RIP Familiars

[AnimatedPaper]

So, which is it? Is completely being unable to use mundane items without the companion trait the correct interpretation or not? Barring GM discretion, of course.

graystone wrote:

Normally these are the only items a companion can use. Other items can qualify, at the GM's discretion, but an animal can never Activate an Item.

Note, the quoted section says use, not activate.

Edit: also, no distinction is made between combat and non combat situations.

[Gortle]

Xenocrat wrote:

A horse suffers a saddle, blanket, and bridle, it does not use them.

Well real world horses don't have a lot of choice.

See a horse blanket It looks like the animal is using the blanket.
An in game example Barding this is explicitly a companion item. Yes there is no way the horse is getting this on by themselves. It is the horses item in a rules context. So I don't see your interpretation as reasonable.

Even if you think that it still doesn't negate the rest of what I said. Clearly the prior rules are talking about magic items

[HumbleGamer]

AnimatedPaper wrote:

So, which is it? Is completely being unable to use mundane items without the companion trait the correct interpretation or not?

I think that any limitation kicks in when it comes to mechanics.

The majority of mechanics appears during a combat encounter ( here's the difference between being able, as an indipendent familiar, to activate an elixir or not ), but if we are talking about mundane items in a mundane situation... would it be an issue allowing it just for flavor?

I mean, do we really need clarification for anything or just when it may affect the game balance?

Or, using your examples, assuming your familiar would be able to use mundane items... what would you use this for? Try to get an advantage on somebody or some specific situation or just for trivial purposes?

[Gortle]

AnimatedPaper wrote:

So, which is it? Is completely being unable to use mundane items without the companion trait the correct interpretation or not? Barring GM discretion, of course.

graystone wrote:

Normally these are the only items a companion can use. Other items can qualify, at the GM's discretion, but an animal can never Activate an Item.

Note, the quoted section says use, not activate.

Correct it is only that last phrase that Mark is relying on for the ruling.

[Guntermench]

AnimatedPaper wrote:

Oh, I don’t mean magical items. But, by Graystone’s interpretation, a companion can’t use a completely mundane ball of yarn.

Or door knob.

Not quite. That's up to GM interpretation, but should probably be allowed. The only thing they can't do 100% is anything that has to be activated.

[AnimatedPaper]

HumbleGamer wrote:

The majority of mechanics appears during a combat encounter ( here's the difference between being able, as an indipendent familiar, to activate an elixir or not ), but if we are talking about mundane items in a mundane situation... would it be an issue allowing it just for flavor?

I have no idea. I’m not arguing it’s RAI that familiars and other companions cannot use an item without the companion trait. Perhaps one of those that are will answer your question.

[Gortle]

The Raven Black wrote:

Gortle wrote:

I mean a horse gets to use a saddle and blanket and bridle right?

The rider uses those actually.

Here is a saddle in the rules that is explicitly useable by companions

So it is legally something an animal companion can use. So calling a saddle as used by an animal companion is legit.

Which is funny as some of these clearly bypass all the rules that we are talking about for alchemy. Here is a legal way your companion can drop bombs.

Again stupid as it is clearly supposed to be invested and worn by the animal and used by the rider. It just doesn't say that.

[Guntermench]

The companion can't activate the bomber's saddle, you have to. They can only invest it and wear it.

[The Raven Black]

The word "use" for the Companion is a mistake. And all items with Companion are magic items, so it makes sense that the ruling does not apply to mundane items.

[Guntermench]

Using most items also implies having hands. The number of possible items is damn near infinite, leaving it to GM discretion to rule based on common sense, with the flat prohibition on activating items, saves on page space.

[YuriP]

IMO the main problem with familiar is the flavor around them.

We have the traditional image of familiars, smart little creatures that helps casters, alchemists and even thieves in many ways. A very useful creatures that helps their masters a lot and can save the day sometimes even helping during fights.

But the concept of familiar that Paizo printed in their book is far from this. Currently familiars are basically living batteries, they are way more limited to do anything else and can't help except from some very situational cases. They done this to keep balance, probably to avoid them to compete with animal companions and to allow them the keep in same balance as other low level class feats rules.

And in that's point that we have problems. Mostly players and even GM have this more traditional vision of familiars being the all-rounder assistants as they are in stories and become chocked when notice that PF2 familiars are so limited that they come useless for many situations they are expecting from them.

So RIP the familiars for many people, because if you was thinking in use than more than batteries you probably will face their wall of limitations imposed by Paizo. Even the witches, those who have more iconic and supernatural familiars and even may serve them in some flavors, in gameplay rules have to face the same limited familiar that wizards have with the main diference that for witches they also acts like a living grimorie (and after the new grimories from SoM they are even worse).

Press F to pay respects for non-battery familiars! :P

[shroudb]

The Raven Black wrote:

The word "use" for the Companion is a mistake. And all items with Companion are magic items, so it makes sense that the ruling does not apply to mundane items.

elixirs are mundane items, they are not magical.

"using" an elixir is, by definition simpler than turning a door knob.

since the "rules" mark interprets in his video actually say "use" (in addition to Activate), then by definition manual dexterity does absolutely nothing, since you cannot "use" items without the companion trait.

so, unless the doors in the pf setting have the companion trait, the rules say that familiars can NEVER use them.

p.s. and yes, obviously i think that Mark completely missed the mark here :D

i'll obviously disregard that nonsensical ruling since it's more or less on the wavelength of old memes like the "dead" condition back in pf1 and what you cannot do while you are dead and what you can^^. I just feel sorry for the pfs players.

[Deriven Firelion]

Darksol the Painbringer wrote:

The Gleeful Grognard wrote:

What a terrible take, they weren't bad for everyone prior to this ruling though. Just because you don't like their niche didn't mean that other people didn't find these extra utility options valuable. Hence the complaints.

It's not a new ruling, meaning they've never changed Familiars, merely your perception of them has. You can't have Familiars using items or making attacks. This was always intended.

All I see is a bunch of people using Familiars to try and game the rules to make them seem more useful and impressive than what the rules actually say they are. They are bad, they have always been bad, Paizo has said on record that Familiars are not combat pets, Animal Companions are. Trying to use Familiars in combat is like a Fighter trying to cast spells. Other than what abilities say they can, they aren't no Wizard.

80% or more the game is combat. If familiars can't do something in combat even if just helpful actions, they are pointless. You could give them no abilities and roleplay them if that is all they are good for. You could write the witch has a familiar, give it no stats or special abilities, and role-play what it does. Why bother to give familiars a bunch of stats and abilities that are only useful during encounter or exploration mode where you're making checks or taking actions during or to prepare for combat?

[breithauptclan]

graystone wrote:

breithauptclan wrote:

Valet

Seems pretty obvious: puts up to 2 items in your hands for one of your actions.

breithauptclan wrote:

movement options like Flier, Fast Movement

They can reach the top shelf easier/faster? It's not like they can scout with needing to be commanded every round.

breithauptclan wrote:

sensory options like Darkvision, Scent,

Seek and sense motive of course. It's one of their good points and expanding their usage is good.

These ones seem to be the only ones that have any possibility of practical combat use.

Valet could be used for a character with a bunch of thrown weapons. But why familiar instead of Quick Bomber or Returning instead if you are building a character around thrown weapons.

Flying can indeed get the familiar to a location that they couldn't before. But that isn't really a combat application.

And the sensory improvement options also really aren't practical in combat. Sure, the familiar gets to sense an enemy. Then what? Point Out I guess - for whatever that is worth. But that also requires the familiar to have Speech or at least Touch Telepathy.

So yeah, as others as well as myself have mentioned, familiars are pretty much useless in combat. Their only (not spell battery) value as an actual separate creature/character is out of combat.

Which is why it feels so punishing and not as intended for a GM to rule that familiars are also completely useless outside of combat too.

[Guntermench]

I agree with them being made useless outside of combat being dumb. They have a personality (I generally assume they're sapient) so outside combat they should be able to do something. Turns are only defined in the rules during encounter mode, so you shouldn't have to command it every 6 seconds to have it scout or do something else.

Unless you for some reason decide your familiar doesn't like you and thus doesn't listen.

[graystone]

breithauptclan wrote:

These ones seem to be the only ones that have any possibility of practical combat use.

I think that is the point, that familiars aren't meant to be that useful in combat. They aren't meant to be a low level way to get free actions.

breithauptclan wrote:

Which is why it feels so punishing and not as intended for a GM to rule that familiars are also completely useless outside of combat too.

It's a 100% optional feat for everyone but a witch and even then, there are master abilities that CAN be used like Cantrip Connection or innate surge so the fact that there is a ribbon effect that it can move around is a bonus and not a punishment.

Guntermench wrote:

I agree with them being made useless outside of combat being dumb.

Not useless, they JUST need to be commanded. For instance, they can fly above the treeline to see what's around: it's just that you don't get to do something else at the same time. Only eidolon get get a pass because of Act Together specifically allowing it.

[Temperans]

If you want it to do anything outside of

Quote:

animals follow their instincts, and sapient minions act how they please.

while not in combat. You are commanding the familiar.

If it's a familiar with actual sense, it can maybe choose to scout while not being commanded. Maybe. But otherwise it will just do whatever. But would you look at that, familiars have no ability score. So yeah, GM fiat.

[graystone]

shroudb wrote:

The Raven Black wrote:

The word "use" for the Companion is a mistake. And all items with Companion are magic items, so it makes sense that the ruling does not apply to mundane items.

elixirs are mundane items, they are not magical.

"using" an elixir is, by definition simpler than turning a door knob.

since the "rules" mark interprets in his video actually say "use" (in addition to Activate), then by definition manual dexterity does absolutely nothing, since you cannot "use" items without the companion trait.

Yes, this was the point I was making.

[Guntermench]

graystone wrote:

Guntermench wrote:

I agree with them being made useless outside of combat being dumb.

Not useless, they JUST need to be commanded. For instance, they can fly above the treeline to see what's around: it's just that you don't get to do something else at the same time. Only eidolon get get a pass because of Act Together specifically allowing it.

Or you just have a (mostly) cooperative familiar and you don't need to worry about it outside of combat. Sapient minions "act how they please", so while it may not be consistent and they may get distracted they shouldn't need to be commanded constantly outside of combat to be useful.

[Temperans]

Guntermench wrote:

graystone wrote:

Guntermench wrote:

I agree with them being made useless outside of combat being dumb.

Not useless, they JUST need to be commanded. For instance, they can fly above the treeline to see what's around: it's just that you don't get to do something else at the same time. Only eidolon get get a pass because of Act Together specifically allowing it.

Or you just have a (mostly) cooperative familiar and you don't need to worry about it outside of combat. Sapient minions "act how they please", so while it may not be consistent and they may get distracted they shouldn't need to be commanded constantly outside of combat to be useful.

What says your familiar is sapient? They are animals and nothing says they become sapient when they became a familiar.

You might have some luck with the unique familiars. But half of those are hardly "sapient".

[Cyouni]

AnimatedPaper wrote:

Oh, I don’t mean magical items. But, by Graystone’s interpretation, a companion can’t use a completely mundane ball of yarn.

Or door knob.

Note that Activate an Item is specifically for magic/alchemical items and consumables. It's actually at the beginning of the Crafting and Treasure section.

[graystone]

Guntermench wrote:

Or you just have a (mostly) cooperative familiar and you don't need to worry about it outside of combat.

If this was the case then there wouldn't have to be a specific proviso in Act Together that specifically allows them to make exploration actions.

Guntermench wrote:

Sapient minions "act how they please", so while it may not be consistent and they may get distracted they shouldn't need to be commanded constantly outside of combat to be useful.

HARD disagree. All those points for allowing it are all points why you don't need to do so in combat but for balance, they aren't allowed without a cost [actions]. Hence, I see no reason a cost [YOUR exploration activity] shouldn't be paid.

EDIT: TO get out of combat actions without being commanded, you'd need to take Independent IMO.

[HumbleGamer]

Guntermench wrote:

graystone wrote:

Guntermench wrote:

I agree with them being made useless outside of combat being dumb.

Not useless, they JUST need to be commanded. For instance, they can fly above the treeline to see what's around: it's just that you don't get to do something else at the same time. Only eidolon get get a pass because of Act Together specifically allowing it.

Or you just have a (mostly) cooperative familiar and you don't need to worry about it outside of combat. Sapient minions "act how they please", so while it may not be consistent and they may get distracted they shouldn't need to be commanded constantly outside of combat to be useful.

That's something I failed to entirely understand

During an encounter mode, we have the

Speaking

Quote:

As long as you can act, you can also speak. You don’t need to spend any type of action to speak, but because a round represents 6 seconds of time, you can usually speak at most a single sentence or so per round. Special uses of speech, such as attempting a Deception skill check to Lie, require spending actions and follow their own rules. All speech has the auditory trait. If you communicate in some way other than speech, other rules might apply. For instance, using sign language is visual instead of auditory.

while the indipendent feat says:

Quote:

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.

And the minion trait says

Quote:

If given no commands, minions use no actions except to defend themselves or to escape obvious harm

I mean, communication seems to be possible even without commanding a minion, with just the speaking free action

So, something like "Give me X" might do the trick, allowing a character to point out to the minion what to do with or without using the command action.

edit: I too agree with greystone for what concerns OOC purposes.

[zeonsghost]

Like a handful of clarifications in 2E, I find there to be an element of "stop having fun" involved targeted at corner cases in PFS play or a narrow view of how the game "should" work mechanically. RPGs are about telling a story through gameplay. If we boil it down to telling a story, should an intelligent creature with manual dexterity be able to feed someone a potion, pull a lever and set a bolt, or open a normal door? Probably, yeah. If we boil it down to gameplay, does it radically change the game in a way that other feats do not or in a way that creates a negative play experience for others? I don't think so, but could be convinced by some hard numbers.

So you have a decision that violates a believable story to prevent something that doesn't seem to harm gameplay anymore than the cavalcade of PFS characters who were all army medics before joining the Society. Maybe there does need to be a hard list of what familiars can and cannot do for some tables, but that list shouldn't cause you to go "wait, my Imp can't drink a potion" when every other imp in the game can.

[Ravingdork]

Last I checked, doors were items too. Are they then off limits? Of course not. That would be silly.

However, if the familiar rules are defining items as "only those things with published stat blocks" then and needs to be more clearly stated (and would still be quite the slippery slope, as with every new item released, familiars become MORE limited).

Familiars are most definitely sapient (if the player wants them to be). Paizo has literally published familiars that teach classes of students. What's good for the goose is good for the gander.

dpb123 wrote:

So I understand that a familiar with Manual Dexterity isn't able to pour a potion into my mouth or the mouth of an ally because to do so requires the ability to activate the potion and familiars can't activate items.

Familiars can pour drinks, but not potions. *rolls eyes*

Familiars: The only ability that gets worse every time Paizo releases more support for it!

[CaffeinatedNinja]

Familiars that can feed you potions was actually really powerful in a lot of places.

Think of a fighter with sword and shield. You want to use a potion? Drop your sword (free action) grab a potion (action) drink it (action) and grab your sword (action. Three actions to drink a potion and be back in combat readiness.

Familiar that can activate a potion? Use one action, command familiar to draw your potion and feed it to you. Net savings of 2 actions.

Turning a 3 action routine into a 1 action routine insanely powerful. People are looking at this through the lens of an alchemist or whatnot, but allowing familiars to use potions allows for some pretty much broken action saving. Just like the whole "familiar reloads my crossbow."

If it seems too good to be true it probably is.

[zeonsghost]

CaffeinatedNinja wrote:

Familiars that can feed you potions was actually really powerful in a lot of places.

Think of a fighter with sword and shield. You want to use a potion? Drop your sword (free action) grab a potion (action) drink it (action) and grab your sword (action. Three actions to drink a potion and be back in combat readiness.

That's kind of a poor example.

A Ranger with a pet can get multiple attacks without MAP applying.
A monk can power up their attack and attack twice on one action.
Summoners and their Eidolons can take some 5 actions a round with a couple of feats. Magi have lots of ways to pull extra actions.

Almost every class gets things that break action economy that are unique or semi-unique to the class and generally very good. Familiars helping action economy isn't different save for the lack of violence involved.

[CaffeinatedNinja]

zeonsghost wrote:

CaffeinatedNinja wrote:

Familiars that can feed you potions was actually really powerful in a lot of places.

Think of a fighter with sword and shield. You want to use a potion? Drop your sword (free action) grab a potion (action) drink it (action) and grab your sword (action. Three actions to drink a potion and be back in combat readiness.

That's kind of a poor example.

A Ranger with a pet can get multiple attacks without MAP applying.
A monk can power up their attack and attack twice on one action.
Summoners and their Eidolons can take some 5 actions a round with a couple of feats. Magi have lots of ways to pull extra actions.

Almost every class gets things that break action economy that are unique or semi-unique to the class and generally very good. Familiars helping action economy isn't different save for the lack of violence involved.

And most of those are in-built class features, baked into the power of the class. A familiar is an easily accessible lvl 1 feat. It was clearly never intended to try and be the action enhancer it would be if they could activate items.

[Lightning Raven]

Given how Prehensile Tail feats were absolutely murdered in this edition, it's no wonder that such a thing that grants extra actions like that was ruled as such.

I particularly don't agree with it, specially because it opens up a lot of counter play mid combat (any smart enemy of mine will target it sooner or later).

[graystone]

Ravingdork wrote:

Last I checked, doors were items too. Are they then off limits? Of course not. That would be silly.

Well without manual dexterity, a dog familiar can't pick up a stick with their mouth either, so... I'm not sure the silly starts with this ruling. :P

Ravingdork wrote:

However, if the familiar rules are defining items as "only those things with published stat blocks" then and needs to be more clearly stated (and would still be quite the slippery slope, as with every new item released, familiars become MORE limited).

I think there is a difference between 'pick up and use' as in wielding/activation and simple manipulations like opening doors. IMO, it's that companions are unable to pick up use [the first one] anything that grants them a benefit of any kind but would be able to use [the second one] just fine.

Ravingdork wrote:

Familiars are most definitely sapient (if the player wants them to be). Paizo has literally published familiars that teach classes of students. What's good for the goose is good for the gander.

PF2 has been pretty clear that NPC and monsters aren't built like PC's are so the fact that there is a publish familiar doing something in no way proves or disproves anything. I'd be more inclined to say they had true sapience if they had an intelligence score or intelligence modifier.

[zeonsghost]

CaffeinatedNinja wrote:

And most of those are in-built class features, baked into the power of the class. A familiar is an easily accessible lvl 1 feat. It was clearly never intended to try and be the action enhancer it would be if they could activate items.

Enough of them are feats or options that singling out familiars seems silly given the amount of narrative dissonance caused by the restriction for the minimal payoff compared to something like ranger's first level options.

[graystone]

zeonsghost wrote:

A Ranger with a pet can get multiple attacks without MAP applying.

And they require multiple feats as upkeep while the base familiar can work as 1st level ancestry feat.

zeonsghost wrote:

A monk can power up their attack and attack twice on one action.

Yea, a class ability and not a pet ability. Pets have their abilities drastically limited in PF2.

zeonsghost wrote:

Summoners and their Eidolons can take some 5 actions a round with a couple of feats. Magi have lots of ways to pull extra actions.

Eidolons are specifically NOT minions and as you said, it requires "a couple of feats" past what you need to have it. This is something you are never doing with a fimiliar [you might get extra abilities but the familiar itself never improves].

zeonsghost wrote:

Almost every class gets things that break action economy that are unique or semi-unique to the class and generally very good. Familiars helping action economy isn't different save for the lack of violence involved.

Sure, the CLASS does, not it's pets. The best they get is the 1 action when not commanded.

Lightning Raven wrote:

Given how Prehensile Tail feats were absolutely murdered in this edition, it's no wonder that such a thing that grants extra actions like that was ruled as such.

Yeah, they are pretty unexciting. I guess they can be used to open doors if you're hands are full but that's a pretty niche use.

[zeonsghost]

graystone wrote:

zeonsghost wrote:

A Ranger with a pet can get multiple attacks without MAP applying.

And they require multiple feats as upkeep while the base familiar can work as 1st level ancestry feat.

zeonsghost wrote:

A monk can power up their attack and attack twice on one action.

Yea, a class ability and not a pet ability. Pets have their abilities drastically limited in PF2.

zeonsghost wrote:

Summoners and their Eidolons can take some 5 actions a round with a couple of feats. Magi have lots of ways to pull extra actions.

Eidolons are specifically NOT minions and as you said, it requires "a couple of feats" past what you need to have it. This is something you are never doing with a fimiliar [you might get extra abilities but the familiar itself never improves].

zeonsghost wrote:

Almost every class gets things that break action economy that are unique or semi-unique to the class and generally very good. Familiars helping action economy isn't different save for the lack of violence involved.

Sure, the CLASS does, not it's pets. The best they get is the 1 action when not commanded.

Lightning Raven wrote:

Given how Prehensile Tail feats were absolutely murdered in this edition, it's no wonder that such a thing that grants extra actions like that was ruled as such.

Yeah, they are pretty unexciting. I guess they can be used to open doors if you're hands are full but that's a pretty niche use.

But all of those have more impact than reloading a bit faster or drinking a potion or elixir. The familiar doesn't get any more powerful without further investment and expenditure of resources. A 10th level character' familiar isn't doing much feeding them first level potions in the same way an animal companion isn't going to be much better without subsequent resources. Both break the action economy, both require investment to keep effective. One is utility, the other is damage, and utility is punished at the cost of story.

You get this "your familiar can give a beer but not a potion" or "the imp killed me and drank my potion while my imp sat and watched". Who benefits from that? It's not fun for anyone.

[Invictus Fatum]

Just to derail the mechanical conversation, I submit for amusement the fact that a familiar has the intelligence and fine motor skills to mix a complex alchemical concoction, load a mechanical crossbow, and aid in remembering obscure arcane knowledge. However the finer points of pouring liquid from a vile into a person's mouth is beyond them.

[Gortle]

CaffeinatedNinja wrote:

And most of those are in-built class features, baked into the power of the class. A familiar is an easily accessible lvl 1 feat. It was clearly never intended to try and be the action enhancer it would be if they could activate items.

I sort of agree but familiars are limited action enhancers just straight out of the box. It is the point of them. They have to be moderately useful.

They have already rightly removed attacks as an option.

I just think the rules need to draw the line in a better place.

a) use a potion
b) read a scroll
c) use a wand
d) activate a general magic item
e) use a non magical item like an elixer

But there are options for familiars to cast a low level spell

Familiars using scrolls or wands without limits is just going to break action economy.

But potions and elixers all have sensible limits on them anyway. I really don't see the problem.

[graystone]

zeonsghost wrote:

But all of those have more impact than reloading a bit faster or drinking a potion or elixir.

*shrug* You're missing the point: it's not the amount of the impact but WHO is having the impact. PF2 focuses on the CHARACTER having it, not his pet.

zeonsghost wrote:

The familiar doesn't get any more powerful without further investment and expenditure of resources.

It doesn't every get more power, just more options if you pour more feast into it.

zeonsghost wrote:

A 10th level character' familiar isn't doing much feeding them first level potions in the same way an animal companion isn't going to be much better without subsequent resources.

And? One is a combat pet and one isn't. The familiar is for RP and Master powers mostly with a few things like toolbearer that are useful in combat sometimes.

zeonsghost wrote:

Both break the action economy, both require investment to keep effective. One is utility, the other is damage, and utility is punished at the cost of story.

One is combat focused and one isn't.

zeonsghost wrote:

You get this "your familiar can give a beer but not a potion" or "the imp killed me and drank my potion while my imp sat and watched". Who benefits from that? It's not fun for anyone.

If we ruled by what is fun vs what was in print, PF2 would be a VERY different game at least based on myself. We aren't ruling on what's fun though.

[CaffeinatedNinja]

Invictus Fatum wrote:

Just to derail the mechanical conversation, I submit for amusement the fact that a familiar has the intelligence and fine motor skills to mix a complex alchemical concoction, load a mechanical crossbow, and aid in remembering obscure arcane knowledge. However the finer points of pouring liquid from a vile into a person's mouth is beyond them.

Hah, totally true! But lets not get too realistic when it comes to pouring potions. In real life it is rather tricky to pour a potion down an knocked out persons throat...

[zeonsghost]

graystone wrote:

zeonsghost wrote:

But all of those have more impact than reloading a bit faster or drinking a potion or elixir.

*shrug* You're missing the point: it's not the amount of the impact but WHO is having the impact. PF2 focuses on the CHARACTER having it, not his pet.

zeonsghost wrote:

The familiar doesn't get any more powerful without further investment and expenditure of resources.

It doesn't every get more power, just more options if you pour more feast into it.

zeonsghost wrote:

A 10th level character' familiar isn't doing much feeding them first level potions in the same way an animal companion isn't going to be much better without subsequent resources.

And? One is a combat pet and one isn't. The familiar is for RP and Master powers mostly with a few things like toolbearer that are useful in combat sometimes.

zeonsghost wrote:

Both break the action economy, both require investment to keep effective. One is utility, the other is damage, and utility is punished at the cost of story.

One is combat focused and one isn't.

zeonsghost wrote:

You get this "your familiar can give a beer but not a potion" or "the imp killed me and drank my potion while my imp sat and watched". Who benefits from that? It's not fun for anyone.

If we ruled by what is fun vs what was in print, PF2 would be a VERY different game at least based on myself. We aren't ruling on what's fun though.

I hate to be like "that's just your opinion, man."

But..."that's just your opinion, man".

Familiars are as much a part of a character as any other option. Them being able to do things that make narrative sense like handing you something isn't any more game breaking than the archer who rides back and forth on a horse for a couple of points of damage or the other dumb mechanical tricks players get up to.

This reminds me of a discussion about seeing the Sun in PF1. RAW, you can't see it. There's no rules as to how much a bonus it gives to seeing it and at millions of miles away the distance penalty even high level perception would make it undetectable. But we all agree, "of course you can see the Sun when its out."

A roleplaying game is some mix of game and storytelling. For it to work both parts have to make sense. If I wanted a game where only mechanics mattered and story was irrelevant, I can bust out Final Fantasy Tactics and circle enemies while throwing potions around for XP or get out my 40k stuff. If Pathfinder is just supposed to be a game about rules and not about telling a story, it should just take "Roleplaying Game" out of the name.

[graystone]

CaffeinatedNinja wrote:

In real life it is rather tricky to pour a potion down an knocked out persons throat...

Especially when that person is 2-3 times bigger than you.

zeonsghost wrote:

I hate to be like "that's just your opinion, man."

But..."that's just your opinion, man".

Of course it's an opinion: I wasn't the one that brought up "fun" as a reasoning for a ruling: it's fundamentally an opinion based way of doing it.

zeonsghost wrote:

Familiars are as much a part of a character as any other option.

No they aren't: they are minions and as such, you can't evaluate them the same as abilities directly used by the character because the game doesn't treat them the same.

zeonsghost wrote:

Them being able to do things that make narrative sense like handing you something isn't any more game breaking than the archer who rides back and forth on a horse for a couple of points of damage or the other dumb mechanical tricks players get up to.

No one is arguing "game breaking": we are talking about how the game treats minions. I think a familiar could be given a LOT more things and not have it be game breaking but that was never a question.

zeonsghost wrote:

This reminds me of a discussion about seeing the Sun in PF1.

Not really the same as a familiar is a game construct that doesn't exist in reality: it has exactly the abilities the game allows and that's it. It's a magically bound entity that REQUIRES some other being to Command it to do things.

zeonsghost wrote:

If Pathfinder is just supposed to be a game about rules and not about telling a story, it should just take "Roleplaying Game" out of the name.

And if you take the rule out, then you're not playing a game but having collaborative storytelling time. You can't have a RPG without the game or roleplaying.

[zeonsghost]

graystone wrote:

zeonsghost wrote:

If Pathfinder is just supposed to be a game about rules and not about telling a story, it should just take "Roleplaying Game" out of the name.

And if you take the rule out, then you're not playing a game but having collaborative storytelling time. You can't have a RPG without the game or roleplaying.

You can take that one interpretation of that one rule out and its still a functional game. The game has been perfectly playable before this ruling.

You arbitrarily decide that a creature can make a potion and not use it, you take the players and the character out of the story. The narrative's logic falls apart and we're just playing Mordhiem. I love Mordhiem, but its not an RPG.

[RoyAlan]

DeathlessOne wrote:

To each their own. I'm not a fan of arbitrarily limiting things that fly in the face of common sense. I've had disagreements with Paizo staff and rulings before, only to have the issue eventually turn around in my favor. I'm content to sit back and wait for the wheel to turn. No skin off my back.

this. I feel that the Original poster has given very salient arguments and at the same time, I agree with all of the above.

it's like, "Why is telekinesis not in the spell lists?"
the common answer is, "Cause its so broken"

A) I don't know why telekinesis is "So broken" and no one can actually give me a legitimate answer for why.

B) I used to get upset at the 1e habit of trying to have the same number of "Goodies" for all of the classes. Dear Devs, DON'T DO THAT. if something is a Psionic class archetype, don't take it away and try to shoehorn it to fit only the Paladin!
please.

I was watching the Youtube channel "How its played" and the cantrip mage hand was nerfed into oblivion. it isn't a "hand" with dexterity, there is no untying knots, no picking locks, no unbuckling of belts...
and there is no given reason for why.

One just has to wonder; is golarion supposed to be "just like earth" with vast armies of academia denying the existence of anything paranormal (*Like legends of Cleric B) - Or, is it supposed to be something different. A world where the fantastic does happen.

If Golarion is not the latter, a fantastic world...
how does alchemy work? does an elixir magically become lost litters of blood? Does an elixir "Know" that it is supposed to mend an ACL tendon?
alas, what is the impact of fantasy elements (ever burning torches) on the world of Golarion? Is the world perpetually stuck without running water, indoor plumbing, etc - Or do things actually change because of Characters with classes?

I hope that Golarion is a place of magic, wonder, and danger. I hope that all the "ever burning tortches" that have been made actually do some part to change the world, at least a little bit.

[QuidEst]

Not sure where this is coming from on a thread about familiars, but at the very least…

Quote:

I was watching the Youtube channel "How its played" and the cantrip mage hand was nerfed into oblivion. it isn't a "hand" with dexterity, there is no untying knots, no picking locks, no unbuckling of belts...

and there is no given reason for why.

… Why would there be a reason given? You're comparing a PF2 spell to a D&D 5e spell. The PF2 version of the spell didn't come from D&D 5e. In Pathfinder, Mage Hand has always been the name for the cantrip to move an object, and the spell was buffed from PF1 with a scaling weight limit and higher movement speed.

Edit: What the heck, for everything else:
- Telekinesis was a very broad spell split up into a few more targeted spells, similar to some of the very broad "image" spells. Telekinetic Haul and Telekinetic Maneuver are probably what you're looking for.

- Golarion is definitely a place where wondrous things happen. If you're interested in what the impacts of magic are on the setting, the Campaign Setting books from PF1 cover a lot of societal level impacts, and the Pathfinder Tales novels show things from a more personal level. They don't necessarily address all your exact questions, and some of the lore around alchemy has changed since then.

- I couldn't find anything called Legends of Cleric B.

[graystone]

zeonsghost wrote:

You arbitrarily decide that a creature can make a potion and not use it, you take the players and the character out of the story.

NO, I'm not. I'm taking the word of a DEV of the game, Mark, that that is the correct way to play it according to the rules. So there is nothing arbitrary about it. If you don't like that, you are arguing with the wrong person.

zeonsghost wrote:

The narrative's logic falls apart

*shrug* That is your prerogative. Mark said that you can't feed a potion to someone with a familiar because they can't activate it. If that breaks your verisimilitude, ask your DM to houserule away the rules or play another game.

[Ravingdork]

If nobody at your table likes a rule, and you insist they play by it anyways, then I really question whether you're playing "the correct way."

[QuidEst]

To me, it was always a bit weird that a familiar would be climbing around you, tipping potions into your mouth in the middle of a fight- that part broke verisimilitude to me. Not to say that it's necessarily weirder than the "familiar can't administer a healing potion to somebody unconscious" thing, but the familiar-as-a-feedsack was built around doing that regularly, rather than being an occasional edge case oddity.

But, I'm also just getting familiars for the talking cat aspect.

[Rysky]

QuidEst wrote:

To me, it was always a bit weird that a familiar would be climbing around you, tipping potions into your mouth in the middle of a fight- that part broke verisimilitude to me. Not to say that it's necessarily weirder than the "familiar can't administer a healing potion to somebody unconscious" thing, but the familiar-as-a-feedsack was built around doing that regularly, rather than being an occasional edge case oddity.

But, I'm also just getting familiars for the talking cat aspect.

Don't forget also being immune to AOEs and damage in general.

[graystone]

Ravingdork wrote:

If nobody at your table likes a rule, and you insist they play by it anyways, then I really question whether you're playing "the correct way."

I think the issue is if the DM insists they play it that way then does it matter if "nobody at your table likes a rule". Some DM's will (gasp!) use the actual rules after all. Myself, I've been debating on what the rule is as it stands. I've been quite vocal in the past that familiars where pretty bad only to have others say they where fine because you could do things like independent+valet, extra exploration actions [because somehow the action rules no longer apply?] and potion use: Myself, that didn't seem correct and it ended up being so. So I'm just enjoying the feeling of epicaricacy and/or shadenfreude a bit. I'd prefer familiars where better options too, but I'll take some pleasure in being right.

[Gortle]

QuidEst wrote:

To me, it was always a bit weird that a familiar would be climbing around you, tipping potions into your mouth in the middle of a fight- that part broke verisimilitude to me. Not to say that it's necessarily weirder than the "familiar can't administer a healing potion to somebody unconscious" thing, but the familiar-as-a-feedsack was built around doing that regularly, rather than being an occasional edge case oddity.

But, I'm also just getting familiars for the talking cat aspect.

Our Witches familiar is a pig named Sausage. It has the Flight, Scent and Speech abilites. This week it discovered lipstick.

Its a scout of sorts, but mostly its roleplaying value.

[zeonsghost]

QuidEst wrote:

To me, it was always a bit weird that a familiar would be climbing around you, tipping potions into your mouth in the middle of a fight- that part broke verisimilitude to me. Not to say that it's necessarily weirder than the "familiar can't administer a healing potion to somebody unconscious" thing, but the familiar-as-a-feedsack was built around doing that regularly, rather than being an occasional edge case oddity.

But, I'm also just getting familiars for the talking cat aspect.

As a forever GM, there's lots of things that verisimilitude breaking things in PF I see all the time. Between people who will ride horses into any place with 10 ft hallways so they can pace back and forth for 1-4 damage and along with the existence, effectiveness and wide-spread use of the battle medicine feat being the top "this feels very gamey and silly" mechanics.

A monkey or imp that occasionally grabs me a drink doesn't seem all that weird to me by comparison, but this is the dumb hill a dev dying on. I think its a dumb out to just say "no" instead of reminding GMs that bad guys can see them do it and familiars are very squishy. If I felt a player was abusing it, some NPC would just shoot the thing.

It's the difference between saying "no" and "yes, but" which is an important part of GMing 101 that the devs seem to have slept through.

[Temperans]

QuidEst wrote:

Not sure where this is coming from on a thread about familiars, but at the very least…

Quote:

I was watching the Youtube channel "How its played" and the cantrip mage hand was nerfed into oblivion. it isn't a "hand" with dexterity, there is no untying knots, no picking locks, no unbuckling of belts...

and there is no given reason for why.

… Why would there be a reason given? You're comparing a PF2 spell to a D&D 5e spell. The PF2 version of the spell didn't come from D&D 5e. In Pathfinder, Mage Hand has always been the name for the cantrip to move an object, and the spell was buffed from PF1 with a scaling weight limit and higher movement speed.

Edit: What the heck, for everything else:
- Telekinesis was a very broad spell split up into a few more targeted spells, similar to some of the very broad "image" spells. Telekinetic Haul and Telekinetic Maneuver are probably what you're looking for.

- Golarion is definitely a place where wondrous things happen. If you're interested in what the impacts of magic are on the setting, the Campaign Setting books from PF1 cover a lot of societal level impacts, and the Pathfinder Tales novels show things from a more personal level. They don't necessarily address all your exact questions, and some of the lore around alchemy has changed since then.

- I couldn't find anything called Legends of Cleric B.

The spell wasn't really "buffed". The only real buff is being able to use it on magic items. Distance wise PF1 is better 25-75+ ft. vs 30-60 ft. Weight wise Bulk and Weight are not compatible. As for "manual dexterity", it took 1 of 3 things: Arcane Trickster, Magic Trick (Magic Hand), or Kineticist.

Those other spells you mention as being "what you are looking for" were previously in the game, along side Telekinesis. But yeah until Telekinesis is added those spells should work. Doesn't mean Telekinesis shouldn't be added.

Anyways, yeah the lore of the game is great, there are a lot of interesting things that previously happened. But many of the new rules and new info doesn't quite fit with the previous lore, so beware.