If your character has a familiar, the Master's Spell Delivery ability reads:
If your familiar is in your space, you can cast a spell with a range of touch, transfer its power to your familiar, and command the familiar to deliver the spell. If you do, the familiar uses its 2 actions for the round to move to a target of your choice and touch that target. If it doesn’t reach the target to touch it this turn, the spell has no effect.
The rules for familiars state:
Familiars have the minion trait, so during an encounter, they gain 2 actions in a round if you spend an action to command them.
Does this mean your familiar uses 2 actions this way:
Action 1. Moves up to its speedAction 2. Touches the enemy
Or does the familiar use 1 action to Stride to the enemy, delivers the spell for free, and uses its 2nd action to Stride back to your side?
The text seems to say that delivering the spell is one of the 2 actions. This leaves the familiar standing next to the enemy at the end of your turn. And Minions by definition cannot have more than 2 actions in a turn.
This seems awfully dangerous, especially for witches whose spellbook is their familiar. At Level 1, a wizard with Dexterity 14 and Constitution of 12 might have an AC of 15 and 15 hit points. Their familiar, meanwhile, has the wizard's AC (less if the wizard cast mage armor), but it has only 5 hit points. This means it DIES if it takes 10 damage, which is very likely. That means the master must now go 1 week without a familiar...
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Yes. Don't do this.
Using Reach Spell is far more wise.
I wouldn't even send a buff this way, since I seldom want familiars to be on their own, other than perhaps to seek shelter.
Also you're assuming the familiar, an NPC, obeys PC dying rules.
Check w/ GM for clarification. They may rule familiars die at 0 h.p.
I'd avoid getting a familiar; too many effects in PF2 that would include it, including more AoEs (including by brute monsters) or "attack everything in reach" abilities. Sure they're often safe, but in tougher battles they aren't, and that's when your PC likely can't afford the actions to rescue them.
This seems awfully dangerous, especially for witches whose spellbook is their familiar.
We now know that paizo saw the light and removed the overly punishing aspects of a familiar dying for witches (thank god). However it may be true they did nothing about the week without it element.
Personally I wouldn't use familiars in combat as is, while they certainly have enough health to stick it out for a round it isn't worth it currently. This may change with the extra familiar options we are getting though.
I don't agree with other people saying that familiars are bad though, especially out of combat they can be great tools and in combat it is essentially a one action access to most of your backpack or single action potion/elixir use (including to adjacent allies). Something that has proven to be extremely valuable to the players in my game.
Well, my suspicion is confirmed. I'm not happy that this is the state of things though. I would think they'd at least allow us to use a 3rd action to have the familiar come back to the caster...?
Well, my suspicion is confirmed. I'm not happy that this is the state of things though. I would think they'd at least allow us to use a 3rd action to have the familiar come back to the caster...?
"the familiar uses its 2 actions for the round"
Nope, it uses its minion actions for the round.As for folks saying just use reach spell. Keep in mind that spell delivery doesn't cost extra actions and can be used on spells that take three actions (like those modified by metamagic).
Not to say reach spell isn't usually a better choice if your plan is to repeatedly extend the reach of spells (but familiar feat spends aren't only about that)
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
To be fair, attacking with familiars has never been a particularly great option in the past either, so I don't see this version as really being all that much worse. 5e has made the penalty of losing the familiar less of an issue, but historically, it was rarely a great idea to use the familiar to attack.