I would love this. Especially for scrolls, as they are extremely clunky to use mid-combat for a class that is basically forced to have both of its hands taken.
Yeah, the want for a third hand is real. Weapon implement is practically a mandatory pick if you want to be able to use your scrolls and other knicknacks from the class. I feel this issue would be solved though if implement adept allowed you to go from an implement to a free hand and vise versa as well, or if holding an implement in hand wasn't a requirement fornmany of them; I could see amulet and lanturn reasonably not needing hands, by simply being worn around the neck/on a belt, respectively.
If wand proced EA and all those feats as well, wand as a main attack becomes viable early game, allowing for more mystical thaum that flings magic and casts from a cache of scrolls.
That said, we also don't know what the other implements are. If, say, there was a tome implement with a passive that could store, idk, cha modifier scrolls in it and allow you to cast them without drawing them out individually and gave a bonus to identifying and recognizing spells, then the scroll thing becomes a bit of a non issue and scroll focused thaums just take the tome implement
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
A familiar could also join the interact/stow/pass routine.
Valet doesn't put items back on your belt though, so you'd have to do some shenanigans to really get a benefit off of this. The best way I can think is have your familiar have manual dexterity, already be carrying the item you want to draw, and command it to take your implement with the other hand and give you the scroll. Even then, you'll probably want independent so it can pass you the implement back next turn without eating an action.
Doable, but kinda janky
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I would not want to put a familiar on the shoulder of a melee combatant...
Very much same. I also don't really relish familiars being a patch to a weird hand issue when it could be solved in house. I also really don't want weapon implement to be a mandatory pick for thaumaturges that wish to use scrolls or bows, since having a weapon in one hand, implement in the other leaves no open hand for a scroll or to shoot an arrow
Tbh, GMs not targeting familiars, animal companions, etc is more of a courtesy/gentleman's agreement than anything else.
Dropping an AoO on an easy to kill target that grants someone an extra action is hardly a bad idea, just most groups dont do it because players get really attached to their pets and having them die is a massive feelbad moment, and from a storytelling perspective, it feels really bad for the cavalier to replace their trusty steed or the monster scholar to replace their beloved cat that fetches their items after every boss fight because the villain recognized that killing them would put the character at a disadvantage.
I mean... It's also kinda narratively embarrassing if the big bad death knight towering over you switched his target to the tiny squirrel by your shoulder.
He would never hear the end of it in the annual big bads symposium.
Not as embarrassing as being defeated because you ignored the squirrel that kept feeding the target healing elixirs... Once a pet/familiar takes an active role in combat, all bets are off IMO.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
That squirrel had it coming!!!
But seriously, back when Cleave was a thing (a different, very common thing), I'd call familiars Cleavebait as a forewarning to either getting one or using one actively in combat. If a monster feels it won't lose an attack because it can Cleave through the pet and hit you too, it would.
And did.
And in PF2 too, if a familiar delivers an effective spell, "That squirrel killed my Succubus lover!", killing it can be like a Sunder on the caster's "weapon" which lets them cast touch spells at range (which also often takes the squirrel off the shoulder).
If it's harmless, it likely won't get harmed (at least as the single target), but if a legitimate source of annoyance? It might just be easy enough to brush it off, perhaps with the inkling it'll really disturb your enemy whom you might not yet respect.
That said, it's the AoEs, some of which aren't big enough to hit the whole party, but will often hit the front row. Or the ones that come in a different form, like a Hazard, Engulf, Trample, Gaze Attacks, a Hydra's Storm of Jaws, a Fire Giant's Flaming Stroke, and so forth. Humanoids not so much other than casters who will hit most everybody, but monsters, they have some nasty attacks that'll kill the familiar it didn't even know was there.
Not as embarrassing as being defeated because you ignored the squirrel that kept feeding the target healing elixirs... Once a pet/familiar takes an active role in combat, all bets are off IMO.I mean... It's also kinda narratively embarrassing if the big bad death knight towering over you switched his target to the tiny squirrel by your shoulder.
He would never hear the end of it in the annual big bads symposium.
If you are defeated by a squirrel you either way lose your big bad privileges.
It's lose-lose situation for the poor death knight from there.
But seriously now, I do usually have my nemesis npcs being suitably arrogant and having an ego rather than being a stat stick.
If they have an AoO, as an example, it stands to reason for them to keep it for their antagonists rather than a trivial pet.
Especially since the pet has the exact same difficulty to be hit (equal AC) and will take several such hits to be killed.
*shrug* If the familiar is casting a spell, personally I would be shocked of an AoO WASN'T used if for no other reason than to disrupt the spell. Even something like a potion handoff that's disrupted would be an action wasted for the target to pick it back up, so it's not a wasted AoO. So, really, if the pet is doing something that provokes an AoO, it's likely worth the attack.
The Wicked Witch of the West: "I'll get you my pretty, and your little dog too!"
Not as embarrassing as being defeated because you ignored the squirrel that kept feeding the target healing elixirs... Once a pet/familiar takes an active role in combat, all bets are off IMO.I mean... It's also kinda narratively embarrassing if the big bad death knight towering over you switched his target to the tiny squirrel by your shoulder.
He would never hear the end of it in the annual big bads symposium.
If you are defeated by a squirrel you either way lose your big bad privileges.
It's lose-lose situation for the poor death knight from there.
But seriously now, I do usually have my nemesis npcs being suitably arrogant and having an ego rather than being a stat stick.
If they have an AoO, as an example, it stands to reason for them to keep it for their antagonists rather than a trivial pet.
Especially since the pet has the exact same difficulty to be hit (equal AC) and will take several such hits to be killed.
I dunno, a sadistic big bad might revel in killing the companion first, "I will take everything you love and make you beg me for death" style.
I'm definately in the camp of "I won't attack pets unless they take an active combat role", though I do allow one free disengagement; for example, if the ranger sends out their wolf to flank and support, and the wolf takes some good licks and the range commands them to sit out the rest of the battle, I wont have the bad guy harrass the poor pup anymore, unless the ranger calls the companion back into the fray, in which case bets are off again.
It feels cinematic enough and matches the fantasy of animal friends, in that it lets them live fight to fight, but still has the companions face peril
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
They should probably get access to Quick Stow or a variation thereof.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Well, I wouldn't play a cavalier knowing that my dm would stomp on the horse all the fight.
Same goes with a DM playing whack a mole with a familiar ( though after delivering a touch spell, I'd expect the creature to consider attacking the familiar).
Yeah, riding on top a creature is kind of a grey area for me. Typically for me, the animal has to actually attack or use an offensive support (like the bird pecking people's eyes) before seriously focusing attacks at the animal. Usually I opt to unhorse a rider with a shove or tossing a move speed penalty on the horse vs killing/injuring the horse for villains that want to deal with the cavalier's speed