I'm pretty sure you just add the ability to store spells to your existing familiar and it keeps its number of abilities. It's not covered by RAW (as far as I'm aware) but any other solution would mean you lose something you're already paid for:
- Either you get the new familiar and it takes away some abilities you've "paid for" by choosing the familiar thesis.
- Or you keep your original familiar but it remains unable to store spells, which would basically mean you can't cast any witch spells despite having "paid" for the Dedication with a feat.
Even with the "add spell storing to the original familar" solution you basically pay double for the familiar. I don't see any reason to add insult to injury.
I would think it would be sort-of like dual classing. Your familiar would get all of the features for things that are different, and the better of the features for the ones that are the same.
HP and most other stats are calculated the same for both familiars, so the combined familiar would be the same.
Skill modifiers could end up being different though. In this case of a Wizard and Witch, the spellcasting ability is the same, so skill modifiers are also the same. In a case where the ability modifier is not the same (Leaf Druid with Witch dedication for example), the combined familiar should use the higher ability modifier. For a familiar from a main class, that should generally be the modifier from the main class.
For the number of abilities to select, you would get the better of the two. You wouldn't add together the number of abilities of each familiar.
For the ability to store spells known, only the Witch familiar has that. So the combined familiar would at least be able to store the Witch spells known. Up to GM and table on if the familiar can also store Wizard spells known. That is mostly a flavor decision anyway. Would affect Borrow a Spell though.
And for the record, while I love the Witch class - I can't stand the Witch archetype. It feels horribly limited and even more ambiguous on the rules than the Witch class itself. Especially the dedication.
* It is the only spellcasting class dedication that only lets you cast one cantrip. (you know two cantrips automatically, you can learn more, but you only have one slot to prepare a cantrip in)
* There is the ambiguity of how many abilities your familiar has. (One less than normal for a Witch's familiar, or one less than normal for any other type of familiar? Do you still increase the number of abilities the familiar has as you level up as with a normal Witch's familiar, or not? How about after taking Basic Witchcraft and removing the 'one less ability than normal'?)
* You have no way of getting access to any of the Hex cantrips.
Unless you are already a Wizard, need a specific non-arcane spell to make your build work, or need a specific non-cantrip Hex focus spell; Wizard archetype is going to be a better choice for an INT based spellcasting archetype.
And for the record, while I love the Witch class - I can't stand the Witch archetype. It feels horribly limited and even more ambiguous on the rules than the Witch class itself. Especially the dedication.
Agreed & add that your Patron doesn't really matter as a multiclass Witch. It determines your spell list - but otherwise Patrons of the same spell list are identical. Having Baba Yaga as your Patron becomes the same as having a Curse or Fate Patron - they all give occult spells, occultism skill, and nothing that actually makes then different from each other.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
* It is the only spellcasting class dedication that only lets you cast one cantrip. (you know two cantrips automatically, you can learn more, but you only have one slot to prepare a cantrip in)
But unlike the other spellcasting class dedications you get a familiar. That gives you the option of giving your familiar the Cantrip Connection Master Ability which gets you back up to the standard two cantrips.
The other dedications are stuck with two cantrips. Witch let's you choose two or instead have one and a different ability for your familiar. It's actually more flexibility with the Witch.
* There is the ambiguity of how many abilities your familiar has. (One less than normal for a Witch's familiar, or one less than normal for any other type of familiar? Do you still increase the number of abilities the familiar has as you level up as with a normal Witch's familiar, or not? How about after taking Basic Witchcraft and removing the 'one less ability than normal'?)
Yeah, this annoys me to no end.
I also would love some clarity as to when a witch dedication familiar respawns. Is it the next day, as is normal for a witch, or is it a week of downtime? Respawning the next day is really good, but a week of downtime to replace (which in some campaigns might not even be possible) means you won't be able to prepare spells until it gets replaced.
Since the familiar carries the Witch spells and therefore the Witch spells are unavailable (as is Witch refocusing if you don't have some other focus pool with its own refocus activity), then having those offline for a week would be 'too bad to be true'.
I can't see anyone actually playing a character under those rules and having a fun time of it.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
* It is the only spellcasting class dedication that only lets you cast one cantrip. (you know two cantrips automatically, you can learn more, but you only have one slot to prepare a cantrip in)But unlike the other spellcasting class dedications you get a familiar. That gives you the option of giving your familiar the Cantrip Connection Master Ability which gets you back up to the standard two cantrips.
The other dedications are stuck with two cantrips. Witch let's you choose two or instead have one and a different ability for your familiar. It's actually more flexibility with the Witch.
It is a bit more flexible, but only slightly. An extra focus point, or Spell Delivery may be more valuable than a second cantrip under some circumstances. Especially if the character already has a full pool of cantrips from its main class.
How useful the familiar is in general is also one of those huge ambiguous points of the game that will vary from table to table though.
Since the familiar carries the Witch spells and therefore the Witch spells are unavailable (as is Witch refocusing if you don't have some other focus pool with its own refocus activity), then having those offline for a week would be 'too bad to be true'.
I can't see anyone actually playing a character under those rules and having a fun time of it.
I agree that it seems too bad to be true, but I've had people argue it both ways. It would just be nice to get a bit of clarity, hopefully it gets addressed if we ever get errata for the APG (which I think we probably will at some point?)
Having Baba Yaga as your Patron becomes the same as having a Curse or Fate Patron - they all give occult spells, occultism skill, and nothing that actually makes then different from each other.
My only question on Baba Yaga would be if having an object familiar is "other effects the patron would usually grant" as the dedication already grants a familiar.
Having Baba Yaga as your Patron becomes the same as having a Curse or Fate Patron - they all give occult spells, occultism skill, and nothing that actually makes then different from each other.My only question on Baba Yaga would be if having an object familiar is "other effects the patron would usually grant" as the dedication already grants a familiar.
Considering the familiar being allowed to be an object is a separate effect outside that normal familiar rules and is granted specifically by the chosen Patron (Baba Yaga), I'd see it hard to rule any other way than to say you don't get the benefit. Disappointing, but that's part of my issue with the multiclass Witch dedication in general. None of the Patrons are allowed to be unique since all you get is the spell tradition + skill associated with that tradition.
I just wanted to discuss it because I couldn't find anything about this topic ( paizo/reddit ), and though I rarely take into account lore stuff, this time it struck me since it's part of the mechanics
I think it is the third time I've seen it discussed.
Answer is as per the other posters: its not covered by RAW so GMs will handle it differently
a) some GMs might let you have the combined number of abilites, but to be safe ...
b) don't do it, you can't have two familiars choose something different.
c) take your ancestral special familiar, but via your class feat. Very few GMs will deny that.
Other problems
Some of the famliar rules are tied to the wording "animal" but there are non animal familiars. People either accept that as RAW or don't accept it as perhaps it was not intended.
Then there is the independant - valet argument that got way too heated.
Arguments about manual dexterity of familiars and what they can hold in their hands.
Personally I let it all work. I don't think its worth arguing over, or that balance isses are significant.
I want my players to have fun. But thats all just my opinion.
Arguments about manual dexterity of familiars and what they can hold in their hands.
Don't forget that because Bulk for carry capacity is a derived stat based on your Str mod and familiars don't have stats or stat modifiers, there is no way to determine it, so it's complete DM fiat if they can carry anything and if so, how much. ;)
Familiars, particularly witch ones, are quite the pickle to figure out and get on the same page with others.
Don't forget that because Bulk for carry capacity is a derived stat based on your Str mod and familiars don't have stats or stat modifiers, there is no way to determine it, so it's complete DM fiat if they can carry anything and if so, how much. ;)
Carrying capacity is 5 + Str mod. Even without a str mod you still have the 5.
Don't forget that because Bulk for carry capacity is a derived stat based on your Str mod and familiars don't have stats or stat modifiers, there is no way to determine it, so it's complete DM fiat if they can carry anything and if so, how much. ;)Carrying capacity is 5 + Str mod. Even without a str mod you still have the 5.
That's a strength mod of 0 though. The familiar specifically doesn't have that. It literally has NO modifier, meaning the formula is undefined as you don't get to just remove modifiers from formulas [you need something like Assurance to do something like that]. Then that's only the base formula, as they are Tiny so it's 1/2 whatever the undefined number is as a non-modifier... :P
"It doesn't have or use its own ability modifiers and can never benefit from item bonuses." + Table 1-1: Ability Modifiers. To get a 5, you NEED an ability score of 10-11 and/or a modifier of 0 neither of which a familiar can ever get... Hence the DM fiat in what if anything a familiar can carry.
Table 1-1: Ability Modifiers
Ability Score Modifier
1 -5
2-3 -4
4-5 -3
6-7 -2
8-9 -1
10-11 +0
12-13 +1
14-15 +2
16-17 +3
18-19 +4
20-21 +5
22-23 +6
24-25 +7
etc.
PS: Bonus points if you can figure out how much a familiar used as a mount can carry. Corgi Mount sounds fun until you get to the point where you aren't sure if it has enough carry to actually act as one. ;)
Valid points but we are supposed to assume that features work.
It doesn't have to be undefined. Encumberance is not a skill check. Yes the familiar does not have a Strength modifier. That means no modifer. It is clearly not an unknown modifier, it is definitely no modifier. You can still evaluate the encumberance formula. 5 is the answer.
If you don't like it then the best a GM could do is to look up some low level animals and make a ruling.
For small animals
Badger, Giant Rat Eagle are all +0 to +1 strength
For tiny animals
Raven -3, Spear Frog -2, Monkey +0, Weasel +2
so there is very much a range.
Valid points but we are supposed to assume that features work.
Oh, I DO assume it'll work but I also assume that it'll be done with DM fiat and that the end result will vary from DM to DM...
It doesn't have to be undefined. Encumberance is not a skill check. Yes the familiar does not have a Strength modifier. That means no modifer. It is clearly not an unknown modifier, it is definitely no modifier. You can still evaluate the encumberance formula. 5 is the answer.
Well it DOES have to be undefined as presented but A DM can of course make something up. 5 means that they have the equivalent of a 10 or an 11 str with a modifier of 0... That's equal or greater than most wizards or witches. That doesn't seem intended or equitable at all that at base they can carry almost as much as the caster itself [4 bulk for an 8 str caster vs 2.5 for a 0 mod given a familiar].
If you don't like it then the best a GM could do is to look up some low level animals and make a ruling.
For small animals
Badger, Giant Rat Eagle are all +0 to +1 strengthFor tiny animals
Raven -3, Spear Frog -2, Monkey +0, Weasel +2so there is very much a range.
What I want to know is how a puffer fish gets a +2
Well it DOES have to be undefined as presented but A DM can of course make something up.
No modifier means no modifier. Even if they have a strength equivalence then we probably shouldn't apply it. There are so many ways to rotate this problem.
I personally think the best is just to assume that the rules are in natural English. No modifier being undefined is a mathematical concept. In natural English to the man on the street no modifier means zero modifier.
5 means that they have the equivalent of a 10 or an 11 str with a modifier of 0... That's equal or greater than most wizards or witches. That doesn't seem intended or equitable at all that at base they can carry almost as much as the caster itself [4 bulk for an 8 str caster vs 2.5 for a 0 mod given a familiar].
I think backpack and size rules get the witch ahead. But I don't see why you can't get your familiar to carry something for you.
What I want to know is how a puffer fish gets a +2
Yes. .
No modifier means no modifier. Even if they have a strength equivalence then we probably shouldn't apply it. There are so many ways to rotate this problem.
I agree: I disagree with what that means. For me, it means that they can't do anything that relies on their own stats or modifiers: IMO, this extends to carry.
I personally think the best is just to assume that the rules are in natural English. No modifier being undefined is a mathematical concept. In natural English to the man on the street no modifier means zero modifier.
I can't agree. The sentence RIGHT before it is " It can't make Strikes, but it can use trained skill actions for skills for which it adds your spellcasting ability modifier. If it attempts an attack roll or other skill check, it uses your level as its modifier." "It doesn't have or use its own ability modifiers and can never benefit from item bonuses" seems to be to further explain that it can only do things by relying on it's masters abilities and Carry isn't one that's listed. I just can't agree with "assume that the rules are in natural English" in a sentence that includes "ability modifiers and "item bonuses" both of which are defined inside the game in ways that might not agree with natural speaking. For instance, Items can give bonuses other than Item Bonuses and Bonus is distinct from a Modifier. To be blunt a natural read is that it's own stats are meaningless: this leads to me thinking carry is an oversight and not that we're expected to give them a 0 modifier.
I think backpack and size rules get the witch ahead.
Well a familiar can wear a saddlebag or backpack too. A Corgi with saddle bags is better off than normal wizards, witches and sorcerers.
But I don't see why you can't get your familiar to carry something for you.
It's more how much they can carry as unwieldiness is meant to be factored in. This means a toad has no issue picking up a Boarding Pike and walking off with it at full speed even though it's 4 times as long and twice as heavy [or a humming bird flying off at full speed with that Pike]. For that matter that same toad can carry off 2 halflings or a human at encumbered.
I know this is why I've encountered some DM's that have balked at giving them carry like a str 10 tiny creature. Dm's don't think twice when your familiar carry a L bulk wand or tools but when they carry off a 7' full grown Orc or pick up a 10' pole arm and they start to rethink things.
Valid points but we are supposed to assume that features work.Oh, I DO assume it'll work but I also assume that it'll be done with DM fiat and that the end result will vary from DM to DM...
Yes, I would agree with this. The bulk able to be carried by a familiar is technically undefined. GMs will have to make a reasonable ruling in order to get the game working.
It doesn't have to be undefined. Encumberance is not a skill check. Yes the familiar does not have a Strength modifier. That means no modifer. It is clearly not an unknown modifier, it is definitely no modifier. You can still evaluate the encumberance formula. 5 is the answer.Well it DOES have to be undefined as presented but A DM can of course make something up. 5 means that they have the equivalent of a 10 or an 11 str with a modifier of 0... That's equal or greater than most wizards or witches. That doesn't seem intended or equitable at all that at base they can carry almost as much as the caster itself [4 bulk for an 8 str caster vs 2.5 for a 0 mod given a familiar].
One, 2 is probably a better answer for any non-corgi familiars since the Tiny size would cut in half the carry capacity.
Two, when my Witch character wants to trip a Small size enemy, I would have my familiar do it since even without taking the familiar ability Skilled(Athletics) the familiar still has a better modifier than the Witch does. So it does make sense that the carry capacity of a corgi familiar would be better than a typical spellcaster character and a tiny familiar can still carry almost as much as the character.
It also makes sense when looking at things like Toolbearer and Valet. These options no longer have to visibly buff up the strength of the familiar in order to give them enough carry capacity to carry the things that they are wearing and delivering.
Two, when my Witch character wants to trip a Small size enemy, I would have my familiar do it since even without taking the familiar ability Skilled(Athletics) the familiar still has a better modifier than the Witch does. So it does make sense that the carry capacity of a corgi familiar would be better than a typical spellcaster character and a tiny familiar can still carry almost as much as the character.
Without Skilled, it'd your level added to the roll so it's not amazing: I'm not seeing it as proof of anything about carry.
It also makes sense when looking at things like Toolbearer and Valet. These options no longer have to visibly buff up the strength of the familiar in order to give them enough carry capacity to carry the things that they are wearing and delivering.
This too doesn't seem like proof of anything to me. What does a familiar need for Carry past L for these abilities to work? Add to that that it could be said that it's part of those abilities instead of a base ability of the familiar. For instance, they can use Manual Dexterity just fine to do things like open a door without needing needing to carry anything.
Toolbearer (Advanced Player's Guide pg. 146): "Your familiar can carry a set of tools of up to light Bulk."
Valet (Advanced Player's Guide pg. 147): "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."
One, 2 is probably a better answer for any non-corgi familiars since the Tiny size would cut in half the carry capacity.
I've seen 2 Bulk 5 L used before.
Two, when my Witch character wants to trip a Small size enemy, I would have my familiar do it since even without taking the familiar ability Skilled(Athletics) the familiar still has a better modifier than the Witch does. So it does make sense that the carry capacity of a corgi familiar would be better than a typical spellcaster character and a tiny familiar can still carry almost as much as the character.Without Skilled, it'd your level added to the roll so it's not amazing: I'm not seeing it as proof of anything about carry.
Wasn't meant to be proof of anything. Just evidence that rulings different from yours are also just as viable.
The evidence being that a familiar is reasonably effective at using Strength based actions even without taking any familiar abilities, so it follows from a narrative/descriptive point of view that the familiar would also be strong enough to carry things larger than light or negligible bulk even without taking any familiar abilities.
The evidence being that a familiar is reasonably effective at using Strength based actions even without taking any familiar abilities, so it follows from a narrative/descriptive point of view that the familiar would also be strong enough to carry things larger than light or negligible bulk even without taking any familiar abilities.
I'll have to disagree on "reasonably effective". It's the equivalent of feats that give level to untrained skills but without a stat bonus so it's 3-4 points behind expected rolls even before you add in the normal proficiency bonus of 2+. Better than an untrained person with an 8 str is a very low bar to get over. It'd be one thing if a familiar could Aid you, but with no reaction...
It isn't a great option. It's also not 'unable to take the action at all because the familiar's strength is undefined'.
And of course when you start dealing with characters of different levels, all sense of reality breaks down. A familiar of a 13th level Witch is going to be noticeably better than a 1st level character with max STR and training in Athletics.
It isn't a great option. It's also not 'unable to take the action at all because the familiar's strength is undefined'.
Well that is specifically because it defines skill uses in a way that stats aren't involved unlike carry. If they gave a formula for carry that didn't involve a str mod, I'd agree it's the same. ;)
And of course when you start dealing with characters of different levels, all sense of reality breaks down. A familiar of a 13th level Witch is going to be noticeably better than a 1st level character with max STR and training in Athletics.
Well clearly true, but I don't think anyone is doubting a 13th level creature [even a minion] is going to beat out a 1st level one.