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.
The strange assumption that you are always in a rural area where a creature fits. So you're telling me in a magical world if you're some kind of villainous group and you see a small animal out of place for the area, you're not considering it might be a caster spying on you?
They won't involve a several round chase scene. But if your blue jay or cat is wandering around a dungeon or a giant house missing its stealth check, you can bet whatever monster is in there is going to handle that. It may just kill your familiar very quickly or decide to investigate instigating a fight.
How often does a blue jay or cat wander into the lower levels of a dungeon or into a dragon den or a giant domain?
Scouting some fort from afar is not even close to the majority of scouting opportunities in many adventures.
Why are people using this one corner case as some example of what is a standard scouting operation for a familiar? It isn't. Adventurers wander into a lot of different areas against a lot of different creatures. It's unlikely that intelligent animals wander into dragon's lairs because they can kill you buy accident. Or into an undead area because they just tend to feed on whatever is alive. Or where oozes go because they go after whatever is alive in the area without thought.
A humanoid base camp outside in an easily scouted area where your familiar fits in is not the most common place a familiar would be used for scouting unless you expect the DM to set that up for you the majority of the time, so you can make this argument with the DM every time.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
The strange assumption that you are always in a rural area where a creature fits. So you're telling me in a magical world if you're some kind of villainous group and you see a small animal out of place for the area, you're not considering it might be a caster spying on you?
They won't involve a several round chase scene. But if your blue jay or cat is wandering around a dungeon or a giant house missing its stealth check, you can bet whatever monster is in there is going to handle that. It may just kill your familiar very quickly or decide to investigate instigating a fight.How often does a blue jay or cat wander into the lower levels of a dungeon or into a dragon den or a giant domain?
Scouting some fort from afar is not even close to the majority of scouting opportunities in many adventures.
To be clear, my comments have been in response to a described situation where that was the case. Two actually; the one Bret and Verdyn talked about, and your own example of a crow scouting a castle where crows are uncommon.
If the circumstances are different, if for example the situation is regarding deep inside a dungeon, then what seems reasonable is of course different. Chasing something through what should be an entirely secure area is different than having a guard, or in the case of the original situation several guards, leave their post to chase something outside.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
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.
...
I change my style to suit the group but generally don't pull my punches...
I think this particular branch of conversation is getting seriously off topic for this thread, but this is where the action is so...
Anyway, these couple of statements are what have been percolating in the back of my head for a day or so now. Basically the idea is that you are absolutely correct - and that it shows a fundamental difference in design philosophy between D&D 3.x and PF2e that you maybe haven't adjusted for.
In 3.x pitting the players against a CR +3 enemy or three was standard. Expected, even. Only using enemies at even CR would be considered low tier threat.
In PF2e that is not the case. Using enemies at even CR or even down into the CR -1 range is not 'pulling punches'. That fight against the CR -1 and 3 CR -3 enemies nearly dropped two of our players. Because those intelligent enemies were played intelligently. It certainly didn't feel like pulled punches on the receiving end of that.
And yes, this is referencing the 'tight math' as it is generally called. The idea that character build choices won't overpower the d20. And neither the character build nor the d20 will overpower CR level.
I have recommended this before and I still strongly recommend that you try out the no-level proficiency alternate rules. It will fundamentally change the system and helps with the CR difference.
Let me see if I can put some numbers to this to illustrate.
Take the example character stubs from earlier.
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
Pit them against a CR +3 monster: a level 12 Frost Worm. Perception modifier +22.
So to sneak past, the stealth/infiltrator Swashbuckler needs to roll a 15, which means a 30% chance of success. The stealth dabbler Barbarian and the familiar need to roll a 19, so a 10% chance of success. The Witch should just stay home.
Doomed to failure is a fairly accurate representation of their odds.
Try it with the alternate rules.
Swashbuckler, expert at stealth, +4 DEX: stealth +8
Barbarian, trained at stealth, +2 DEX: stealth +4
Witch, untrained at stealth, +2 DEX: stealth +2 (or +0 if using the -2 for untrained).
familiar, Witch INT +4: stealth +4
Frost Worm: perception +10.
Now the Swashbuckler needs to roll a 12, so 40% chance of success. Still not great, but better. Barbarian and familiar need to roll 16, so 25% chance. The Witch with a +2 needs an 18 and has a 15% chance of success. Which is bad, but considering they have no training and this is a CR +3 enemy - really can't complain.
Now, the chances of success still aren't great. But it is closer.
This doesn't help as much with the idea of build choice being more powerful. The difference between a dabbler and an optimized character still isn't as much as you are probably expecting from D&D 3.x. That Barbarian who got trained proficiency because of a role-play choice of background and needed something to do with the other two free boosts at level 1 and 5 after boosting STR and CON so boosted DEX for the AC bonus - and then having that character being only 4 points behind the optimized stealth character ... probably feels bad. You aren't the first, nor will you be the last who says that. It certainly isn't going to have the same feel as having one of your players go 'Hey, at level 9 I put two skill points in hide and two points in move silently - both as cross class skills. Now I am a stealth character too LOL'.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
All it needs are more hex cantrips and possibly unbinding spell tradition and the first hex cantrip.
I honestly was surprised there was not a feat at mid levels that gave you access to another hex cantrip. Given the whole being taught lesson motif it just seemed odd there was no option for gaining another hex cantrip. Given how niche a lot of them are having a couple would make them overall more likely to be useful and feel like the valuation paid for those spells more appropriate.
I have recommended this before and I still strongly recommend that you try out the no-level proficiency alternate rules. It will fundamentally change the system and helps with the CR difference.
So as not to derail the train any further I'm going to end this here.
Thanks for the suggestion, if I should run PF2 again I'll give a long hard think to using ABP and no-level proficiency to get a game closer to the one I'd want to run.
All it needs are more hex cantrips and possibly unbinding spell tradition and the first hex cantrip.I honestly was surprised there was not a feat at mid levels that gave you access to another hex cantrip. Given the whole being taught lesson motif it just seemed odd there was no option for gaining another hex cantrip. Given how niche a lot of them are having a couple would make them overall more likely to be useful and feel like the valuation paid for those spells more appropriate.
Ideally, I'd like to see such a feat earlier than mid-levels. 4th-6th would be good to get a second hex cantrip.
Personally, I'd prefer to see a class archetype that gives you more hex cantrips earlier, and hopefully without taking up too many feat slots.