| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I'm pretty sure no-one is arguing actual animals can't do some of these things.
Rather, it is the fact that Familiars are not defined as creatures but as strictly limited class ability, thus raising the concern they do not have the normal abilities that a creature of their kind would have.
I'm pretty sure no-one is arguing actual animals can't do some of these things.
Rather, it is the fact that Familiars are not defined as creatures but as strictly limited class ability, thus raising the concern they do not have the normal abilities that a creature of their kind would have.
The rules about Familiars say: "Most familiars were originally animals, though the ritual of becoming a familiar makes them something more."
Under Familiar Abilities, you can read: "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."
So, I think I can use these 2 sentences to say that my macaque can carry a potion, because it can't be less than a macaque and because I can't choose not to take all its animal abilities (in that case, paying for Climb speed and Manual Dexterity).
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
So, I think I can use these 2 sentences to say that my macaque can carry a potion, because it can't be less than a macaque and because I can't choose not to take all its animal abilities (in that case, paying for Climb speed and Manual Dexterity).
That sounds fine for a DM ruling, but it doesn't cxhange the fact that no published familiar abilities allow a familiar to carry a potion.
It can put a potion from your bandolier in your hand with valet. It can carry a light bulk toolset with toolbearer. But nothing allows you to have your familiar pass a potion to your buddy standing next to you, or carry it 20 feet to another buddy further away.
Nothing except generous DM fiat. Which is fine, but expect table variation because you have no RAW argument to make.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
So, I think I can use these 2 sentences to say that my macaque can carry a potion, because it can't be less than a macaque and because I can't choose not to take all its animal abilities (in that case, paying for Climb speed and Manual Dexterity).That sounds fine for a DM ruling, but it doesn't cxhange the fact that no published familiar abilities allow a familiar to carry a potion.
It can put a potion from your bandolier in your hand with valet. It can carry a light bulk toolset with toolbearer. But nothing allows you to have your familiar pass a potion to your buddy standing next to you, or carry it 20 feet to another buddy further away.
Nothing except generous DM fiat. Which is fine, but expect table variation because you have no RAW argument to make.
Technically, there is no RAW about what a creature can carry and use. If we strictly follow the rules, an Ooze and a Marilith are only able to carry 2 items (or one 2-handed one).
But I would have issues with a DM ruling that a macaque can't hold a potion when I can prove it can, the same way I would have issues with a DM saying that my wolf animal companion has no way to bark because it's not in its stat block.Edit: Actually, there are tons of things that aren't defined in the rules. For example, I can buy a ladder. But nothing says what a ladder is. So, you can't limit the game to RAW because you'll end up with inconsistencies. You have to include the dictionnary.
So, a macaque is a small animal and as such is suitable to be a Familiar. A macaque can carry and give a potion so unless there is something in the rules that state a Familiar can't, my macaque Familiar will be able to do it. The rules about Familiar state that a Familiar is more than a macaque and at the same time that I can't choose to strip my animal off its abilities. So, my macaque Familiar can carry and give a potion, per RAW.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
It doesn't matter if your familiar is a macaque, a crow, a toad or a snake. If it has the manual dexterity (or valet, or toolbearer) ability, its capacity is the same.
I understand what you're saying, SuperBidi. But the familiar rules are no longer based on the stat block for a tiny creature, as in PF1. In PF2, they have no stat block, aside from what the familiar rules say they do.
So if you want your macaque to wear an embroidered vest, a fez and carry a tin cup for tips while you turn the organ grinder, that's fine with me. But your argument is not based on the rules for familiars you can find in the CRB, only on your gut feeling that your macaque familiar should also have the base abilities of the real-life animal.
Again, if I were your DM, I'd be thrilled to allow your familiar to carry a single light or negligible bulk item. But that's DM fiat, not the RAW.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
So it sounds like an alchemist can use a familiar best.
Also seems allowing it to scout safely is based on DM caveat, not any kind of good scouting ability.
So people are playing them much like they did in PF1, but they don't really have the same abilities for doing so.
No, with Share Senses, Touch Telepathy, flight, size, and language skills familiars can be made into objectively great scouts. But there are some GMs who treat a bird or a rat familiar as a spotted enemy rather than just a bird or a rat. There are monsters that would obviously scarf down a bird or rat, but there's also GMs who have trouble disconnecting the war game brain from the meta knowledge brain. The bandit guard might take a pot shot at your squirrel if they want it for dinner, but they shouldn't be raising an alarm. It just looks like a squirrel.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
It doesn't matter if your familiar is a macaque, a crow, a toad or a snake.
Yes, it does. A macaque can carry a potion, a toad can't. If you have a macaque Familiar it can carry a potion. If you have a toad Familiar, it can't. Familiars are based on animals and come with everything the animal can do because the rules for Familiars clearly say they are more than animals, not less.
Find a rule stating that my macaque get stripped off its ability to carry a potion and I would accept your reading.| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Yes, it does. A macaque can carry a potion, a toad can't.
A macaque, a toad, a snake or even a slime or floating rock [specific familiars] have the exact same set of base abilities with special abilities added on to that. No familiar has more or less base abilities RAW. A dog familiar doesn't have scent unless it's given it through special abilities even though you can prove it has that ability if real life. Mockingbirds don't get speech or flight. I penguin doesn't get swim. And a macaque doesn't get an ability to hold things just cuz the real animal gets it: just like every other animal ability, they'd have to buy it back as they throw all that away on becoming a familiar that required you 'build a bear' to have abilities.
Yes, it does. A macaque can carry a potion, a toad can't.A macaque, a toad, a snake or even a slime or floating rock [specific familiars] have the exact same set of base abilities with special abilities added on to that. No familiar has more or less base abilities RAW. A dog familiar doesn't have scent unless it's given it through special abilities even though you can prove it has that ability if real life. Mockingbirds don't get speech or flight. I penguin doesn't get swim. And a macaque doesn't get an ability to hold things just cuz the real animal gets it: just like every other animal ability, they'd have to buy it back as they throw all that away on becoming a familiar that required you 'build a bear' to have abilities.
Not at all. To build a Familiar, you can take a base animal. As a Familiar is "more" than the base animal and as you can't strip it off its abilities, it has all the abilities of the base animal. That's RAW.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Not at all. To build a Familiar, you can take a base animal. As a Familiar is "more" than the base animal and as you can't strip it off its abilities, it has all the abilities of the base animal. That's RAW.Yes, it does. A macaque can carry a potion, a toad can't.A macaque, a toad, a snake or even a slime or floating rock [specific familiars] have the exact same set of base abilities with special abilities added on to that. No familiar has more or less base abilities RAW. A dog familiar doesn't have scent unless it's given it through special abilities even though you can prove it has that ability if real life. Mockingbirds don't get speech or flight. I penguin doesn't get swim. And a macaque doesn't get an ability to hold things just cuz the real animal gets it: just like every other animal ability, they'd have to buy it back as they throw all that away on becoming a familiar that required you 'build a bear' to have abilities.
Sure, "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." Which ability is there for hold items...
Even if it where, are you taking it as an ability? "Your familiar can’t be an animal that naturally has more familiar abilities than your daily maximum familiar abilities". See that section says NOTHING about keeping/having abilities that aren't listed: for instance, NOTHING says my back can keep echolocation even though a bat in real life has it. Nothing says my chameleon can camouflage itself nor can a flying squire glide. NOTHING in there allows for non-Familiar Abilities that an animal might have. What ability a familiar has to hold/carry things is a RAW mystery.
Which ability is there for hold items...
You don't understand my point. The rules say: "Most familiars were originally animals, though the ritual of becoming a familiar makes them something more."
So, as we are speaking of a very strict RAW, my macaque can't lose anything as it is more than a macaque. So it gets the ability to search my hair for food, to throw its feces at people and to carry a potion and use it.
If it's an ability you can take you have to pay for it. Otherwise you get it for free. So your chameleon can camouflage itself, your bat has echolocation (which is super strong but they forgot to add it in the list of familiar abilities...).
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
You don't understand my point. The rules say: "Most familiars were originally animals, though the ritual of becoming a familiar makes them something more."
No, I get what you're trying to infer but it doesn't follow. Them becoming something more DOES NOT imply that they keep all of their abilities AND more. A caterpillar becomes something more when it changes into a butterfly too but the butterfly doesn't keep everything it had as a caterpillar...
So, as we are speaking of a very strict RAW, my macaque can't lose anything as it is more than a macaque.
It can't lose anything THAT WAS A FAMILIAR ABILITY. I'd agree if 'hold an item' was one of them, but it isn't anymore that a bat gets echolocation.
Using the bit of fluff text with no rules in it isn't affecting RAW IMO. Becoming more in no way doesn't mean you didn't lose anything: it JUST means you got a net gain. You'd have to find something explicitly referencing non-familiar ability natural abilities being kept to change my mind on RAW. Becoming more doesn't cut it for me.
a familiar's ability scores are irrelevant
For most everything, they are as they have checks covered, I agree. The only sticking point are derived totals like carry.
It can't lose anything THAT WAS A FAMILIAR ABILITY.
So my macaque is no more a macaque? He's just a blob of attributes?
But you'll have lots of issues with the rules then. For example, Animal Companions don't speak languages (neither animals), so a Wolf Companion can't speak to another wolf as they don't share a language?
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
But you'll have lots of issues with the rules then. For example, Animal Companions don't speak languages (neither animals), so a Wolf Companion can't speak to another wolf as they don't share a language?
Animal Companions follow very different rules than Familiars do. Rules for Animal Companions do not apply to Familiars. Rules for Familiars do not apply to Animal Companions.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
It can't lose anything THAT WAS A FAMILIAR ABILITY.So my macaque is no more a macaque? He's just a blob of attributes
Sadly, that's precisely correct.
A monkey, a toad, a snake or a chunk of crystal can all be familiars and have the same access to familiar abilities like manual dexterity.Your objection is with the way PF2 defines familiars.
This said, I would think most DMs would roll with you RPing a macaque's unique animal-like nature. Heck, most DMs would probably allow a familiar with manual dexterity to carry a potion to your buddy across the battlefield. But they are not required to accept that action by RAW, only by legacy considerations where previous editions of various games treated familiars like their base animals first and foremost. PF2 does not.
So my macaque is no more a macaque? He's just a blob of attributes?
Yep. The ONLY thing that macaque has any impact on is familiar abilities.
But you'll have lots of issues with the rules then. For example, Animal Companions don't speak languages (neither animals), so a Wolf Companion can't speak to another wolf as they don't share a language?
I have no idea what point you're trying to make here. If you mean Kinspeech, then that is a familiar ability and therefor IS impacted by base animal choice.
This said, I would think most DMs would roll with you RPing a macaque's unique animal-like nature. Heck, most DMs would probably allow a familiar with manual dexterity to carry a potion to your buddy across the battlefield. But they are not required to accept that action by RAW, only by legacy considerations where previous editions of various games treated familiars like their base animals first and foremost. PF2 does not.
Yep, it's not a bad houserule but it needs to be acknowledged that it IS a houserule.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
the ability to "carry stuff" is RAW if you have manual dexterity (it is an Interact action directly given by RAW to pick up something).
That doesn't really follow logically. Being able to do interactions does not equate to being able to carry: this is shown in the tail feat for tieflings where they can do interact actions, like open a door, but can't hold items.
Now IMO, they should be able to hold things but without knowing how much they can carry it's a moot point as even if you agree they can hold things you can't say WHAT they can hold as that depends on what they can carry...
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
the ability to "carry stuff" is RAW if you have manual dexterity (it is an Interact action directly given by RAW to pick up something).That doesn't really follow logically. Being able to do interactions does not equate to being able to carry: this is shown in the tail feat for tieflings where they can do interact actions, like open a door, but can't hold items.
Now IMO, they should be able to hold things but without knowing how much they can carry it's a moot point as even if you agree they can hold things you can't say WHAT they can hold as that depends on what they can carry...
but it specifically says for the skillful tail that they don't have significant manual dexterity --not sure you can use that as a good example. it also specifically says that although it can do interact actions it can't hold items-- specific doesn't necessarily mean it applies to general things, especially considering we know the tail doesn't have manual dexterity.
I think that actually does the opposite-- that strengthens the belief that having manual dexterity means that you *should* be able to carry things--which is also just a logical extension of what the manual dexterity does. Why else clarify otherwise?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I think that actually does the opposite-- that strengthens the belief that having manual dexterity means that you *should* be able to carry things--which is also just a logical extension of what the manual dexterity does. Why else clarify otherwise?
I agree 100%. Familiars *should* be able to carry things. I'd vote for a single item of light or negligible bulk.
But by the RAW, their carrying capacity is undefined. No extant familiar abilities refer to a familiar carrying anything.
but it specifically says for the skillful tail that they don't have significant manual dexterity --not sure you can use that as a good example. it also specifically says that although it can do interact actions it can't hold items-- specific doesn't necessarily mean it applies to general things, especially considering we know the tail doesn't have manual dexterity.
I think that actually does the opposite-- that strengthens the belief that having manual dexterity means that you *should* be able to carry things--which is also just a logical extension of what the manual dexterity does.
But it DOES have manual dexterity, just not a significant amount which isn't quantifiable. It just is to point out that being able to interact does NOT require hands or the manual dexterity ability: for instance, a dog might be able to interact with a door to open it without hands and the manual dexterity ability... That doesn't mean it can then carry/hold something. Interact doesn't require the ability to hold.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I think that actually does the opposite-- that strengthens the belief that having manual dexterity means that you *should* be able to carry things--which is also just a logical extension of what the manual dexterity does. Why else clarify otherwise?I agree 100%. Familiars *should* be able to carry things. I'd vote for a single item of light or negligible bulk.
But by the RAW, their carrying capacity is undefined. No extant familiar abilities refer to a familiar carrying anything.
I think that it's still RAW if the only logical extension of the way something is written is that they *should* be able to do something. if the RAI is obvious, it's practically RAW, isn't it?
Either way, it's a debate that's only really relevant on forums I would imagine--I've played with quite a few different GM's and not one has ever been so hardcore about the RAW.
I do get where you're coming from though.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
But it DOES have manual dexterity, just not a significant amount which isn't quantifiable. It just is to point out that being able to interact does NOT require hands or the manual dexterity ability: for instance, a dog might be able to interact with a door to open it without hands and the manual dexterity ability... That doesn't mean it can then carry/hold something. Interact doesn't require the ability to hold.but it specifically says for the skillful tail that they don't have significant manual dexterity --not sure you can use that as a good example. it also specifically says that although it can do interact actions it can't hold items-- specific doesn't necessarily mean it applies to general things, especially considering we know the tail doesn't have manual dexterity.
I think that actually does the opposite-- that strengthens the belief that having manual dexterity means that you *should* be able to carry things--which is also just a logical extension of what the manual dexterity does.
We can conclude that manual dexterity as a familiar ability is MORE significant than the tail's manual dexterity, just by reading it. The tail feat clarifies that it doesn't have fingers or any way of having significant manual dexterity.
But the manual dexterity ability says it uses their limbs "like hands". Since a hand (with fingers is the obvious implication/extension of the wording) has fingers, it logically follows that it's more dexterous than the tail.
We can conclude that manual dexterity as a familiar ability is MORE significant than the tail's manual dexterity, just by reading it. The tail feat clarifies that it doesn't have fingers or any way of having significant manual dexterity.
What we CAN'T conclude is that MORE significant manual dexterity then by necessity requires the ability to hold. You ONLY get the ability to "use manipulate actions" with it. Drawing or changing how you’re carrying an item usually requires you to use an Interact action but there IS no action to hold/wield an item so it isn't a manipulate action. You only get to use manipulate action "as if they were hands" and at no point does the familiar actually gain hands for non-manipulate actions.
But the manual dexterity ability says it uses their limbs "like hands". Since a hand (with fingers is the obvious implication/extension of the wording) has fingers, it logically follows that it's more dexterous than the tail.
Sure... Where again is the ability to hold in there? I can prove interact does not require the ability to hold which was the lynchpin of shroudb argument: "while maximum bulk is grey area not covered by RAW, the ability to "carry stuff" is RAW if you have manual dexterity (it is an Interact action directly given by RAW to pick up something)." It has the ability to pick something up but that in no way means it can hold it.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Sadly, that's precisely correct.It can't lose anything THAT WAS A FAMILIAR ABILITY.So my macaque is no more a macaque? He's just a blob of attributes
No, sorry, but these are not the rules.
"You can choose a Tiny animal you want as your familiar, such as a bat, cat, raven, or snake."So I choose a macaque. It has the ability to carry an item because it's a macaque and not a toad. It comes from that line as there is no point in saying I can choose a macaque if I don't get a macaque.
Then:
"If your familiar is an animal that naturally has one of these abilities"
The ability to carry an item is not one of these abilities, so I keep it without paying anything.
This is RAW. There is no line stripping my monkey out of its ability to carry items so it has it, the same way it has a tail or can throw feces.
Manual dexterity tells you you can do exactly what you can do with Hands. And this includes picking up stuff.
Yes, you are treated as if you had hands ONLY for the purpose of manipulate actions so you can pick up things... What does pick up have to do with anything? Where is the hold action that allows it to hold the object it picked up?
"holding something" is not an action prohibited anywhere. If you can pick it up you can hold to it as well if you have hands.
Manual dexterity limits you to counting as having hands ONLY for actions. They DO NOT count as having hands outside of actions. "It can use up to two of its limbs as if they were hands to use manipulate actions. As holding isn't an action, your familiar doesn't count as having hands for it.
The only issue is the "max bulk" and that's undefined by RAW.
So, RAW yes you can pick up stuff.
"how much" is the only undecided factor.
No, not the only issue as I count not having hands to hold anything as big an issue as not knowing if it had the carry to pick it up.
So it sounds like an alchemist can use a familiar best.
Also seems allowing it to scout safely is based on DM caveat, not any kind of good scouting ability.
So people are playing them much like they did in PF1, but they don't really have the same abilities for doing so.
We've had a PF1 familiar suplex a Goblin into submission, and it only got more useful and powerful from there. It was basically our group mascot!
Now? Into the trash bin it goes. There's almost no amount of powers or abilities you could give it that would make it even comparable to what it was capable of in the previous edition.
I mean, it didn't have to be that good, but it's also not good or useful in other ways, either, though.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Or they are automatically dropped because you don't have an appropriate limb to hold the items anymore. It's no different than deciding not to sustain/concentrate on a spell. You don't maintain the spell, it ends.
Same concept here: Can't hold the item? Then it's on the ground.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
So it sounds like an alchemist can use a familiar best.
Also seems allowing it to scout safely is based on DM caveat, not any kind of good scouting ability.
So people are playing them much like they did in PF1, but they don't really have the same abilities for doing so.
We've had a PF1 familiar suplex a Goblin into submission, and it only got more useful and powerful from there. It was basically our group mascot!
Now? Into the trash bin it goes. There's almost no amount of powers or abilities you could give it that would make it even comparable to what it was capable of in the previous edition.
I mean, it didn't have to be that good, but it's also not good or useful in other ways, either, though.
Rather than respond to this, I'm just going to link a thread that already did.
https://paizo.com/threads/rzs434of?Are-familiars-actually-good-now#1
the ability says you get Hands and you can do Interact actions with them.
NO, your familiar NEVER gets hands. "It can use up to two of its limbs as if they were hands to use manipulate actions." You ONLY get to treat limbs as hands when you are using a manipulation action: full stop. Once again, you familiar NEVER GETS HANDS.
nothing forces you to "drop them" since that's actually an action that you have to take.
As soon as it stops using a manipulation action those limbs no longer count as hands and as such, it can't fulfill the hand requirements for holding/wielding items anymore.
that's 100% RAW
PLEASE give me a quote where a familiar gets hands when not using an action...
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
It's interesting how desperately certain people want familiars to suck in PF2 that they'll go to such lengths to try to litigate any capabilities they have away, everything else be damned.
It's not that we want them to suck, it's just that we're stating that they, well, they do kinda suck. SO much of their stuff was just left up to GM fiat which is... it's OK but that's a total can of worms for PFS Oragnized Play.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
It's interesting how desperately certain people want familiars to suck in PF2 that they'll go to such lengths to try to litigate any capabilities they have away, everything else be damned.
I don't want them to suck: what I want is for them to NOT suck by RAW... So far I've been disappointed. :P
So it sounds like an alchemist can use a familiar best.
Also seems allowing it to scout safely is based on DM caveat, not any kind of good scouting ability.
So people are playing them much like they did in PF1, but they don't really have the same abilities for doing so.
We've had a PF1 familiar suplex a Goblin into submission, and it only got more useful and powerful from there. It was basically our group mascot!
Now? Into the trash bin it goes. There's almost no amount of powers or abilities you could give it that would make it even comparable to what it was capable of in the previous edition.
I mean, it didn't have to be that good, but it's also not good or useful in other ways, either, though.
Rather than respond to this, I'm just going to link a thread that already did.
https://paizo.com/threads/rzs434of?Are-familiars-actually-good-now#1
I never agreed to any of those points, and I still don't now, even when someone else played a familiar besides myself.
It's interesting how desperately certain people want familiars to suck in PF2 that they'll go to such lengths to try to litigate any capabilities they have away, everything else be damned.
There's a difference between "wanting them to suck" and "not following the rules making things more powerful than what they actually are."
Our arguments fall under the latter, not the former.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
the ability says you get Hands and you can do Interact actions with them.NO, your familiar NEVER gets hands. "It can use up to two of its limbs as if they were hands to use manipulate actions." You ONLY get to treat limbs as hands when you are using a manipulation action: full stop. Once again, you familiar NEVER GETS HANDS.
I can't get behind such an interpretation. I don't see that Pathfinder 2 can be read that tightly.
The familiar has limbs that can be used as hands (for manipulate actions). There is nothing to say the pseudo hands go away.
Other uses for hands are not defined closely in the rules. I don't see that you have fair grounds to deny familiar other uses for their pseudo hands.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I can't get behind such an interpretation. I don't see that Pathfinder 2 can be read that tightly.
You have to read it that closely as they specifically added wording to make it so. It would have been MUCH easier to just say 'It can use up to two of its limbs as if they were hands' and left it at that but they didn't: they specifically limited it to actions.
The familiar has limbs that can be used as hands (for manipulate actions). There is nothing to say the pseudo hands go away.
There are never pseudo-hands there are limbs that you can use as hands JUST for actions. It's quite clear on that.
Other uses for hands are not defined closely in the rules. I don't see that you have fair grounds to deny familiar other uses for their pseudo hands.
I can't see a RAW way to read it any other way. Why add in the part about actions if they didn't want it to be limited that way? Hand is a specific game term and action is a specific term: it's not "tight" reading to expect them to mean what it says in the sentence and following what the terms mean in game.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
What can't you do with familiars? I just used mine to burn down an enemy stronghold.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
What can't you do with familiars? I just used mine to burn down an enemy stronghold.
Sure I can too but Final Sacrifice requires a week of downtime to use again... ;)
What can't you do with familiars? I just used mine to burn down an enemy stronghold.
How was that accomplished? DM Fiat? No guards spotted the familiar? Or could kill it fairly easily once spotted? It has some kind of super stealth everyone else is missing?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
It used a manipulate action and Manual Dexterity to strike a flint and steel and to knock over lanterns and torches.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
It used a manipulate action and Manual Dexterity to strike a flint and steel and to knock over lanterns and torches.
Hmmm... Well, at least 3 action per torch/lantern to light them and then an athletics check per item might work. With oil only doing 1d6 damage and wooden slat walls having 10 hardness, I'm not sure it'd work.
Final Sacrifice still works though.
do you require your players to make athletics checks to drop lanterns?
Not if they picked it up first. Does the familiar have the carry for lanterns and torches? Since we can't know, I was figuring some kind of shove to move the item.
fail to see why familiars should be using different standards than characters for the same action.
Maybe because they DO use different rules so they use a different standard by default? Characters have their own skills, stats and have an identifiable carry total so they clearly run differently than PC's.
even then, at most it's a trivial task of something like DC 3 to drop a lantern since a baby can do it.
Again, thinking of a shove and it depends on how/where the items are.
What's next? Acrobatics checks to stride?
Depending on the terrain, yes.
it's obvious that for some reason you hate familiars
I love familiars but I hate what they have done to the poor little critters in PF2.
but thankfully the majority of your posts have nothing to do with strict RAW and are only your interpetation of it.
LOL My issue is what I've been arguing. Some people don't like what that means though.
The thing is that graystone is not hating familiars but what he considers as "half-baked" rules governing familiars. So he uses non-permissive RAW reading taken ad absurdum to demonstrate that the rules are "indeed" half-baked.