| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Wait.
Is this a Rules Thread now?
Boo!
Well, the reply to the original question is very simple: Everything you want them to do until your GM says no.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
The reason it doesn't work is because Valet is dependent upon being commanded for it to work.
Your familiar doesn't use its 2 actions immediately upon your command. Instead, up to twice before the end of your turn, you can have your familiar Interact to retrieve an item of light or negligible Bulk you are wearing and place it into one of your free hands.
So, when you command it, it doesn't immediately take actions, and instead permits an action combo up to twice in your turn.
Strikes and Strides don't necessarily have that limitation, but they are only independently taken when they are in areas of danger or are being specifically attacked.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Wait.
Is this a Rules Thread now?
Boo!
It's hard to talk about the thread topic "FAMILIARS: WHAT DO YOU DO WITH THEM?" without taking the actual rules for them into account. If it was rules free, we'd be talking about what embarrassing outfits we put on your wombats or what is your favorite meat to wrap your 'bait' in...
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
But I'm not using Valet, so I can ignore the words of Valet.This is where things fall apart as the ONLY time your familiar can draw and hand off in a single action is by using the valet ability. Nothing says they retain the ability when not using it.
You are misusing RAW.
If something is not defined as possible or impossible by RAW then it's up to the GM. That's why you can sit around all tables I've played in: as the sit action isn't defined in the rules it's up to the GM and reasonable GMs consider it's possible for a character to sit. This is the strict application of RAW, not a houserule.
In current case, I'm using an action that is not defined by the rules and as such it's up to the GM. Because my Familiar can perform this very same action when commanded then it's logical to consider it can perform this action when not commanded. As such, ruling that Independent and Valet allows my Familiar to draw and hand me an item with the Independent action is both RAW and logical. Ruling that it's impossible is RAW and not logical. Saying that it's impossible because it's not RAW is doubly falacious as it's not RAW and not logical.
You're basically arguing that flurry allows an extra attack whenever because you learned to make extra attacks 'cuz you aren't using flurry'...
Yes, exactly. If your Ranger is in an archery contest where the goal is to shoot the maximum number of arrows in 2 seconds then your Ranger is able to shoot twice in 2 seconds if he has Hunted Shot. Now, as it's not defined by the rules the GM will rule the way it works. But stating that your Ranger forgot the ability to shoot 2 arrows in 2 seconds because he doesn't have a prey isn't logical. You can apply it (as it's up to the GM) but you can't take cover behind RAW for your illogical ruling as RAW is silent about that.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
You are misusing RAW.
AH... I think the one misusing it is you. When something IS defined as possible when you do X, you can NOT expect it to be available when you do not do X. If you have to load a crossbow before you fire it, you can't argue that it's undefined: it's clearly defined what you have to do first. Same with Valet: you must command it before you get do the action it allows. It's not undefined, but quite clearly defined: you just aren't following what is defined. :P
If you have to load a crossbow before you fire it, you can't argue that it's undefined
Of course, because it's defined.
As a side note, you can choose to shoot an unloaded crossbow. This is clearly an action that a character can do. I expect most GMs to rule that it has no effect, but ruling that it's "impossible per RAW" is wrong.Same with Valet: you must command it before you get do the action it allows.
But I'm not using Valet. Unless your reasoning is "you can't use an action not defined in the rules".
|
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Bidi, you are trying to use a specific part of valet - namely the “draw item and hand to master as 1 action” part of it.
It’s the 1 action part that is being objected to because it’s a specific part of the valet ability.
Stop trying to take this down a weird rabbit hole.
Bidi, you are trying to use a specific part of valet - namely the “draw item and hand to master as 1 action” part of it.
It’s the 1 action part that is being objected to because it’s a specific part of the valet ability.
I agree with that.
Stop trying to take this down a weird rabbit hole.
But not with that. I say that an Independent Familiar is able to perform any action without the need to be commanded. Which is just the logical part of being independent. You can't object to that "per RAW".
This is not a rabbit hole, as it's a debate that has been raised quite a few times with the ability to Fireball chairs or to strike an item for example. Some people are just misapplying RAW to the point of illogicalness.
|
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
But not with that. I say that an Independent Familiar is able to perform any action without the need to be commanded. Which is just the logical part of being independent. You can't object to that "per RAW".
Bull! You have made specific claims about the interaction of two abilities
I agree with Shoudb on this oneValet has additional language of what happens when it only has 1 action available instead of 2, which only happens with Indipendant giving said 1 action to the familiar.
Saying that "valet" only triggers on Command is exactly the same as saying that every single ability of the familiar only happens on "Command" since that's the general rule. Indipendent changes said rule that's the whole point of it.
Anyway, ultimately, you can always have your Familiar draw an item and put it in your hand. Because it has Valet it's just one action for it so it can do it with Independent.
Your Familiar can retrieve an item and give it to you. Forbidding this action would forbid the use of Valet and be against RAW.
The question is how many actions does it take. Considering that Valet takes one action and that it's exactly what your Familiar does it should be one action.
Independent and Valet allow you to draw an item when your Familiar use Independent because forbidding it would be highly illogical.
But I'm not using Valet, so I can ignore the words of Valet. I'm just using the ability my Familiar has to hand me an item in one action (which is made possible by Valet).
This entire discussion has been about the validity of these specific claims. Wherein, you are incorrect.
Everything else you are trying to bring into it, any other edge cases you are relevant, are not. That is the rabbit hole I'm talking about.
You made claims which are incorrect. Cope.
Cope.
First of all, I'm engaging in this debate in good faith. I admit the possibility of being convinced. As such, I don't have to cope with any statements I made in the past.
But I stick to my statements anyway.
Anyway, ultimately, you can always have your Familiar draw an item and put it in your hand. Because it has Valet it's just one action for it so it can do it with Independent.
That is true. Having Valet implies that the Familiar can draw an item and put it in your hand for one action. The ability to make an action/activity is dependent on the ability to make all of its subactions and as such being able to use an ability implies the ability to make any of its subactions.
If I can't Strike or if I can't Stride I can't Sudden Charge. As such, if I can Sudden Charge I can Strike and Stride.Same here, if my Familiar can Valet then it can draw an item and hand it to me in one action as not being able to do so would make it unable to use Valet.
It's basic logic.
The only questions is: Is my Familiar able to do this action without being commanded? On that question, RAW is silent. We know it can do it when commanded which doesn't imply that it can't do it when not commanded (that would be a logic error).
The thing is: The whole point of Independent is that it can perform actions without having to be commanded. As such, it's logical for my Familiar to be able to do it.
On your side, your argument is that Valet and Independent can't be used together, which I no more object to. Your argument doesn't contradict mine so I don't need to.
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Anyway, ultimately, you can always have your Familiar draw an item and put it in your hand. Because it has Valet it's just one action for it so it can do it with Independent.That is true.
No, it is not true.
You cannot gain the effects of Valet without using Valet. The draw and then Hand as a single action is part of the effect of Valet. As such, it cannot be used with Independant.
Nothing else you are saying is relevant. It's a binary scenario.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
If I can't Strike or if I can't Stride I can't Sudden Charge. As such, if I can Sudden Charge I can Strike and Stride.
No, that second part does not follow. Your ability to Stride and Strike is independent of your ability to sudden charge, as seen by every character that can do those actions without being able to sudden charge.
Graystone's example was correct regarding flurry. Just because you are able to make two strikes with a single action under certain circumstances does not mean you are always able to make two strikes with a single action under all circumstances.
If Valet did what you are saying, it would be written differently. The ability to have a familiar retrieve and hand you an item with a single action would be mentioned independently of any references to commanding your familiar, specifically to avoid this ambiguity. Instead, the ability specifically mentions that the familiar can perform this action while commanded. It specifies that three times in fact, including at the beginning where it specifically does not grant your familiar the ability in general, but only when commanded.
Compare:
You can command your familiar to deliver you items more efficiently
With this, which is what it would say if you were correct:
Your familiar can deliver items to you more efficiently.
|
|
Alright, it's been a while and Bidi has made several other posts since then, so I think we can move on.
____________
A couple of sessions ago my 19th level Wizard swapped out his long-term familiar for an Aeon Wyrd.
At 19th level I've started to find my investment slots getting cramped, so being able to keep that Pale Orange Rhomboid of mine on the go, while getting an investment slot back is a big win for me.
My group did muse that there might be a combo with an Aeon Wyrd, a Western Star stone, and the Familiar Conduit feat - but I'm 99% sure it doesn't work like that as they want it to.
Yeah I don't think it would make the Aeon Wyrd invisible. It says you get the resonant power, not that it grants resonant power as if it were a wayfinder.
I'd probably let it go if I was the GM, but I'm not sure that RAW grants that.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Wait.
Is this a Rules Thread now?
Boo!
Yeah, it sucks how every thread about familiars inevitably becomes this same argument. There are a lot more interesting things to discuss about them, but here we are.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
If I get like a small monkey, or a racoon, or something else with hands (Imp?), can I teach it to use a gun?
Guns are weapons. Familiars are not proficient in any weaponry, even natural, unarmed attacks, and there are no familiar powers that grant the ability to use weapons. They also can't make Strikes whatsoever (though spell attack rolls are called out as being valid, using your level as its bonus).
So, no, you can't have a familiar use a weapon like a gun.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Yeah, it sucks how every thread about familiars inevitably becomes this same argument. There are a lot more interesting things to discuss about them, but here we are.Wait.
Is this a Rules Thread now?
Boo!
I find that lying or fairytaling about what a familiar can do by being ignorant about clearly intended restrictions or overly flexible about rules interpretations doesn't make for a very genuine discussion. But hey, if that's not a qualification, then I'll refer to my group's PF1 familiar that suplexed goblins into defeated submission. Should totally work out the same way in PF2, give it a shot!
The last thing we need to do is spread false information about what familiars can or can't do by getting a player's hopes up compared to what rules actually say.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I find that lying or fairytaling about what a familiar can do by being ignorant about clearly intended restrictions or overly flexible about rules interpretations doesn't make for a very genuine discussion.
This. It devolves into rules talk BECAUSE people start suggesting awesome thing to do with familiars that they actually can't do. If everyone limited themselves to making suggestions within the existing limitations of the PF2 rules, there would be no reason to bring rules into it... :P
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Yeah, it sucks how every thread about familiars inevitably becomes this same argument. There are a lot more interesting things to discuss about them, but here we are.Wait.
Is this a Rules Thread now?
Boo!
That is because there is a reasonable rules argument that something that should work doesn't.
This is precsiely the sort of thing that should be errated to make clear that it works. Or get an official comment to say it definitely doesn't work and thats how they want it.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Alright, it's been a while and Bidi has made several other posts since then, so I think we can move on.
Well, I can take time to answer. But as people are complaining and because it doesn't seem to lead anywhere, I'll stop speaking about that. But I clearly disagree with you.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Alright, it's been a while and Bidi has made several other posts since then, so I think we can move on.Well, I can take time to answer. But as people are complaining and because it doesn't seem to lead anywhere, I'll stop speaking about that. But I clearly disagree with you.
Show us why though!
We have a rules based argument to oppose your idea, but so far you haven't presented a rules based counter point.
Don't just say you don't agree, show me why I might be wrong!
Show us why though!
I'll make it simple. This is wrong:
It's a binary scenario.
RAW is luckily more flexible than that, as it's a ternary scenario. There is defined by RAW, forbidden by RAW and undefined by RAW (or up to the GM). That's why your character can attack an object, because it's undefined by RAW but reasonable GMs will allow it. And that's why lots of people in this thread show off about their familiar actions because the rules about familiars are extremely limited in their scope and as such everything that steps out of these rules is up to the GM.
Many of the arguments limiting the familiars abilities are using a binary vision of RAW: Defined by RAW, forbidden by RAW. And as such, because Familiars are mostly undefined, they limit the abilities familiars have to nothingness. But it's an unproper way of using RAW. Undefined by RAW means up to the GM, not forbidden.
So, when you say that:
You cannot gain the effects of Valet without using Valet.
It's not true. This is a limitation that isn't written anywhere in the rules.
As such, some DMs will rule that an Independent Familiar doesn't need to be commanded to perform his actions, as it would be highly illogical. Others can say that it needs to be commanded to perform valet action.That's the same process the GM uses when applying Strike rules to attack an object despite the fact that Strike can only target a creature.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
It's not true. This is a limitation that isn't written anywhere in the rules.
So your argument pretty much boils down to 'the rules don't say I can't Fly without the spell so I can do it!'... Yeah, no... :P
RAW is luckily more flexible than that, as it's a ternary scenario.
The only way it's ternary is if you add 'houserule' into it. You're trying to take a defined action with defined limitations and remove the limitations: that's a houserule. You can claim you can use a stance withoug taking an action to do so, but that's not a ternary scenario but a houserule scenario.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
It's not true. This is a limitation that isn't written anywhere in the rules.So your argument pretty much boils down to 'the rules don't say I can't Fly without the spell so I can do it!'... Yeah, no... :P
RAW is luckily more flexible than that, as it's a ternary scenario.The only way it's ternary is if you add 'houserule' into it. You're trying to take a defined action with defined limitations and remove the limitations: that's a houserule. You can claim you can use a stance withoug taking an action to do so, but that's not a ternary scenario but a houserule scenario.
I would further argue that it is a logical and perfectly reasonable houserule, like the Striking Objects scenario you mention. But definitely still a houserule.
Perhaps your interpretation is how it should and eventually might work. It would not take much revision of the ability to make that happen, and I don't think it would be unbalancing, since it would require two specific familiar abilities to function.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I would further argue that it is a logical and perfectly reasonable houserule, like the Striking Objects scenario you mention. But definitely still a houserule.
Yeah, this would be a completely different discussion is we where talking about what you should be able to do instead of what the rules actually allow. I 100% think you SHOULD be able to attack items with weapons: unfortunately, the rules actively go out of their way to prevent it. :P
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Show us why though!I'll make it simple. This is wrong:
It's a binary scenario.RAW is luckily more flexible than that, as it's a ternary scenario. There is defined by RAW, forbidden by RAW and undefined by RAW (or up to the GM). That's why your character can attack an object, because it's undefined by RAW but reasonable GMs will allow it. And that's why lots of people in this thread show off about their familiar actions because the rules about familiars are extremely limited in their scope and as such everything that steps out of these rules is up to the GM.
Many of the arguments limiting the familiars abilities are using a binary vision of RAW: Defined by RAW, forbidden by RAW. And as such, because Familiars are mostly undefined, they limit the abilities familiars have to nothingness. But it's an unproper way of using RAW. Undefined by RAW means up to the GM, not forbidden.
So, when you say that:
You cannot gain the effects of Valet without using Valet.It's not true. This is a limitation that isn't written anywhere in the rules.
As such, some DMs will rule that an Independent Familiar doesn't need to be commanded to perform his actions, as it would be highly illogical. Others can say that it needs to be commanded to perform valet action.
That's the same process the GM uses when applying Strike rules to attack an object despite the fact that Strike can only target a creature.
I want to attack the bad guy's sword, shield, or armor, so that it's easier for our group to kill them with those being broken or destroyed. GM then turns around and follows the same tactics in a later fight. Next thing you know, we're neck-deep in a dungeon with broken/destroyed gear. It was called Sundering in PF1, and PF2 went out of it's way to make sure you can't do this. Which is why the rules don't permit you to just strike objects whenever you want.
Show me where in the rules that Familiars are considered undefined. Because they, and their powers, are clearly defined enough to be able to function (poorly, but function nonetheless). They don't have ability scores or personal modifiers, they don't get to make strikes...these are things the rules define for us, whether directly or indirectly. To suggest they are undefined and therefore prone to GM FIAT is a dubious claim when others can reach conclusions to those abilities just fine, and within the RAW's wording.
It's much easier for you to just admit you would have rather had these elements work together merely because you want them to, because that's basically the only leg your argument has to stand on
I 100% think you SHOULD be able to attack items with weapons: unfortunately, the rules actively go out of their way to prevent it. :P
Do they though? Or is it just undefined in the rules? There is a difference.
I do agree SuperBidi insofar that the choices available are not binary.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I 100% think you SHOULD be able to attack items with weapons: unfortunately, the rules actively go out of their way to prevent it. :PDo they though?
Yes, yes they do. You have to specifically target an item to damage it and Strike and other ways to damage items doesn't allow items to be targeted with them. The net affect is being SPECIFICALLY UNABLE to damage them. The fact that there is no way to adjudicate such an attack, like a target AC, is only an issue if you houserule around being unable to attack them.
Strike: "You attack with a weapon you're wielding or with an unarmed attack, targeting one creature within your reach (for a melee attack) or within range (for a ranged attack).
Items and Hit Points: "Damaging an unattended item usually requires attacking it directly, and can be difficult due to that item’s Hardness and immunities. You usually can’t attack an attended object (one on a creature’s person)."
Add to this, that most spells have had object removed from the target sections in the last errata and there is barely any way to harm an object even with magic and it's clearly by design.
I do agree SuperBidi insofar that the choices available are not binary.
Sure. Right, wrong and houserule/DM fiat. That's it really. When a choice is defined, changing it doesn't mean it's undefined... :P
Strike: "You attack with a weapon you're wielding or with an unarmed attack, targeting one creature within your reach (for a melee attack) or within range (for a ranged attack).
I think their point is that while the rules are clear that you cannot Strike an unattended object, that was not necessarily intended to be the only way to attack and damage something. And in this hypothetical other method that the rules do not define, you are able to attack and damage an object that you are not able to strike.
Which I realize is entirely unhelpful when you sit down to whack a hazard, but I think that is what Ravingdork was implying when he said it might just be undefined.
I actually wonder if there was a subsystem intended to damage objects that got dropped for simplicity, like a Sunder action that was hardness vs hardness or an expansion of the dent rules. It would explain the various gaps in the system that we have in front of us if they were originally planning on something in that gap, decided against it, but neglected to go back and fill in the Strike rules to say "targeting one creature or unintended object".
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I think their point is that while the rules are clear that you cannot Strike an unattended object, that was not necessarily intended to be the only way to attack and damage something. And in this hypothetical other method that the rules do not define, you are able to attack and damage an object that you are not able to strike.
I don't understand this at all. If there was an intended way and it was removed then... it was SPECIFICALLY removed: the reason doesn't matter just that the end result is a set of rules where it was engineered to make attacking objects impossible without the right spell. [and I wouldn't be surprised that they only want Disintegrate to do so as the others aren't core spells and outside the core errata]
Which I realize is entirely unhelpful when you sit down to whack a hazard, but I think that is what Ravingdork was implying when he said it might just be undefined.
*shrug* From my perspective, it all seems planned out. Some mystery way that way left undefined IMO is the same as leaving it for houseruling it or Dm fiat.
I actually wonder if there was a subsystem intended to damage objects that got dropped for simplicity, like a Sunder action that was hardness vs hardness or an expansion of the dent rules. It would explain the various gaps in the system that we have in front of us if they were originally planning on something in that gap, decided against it, but neglected to go back and fill in the Strike rules to say "targeting one creature or unintended object".
They may have toyed with it, but since the dent system didn't survive the 1st playtest it would have been dumped too. Quite honestly, I see this as one of those parts of the game where they shrugged and left it as 'ask your DM' like MANY, MANY, MANY things in the game: this is a DM-centric/empowerment game where leaving large chunks of the game up to the DM is 100% intended. I wish it wasn't but that's just the way it was made.
|
|
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
I feel like the whole attacking objects thing is a tangent.
In that scenario there is an absence of rules to govern the situation. In the case with Familiars and the whole Valet/Independent thing, we have rules which govern the situation, its just some people don't agree with them.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I refuse to believe that the intent is that someone is simply unable to swing an axe to a wooden door.
Seems pretty clear when the base weapon attack is specifically excluded from targeting it.
first and foremost, this is a roleplaying game, and this means that if i "say" that my character does something that's reasonable doable it happens. The only reason we have rules is to facilitate on "how" to do reasonable actions.
A DM can add whatever they want to the game: that doesn't mean the base game changed because of that.
it's the same as for why the game doesn't need to have rules for going to the bathroom, you simply do.
The difference is that in one case, it has no rules impact while the other does. It's one thing to hand-wave irrelevant thing but quite another to handwave other things like bypassing a door that you'd otherwise need to make a skill roll to bypass. Saying my set of clothes has pockets isn't the same as saying my set of cloths gives me an AC of 20 + dex.
there's a mojor difference between "houserule", which is usually used to describe a deliberate change from the rules of the game and "gm ruling" which is simply how things work for the gadzillion of things that someone can do and are impossible to ALL of them be defined by a printed rule already.
IMO, there is NO difference between adding a rule vs changing a rule: they are both modifying the rules beyond what is presented. If I leave one table and sit down at another, anything not in the rulebook is going to be seen by me as a houserule, not a RAW book rule. What is a house rule if it's not a "rule" that your "house" has implemented that doesn't appear in the game?
I refuse to believe that the intent is that someone is simply unable to swing an axe to a wooden door.
first and foremost, this is a roleplaying game, and this means that if i "say" that my character does something that's reasonable doable it happens. The only reason we have rules is to facilitate on "how" to do reasonable actions.
it's the same as for why the game doesn't need to have rules for going to the bathroom, you simply do.
edit:
there's a mojor difference between "houserule", which is usually used to describe a deliberate change from the rules of the game and "gm ruling" which is simply how things work for the gadzillion of things that someone can do and are impossible to ALL of them be defined by a printed rule already.
Don't believe it if you want. If I can use an adamantine axe to chop down a wooden door, I can also use said adamantine axe to break down walls, create holes in the ground, and destroy equipment the enemy is using so it's much easier to defeat them. Big Bad has a powerful sword? Not anymore, I attack it and destroy it, now Big Bad can only punch for 1D3 + 12 damage.
It's a slippery slope if we allow one apparently non-broken interaction, because it now opens dozens of other broken interactions. Best to just stop the slope from existing entirely, even if it breaks immersion in some scenarios, because of balance. Plus, bad guys can do the same things. Like your axe, spellbook, etc.? Too bad, bad guys gonna destroy it. All that hard-earned gold and effort you put towards your new gear, gone in a dice roll.
The rules are abstract from reasonableness or realism because it makes the game more playable, more balanced, and therefore more fun. I can heal somebody within 2 seconds with a medkit, I can reload firearms and heavy crossbows in 2-4 seconds, I can exist without eating or drinking, I can survive skydiving from 10,000 feet in the air without getting a scratch from the impact. None of those things are reasonably doable in any realistic setting. But they're necessary to be ran this way for game balance. The cloth cuts both ways.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Except, the rules don't let you get to act the role. You want to use strikes to destroy a wooden door with an adamantine axe. The rules don't permit this outside of GM FIAT handwaving it away, which isn't any more rules than the top hat board piece getting an additional $50 for passing Go, because it's so stylish and worth the money.
I know of those rules. I also know those rules are pretty fringe case for effects which expressly target objects but don't outright destroy them. Doesn't mean you get to make strikes against objects, and also doesn't mean you get to just break the game because of a single non-broken interaction when it opens up dozens of other much more broken interactions to be considered legit roleplaying.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
So for my character that has a familiar, the familiar is a drunken raven that pokes their head out every so often and lets forth a nasty belch of something foul (indicating a Critical Failure on something like 'Make an Impression'), snores loudly in their pouch of the backpack (indicating a Critical Failure on Stealth), and steals food from the party (Critical Failure on a Survival Check to gather food), etc.
It's so very convenient to have a handy explanation for why my character Critically Fails at ttimes!
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
there's a mojor difference between "houserule", which is usually used to describe a deliberate change from the rules of the game and "gm ruling" which is simply how things work for the gadzillion of things that someone can do and are impossible to ALL of them be defined by a printed rule already.IMO, there is NO difference between adding a rule vs changing a rule: they are both modifying the rules beyond what is presented. If I leave one table and sit down at another, anything not in the rulebook is going to be seen by me as a houserule, not a RAW book rule. What is a house rule if it's not a "rule" that your "house" has implemented that doesn't appear in the game?
Playing RAW at this level is a fantasy. The game is full of explicit instructions from GMs to apply interpretation including inside the explicit case in contention here Independent\Valet.
These sorts of GM rulings are part of the base game. You can't really play the game at any level without them. So your goal of a defined set of rules is achievable but it is always going to be incomplete. There will always be a set of GM rulings and they will vary from table to table. Heck my personal list is up to seven pages already.
On the specific issue of Valet verus Independant. You read the ability Valet as requiring specific instruction for it to function. It is a fair poistion given the wording of Valet which mentions command 3 times in it. I don't see the rule interaction that way.
Valet does nothing to Independant except inform it that your familiar is capable of such an action, that is interacting to retrieve and place an item in its master hands.
Each of the two actions of Valet is clearly separate so there is no trouble in just doing one of them.
Independant is independant from Valet. It clearly removes the need to command your familiar. It leaves open the possiblity that it will not do as requested.
Independant is not doing a partially Valet. Valet is merely saying your familiar can do this. Independant says your familiar does something it can do but without instruction.
So even on a RAW basis in this case I don't agree with you. I do allow that your rules position has some merit. I would like it clarified.
To everyone else, sorry for kicking this can again.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Playing RAW at this level is a fantasy.
Not really, it's actually quite easy in and in this case quite explicit. Your familiar can do a specific set of actions when you command it: full stop, easy peasy all done.
Valet does nothing to Independant except inform it that your familiar is capable of such an action, that is interacting to retrieve and place an item in its master hands.
Sure, WHEN COMMANDED. I can also attack twice with a single action with a flurry so it informed me that my monk is capable of it... That doesn't mean I can attack twice when I don't follow the rules for flurry.
Each of the two actions of Valet is clearly separate so there is no trouble in just doing one of them.
You can use a single action because it allows you to under it's rules and only when you command it. For instance, if your familiar is slowed, it can use it's single action with valet no problem: that in no way leads to it being able to use valet without a command.
Independant is independant from Valet.
Agreed, valet in no way impacts what independent allows. independent grants an action but what it doesn't do is allow the familiar to act as if it was commanded. For instance, it can move, as that doesn't require a command, just an action. It can cast a spell if it has it or use it's skill as those to do not require a command just actions... What it can't do is use the valet actions as those specifically DO require a command.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
What it can't do is use the valet actions as those specifically DO require a command.
And this is the point we disagree on. Independent is not doing Valet in any sense. Independent is doing a "retrieve and place" action. All Valet tells us is that the familar is trained and can physically do this.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
What it can't do is use the valet actions as those specifically DO require a command.And this is the point we disagree on. Independent is not doing Valet in any sense. Independent is doing a "retrieve and place" action. All Valet tells us is that the familar is trained and can physically do this.
There is no ""retrieve and place" action": only the Valet abilities and nothing infers or implies that it's an independent action allowable outside the valet ability. I'm 100% honest when I say I have no idea where this idea has come from. Independent only grants actions and valet doesn't directly use/have actions: valet allows you to retrieve and hand 1 item/action you grant but those aren't actual actions as such but more an activity.
"If the familiar has a different number of actions, it can retrieve one item for each action it has when commanded this way." Note that you do NOT actually spend an action per item but just have a limit of items retrieves per actions you had when commanded [not actions you spend]. I really, really, really can't see a way to read it so that a familiar gets to use valet without the command.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
I'd much rather spread around that PF2 is a game where GMs and players collaborate to determine the specifics of what they can and can't do, within the general guidelines of the game, rather than PF2 being a game where things get arbitrarily shut down because the devs didn't account for every possible interaction in thousands of pages.
Also, this thread had already turned gross, I really don't see the need to goad SuperBidi back to posting about the idea just to pile on again :v
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I'd much rather spread around that PF2 is a game where GMs and players collaborate to determine the specifics of what they can and can't do, within the general guidelines of the game, rather than PF2 being a game where things get arbitrarily shut down because the devs didn't account for every possible interaction in thousands of pages.
I've found that it's more a game where each table you sit down in is like playing a different edition of the game with no way to know how thing are going to work beforehand as large swathes of the game are left to GM fiat. There is a very large gap between the framework of rules we often have and an "account for every possible interaction in thousands of pages". It might be just the right game for someone with a permanent home game and a group that wants to kit-build system of their very own but not so much if you see a lot of different tables.
Also, this thread had already turned gross, I really don't see the need to goad SuperBidi back to posting about the idea just to pile on again :v
All someone said was that they hadn't heard from him for a while so there wasn't anything else to talk about with the debate he was in... Hardly seems like goading or gross.
As to a 'pile-on'... Well, how exactly do we determine what that is? If one more person on your side agrees? 2? 3? And how is a pile on different than just a bunch of people disagreeing on the point he was making? It's important to have different people so it doesn't seem like just 2 people arguing and taking over the conversation or being argumentative just t be contrary.
I know of those rules. I also know those rules are pretty fringe case for effects which expressly target objects but don't outright destroy them. Doesn't mean you get to make strikes against objects, and also doesn't mean you get to just break the game because of a single non-broken interaction when it opens up dozens of other much more broken interactions to be considered legit roleplaying.
And that is exactly what I'm trying to show. There is not such things as breaking the game. There is no such things as "every DM choice is a houserule".
There are no rules about attacking objects. If you want to smash a door, the GM says yes or no. If you want to smash the BBEG sword, the GM says yes or no. And these 2 answers don't have to be correlated at all. This isn't a can of worms that you open it's just empowering the GM to allow players to live their fantasy while preserving the game from going south.
And that's why in my opinion there is no RAW about it. Because if there was a RAW about it, players could say that the GM is not following RAW and now Paizo needs to describe every way of damaging objects because if they forget one then players will try to cheese through it. And now every wall of your dungeon can be destroyed because this is RAW and some players may even decide to build a character concept around this (I'm a dungeon miner!). That's the real can of worms.
The familiar rules have been written with very vague words. If you follow RAW to the strictest the Familiar rules don't fulfill the familiar fantasy at all. So, Graystone is all on strict RAW, which is ok but not the only way to handle familiars.
Personally, I want crow familiars to carry messages, monkey familiars to incarnate the monkey burglar fantasy, bat familiars to act as scouts and I have to admit that crossbow loading familiars seems to be a thing. And I'm pretty sure Graystone would object that the crow familiar can't carry messages because it has to act for a long duration without control and that the monkey familiar can't break into a house because you need to be Trained in Thievery to pick a lock and that the bat familiar can't have echolocation because it's not a familiar ability and that the crossbow loading familiar can't reload an item that is held by someone else. But these rulings are not always the only way of ruling a Familiar, it's just a strictest RAW way of ruling a Familiar. There's a lot of leeway without going against RAW (which is the only thing that is specifically forbidden by RAW).
The problem of following RAW to the strictest is that you end up with what I consider the most preposterous rule ever written: "When you die, you can't act". Following RAW to the strictest push developers to specify even the most obvious things because there are some people out there who can discuss for hours about the ability of a dead character to act.
In the case of the Independent Valet interaction, I find highly illogical to say that an Independent Familiar needs commanding to perform certain actions. For me, it affects the verisimilitude of the world and the way I visualize my Familiar.
And I dislike the argument that "It's impossible because it's not RAW.". RAW is not that strict. It's just not RAW, but it's also not against RAW and as such it's up to the DM.
And we can see in this discussion that people are more or less into strict RAW. For me the question is "How do you prefer to play the game?" and not "What is forbidden and what is allowed?". Humans are able to think with a lot of nuance, things don't have to be binary.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I know of those rules. I also know those rules are pretty fringe case for effects which expressly target objects but don't outright destroy them. Doesn't mean you get to make strikes against objects, and also doesn't mean you get to just break the game because of a single non-broken interaction when it opens up dozens of other much more broken interactions to be considered legit roleplaying.And that is exactly what I'm trying to show. There is not such things as breaking the game. There is no such things as "every DM choice is a houserule".
There are no rules about attacking objects. If you want to smash a door, the GM says yes or no. If you want to smash the BBEG sword, the GM says yes or no. And these 2 answers don't have to be correlated at all. This isn't a can of worms that you open it's just empowering the GM to allow players to live their fantasy while preserving the game from going south.
And that's why in my opinion there is no RAW about it. Because if there was a RAW about it, players could say that the GM is not following RAW and now Paizo needs to describe every way of damaging objects because if they forget one then players will try to cheese through it. And now every wall of your dungeon can be destroyed because this is RAW and some players may even decide to build a character concept around this (I'm a dungeon miner!). That's the real can of worms.
The familiar rules have been written with very vague words. If you follow RAW to the strictest the Familiar rules don't fulfill the familiar fantasy at all. So, Graystone is all on strict RAW, which is ok but not the only way to handle familiars.
Personally, I want crow familiars to carry messages, monkey familiars to incarnate the monkey burglar fantasy, bat familiars to act as scouts and I have to admit that crossbow loading familiars seems to be a thing. And I'm pretty sure Graystone would object that the crow familiar can't carry messages because it has to act for a long duration without...
Table variation is a thing. One GM will rule X. Another will rule Y. If Y is a houserule, whereas X is RAW, I will expect to play the game with X every time, as most games with the Y houserule I will be aware of ahead of time. This is why GM FIAT is not an acceptable rules answer unless there is absolutely nothing else to go on. And in this case, there is.
Remember that whatever the PCs do, the bad guys can do as well, it's all fair game. If PCs can break down doors or walls with axes, so can the bad guys. You can bet when a player uses smart tactics against the module that they have changed the game in a way they may not expect. Players are much more likely to cry afoul when a GM uses PC tactics against them, which is why GMs don't do this, or let PCs do it, especially if it's built into the balance of the game.
I suspect that if Paizo made RAW about it, it wouldn't be particularly different compared to what we already have available to us with shield rules, material rules, etc. It's not that striking objects can't be adjudicated, it's that one GM's adjudication will be different from another's, which is bad for rules consistency between tables, something I would expect a PFS player like yourself to be familiar with.
To me, familiars in PF2 never will fulfill the fantasy appropriately, even if they are as fleshed out as PC classes are. They're just so bad with their options that it's just not worth the investment unless you really just want to mess around. Even with clarifications and added options with each book, they just don't measure up to any sort of value that I can't already do with a feat or spell of some sort. They are RP options and little else.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Except, the rules don't let you get to act the role. You want to use strikes to destroy a wooden door with an adamantine axe. The rules don't permit this outside of GM FIAT handwaving it away, which isn't any more rules than the top hat board piece getting an additional $50 for passing Go, because it's so stylish and worth the money.
I know of those rules. I also know those rules are pretty fringe case for effects which expressly target objects but don't outright destroy them. Doesn't mean you get to make strikes against objects, and also doesn't mean you get to just break the game because of a single non-broken interaction when it opens up dozens of other much more broken interactions to be considered legit roleplaying.
What you call GM fiat is rule no1 of how every single rpg game plays out.
There is no single instance of playing an rpg that GM doesn't need to rule how some things work.
If there was a way for "GM fiat" to not exist we would be playing with computer GMs instead of people.
That is:
GM Fiat is the basic principle of how the game is supposed to work in the first place.That is because it is physically impossible to code into rules the literally millions of decisions that any player can take.
That is the core difference between an rpg, where you have freedom of actions, and board games where you can only do the handful of scripted actions.
Now, if you want to play a game where woodchoppers can't chop wood, I would simply leave your table and be done with said issue.
As I said before, there are people that play rpgs like board games instead of rpgs, and if they have fun like that, then that's OK.
I simply, personally, enjoy rpgs as rpgs more.
GM FIAT is a last resort rule for when all else fails. That's all it is, and nothing more. A band-aid for when the developers don't (or rather, can't,) anticipate certain rules interactions.
Considering that there are machines that can map out and calculate different combinations of numbers, results, etc. I suspect that not only is it possible, it's already done. In fact, a responsive version of this already exists in the form of artificial intelligence, or AI.
The biggest problems with AI are that it's not autonomous, evolutionary, as well as it not being sourced from a human being directly, which is a big reason why players want people GMs: it creates a better connection that people desire from the game more than just another entity to enable their hobbies.
That's not at all what is being suggested. What is being suggested is a domino effect that breaks everything. The wood chopper chopping the tree is now causing the tree to timber down and hurt other trees, power lines, animals, or bystanders unintentionally. All possible if we let him just chop a tree.