I think the Cabbage has it.
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Only regular pack does not have any effect for a familiar unless GM homerules it, it seems.
At the very least by default a “regular pack” would negate line of sight and line of effect. A creature in a closed pack “is entirely behind a solid physical barrier,” after all. A creature in a closed pack would also have cover, and arguably greater cover, and most AoE spells that could damage the pack likely call for reflex save.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
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.
Note the original wording of Manual Dexterity:
It can use up to two of its limbs as if they were hands to perform manipulate actions.
Hands include opposable thumbs, therefore Manual Dexterity originally allowed you to do anything which requires thumbs. If this is no longer the case, then it is indeed a new ruling, one which contradicts RAW at that.
Further, if Manual Dexterity no longer allows a familiar to act as if they have opposable thumbs, then Master's Form now contains a logical problem:
Your familiar can change shape as a single action, transforming into a humanoid of your ancestry with the same age, gender, and build of its true form, though it always maintains a clearly unnatural remnant of its nature, such as a cat's eyes or a serpent's tongue. This form is always the same each time it uses this ability. This otherwise uses the effects of humanoid form, except the change is purely cosmetic. It only appears humanoid and gains no new capabilities. Your familiar must have the manual dexterity and speech abilities to select this.
When your familiar uses this ability, they take on a humanoid form (which, by definition, means they gain opposable thumbs if they didn't already have any). ...But, they also "gain no new capabilities." Put together, if Manual Dexterity doesn't allow them to act as if they have opposable thumbs, then this doesn't either. Which means that they gain thumbs, but are unable to use them.
I... don't think this is the intent here, or at least I hope it's not. ;P
Unless you for some reason decide your familiar doesn't like you and thus doesn't listen.
Charizard is Ash's familiar.
*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.
If the familiar is obtained through a feat that the character took, then the familiar is one of the character's features, on the grounds that . This is roughly akin to, e.g., arguing that Quick Bomber is a problem because it's the bombs having the impact, not the Alchemist. ;3 Guess we need to fix all those feats that involve weapons, items, armour, and anything else that isn't a part of the PC's biology, too, then! And animal companions, of course, since they're definitely not part of the character! ^_^
(For the record, I see your point, and would sometimes agree from a role-playing perspective; there are a few cases where a "familiar" is just a manifestation of part of a character's personality, and thus part of them, but it's not the norm. Gameplay-wise, though, anything that a character spends one or more feat slots to purchase, and/or gets as a class/ancestry/background/archetype/etc. feature, counts as a part of that character as far as character design mechanics are concerned, IMO.)
What exactly stops a familiar without Independent from using Stealth?Well, I'd expect a lot of people would make it a LOT easier to figure out where the familiar was when you are there telling them where to go: Command "you issue a verbal command as a single action with the auditory and concentrate trait". So if your familiar becomes hidden when others are around, it's not hard to figure out where they are when you're telling them to hide and move 10' forward.
Amusingly enough, the best way to handle this may be to use plan/maneuver/code names. Anyone can tell where the familiar is if you tell it to "sneak up on the enemy commander!"... but not so much when you say it's, "Time for plan 216-A!"
That's a fair point, but if the situation comes up, I really should not have to ask my player in the middle of an encounter "How is your Familiar flying, does it have wings or is it just magically floating around?" It can create metagaming, where it might say it has wings where we never really, you know, defined how it's flying, especially if it's in a context like this one.
Note that Flier just gives the familiar a fly speed, it doesn't mandate that they must always fly at all times. Even if I had a wingless flying cat as a familiar, if I wanted it to go scouting, I'd probably tell it to act like an escaped domestic in search of food, walking around and checking near the mess hall. Maybe meow at anyone it sees eating and rub up against their leg, something like that. It can come back once it's full, or if no one feeds it, and it wouldn't seem out of the ordinary for a hungry housecat to find someone to cater to it unless they're in an area that doesn't normally have any cats or pet owners.
How do you rationalize a fireball burning a familiar inside a backpack to death, but not dealing a single point of damage to the backpack surrounding it?
"Today, Billy learned that 'fireproof' does not mean 'heatproof'." ;3
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
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.Note the original wording of Manual Dexterity:
It can use up to two of its limbs as if they were hands to perform manipulate actions.Hands include opposable thumbs, therefore Manual Dexterity originally allowed you to do anything which requires thumbs. If this is no longer the case, then it is indeed a new ruling, one which contradicts RAW at that.
Further, if Manual Dexterity no longer allows a familiar to act as if they have opposable thumbs, then Master's Form now contains a logical problem:
Your familiar can change shape as a single action, transforming into a humanoid of your ancestry with the same age, gender, and build of its true form, though it always maintains a clearly unnatural remnant of its nature, such as a cat's eyes or a serpent's tongue. This form is always the same each time it uses this ability. This otherwise uses the effects of humanoid form, except the change is purely cosmetic. It only appears humanoid and gains no new capabilities. Your familiar must have the manual dexterity and speech abilities to select this.When your familiar uses this ability, they take on a humanoid form (which, by definition, means they gain opposable thumbs if they didn't already have any). ...But, they also "gain no new capabilities." Put together, if Manual Dexterity doesn't allow them to act as if they have opposable thumbs, then this doesn't either. Which means that they gain thumbs, but are unable to use them.
I... don't think this is the intent here, or at least I hope it's not. ;P
Performing manipulate actions is separate from activating items. The latter supersedes the former, even when they would be for the same end result. The familiar can open a door, which is a manipulate action that doesn't activate an item, but not drink or forcefeed a potion or elixir, which is a manipulate action that is also the activation method of the item. Because the item activation supersedes the manipulate action, it simply can't be done. It's a limitation clarified by the devs that was being broken the entire time.
It's not much different than when the devs clarified that Finesse weapons do not permit Dex-to-Athletics rolls for Trip, Disarm, Grab, and Shove, in that it is a skill roll before it is an attack roll, despite it having the Attack trait. It was originally an assumption put forth by the player base (me included), but it was also an assumption that was incorrect the entire time, by developer consensus.
The rules also go in deep enough to clarify the possibilities fine maneuvering with fingers in abilities and elements where it would be relevant (such as lockpicking, usually), so bringing up thumbs isn't particularly relevant regardless of that factor. Even if we want to argue that familiars can "hold" items, at the end of the day, they can't feasibly use them, which is really the crux of the issue.
Also, Hands without thumbs are still hands, technically speaking. Just because they are crippled doesn't mean they aren't what they were originally.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
That's fair, Darksol, I was mainly looking at it in context of the thread's OP's original wording there, and as such, pointing out that if the familiar's "hands" no longer allow anything that requires opposable thumbs, then the clarification contradicts RAW. ;3 (And I was looking at hands vs. paws, not at digit loss. A hand that lost its thumb still has the bone structure for an opposable thumb, after all.)
And that's true, Temperans. There, I was just pointing out that a familiar that's able to fly isn't automatically always flying, and giving an example of how a familiar with Flier could potentially scout out an area inconspicuously.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
You font need opposable thumbs to use manipulate actions. Just look at the new poppet ancestry.
"Page 604: Under Companion Items, replace the third sentence with “Normally these are the only items a companion can use. Other items may qualify, at the GM’s discretion, but an animal can never Activate an Item.” This makes the rules clearer than before, and allows the GM to opt into adding more items." From pathfinder Errata
"Familiars are mystically bonded creatures tied to your magic. Most familiars were originally animals, though the ritual of becoming a familiar makes them something more." CRB pg217 Familiars are not an animal thus the rule of an animal never using does not apply to them.
With Familiar Master anyone can get an improved familiar which can be a creature that never was an animal and thus can activate items. By the time someone can get this it should not be a problem about a familiar being able to use a few magic items by the time it is practical.
As to the video of one of the game designers saying familiars cannot use items, I think he was in error of the rules. That is not how they are written. And they have not yet sent me a replacement Core Rule Book with the corrections if they have changed how they work. It is not practical to try and track down every video or artical every team member has made or taken part in to deturmine the rules. Also this is a pen and paper game, that means out of the box thinking is possible which is the main reason for playing pen and paper instead of another video game.
As to the problem of familiars being able to scout, use the message cantrip to give them commands.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
"Page 604: Under Companion Items, replace the third sentence with “Normally these are the only items a companion can use. Other items may qualify, at the GM’s discretion, but an animal can never Activate an Item.” This makes the rules clearer than before, and allows the GM to opt into adding more items." From pathfinder Errata
"Familiars are mystically bonded creatures tied to your magic. Most familiars were originally animals, though the ritual of becoming a familiar makes them something more." CRB pg217 Familiars are not an animal thus the rule of an animal never using does not apply to them.
With Familiar Master anyone can get an improved familiar which can be a creature that never was an animal and thus can activate items. By the time someone can get this it should not be a problem about a familiar being able to use a few magic items by the time it is practical.
As to the video of one of the game designers saying familiars cannot use items, I think he was in error of the rules. That is not how they are written. And they have not yet sent me a replacement Core Rule Book with the corrections if they have changed how they work. It is not practical to try and track down every video or artical every team member has made or taken part in to deturmine the rules. Also this is a pen and paper game, that means out of the box thinking is possible which is the main reason for playing pen and paper instead of another video game.
As to the problem of familiars being able to scout, use the message cantrip to give them commands.
Those parts refer to Animal Companions, not Familiars. They are distinct entities, and that entry is for the former, not the latter. Familiars can't activate magic items whatsoever, per Mark Seifter's response, and Animal Companion rules aren't for Familiars, meaning the rules of "commanding them" as if they were an Animal (Companion) do not apply, either. In addition, Familiars need special abilities that let them do those things, they can't just do them out of the gate compared to even an Animal that's trained in it (though even then, Animals can't activate items unless they also have the Companion trait unless GM FIAT says otherwise).
You are suggesting that a designer who helped write the rules is wrong about his own rules, and that because the rulebook you own doesn't currently say it, that you are entitled to a free, replacement rulebook with the listed rules in place. Not only do I find this laughable, but the level of entitlement you present and validation request you demand is absurd.
Paizo shouldn't replace your rulebooks for you every time they errata them, there is no way they would remain in business if they were required to do this. Even worse, it could result in them never issuing errata for their rulebooks, meaning we will never get official clarifications/changes on rules. Furthermore, if you want to run your Familiars using items in your own game, go for it. Paizo isn't going to bust down your doors telling you that you're playing the game wrong, and take your rulebooks away for doing so. All we're saying is that what you are playing is houserules. Again, everybody thinks houserules are wrong, but they're not. If you don't like how a certain part of the game plays, feel free to change it, that's totally fine; there isn't a single home game that probably doesn't have a houserule or alternate rule of some fashion in place. The only important distinction to make in regards to such houserules is that they aren't the rules that the designers put in place. Otherwise? Who cares if you do or don't use houserules. Outside of your own table, the answer to that question doesn't matter unless you want it to, in which case, that's effectively badwrongfun gaslighting.
The problem with the Message cantrip is that you still need to be able to both see and affect the Familiar with it; AKA, have both Line of Sight and Line of Effect to the target. Unless you have spells or abilities that let you constantly see the Familiar, or you are in a position that you can constantly see the Familiar, this doesn't work out. It also has a limited Range; if the Familiar exceeds that Range, they can't be targeted with the spell as well. If the Familiar has to go around a wall or into a cave somewhere that you can't see into, or deep into a tunnel somewhere, you can't legally target them. But of course, if we want to houserule that you can, no matter what, then go for it. Again, though, this is houserule territory; it's important for objectivity and reliability purposes that it's denoted as such.
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
Again, everybody thinks houserules are wrong, but they're not.
I don't think houserules are wrong. The CRB doesn't even think that houserules are wrong, since the first general rules heavily imply that if rules aren't fun for your table, change them. Both "The GM has the final say" and "Ambiguous Rules" have that concept in them. Also there are published and very popular alternate rules such as Free Archetype, Automatic Bonus Progression, and Proficiency Without Level - which are all just houserules that the game developers have created and published.
Now, are we really going to necro this thread again?
To muddle things even further in the Knights of Lastwall lore sections there are descriptions of using animal companions and maybe familiars as scouts. Obviously, there's a divide between lore and rules, but I thought it was interesting.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
To muddle things even further in the Knights of Lastwall lore sections there are descriptions of using animal companions and maybe familiars as scouts. Obviously, there's a divide between lore and rules, but I thought it was interesting.
The lore says a lot of things, but really a lot of it can be explained away as being plot-based at best, or just not actually functioning that way by the rules at-worst. It's the latter that creates problems more than the former, especially when people consider the Stormwind Fallacy.
It's why I laugh when the lore says that spellcasters are some of the most powerful and capable characters in existence, being able to rule countries and govern nobility, but mechanically, if you put them up against a Fighter in close proximity, they turn into paste and are incapable of anything, and they are often not very charismatic in terms of an optimization standpoint, creating a disconnect of "being the most powerful" and "being a respectable ruler." Usually, a Wizard would dump Charisma because they'd rather have more Dexterity/Wisdom/Constitution; very rarely would a Wizard that doesn't improve those 3 scores in addition to their Intelligence manage to survive or continue to be helpful in combat.
I would be more inclined to believe that claim if it were a Sorcerer or Bard instead, because Charisma does a lot more for their power, and goes hand-in-hand with both ruling a country/kingdom and fueling their spellcasting power. But with in-lore explanations like Nex and Geb being rival Wizards with towering empires in their enforcement, and Razmir being considered a Demi (read: false) God and satirically projected as being a 19th level Wizard by PF1 Standards, it's hard to imagine that to be genuinely true if we factor in mechanics.
| 9 people marked this as a favorite. |
It's why I laugh when the lore says that spellcasters are some of the most powerful and capable characters in existence, being able to rule countries and govern nobility, but mechanically, if you put them up against a Fighter in close proximity, they turn into paste and are incapable of anything,
Being good in a cage fight is less useful to statecraft than, say, mind controlling people. Or utilizing teleportation effects to improve trade. Or dropping a meteor swarm on a town that doesn't pay it's taxes. There's no inconsistency with spellcasters being the movers and shakers on a global scale; you're just applying a myopic perspective.
Usually, a Wizard would dump Charisma because they'd rather have more Dexterity/Wisdom/Constitution; very rarely would a Wizard that doesn't improve those 3 scores in addition to their Intelligence manage to survive or continue to be helpful in combat.
NPCs aren't limited by ability boost budgets like a PCs are. There is zero reason they need to give up one stat to be better at another. And in fact if you build an NPC strictly following the GMG tables than a "low" ability score at level 20 is literally the pinnacle of what a PC can achieve without magical items, an a high ability score is almost twice as much.
But with in-lore explanations like Nex and Geb being rival Wizards with towering empires in their enforcement, and Razmir being considered a Demi (read: false) God and satirically projected as being a 19th level Wizard by PF1 Standards, it's hard to imagine that to be genuinely true if we factor in mechanics.
Nah, you're just ignoring the actual mechanics involved and applying a bunch of irrelevant ones.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Mind-controlling people isn't that reliable, and if it was, it can certainly force "cage fights" at unexpected times where the intended target isn't prepared for it. (If not, there's always the Fated Confrontation spell, which is a literal "cage fight" spell.) (Mind control effects should also have the Evil tag, but one headache at a time.) If a Wizard King had some of his close guards Mind Controlled and they consequently gang up on him, said Wizard King is bound to have a bad time simply because 8 or so guards getting AoOs will slay him. And in the case of Nex/Geb, if they're meant to be able to protect against an enemy Wizard King, it would make sense that they possess things that make them ineffectual to them. (Yes, this can mean that the Mind Control thing is useless, but it doesn't detract from a potential mutiny, so the odds of this happening is still realistic enough to bring into question.)
I highly doubt teleportation is that powerful or common in any sort of Pathfinder Lore, and short of a Gate spell, it's not feasible (which is really only for interplanar travel, I might add). No amount of NPC shenanigans, macguffins, or GM Handwavium will have this either make any sense or be present in the lore because it creates a lot of serious plot holes, inconsistencies, and headaches. It's also the same reason why there is far fewer Time-based spell effects (the best we get is Slow, Haste, Time Jump, and Time Stop, and in previous editions, had quirky side-effects to their casts, such as by egregiously aging characters with the Haste spell). Even as Rituals, the odds of it working as intended for PCs is highly unlikely, and again, relies on a lot of GM Handwavium to make it work, which isn't valid to use as in-lore explanation of it working if neither the PCs or the NPCs could feasibly do so.
Dropping a Meteor Swarm can either be overkill or completely useless, depending on the power level of enemies you're throwing it at, or if they have high resistances/immunities to Fire/Bludgeoning. That, combined with it getting a nerf, plus potential friendly-fire, and it's probably the worst damaging spell in the game. NPCs don't need to make optimal decisions, but a legendary Wizard would know better than to just use a simple Meteor Swarm spell that's unlikely to be successful against anyone credible, meaning this isn't much of an argument, either.
Ah, yes, the classic "NPCs don't follow PCs rules, so they can do whatever the lore demands them to do" "argument." I say it's an "argument" because it's basically GM Handwavium in a different skin. We might as well say "The book's rules are only as relevant as you want them to be," because it's basically the same sentiment. Thanks for showing me that NPCs don't have Stride, Step, Strike, or Interact actions, but that they somehow possess a "Do Whatever the Lore Requires" action. [citation needed]
By all means, present me the actual mechanics for Nex and Geb and Razmir, because not even Paizo themselves have or are willing to do this. And no, GM Handwavium isn't mechanics, especially when it's affected by table variation. Once again, [citation needed]
| 13 people marked this as a favorite. |
So are you incapable of thinking about how spells can be applied outside of combat encounters, or are you doing a bit?
Mind-controlling people isn't that reliable, )
It certainly is if you're a 19th level wizard who wants to puppet a few key 8th level decision makers to cast votes in your favor or sign over power and resources to you.
If a Wizard King had some of his close guards Mind Controlled and they consequently gang up on him, said Wizard King is bound to have a bad time simply because 8 or so guards getting AoOs will slay him.
You seem to have this idea that high level casters are only trying to use spells on high level people.
I highly doubt teleportation is that powerful or common in any sort of Pathfinder Lore, and short of a Gate spell, it's not feasible (which is really only for interplanar travel, I might add). No amount of NPC shenanigans, macguffins, or GM Handwavium will have this either make any sense or be present in the lore because it creates a lot of serious plot holes, inconsistencies, and headaches.
Of the three PF2 APs I've read, two of them are literally about teleportation items. The nation of Oprak was formed around having a teleportation device open economic doors.
Dropping a Meteor Swarm can either be overkill or completely useless, depending on the power level of enemies you're throwing it at, or if they have high resistances/immunities to Fire/Bludgeoning. That, combined with it getting a nerf, plus potential friendly-fire, and it's probably the worst damaging spell in the game. NPCs don't need to make optimal decisions, but a legendary Wizard would know better than to just use a simple Meteor Swarm spell that's unlikely to be successful against anyone credible, meaning this isn't much of an argument, either.
Again, stop thinking purely in terms of level appropriate combat encounters. Level appropriate combat encounters are an artificial product of adventure design. The fact that your player character is always interfacing with them does not mean the rest of the world is constantly having them.
Meteor Swarm is a bad choice if you're fighting an ancient gold dragon. It is an extremely effective choice if what you want to do is kill as many low level people as possible very quickly. You can literally kill armies with it.
Ah, yes, the classic "NPCs don't follow PCs rules, so they can do whatever the lore demands them to do" "argument." I say it's an "argument" because it's basically GM Handwavium in a different skin. We might as well say "The book's rules are only as relevant as you want them to be," because it's basically the same sentiment. Thanks for showing me that NPCs don't have Stride, Step, Strike, or Interact actions, but that they somehow possess a "Do Whatever the Lore Requires" action. [citation needed]
Page 56 of the Gamemastery Guide. Those are the rules for making NPCs. It is weird that you are pretending those aren't rules.
| 9 people marked this as a favorite. |
@Captain Morgan,
We'll put, I'm just chiming in cause the plus sign wasn't enough against such bad faith arguments as were levied.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
It is wild how most of what y'all are writing is factually inaccurate, and the rest of it is irrelevant.
1) Wizards aren't even that good at enchantment compared to Sorcerer, Bard, or anyone with the occult list.
They have Charm, Suggestion, Dominate, and Telepathic Demand. which is really all you need most of the time for social manipulation. And at high enough levels Wish lets them pilfer most of the other spell lists. The one thing they are missing is Fabricated Truth, which is admittedly a goodie.
2) Being able to use meteor swarm against a town just makes you the #1 enemy because no noble is going to stay silent when they could be next.
Alternatively, it convinces people to shut up and fall in line because they don't want to be next.
3) what teleportation effects? Those are all effectively banned, and if a ruling wizard has it there is effectively nothing PCs can do about them.
Huh? Because spells are uncommon they are effectively banned? Most GMs allow uncommon things just fine, and it also is irrelevant for NPCs.
So congrats NPC wizards are virtually omnipotent while PC wizards are trash fires, way to make players feel bad for choosing the wrong class.
Irrelevant when we are talking about lore, but OK.
4) NPCs built using the monster rules have a +2 beyond anything that a PC could have even if they had max ability scores and items. All because paizo refuses to give them a +2 potency rune and a +2 DC rune.
Also irrelevant to Darksoul's thesis.
5) The fact that NPCs casters are better than anything a PC can do, while an NPC martial is the same or worse than a PC. It just feels bad.
You realize martial NPCs have better numbers than their PC equivalents too, right?
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
@Captain Morgan,
We'll put, I'm just chiming in cause the plus sign wasn't enough against such bad faith arguments as were levied.
Mwah darling.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Also: rituals exist
| 9 people marked this as a favorite. |
Why so much spite over high-level spellcasters existing in the lore?
The amount of animosity and energy being thrown into "How dare Paizo have high level spellcasters be in charge of things" seems really overblown. Like, what's the deal?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
So are you incapable of thinking about how spells can be applied outside of combat encounters, or are you doing a bit?
Mind-controlling people isn't that reliable, )It certainly is if you're a 19th level wizard who wants to puppet a few key 8th level decision makers to cast votes in your favor or sign over power and resources to you.
If a Wizard King had some of his close guards Mind Controlled and they consequently gang up on him, said Wizard King is bound to have a bad time simply because 8 or so guards getting AoOs will slay him.You seem to have this idea that high level casters are only trying to use spells on high level people.
I highly doubt teleportation is that powerful or common in any sort of Pathfinder Lore, and short of a Gate spell, it's not feasible (which is really only for interplanar travel, I might add). No amount of NPC shenanigans, macguffins, or GM Handwavium will have this either make any sense or be present in the lore because it creates a lot of serious plot holes, inconsistencies, and headaches.Of the three PF2 APs I've read, two of them are literally about teleportation items. The nation of Oprak was formed around having a teleportation device open economic doors.
Dropping a Meteor Swarm can either be overkill or completely useless, depending on the power level of enemies you're throwing it at, or if they have high resistances/immunities to Fire/Bludgeoning. That, combined with it getting a nerf, plus potential friendly-fire, and it's probably the worst damaging spell in the game. NPCs don't need to make optimal decisions, but a legendary Wizard would know better than to just use a simple Meteor Swarm spell that's unlikely to be successful against anyone credible, meaning this isn't much of an argument, either.Again, stop thinking purely in terms of level appropriate combat encounters. Level appropriate combat encounters are an artificial product of...
Not doing a bit, but the rhetoric isn't as binary as you make it out to be.
What does a 19th level Wizard care about some 8th level noble schmucks? Talk about contrivance when such a Wizard could literally kill them and take power and/or wealth instead, and any of the weak townsfolk that opposed would be killed instantaneously too, with minimal effort, should they report on the events that happened. Short of somehow making some stronger enemies come after you from elsewhere (maybe sellswords or trained assassins, but again, Wizards have ways to counteract this with other magic), or some sick Evil pleasure in doing so, this makes no sense as an excuse for the Wizard to act.
You seem to have an idea that a 19th level Wizard would actually bother to cast mind control spells on 8th level nobles, which is super contrived. The levels not only serve as a means of balance, but also as a means of motivation and relevance to the characters. This is like trying to have a famous singer to do karaoke at a local bar: They don't care, and have better things to do with their time than deal with some lowlife nobodies. Same concept here: There isn't much motive, if anything, for the 19th level Wizard here. Again, unless he's hard up for cash (I'm sure there are some dragon hoards or something that have more stuff up his alley), is pulling some strange 4D Chess move (usually because macguffin or wanting a position of power for themselves), or is just some twisted bully getting his jollies off trolling the kingdom, it makes no sense for this situation to arise.
The one AP I did that had teleportation as a main aspect wasn't really an item, more of a structure. In either case, those sound more like macguffins, and not a result of existing published magic available to PCs or NPCs to use on a whim with their slots, or purchaseable items available in Ye Olde Magicke Shoppe. Once again, though, it's a pile of Handwavium that's created because the Lore demands it, and isn't a result of simply having those options available for players and GM to use. And I get it: even if we argue that it isn't Handwavium or a macguffin, the idea that these can be commonplace and available across the world still presents major storyline problems in both retrospect and the future, which means they are macguffins through and through, and aren't typical of spellcasting as a whole, which was really my point.
I suppose you can. But really, Horrid Wilting would be far more effective at destroying a standing army, given its massive range and ability to affect any target you want in range, meaning no friendly fire. Bonus points that the DC type doesn't matter, since their modifiers are so low that they'll just all Crit Fail (or Fail) and die. Really, no rolls need to take place, it's that contrived and pointless. Of course, since Mr. 19th level Wizard is probably a solo act, it doesn't matter if there's friendly fire, but it would make sense that he doesn't accidentally damage himself with his own spell (you're not immune to your own Meteor Swarm), the only thing that could really harm him at that point. It won't kill him, but if the idea is that he might actually face something that could kill him later on, it would make sense he doesn't perform a self-harming action that could cost him later.
And really, that's assuming he bothers to use such a higher level spell. Even a basic enough spell, like Chain Lightning, would be powerful enough, given that the army is statistically impossible to Critically Succeed the saving throw, and unless the standing army decides to always be 35+ feet away from one another, it would be infinitely more effective, given its targeting goes on for as long as it can be chained, or remain within 500 feet of the spellcaster.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
1) Wizards aren't even that good at enchantment compared to Sorcerer, Bard, or anyone with the occult list.
They have Charm, Suggestion, Dominate, and Telepathic Demand. which is really all you need most of the time for social manipulation. And at high enough levels Wish lets them pilfer most of the other spell lists. The one thing they are missing is Fabricated Truth, which is admittedly a goodie.
2) Being able to use meteor swarm against a town just makes you the #1 enemy because no noble is going to stay silent when they could be next.Alternatively, it convinces people to shut up and fall in line because they don't want to be next.
3) what teleportation effects? Those are all effectively banned, and if a ruling wizard has it there is effectively nothing PCs can do about them.Huh? Because spells are uncommon they are effectively banned? Most GMs allow uncommon things just fine, and it also is irrelevant for NPCs.
So congrats NPC wizards are virtually omnipotent while PC wizards are trash fires, way to make players feel bad for choosing the wrong class.Irrelevant when we are talking about lore, but OK.
4) NPCs built using the monster rules have a +2 beyond anything that a PC could have even if they had max ability scores and items. All because paizo refuses to give them a +2 potency rune and a +2 DC rune.Also irrelevant to Darksoul's thesis.
5) The fact that NPCs casters are better than anything a PC can do, while an NPC martial is the same or worse than a PC. It just feels bad.You realize martial NPCs have better numbers than their PC equivalents too, right?
All those spells are better on NPCs than PCs.
Charm still requires a good Charisma score and Diplomacy training to capitalize on, since it uses the attitude rules, which require the Make an Impression activity. It's useful to prevent an immediate combat, but that's it. It also has Incapacitate, so unless you're using your highest level spell slots, it's likely not to work. Even if you were, higher level enemies means it doesn't work. With the argument that NPC spellcasters always affect lower level creatures, it means they're more equipped to utilize this effect compared to PCs.
Suggestion is just a slightly better version of Charm. It doesn't require good Charisma/Diplomacy, but its duration is limited (by design), and its Incapacitate trait makes it a better NPC tool than a PC tool. Having actually dealt with Suggestion from a BBEG before, that reinforces this concept even more.
Dominate is probably the worst because it's also gated behind a rarity tag (even if it makes sense why that is). The problem is that it's an Incapacitation trait (again), and that it really only does something on a Critical Failure (the Failure and Success results aren't that great, either). The 10th level Heightened effect is neat, and would probably be the only way to truly use the spell, but given how rare and precious those slots are, it's unlikely to see actual use. Incidentally, Vampires have a similar ability, and it doesn't include a lot of the baggage the spell comes with.
There is also Command, which is infinitely more useful because of it not having Incapacitate, and can force enemies to drop weapons, run, fall prone, etc. It also has a Mass version, meaning against mooks, is really effective in neutralizing them. Really, the only thing holding it back is the lack of doing something on a success; otherwise, it'd probably be the only useful PC Enchantment spell in the game that isn't Heroism, et. al.
19th level Wizard using Meteor Swarm to convince the nobles to sign away their lives/titles/wealth is pretty contrived unless the nobles somehow have the wealth of Level 20 NPCs, or are titles under some really powerful/useful king. (Or revenge. Who knows. Either way, it's contrived.)
The idea behind the rarity tags is that it creates a "GM May I" paradigm unless you have options that expressly give access to it. Those are few and far between, and that's especially true for spells. Rarity tags can also be applied or removed by the GM, so it's still a matter of being at their whims. Uncommon options usually aren't as restricted in practice as they are in theory, but the concept still exists, and it really makes spells like Teleport and Dominate far less likely to see gameplay as a result.
Mechanical power demonstrating why so-and-so NPC Wizard is one of the most powerful Wizards on Golarion is somehow not relevant to the lore of them being one of the most powerful Wizards on Golarion. All this tells us is you subscribe to the Stormwind Fallacy being correct, and that Roleplay and Rollplay are mutually exclusive to one another.
| 11 people marked this as a favorite. |
All this tells us is you subscribe to the Stormwind Fallacy being correct, and that Roleplay and Rollplay are mutually exclusive to one another.
That's quite the reach.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
All this tells us is you subscribe to the Stormwind Fallacy being correct, and that Roleplay and Rollplay are mutually exclusive to one another.That's quite the reach.
How is it a reach. At best, you can argue that it's irrelevant or pointless to bring up given that mechanics are only important when the PCs interact with them, as otherwise having them isn't really crucial to the plot. And if it's not crucial to the plot, then it's handwaved, which essentially proves the Stormwind Fallacy. Heck, the Level 19 Wizard could have a 12 Intelligence, and they'd still slaughter an entire army of 8th level goons with their spells because of how wonky the game scales. But I wouldn't consider them one of the most powerful Wizards in all of Golarion because of that, not unless we consider that a Level 19 Wizard is really that rare, which, based on published material, it isn't that rare.
Back to the original topic, the problem is when PCs attempt to either have a hand in this established Lore, or begin to try and challenge it's credibility, and consequently the Lore doesn't even match what the PCs are capable of doing. As others have stated, in regards to the companions, if a PC decides they want to be a character that has done scouting for Lastwall by having a companion that does scouting because the Lore says they did this, they'll soon find that the character's companion being able to scout or be effective at doing so will be completely false due to mechanics and requiring certain shenanigans to happen, meaning the Lore won't save them, or let them do the things that the Lore says they should have otherwise done. Maybe this just tells us the Developers find it canon for all the Pro-Companion/Familiar houserules? Doubtful, given their existing mechanics, but it certainly does send a mixed message. You want Companions to be able to be credible scouts in the Lore, but then neuter the mechanics that make this possible, thus contradicting what the Lore actually should have been, which is that they're cannon-fodder or mount material. Kay.
And really, it's not like they're trying to grow in power to match some legendary Wizards that probably have power or abilities that no other Wizard could ever hope to match (such as by being beyond 20th level, being given an unprecedented capacity to do things other Wizards can't, or possessing unique spells no other spellcaster possesses). These are just basic soldiers of a nation (A Knight of Lastwall) doing this. They could range anywhere from 1st level to 20th level, and have any sort of stat spread, class choice, etc. Suggesting that a 20th level PC cannot have their Level 20 Companion match the scouting capabilities and power of a Knight of Lastwall that was indeed a successful scout is far more contrived by the Lore than Nex and Geb being peerless Wizards. Or even better, it requires higher than Level 20 Animal Companions/Familiars with unique abilities PC companions don't have access to to pull this off for the Lore, and given that the Lore attaches those creatures to equivalent-level NPCs, it can be argued that these are Animal Companions/Familiars that are basically direct descendants of Nex and Geb (or some other ridiculously powerful entity).
|
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
I think this particular issue goes back to something we used to talk about on these forums when the system was still fairly new, that is, Class Concept vs Class Execution.
Its been generally identified that the Class Concept of the Wizard wasn't sufficently changed with 2nd edition to mirror how the classes style of gameplay was going to be executed.
There is a lot of legacy baggage that comes with calling a class "Wizard" in any d20 system. When players encounter a new system they, rightful or wrongly, have certain expectations of how that classes concept should be. If we look at how the Wizard is setup in PF1 and PF2, there isn't much to suggest that the Wizard should operate any differently from their previous counter parts. Its only when you begin trying to execute on that concept that you start to run into problems.
Now, the above can be said about most casters to varying degrees. The reason the Wizard is the seemingly hardest hit is because the class itself is rather barebones and mechanically dull. This is also exacerbated by what I feel is a fundamental design misstep inherent in all casters in PF2 - in that, they start out too weak.
Without getting into the whole "linear fighter vs quadratic wizard" debate, the general design promise of casters is and has been "Start weak, survive, become powerful". This is generally taken against the martial design promise of "consistently strong for on-level encounters" (obviously with a ton of variance for classes and builds!). In PF2 we still see casters start weak, but as they progress, they only really progress towards "par" and not "powerful", all the way until 19th level. And even at that, there is lots of different forms of boxing baked into PF2 to limit this.
This means that casters still have their general design promise, but the payoff is much more limited.
So when you get a class like the Wizard who retains much of their old design promise and class concept, but fails on multiple levels to be able to execute on those, we hit the problem we're discussing today.
Mechanically wizards are functional, and from an RP perspective you will always get out of them what you will get out of any character. However the word "wizard" doesn't mean what it used to, and there hasn't been a sufficent work done by Paizo to make that understood.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Darksol, do you know what the word fallacy means? Because I'm beginning to have doubts. At this point, you're contradicting yourself so much I'm not sure what your point is, and I don't think you know either.
Not doing a bit,So are you incapable of thinking about how spells can be applied outside of combat encounters, or are you doing a bit?
Aw, don't sell yourself short buddy, I'm sure you're not completely incapable.
I want you to try something for me. Next time you want to type up something long enough for a paragraph break, before you hit the enter key, stop and think about your initial assumption. Instead of taking it for granted that it is right, think about what if it is wrong. Try and scrutinize the idea before you keep writing and see if it actually holds up under an ounce of critical thought. Try and disprove your own idea before you put it out there for others to do. If you can disprove it, don't write the rest of the manifesto. Because if your foundation is as flimsy as you've had in the last two threads, the rest of your words don't matter.
If you can successfully implement this skill, people will like you more. Not just on these forums, but in life. Give it a shot! You can do it!
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Do people not use chase rules? If your spotted, that's a GREAT time to pull out a chase. Not every hostile situation has to directly be combat
I think rules for these came out almost a year after the game came out, so I can imagine a lot of people were already comfortable in how to run their games when it was introduced.
I think there was a prototype of the rules in Fall of Plaguestone, but its been years since I last ran that.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Well, at least they have stopped arguing over what Familiars can and can't do.
Not that that question has been resolved either, but at least that isn't what the current argument is over.
I'm surprised people are still mad about player mechanics and lore/setting/story not matching up after all this time. NPCs having abilities and accomplishments beyond what players can ever achieve is a staple of RPGs. Just need to get out of the semi-simulationist mindset of pf1 and into the mindset of every video game RPG you've ever played.
As for playing casters, it's getting harder to find anyone with system experience that actually wants to play one if the game starts at lower levels.
For familiars, I've seen an uptick in people who use them as pseudo-tremorsense by turning them into a tattoo which can presumably still feel tremors through you and telepathically communicate warning.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I'm surprised people are still mad about player mechanics and lore/setting/story not matching up after all this time. NPCs having abilities and accomplishments beyond what players can ever achieve is a staple of RPGs. Just need to get out of the semi-simulationist mindset of pf1 and into the mindset of every video game RPG you've ever played.
I'm not a fan of this take. One of the reasons I like P&P RPG's is because they aren't videogames. They're very distinct consumer experiences.
Did paizo say anything about familiar and spellcaster teleportation?
Currrenyly, if nothing changed, a spellcaster is forbidden from using most of the teleportation spells because of the familiar ( to say one, dimension door).
Not that I am aware of.
It can be mitigated a bit by Recall Familiar, but that is costly, has to be prepared at the beginning of the day, and limited to once per day.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Did paizo say anything about familiar and spellcaster teleportation?
Currrenyly, if nothing changed, a spellcaster is forbidden from using most of the teleportation spells because of the familiar ( to say one, dimension door).
Not that I am aware of.
It can be mitigated a bit by Recall Familiar, but that is costly, has to be prepared at the beginning of the day, and limited to once per day.
The easy solution is to cast Final Sacrifice first. ;)
The easy solution is to cast Final Sacrifice first. ;)
Still costly, still has to be prepared, and still limited to once per day.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Are you seriously considering those two options to be equivalent?!!
Well, obviously not to you.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
which essentially proves the Stormwind Fallacy.
No it doesn't. Stop.
I'm surprised people are still mad about player mechanics and lore/setting/story not matching up after all this time. NPCs having abilities and accomplishments beyond what players can ever achieve is a staple of RPGs. Just need to get out of the semi-simulationist mindset of pf1 and into the mindset of every video game RPG you've ever played.
I'm not a fan of this take. One of the reasons I like P&P RPG's is because they aren't videogames. They're very distinct consumer experiences.
I'm not either but different game systems necessitate different expectations and pf2e went all in on the idea of being a balanced game with a distinct division between PC and NPC functionality and capability even where there is no reason for the division outside of balance or game mechanics. As a consequence, I treat it like I would a video game since that is where that kind of thing is most prevalent.
If I want a more narrative game or a more simulationist game, there are other systems for that.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
In PF2 we still see casters start weak, but as they progress, they only really progress towards "par" and not "powerful", all the way until 19th level. And even at that, there is lots of different forms of boxing baked into PF2 to limit this.
This means that casters still have their general design promise, but the payoff is much more limited.
Uh, nah, I know you wrote a Wizard guide once and it traumatized you forever but high-level spells are generally really powerful. They're probably rockin' as early as 5th Lv, and certainly by 6th or 7th. Casters have a lot to throw out by then, with or without proficiency weirdness or lackluster features. (I think Wizards have pretty cool ones, but that's just me.)
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
which essentially proves the Stormwind Fallacy.No it doesn't. Stop.
How does it not? The Stormwind Fallacy is when one tries to state that roleplay is more important than rollplay or vice-versa. When you and everyone else are saying the rollplay doesn't matter for the lore to be relevant, which means only the roleplay is relevant (there isn't another element of the fallacy to draw on to defend that position), it actually kind of does prove it. When you are saying "Screw the mechanics, the lore says they are X, so they are X, mechanics don't matter here," it proves it.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Uh, nah, I know you wrote a Wizard guide once and it traumatized you forever but high-level spells are generally really powerful. They're probably rockin' as early as 5th Lv, and certainly by 6th or 7th. Casters have a lot to throw out by then, with or without proficiency weirdness or lackluster features. (I think Wizards have pretty cool ones, but that's just me.)In PF2 we still see casters start weak, but as they progress, they only really progress towards "par" and not "powerful", all the way until 19th level. And even at that, there is lots of different forms of boxing baked into PF2 to limit this.
This means that casters still have their general design promise, but the payoff is much more limited.
Man, that guide got outdated hard.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Darksol, do you know what the word fallacy means? Because I'm beginning to have doubts. At this point, you're contradicting yourself so much I'm not sure what your point is, and I don't think you know either.
Not doing a bit,So are you incapable of thinking about how spells can be applied outside of combat encounters, or are you doing a bit?
Aw, don't sell yourself short buddy, I'm sure you're not completely incapable.
I want you to try something for me. Next time you want to type up something long enough for a paragraph break, before you hit the enter key, stop and think about your initial assumption. Instead of taking it for granted that it is right, think about what if it is wrong. Try and scrutinize the idea before you keep writing and see if it actually holds up under an ounce of critical thought. Try and disprove your own idea before you put it out there for others to do. If you can disprove it, don't write the rest of the manifesto. Because if your foundation is as flimsy as you've had in the last two threads, the rest of your words don't matter.
If you can successfully implement this skill, people will like you more. Not just on these forums, but in life. Give it a shot! You can do it!
I know what it means. The Stormwind Fallacy isn't technically a Fallacy, either, since it's just an expression of a playstyle opinion (roleplay and rollplay aren't mutually exclusive) and not objective fact used as a means of exposing flawed logic (such as strawmanning, non-sequiturs, time travel, etc). That's just the common name given to it, so I am using it to clearly identify what I am referring to, which is a specifically defined playstyle.
Also, how am I contradicting myself? The Lore for Companions being capable scouts is depicted in the Lastwall book. Except that, if a PC was a Knight of Lastwall, the mechanics would make that Lore bit untrue, meaning it's NPC exclusive. If the idea is that PCs are meant to interact with the world around them, then there is this aspect that their interactions are infinitely different compared to an NPC. Consider that a Companion or a "summoned" monster that's from an NPC isn't limited by the Minion trait, even though that limitation would be applied to a PC doing that same thing, because action economy balance. At best you can say that using NPC Wizards as a comparison is flawed, and at this point I can agree, but it's not the only comparison I can make to draw a means of aptitude, so implying that I can't because I didn't succeed the first time is quite an elitist expectation to present.
I could accept the inconsistency if, in a universe like Warhammer 40K, where lore is constantly changing, undiscovered, or even varied in its expression based on what documentation is available, that was also the case in this one. That being said, that's not an expectation to be had with this setting, so I can't use it as an excuse to justify the setting expositing a false platitude like "companions are capable scouts for the Knights of Lastwall." I could even accept it if there was a reason exposited as to why that is, but there isn't from the Lore side of things. And if this whining complaint of a thread was any indication, though, it's because "screw the rules, I want them to be able to do X," is the answer provided by GMs who run them and apparently don't have the same issues as others.
Plus, I can change opinions over the course of a debate. I thought more about the NPC Wizards point, and realized I didn't consider some things to justify NPC Wizards being more capable than PC Wizards. But that's at the high end, an end that not even PCs can reach without houseruling or Handwavium. It's harder to justify that when the NPC in question is someone or something that can be easily trounced in capacity by a higher level PC, and is using pre-defined game mechanics specifically available to PCs (animal companions and familiars) to do so, especially when the lore provides no reason for this. Suggesting I can't or shouldn't means you are (likewise, by your hot take,) arguing in bad faith.
Another example is Lizardfolk with their alternative armor: they can't reasonably wear bone, stone, etc. Because items don't exist that shows they can. Yes, you can argue that it's reasonable to do so by homebrew, or apply a liberal use of Handwavium to give those alternative options the same function as Steel, but again, that's not a defense for a clear gap in the setting that should be easily shored up by officially published options, especially if it's inconsistent with already established lore, and said options are supposed to be a core part to the ancestry and it's culture. No, I wouldn't consider a later publication an excuse, either. It would be like if Goblins didn't have Horsechoppers or Dogslicers to signify the lore of them designing weapons to efficiently kill the things they are commonly portrayed as disliking. Or the Tattoo feat being effectively dead without supplementary options making it viable. It's not excusable even if it's made up later, or is expunged away from something else.
I did have a laugh with your last paragraph, though. Suggesting that I didn't stop and read what I wrote is a pretty pitiful defense, bordering on gaslighting, since you have no clue how many times I may or may have not typed or retyped things. And really, I don't express my opinions as a means of getting people to like me, it is a foolish endeavor only capable by the Charismatic, suggesting that I should just means you're asking me to conform to popularity. Like someone telling me to play 5E because it's the most well-received system. Just as well, in a realm where logic does not exist, I am intrinsically bound to the creature of failure, meaning your "encouragement" (really, this is just more mockery), is futile.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Uh, nah, I know you wrote a Wizard guide once and it traumatized you forever but high-level spells are generally really powerful. They're probably rockin' as early as 5th Lv, and certainly by 6th or 7th. Casters have a lot to throw out by then, with or without proficiency weirdness or lackluster features. (I think Wizards have pretty cool ones, but that's just me.)In PF2 we still see casters start weak, but as they progress, they only really progress towards "par" and not "powerful", all the way until 19th level. And even at that, there is lots of different forms of boxing baked into PF2 to limit this.
This means that casters still have their general design promise, but the payoff is much more limited.
Unique, yes. Powerful is really dependent on the situation and what it provides. I've had my highest level spells become useless against even the most susceptible of enemies Consequently, I've had a lower level spell become the most powerful thing I have done to trivialize a tough encounter.
Sure, you won't see Fighters teleport across continents, or throw enemies into a Maze with no effort, or give allies actions or bonuses to hit, but a Fighter's ability to smash enemies, debuff them, cripple them, as well as withstand enemy attacks and damage, cannot ever be replicated by any PC Wizard. By design.
Having played a Wizard from 1 to 20, I can see where they are coming from, when a lot of my levels and new gadgets are more about trying to return to form than it is a matter of a whole new level of power. At 15th level, I felt comfortable with my power. By 17th level, I felt stupidly weak. At 19th and 20th level, did I ever feel competent again.
| 10 people marked this as a favorite. |
How does it not?
The Stormwind Fallacy is the argument that trying to make a mechanically sound character or otherwise being concerned with mechanical power makes you a bad roleplayer intrinsically, or that being concerned with roleplay and character flavor makes you a bad player from a mechanical perspective.
You're... complaining about characters existing in the fiction of Golarion that you don't like.
There isn't even the remotest hint of a connection here.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Now, I'm not saying that by playing a min/maxxed PC that it means that person will be bad at roleplay but what I am asserting is that if that is the main/central/only thing a player tends to do when building characters then they are going to be turned off and checked out of the rest of the game that doesn't cater to their character. I've played in tons of different groups with hundreds of players and have NEVER met a muchkin min/maxer who I left the table thinking "wow, they were cool to play with" despite running into dozens of such players.
Not sorry.