So, this conversation has come up in my group in two campaigns now, and we understand the RAW of it, but we are considering stepping outside the RAW and homebrewing a solution. Balance is our concern here primarily.
Throughout the beastiary are a number of creatures that are mentioned as serving as familiars that are not eligible to be familiars such as the Homunculus, Imp, and Quasit. Historically there have been ways to do this, but in PF2 there isn't. To my group it makes sense that these and other options should be possible, but we are concerned about implementing it in a way that doesn't break the game. It should be noted, none of us are "power gamers", the reasons we want to do this aren't as much a matter of maximizing mechanical benefit, as much as wanting to enjoy the RP while presenting the option in a way that is realistic to the setting, and functional.
The example I will use is the Homunculus. We have considered the following as a means of creating it. Taking the familiar,improved familiar, crafting, specialty crafting (constructs), and using the ritual Animate Object and it's rules for minions usage as a means of creating the creature when the caster is around levels 4-6.
We generally agree that is a good way to manage it's creation, but in regards to the actual creatures statblock, what we use from familiar, what from the homunculus beastiary entry. How to build it in a way that blends the benefits/drawbacks of both, making a functional, balanced option.
Feel free to speak specifically to the homunculus, but please keep in mind we are trying to develop a guideline that can translate to other creatures as well.
Thank you for your time, and advice.
|
Strangely enough all of the Feats that grant Familiars actually have slightly different wording, for good or ill.
Example: Alchemist and Wizard both have Familiar Features that indicate "Creature" while the Sorcerer is actually the only Class that specifies that the Familiar WAS an Animal beforehand and the Gnome Ancestry Feat also indicates the Familiar was created from an Animal.
Due to how the Familiar rules are written each individual ability that grants the Familiar guides what can be selected. The example given states the Druid Leshy but the wording is actually far more permissive for some classes than that.
Additionally, Familiars of ALL types actually lack the Traits and Subtypes that define them as Animals or Plants. The only real traits it is given are Tiny for size and Minion. The same actually applies for Animal Companions too as they are never explicitly given the Animal Subtype, they're something different and essentially undefined. Any effect that would target Animals/Plants only would undeniably fail when targeting an Animal Companion or Familiar with these creatue "bases" by RAW since no rules actually provide the AC or Familiar with the Traits.
So, what this means is that you can freely choose ANY creature form you like, it's all going to use the exact same rules as the other Familiars, that is unless you're gaining it from the Sorcerer Class or Gnome Ancestry in which case the "base" familiar needs to be formed from a real Animal and similarly the Druid Familiar "base" is that of a Plant.
All this to say, the Familiar is NOT an animal in its final form anyhow and only three sources that I'm aware of actually explicitly state "Animal/Plant" instead of "Creature." If you have this granted by anything other than Druid, Sorcerer, or Animal Accomplice you are ACTUALLY granted the ability to "flavor" your Familiar to be ANY type of "creature" that you like as long as it's an actual "Creature."
The RAW limitations that are actually in effect as follows:
Gnome Ancestry Feat: Must "start" as an Animal
Sorcerer Feat: Must "start" as an Animal
Druid: Must "start" as a Plant
Alchemist: Can be any Creature
Wizard: Can be any Creature
This means if you want to make a Wizard or Alchemist with a Sprite, Grig, Arbiter, Cassian, Lyrakien, Bloodseeker (Though this should be available to everyone but the Druid since it starts as an Animal), Cacodaemon, Quasit, Imp, Faerie Dragon, or Soulbound Doll as their Familiar, that's totally 100% legit, they won't have special features other than those defined by their mode of movement but you can totally do it for thematic purposes without bumping into any problems with the RAW.
|
|
This is, unfortunately not true RAW. The general rules on familiars in the CRB specifically call out that you pick a tiny animal, unless the feat you take specifies otherwise (with the druid's leshy familiar as an example, note that the text of leshy familiar explicitly calls out that you get a plant instead of an animal).
Personally, I DO think it is true by RAW, each Familiar Feat is written differently and uses different wording in terms of what you're granted. While the Archives of Nethys has chosen to create only 1 Familiar Feat for Sorcerer and Wizard the two Feats are actually NOT the same and doing so was an error, go check the book itself.
The Wizard and Alchemist Feats EXPLICITLY states "Creature" which is distinct from "Animal," therefore, text indicating that you CAN choose something other than an "Animal" just like how the Druid specifies Plant. When they print the word "Creature" it means ANY Creature since the term Creature is a hard-coded term of the system that is completely different than "Animal." When it states Creature instead of Animal that indicates that the Familiar granted by that source is different and allowed as indicated by the general Familiar rules, as it says, some "are different," sure it gives the starkest example being the Druid Leshy but that isn't the only instance where there are differences.
Wording that is more permissive than the "general rule" is still an exception to the rule.
If they intended to really always limit it to Animals they would likely have simply continued to use the "Animal" wording that exists for Gnomes and Sorcerers. Some features that grant this offer more latitude with your creativity while others provide less freedom.
All that being said, it is quite honestly going to be 100% "flavor" anyhow since no Traits are being passed on from the Familiar source anyhow.
We have used the RAW familiar abilities and just "skinned" the familiar as a homunculus in one instance, but we were looking for something that felt more real to us.
So, this is the homebrew rule setup we are considering, although there are definitely a few balance issues to consider. For the example included, Immunities looks iffy.
https://docs.google.com/document/d/15Cr0u9eokho0WgCueiuLGrbgCM_9JVAMpAR-GLT 8W74/edit?usp=sharing
Thanks for the feedback, I would love to see Paizo comment on this. What their intent is with familiars, and whether or not they are considering expanding that in the future in PF2 (nudge nudge Paizo, wink wink :D)
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Additionally, Familiars of ALL types actually lack the Traits and Subtypes that define them as Animals or Plants. The only real traits it is given are Tiny for size and Minion. The same actually applies for Animal Companions too as they are never explicitly given the Animal Subtype, they're something different and essentially undefined. Any effect that would target Animals/Plants only would undeniably fail when targeting an Animal Companion or Familiar with these creatue "bases" by RAW since no rules actually provide the AC or Familiar with the Traits.
I'm quite certain that Animal Companions are Animals. The method used to control them is the Command an Animal action, which only works on Animals.
Animal Companions specifically have different HP, AC, Skills, Strikes, etc..., but nothing says they lose the Animal Trait.
A player of mine took up a Nosoi as a familiar (story reasons). I told her it always had to have Flight and Darkvision, and that was it... While there's been instances of the Nosoi using their psychopomp abilities, they don't normally do that unless they're "supposed to".
I'd imagine a Quasit would act similarly.
@Ediwir, how did you justify the familiar using psychopomp abilities, mechanically speaking? or did you just allow it on occasion as a GM to support the story.
|
|
Animal Companions specifically have different HP, AC, Skills, Strikes, etc..., but nothing says they lose the Animal Trait.
Strictly speaking, that's not true at all. Look at Fall of Plaguestone, find the Fiery Leopard Companion and then compare it to the Cat entry in the CRB. Neither of these include the Animal Trait which is the absolute defining factor in determining what Subtype a Creature has.
The reason Command an Animal works on them is because there are rules stating that is how you control them, nothing more.
Perhaps this was an oversight but mechanically speaking Animal Companions do have the Animal Trait or Subtype in ANY printed material despite the seeming intent. The companions themselves do not "inherit" anything prior to them becoming a companion at all, they only have precisely what their statblock indicates they have.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Animal Companions specifically have different HP, AC, Skills, Strikes, etc..., but nothing says they lose the Animal Trait.Strictly speaking, that's not true at all. Look at Fall of Plaguestone, find the Fiery Leopard Companion and then compare it to the Cat entry in the CRB. Neither of these include the Animal Trait which is the absolute defining factor in determining what Subtype a Creature has.
The reason Command an Animal works on them is because there are rules stating that is how you control them, nothing more.
Perhaps this was an oversight but mechanically speaking Animal Companions do have the Animal Trait or Subtype in ANY printed material despite the seeming intent. The companions themselves do not "inherit" anything prior to them becoming a companion at all, they only have precisely what their statblock indicates they have.
I'm apparently not understanding what you are saying. Both the Fiery Leopard and all Cats listed in the Bestiary have the Animal Trait. Nothing in either entry says it stops being an Animal. The Fiery Leopard also doesn't suddenly shrink to Small, because that's ridiculous. It's a Unique creature that the Adventure provides as a reward.
There's no magic involved in an Animal Companion. It's just a well trained Animal that is your friend, and gets mechanical benefits to prevent it from being the waste of space that a Bonded Animal is.
|
|
The Fiery Leopard absolutely shrinks to Small Size if you make it your companion... it explicitly tells you what modifications to apply to the base Cat (which is Small Siz) and none of those indicate the Size should be anything other than the base Small Size of the Cat Animal Companion statblock that is referenced even by the page number. Sure it's a bit meta but I can tell you authoritatively that ALL base animal companions are going to start off as Small with the exception of Horses and Camels and they are only larger so as to accommodate Character who Ride their Companions.
My point is that the Familiars, like the Animal Companions, have the stats that are provided for them in the CRB, none of which includes the Animal Trait. While it's a VERY easy assumption to make that they should be treated as Animals, there are is actual rules support for them actually qualifying as "Animals" in any way that would let them interact with rules that target or affect them. The book doesn't mechanically define them as Animals and so they are simply just "Creatures" with no subtype at all. The Rules DO go out of the way to apply the Minion Trait to Animal Companions and Familiars but beyond this, the only other Trait they would have is the one conferred to them by their Size. There is a section right there where they could have included the "Animal" trait but those rules to grant that Trait are missing.
Just like Familiars, Animal Companions are entirely 100% defined by the stats and other definitions laid out in the book where they're printed and if something is NOT present that is, in fact, evidence that they do NOT have the thing which is missing just like how Familiars don't have actual Ability Scores and how Animal Companions ALSO don't have Ability Scores, they simply have "Base Ability Modifiers" so instead of having 14 Strength, they simply have +2 Abi Score mod, their Strenth score itself doesn't exist. There the same amount of evidence in print to state that Familiars and Animal Companions have the Animal Trait as there is that they gain the Dragon, Construct, Human, Dwarf, and Elf Traits - Zero.
Also, you seem to be assuming that there is some requirement for a Character to actively go out and find an ACTUAL Animal to convert into an Animal Companion but that is not the case. The rules indicate that after a week of downtime you simply replace the last one you had, no fussing with finding a Dromaeosaur. There is no mechanical process by which a Character finds a creature as an NPC with its own traits and convert it to an Animal Companion, they simply just appear out of thin air- that's literally how it works, you don't even need to leave your home to do so, you just spend the weeks worth of downtime by stating you're doing as such and NOT perform any other downtime activities.
Now, that being said I personally think that the fact that Animal Companions lack the Animal Trait is likely an oversight based on assumption and it actually has a number of pretty big drawbacks such as being invalid targets for the Heal Animal Focus Spell. The word was mentioned dozens of times over the four pages that define them so I can understand that this is SURELY RAI and I personally always treat them as having it and suggest others do as well but for the Rules lawyers and programmers out there it's VERY clear based on everything else in the system that by RAW if the book doesn't say that X gets Y, then X does NOT get Y which is where this whole thing lands.
3 points here:
1: if your fiery leopard is gained and you have NOT taken Mature Animal Companion Yet, it would be a small fiery leopard.
2: Animal Companions are animals. Besides the fact that they are called animals throughout, and in the stat block they are give no types whatsoever, even the minion type isn't shown thought its referred to in the description. You use command an animal on it (which only effects animals) with the only difference being that it only costs one action to do so.
3: My OP was a question about FAMILIARS, not animal companions, and while I am also interested in that discussion I would appreciate if this thread could stay on topic please.
Thank you.
@Ediwir, how did you justify the familiar using psychopomp abilities, mechanically speaking? or did you just allow it on occasion as a GM to support the story.
Familiars are still independent creatures. They help the character, but up to a point.
Mechanically, the Nosoi could use psychopomp abilities because they were a Nosoi.They just didn't do so at the player's behest, because "that is not how things are meant". When that is meant to be happening is entirely up to their interpretation of Pharasma's will, and... they've got a history of being particularly cryptic about that. And fairly creepy at times, too, which discouraged deeper inquiry.
Basically, the abilities are still there, mechanically. What the player has access to and can control or demand is determined by the familiar entry. Yes, they can still speak Requian, they can still sense life, they can still crumble undeads with their claws. They'll do it if they intend to (and tbh if undeads do show up they absolutely will). Doesn't mean the player has access to that as a free side help.
Most common thing so far has been shapeshifting so that the player can go "undercover" with an anonymous little sparrow. That was fine. No biggie. It simply costed her one day of downtime spent bringing homage to the graves of those without family (and a cryptic reference to the fact that she will not be buried among them).
I see how your doing it, seems like a simple and effective method to run. Thanks for the input!
Just by the art on the suggested build in the CRB we know that an alchemist can have a homunculus as a familiar. So for Quasits and Imps and such for a wizard I would say they are for sure an option but as a GM I would only allow them under the right circumstances for instance allowing a Pseudodragon or Imp for a wizard who studied at the Academy in Korvosa. That said for game mechanics they don't have any special abilities different from a normal familiar.
I've been trying to work on a Class feat for Sorc/Wiz/Witch that allows you to trade a certain number of Familiar Abilities for transforming your familiar into a Common, Tiny creature up to level 1. The question is of course what exactly you'd keep of the base Familiar features and how many of the Familiar Abilities you'd give up for that.
First draft of it has you giving up two Familiar Abilities to turn the Familiar into a level 0 Tiny creature and 3 to turn it into a level 1 Tiny creature.
They use the Spell DC of the caster for any ability that uses a DC (such as the Nosoi's Haunting Melody). And it's HP uses the HP of the creature in question as base level 0 HP (Like how you get extra HP from being a Human or Dwarf or whatever), it also adds it's Con Modifier (which it now has as it is a full creature) to it's HP per level.
So using the Nosoi again, at level 1 it has 18 HP. This would come out to 12 base HP, 5 from being level 1, and 1 from the Con mod. Then every level after 1 it adds 6 more HP.
So far, I feel like it's more or less balanced. There'd also be an Alchemist one that allows their Familiar to be a Bestiary Hormunculus, and it would function in the same way, but would only allow the Hormunculus and so maybe it would cost less abilities? I'm not sure yet.