declawed. A parrot might have Speech, or its antisocial master might avoid teaching it that altogether. A monkey might have Manual Dexterity, but most in the real world do not (only a couple species have been observed using tools). A frog might have Amphibious, but a desert toad might not. As long as a player isn't trying to benefit from something they haven't selected, I don't see a problem.
Regarding attack rolls, I don't see any rule that tells us how much damage a Familiar can do, so currently they don't deal damage. Given the action economy of Familiars, I really don't see knife-wielding Mauler Familiars being as big a problem as they could be in PF1.
|
Indeed, I think that the wording may be a bit confusing, but the intent here (in my opinion) clearly isn't: "You MUST select flight if you want a bird!" but rather "If you want your bird to fly, you MUST select flight for it."
That is, you can't get "free" abilities by picking a familiar that can "naturally" do things, so your fish can't swim, your bird can't fly, your mole can't burrow, and your raven can't talk, unless you've chosen that ability, regardless of how Natural it would be for them to do those things.
I don't see how I'm misinterpreting the wording here.
Each day, you channel your magic into two abilities, which can be either familiar or master abilities. If your familiar is an animal that naturally has one of these abilities (for instance, an owl has a fly Speed), you must select that ability. Your familiar can’t be an animal that naturally has more familiar abilities than your daily maximum familiar abilities.
This was certainly not intended as an 'If you want it to fly you have to take flight' type of rule. The following statement showing that you cannot select an animal type that has more natural abilities than you have slots for further backs up my interpretation that this is a written requirement. Now, I'd gladly see that requirement errata'd away, but in the meantime, PFS leadership needs to chime in on how GMs are supposed to handle it.
Also, realize that this is a daily choice for familiars. @Nefreet, By your interpretation that it is all in player choice, then a player can have an owl looking familiar that one day loses its ability to fly so the wizard can have an extra spell slot, and loses its darkvision so it can swim instead. If GM's interpret this rule differently (as you and I have already done), then this is something that could easily cause conflict every gameday.
To be honest, since this paragraph is completely unchanged from the playtest to the core rulebook, my hunch is that they had intended the bestiary to have statblocks for a variety of mundane critters - the wording that 'owl has a fly speed' seems to imply that you go look at the owl, see that it has a fly speed, and that answers that question. I'm guessing page count on the bestiary meant that they ended up just removing the 'rules' for mundane critters that COULD mostly be ruled by common sense, but didn't go back and change the restrictive familiar rules to reflect that this information is not available.
|
Venture-Lieutenant, Finland—Turku
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The point here is that all familiars are equal, except for the abilities you select for it. It doesn't matter if you call your familiar an "owl with big digging claws and it has flight and borrow speed too" or "a fish that spins it's fins so fast it flies and can roll around in the ground to burrow."
For all intents and purposes, the two animals are exactly equal, despite the difference in flavor.
I admit, that the rules themselves say
"If your familiar is an animal that naturally has one of these abilities (for instance, an owl has a fly Speed), you must select that ability. Your familiar can’t be an animal that naturally has more familiar abilities than your daily maximum familiar abilities."
But familiars don't have stats anywhere. There's quite literally no reason for a GM to argue that "You can't pick an owl as your familiar and NOT give it flight!" because the player can just respond with "Okay, tell me which bird does not have flight (or any of the other natural abilities). Okay, Kiwi? Fair enough, my familiar isn't an owl that can't fly, it's just a Kiwi that looks a -lot- like an owl, can speak, and can burrow, and I've named it "owl" and will call it such. But it's still a kiwi. No difference though."
Basically, whatever you decide your familiar's original form is, is just going to be flavor you've chosen to apply to a bunch of stats.
|
|
The rule certainly looks to be curtailing players trying to find the "best" animal for a familiar and squeeze out extra abilities. E.g. I have a duck familiar and obviously ducks can fly and swim and then I'm giving it speach and extra cantrip.
Less so, "You have a burrowing owl for a familiar? Gotcha! They have to have fly, burrow, and darkvision so you can't use your familiar until you spend 7 days of downtime switching it."
|
Venture-Lieutenant, Finland—Turku
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
There's no modifier listed, so I'd say it deals the damage as said in the mutagen -> 1d4 for claw or 1d6 for bite (if lesser bestial mutagen)
EDIT: Actually, " It doesn’t have or use its own ability modifiers and can never benefit from item bonuses." So yes, 1d4 or 1d6 or whatever the source of the natural attack says.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Before this discussion I had already been toying with an idea for a caster. I never got to play the Half-orc Sorcerer I wanted to in PFS1. Had to have one eye. And this thread made me want to pick up a Familiar.
So when I found THIS over in Reddit yesterday, my concept became real ^_^
The point here is that all familiars are equal, except for the abilities you select for it. It doesn't matter if you call your familiar an "owl with big digging claws and it has flight and borrow speed too" or "a fish that spins it's fins so fast it flies and can roll around in the ground to burrow."
For all intents and purposes, the two animals are exactly equal, despite the difference in flavor.I admit, that the rules themselves say
"If your familiar is an animal that naturally has one of these abilities (for instance, an owl has a fly Speed), you must select that ability. Your familiar can’t be an animal that naturally has more familiar abilities than your daily maximum familiar abilities."
But familiars don't have stats anywhere. There's quite literally no reason for a GM to argue that "You can't pick an owl as your familiar and NOT give it flight!" because the player can just respond with "Okay, tell me which bird does not have flight (or any of the other natural abilities). Okay, Kiwi? Fair enough, my familiar isn't an owl that can't fly, it's just a Kiwi that looks a -lot- like an owl, can speak, and can burrow, and I've named it "owl" and will call it such. But it's still a kiwi. No difference though."
Basically, whatever you decide your familiar's original form is, is just going to be flavor you've chosen to apply to a bunch of stats.
"Quite literally no reason," except for the written rule that says exactly that. That is my problem with it. It is a bad rule, and should be fixed, or at least clarified.
|
|
I'll give (another) example.
That image I posted earlier shows a Familiar that's vaguely monkey-like. Let's say I give it Darkvision and Manual Dexterity, but not Climber.
GM: "You need to give your monkey the Climber ability, and drop one of the other abilities."
Me: "Why?"
GM: "Because it's a monkey, and monkeys climb."
Me: "Common misunderstanding. This is a *Goblin Monkey*, native to caves throughout Avistan. They lost their ability to climb thousands of years ago, and evolved the ability to see in the dark instead."
GM: "You don't say?"
Me: "Yep! It was featured on the documentary series 'Wild Golarion'."
GM: "...and that guy's owl over there?"
Me: "A very endangered *Goblin Owl*. They're Amphibious and have Scent. They're actually more closely related to salamanders than owls."
GM: "Alright... as long as your monkey doesn't try to climb, and his owl doesn't try to fly, let's get this scenario started."
So - yes - you can have this conversation with every single GM you bring the character to - or they can just put a clarification that removes that restrictive rule in pfs play. Why are clarified rules a bad thing for you? I ask because you seem to jump onto anyone asking for things like this.
|
|
| 8 people marked this as a favorite. |
Why are clarified rules a bad thing for you? I ask because you seem to jump onto anyone asking for things like this.
As someone who created the PFS1 Compilation of Campaign Clarifications thread that was Stickied to the top of this Forum for years, and who has had nearly a dozen FAQs over in the Rules Forum answered (including "the most-FAQed FAQ of all the FAQs that ever FAQed"), I giggled a little when I read your post.
When ambiguity causes problems and conflict, I am vocal in wanting and getting it solved.
But I am equally opposed to having intentionally open features fenced in.
I see this particular question as being the latter. If time shows that this feature becomes a loophole for abuse, then I will absolutely champion you in getting it fixed. But I'm not the only one in this thread who sees this as working as intended right now. Indeed, the freedom to change your Familiar's abilities every day seems to reinforce that notion.
(why shouldn't your magical, made-up, statblock-absent minion be adjustable to your needs?)
But there's also consideration of priorities involved in asking for clarifications. I know all too well that some questions take literally years to answer. And that's just on the Design side. Tack on the workload of Organized Play clarifications, and questions like this become more of a "how should I change my point of view?" rather than "how should this be defined?"
Plus, there is currently a very real philosophy that Organized Play should limit their number of "houserules" and leave the rules questions to the Design Team. There are numerous examples in the past of having Campaign Leadership issue a clarification on this side that ended up conflicting with clarifications on the other side.
Venture-Agent, Minnesota
|
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
In PF1, the actual statblock of your familiar ruled everything. Jasmine had a monkey, and monkeys are awesome because of hands and climbing. Parrots, ravens, and thrush song birds also worked because they could fly and TALK to everyone. This meant that almost no one took toads or chickens. For the Blues Brothers, I wanted to take a Penguin familiar -- but couldn't because penguins weighed 70 pounds and had a move speed of 10 feet. I will note that I will not have this problem in PF2!
I think the PF2 design goal here was to allow people to take whatever familiar they want and apply to it whatever two characteristics they wanted. In PF2, you make choices, and you figure out what's most important. The last thing I want is for this space to be defined, and for us not be able to work with a familiar that is thematically good for a character because its mechanics are too well defined.
Hmm
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
And now, if you know you're adventuring underwater tomorrow, you can do some magic ritual in the morning and give your parrot the ability to tag along. Going to the Plane of Air? Your toad can fly there. Hunting an Evoker? Give your snake Damage Avoidance.
Gives players the opportunity to flavor how their Familiar evolves ^_^
Why are clarified rules a bad thing for you? I ask because you seem to jump onto anyone asking for things like this.As someone who created the PFS1 Compilation of Campaign Clarifications thread that was Stickied to the top of this Forum for years, and who has had nearly a dozen FAQs over in the Rules Forum answered (including "the most-FAQed FAQ of all the FAQs that ever FAQed"), I giggled a little when I read your post.
When ambiguity causes problems and conflict, I am vocal in wanting and getting it solved.
But I am equally opposed to having intentionally open features fenced in.
I see this particular question as being the latter. If time shows that this feature becomes a loophole for abuse, then I will absolutely champion you in getting it fixed. But I'm not the only one in this thread who sees this as working as intended right now. Indeed, the freedom to change your Familiar's abilities every day seems to reinforce that notion.
(why shouldn't your magical, made-up, statblock-absent minion be adjustable to your needs?)
But there's also consideration of priorities involved in asking for clarifications. I know all too well that some questions take literally years to answer. And that's just on the Design side. Tack on the workload of Organized Play clarifications, and questions like this become more of a "how should I change my point of view?" rather than "how should this be defined?"
Plus, there is currently a very real philosophy that Organized Play should limit their number of "houserules" and leave the rules questions to the Design Team. There are numerous examples in the past of having Campaign Leadership issue a clarification on this side that ended up conflicting with clarifications on the other side.
I did not ask for anything to be 'fenced in' I asked for the dichotomy to be clarified. While that CAN be done by producing a list of familiars and what features they have by default, it could also be solved by simply striking the ambiguously restrictive rule that is the actual source of the contradiction. I stated so in my original post.
Based on James Jacobs' own comments on this matter, it seems his interpretation is that any familiar should be able to have any abilities, thereby simply ignoring the written rules. That's a fine interpretation, but it is clear that it DOES conflict with what is written in the book. It is also well known that 'JJ is not a rules guy,' so it doesn't surprise me that he doesn't see the issue. If that IS the wish of the design team, then it is an errata issue, and not one of a pfs 'houserule'. In the meantime, though, the pfs leadership, being the ones who SHOULD be interpreting the rules for pfs play, can certainly put a small note in the Character Creation section of the pfs guide to clarify this, and it takes nothing more than a sentence or two added to a webpage.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
So, again, that risks becoming another "There are numerous examples in the past of having Campaign Leadership issue a clarification on this side that ended up conflicting with clarifications on the other side".
Instead, since you've read James Jacobs's thoughts on the matter elsewhere, and read ours here, perhaps a change in how you're interpreting the wording is in order?
James is not 'interpreting' the wording in any particular way, and neither are you - you are both stating a desired outcome, in spite of the wording. I'm sorry, but there is no logical way to take the words in the book and turn them into 'you can always choose any abilities you like.' It does still need to be changed if that is what everyone wants the rules to say.
|
Venture-Captain, Online—VTT
|
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
James is not 'interpreting' the wording in any particular way, and neither are you - you are both stating a desired outcome, in spite of the wording. I'm sorry, but there is no logical way to take the words in the book and turn them into 'you can always choose any abilities you like.' It does still need to be changed if that is what everyone wants the rules to say.
If it seems like many other people, even one of the people who worked on the game, are reading something different to you then perhaps instead of insisting that everyone else is illogical and can't read the rules properly and only you can understand their logic... a step back might be in order.
It might be worth considering that others, who have in many cases a lot of experience in reading rules and rpg's that very probably equals yours, are taking away something different from the words means it's less clear than you would like to think. Simple consideration of that point rather than insisting only you can understand the rules could possibly be of benefit.
|
|
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
Yes. You are correct. If you select barred owl as your familiar, then your familiar must take flight. However, if you select Storval Flightless Owl, then, no it doesn't need to take flight.
But I've never heard of a Storval Flightless Owl!
They're a rare breed of burrowing owl found on the Storval Stairs.
Oh! Then it has to take burrow.
No, they're called that because they dig out holes in the ground for nests not because they have a burrow speed.
...you see where I'm going here or no?
If Paizo defines a list of animals that can be familiars, then those are the only animals you'll be able to choose in PFS. You may need to wait 5 years for a penguin to be added to that list, and that will make HMM sad. Or whatever random, weird animal that you think would be cool to have as a familiar for how you envision your character, if it isn't on "the list" then you can't have it (in PFS).
|
|
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Someone quoted this over in the Rules Forum, and I just about cried:
Ambiguous Rules
Sometimes a rule could be interpreted multiple ways. If one version is too good to be true, it probably is. If a rule seems to have wording with problematic repercussions or doesn’t work as intended, work with your group to find a good solution, rather than just playing with the rule as printed.
So relevant in so many of these discussions.
