I don’t want the class about making pacts and gaining magic from a patron to be so mechanically and thematically tied to its familiar. Because personally I don’t care much for familiars and I don’t want the class budget to be taken too much by a feature I have little interest in. I also think it’s a mistake to focus too much on familiars because hexes seem more thematic to witches, and therefore should have more of a focus.If they are buffing the witch, I rather not put more into the familiar. I don’t want the class’s strength to be too dependent on a familiar. I rather increase its base features or improve hexes (and get more of them)Like it or not the familiar is part of the reason witch is lacking in other features. If that's the case I want my witch familiar to do wild things a wizard familiar cant
Definitely more hex stuff, especially of the cantrip variety, but the the cats out of the bag with familiars. It's done and the class is designed (for good or bad) with that in mind. We have to live with the familiar as a witch so we might as well have familiar/master abilities that only a witch can utilize
|
| 8 people marked this as a favorite. |
Yeah, pretty much I feel the same way.
The Class feels like it's just flat out missing a TON of Hexes, I'm talking about literally, not figuratively, 99% of ALL HEXES that were created for PF1 just do not exist at all, there were a staggering 110 of these things made by my count for PF1 and not we have less than a dozen. By level 5 every Witch PC had access to and generally spammed between 3 and 5 different Hexes at every possibility and that's ALREADY as many or more than the PF2 Witch can EVER learn.
It's like they just decided to hold back on the Hex features because Paizo "knew they were solid" and didn't need testing but when the time came and the PT ended they just forgot to put them back into the final version.
but the the cats out of the bag with familiars. It's done and the class is designed (for good or bad) with that in mind. We have to live with the familiar as a witch so we might as well have familiar/master abilities that only a witch can utilize
I disagree. This is where a class archetype would really shine. There are only a handful of class feats for a witch that reference the familiar. Removing the witch-specific familiar class abilities in order to add something else would certainly be feasible.
We even have an example for how to handle it in the form of the Baba Yaga patron.
Spitball example:
Remove Familiar from the witch class abilities. Instead you get an item from your patron (usually some tome of magic, or a charm or bauble that you can wear). This item holds your spells as the normal witch Familiar class ability. If the item is destroyed, you can replace it with a week of downtime (more durable than a regular familiar, so harder to replace). This item does not act as a familiar in any other way. You do gain access to a copy of the 1st level Familiar feat that the Wizard (and a bunch of other classes) gets.
(Now at this point, the Witch looks too much like a Wizard, so let's crank up the Witch flavor a bit rather than just replicating Wizard abilities.)
You gain a second Hex cantrip of your choice (in addition to the one specified by your choice of patron).
At 5th level you can spend a focus point to cast spells learned directly from your patron (initial patron choice or Lesson feats are what come to mind immediately).
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Yeah, pretty much I feel the same way.
The Class feels like it's just flat out missing a TON of Hexes, I'm talking about literally, not figuratively, 99% of ALL HEXES that were created for PF1 just do not exist at all, there were a staggering 110 of these things made by my count for PF1 and not we have less than a dozen. By level 5 every Witch PC had access to and generally spammed between 3 and 5 different Hexes at every possibility and that's ALREADY as many or more than the PF2 Witch can EVER learn.
It's like they just decided to hold back on the Hex features because Paizo "knew they were solid" and didn't need testing but when the time came and the PT ended they just forgot to put them back into the final version.
This is an extremely uncharitable comparison; a "Hex" in PF1 was just the witch name for talents, so a ton of these hexes got moved to being class feats (Cauldron, Nails, etc). If you make the actually fair comparison and limit it to spell-like hexes that were printed in the APG you've got twelve hexes, seven major hexes, and four grand hexes. Most of which you never saw because 99% of witches were just spamming the most broken stuff (Evil Eye Cackle Slumber heyooo).
I was told to use the familiar for scouting, but it isn't good for it.
The way Paizo tied the skills to the PCs hurts familiars badly. A bonus equal to your level plus your spellcasting ability modifier puts it at a low level. Normally skills are lvl plus skill proficiency plus ability modifier. And monster Perception is built with these bonuses in mind and the familiar never gets a skill proficiency bonus. They should have given familiars a skill proficiency bonus on each of the skills it gets. On top of this spellcasting proficiency advances far slower than skill proficiencies. I may house rule familiars with innate skill proficiency increases. A stealthy familiar for scouting was one of their better uses in PF1.
Another bad element of familiars is they get hammered by AoE spells as you level. As a GM I don't make them roll unless the PC is prominently using the familiar, but boy if they have to roll against AoE attacks at higher level your familiar starts dying often. My witch PC started having the familiar out of sight and unattackable all the time.
The PC even tried to build a special familiar and tried to use its special ability to attack. Creature saved against the attack and ignored his familiar. He gave up using the familiar.
So far the best uses of a familiar have been an extra focus or spell slot battery or to blow it up with sacrifice AoE spell. Familiars were pretty fun in PF1, but pretty limited in PF2. I wish they had their own skill ups like and stats like animal companions. A witch shouldn't have build up her stealth for her familiar to be good at stealth or climbing or flying.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
This is an extremely uncharitable comparison
The numbers might be off and you're right that many hexes were essentially passive effects.
But it's a totally fair point that the PF1 witch heavily featured a toolbox of aggressive at-will abilities as a cornerstone of the class and that the PF2 witch doesn't really accommodate that design space at all.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
A witch shouldn't have build up her stealth for her familiar to be good at stealth or climbing or flying.
That isn't how familiars work.
The familiar's ability modifiers are tied to the character's ability modifiers. But the skill modifiers are not. It doesn't matter how good the Witch is at stealth. It doesn't matter if the Witch has a +0 DEX, or even -1 DEX.
The only thing that matters is the spellcasting ability modifier. So for Witch/Wizard that would be INT. In general for spellcasting classes it is going to be your best ability modifier.
So while the familiar is not going to be as good at stealth as a DEX based character with trained proficiency or higher, they are going to be fairly reasonable at it. Certainly within the range where it is a worthwhile tactic.
Level 9 Swashbuckler, expert at stealth, +4 DEX: stealth +17
Level 9 Barbarian, trained at stealth, +2 DEX: stealth +13
Level 9 Witch, untrained at stealth, +2 DEX: stealth +2
Level 9 Witch's familiar, Witch's INT +4: stealth +13
So about as good as a dabbler in the skill. Not as good as a character focusing on the skill. Not bad considering that you can pick at least one of them each day as the day's needs require.
A witch shouldn't have build up her stealth for her familiar to be good at stealth or climbing or flying.That isn't how familiars work.
The familiar's ability modifiers are tied to the character's ability modifiers. But the skill modifiers are not. It doesn't matter how good the Witch is at stealth. It doesn't matter if the Witch has a +0 DEX, or even -1 DEX.
The only thing that matters is the spellcasting ability modifier. So for Witch/Wizard that would be INT. In general for spellcasting classes it is going to be your best ability modifier.
So while the familiar is not going to be as good at stealth as a DEX based character with trained proficiency or higher, they are going to be fairly reasonable at it. Certainly within the range where it is a worthwhile tactic.
Level 9 Swashbuckler, expert at stealth, +4 DEX: stealth +17
Level 9 Barbarian, trained at stealth, +2 DEX: stealth +13
Level 9 Witch, untrained at stealth, +2 DEX: stealth +2
Level 9 Witch's familiar, Witch's INT +4: stealth +13
So about as good as a dabbler in the skill. Not as good as a character focusing on the skill. Not bad considering that you can pick at least one of them each day as the day's needs require.
I forgot to take that last part out. I knew how it worked.
Familiar is bad as a scout. I keep getting told to use it for scouting. Scouting would just get the familiar killed. Familiars are not very useful at this point in time and I consider them at best a neutral class feature when free like they are with the witch. It doesn't provide a powerful benefit, but isn't bad.
For a wizard I would never recommend taking the familiar thesis. It would be a negative for a wizard or a waste of abilities for any class that didn't get it for free. Animal companion is far superior and more versatile.
Familiar is bad as a scout. I keep getting told to use it for scouting. Scouting would just get the familiar killed.
I haven't tried it very often, but I did play a Witch for a 1-shot at one point and used the familiar for scouting. I thought it worked fairly well.
To do so, I used Fast Movement, and Share Senses. I would also add sense abilities like Darkvision or Scent if it was relevant. I might also add Independent depending on how the GM plays things.
The idea being that the familiar's job was to see what was in the area. When it finds something, the empathic link should alert the master that something frightening is there and the master can turn on Share Senses to see what it is. At that point, the familiar should be booking it back to the party. Not hanging around the area with the enemies.
So yeah. The familiar was spotted by the enemies when I tried it. It successfully stealthed from the CR -3 enemies, but the CR -1 saw it and sounded the alarm. But the familiar could outrun everyone except that CR -1 enemy (tied with him for speed). Since these were intelligent enemies, he decided to hang back and follow at the pace of his allies. So the familiar comes streaking in to the party's camp at the head of a group of monsters. But the party has had several combat rounds worth of warning before they show up.
So yeah. The familiar was spotted by the enemies when I tried it. It successfully stealthed from the CR -3 enemies, but the CR -1 saw it and sounded the alarm. But the familiar could outrun everyone except that CR -1 enemy (tied with him for speed). Since these were intelligent enemies, he decided to hang back and follow at the pace of his allies. So the familiar comes streaking in to the party's camp at the head of a group of monsters. But the party has had several combat rounds worth of warning before they show up.
So your "successful" scouting alerted the enemies and gave them something to follow back to your camp... What would have happened in the GM played the enemies as smart and sent a crack unit of enemies at CR+2 at you along with some fodder rather than just advancing the group you spotted into your position?
The players would have had more than “several combat rounds” to prepare, or even escape if they decided to do so.
Scrambling reinforcements takes time too, or your DM is being a jerk on purpose, trying to make you quit playing with him.
The players would have had more than “several combat rounds” to prepare, or even escape if they decided to do so.
Scrambling reinforcements takes time too, or your DM is being a jerk on purpose, trying to make you quit playing with him.
How fast the reinforcements come depends on the exact encounter, but getting spotted could easily lead to being tailed by a flying enemy who can help the elite group searching for you find you. Even a ground-based observer could follow the familiar and then help a tracking team find the party's trail. It could also go the other way and they simply fortify the gate to their stronghold with an extra set of CR+2 guards making a moderate encounter into an extreme one.
There should be consequences for getting your party's scout spotted if it's spotted by intelligent enemies.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
How fast the reinforcements come depends on the exact encounter, but getting spotted could easily lead to being tailed by a flying enemy who can help the elite group searching for you find you. Even a ground-based observer could follow the familiar and then help a tracking team find the party's trail. It could also go the other way and they simply fortify the gate to their stronghold with an extra set of CR+2 guards making a moderate encounter into an extreme one.
There should be consequences for getting your party's scout spotted if it's spotted by intelligent enemies.
Changing a moderate encounter into an extreme one in a matter of seconds doesn't sound like appropriate consequences for having the party's scout seen. What happens when the Swashbuckler scout gets spotted?
Sure if the idea is to infiltrate an enemy stronghold, using a sub-optimal scout may be a bad idea. Hopefully your party is designed around stealth infiltration missions if that is going to be a common occurrence in your campaign. Otherwise the party composition as a whole is going to be lacking.
But for scouting around your campsite before bedding down for the night (which is what my example was), it seems perfectly serviceable.
Changing a moderate encounter into an extreme one in a matter of seconds doesn't sound like appropriate consequences for having the party's scout seen. What happens when the Swashbuckler scout gets spotted?
Intelligent foes should be played intelligently. If they see something scouting them and make the knowledge checks to figure out that it's familiar they should react in an appropriate way based on their goals and abilities. If this makes further encounters that the party has more difficult then so be it, they should have used the correct tools, which a familiar is not, for the job.
The monsters teach the party why you never get out of bowshot of the rest of the group and do their damnedest to stop the swashbuckler from getting away.
But for scouting around your campsite before bedding down for the night (which is what my example was), it seems perfectly serviceable.
Unless the enemy has reason to look for you and sets upon you while you rest because you gave your own position away. Your enemies should be playing for keeps just as much as the PCs are or things get boring.
| 10 people marked this as a favorite. |
Meh, a robin in the woods isn't worth sending a scouting party after. Even in a world where familiars are real. Freaking out over every animal you see in the woods just isn't feasible. You'd either learn to just ignore that one particular magical risk or you'd put a bullet in you're brain due to stress. The forest is full of THOUSANDS OF CRITTERS. Is every single one of them a worthy red flag for mobilization? Dear sweet lord all these grunts do is mobilize all day as their leader slowly falls into a paranoid madness. Now, if that particular animal has no place in the environment your in (like a crab in the woods) that could reasonably require further investigation
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
Verdyn, do you realize that you come across with an attitude of toxic negativity? Enough so that some people have written you off as just a troll.
What you are describing here is called an antagonistic GM. No matter what the party does, the GM always comes up with some way of making the player characters lose. Because that is how the GM player is having fun - by ruining the plans and ideas and fun of the other players at the table.
Yes, every tactic that the players attempt does in fact have a counter to it. That is called game balance. If there was a tactic available to the players that had no counters - no down side - no amount of risk ... that would be called a must-pick, I-win button.
So yes, I am aware that playing a Witch with familiar feats to boost the amount of familiar abilities that I have available, then picking Skilled ability repeatedly for a bunch of the skills that my character herself doesn't already have trained is not a power game move. It isn't going to result in a character that is a better skill monkey than a Rogue. I could maybe say that it is better than the Human ancestry feat Clever Improviser at lower levels because it lets me use my full class level for the extra skills. But even that is a bit of a stretch. And it requires quite a bit more character build investment than a single ancestry feat.
But for shoring up weaknesses in the party composition, Skilled actually works fairly well. You can do things like pick Manual Dexterity and Skilled(crafting) and have the familiar repair the Champion's shield during rests. Pick Manual Dexterity and Skilled(medicine) and you have a backup healer during short rests. Pick Speech and Skilled(society) and the familiar can research things going on in town.
None of these are I-win buttons that are going to be better than an actual character putting investment into them. But they are going to be fun. As long as you don't have an antagonistic GM that is just having fun ruining your day.
I'm not sure if you are a GM for your group and this is your GM style, or if you are a player that has only encountered GM's that have this antagonistic style. But that is not a good way to have fun with your friends. The GM has a hard job. The GM has to play the antagonistic characters of the story. The characters that are trying to ruin the day of the player's characters. However the GM should not be an antagonist of the players themselves. Doing that successfully takes a bit of dual mindedness bordering on split personality disorder. Not easy to do. Which is why good players so highly value a good GM.
I was told to use the familiar for scouting, but it isn't good for it.
I've always found having to be close enough to Command my familiar for it to have actions to scout severely hampered it's ability in that area. Of course, you could have it be Independent, but having it be 1/3rd as fast and able as any other creature also doesn't bode well for scouting.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Meh, a robin in the woods isn't worth sending a scouting party after. Even in a world where familiars are real. Freaking out over every animal you see in the woods just isn't feasible. You'd either learn to just ignore that one particular magical risk or you'd put a bullet in you're brain due to stress. The forest is full of THOUSANDS OF CRITTERS. Is every single one of them a worthy red flag for mobilization? Dear sweet lord all these grunts do is mobilize all day as their leader slowly falls into a paranoid madness. Now, if that particular animal has no place in the environment your in (like a crab in the woods) that could reasonably require further investigation
If that's the case why did does the familiar need to have any investment in stealth at all? The answer is that the familiar won't act like a normal creature of its type and will obviously be in some noticeable way be unnatural. If this isn't the case then don't opt to roll a perception check for the familiar at all unless it does something suspicious.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Meh, a robin in the woods isn't worth sending a scouting party after. Even in a world where familiars are real. Freaking out over every animal you see in the woods just isn't feasible. You'd either learn to just ignore that one particular magical risk or you'd put a bullet in you're brain due to stress. The forest is full of THOUSANDS OF CRITTERS. Is every single one of them a worthy red flag for mobilization? Dear sweet lord all these grunts do is mobilize all day as their leader slowly falls into a paranoid madness. Now, if that particular animal has no place in the environment your in (like a crab in the woods) that could reasonably require further investigationIf that's the case why did does the familiar need to have any investment in stealth at all? The answer is that the familiar won't act like a normal creature of its type and will obviously be in some noticeable way be unnatural. If this isn't the case then don't opt to roll a perception check for the familiar at all unless it does something suspicious.
Sound enough reasoning for me as a dm. A bird doesn't have to stealth into a camp....it's a bird
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Meh, a robin in the woods isn't worth sending a scouting party after. Even in a world where familiars are real. Freaking out over every animal you see in the woods just isn't feasible. You'd either learn to just ignore that one particular magical risk or you'd put a bullet in you're brain due to stress. The forest is full of THOUSANDS OF CRITTERS. Is every single one of them a worthy red flag for mobilization? Dear sweet lord all these grunts do is mobilize all day as their leader slowly falls into a paranoid madness. Now, if that particular animal has no place in the environment your in (like a crab in the woods) that could reasonably require further investigationIf that's the case why did does the familiar need to have any investment in stealth at all? The answer is that the familiar won't act like a normal creature of its type and will obviously be in some noticeable way be unnatural. If this isn't the case then don't opt to roll a perception check for the familiar at all unless it does something suspicious.
There are cases where you may need to stealth, for example when entering the bandit chieftain's tent where a normal bird wouldn't go. Getting there would not require stealth rolls against the entire camp, however.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Meh, a robin in the woods isn't worth sending a scouting party after. Even in a world where familiars are real. Freaking out over every animal you see in the woods just isn't feasible. You'd either learn to just ignore that one particular magical risk or you'd put a bullet in you're brain due to stress. The forest is full of THOUSANDS OF CRITTERS. Is every single one of them a worthy red flag for mobilization? Dear sweet lord all these grunts do is mobilize all day as their leader slowly falls into a paranoid madness. Now, if that particular animal has no place in the environment your in (like a crab in the woods) that could reasonably require further investigationIf that's the case why did does the familiar need to have any investment in stealth at all? The answer is that the familiar won't act like a normal creature of its type and will obviously be in some noticeable way be unnatural. If this isn't the case then don't opt to roll a perception check for the familiar at all unless it does something suspicious.There are cases where you may need to stealth, for example when entering the bandit chieftain's tent where a normal bird wouldn't go. Getting there would not require stealth rolls against the entire camp, however.
This, I agree with
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Verdyn, do you realize that you come across with an attitude of toxic negativity? Enough so that some people have written you off as just a troll.
Oh know, some people on a messageboard don't like my posting style...
What you are describing here is called an antagonistic GM. No matter what the party does, the GM always comes up with some way of making the player characters lose. Because that is how the GM player is having fun - by ruining the plans and ideas and fun of the other players at the table.
No, it's called playing the enemies as if they are every bit as real and intelligent as the PCs are and as if they're setting out to accomplish a goal rather than just be a speedbump for the party to kill and loot. If the enemies aren't played well there is no challenge for the PCs to overcome and it makes their choices and builds meaningless as, if they have a carebear GM, they could literally build anything and still overcome every challenge. This might be fine for a PFS game where there must be the assumption that every session is somebody's first and where you can't expect any group synergy but for a game with a stable group you should aim to push your party when it makes sense to do so.
By the same token, if the PCs play smart the enemies can be trivialized too. This is why I so dislike the tight math of PF2 because it means that things like scouting out the lair of CR+3 creature are almost always doomed to failure. The PCs can never do anything truly outside the box as the rules really don't support anything that might 'unbalance' the game/party.
Yes, every tactic that the players attempt does in fact have a counter to it. That is called game balance. If there was a tactic available to the players that had no counters - no down side - no amount of risk ... that would be called a must-pick, I-win button.
So yes, I am aware that playing a Witch with familiar feats to boost the amount of familiar abilities that I have available, then picking Skilled ability repeatedly for a bunch of the skills that my character herself doesn't already have trained is not a power game move. It isn't going to result in a character that is a better skill monkey than a Rogue. I could maybe say that it is better than the Human ancestry feat Clever Improviser at lower levels because it lets me use my full class level for the extra skills. But even that is a bit of a stretch. And it requires quite a bit more character build investment than a single ancestry feat.
They should make the familiar actually good at skills. Give them size bonuses to stealth, let them be invisible, you know, make them a class feature that has actual uses besides RP nonsense and letting another party member try a different downtime activity.
I'm not sure if you are a GM for your group and this is your GM style, or if you are a player that has only encountered GM's that have this antagonistic style. But that is not a good way to have fun with your friends. The GM has a hard job. The GM has to play the antagonistic characters of the story. The characters that are trying to ruin the day of the player's characters. However the GM should not be an antagonist of the players themselves. Doing that successfully takes a bit of dual mindedness bordering on split personality disorder. Not easy to do. Which is why good players so highly value a good GM.
I've been GMing since 2003 starting with D&D 3.0 and since I've branched out into D&D 3.5, Cyberpunk 2020, Rifts and its variant systems (none of them a hit with my group), FATE (I need to give this a longer run), PF1, PF2, D&D 4e. I've played as a PC in 3.x games, PF1 games, Cyberpunk games, and D&D 5e. I change my style to suit the group but generally don't pull my punches and try to play the enemies smart. This is even encouraged in games like CP2020 which has a GM's guide titled 'Listen Up You Primitive Screwheads!" and details ways you can lay low anybody who even thinks of power gaming at your table.
If you just expect that the PCs should win because they're PCs and they should have every build choice rewarded I simply don't understand your play preference.
There are cases where you may need to stealth, for example when entering the bandit chieftain's tent where a normal bird wouldn't go. Getting there would not require stealth rolls against the entire camp, however.
Even then you can always justify not rolling stealth if you really want to. After all, birds end up in grocery stores, train stations, tents, and houses fairly frequently IRL. So why should 'getting stuck' in a tent be any more suspicious than any other bird behavior?
Of course of the course of a campaign enemies might start to notice that the same type of bird is always around just before the PC's attack and then your scouting ends. The familiar's stealth won't stand up to anybody important standing lookout. Frankly, the whole system breaks down when you try to sneak up on even a CR+1 creature with decent perception let alone sneaking up on a boss-level encounter.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Arguing anything with Verdyn seems like a losing proposition of frustration and bad faith
| 11 people marked this as a favorite. |
Arguing anything with Verdyn seems like a losing proposition of frustration and bad faith
People ITT keep saying this and accusing them of being rude but to be honest they just seems like they're blunt. I haven't seen anything ITT that appears to be bad faith or trolling, it seems rather unfair the way you're treating them to be honest
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
It kinda feels like playing with a contingency wizard, only from the GM side of the table. No matter what you try the enemies always have just the right answer for it. The enemies aren't just smart, they also suddenly have the ability to track a particular tiny creature. Or fly. Or have reinforcements that they can get. Or...
Basically the bar seems to be that in order for an option to be good, it has to overcome an antagonistic contingency GM. And there is nothing in PF2e that does that. So yeah, therefore nothing in PF2e is good.
Which is a fine stance to take, I guess. PF2e isn't the system for everyone.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Arguing anything with Verdyn seems like a losing proposition of frustration and bad faithPeople ITT keep saying this and accusing them of being rude but to be honest they just seems like they're blunt. I haven't seen anything ITT that appears to be bad faith or trolling, it seems rather unfair the way you're treating them to be honest
I'm not to the point of writing Verdyn off as a troll. But it is exhausting trying to justify the viability every single option in the entire system. It feels bad that the only interaction with them is having any and all ideas shot down constantly.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
People ITT keep saying this and accusing them of being rude but to be honest they just seems like they're blunt. I haven't seen anything ITT that appears to be bad faith or trolling, it seems rather unfair the way you're treating them to be honest
This. I'm not actively insulting anybody, I don't think I've called anybody any sort of name or insinuated that they're playing wrong. I've just stated how I'd run things and because I'm not a PF2 fan a lot of people who are emotionally invested in the game take my words personally.
I will continue to be blunt and opinionated because that's who I am. People are free to ignore me if they wish.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
I do agree it's a bit much for the enemies to just know a random bird is a familiar and shoot it down. PF2 assumes a degree of proactivity and giving the enemies that for free isn't playing it smart, it's shutting down player options (and then complaining about the players not having options).
Though I also think the notion that the enemies should be played just as smart as the players is potentially an overstep too. Enemies should be played appropriately, but a lot of enemies a group of PCs might potentially be facing aren't necessarily smart or tactical in the first place.
Though I think it's also fair to point out that familiars are very squishy, are kind of limited on actions and aren't really equipped to be successful if they're sent away from the party, especially if they have to start making skill checks. A witch can get away with having their familiar die more than other casters, but I also think it wouldn't be entirely out of place for there to be some sort of consequences for a Witch who makes their familiar super disposable (though I personally wouldn't).
Though I also think a Witch's core problems don't have a lot to do with familiars. A Spell Substitution witch would still have mostly the same problems.
edit: I say Though too much.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
It kinda feels like playing with a contingency wizard, only from the GM side of the table. No matter what you try the enemies always have just the right answer for it. The enemies aren't just smart, they also suddenly have the ability to track a particular tiny creature. Or fly. Or have reinforcements that they can get. Or...
I never said that any single group would have all of those things, that's a terrible reading of what I said. What I was saying is that any group that spots the familiar and recognizes it as a scout sent by the PCs should react to that event and that such a reaction is likely to make the PCs job more difficult. If the scouting familiar or the witch controlling notices that it was spotted the PCs may regain some of this lost advantage by changing their plans in anticipation of what their foe might do.
For example, if they see that the enemy has beefed up forces at the front gate they may opt to go in through a window to the now less protected inner sanctum. In other cases they may just have to wait for the alert to die down but this could take a few days and let the enemy's plan go unopposed for a few more days. In some games this might be no big deal, in others it could be a massive problem.
Basically the bar seems to be that in order for an option to be good, it has to overcome an antagonistic contingency GM. And there is nothing in PF2e that does that. So yeah, therefore nothing in PF2e is good.
I'm pointing out that PF2 design doesn't tend to allow for the kinds of scouting that players are used to. Scouting in PF2 runs a greater risk of being spotted than it did in past editions which makes the dedicated scout rouge/ranger a less useable archetype unless the DM purposely nerfs enemies (either in stats or behavior) to accommodate it.
Though I also think the notion that the enemies should be played just as smart as the players is potentially an overstep too. Enemies should be played appropriately, but a lot of enemies a group of PCs might potentially be facing aren't necessarily smart or tactical in the first place.
I think enemies should be played to their best capacity. That doesn't always mean optimally or intelligently if that doesn't make sense for that type of enemy, but it means that they should make the appropriate choice. For example:
The Witch wants to use their familiar to scout a cave that they suspect is the entrance to a goblin lair. Unfortunately, this cave is where the goblins house their war dogs, and they smell something off about the familiar when it gets too close. Now the goblins are on alert for the next few hours and may, if well organized enough, send out a force to try to find the cause of this disturbance.
This would be an appropriate way to add some risk to scouting with a familiar while also playing the enemy as they should be played. Just having the goblins think the dogs are barking at nothing gives the PCs a free pass for taking a risk and failing and, is to my mind, bad GMing. Though, if the party has the time to do so, they could keep harassing the dogs to the point where the short-sighted goblins no longer trust them which may make the PCs job easier.
It has to be give and take, risk and reward or it just isn't fun or interesting.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Though I also think the notion that the enemies should be played just as smart as the players is potentially an overstep too. Enemies should be played appropriately, but a lot of enemies a group of PCs might potentially be facing aren't necessarily smart or tactical in the first place.I think enemies should be played to their best capacity. That doesn't always mean optimally or intelligently if that doesn't make sense for that type of enemy, but it means that they should make the appropriate choice. For example:
The Witch wants to use their familiar to scout a cave that they suspect is the entrance to a goblin lair. Unfortunately, this cave is where the goblins house their war dogs, and they smell something off about the familiar when it gets too close. Now the goblins are on alert for the next few hours and may, if well organized enough, send out a force to try to find the cause of this disturbance.
This would be an appropriate way to add some risk to scouting with a familiar while also playing the enemy as they should be played. Just having the goblins think the dogs are barking at nothing gives the PCs a free pass for taking a risk and failing and, is to my mind, bad GMing. Though, if the party has the time to do so, they could keep harassing the dogs to the point where the short-sighted goblins no longer trust them which may make the PCs job easier.
It has to be give and take, risk and reward or it just isn't fun or interesting.
Sounds like the dm saying "don't scout with your familiar". Id hear that message loud and clear as a player and never try again. Doesn't sound very fun
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Sounds like the dm saying "don't scout with your familiar". Id hear that message loud and clear as a player and never try again. Doesn't sound very fun
This is Paizo saying don't scout with your familiar as they simply haven't given it the tools to be a good scout. I get that they don't want a familiar to replace a rogue or ranger, but the other side of the coin is that familiars are now terrible at scouting. Get your rogue to scout or devise a plan that doesn't revolve around something your party has chosen not to specialize in.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
Sounds like the dm saying "don't scout with your familiar". Id hear that message loud and clear as a player and never try again. Doesn't sound very fun
I mean, if the party rogue was scouting near a goblin lair they'd roll a stealth check and if it went poorly they might get spotted or sniffed out by something.
The only real difference here is that the familiar is going to generally be worse at sneaking since they don't get TEML bonuses.
If you had like, a squirrel familiar and it was a bandit camp in the middle of the forest it might be okay to give the familiar a pass or a circumstance bonus, but tbh I'd be wary about giving out too many freebies just because that would encourage players to 'game' the system with certain types of familiars.
And honestly, it'd probably feel bad if I took enhanced and improved familiar so I could trick out my cool spell slime and someone else in the party with minimal investment got a free pass to succeed on all their stealth checks because they said theirs was a blue jay.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Sometimes a DM can allow a familiar to fit in with the surroundings, but not all the time or even most of the time. A monster might attack a familiar not just because they are intelligent and they can tell it is spying on them, but maybe they notice it and decide to eat it. A familiar wandering into some owlbear's cave may get eaten because the thing wants a snack. If it wanders into an undead lair, it may get drained or eaten because it is a living thing with blood. There are a variety of reasons why a familiar would be attacked if trying to scout with a weak stealth skill.
The weak stealth skill makes it easily noticed. Once noticed, what the monster or enemy does is up to the DM according to the circumstances. Sure, if the bird is spying on a castle surrounded by similar types of birds, then they can blend in. But if your familiar is a crow around a castle with few crows, what then? Do the guards notice the strange crow and decide to kill it or report it to the castle wizard?
Relying on a DM and player to agree that the familiar would pass unnoticed because it's a small animal no one would care about isn't an active player ability, it's a reliance on a GM ruling that way over and over and over again. That makes the familiar less of an active player ability and more some role-playing element the player must rely on the GM to roleplay a certain way. If that was the case, then anyone could make up they have some little pet they trained to do certain things for basically free that can serve the same scouting function as the familiar. I believe a familiar should be an active player ability with some better scaling so it can be used for some of its classical functions like scouting.
| 9 people marked this as a favorite. |
Sometimes a DM can allow a familiar to fit in with the surroundings, but not all the time or even most of the time. A monster might attack a familiar not just because they are intelligent and they can tell it is spying on them, but maybe they notice it and decide to eat it. A familiar wandering into some owlbear's cave may get eaten because the thing wants a snack. If it wanders into an undead lair, it may get drained or eaten because it is a living thing with blood. There are a variety of reasons why a familiar would be attacked if trying to scout with a weak stealth skill.
It's the automatic assumption that "oh we spotted a small animal, it is spy" instead of "We spotted a small animal, stew is on for tonight" that would take me out of the game and think the DM was being hostile. Especially if you spotted a squirrel and responded by sending a crack elite squad after it; that's just a ridiculous overreaction to what should be an extremely common occurrence.
I grew up in a rural area. There are a lot of animals per square mile (there's quite a few in the urban area I live in now, actually). Issuing a red alert over every woodland creature, even one that might not be typical for an area, seems very far from an intelligent reaction. Even a guard leaving their post to chase after an animal should be frowned on and limited to no more than a round or two, especially in a world where familiars exist.
Because familiars can scout, yes. But they can also provide a diversion if every blue jay and cat is going to result in a several round chase scene.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
It's the automatic assumption that "oh we spotted a small animal, it is spy" instead of "We spotted a small animal, stew is on for tonight" that would take me out of the game and think the DM was being hostile. Especially if you spotted a squirrel and responded by sending a crack elite squad after it; that's just a ridiculous overreaction to what should be an extremely common occurrence.
I grew up in a rural area. There are a lot of animals per square mile (there's quite a few in the urban area I live in now, actually). Issuing a red alert over every woodland creature, even one that might not be typical for an area, seems very far from an intelligent reaction. Even a guard leaving their post to chase after an animal should be frowned on and limited to no more than a round or two, especially in a world where familiars exist.
Because familiars can scout, yes. But they can also provide a diversion if every blue jay and cat is going to result in a several round chase scene.
Doesn't this just nerf any type of familiar that isn't picked to look like a small harmless creature common to the adventure's main biome? You wanted a familiar that was obviously marked by your patron, I guess it can't scout then. You want something that isn't an animal, no scouting for you. I'd make a blanket ruling at my table that all familiars are so obviously not a normal animal that they arouse suspicion just to keep things fair between animal type familiars and supernatural type familiars.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Doesn't this just nerf any type of familiar that isn't picked to look like a small harmless creature common to the adventure's main biome? You wanted a familiar that was obviously marked by your patron, I guess it can't scout then. You want something that isn't an animal, no scouting for you. I'd make a blanket ruling at my table that all familiars are so obviously not a normal animal that they arouse suspicion just to keep things fair between animal type familiars and supernatural type familiars.It's the automatic assumption that "oh we spotted a small animal, it is spy" instead of "We spotted a small animal, stew is on for tonight" that would take me out of the game and think the DM was being hostile. Especially if you spotted a squirrel and responded by sending a crack elite squad after it; that's just a ridiculous overreaction to what should be an extremely common occurrence.
I grew up in a rural area. There are a lot of animals per square mile (there's quite a few in the urban area I live in now, actually). Issuing a red alert over every woodland creature, even one that might not be typical for an area, seems very far from an intelligent reaction. Even a guard leaving their post to chase after an animal should be frowned on and limited to no more than a round or two, especially in a world where familiars exist.
Because familiars can scout, yes. But they can also provide a diversion if every blue jay and cat is going to result in a several round chase scene.
in fairness, lots of the "specific creatures" that aren't animals as familiars have their own unique abilities. It should be pretty obvious that a demonic or magical familiar like a faerie dragon is going to blend in less.
in fairness, lots of the "specific creatures" that aren't animals as familiars have their own unique abilities. It should be pretty obvious that a demonic or magical familiar like a faerie dragon is going to blend in less.
Even 'normal' familiars can be pretty obvious: even discounting wings or hands on a snake, their lack of a normal number of actions can stand out just as much.
Talked to GM to get insight from that side regarding my example.
Our party was a level 6 party consisting of a Champion(liberator), Fighter, Oracle(Bones), and Witch. None of us were particularly good at stealth.
The monsters were intended as a random encounter during an overland journey. They were custom monsters made using the monster creation rules.
They are reasonably intelligent, but don't have any tracking skill.
Initially when the one of them saw the familiar, the idea was a tasty snack. It was only when it took off at almost 10 MPH (16 KPH) that they figured that something was up. That was when they decided to give chase - initially hoping to catch the critter before it could sound an alarm. When that didn't work, they at least wanted to start whatever fight was coming before reinforcements came for their enemies. Once the party of PCs was seen, they engaged like any other intelligent monsters intent on destruction in secrecy would do.
Seems like perfectly intelligent play to me.
And as far as being beneficial for the party even on a failed stealth check, it was too bad that we didn't have a Ranger with Snare Specialist. But even so, our party at least wasn't sprung upon unaware by these bugs.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
I was told to use the familiar for scouting, but it isn't good for it.I've always found having to be close enough to Command my familiar for it to have actions to scout severely hampered it's ability in that area. Of course, you could have it be Independent, but having it be 1/3rd as fast and able as any other creature also doesn't bode well for scouting.
I saw this previously, but haven't gotten around to bringing it up.
Is this how you normally run characters with the minion trait - that they are unable to act at all during exploration or downtime mode unless being actively controlled by the master character?
My thinking is that these are intelligent creatures. They have ideas, wants, and needs and can follow complex instructions that take more than 6 seconds to complete. It is just a balance point for encounter mode to strip them of all actions unless given explicit commands. During exploration mode they have their normal two actions available to follow complex directions or do whatever they feel is appropriate. They have the same overland movement speed as other creatures with their move speed for example.
I saw this previously, but haven't gotten around to bringing it up.
Is this how you normally run characters with the minion trait - that they are unable to act at all during exploration or downtime mode unless being actively controlled by the master character?
That's how the minion trait works. Nothing about modes changes the minion trait or the need for them to be commanded continually [or acting independently at 1/3 actions]
My thinking is that these are intelligent creatures.
Sure, so are animal companions... Neither has actions of their own except Independent familiars with 1/3rd actions or companions advanced enough to get an action when not commanded.
They have ideas, wants, and needs and can follow complex instructions that take more than 6 seconds to complete.
Not by the rules: you can't do that in combat and have it work, did they get more intelligent in exploration mode? ANY reason you can give should also work for encounters but we know it doesn't
It is just a balance point for encounter mode to strip them of all actions unless given explicit commands.
This is never mentioned: no place does the minion gain independent actions without commands unless it's using Independent. Well, there is also the escape/defend clause but that not a big help for scouting.
During exploration mode they have their normal two actions available to follow complex directions or do whatever they feel is appropriate.
Where does it say this? Why just 2? Why not 3 since we're ignoring the minion trait. Why does it even need the players input? Can it then add an additional exploration activity since it's got free actions to act on it's own?
They have the same overland movement speed as other creatures with their move speed for example.
Impossible unless you allow 3 actions per round: 2 actions to move is ALWAYS slower than 3 actions to move.
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
Rounds don't exist in exploration mode.
The full quote, just in case you forgot that Bret was specifically talking about exploration mode just there:
During exploration mode they have their normal two actions available to follow complex directions or do whatever they feel is appropriate. They have the same overland movement speed as other creatures with their move speed for example.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Rounds don't exist in exploration mode.
The full quote, just in case you forgot that Bret was specifically talking about exploration mode just there:
During exploration mode they have their normal two actions available to follow complex directions or do whatever they feel is appropriate. They have the same overland movement speed as other creatures with their move speed for example.
In addition, based on the "Improvising New Activities" section of both the CRB and GMG, you're generally assumed to be doing 1 action worth of stuff every six seconds during exploration, so there would be no noticable speed difference between a familiar or animal companion and a normal animal.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Doesn't this just nerf any type of familiar that isn't picked to look like a small harmless creature common to the adventure's main biome? You wanted a familiar that was obviously marked by your patron, I guess it can't scout then. You want something that isn't an animal, no scouting for you. I'd make a blanket ruling at my table that all familiars are so obviously not a normal animal that they arouse suspicion just to keep things fair between animal type familiars and supernatural type familiars.It's the automatic assumption that "oh we spotted a small animal, it is spy" instead of "We spotted a small animal, stew is on for tonight" that would take me out of the game and think the DM was being hostile. Especially if you spotted a squirrel and responded by sending a crack elite squad after it; that's just a ridiculous overreaction to what should be an extremely common occurrence.
I grew up in a rural area. There are a lot of animals per square mile (there's quite a few in the urban area I live in now, actually). Issuing a red alert over every woodland creature, even one that might not be typical for an area, seems very far from an intelligent reaction. Even a guard leaving their post to chase after an animal should be frowned on and limited to no more than a round or two, especially in a world where familiars exist.
Because familiars can scout, yes. But they can also provide a diversion if every blue jay and cat is going to result in a several round chase scene.
If that's how you run your games, okay, but that's a table variance that I doubt exists at many tables, and changes fundamental assumptions about how familiars interact and exist in the world. You may as well be talking about a different game at that point, as little of the stuff you say about familiars would now have any validity at my table (due to those differences in fundamental assumptions), and nothing I've said would make sense talking about yours.
At the very least, if you'd stated at the beginning that was how familiars worked at your tables, it would have put what you were saying into much needed context.
Rounds don't exist in exploration mode.
Yes they do: that's how you base your Activities on. Exploration activities are the equivalent of 1 action every 6 seconds. Gamemastery Guide pg. 19 NOTHING about exploration mode gives a creature with no actions, actions or activities. A Paralyzed character doesn't get exploration activities just because you start exploration mode.
In addition, based on the "Improvising New Activities" section of both the CRB and GMG, you're generally assumed to be doing 1 action worth of stuff every six seconds during exploration, so there would be no noticable speed difference between a familiar or animal companion and a normal animal.
Yes, but it's hard to do 1 action worth of activities without any actions...
Secondly, assuming they have actions, they would be limited to one with independent. Animals both often have greater speeds than the base familiar and normal animals get to Hustle while familiars wouldn't as that's 2 actions per 6 seconds.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Rounds don't exist in exploration mode.Yes they do: that's how you base your Activities on. Exploration activities are the equivalent of 1 action every 6 seconds. Gamemastery Guide pg. 19 NOTHING about exploration mode gives a creature with no actions, actions or activities. A Paralyzed character doesn't get exploration activities just because you start exploration mode.
Equivalent does not mean that rounds exist.
And I have no idea what the rest of that has to do with rounds existing or not; I was making no arguments about actions being granted or lost.
Equivalent does not mean that rounds exist.
It does because they don't have the equivalent: they start every turn with no actions so when you check they get 0 every 6 seconds.
And I have no idea what the rest of that has to do with rounds existing or not; I was making no arguments about actions being granted or lost.
They get the exact same number of actions so whatever ruling you'd have for a Paralyzed character works for an uncommanded familiar they have the exact same number of actions. IMO, you'd have to agree that the Paralyzed character still gets exploration activities for a familiar gets activities because "Rounds don't exist in exploration mode".
They get the exact same number of actions so whatever ruling you'd have for a Paralyzed character works for an uncommanded familiar they have the exact same number of actions. IMO, you'd have to agree that the Paralyzed character still gets exploration activities for a familiar gets activities because "Rounds don't exist in exploration mode".
Again, I was making no argument about uncommanded familiars gaining actions, so, no, I don't have to apply a ruling I did not make to another situation.