| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Btw errata says familiars can't strike. So yeah thats a thing.
Regarding shove. That really depends on the situation. But given how most if not all familiar in PF2 are tiny and dont have hands, under most situation it probably would take a shove. I would give it a fairly low DC, the check would be to see if they roll a nat 1.
Even if they pick up an item and then drop it, tiny creatures have no reach so doing so only results in the familiar sitting in a pool of burning oil... :P
that while the familiar by RAW can pick up something. And then, by RAW use that something, all this time the familiar isn't "holding" that something.
Familiars ONLY have hands for manipulate actions. Once it stops using manipulate actions, it no longer counts as having hands. As holding isn't an manipulate action, if it does an non-manipulation action, it doesn't count as having hands and the item drops. So they can use an item but they can't carry it around 'in their limbs'.
the RAW clearly states that you gain hands for Interact actions, which include picking up objects.
100% agree.
ergo, you can hold stuff in your hands.
And here you lost me as "hold" isn't a "manipulate action".
His second argument is that the familiars never gain the "hold action" so they do not have it.
No, the issue is nobody has the "hold action" as hold isn't an action and familiars only treat limbs as hands for manipulate actions... Familiars DO NOT can't hands for all purposes but only for manipulate actions. This means that it doesn't count as having them when NOT using manipulate actions.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Btw a person or creature with no arms has the same problem as familiars.
There is also an interesting issue with Manual Dexterity allowing only 2 limbs for animals that have more than 2 that are prehensile. For instance, monkeys can have hands AND prehensile feet and you can only take a familiar ability once so you can only pick 2 limbs to have 'hands' even though the rules want you to take every ability the animal has. Then you have prehensile tails...
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Respectfully, I disagree. Manipulate actions are literally how creatures interact with the world. The notion that a creature can grab and manipulate an object, but not carry it in the same appendage just doesn't logically follow.
I do get that we don't have rules for determining a familiar's bulk limits, but there are plenty of items that don't have bulk values.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Manipulate actions are literally how creatures interact with the world.
Sure, I agree.
The notion that a creature can grab and manipulate an object, but not carry it in the same appendage just doesn't logically follow.
Just look at the tiefling tail feat: that alone tells you that you can use manipulation actions without holding things. The game specifically spells out that you can manipulate things and not have the ability to hold. So it game, it logically follows. Even if it doesn't, the game doesn't have to work logically to us for it to be RAW.
In the end, I don't find an issue with familiars not having an ability to hold items long term: It doesn't spoil my outlook of the game if familiars aren't lugging around torches, weapons and shields all day and trying to figure out what they can do with them. I don't see the dissonance you see in familiars having a limited grip strength that doesn't allow them to have long term carrying of object in the limbs they use as hands.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Manipulate actions are literally how creatures interact with the world.Sure, I agree.
The notion that a creature can grab and manipulate an object, but not carry it in the same appendage just doesn't logically follow.Just look at the tiefling tail feat: that alone tells you that you can use manipulation actions without holding things. The game specifically spells out that you can manipulate things and not have the ability to hold. So it game, it logically follows. Even if it doesn't, the game doesn't have to work logically to us for it to be RAW.
In the end, I don't find an issue with familiars not having an ability to hold items long term: It doesn't spoil my outlook of the game if familiars aren't lugging around torches, weapons and shields all day and trying to figure out what they can do with them. I don't see the dissonance you see in familiars having a limited grip strength that doesn't allow them to have long term carrying of object in the limbs they use as hands.
but again, the tail specifically mentions that it doesn't have manual dexterity due to a lack of fingers. having an ability that makes you capable of handling things with manual dexterity as if you have hands should clearly alleviate that if you're being honest.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
but again, the tail specifically mentions that it doesn't have manual dexterity due to a lack of fingers. having an ability that makes you capable of handling things with manual dexterity as if you have hands should clearly alleviate that if you're being honest.
But again, it's besides the point: it PROVES that being able to grab and manipulate things DOES NOT logically mean you MUST be able to hold things. It doesn't have to do an anything else but refute that. Second, NOTHING in Manual Dexterity says the familiar gains fingers or a physical hand. It only gives you the ability to use an existing limb as a hand in limited circumstances.
So clearly NOT having a actual always usable hand in no way alleviates anything is you're being honest. :P
PS: Just to be clear, this is how the RAW reads to me and I'm not being dishonest. It's not ad absurdum IMO but a logical result of how the rules are written. I'd love to have a familiar that was usable for more than it's master abilities but to have that I have to have a DM that houserules some functionality for them.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
THis whole discussion of having hands for some purposes but not for others is surreal. And somewhat irrelevant.
If the Paizo devs had to explicitly allow familiars to carry items independently of their masters, they would have either specified that capacity in a familiar ability or explicitly given them a stat block to support such things.
Instead, they have consistently limited familiar abilities to a small subset of what was possible before, in PF1.
They are not combat buddies, since they have no strikes.
Even if they can fly, they are not bombers, since they cannot (can't *explicitily*, at any rate) carry alchemist's fire or other bombs over the battlefield to drop them.
Their only combat role is limited to spell delivery, and even that is ill defined. They can assist with a limited number of class-linked activities for bards, rogues or alchemists, or give wizards a few small boosts to their spellcasting.
They are a class feature, not an independent entity capable of playing a significant role in a party of adventurers.
Regardless of arguments relating to some default value for STR and its supposed impact on the calculation of carrying capacity, nowhere will you find a definition of the ability of familiars to pick up items on their own, carry them anywhere or even give items to anyone but their master.
It's a logical and convenient house rule, fully consistent with out concept of familiars as "something more" than tiny animals. It doesn't really "break" anything in PF2, even if it goes beyond the RAW. But let's not pretend that it *is* the RAW.
Per RAW, Familiars keep all the abilities of the base creature. So, instead of fighting over the carrying capacity of a toad with Manual Dexterity, just grab a macaque or a giant ant and you avoid any issue with potential GM fiat.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Per RAW, Familiars keep all the abilities of the base creature.
This just isn't true. Please quote for me where that is because if it's the part about them becoming something more that just isn't anything actionable. If fact, the game goes out of it's way to tell you you have to buy back all the abilities it should have [meaning at start is didn't have them] and also means that some animals will never have all their abilities unless you spend extra resources on them.
Take a simple viper: you are forced to spend your abilities on climb, scent and swim leaving one you can't get and your familiar never gets poison or slink. I'm not sure where you get that it's get to keep all that. I know I've never seen anyone claim they'd get to keep things like poison.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Not following this discussion too closely but I think there might be a disconnect in the possible usage of a familiar for a player and the GM as well as a disconnect in between encounter and exploration use. For the players familiars and their abilities are class features, mostly only able to do what their class feature allows them to do. For the GM a familiar can be a strong narrative tool or even be used as some sort of deus ex machina.
So a familiar improving on or even breaking their masters action economy during encounters (apart from what the familiar is entitled to by hardcoded feats/features)? Probably no. A familiar "acting like a normal animal of its kind" during exploration mode (but still as per GM fiat)? Hell yes!
For example I don't think that most players and/or GMs would mind the classical trope of a familiar macaque stealing and carrying back to their master some sleeping prison guards cell keys in "narration mode", however the same macaque being used as a "potion shuttle" during combat seems to be an entire different beast.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
so, by this logic:
familiars do not breathe
familiars do not bleed
familiars are mindless
They are creatures and are affected by things that target creatures. They aren't immune to bleeding so they bleed. Mindless would be a step up as that allows for a -5 stat modifier and gives an immunity: They are lower than mindless. Creature types will list when that type doesn't need to breath: no notation means they must breath.
we aren't talking about familiars having "specific" creature abilities (those you need to buy), but we are talking about familiars being fundamentally "creatures"
Creatures mostly have no innate abilities: what they can do is informed by their stats and abilities in their stat block: familiars do not have a stat block so everything they can do is from the familiar section.
and ALL creatures, by default, can carry stuff.
Based off their Str mod and familiars have none. And not every creature can hold items. That macaque has nothing innately different from any other familiar past the familiar abilities it's given [excluding specific ones]. A snake and a jelly fish familiar have the exact same base ability to grasp and hold objects as a macaque familiar and have the exact same ability to carry objects.
Nothing in the familiar entry makes them stop having the fundamental property of being a creature.
Nothing gives them Stat modifiers or abilities not every creature has.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Per RAW, Familiars keep all the abilities of the base creature. So, instead of fighting over the carrying capacity of a toad with Manual Dexterity, just grab a macaque or a giant ant and you avoid any issue with potential GM fiat.
As has already been noted, that is simply not the case. And most tiny animals that serve as "base creatures" for familiars do not have stat blocks at all.
Per RAW, familiars have only the abilities that the familiar rules give them. No more, no less.
You can claim the opposite all you like, but quoting the line from the familiar rules, "Most familiars were originally animals, though the ritual of becoming a familiar makes them something more", doesn't authorize you to claim there is a RAW argument for your macaque familiar to have all the abilities that you choose to ascribe to an intelligent macaque in addition to any listed familiar abilities from the rules - that just doesn't hold water.
Go ahead and play it that way in your home games. Nobody's stopping you. Conceptually, I really like the idea myself. But don't try to sell it as the RAW.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Per RAW, Familiars keep all the abilities of the base creature.This just isn't true. Please quote for me where that is
"You can choose a Tiny animal you want as your familiar, such as a bat, cat, raven, or snake."
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
Perhaps next graystone will claim that the NPC chef can't wield a sword simply because the adventure only published non-combat stats for the cooking contest encounter.
Sorry, but stats do not a creature make. They are merely a guide to keep things moving quickly. Said chef might have 10th-level stats for cooking, but only be able to fight like a 1st-level fighter. Fundamentally, creatures can do anything that makes narrative sense for them to do.
To say otherwise is to ignore the simple fact that this is a roleplaying game.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Perhaps next graystone will claim that the NPC chef can't wield a sword simply because the adventure only published non-combat stats for the cooking contest encounter.
Sorry, but stats do not a creature make. They are merely a guide to keep things moving quickly. Said chef might have 10th-level stats for cooking, but only be able to fight like a 1st-level fighter. Fundamentally, creatures can do anything that makes narrative sense for them to do.
To say otherwise is to ignore the simple fact that this is a roleplaying game.
That's what I've been thinking this whole time. I feel like I'm talking about a tabletop RPG and other people are talking about a video game. I've never played a tabletop rpg where you can only do specific hard coded actions. At that point you're just playing a bad video game, in my opinion.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
"You can choose a Tiny animal you want as your familiar, such as a bat, cat, raven, or snake."
And what does that prove? Does that mean that snake has poison? No. Does that mean that raven flies? not without you taking the ability. What abilities does it get for free again?
you make pretty huge leaps of logic to justify your weird rulings:
Leaps? I didn't even make hops.
you say that since nothing says that they can hold items (a BASIC property of all and any creatures) then they can't.
Since when? When did a snake, naga or a gelatinous cube get the ability to hold/wield an item? PC's auto get hands but other creatures do not.
But you also say that they breathe and bleed because they are creatures.
creatures that don't have specific call outs in game: check out elemental and construct once.
You need to pick up one or the other:
WHy? They aren't at odds.
Also, you say they do not have strength because they do not have ability modifiers. But they do have Intelligenbce since they ar enot mindless.
Did you read mindless: THOSE HAVE STAT MODIFIERS. SO they do not even make mindless status... :P
(p.s. can you point where the familiars do not have Strength? (not strength modifiers, but Strength)
It's he same thing: look at any monster entry and you'll not see any stat but the modifier: there is no functional difference between them when there isn't a possibility of player investment to increase them.
Again, the only RAW things we know is that they can 100% pick up things.
Not the only RAW thing.
Your logic still says that while they are picking up things, and while they are manipulating those things, they have hands, but as soon as they stop, those hands magically tranform, again, nothing but your own houserules here, since nothing says that the limbs "change" midway the action they perform.
LOL My logic is what;s literally written in the ability: they limit what you can use those limbs [not hands] for and it's limited to manipulate ACTIONS. It's pretty clear. The houserule is extending those limb 'hands' to non-action uses.
If something, anything, has limbs dextrous enough to manipulate stuff, they can also simply hold it.
Good houserule but that's no where in the rules. In fact as pointed out, the tiefling tail feat 100% proves this is not the case.
Perhaps next graystone will claim that the NPC chef can't wield a sword simply because the adventure only published non-combat stats for the cooking contest encounter.
If the chef had an ability that ONLY allowed it to wield items during cooking I'd agree it was a equitable comparison. As they don't it seems disingenuous. The familiar has ALL it's combat and non-combat abilities listed. The ability to hold items just isn't in any of them.
Sorry, but stats do not a creature make. They are merely a guide to keep things moving quickly. Said chef might have 10th-level stats for cooking, but only be able to fight like a 1st-level fighter. Fundamentally, creatures can do anything that makes narrative sense for them to do.
That is 100% subjective. A DM can houserule whatever "makes narrative sense" but that doesn't make it part of the rules or RAW. Lack of stats means that familiars fail to interact with parts of the game in fundamental ways.
To say otherwise is to ignore the simple fact that this is a roleplaying game.
There is a difference between what the rules say and what would be a good way to run it. I'm not advocating that the way the rule are are a good way to run it but how it is in the rules.
That's what I've been thinking this whole time. I feel like I'm talking about a tabletop RPG and other people are talking about a video game. I've never played a tabletop rpg where you can only do specific hard coded actions. At that point you're just playing a bad video game, in my opinion.
We've been talking about what's RAW. You are talking about what's good or sensible for a game. Those are 2 different things and I've been arguing the first. If you all want to shift this into what familiars SHOULD be able to do, we can but lets not pretend that what the rules say.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
"You can choose a Tiny animal you want as your familiar, such as a bat, cat, raven, or snake."And what does that prove? Does that mean that snake has poison? No. Does that mean that raven flies? not without you taking the ability. What abilities does it get for free again?
It means that I can go in the jungle, find a nice macaque, maybe even one that can juggle with 3 potions, I make it my familiar and bim, I've got a familiar that juggles with 3 potions.
And to answer your questions: Yes, some snakes have poison. And, wait for it: Ravens fly (yes, I can assure you that). And no, they don't fly because you take the ability, you take the ability because they fly, which is very different. Familiars keep all the abilities from the base animal.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
It means that I can go in the jungle, find a nice macaque, maybe even one that can juggle with 3 potions, I make it my familiar and bim, I've got a familiar that juggles with 3 potions.
No... It means you find an animal and transform it into a different creature: a familiar. You don't get to cheese your way into a free [and improved] familiar ability. The sole thing the base animal impacts on your familiar is on what familiar abilities you are required to pick [and kinspeech]. Other than that, it doesn't impact things in the slightest, outside Dm fiat.
And to answer your questions: Yes, some snakes have poison. And, wait for it: Ravens fly (yes, I can assure you that). And no, they don't fly because you take the ability, you take the ability because they fly, which is very different. Familiars keep all the abilities from the base animal.
This DOES NOT FOLLOW as you can take a base animal form that would have more than 2 familiar abilities [like a snake] and then what you say falls apart as it loses an ability that you say it has innately. The snake climb, swims and has scent: how does the base familiar work then if you're saying it auto gets those abilities even though they do not have the number of abilities to cover it? You just get them and ignore the limit on abilities you could take?
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
This DOES NOT FOLLOW as you can take a base animal form that would have more than 2 familiar abilities [like a snake] and then what you say falls apart as it loses an ability that you say it has innately. The snake climb, swims and has scent: how does the base familiar work then if you're saying it auto gets those abilities even though they do not have the number of abilities to cover it? You just get them and ignore the limit on abilities you could take?
Thats not what he said.
He said if your familiar is a Raven, you take flight as a familiar ability because Ravens can fly.
Which is valid - generally, it makes sense to justify your familiar choices in its base form unless you're wanting to get weird... which is totally legal, but not for everyone.
Bidi did not, in any way, suggest free familiar abilities.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
It means that I can go in the jungle, find a nice macaque, maybe even one that can juggle with 3 potions, I make it my familiar and bim, I've got a familiar that juggles with 3 potions.No... It means you find an animal and transform it into a different creature: a familiar.
Sorry, it's just your interpretation, not RAW.
Per RAW, if I choose a macaque, I get a macaque, not a blob.This DOES NOT FOLLOW as you can take a base animal form that would have more than 2 familiar abilities [like a snake] and then what you say falls apart as it loses an ability that you say it has innately.
Nope, that's not the rules. "Your familiar can’t be an animal that naturally has more familiar abilities than your daily maximum familiar abilities."
As your Familiar can't lose its abilities, you can't choose one that has more abilities than the maximum number of abilities your have.| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Thats not what he said.
He said if your familiar is a Raven, you take flight because Ravens can fly.
Which is valid - generally, it makes sense to justify your familiar choices in its base form unless you're wanting to get weird... which is totally legal, but not for everyone.
Sure, but then what that has to do with "It means that I can go in the jungle, find a nice macaque, maybe even one that can juggle with 3 potions, I make it my familiar and bim, I've got a familiar that juggles with 3 potions"? If he's not angling for free ability to manipulate items all the time, what is the point of that sentence? The ability you take for your familiar isn't necessarily a match for the ability the animal had. That bird might fly quicker or slower. Manual Dexterity might be better or worse. Amphibious for instance doesn't actually relate to the Amphibious trait addly.
Sorry, it's just your interpretation, not RAW.
Per RAW, if I choose a macaque, I get a macaque, not a blob.
You get an animal that follows the familiar rules and not the macaque rules.
Nope, that's not the rules. "Your familiar can’t be an animal that naturally has more familiar abilities than your daily maximum familiar abilities."
As your Familiar can't lose its abilities, you can't choose one that has more abilities than the maximum number of abilities your have.
Sure, but then you can't take your macaque. It has Manual Dexterity, it can climb, it has scent and maybe swim. A LOT of traditional familiars fail right out of the gate if you don't treat the base animal as a blob. What a lot of people forget is it seems every animal gets scent automatically, so you're one ability down to start. This the issue with 'the familiar gets all the things the base animal can' as it's often WAY more that you can afford to take.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
You get an animal that follows the familiar rules and not the macaque rules.Sorry, it's just your interpretation, not RAW.
Per RAW, if I choose a macaque, I get a macaque, not a blob.
I get a macaque that follows the world rule. My macaque doesn't stop being a macaque.
The rules are clear, I choose an Animal, I get that animal. If I choose a macaque and get a toad, I think there's an issue.Sure, but then you can't take your macaque. It has Manual Dexterity, it can climb, it has scent and maybe swim. A LOT of traditional familiars fail right out of the gate if you don't treat the base animal as a blob. What a lot of people forget is it seems every animal gets scent automatically, so you're one ability down to start. This the issue with 'the familiar gets all the things the base animal can' as it's often WAY more that you can afford to take.
Manual Dexterity and Climb, yes. Apes don't have neither Scent nor swimming.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I get a macaque that follows the world rule.
No, you get one that follows the FAMILIAR rules. A dag familiar get the familiar land speed, not the world one. A snake gets the familiar swim, land and climb speed and not the world one. What you have IS NOT the same as the world one: they clearly aren't 1 to 1 comparisons.
Manual Dexterity and Climb, yes. Apes don't have neither Scent nor swimming.
What apes are YOU looking at? Every pathfinder ape listed has scent. I can't think of ANY mammal offhand that doesn't have scent [maybe a bat?] and even toads and snakes have it : you have to pick a bug or bird normally if you don't want to pick scent.
The bestiary apes have scent. The animal companion ape does not.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
The bestiary apes have scent. The animal companion ape does not.
Yes, but he's saying "I get a macaque that follows the world rule" and myself I think the bestiary is a much better gauge of what one is in the world that the animal companion as those differ [sometimes greatly] from those out in the wild.
I thank you for pointing it out though... Seems very odd for them to lose it when others keep their scent. I wonder if there was a reason for it.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
No, you get one that follows the FAMILIAR rules. A dag familiar get the familiar land speed, not the world one. A snake gets the familiar swim, land and climb speed and not the world one. What you have IS NOT the same as the world one: they clearly aren't 1 to 1 comparisons.
The Familiar rules are clear: Choose an Animal. So I get this animal.
The numeric abilities are specified (because I can't obviously know the AC or speed of a macaque), but not the animal abilities.What apes are YOU looking at? Every pathfinder ape listed has scent. I can't think of ANY mammal offhand that doesn't have scent [maybe a bat?] and even toads and snakes have it : you have to pick a bug or bird normally if you don't want to pick scent.
https://2e.aonprd.com/AnimalCompanions.aspx?ID=16
I just looked at this one, as it's an Animal Companion, so the closest version of a playable Ape.If you consider that every animal has more than 2 abilities, no one can take a Familiar at all per RAW...
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Perhaps next graystone will claim that the NPC chef can't wield a sword simply because the adventure only published non-combat stats for the cooking contest encounter.
Sorry, but stats do not a creature make. They are merely a guide to keep things moving quickly. Said chef might have 10th-level stats for cooking, but only be able to fight like a 1st-level fighter. Fundamentally, creatures can do anything that makes narrative sense for them to do.
To say otherwise is to ignore the simple fact that this is a roleplaying game.
A chef might be good with a knife or dagger, but those are fundamentally different than, say, a Bastard Sword. A chef might be more proficient with a dagger or a hatchet cleaver than a Bastard Sword, meaning that chances are, the chef can't meaningfully use a Bastard Sword as a weapon, especially for cooking, even if it is effective at rending the flesh from your foes.
Don't get me wrong, a Gordon Ramsey NPC randomly drawing a Bastard Sword to chop up some vegetables would be amusing. But it's fundamentally impractical for reasons obvious from a fantasy roleplaying game.
As such, saying a chef can't effectively use a Bastard Sword is badwrongfun is like saying Elves being aliens from another planet is badwrongfun.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
The Familiar rules are clear: Choose an Animal. So I get this animal.
Well you can. You don't have to. And the animal is there for some options you pick for the familiar: NOTHING says you get the unaltered animal and then build on it from there.
If you consider that every animal has more than 2 abilities, no one can take a Familiar at all per RAW...
Every animal? No, birds do not have scent. Toads have scent but no special movement. Slugs have just scent and climb. Secondly, with the witch/Improved Familiar Attunement wizard, you start off with more abilities and get more plus there is Enhanced Familiar.
you still haven't pointed out why they cannot hold items.
Of course I did: it's right there in the Manual Dexterity rules.
you can argue all you want, but if you can pick up something, by definition you can hold it.
This is something you have never proven: where is this rules quote: I've proven that you can use manipulation actions but not have the ability to hold things. What you've never done is prove your side of it. Prove a gelatinous cube has the ability to hold items and I've believe you. Nothing I know equates the ability to manipulate things with the unrestricted to hold/wield items.
since i fail to see how you are picking up and using something but you are not also holding it.
You failing to get it doesn't mean it's it's untrue.
The Familiar rules are clear: Choose an Animal. So I get this animal.Well you can. You don't have to. And the animal is there for some options you pick for the familiar: NOTHING says you get the unaltered animal and then build on it from there.
The rules do. "You can choose an Animal" is the first step to build a Familiar. You start with an Animal and then adds the Familiar abilities on top of it.
Every animal? No, birds do not have scent. Toads have scent but no special movement. Slugs have just scent and climb. Secondly, with the witch/Improved Familiar Attunement wizard, you start off with more abilities and get more plus there is Enhanced Familiar.
Toads are amphibian.
Anyway, the Ape Animal Companion doesn't have Scent, which proves that not all apes have Scent.| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
The Familiar rules are clear: Choose an Animal. So I get this animal.Well you can. You don't have to. And the animal is there for some options you pick for the familiar: NOTHING says you get the unaltered animal and then build on it from there.The rules do. "You can choose an Animal" is the first step to build a Familiar. You start with an Animal and then adds the Familiar abilities on top of it.
Every animal? No, birds do not have scent. Toads have scent but no special movement. Slugs have just scent and climb. Secondly, with the witch/Improved Familiar Attunement wizard, you start off with more abilities and get more plus there is Enhanced Familiar.Toads are amphibian.
Anyway, the Ape Animal Companion doesn't have Scent, which proves that not all apes have Scent.
I mean, let's say that's right. And we choose a bat. Well, bats have flight 30 feet, plus echolocation. The closest you're going to get with this is the Flier ability, with the Fast Movement for flying, plus Darkvision and flavoring it as echolocation (which falls apart, but not the point).
The idea that you choose an animal doesn't mean you get free abilities. You have to expend total abilities on relevant Familiar Abilities. In the case of a bat, that's 3+ abilities it costs just to say "it's a bat." Because if the stats don't match, you don't actually have that animal, meaning you never actually chose one.
It's bad design. I mean, I know why Paizo did it, because they wanted certain animal choices to have more inherent costs compared to others to not make specific animal choices overpowered to one another. But it's not balanced with the concept that even certain animal recommendations can't be reasonably done without special investment.
I mean, let's say that's right. And we choose a bat. Well, bats have flight 30 feet, plus echolocation. The closest you're going to get with this is the Flier ability, with the Fast Movement for flying, plus Darkvision and flavoring it as echolocation (which falls apart, but not the point).
I don't see why you take Fast Movement. And you can flavor echolocation, I think it's a good idea, but per RAW, you get it for free (in that case, I think it's a bit too much).
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I mean, let's say that's right. And we choose a bat. Well, bats have flight 30 feet, plus echolocation. The closest you're going to get with this is the Flier ability, with the Fast Movement for flying, plus Darkvision and flavoring it as echolocation (which falls apart, but not the point).I don't see why you take Fast Movement. And you can flavor echolocation, I think it's a good idea, but per RAW, you get it for free (in that case, I think it's a bit too much).
Being slower than other bats means it's not actually a bat. You also can't reasonably flavor it when faced with a silence spell or a deeper darkness spell, so it's now the "Climbing as Flying" paradox.
And no, it's not free. You are required to pay familiar abilities for things your animal choice normally possesses.
I mean, let's say that's right. And we choose a bat. Well, bats have flight 30 feet, plus echolocation. The closest you're going to get with this is the Flier ability, with the Fast Movement for flying, plus Darkvision and flavoring it as echolocation (which falls apart, but not the point).I don't see why you take Fast Movement. And you can flavor echolocation, I think it's a good idea, but per RAW, you get it for free (in that case, I think it's a bit too much).Being slower than other bats means it's not actually a bat. You also can't reasonably flavor it when faced with a silence spell or a deeper darkness spell, so it's now the "Climbing as Flying" paradox.
And no, it's not free. You are required to pay familiar abilities for things your animal choice normally possesses.
"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."
So, technically, you only pay it if it's an actual Familiar Ability. But echolocation is a problematic one.And I don't think a bat goes necessarily that fast, not a small one.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I mean, let's say that's right. And we choose a bat. Well, bats have flight 30 feet, plus echolocation. The closest you're going to get with this is the Flier ability, with the Fast Movement for flying, plus Darkvision and flavoring it as echolocation (which falls apart, but not the point).I don't see why you take Fast Movement. And you can flavor echolocation, I think it's a good idea, but per RAW, you get it for free (in that case, I think it's a bit too much).Being slower than other bats means it's not actually a bat. You also can't reasonably flavor it when faced with a silence spell or a deeper darkness spell, so it's now the "Climbing as Flying" paradox.
And no, it's not free. You are required to pay familiar abilities for things your animal choice normally possesses.
"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."
So, technically, you only pay it if it's an actual Familiar Ability. But echolocation is a problematic one.
And I don't think a bat goes necessarily that fast, not a small one.
I can see the point, but there is an ability for Fast Movement, and a Bat does move faster than the standard 25 feet the Familiar starts out with.
A Giant Bat has 30 foot movement, and even a Vampire Bat Swarm (which basically consists of numerous standardized bats) likewise has 30 foot movement. So, your initial bat is slower than other bats of its kind, because...reasons?
And yes, echolocation is not a thing to take. So your bat is basically handicapped, for lack of a better term. The closest you might get is Darkvision, but it won't ever match the fact that you get two precise senses instead of just one.
I do think that if Familiars ever got additional senses, like a precise scent, echolocation, lifesense, tremorsense, etc. They might be more useful as a detector, fitting in with their inherent implications to scout targets. I know a couple of these are in there, but it should be much more expanded.
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Juggling macaques and echolocation, wow... you really have no idea what you're talking about with the RAW whatsoever. What's next, arbitrarily deciding to make your Familar some species of blind mole which has Scent and Tremorsense for free?
Familiars do not have hands, they're not Animals, they don't have Stats, they cannot Strike, and they NEVER have any abilities or features they're not expliclty granted during the Familiar creation process via Master/Familiar Abilities.
I mean, at least this isn't a rules discussion, clearly, because otherwise, the only thing you'd have to support it would be Rule 0 which is automatically struck when trying to discuss things from a neutral standpoint.
| 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.
So a little DM fiat combined with player ingenuity. I was more interested in exact rules as to what they can do.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
you do not get abilities for free.
you have to buy them.
the question is more for stuff that aren't abilities but stuff that inherently every creature can do just because it is a creature.
like breathing, bleeding, moving its limbs, and holding stuff (amongst others inherent features that sepearate a rock from a creature)
does a dog need a seperate ability to have something in his mouth? because i do not see in the animal tag "it can hold stuff in its mouth" as an ability.
The relationship between familiar abilities and those of the animals is laid out in the rules. I'm really not seeing why the long discussion about it.
1) AC, HitPoints, Senses and Movement are all replaced from the animal going to the familiar
2) If the animal naturally has any of the abilties, then that familiar must pay for and take that ability. If you don't have enough points to do it then you can't take that familiar. It is not said but it s pretty clear that if an animal has flight 5" or flight 80" you just get to take the basic fight ability regardless.
3) If the animal has an ability that is not available to buy as a familiar ability, then no where does it say that on becoming a familiar, that the original animal loses any abilities. So the familiar should keep that ability. I do expect a GM to apply common sense about this
AFAICT there is no reason that need to breath, eat, natural fur coat, carrying capacity are changed by becoming a familiar. They still have all the other characteristics of small animals. No rule takes this away, but yes its not explcitly specified.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
In normal games though, discuss with your GM and usually your familliar will work like a normal creature if they are not hating your guts. Yes the rules say that a familiar can't do anything (missing stats, never trained, no reactions, can't act if you don't give orders except with independant, etc ...) but I am sure many GM will prefer familiars that make sense to familiars that respect all the rules.
That's a very well thought out reply. Something we should all keep in mind.
The RAW is very restrictive. Rolepaying in a home game is far more open ended. Folks should take it down a notch and realize that the question "What do you do with familiars" really depends on how your DM sees them.
If you play with all the limitations of RAW, the answer is not much. They're a class feature designed to give a limited palette of small advantages to their master.
If you play with more open interpretations, you can do as much as your imagination and the DM's open-mindedness will allow.