So far after playing PF2 for over a year, my players think familiars are useless and don't even use them when they get them for free like when playing a witch. I think making class features that can be completely ignored by players with no material effect on the class playability means that class feature is not designed very well.
In my current campaign the witch was having so much fun with his familiar (pig, independant, flying - a useful scout and a reliable source of pork) that the bard has taken one. But they are not essential. You need a concept in mind to use one.
I'm not saying anything revolutionary anyway. Wizards are my least favorite of the PF2 caster classes. About all I'm changing my mind on is that you can build one to their strengths and be very effective. The feats are still super bland and the class overall not very interesting.
Broadly agree. If I build a Wizard I take the vast majority of my feats from archetypes as the class feats are largely uninteresting and weak.
It is sad that a designer ruined a mild action economy boost provided by a familiar for a caster.I wouldn't say sad, but just pointing out what I always thought was crystal clear: abilities that that require 'when commanded' and 'when not commanded' aren't compatible. I don't see that as shutting down anything except what wasn't already unintended. Familiars aren't meant to have much of an impact from how they are built: overall direct action in combat from the familiar is as limited as possible [to the point it is incapable of Striking].
Even without independent action, valet will help retrieve scrolls for use. Use it to get one scroll, cast 2 action spell, drop scroll, have it hand you another one to use next round. Valet is still very solid for scroll or wand use for a caster that has one.I never said the abilities weren't useful by themselves: I just mentioned that they don't work in combination. Valet only nets you something when you plan on using 2 items in a round, which is kind of niche from my experience but it also opens up the familiar to taking random damage from things like area attacks.
The independent action states they do what you ask them to do with the option for a DM to decide differently. I don't see why a familiar capable of the valet action could not use their independent action to hand you an item like valet. Seems like an overly restrictive and unnecessary clarification or interpretation of an ability.
The valet action states if the familiar has a different number of actions for some reason, it uses that number of actions to hand you items.
Base rules reading, I don't agree with the designer interpretation. I'm going with it as you mentioned it and have obviously had a designer clarify this issue. From a strict rules reading, I think valet and independent work just fine.
Independent still very much states the familiar is likely to do what you want it to do. If you want it to hand you an item, then it will do so.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
My house rules are clearly listed in the House Rules forum and apply to all casters. I made casting substantially more enjoyable than it is in the base game for all casters. The house rules I created for wizards has made them mildly more attractive to play, but even with a substantial upgrade to their ability via house rules my players still don't like playing wizards. Not because they are underpowered, but because they are boring to play and build.
I did not house rule the familiar. I wasn't aware a designer nixed that use of familiars combining valet and independent. I don't keep track of every rule clarification, nerf, or change a designer makes. I don't much agree with quite a few of their design decisions in PF2 as they often make decisions that reduce the enjoyment of the game and keep players from enjoying parts of the game they used to enjoy like familiars.
So far after playing PF2 for over a year, my players think familiars are useless and don't even use them when they get them for free like when playing a witch. I think making class features...
You seem to have run the game for a while now, would you recommend anybody play a baseline caster and especially a baseline Wizard?
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
The independent action states they do what you ask them to do with the option for a DM to decide differently. I don't see why a familiar capable of the valet action could not use their independent action to hand you an item like valet. Seems like an overly restrictive and unnecessary clarification or interpretation of an ability.
"In an encounter, if you don't Command your familiar, it still gains 1 action each round." Drawing an item [1 action] and handing it over [one action] can't be done on a single free action but could be done over 2 rounds.
The valet action states if the familiar has a different number of actions for some reason, it uses that number of actions to hand you items.
"You can command your familiar to deliver you items more efficiently." "Your familiar doesn't use its 2 actions immediately upon your command. "If the familiar has a different number of actions, it can retrieve one item for each action it has when commanded this way."
Base rules reading, I don't agree with the designer interpretation. I'm going with it as you mentioned it and have obviously had a designer clarify this issue. From a strict rules reading, I think valet and independent work just fine.
I can't agree even a little as it seem quite clear to me: one says commanded THREE TIMES, while the other says it only works when you don't command it. Seems like pretty straight forward reading.
Independent still very much states the familiar is likely to do what you want it to do. If you want it to hand you an item, then it will do so.
Not the issue: it can ONLY valet when commanded to do so.
In my current campaign the witch was having so much fun with his familiar (pig, independant, flying - a useful scout and a reliable source of pork) that the bard has taken one. But they are not essential. You need a concept in mind to use one.So far after playing PF2 for over a year, my players think familiars are useless and don't even use them when they get them for free like when playing a witch. I think making class features that can be completely ignored by players with no material effect on the class playability means that class feature is not designed very well.
I'm planning to take a calligraphy worm with my wizard. I reached a point where I want to see if my house rules work for wizards and if I can make a wizard using summoning spells and a familiar appear useful within the PF2 framework running it by the rules where it is subject to AoE damage and the like. We'll see how it goes.
So far it has been better than the first time I played a wizard. And making Augment a summoning a free action castable on the same turn as the summon I cast works better than how it is originally set up where you have to spend 3 actions to cast the summon, use it for 2 actions, then spend one action the next round to augment it while spending an action to sustain the conjuration meaning it costs you five actions to make a summoning spell more effective and use it for two rounds for a fight that maybe lasts 2 to 4 rounds. Not sure what person designed some of these abilities, but they don't appear to play the game or have an understanding of how PF2 fights play out as getting something going quickly is absolutely required to make it useful in fights that are built to be fast and deadly. So this whole five action ramp up rubbish to use a wizard focus spell is exactly the kind of questionable design choice that I don't understand.
The independent action states they do what you ask them to do with the option for a DM to decide differently. I don't see why a familiar capable of the valet action could not use their independent action to hand you an item like valet. Seems like an overly restrictive and unnecessary clarification or interpretation of an ability."In an encounter, if you don't Command your familiar, it still gains 1 action each round."
The valet action states if the familiar has a different number of actions for some reason, it uses that number of actions to hand you items."You can command your familiar to deliver you items more efficiently." "Your familiar doesn't use its 2 actions immediately upon your command. "If the familiar has a different number of actions, it can retrieve one item for each action it has when commanded this way."
Base rules reading, I don't agree with the designer interpretation. I'm going with it as you mentioned it and have obviously had a designer clarify this issue. From a strict rules reading, I think valet and independent work just fine.I can't agree even a little as it seem quite clear to me: one says commanded THREE TIMES, while the other says it only works when you don't command it. Seems like pretty straight forward reading.
Independent still very much states the familiar is likely to do what you want it to do. If you want it to hand you an item, then it will do so.Not the issue: it can ONLY valet when commanded to do so.
I tell it to draw and hand me an item with its independent action.
You seem to have run the game for a while now, would you recommend anybody play a baseline caster and especially a baseline Wizard?My house rules are clearly listed in the House Rules forum and apply to all casters. I made casting substantially more enjoyable than it is in the base game for all casters. The house rules I created for wizards has made them mildly more attractive to play, but even with a substantial upgrade to their ability via house rules my players still don't like playing wizards. Not because they are underpowered, but because they are boring to play and build.
I did not house rule the familiar. I wasn't aware a designer nixed that use of familiars combining valet and independent. I don't keep track of every rule clarification, nerf, or change a designer makes. I don't much agree with quite a few of their design decisions in PF2 as they often make decisions that reduce the enjoyment of the game and keep players from enjoying parts of the game they used to enjoy like familiars.
So far after playing PF2 for over a year, my players think familiars are useless and don't even use them when they get them for free like when playing a witch. I think making class features...
You can play what you have fun playing. Some people seem to have fun playing a baseline wizard.
Myself? I think the baseline druid and sorcerer are very good. And some of the oracle types look fun. I'm playing a Cosmos Oracle right now and they are pretty cool.
My buddy prefers the fervor witch over the cleric as a support/healer caster.
Baseline bard is obviously very good, even though I personally don't want to play one too often. I don't enjoy when I have this super powerful ability everyone loves that I feel compelled to use over and over again.
Wizard would be pretty low on my list of classes to play even with my house rules. The feats are just blah. Even the good ones like Scroll Savant just give you more spells to cast. The focus spells are not very interesting.
I would not recommend a baseline wizard for someone coming from PF1 that was expecting playing a wizard to be a similar experience to what it was in PF1.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I tell it to draw and hand me an item with its independent action.
Sure and the round after you do so, you get the item in your hand: draw [one action] in round 1, hand item [one action] on round 2: independent only gives 1 action/round and they can't use the specifics of valet because you didn't command them [IE, spend an action to give them actions]. At no point can Valet's improved action economy be used without the character spending an action to Command.
Also another issue would be you don't get the item until the end of your round 2 with independent [your familiar doesn't know you aren't commanding it until your actions are over], so it's really the start of round 3 for you to use an item using only independent.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I tell it to draw and hand me an item with its independent action.Sure and the round after you do so, you get the item in your hand: draw [one action] in round 1, hand item [one action] on round 2: independent only gives 1 action/round and they can't use the specifics of valet because you didn't command them [IE, spend an action to give them actions]. At no point can Valet's improved action economy be used without the character spending an action to Command.
Also another issue would be you don't get the item until the end of your round 2 with independent [your familiar doesn't know you aren't commanding it until your actions are over], so it's really the start of round 3 for you to use an item using only independent.
It draws and hands me the item like it knows how to do, just not using the valet ability because a game designer stated that it forgets how to use that ability if I don't command it. So I call the action "retrieve a scroll and put it in my empty hand", then I ask the DM if a familiar can do that with one action since it can normally do that multiple times with the valet ability.
You know Mr. DM, can he do that with his independent action because you decide if it knows how to do that.
So it now becomes up to the DM to decide if it can use an ability that knows how to do, but with an independent action as long as I don't call it a valet action.
If the DM says no, then I'll go with what they decide. If they say yes, then I'm good.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
On Familiars: Yes, Independent+Valet doesn’t work, but independent+manual dexterity still does. You can have your familiar start with 2 scrolls in hand and hand one off to you with its independent action. Not as good as independent+valet as you have to predefine what scrolls it has out, and after it has handed you two, it needs two rounds to draw + hand over another for free, but still useful for the prospective scroll user.
The wizard’s strength is the number of top level spells it can have with specialisation and blending. They get 6/5/2 whereas a sorcerer is looking at 4/4/4 unless they are divine or primal, in which case they can get 5/4/4 but the 5th slot is limited to a specific spell. The wizard’s focus spells are mostly bad, some of the level 8 ones are ok and a couple of the level 1 ones are usable, but they’re supplementary (something you do in addition to casting a spell), not a spell replacement like sorc/druid/cleric ones often are.
So, the wizard has weak feats and supplementary focus powers - they live and die by the strength of their levelled spells. When the levelled spells are good (character level 7+), the wizard is good. When they are weak (character level 1-6) the wizard feels weak, and when they are OP (15+) the wizard can feel OP. That’s basically all there is to my stance on wizards - overall, they can feel strong for a majority of the levels if you play to their strengths, but they’re about as vanilla as you can go on a caster. Very few of their feats are useful, and of the ones that are they aren’t really exciting. Rogue Archetype is usually my go to, filling out the 2 and 4 slots with light armor prof (very good early) and mobility or nimble dodge.
On Familiars: Yes, Independent+Valet doesn’t work, but independent+manual dexterity still does. You can have your familiar start with 2 scrolls in hand and hand one off to you with its independent action. Not as good as independent+valet as you have to predefine what scrolls it has out, and after it has handed you two, it needs two rounds to draw + hand over another for free, but still useful for the prospective scroll user.
The wizard’s strength is the number of top level spells it can have with specialisation and blending. They get 6/5/2 whereas a sorcerer is looking at 4/4/4 unless they are divine or primal, in which case they can get 5/4/4 but the 5th slot is limited to a specific spell. The wizard’s focus spells are mostly bad, some of the level 8 ones are ok and a couple of the level 1 ones are usable, but they’re supplementary (something you do in addition to casting a spell), not a spell replacement like sorc/druid/cleric ones often are.
So, the wizard has weak feats and supplementary focus powers - they live and die by the strength of their levelled spells. When the levelled spells are good (character level 7+), the wizard is good. When they are weak (character level 1-6) the wizard feels weak, and when they are OP (15+) the wizard can feel OP. That’s basically all there is to my stance on wizards - overall, they can feel strong for a majority of the levels if you play to their strengths, but they’re about as vanilla as you can go on a caster. Very few of their feats are useful, and of the ones that are they aren’t really exciting. Rogue Archetype is usually my go to, filling out the 2 and 4 slots with light armor prof (very good early) and mobility or nimble dodge.
Can you actually hand something to the wizard as a free action? I always figured taking an item from a creature is an interact action. So if you run the familiar the way apparently this Paizo designer wants it run with independent and valet, it would take one action to draw, one action for you to take it from the familiar, for a net loss of one action if you just drew it yourself. There is no action economy improvement thus making familiars even less attractive as this was one of the only combinations that made them attractive for use.
I don't plan to run it the way Graystone states as it is not only an extremely bad ruling, but it also makes no internal world sense that a familiar capable of using the valet action would suddenly forget how to do so because it is using an independent action. But by that reading, you can't take a scroll as a free action from someone handing it to you as taking an item is an interact action and thus defeats the entire purpose of doing so.
|
|
Can you actually hand something to the wizard as a free action? I always figured taking an item from a creature is an interact action. So if you run the familiar the way apparently this Paizo designer wants it run with independent and valet, it would take one action to draw, one action for you to take...On Familiars: Yes, Independent+Valet doesn’t work, but independent+manual dexterity still does. You can have your familiar start with 2 scrolls in hand and hand one off to you with its independent action. Not as good as independent+valet as you have to predefine what scrolls it has out, and after it has handed you two, it needs two rounds to draw + hand over another for free, but still useful for the prospective scroll user.
The wizard’s strength is the number of top level spells it can have with specialisation and blending. They get 6/5/2 whereas a sorcerer is looking at 4/4/4 unless they are divine or primal, in which case they can get 5/4/4 but the 5th slot is limited to a specific spell. The wizard’s focus spells are mostly bad, some of the level 8 ones are ok and a couple of the level 1 ones are usable, but they’re supplementary (something you do in addition to casting a spell), not a spell replacement like sorc/druid/cleric ones often are.
So, the wizard has weak feats and supplementary focus powers - they live and die by the strength of their levelled spells. When the levelled spells are good (character level 7+), the wizard is good. When they are weak (character level 1-6) the wizard feels weak, and when they are OP (15+) the wizard can feel OP. That’s basically all there is to my stance on wizards - overall, they can feel strong for a majority of the levels if you play to their strengths, but they’re about as vanilla as you can go on a caster. Very few of their feats are useful, and of the ones that are they aren’t really exciting. Rogue Archetype is usually my go to, filling out the 2 and 4 slots with light armor prof (very good early) and mobility or nimble dodge.
I’ve yet to see anyone rule that passing an item which you have in your hands to another creature isn’t an interact, though I can also see that taking an item from another creature is an interact (and creatures can’t hand out items normally).
Here’s the RAW on interact
You use your hand or hands to manipulate an object or the terrain. You can grab an unattended or stored object, open a door, or produce some similar effect. You might have to attempt a skill check to determine if your Interact action was successful.
No absolute certainty on if taking an item from or giving an item to a willing creature is a base Interact.
Valet gives the familiar a special action of “Interact to draw an item the master is wearing and place it into the master’s hands”.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
There are rules for passing items to others.
Pass an item to or take an item from a willing creature | Interact
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
...Can you actually hand something to the wizard as a free action? I always figured taking an item from a creature is an interact action. So if you run the familiar the way apparently this Paizo designer wants it run with independent and valet, it would take one action toOn Familiars: Yes, Independent+Valet doesn’t work, but independent+manual dexterity still does. You can have your familiar start with 2 scrolls in hand and hand one off to you with its independent action. Not as good as independent+valet as you have to predefine what scrolls it has out, and after it has handed you two, it needs two rounds to draw + hand over another for free, but still useful for the prospective scroll user.
The wizard’s strength is the number of top level spells it can have with specialisation and blending. They get 6/5/2 whereas a sorcerer is looking at 4/4/4 unless they are divine or primal, in which case they can get 5/4/4 but the 5th slot is limited to a specific spell. The wizard’s focus spells are mostly bad, some of the level 8 ones are ok and a couple of the level 1 ones are usable, but they’re supplementary (something you do in addition to casting a spell), not a spell replacement like sorc/druid/cleric ones often are.
So, the wizard has weak feats and supplementary focus powers - they live and die by the strength of their levelled spells. When the levelled spells are good (character level 7+), the wizard is good. When they are weak (character level 1-6) the wizard feels weak, and when they are OP (15+) the wizard can feel OP. That’s basically all there is to my stance on wizards - overall, they can feel strong for a majority of the levels if you play to their strengths, but they’re about as vanilla as you can go on a caster. Very few of their feats are useful, and of the ones that are they aren’t really exciting. Rogue Archetype is usually my go to, filling out the 2 and 4 slots with light armor prof (very good early) and mobility or nimble dodge.
And drawing an item is an action. So drawing a scroll and taking a scroll from a familiar is the same action cost unless you are using valet. Even using valet spending an action to hand you an item to use is really no different than drawing it and using it. The only action economy advantage may be getting the item in hand to set up for next round, so a mild action economy advantage every other round with valet.
Which makes independent fairly useless other than perhaps to maneuver in place for a Familiar Master to set up spellcasting origin points at a distance.
Familiars are really bad this edition. My players would prefer an option to get rid of the familiar with the Witch and replace it with something useful. I hope Paizo provides that option at some point as a class feature that is as bad as the current state of the familiar is not worth having or at least be optional for those who like familiars as a role-playing element. About all the player who plays witches uses the familiar for is to blow it up. He even forgets to use the extra focus point ability he took for it 90% of the time.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
And drawing an item is an action. So drawing a scroll and taking a scroll from a familiar is the same action cost unless you are using valet. Even using valet spending an action to hand you an item to use is really no different than drawing it and using it. The only action economy advantage may be getting the item in hand to set up for next round, so a mild action economy advantage every other round with valet.
Giving an item is also an action so the familiar can use its 1 action to give you an item, accepting items does not take any actions.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Just as the barbarian can start with his weapon drawn before combat the familiar can already be holding two consumables you want effectively making your familiar a Gloves of Storing with two uses and is live immediately.
|
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
If you told me wizard were ahead because much like fighters they were the only one who got to "legendary" in casting. With all other full casters capping at master. While MC casters capping at expert. All of course while lowering all enemy saves by 2 and adding "Spell Potency" runes.
Yeah I could see wizards be more interesting. Because then much like the fighter, the biggest reason they would be good is their ability to land spells compared to other casters with their interesting abilities.
I think I would have liked this dyanmic all round.
A single legendary class for each of the traditions, where their potency is part of their power.
I've never really enjoyed the standardisation of all caster progression. There was room for more variety in how these things were built.
For example, since we are talking about Wizards, if they had varied progression, we could have had a system where the Wizards specalist school scales faster than other schools - similar to Fighter weapon groups.
That way it would be more dynamic and feel more meaningful.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
People, you are not supposed to break the action economy again, so yeah, even a Valet familiar is not supposed to be more then a little 'quality of life' upgrade for the PC, and mostly a fluff thing.
And drawing an item is an action. So drawing a scroll and taking a scroll from a familiar is the same action cost unless you are using valet. Even using valet spending an action to hand you an item to use is really no different than drawing it and using it. The only action economy advantage may be getting the item in hand to set up for next round, so a mild action economy advantage every other round with valet.Giving an item is also an action so the familiar can use its 1 action to give you an item, accepting items does not take any actions.
What do you mean accepting an item doesn't take any actions? It says on the table that taking an item from another creature is an interact action, which is 1 action.
People, you are not supposed to break the action economy again, so yeah, even a Valet familiar is not supposed to be more then a little 'quality of life' upgrade for the PC, and mostly a fluff thing.
There are plenty of feats that alter the action economy. Even independent alters the action economy. It would literally change nothing but be a cool way to let a caster draw a scroll and use another action like Intimidate or Recall Knowledge in the same round like a number of other classes can do.
That's why I'm going to allow it in the games I run. I see zero reason not to allow it other than some designer making a rules decision that makes familiars less fun and interesting to use.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
If you told me wizard were ahead because much like fighters they were the only one who got to "legendary" in casting. With all other full casters capping at master. While MC casters capping at expert. All of course while lowering all enemy saves by 2 and adding "Spell Potency" runes.
Yeah I could see wizards be more interesting. Because then much like the fighter, the biggest reason they would be good is their ability to land spells compared to other casters with their interesting abilities.
I think I would have liked this dyanmic all round.
A single legendary class for each of the traditions, where their potency is part of their power.
I've never really enjoyed the standardisation of all caster progression. There was room for more variety in how these things were built.
For example, since we are talking about Wizards, if they had varied progression, we could have had a system where the Wizards specalist school scales faster than other schools - similar to Fighter weapon groups.
That way it would be more dynamic and feel more meaningful.
I would have liked to at least a +1 to the DC for school spells. I would not support them being the only Legendary Caster. You should be able to play any caster and compete.
The fighter at least does substantially less damage per hit than master proficiency classes. He just makes up for it with superior accuracy. If the wizard did less damage or something far weaker in some area, then it might be ok. But that isn't the case.
Fighter is a good class, but it is also pretty boring and limited. Many fighters I've seen made pretty much use a feat they picked up at 1st level like Double Slice or Power Attack level after level because not many other feats are that great. Their whole schtick is higher accuracy, not much else.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
What do you mean accepting an item doesn't take any actions? It says on the table that taking an item from another creature is an interact action, which is 1 action.
Yup, so you can choose to either take an item from another creature on your turn or give another creature an item on your turn.
If another creature chooses to give you an item on their turn you don't need to pay actions to accept it.
|
In my current campaign the witch was having so much fun with his familiar (pig, independant, flying - a useful scout and a reliable source of pork) that the bard has taken one. But they are not essential. You need a concept in mind to use one.So far after playing PF2 for over a year, my players think familiars are useless and don't even use them when they get them for free like when playing a witch. I think making class features that can be completely ignored by players with no material effect on the class playability means that class feature is not designed very well.
And my party thinks I'm mean to my witch's familiar. (I don't let the Cat sleep on me) I would think you'd incur something's wrath by eating your familiar. After multiple "discussions" on cannibalism, I have a blanket rule that the gods hate you if you eat anything with an intelligence of 3 or higher.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
And my party thinks I'm mean to my witch's familiar. (I don't let the Cat sleep on me) I would think you'd incur something's wrath by eating your familiar. After multiple "discussions" on cannibalism, I have a blanket rule that the gods hate you if you eat anything with an intelligence of 3 or higher.In my current campaign the witch was having so much fun with his familiar (pig, independant, flying - a useful scout and a reliable source of pork) that the bard has taken one. But they are not essential. You need a concept in mind to use one.So far after playing PF2 for over a year, my players think familiars are useless and don't even use them when they get them for free like when playing a witch. I think making class features that can be completely ignored by players with no material effect on the class playability means that class feature is not designed very well.
Thor had a couple of goats that would pull his chariot that he would butcher for food in the evening and then bring them back the next day.
|
|
I would have liked to at least a +1 to the DC for school spells. I would not support them being the only Legendary Caster. You should be able to play any caster and compete.
I agree with both points. As I said, I would have liked to see one class per tradition (at least) thats a "pure" version of the tradition.
But as its designed now, Paizo painted themselves into a corner with their caster setup so it almost can't be changed.
That said, a Class Archetype for the Wizard where you give up 2 schools (like the runelord does) should be costly enough to get eariler specalist progression, or something close to it.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
I think one lesson that could be learned from in PF2 for any future editions, is that every class probably should have 1st level feat options, if any class does, with perhaps a blanket generic class like the fighter getting 2.
I think the wizard not getting a level 1 class feat by default makes many players feel like they are wasting a class feat if they go back and take a level 1 feat at level 2. Now I don't think this is an actual balance problem, but I think it makes a lot of players skip over level 1 feats.
There is almost no wizard build that is not made better by picking up one of either reach spell or widen spell. At very early levels reach spell is the much more obvious and consistently useful choice, but by mid levels even, widen spell will regularly be hitting an extra enemy with your highest level spells. Both feats are the two metamagic feats that most warp spells and what you can do with them and even though most casters get these feats, it is the wizard and the sorcerer in particular who can get the most out of them.
But since most wizards and sorcerers are not getting class feats until level 2, I think a lot of players write off going back and picking up one or both of these feats and thus also end up feeling like spells with a range of touch are impossible to use and end up further restricting themselves from using useful spells. Goblin pox, for example is an amazing boss debuffer (better than fear in my opinion) because sickened doesn't go away without wasting actions.
I think more than not having good feats, the issue is getting that first class feat at level 2 and feeling like picking up an archetype is better than the level 2 options specifically. This can really ham-string the player who is wanting to build up the wizard as the "ultimate manipulator of magic class" because once a player has opted into an archetype, they often start building a character's identity around it and have to be convinced to go back to their class feats.
I have discovered this is true with a lot of casting classes and it only really became apparent to me when I started playing in games using the free archetype variant rule. When the archetype was free, many casters end up with a couple of free class feats and end up being surprised by how often and how effect those class feats really were in play.
If casters got a free class feat at level 1, then their level 2 feat lists could expand out more and I think more players would realize just how powerful spending an extra action to not have to move closer to the enemy or getting to hit an extra enemy with a spell can be.
I don't begrudge the decision to do it the way that was done, and it would probably mean adding a feat to every class and probably boosting monster difficulty a touch too, so it is not an easy thing to go back and "fix" but I think there is a serious perception issue about using a level 2 feat slot to pick up a level 1 feat, and feeling like you are weakening your character by doing so.
EDIT: In other words, a level 6 spell blending wizard with reach spell, widen spell and spell penetration is a master of casting spells in ways that few other casters will come close to, but it doesn't look that impressive on paper, and it doesn't look like as elaborate a theme to have built up for yourself as being the primal fire sorcerer.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
What do you mean accepting an item doesn't take any actions? It says on the table that taking an item from another creature is an interact action, which is 1 action.And drawing an item is an action. So drawing a scroll and taking a scroll from a familiar is the same action cost unless you are using valet. Even using valet spending an action to hand you an item to use is really no different than drawing it and using it. The only action economy advantage may be getting the item in hand to set up for next round, so a mild action economy advantage every other round with valet.Giving an item is also an action so the familiar can use its 1 action to give you an item, accepting items does not take any actions.
From point 2 under that table, it seems that receiving an item is no action but the creature must have hands free. The creature giving the item would be the only one spending an action.
If the creature had an item you wanted in their hands or on their person, you could retrieve it as an action from them.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Or imagine if instead of getting random thesis. You instead got some really cool focus spellsbased on you chosen school. Spells that are free to be much strong as they would be the core of the class. You know... like the previous version of Wizard. The current thesis could all had just been class archetypes that replace the bonus spell from school
So... Witch.
It draws and hands me the item like it knows how to do, just not using the valet ability because a game designer stated that it forgets how to use that ability if I don't command it.
That's like saying that the familiar should be able to take 2 actions with independent because it doesn't forget that it can do so when it's commanded.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Or imagine if instead of getting random thesis. You instead got some really cool focus spellsSo... Witch.based on you chosen school. Spells that are free to be much strong as they would be the core of the class. You know... like the previous version of Wizard. The current thesis could all had just been class archetypes that replace the bonus spell from school
Without the familiar baggage. I want to like the witch (I love the 5e warlock's themes), but I'm not into familiars, and not a fan of some of the class's power budget being devoted to having a better than average familiar.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Without the familiar baggage. I want to like the witch (I love the 5e warlock's themes), but I'm not into familiars, and not a fan of some of the class's power budget being devoted to having a better than average familiar.Or imagine if instead of getting random thesis. You instead got some really cool focus spellsSo... Witch.based on you chosen school. Spells that are free to be much strong as they would be the core of the class. You know... like the previous version of Wizard. The current thesis could all had just been class archetypes that replace the bonus spell from school
Yeah, a class archetype that replaces Witch familiar with something else is on my wish list too.
The worst part is that the Witch familiar is only half-way. If the Witch also got several of the feats from Familiar Master archetype available in-class that would at least make it better. I would at least feel like the Witch familiar is actually the most powerful familiar in the game. Extra abilities (that the Wizard can also get from one of the weaker Thesis options) just doesn't cut it.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
You all seem to have VERY different experiences with familiars than I. I positively love them.
It's true their abilities were reduced in this edition, particularly in encounters. Even so, my familiars have successfully acted as messengers, scouts, spies, saboteurs, trackers, night watch, shoppers, and a variety of other useful roles.
My wizard's bird familiar (with touch telepathy) would make use of my comprehend languages spell to eavesdrop on people's conversations, then report back to me what they heard simply by landing on my shoulder.
My cat familiar would trail suspects and perform stake outs while my witch rested for the night. When morning came, she would grant it speech so that it could tell her about the suspect's lair and/or plans.
My sorcerer's mouse familiar would sneak into the enemy camp at night and wittle the hours away nibbling on bow strings, backpack straps, belts, ropes, and tack in preparation for the party's pre-dawn ambush.
Familiars are only as useless as you choose for them to be.
Without the familiar baggage. I want to like the witch (I love the 5e warlock's themes), but I'm not into familiars, and not a fan of some of the class's power budget being devoted to having a better than average familiar.Or imagine if instead of getting random thesis. You instead got some really cool focus spellsSo... Witch.based on you chosen school. Spells that are free to be much strong as they would be the core of the class. You know... like the previous version of Wizard. The current thesis could all had just been class archetypes that replace the bonus spell from schoolYeah, a class archetype that replaces Witch familiar with something else is on my wish list too.
The worst part is that the Witch familiar is only half-way. If the Witch also got several of the feats from Familiar Master archetype available in-class that would at least make it better. I would at least feel like the Witch familiar is actually the most powerful familiar in the game. Extra abilities (that the Wizard can also get from one of the weaker Thesis options) just doesn't cut it.
I think giving witches native access to the Familiar Master archetype is a pretty sensible houserule that is in line with the witch's role as a familiar-focused class. Maybe do something similar for the Familiar Thesis for Wizards. I dunno.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
You all seem to have VERY different experiences with familiars than I. I positively love them.
...
Familiars are only as useless as you choose for them to be.
Or as useless as the GM requires them to be. If we were playing in a game that graystone was running (for example), then none of those would work.
And the reason that I want to be able to replace the Witch familiar is because I find it somewhat difficult to role-play one character. Doing it with two characters is even more taxing at times. I hate talking to myself for example (or rather, having one of my characters talking to another of my characters).
I think giving witches native access to the Familiar Master archetype is a pretty sensible houserule that is in line with the witch's role as a familiar-focused class. Maybe do something similar for the Familiar Thesis for Wizards. I dunno.
Hmm... I hadn't though of the Wizard familiar thesis.
Ideally (my own houserules) the Witch gets the feats from Familiar Master (the ones that aren't already duplicates) at two levels earlier - which matches other archetypes such as Blessed One and Martial Artist that use the Additional Feats rules.
If I wanted the Witch class to still be marginally better than a Wizard with Familiar thesis, I would just have the thesis count as the dedication feat of Familiar Master. So the Wizard would have to wait until the archetype level of those feats.
But this is a complete sidetrack for the topic of this thread. Probably better in homebrew forums.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
You all seem to have VERY different experiences with familiars than I. I positively love them.
It's true their abilities were reduced in this edition, particularly in encounters. Even so, my familiars have successfully acted as messengers, scouts, spies, saboteurs, trackers, night watch, shoppers, and a variety of other useful roles.
My wizard's bird familiar (with touch telepathy) would make use of my comprehend languages spell to eavesdrop on people's conversations, then report back to me what they heard simply by landing on my shoulder.
My cat familiar would trail suspects and perform stake outs while my witch rested for the night. When morning came, she would grant it speech so that it could tell her about the suspect's lair and/or plans.
My sorcerer's mouse familiar would sneak into the enemy camp at night and wittle the hours away nibbling on bow strings, backpack straps, belts, ropes, and tack in preparation for the party's pre-dawn ambush.
Familiars are only as useless as you choose for them to be.
That's all GM FIAT though, which is not reliable rulings or RAW, which is what matters when discussing their potential.
A bird trying to be innocuous while understanding what is being discussed would technically call for a Deception check if a PC was in the same boat. Last I checked, their skills aren't that great past, like, 8th level or so. That bird should have been discovered and taken for an early breakfast special, most likely, especially if the conversation is had between appropriate level challengers. Technically permissible by RAW, but as advisable as making a Strike with a -10 MAP.
The cat is still a living, breathing creature that needs rest, the same as all the others. If it has been adventuring with you all day, then it needs to rest as well. If not, then it gets Fatigued and can't technically tell you what's up, since exploration activities are forbidden. Even if we argue that the cat was asleep the whole time and is nocturnal, this once again falls into GM FIAT, and isn't the baseline rules expectation.
A GM who let's Familiars that can't make attack rolls deal enough effective damage to break and/or destroy items is basically giving free reign to the Familiar owner that has no rules basis whatsoever. In fact, a Rogue needs a feat to do just that. Once again, GM FIAT takes the cake.
I'm getting seriously irritated with people using GM FIAT interpretations as actual rules sources for familiar gameplay. It's spreading misinformation, setting incorrect expectations (which leads to player entitlement, a bad behavior to have at a table), and getting people's hopes up in thinking Familiars are special and cool and can do good in an adventuring party.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
I'm getting seriously irritated with people using GM FIAT interpretations as actual rules sources for familiar gameplay. It's spreading misinformation, setting incorrect expectations (which leads to player entitlement, a bad behavior to have at a table), and getting people's hopes up in thinking Familiars are special and cool and can do good in an adventuring party.
I both love and hate this sentiment.
One, you are absolutely correct. The strict RAW on familiars is completely broken. They effectively do nothing. Nothing practical and useful anyway. Nothing in combat aside from some very niche uses. Nothing out of combat. Additional resource battery is about all that they are. From a strict RAW interpretation of the rules.
But most of us, when we are actually playing the game rather than arguing over the rules of the game, want our characters and the characters of our friends that we are playing with, to be useful, fun, and effective. So when we see rules like this that are not fun, not useful, and not working - we follow the 'too bad to be true' rule of the game and make something that does actually work.
And you are right that treating our own houserules that make familiars actually functional should not be taken as official rules or be the expectation in games that you play with new people.
But temper that with the idea that people do like to play their characters - even their characters that have familiars.
So your post struck me at least as 'All you guys having fun playing characters with effective familiars are ruining the game for the rest of us. Stop doing that.'
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
That's all GM FIAT though, which is not reliable rulings or RAW, which is what matters when discussing their potential.
A bird trying to be innocuous while understanding what is being discussed would technically call for a Deception check if a PC was in the same boat. Last I checked, their skills aren't that great past, like, 8th level or so. That bird should have been discovered and taken for an early breakfast special, most likely, especially if the conversation is had between appropriate level challengers. Technically permissible by RAW, but as advisable as making a Strike with a -10 MAP.
The cat is still a living, breathing creature that needs rest, the same as all the others. If it has been adventuring with you all day, then it needs to rest as well. If not, then it gets Fatigued and can't technically tell you what's up, since exploration activities are forbidden. Even if we argue that the cat was asleep the whole time and is nocturnal, this...
This happens a lot on RPG forums. People like to assume that every GM is as permissive as theirs is, or talk about class effectiveness not accounting for house rules they've been using for the past couple of years, etc. This isn't useful information to the average forum goer as they don't play at those tables.
More useful is analyzing things from a strict RAW perspective and assuming a GM that never pulls punches, rarely grants favors, and which runs a table that requires some degree of optimization to be successful. My reasoning is that anything that works with the above GM will work at other tables and anything that seems weak at that kind of table is at least objectively pegged against set expectations so people can judge how it might do at their table.
You seem to have run the game for a while now, would you recommend anybody play a baseline caster and especially a baseline Wizard?My house rules are clearly listed in the House Rules forum and apply to all casters. I made casting substantially more enjoyable than it is in the base game for all casters. The house rules I created for wizards has made them mildly more attractive to play, but even with a substantial upgrade to their ability via house rules my players still don't like playing wizards. Not because they are underpowered, but because they are boring to play and build.
I did not house rule the familiar. I wasn't aware a designer nixed that use of familiars combining valet and independent. I don't keep track of every rule clarification, nerf, or change a designer makes. I don't much agree with quite a few of their design decisions in PF2 as they often make decisions that reduce the enjoyment of the game and keep players from enjoying parts of the game they used to enjoy like familiars.
So far after playing PF2 for over a year, my players think familiars are useless and don't even use them when they get them for free like when playing a witch. I think making class features...
You can play what you have fun playing. Some people seem to have fun playing a baseline wizard.
Myself? I think the baseline druid and sorcerer are very good. And some of the oracle types look fun. I'm playing a Cosmos Oracle right now and they are pretty cool.
My buddy prefers the fervor witch over the cleric as a support/healer caster.
Baseline bard is obviously very good, even though I personally don't want to play one too often. I don't enjoy when I have this super powerful ability everyone loves that I feel compelled to use over and over again.
Wizard would be pretty low on my list of classes to play even with my house rules. The feats are just blah. Even the good ones like Scroll Savant just give you more spells to cast. The focus spells are...
Based on this and your other posts, Wizards are objectively underpowered (especially in the hands of newer players) even though they're still technically playable and even potentially powerful at the right tables, with the right players, and if they can be forewarned of upcoming threats.
Is this a fair reading of things?
Based on this and your other posts, Wizards are objectively underpowered (especially in the hands of newer players) even though they're still technically playable and even potentially powerful at the right tables, with the right players, and if they can be forewarned of upcoming threats.
Is this a fair reading of things?
It is not a terrible summary of my feelings on the class. Maybe a bit pessimistic in tone, but not really inaccurate.
The same can be said of a lot of the other classes. There are pitfalls that players need to be aware of. Alchemist, and Witch are stand-outs for this also, but even some classes that are more generally liked have some things to watch out for. Oracle is really complicated. Bard can be really boring to play in combat. Champion moves slow and if your party scatters you won't get much out of your Champion Reaction. Magus hits hard, but only when Spellstrike is used. Things like that.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
You all seem to have VERY different experiences with familiars than I. I positively love them.
It's true their abilities were reduced in this edition, particularly in encounters. Even so, my familiars have successfully acted as messengers, scouts, spies, saboteurs, trackers, night watch, shoppers, and a variety of other useful roles.
My wizard's bird familiar (with touch telepathy) would make use of my comprehend languages spell to eavesdrop on people's conversations, then report back to me what they heard simply by landing on my shoulder.
My cat familiar would trail suspects and perform stake outs while my witch rested for the night. When morning came, she would grant it speech so that it could tell her about the suspect's lair and/or plans.
My sorcerer's mouse familiar would sneak into the enemy camp at night and wittle the hours away nibbling on bow strings, backpack straps, belts, ropes, and tack in preparation for the party's pre-dawn ambush.
Familiars are only as useless as you choose for them to be.
I just have little to no interest in a familiar outside of having a cute buddy. I really getting magic from a patron and exploring they relationship but the witch class’s being the familiar class dampers my interest in it.
What do you mean accepting an item doesn't take any actions? It says on the table that taking an item from another creature is an interact action, which is 1 action.Yup, so you can choose to either take an item from another creature on your turn or give another creature an item on your turn.
If another creature chooses to give you an item on their turn you don't need to pay actions to accept it.
Please by all means provide this rule.
What do you mean accepting an item doesn't take any actions? It says on the table that taking an item from another creature is an interact action, which is 1 action.And drawing an item is an action. So drawing a scroll and taking a scroll from a familiar is the same action cost unless you are using valet. Even using valet spending an action to hand you an item to use is really no different than drawing it and using it. The only action economy advantage may be getting the item in hand to set up for next round, so a mild action economy advantage every other round with valet.Giving an item is also an action so the familiar can use its 1 action to give you an item, accepting items does not take any actions.From point 2 under that table, it seems that receiving an item is no action but the creature must have hands free. The creature giving the item would be the only one spending an action.
If the creature had an item you wanted in their hands or on their person, you could retrieve it as an action from them.
Where does it say this?
You all seem to have VERY different experiences with familiars than I. I positively love them.
It's true their abilities were reduced in this edition, particularly in encounters. Even so, my familiars have successfully acted as messengers, scouts, spies, saboteurs, trackers, night watch, shoppers, and a variety of other useful roles.
My wizard's bird familiar (with touch telepathy) would make use of my comprehend languages spell to eavesdrop on people's conversations, then report back to me what they heard simply by landing on my shoulder.
My cat familiar would trail suspects and perform stake outs while my witch rested for the night. When morning came, she would grant it speech so that it could tell her about the suspect's lair and/or plans.
My sorcerer's mouse familiar would sneak into the enemy camp at night and wittle the hours away nibbling on bow strings, backpack straps, belts, ropes, and tack in preparation for the party's pre-dawn ambush.
Familiars are only as useless as you choose for them to be.
That's all GM FIAT though, which is not reliable rulings or RAW, which is what matters when discussing their potential.
A bird trying to be innocuous while understanding what is being discussed would technically call for a Deception check if a PC was in the same boat. Last I checked, their skills aren't that great past, like, 8th level or so. That bird should have been discovered and taken for an early breakfast special, most likely, especially if the conversation is had between appropriate level challengers. Technically permissible by RAW, but as advisable as making a Strike with a -10 MAP.
The cat is still a living, breathing creature that needs rest, the same as all the others. If it has been adventuring with you all day, then it needs to rest as well. If not, then it gets Fatigued and can't technically tell you what's up, since exploration activities are forbidden. Even if we argue that the cat was asleep the whole time and is nocturnal, this...
Technically a familiar can use untrained skill actions for all skills using its level as a modifier. Which is better than PCs get as they don't even get level on untrained skills.
So yes a bird familiar can make Deception checks.
GMs often hand way skill checks if they think they should just automatically succeed. The whole genre is rather artificial in the way it sets us against level relevant challenges and opponents. Not every roll has to be a challenge. Not every NPC on the world will be at the players level, so yes familiars could be very useful.
Not allowing familiars to Strike or activate magic items is an important game limit, but it is not absolute. GMs are supposed to interpret what it means. That is a core part of the game. Chewing through a backpack strap seems apprpriate.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
It draws and hands me the item like it knows how to do, just not using the valet ability because a game designer stated that it forgets how to use that ability if I don't command it.That's like saying that the familiar should be able to take 2 actions with independent because it doesn't forget that it can do so when it's commanded.
A familiar is a creature that used to be an intelligent creature capable of remembering activities it was taught whether an action was used to command it or not. But due to a ruling that isn't internally consistent the creature forgets how to do valet duties due to you not using the command action, even though independent clearly states that it usually does what you tell it to do.
It's a bad ruling. If you don't want to acknowledge that, I'm ok disagreeing with you.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
My wizard's bird familiar (with touch telepathy) would make use of my comprehend languages spell to eavesdrop on people's conversations, then report back to me what they heard simply by landing on my shoulder.
And your bird somehow made the stealth check to defeat the perception of the enemies you are listening to? Or did your DM handwave this rule to make the familiar more interesting to use?
My cat familiar would trail suspects and perform stake outs while my witch rested for the night. When morning came, she would grant it speech so that it could tell her about the suspect's lair and/or plans.
Once again, did it make the skill checks necessary to do this or did your DM handwave this because "cats" are everywhere and powerful enemies wouldn't possibly think a familar user would do something like this?
My sorcerer's mouse familiar would sneak into the enemy camp at night and wittle the hours away nibbling on bow strings, backpack straps, belts, ropes, and tack in preparation for the party's pre-dawn ambush.
Same questions as above.
Familiars are only as useless as you choose for them to be.
Some DMs actually make you make skill checks against the Perception DCs of enemies for an animal sneaking around a camp doing scouting. If they fail, then that animal switches to rounds of combat and a familiar's only option is to run.
What you are stating is that it is entirely dependent on DM fiat to allow you to pull off what you have pulled off with a familiar. As a DM, I would be making you make checks against the enemies you are trying to stealth against. If they failed, they would view this animal's activity as unusual and kill it.
I know this is a novel idea for you who always seems to allow your familiars to do all types of things without bothering to roll or any opposition, but not all of us play that way.
|
|
Where does it say this?What do you mean accepting an item doesn't take any actions? It says on the table that taking an item from another creature is an interact action, which is 1 action.And drawing an item is an action. So drawing a scroll and taking a scroll from a familiar is the same action cost unless you are using valet. Even using valet spending an action to hand you an item to use is really no different than drawing it and using it. The only action economy advantage may be getting the item in hand to set up for next round, so a mild action economy advantage every other round with valet.Giving an item is also an action so the familiar can use its 1 action to give you an item, accepting items does not take any actions.From point 2 under that table, it seems that receiving an item is no action but the creature must have hands free. The creature giving the item would be the only one spending an action.
If the creature had an item you wanted in their hands or on their person, you could retrieve it as an action from them.
https://2e.aonprd.com/Rules.aspx?ID=194
Pass an Item to or Take an Item from a willing creature is listed as a single Interact, with the provision that they might need to change their grip or drop something if both hands are occupied.
...You seem to have run the game for a while now, would you recommend anybody play a baseline caster and especially a baseline Wizard?My house rules are clearly listed in the House Rules forum and apply to all casters. I made casting substantially more enjoyable than it is in the base game for all casters. The house rules I created for wizards has made them mildly more attractive to play, but even with a substantial upgrade to their ability via house rules my players still don't like playing wizards. Not because they are underpowered, but because they are boring to play and build.
I did not house rule the familiar. I wasn't aware a designer nixed that use of familiars combining valet and independent. I don't keep track of every rule clarification, nerf, or change a designer makes. I don't much agree with quite a few of their design decisions in PF2 as they often make decisions that reduce the enjoyment of the game and keep players from enjoying parts of the game they used to enjoy like familiars.
So far after playing PF2 for over a year, my players think familiars are useless and don't even use them when they get them for free like when playing a witch. I think making class features...
You can play what you have fun playing. Some people seem to have fun playing a baseline wizard.
Myself? I think the baseline druid and sorcerer are very good. And some of the oracle types look fun. I'm playing a Cosmos Oracle right now and they are pretty cool.
My buddy prefers the fervor witch over the cleric as a support/healer caster.
Baseline bard is obviously very good, even though I personally don't want to play one too often. I don't enjoy when I have this super powerful ability everyone loves that I feel compelled to use over and over again.
Wizard would be pretty low on my list of classes to play even with my house rules. The feats are just blah. Even the good ones like Scroll Savant just give you more
How exactly do you rate underpowered? I usually do so numerically. So far the wizard is performing on par with other caster classes now that I know how to build it.
Boring is more a matter of personal taste. I find the cleric and the bard boring, but neither one would I describe as underpowered. Wizard is in that boat for me.
Wizard is kind of boring class with boring feats that lacks interesting focus spells. It's best thesis likely is spell blending or spell substitution because one gives more slots and the other allows more on demand versatility. Neither is interesting or particularly fun.
But some people seem to like the wizard and rate it highly. I find it a boring class that isn't very interesting to build or play.