Hello everyone, I have a quick question. Do the Independent and Valet familiar abilities work together so a player can retrieve 1 item per round without spending actions?
|
| 8 people marked this as a favorite. |
The question has split the room before, however I am of opinion that Valet and Independent have no interaction with each other for any purpose, due to the nature of their activations.
In an encounter, if you don't Command your familiar, it still gains 1 action each round. Typically, you still decide how it spends that action, but, the GM might determine that your familiar chooses its own tactics rather than performing your preferred action.
You can command your familiar to deliver you items more efficiently. 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. The familiar can't use this ability to retrieve stowed items. If the familiar has a different number of actions, it can retrieve one item for each action it has when commanded this way.
Independent hinges on you not issuing commands to your familiar, whereas Valet modifies what you can do with your commands.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Whereas the rest of the room sees that Independent is specifically overriding this "command" requirement.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Whereas the rest of the room sees that Independent is specifically overriding this "command" requirement.
LOL I Don't know what room you where in but it wasn't the one I was in as I sure haven't seen a clear consensus on it like you're seem to be suggesting. Nothing suggested, or inferred, in the abilities say that anything was overridden that I saw.
"In an encounter, if you don't Command your familiar, it still gains 1 action each round.": where exactly is this override clause? Or something that infers one?
Whereas the rest of the room sees that Independent is specifically overriding this "command" requirement.LOL I Don't know what room you where in but it wasn't the one I was in as I sure haven't seen a clear consensus on it like you're seem to be suggesting. Nothing suggested, or inferred, in the abilities say that anything was overridden that I saw.
"In an encounter, if you don't Command your familiar, it still gains 1 action each round.": where exactly is this override clause? Or something that infers one?
The "room" was the one Old Man Robot mentioned. Which in fact was several forum threads you probably were in.
I never implied a consensus, so please don't accuse me of that. All I was doing was voicing the other opinion, because 4 people had already liked Old Man Robots post. The thread was left hanging without it.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I never implied a consensus, so please don't accuse me of that. All I was doing was voicing the other opinion, because 4 people had already liked Old Man Robots post.
"Whereas the rest of the room sees that Independent is specifically overriding this "command" requirement" sure SEEMS to be saying that everyone except Old_Man_Robot sees it one way. If you didn't mean it that way that's fine, but it sure wasn't the way it reads to me.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Sure, the one option uses "when commanded this way" language (which isn't necessarily important since the game is written in casual language rather than technical language - so it is possible that it's just an odd way the author ended up phrasing things rather than intended to be a specific override to other rules).
I would very much like to disagree with you on that. Paizo does a great job (better than most games I've played, TTRPG and otherwise) of being incredibly technical and precise with their language, and when they realize there might be something confusing people they attempt to fix it by making things even more precise. Yes, it uses sentences rather than bullet points, so in that sense they use "casual language" I guess, but always in a technical way.
For example, just look at one of the things they decided to make an errata for:
In the definition for the unarmed weapon trait, the sentence "a fist or other grasping appendage follows the same rules as a free-hand weapon" was worded in such a way it confused a few people, who thought that meant those unarmed attacks were weapons, despite statements to the contrary on page 278. To make it clear, change that section to read "a fist or other grasping appendage generally works like a free-hand weapon
They say right in the errata that, as far as they were concerned, it was already clear unarmed attacks weren't weapons elsewhere in the rules. But, they still decided to change that line because, although it was technically accurate, they wanted to make it more clear that that line didn't overwrite another rule.
Now, it's possible they made a mistake when writing the familiar rules in this regard and RAI wanted to let this interaction work, but I don't think it's fair to assume that a mistake was made. We should take the rules as they're written. If you want to allow it at your table, then go for it, but the rules do add the word commanded there, which I can only assume is intentional unless I see something that says otherwise.
Sure, the one option uses "when commanded this way" language (which isn't necessarily important since the game is written in casual language rather than technical language
IMO, it's quite hard to claim casual language when the word in question is a specific codified action for minions, which familiars are. It's like using spell level in a sentence but not referring to the game term: it's technically possible, but it would mean it's very poorly worded as it begs ambiguity and mistakes.
As to "Typically, you still decide how it spends that action...", I don't see that as explaining anything other than what happens when you don't command your familiar. I can't see how "You can command your familiar to deliver you items more efficiently" doesn't conflict with "In an encounter, if you don't Command your familiar, it still gains 1 action each round": the player getting to pick it's action when not commanded doesn't helps when the other ability is specifically an ability to follow orders better.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
If it isn't capitalized or italicized, it's not guaranteed to be referencing a specific mechanic.
Sure, but by doing so you muddy the waters for no gain by adding ambiguity. Secondly, even taking it casually would lead you to the action: Command is about commanding your familiar...
So in Independent where Command is capitalized we know for certain it is meaning the action of that name, but when Valet uses the word without capitalization it becomes ambiguous whether the author means "use the action with this name" or "tell the creature what to do". And when the rules are ambiguous, we've got 2 pieces of advice, one of which always manages to be of use.
The thing is, the casual reading doesn't differ from the action: a creature acting on it's own isn't being commanded: commanding a minion IS using the Command action. If it said 'direct' or 'order' instead "command", it's still, IMO, lead to Command.
For instance, look at Minion rules once: it uses command under it and it clearly means Command.
Minion
Source Core Rulebook pg. 634
Minions are creatures that directly serve another creature. A creature with this trait can use only 2 actions per turn and can’t use reactions. Your minion acts on your turn in combat, once per turn, when you spend an action to issue it commands. For an animal companion, you Command an Animal; for a minion that’s a spell or magic item effect, like a summoned minion, you Sustain a Spell or Sustain an Activation; if not otherwise specified, you issue a verbal command, a single action with the auditory and concentrate traits."
You see that it defines "you spend an action to issue it commands" as Command.
Since a familiar retrieving an item even if you don't spend an action to Command it isn't a "too good to be true" situation, we can instead use the "make it work" advice to clear up situation of seeming like you can pick an action for your familiar without Commanding it but maybe not that one.
Something can be 'not to good' and completely incorrect by the rules: hence "too good" is for ruling OUT something, not for ruling something in.
"If one version is too good to be true, it probably is.": I don't see this as impacting the conversation. I see people saying it isn't written in a way it works, not that one way is too powerful.
"If a rule seems to have wording with problematic repercussions or doesn’t work as intended, work with your group to find a good solution, rather than just playing with the rule as printed.":IE, you can make a house-rule if you don't like how it's printed. I don't see this as impacting the conversation on how it's actually read.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
A casual reading can, and I believe does, open the door to treating all uses of the word "command" in the valet description as being a 'flourish' the author made that is unnecessary, rather than being explicitly meant as important words that tell us mechanics.
I can't see how: issuing commands to your familiar is the Command action: command and Command are used interchangeably with familiars. For instance, when Spell Delivery says "If your familiar is in your space, you can cast a spell with a range of touch, transfer its power to your familiar, and command the familiar to deliver the spell." that it gets to do so without needing to be Commanded?
So yes, a casual reading does differ - just not on the what is or isn't "command" point.
Not really: it's hard to read an "Independent" ability and a "command" ability as being compatible. It's only abilities that mention command that need a Command.
The point of difference being that to a casual reading there is no difference between Valet and any of the other actions you can have your familiar do; generally it only happens when you Command the familiar, but if you have Independent you get to pick an action for your familiar to do even when you don't Command it.
No, this isn't the case. Spellcasting, Poison Reservoir, Partner in Crime, Master's Form and Lab Assistant all provide actions but in NO way reference command. Any of those abilities work JUST fine using independent.
Only when trying to read every word at it's non-casual meaning does Valet actually *require* different treatment.
IMO, it's only when you try to split hairs do you get away from the casual reading to get to Command and commanding for minions to mean different things
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Valet says commanded. Independent says not commanded. It creates two separate instances of actions and their options based on two polar opposite results which are binary in scope. It is, in essence, Schrodinger's Familiar. It is either commanded or not commanded, but we don't know for certain until the Master acts.
So yes, they are mutually exclusive. There is no mixing of "I can use Valet with Independent," because Paizo said so with RAW. You want Valet? You gotta command it. Want Independent? Don't command it. Very simple stuff.
All these threads are is a culmination of whiners who were denied their familiar cheese because the GM didn't sympathize with their poor choices. Go create a Familiars Anonymous thread or something more productive than this obvious trolling.
|
I think the issue is with how people think Independent works, vs how it actually works. With Independent, your Familiar basically just acts on it's own. The PLAYER usually chooses how the Familiar acts, not the PC, and the GM can overrule the player's choice. The Familiar could very well act as a Valet, due to the "If the familiar has a different number of actions..." line at the end, but it very well could just, not do it. Familiars are intelligent magical creatures, not mindless robots programmed to do a singular task. The player may want their Familiar to continue with their one action, but the GM could rule that they do something else, like run away or hide in a bag or something.
PCs shouldn't rely on their Familiars to do what they want if they aren't commanding it.
I can't see how...And I can't see the difference between a lot of shades of blue and purple, and green and yellow. Doesn't mean they don't exist.
I can't see purple... What that and how reasonable your position is are different things.
How you can say that a common sense reading leads someone to look at familiar abilities and conclude that command and Command are two completely different things boggles my mind. When every other instance of command clearly refers to Command, including Command, you just can't toss out "casual reading" as a reason without the casual read making contextual sense. JUST looking at the familiar rules , a prerequisite for familiar abilities, shows how command is used and that is interchangeably with Command. If you white room the abilities it might look a little reasonable but when you look at everything related to minions, every instance I can think of equates command with Command. This make it exceedingly unlikely that it's correct and after looking through the rules it also makes it go from unlikely to almost impossible to casually mistake command for Command IMO.
Now should that use Command instead of command? Sure, I'd prefer that capitalize but they seem loose on this and in this situation I can't see the confusion. Again, IMO it's hard to casually read that something is being independent AND taking a specific order/command: that takes parsing and hairsplitting that's antithetical to the casual read.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I think the issue is with how people think Independent works, vs how it actually works. With Independent, your Familiar basically just acts on it's own. The PLAYER usually chooses how the Familiar acts, not the PC, and the GM can overrule the player's choice. The Familiar could very well act as a Valet, due to the "If the familiar has a different number of actions..." line at the end, but it very well could just, not do it. Familiars are intelligent magical creatures, not mindless robots programmed to do a singular task. The player may want their Familiar to continue with their one action, but the GM could rule that they do something else, like run away or hide in a bag or something.
PCs shouldn't rely on their Familiars to do what they want if they aren't commanding it.
That line is more for if Familiars get Stunned or Slowed (which they aren't immune to) or even technically Quickened (which is limited in scope), and serves as a breakdown for how the actions are distributed, something otherwise lacking in abilities like Spell Delivery, which would be helpful in determining reaction results via disruption.
Otherwise I agree with this sentiment.
The Familiar could very well act as a Valet, due to the "If the familiar has a different number of actions..." line at the end, but it very well could just, not do it.
I don't see anything that would allow this, no matter who chooses the actions. The number of actions allowed was never the issue as far as I know: it was the lack of a command. The whole quote is "If the familiar has a different number of actions, it can retrieve one item for each action it has when commanded this way.": this still refers to "when commanded this way". It's an ability to quickly and efficiently follow orders and it isn't worded like other abilities that just give you an action/ability like Plant Form that would work with Independent.
I never said anything about "common sense."
I said "casual" as in, I read this ability in a casual fashion, and I came to the understanding that the author probably didn't mean...
I'm not seeing a lot of difference between 'I read it in a casual way and made a conclusion on what the author meant without thinking about the rules' and using a 'common sense' read based just on the individual reading of that ability. If you're coming to a conclusion not based on the rules, saying it was using common sense seems right. If it wasn't common sense, what metric did you use to figure out intent?
the author probably didn't mean to limit the ability so that it wasn't compatible with other abilities, and the intended outcome is not one in which a player can choose to have a familiar that is better than normal at fetching and handing over items and also independent so it can do helpful things without being told to but not if that helpful thing is getting an item ready for the character.
That's a LOT of reading into the intent for so little written. Especially when it goes directly against the casual read of the familiar being good at taking commands meaning something other that just that...
It's like the difference between a trained dog with or without the trainer: do you expect the same tricks without the trainer giving the animal it's cues? Being a good follower doesn't necessitate being good at independent action, so I don't see your argument.
...boggles my mind...Incredulity isn't a valid argument.
If it was the only thing I said, you might have a little bit of a point here: Incredulity and making a point aren't mutually incompatible though.
This all comes down to me arguing that it's possible that the author was phrasing a normal familiar ability in a strange way because sometimes people phrase things strangely, and apparently other folks think that's genuinely improbable/impossible because <shrug>.
I just can't see it being probable. Is it possible? Sure, but so is getting run over by a hydrofoil right after being hit by lightning while being bitten gored by a narwhal: sure it's technically possible but the odds seem infinitesimally small. And this is just intent: there would need to be a rewrite of the abilities and/or errata to make it so it's not saying command if it really doesn't mean command.
|
|
The Familiar could very well act as a Valet, due to the "If the familiar has a different number of actions..." line at the end, but it very well could just, not do it.I don't see anything that would allow this, no matter who chooses the actions. The number of actions allowed was never the issue as far as I know: it was the lack of a command. The whole quote is "If the familiar has a different number of actions, it can retrieve one item for each action it has when commanded this way.": this still refers to "when commanded this way". It's an ability to quickly and efficiently follow orders and it isn't worded like other abilities that just give you an action/ability like Plant Form that would work with Independent.
I agree but I'm also on the side of "Your familiar does whatever it wants unless you tell it what to do", and it might WANT to help you in that way. They are helpful creatures after all. The "command" you give it is explicitly asking it to do something.
Here's how I see it:
If it's not "Independent" then it just sits there thinking "Oh boy, I can't wait for the next command my master gives me!"
If it is "Independent" it thinks "I haven't been told what to do, what can I do to help?"
Here's how I see it:
If it's not "Independent" then it just sits there thinking "Oh boy, I can't wait for the next command my master gives me!"
If it is "Independent" it thinks "I haven't been told what to do, what can I do to help?"
I'm with you on any ability that doesn't require a command: if it want to Master's Form, sure! But Valet is all about "You can command your familiar to deliver you items more efficiently." Your familiar has gotten good at following your commands for items: instead of just reacting to a command, it now has to work out "what can I do to help?" Does it move? Use a skill? If it's passing an item, which one? When commanded, it's 'hand my the wrench' and it can quickly snag and pass the wrench without really thinking about it.
As such, I don't see the command abilities the same as independent ones even if we opt to ignore Command: it's not a matter of wanting to help or not but reaction times following rote vs figuring it out as you go.
Howdy Heather F, welcome! Nice to see someone new. ;)
I kinda live at the intersection of “can’t be” and “continue to be”
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
We do have a response on this from Paizo
I think Mark is saying that Valet doesn't work with Independant because you have to Command them.
Which is largely the argument made by Old Man Robot. Fair enough, I obviously disagreed, but we have to go with Marks interpretation here.
|
We do have a response on this from Paizo
I think Mark is saying that Valet doesn't work with Independant because you have to Command them.
Which is largely the argument made by Old Man Robot. Fair enough, I obviously disagreed, but we have to go with Marks interpretation here.
This vid also has a few other familiar clarifications which might require a separate thread
Can a familiar use a potion?no because can't activate items
Can a familiar reload a crossbow?
yes but familiar need to be wielding it
Can a familiar deliver a bomb?
no because can't activate items and can't make strikes
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
RIP familiar crossbow builds.
Well, not ALL familiar crossbow builds: Nothing was said about familiars that ARE crossbows: IE, baba yaga witch familiars reloading themselves. ;)
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
I just want to say that I'm so impressed with Mark seifter. He's always been great, I love so much of what he designs. But going on forums and discords and other mediums and posting about clarifications and likely future erratas... That's a really hard thing to do. People are very passionate about the game and even just the last few days, some have gotten very upset because of some of marks posts. Despite that, and even knowing that he takes things really hard sometimes, mark posts about this stuff to preserve the integrity of the game. Knowing that people are likely to get so angry.
So cheers, mark. I hope you don't let people get to you, and I don't think you (or he whole paizo staff) has gotten enough appreciation lately. I hope you keep making awesome content for the game we love, and have a good time doing it. Know that for so many of us, the game is a much needed reprieve from tough times that we look forward to.
RIP the argument that potions and elixers are activated when you drink them.
True, but I will be letting it work as a house rule, providing they have manual dexterity. I don't see that activating a potion is anything beyond drinking it, and drinking is something animals can clearly do. Potions are largely defensive and utility so I don't see any major problems with that.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
RIP the argument that potions and elixers are activated when you drink them.
I'm a bit sad, I'll retrain my feats on my Alchemist. I never had a problem at any table, but I can understand why they prefer to avoid any potential exploit even if there's currently none found.
A little bit sad that Independent + Valet is not a thing but it is what it is, the reasoning provided makes sense.
The potion part on the other hand seems too harsh. Poor Alchemists...
