I'm sure a lot of people here remember those times in 1st edition when you could handle your familiar with manual dexterity a wand and it could cast a spell from it. I started digging into how to replicate this in pathfinder 2nd ED and I think I found something.
The Spellcasting Familiar Ability says that "Your familiar can Cast that Spell once per day using your magical tradition, spell attack modifier, and spell DC" Note that the Cast that Spell has capital letters, as if referencing the Cast a Spell activity. If that is the case and your familiar can use the Cast a Spell action it also means that spell has either to count as a prepared spell or a repertoire as the first phrase in the Cast a Spell action is "You cast a spell you have prepared or in your repertoire"
Note that the text from Spellcasting not calling the spell an innate spell supports this a little bit.
I would love to here what you people think about this. It would be awesome if someone at Paizo could clarify this at some point honestly. Familiars using wands was a fun concept in 1st edition and I would love to see more of it.
It is my first time using this forum so I don't know if it goes against the rules linking where to look at the wording of the things I mentioned. Would also love if someone could tell me about this too.
If you scroll down the page you'll see a "How to format your text" spoiler that shows how to post hyperlinks.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
It's arguably a no on the wand use as wands don't have the companion trait. Also depending to what extent a familiar counts as an animal there's the issue of "an animal can never Activate an Item".
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I'm with Decimus Drake, that's a no because they are prohibited from "Activating" any Magic Item that doesn't have the Companion Trait barring case-by-case GM approval meaning that in a RAW sense this is a no go.
This is also a "problem" for the general Meta whereby people want to have their Familiars deliver Potions as well, meaning that you cannot ever rely on this tactic in PFS since Potions also require "Activation" to be used.
I'm with Decimus Drake, that's a no because they are prohibited from "Activating" any Magic Item that doesn't have the Companion Trait barring case-by-case GM approval meaning that in a RAW sense this is a no go.
This is also a "problem" for the general Meta whereby people want to have their Familiars deliver Potions as well, meaning that you cannot ever rely on this tactic in PFS since Potions also require "Activation" to be used.
Don't think the potion thing goes against the rules.
Manual dexterity gives access to interact actions and the rules of manual dexterity are more specific than the rules of magic items.
Also potions and elixirs are not the same thing, and most people are using this strategy with alchemists.
About the activation thing, only companions cannot use other items and regardless of what your DM decides, an animal cannot activate an item. As long as I now an Imp is neither an animal nor a companion.
It's arguably a no on the wand use as wands don't have the companion trait. Also depending to what extent a familiar counts as an animal there's the issue of "an animal can never Activate an Item".
Normally these are the only items a companion can use.
Companions, not familiars. Just earlier the text mention both but not there.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Don't forget that a familiar's carrying capacity and STR score remain undefined, until such time as a future book or errata define them.
Personally, I'm fine with a familiar (with manual dexterity) carrying a single item of light bulk. It seems consistent with the spirit of the rules.
But by the RAW it is unclear whether they can even carry that wand or potion. Ask your DM how he wants to rule it. And I suspect you will find little joy for this tactic in PFS.
But by the RAW it is unclear whether they can even carry that wand or potion. Ask your DM how he wants to rule it. And I suspect you will find little joy for this tactic in PFS.
RAI it is pretty obvious they can, or the vallet familiar ability wouldn't exist.
But by the RAW it is unclear whether they can even carry that wand or potion. Ask your DM how he wants to rule it. And I suspect you will find little joy for this tactic in PFS.RAI it is pretty obvious they can, or the vallet familiar ability wouldn't exist.
"Carry" might not be the right word. Wield, use, ect might be better. My comments are going to be made assuming Wheldrake meant those vs carry.
A familiar could manipulate negligible items just fine even if they couldn't use L items. That'd mean they could use chalk, oil, a candle, mirror, Wax Key Blank, Spyglass, Signal Whistle, ect. So I'm not sure how it's RAI that they MUST be able to hold/use a specific bulk amount because of valet: Being able to drag something into your hand isn't the same thing as being able to hold/use/wield it in your own 'hands'. I've seen a dog bring someone a beer but that doesn't mean I should think it can unscrew the cap: just because a familiar can bring an item to you doesn't mean it can use it like you can.
Also note that valet isn't a universal ability: it can ONLY put items in the characters hand ["place it into one of your free hands"]. A familiar is physically unable to put an item in someone else's hands with it so it's something special tied to you. This makes it a bit muddied about what it means when it's not directly related to the specific ability of getting you items. It could be as much the masters ability to put their hands in the right place as it is the familiars to move the object to the hand.
To throw a wrench into things, look at Toolbearer: "Your familiar can carry a set of tools of up to light Bulk". This makes it sound like you couldn't do that without the feat as it could say 'when your familiar carries a set of tools of up to light bulk'.
I think that it's safe to assume that a familiar (which has the form of a tiny animal) can indeed carry as much weight as a tiny animal.
How much that is? up to the GM, but i think that 1L to 1 bulk is a fair assumption for min and max.
Tiny creatures treat negligible items as Light items and have 1/2 their normal bulk carry.
so 5 +/- str divided by 2. A familiar had no stats, so lets be generous and give it the minimum stat of 1. 5-5=0 bulk carry, so 9 L/negligible items/2 = 4 L/negligible items normal and 2 Bulk 9 L/negligible items max encumbered. And this doesn't even touch on having the ability to interact with objects do to size differences: a hummingbird with hands isn't likely to be able to open a giants door even though it can use the interact action do to weight/leverage. So it's going to fall into 'GM fiat" or 'ask you DM' unless this sees an FAQ/errata and who know when/if we'll ever see those again...
There are multiple abilities where Familiars interact with L bulk items (Toolbearer, Valet, Lab Assistant). So I think it's quite safe to assume a Familiar can carry and use such items.
i like how you say that it's generaous to give it a stat of 1.
I think that everything that moves by itself and without magic has at least a modifier of +1 though, so i'm going with that.
"It doesn’t have or use its own ability modifiers" So, yes I'm being VERY generous.
I think that everything that moves by itself and without magic has at least a modifier of +1 though, so i'm going with that.
Not sure what you mean with a +1 modifier as halflings have a -2 str so can start with a -1. If you mean 1 bulk carry, I see nothing to back that up.
There are multiple abilities where Familiars interact with L bulk items (Toolbearer, Valet, Lab Assistant). So I think it's quite safe to assume a Familiar can carry and use such items.
None of those involve using the items or holding them. Toolbearer just allows them to wear toll kits, Valet allows them to drag an item to your hand ONLY and Lab Assistant allow the use of Quick Alchemy but as Alchemical Alacrity shows, you do not have to be able to hold the items you make [it allows you to make more items than you have hands to hold them].
None of those involve using the items or holding them. Toolbearer just allows them to wear toll kits, Valet allows them to drag an item to your hand ONLY and Lab Assistant allow the use of Quick Alchemy but as Alchemical Alacrity shows, you do not have to be able to hold the items you make [it allows you to make more items than you have hands to hold them].
The game doesn't make the difference between carry and wield. There are no rules to know how much bulk a character can wield. As such, an 8 strength character can wear a full plate and use a greatsword and there's nothing preventing him to do so as he can carry these items. I tend to assume the same for a familiar: if he can carry something then he can use it (provided that he has a way to manipulate them).
Shroudb, you're generously assuming the familiar has a 10 STR (+0 mod). In fact, it has an undefined STR.
Until such time as we have errata saying what a familiar can carry or wield (assuming manual dexterity) then this whole scenario is a wash. It's up to DM discretion.
This aside from the fact that a fmailiar has none of the attributes allowing it to use a wand (a spell list, etc).
Also, just because opening a door is defined as a simple manipulate action for a human-sized creature, doesn't automatically confer the ability to open doors to a tiny familiar.
But hey, if that's the way your DM rolls, fine. But it has nothing to do with the RAW.
The game doesn't make the difference between carry and wield.
Does your horse wield it's rider... You should also look ay feats like Skillful Tail where you can interact but not hold items.
There are no rules to know how much bulk a character can wield. As such, an 8 strength character can wear a full plate and use a greatsword and there's nothing preventing him to do so as he can carry these items. I tend to assume the same for a familiar: if he can carry something then he can use it (provided that he has a way to manipulate them).
This is 'ask your DM' territory as a familiar has NO carry ability as written [no stats or stat modifiers]. I can imagine a LOT of DM are going to think twice if your rat familiar is wielding a human sized spear and shield because it's carrying it.
"opening a door" is a manipulate action without any "bulk" references. Could a character with 0 strength open it? By RAW yes.
No, not RAW. It's rules that aren't written or DM fiat. Interact: "You might have to attempt a skill check to determine if your Interact action was successful." Even if the specific Interact check doesn't mention this, it's in the Interact rules itself.
To be exact, he doesn't have or use "ability modifiers" that's different than "he doesn't have stats".
It has NO stats: full stop. It has hp because of your level, not it's own Con or it's level or ancestry. It rolls skills because YOU have them and YOU have a spellcasting ability modifier. It has saves and an AC because YOU do. As written in the game it has nothing by itself as a familiar.
am not assuming it has 10 strength, i'm saying that the RAW says that "it doesnt have or use it's ability modifiers"
Then by RAW, you can never figure out it's carry hence why said it was generous to give it the minimum and calculate it anyway. As written, 1000% up to the DM if they can carry anything at all as you can't factor in a null value. Using a null value just spits out a null value as a result...
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
-NULL- |=| 0
Assuming you can cut out the Mod is assuming it has 10 strenth which is WAY out of line. If anything they'd have less than 1 strength given that they're all based on literally harmless creatures which leaves you with a total of 0 bulk.
It doesn't work like that. These are just some of the problems that arise by ditching all Stats for Familiars but at this point it's WAY too late to fix it given that Paizo has already published the primary book where improved Familiar Rules are going to be sourced from so at the end of the day this will always come down to GM fiat no matter what.
That said, I don't think 2.5L is a bad comprimise at the end of the day but regardless there is no way to determine their actual Bulk capacity using the actual rules, it's all Rule 0 and players should always expect variation from table to table.
-NULL- |=| 0
Assuming you can cut out the Mod is assuming it has 10 strenth which is WAY out of line. If anything they'd have less than 1 strength given that they're all based on literally harmless creatures which leaves you with a total of 0 bulk.
It doesn't work like that. These are just some of the problems that arise by ditching all Stats for Familiars but at this point it's WAY too late to fix it given that Paizo has already published the primary book where improved Familiar Rules are going to be sourced from so at the end of the day this will always come down to GM fiat no matter what.
That said, I don't think 2.5L is a bad comprimise at the end of the day but regardless there is no way to determine their actual Bulk capacity using the actual rules, it's all Rule 0 and players should always expect variation from table to table.
This pretty much is my answer to shroudb's question "why can't i find the Bulk?" Myself, I don't think I'd allow a familiar to carry a full bulk myself though I'd think about allowing them to drag a bulk encumbered. I'd allow full range of actions with negligible items and limited range of actions with light ones [is a rat tossing a grappling hook as well as a human or a snake carrying around a Lantern (Hooded) that's bigger then it is?].
|
Mathematical Null and SQL Null are wholly different things.
A null set can return values other than null where SQL can’t. Since Pathfinder doesn’t run on SQL, I don’t think we should use it’s logic as given.
That said, Pathfinder also doesn’t concern itself with either set theory nor mathematical analysis.
I’d say it’s best to avoid rulings that would require most people to grab a text book learn.
________________
2.5 seems fair.
remove the mod
You CAN'T remove the mod: that's the point. RAW is carry is modified by the mod which means in this case it's modified by an unknowable amount which leads to an unknowable carry. You can't just make up a modifier, in this case +0, and add it to the base and call it a day. Doing that means every familiar gets the same mod as a 10 str: that means that a familiar carries MORE than a halfling with 8 str that has Shrink cast on it and that doesn't seem right.
I have the feeling that a capuchin can carry and use a potion.
Now, can he use a grappling hook, certainly, but only for its own amusement.
why doesn't seem right that a weak halfling that had magic cast upon it that makes it further weaker (considering weight capabilities) is stronger than an average animal?
The halflings strength doesn't change by becoming tiny: a rats str also doesn't change not a familiars: a weak halfling is many times stronger than a rat and an unknowable amount stronger than a familiar.
Lets look at some tiny animals:
Bloodseeker Str -4
Raven Str -3
Viper Str -3
What average animal are YOU looking at? Common tiny animals aren't Str 10 powerhouses... Having a 0+ modifier for a tiny creature is uncommon/rare.
I have the feeling that a capuchin can carry and use a potion.
Now, can he use a grappling hook, certainly, but only for its own amusement.
There ARE tiny creature that have substantial Str stats but there are also sprites [Str -3], Pugwampi [Str -3], Carbuncle [Str -3] or even a Demilich [Str -3]... I just don't understand picking Str 10 as that seems are the higher end even for creature that have stat modifiers let alone for those that have none. Would you be comfortable with a 6" tall sprite carry/use a potion as tall as it is? Maybe but are you going to assume any/every DM would think the same?
There ARE tiny creature that have substantial Str stats but there are also sprites [Str -3], Pugwampi [Str -3], Carbuncle [Str -3] or even a Demilich [Str -3]... I just don't understand picking Str 10 as that seems are the higher end even for creature that have stat modifiers let alone for those that have none. Would you be comfortable with a 6" tall sprite carry/use a potion as tall as it is? Maybe but are you going to assume any/every DM would think the same?I have the feeling that a capuchin can carry and use a potion.
Now, can he use a grappling hook, certainly, but only for its own amusement.
First, even if there is no description in PF2, here is PF1 description of a potion: A typical potion or oil consists of 1 ounce of liquid held in a ceramic or glass vial fitted with a tight stopper. The stoppered container is usually no more than 1 inch wide and 2 inches high.
So, a 6" tall sprite should be able to carry it and use it.
Then, as you say it, there are tiny creatures with substantial strength. As you choose what your familiar is, you can choose one of these creatures.
As someone who has used SQL in his line of work, I still agree with shroudb's interpretation of 2.5 bulk capacity as being a perfectly valid.
There ARE tiny creature that have substantial Str stats but there are also sprites [Str -3], Pugwampi [Str -3], Carbuncle [Str -3] or even a Demilich [Str -3]... I just don't understand picking Str 10 as that seems are the higher end even for creature that have stat modifiers let alone for those that have none. Would you be comfortable with a 6" tall sprite carry/use a potion as tall as it is? Maybe but are you going to assume any/every DM would think the same?I have the feeling that a capuchin can carry and use a potion.
Now, can he use a grappling hook, certainly, but only for its own amusement.First, even if there is no description in PF2, here is PF1 description of a potion: A typical potion or oil consists of 1 ounce of liquid held in a ceramic or glass vial fitted with a tight stopper. The stoppered container is usually no more than 1 inch wide and 2 inches high.
So, a 6" tall sprite should be able to carry it and use it.
Then, as you say it, there are tiny creatures with substantial strength. As you choose what your familiar is, you can choose one of these creatures.
"As a general rule, an item that weighs 5 to 10 pounds is 1 Bulk, an item weighing less than a few ounces is negligible, and anything in between is light". So we know that potions have grown a LOT from being 1 ounce of liquid as that is negligible. So we know it's more than several ounces and less than 5 pounds. So would you say a sprite can pick up and use a 4 pound potion? a 3 pound one? Even dropping it to a pound means the sprite might be lifting it's own body weight to use it... [they only weigh 1-2 pounds in PF1].
As to picking your own creature.... SO? whatever creature you pick gets stripped of it's stats in the familiar process. Each and every one uses the exact rules for stats. My only reason for pointing out the overall poor str scores was to disprove the assertion that the "common" str for tiny creatures was 10: it isn't.
As someone who has used SQL in his line of work, I still agree with shroudb's interpretation of 2.5 bulk capacity as being a perfectly valid.
Comparisons and arithmetic operations with a NULL, produce NULL results. The only way to get a result is to remove the Null but doing so can catastrophic for the validity of your analysis.
The halfings strength FOR BULK most certainly becomes way smaller when they get tiny.
in fact it gets 20x times lower.
??? It gets 1/2 not 20x. Where do you get 20x?
in short 8 str tiny creature is inherently much weaker "for carrying stuff" compared to 8 strength small creature.
so yes, a "tiny" 8 strength creature may well be weaker than an average tiny animal for carrying capacity purpose regardless of what his original form was.
Yes, by 1/2 just like other tiny creatures... it's just that the average Str mod for tiny animals is less than -1... It's not "may well be weaker" but IS 'stronger than" the average tiny animal.
Where and why do you think that "doesn't have or use ability modifiers" translates to "it has 0 strength and -5 ability modifier"
I don't, I think they have NO modifiers or stats so there is no way to figure it out without asking your DM. Giving it a minimum of 1 str [-5] is me being super generous as the alternative is an unknowable amount: it's a step up from what we have to give it the minimum listed modifier.
Your interpetation is literally opposite of RAW since -5 is opposite of "it doesn't use ability modiffier"
You missed the entire point: there IS NO RAW for familiar carry as it has no stat or stat modifier. It's literally impossible to figure out by RAW.
Bulk is modified by ability modifiers, if you don't use those, you just use the base, unmodified number.
NO, 100% NO. Just NO. That is 100% using a modifier, a +0. You are using a Str 10-11 modifier which you CAN NOT DO because the familiar has none. You are not doing math right. You just don't get to remove things from an equation and claim it's the same formula. It's not. 5 + A = carry isn't the same thing as 5 = bulk just because you don't know what A is.
So would you say a sprite can pick up and use a 4 pound potion? a 3 pound one? Even dropping it to a pound means the sprite might be lifting it's own body weight to use it... [they only weigh 1-2 pounds in PF1].
I'd just like to point out that in the real world, small creatures can lift more than their own body weight, mice can shake off falling out of aeroplanes, and elephants can't jump. It's simple physics. It may seem odd, but it is real.
So would you say a sprite can pick up and use a 4 pound potion? a 3 pound one? Even dropping it to a pound means the sprite might be lifting it's own body weight to use it... [they only weigh 1-2 pounds in PF1].
I'd just like to point out that in the real world, small creatures can lift more than their own body weight, mice can shake off falling out of aeroplanes, and elephants can't jump. It's simple physics. It may seem odd, but it is real.
Sure, an ant can carry multiple times it's size/weight. Can that mouse lift such things with it's paws? If it had hands could it manipulate it the same as a man sized creature with it's limited leverage and range of motion? And could such a mouse drink it's weight from using a potion? Could it use those paws to affectively use a staff? Play a Lute? Do 2 tiny hands mean that mouse can use a 10' pole that requires 2 hands if you do say it can carry the bulk?
The rules just aren't written with creatures outside PC's sizes and leave it up to DM's.
it gets 20x because it also goes down by a factor of 10 (- goes to L, and etc)
Doesn't work like that: L stays L and Bulk stays bulk but total is halved. Only negligible gets removed and counted as L. As such, I can't see 20x.
And ofc by RAW the familiars have Bulok.
If you mean bulk, and you mean bulk they can carry, then no they do not as you have no method to calculate it.
the thing that is modified is that, by raw, you dont use ability modifiers, so you only use the base value.
It doesn't work that way. +0 IS a modifier that the familiar does not get. You don't get to change the equation and call it RAW.
That's the closest thing to RAW we have.
It's about as far removed from RAW as you can possible get. It's not awful as a houserule but as RAW? You left that in the dust when you ignored the required elements in the calculations required. It's the same as saying the familiar actually has 10's for stats since we're altering the base assumptions of how things are figured out and making things up.
"doesn't have a way to claculate it" is your opinion though.
It's not an opinion, it's math.
for me it's clear that they use the unmodified BASE Bulk of all creatures.
Quote something from the book that allows you to calculate bulk without knowing the str modifier and I'll agree with you. By RAW you must adjust for the modifier and without it there is no way to calculate it. It's as simple as that.
Even considering your opinion on the matter, "can't calculate" =/= don't have.
I've stated this multiple times: they have as as much as the DM is willing to give the as there is NO RAW method to figure it out.
So it may be "uncalculatable bulk" in your games, but it is still there.
No, RAW "uncalculatable bulk" in every games, not just the ones I play in. The DM in every game can give you whatever total they feel works for them if any.
"not using modifiers" is both a bane AND a boon. It removes both Bonuses AND penalties.
You have cat familiars being slower than an average cat, and mouse familiars being stronger than an average mouse. Everything is baseline.
That's not how math works. You don't know what to add or subtract from the base: you don't get to pick a modifier out of the air, like +0 and say that what it is now.
"not using modifiers" means that by RAW you can't figure out things that require them. You are trying to make it work like it says 'don't use stat modifiers' when it says 'they don't HAVE stat modifiers' which is a fundamentally different thing.
I don't think it's productive to continue to debate with someone that isn't going to accept how math works. I'll just say that I can't see how no modifier can ever be read as +0 modifier: I can't see anything that could be said to change my understanding of how math works. Run it how you will but I'll never agree it's anywhere close to RAW.
Comparisons and arithmetic operations with a NULL, produce NULL results. The only way to get a result is to remove the Null but doing so can catastrophic for the validity of your analysis.
Well it's a good thing this is a roleplaying game being adjudicated and not a SQL database being coded.
Mathematically you're absolutely right. But does your assertion have any bearing whatsoever on a roleplaying game? I don't believe that it does.
Mathematically you're absolutely right. But does your assertion have any bearing whatsoever on a roleplaying game? I don't believe that it does.
As the RPG in question asks you to do math, I find that it has quite a lot of bearing as without it you have no way to adjudicate anything in the game past freeform roleplay. How do you play out combat, skills, ect if you find mathematics have no bearing on the game? IMO the math and numbers spelled out in the game have meaning or else why bother taking up space in the book with them?
I have 5 apples plus what i bought or gave away in the market.
You didn't even go in the market.
So i have 5 apples.
No, the way it is for the familiar is more like this:
'I have 5 apples and that total might have changed by ERROR... How many apples do I have left?' No modifiers means they have no positive numbers, no negative numbers AND no +0 as ALL of them are modifiers [as defined by the game]. It's the basic function of math and English. In both cases you have an element that is undefined.The Bulk entry simply says to ADD something to something else. It's just a "Bulk =A + B"
Familiar entry simply says : You don't have B(not that it's uncaclulatable, not that it is undefined, you simply do not have that number)
I do agree that there's no point debating it further if you can't see what "A plus B, remove B" equals.
It's like dividing by 0 or adding 1 to infinity as they are things that lead to contradictions because they do not follow the laws of arithmetic. B is not only not there but it's undefined in the equation and as such makes the equation unsolvable. If you can tell me what 1/0 is then I believe you that a familiars bulk is [5 +/-unknown]/2...
I do agree that there's no point debating it further if you can't see what "A plus B, remove B" equals.
You aren't removing B but defining B as +0 and that is explicitly not possible as that is a modifier. A = Bulk ONLY when the B is +0 and that can only happen when the stat is 10-11... You don't get to remove elements of an equation and expect it to still work the same way. Do you think the Pythagorean Theorem [A squared + B squared = C squared] works if you arbitrarily remove B from it? If so, You see math in a way I can't understand.
I have 5 apples plus what i bought or gave away in the market.
You didn't even go in the market.
So i have 5 apples.No, the way it is for the familiar is more like this:
'I have 5 apples and that total might have changed by ERROR... How many apples do I have left?' No modifiers means they have no positive numbers, no negative numbers AND no +0 as ALL of them are modifiers [as defined by the game]. It's the basic function of math and English. In both cases you have an element that is undefined.
I understand both yours and Shroudb interpretation. But may I ask you: If a Familiar can carry an undefined amount of bulks, how do you determine if a mouse can carry a feather?
At least, Shroudb's interpretation gives an answer to this question. Maybe a non fulfilling one, as familiars end up carrying more than most tiny creatures, but at least it's usable.I remember a friend of mine who saw a shrink as a kid:
Shrink: How many halves are there in an apple?
Friend: An infinity.
Mathematically, my friend was right, but the shrink still concluded he was an idiot.
Very often, a mathematical interpretation of natural language leads to inconsistencies.
Edit: Rereading the rules, I side with Shroudb. It says a Familiar doesn't use its ability modifier. If I have 18 Strength and I hit someone with a Longsword through an effect that specifies that I don't use my ability modifier to damage, I'll conclude very easily that I deal 1d8 points of damage, ignoring my Strength modifier. Not using an ability modifier is in common language a synonym to 0.
I understand both yours and Shroudb interpretation. But may I ask you: If a Familiar can carry an undefined amount of bulks, how do you determine if a mouse can carry a feather?
As there is no RAW answer, it's ask your DM.
Very often, a mathematical interpretation of natural language leads to inconsistencies.
But none of it is natural language but math language: modifier is a defined term in the game that explains how the math of the game works. Don't you agree that something that explains how you tabulate your dice totals involves math?
At least, Shroudb's interpretation gives an answer to this question. Maybe a non fulfilling one, as familiars end up carrying more than most tiny creatures, but at least it's usable.
I'd point to the Ambiguous Rules section: "If one version is too good to be true, it probably is." IMO, all familiars having a 10 str is too good.
Edit: Rereading the rules, I side with Shroudb. It says a Familiar doesn't use its ability modifier.
"It doesn’t have or use its own ability modifiers and can never benefit from item bonuses." Following this he can't be right as you're using an ability modifier [+0]. It doesn't just say you don't use your modifier but that you don't have one at all and then Bulk REQUIRES you to add the modifier you don't have creating a contradiction. Not using isn't the same as not having one. Having to use something you're specifically told to use is an issue.
Not using an ability modifier is in common language a synonym to 0.
Adding 0 is the ability modifier for 10-11 strength and you are specifically told you have no such thing. A contradiction.
Not adding your modifier isn't adding a 0 but not adding anything: nowhere does bulk allow for you to not modifying the base by your modifier and that's a requirement that a familiar can't fulfill.
Adding 0 is the ability modifier for 10-11 strength and you are specifically told you have no such thing. A contradiction.
Not adding your modifier isn't adding a 0 but not adding anything: nowhere does bulk allow for you to not modifying the base by your modifier and that's a requirement that a familiar can't fulfill.
Sorry, but I think you are not right.
If I ask you to roll an Acrobatics check without using your Dexterity modifier, if I ask you to roll your damage without using your Strength modifier, if I ask you to roll your spell damage without using your Dangerous Sorcery bonus, you'll always use 0 and not undefined.You even say it: Not adding your modifier is not adding anything. 0 is used to represent not anything.
It's even clearer when you see such a formula:
Melee damage roll = damage die of weapon or unarmed attack + Strength modifier + bonuses + penalties
If you don't have any bonus and penalty, what is the value of bonuses and the value of penalties? From your reasoning, it would be undefined, as nowhere in the rules the default value for bonuses and penalties is written. But the game assumes that if you don't have something, its value is 0. So we can calculate this formula, as the game is not written for mathematicians only.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
There is no logical construction that can lead us to treating a tiny familiar as having a 10 STR. If you treat it as having a +0 STR mod, that's exactly what you're doing.
Allowing a tiny familiar to carry 2.5 bulk (without even being encumbered) is ridiculous.
Allowing a tiny familiar to carry one item of light bulk *might* be conceivable. In my personal opinion.
But as things stand, there is no way to adjudicate this question. The RAW never define what a familiar can carry or wield.
It's a DM call. Until such time as errata or a future book clarify the situation.
Arguments about math and apples are irrelevant.