| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Rule designers really can't be expected to cover every use of an ability, power, class feature, or what not in a game where players are encouraged and expected to use all this mish mash of features in a creative and interesting way. It's the DMs job to come up with how that works even if it isn't clearly spelled out for the fun of all involved.
While true in general, it doesn't seem like too much to ask to have something said about a major part of the game [minions] in 2 of the three modes of play. It's not really a niche or corner case to want to know what you can do with an animal companion, familiar, ect when you're not in combat if for no other reason than they expect it's use in organized play.
|
You can't expect your animal companion to tell you what it saw -You actually play characters who can't talk to their animal companions? How strange :-) :-) :-) (between a few ancestral methods of speaking to animals and speak to animal scrolls, lots of characters can chat with their animal companions just fine :-))
Slightly more seriously, great care has to be taken to make sure that Animal Companions don't become significantly worse than familiars. I think that most GMs would make a animal companion that was out scouting have to make stealth rolls (assuming they allowed it at all). Seems unfair if a familiar just automatically succeeded.
Yeah, I was hoping to avoid complicating discussions with the topic of Speak With Animals, but it's a fair point. The spell has provisos for how different sorts of animals will talk - I feel the general vibe for non-intelligent animal companions would be that they can't give detailed information on anything they wouldn't normally interact with in their life experience. I'd fully expect to be able to ask my animal companion about what animal they saw, but wouldn't really expect them to be able to communicate much in the way of the difference between someone with a holy symbol of Norgorber vs a holy symbol of Zyphus. That being said, YMMV - it's a spell that's very much up to GM interpretation!
As to familiars outclassing animal companions, I think for me it's just how people would react to the creature. I agree with the posts up-thread that it's not that familiars don't have to roll, just that people will respond differently to them - and in some situations, I think making a roll would be more suspicious (the aforementioned bat flying over the camp is probably more suspicious if it is actively trying to hide from you). If the plan is to have a creature fly over the camp to scout it out, a bat familiar, or a druid polymorphed into a bird, would get a different reaction to the flying dinosaur animal companion in my game. That does make the dinosaur less effective in this specific situation, but I don't think that's going to lead to the familiar dominating over the animal companion - at least in my experience, most animal companions are built around encounters, and the only big expectation on what they'll do mechanically is in those encounters. YMMV! :)
Rule designers really can't be expected to cover every use of an ability, power, class feature, or what not in a game where players are encouraged and expected to use all this mish mash of features in a creative and interesting way. It's the DMs job to come up with how that works even if it isn't clearly spelled out for the fun of all involved.While true in general, it doesn't seem like too much to ask to have something said about a major part of the game [minions] in 2 of the three modes of play. It's not really a niche or corner case to want to know what you can do with an animal companion, familiar, ect when you're not in combat if for no other reason than they expect it's use in organized play.
I'm fine leaving it up to the DM outside of combat. I only really care about a reasonably balanced, mathematically tested system for combat as you don't want it too easy or too hard.
To me there are a nearly unlimited way for players to figure out how to do things outside of combat. I work with the players to make it happen whether they want to use their familiar, use divination spells, or some other means they dream up that would work.
I'm fine leaving it up to the DM outside of combat. I only really care about a reasonably balanced, mathematically tested system for combat as you don't want it too easy or too hard.
Myself, I wouldn't be happy if PC's have to have codified activities while familiars are fettered only by the DM. If familiars are given great latitude then I'd expect the same for PC's.
To me there are a nearly unlimited way for players to figure out how to do things outside of combat.
Sure, I agree: the game has that built in with Improvised Exploration Activities so it gives guidelines on how it works. The issue is that familiars don't interact with it well. Again, if players aren't strictly using activities then I'd have no issue with familiars doing the same. It can leads to questions like 'why is my familiar hit with the stupidity when combat starts?' though.
I work with the players to make it happen whether they want to use their familiar, use divination spells, or some other means they dream up that would work.
As long as the fighter and rogue get the same 'impact' on the story with creativity as wizards and witches then that sounds fine by me.
Overall, I'm all for better familiars but for me it a problem that stems from the minion trait.
I mean, gnomes and ratfolk can get familiars from a first level ancestry feat and anybody can get them from the familiar master dedication. So I don't think "familiars are useful in the more freeform exploration mode" is a thing that distorts class balance.
I mean, gnomes and ratfolk can get familiars from a first level ancestry feat and anybody can get them from the familiar master dedication. So I don't think "familiars are useful in the more freeform exploration mode" is a thing that distorts class balance.
If a familiar can freeform all the exploration that another character would do/was built for without the risk to a PC it can disengage that PC from exploration: as such, I think it can disturb balance even if familiars can blur which class can take them. Even in freeform, an extra expendable body that can do actions tilts the scales of who is getting 'screen time' and not everyone is happy with that.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
It can leads to questions like 'why is my familiar hit with the stupidity when combat starts?' though.
Ah, now that one I have a reasonable answer for that I use for my games.
Why do Minion characters only follow commands for 2 actions during combat when they can follow commands for minutes at a time otherwise?
Because the circumstances of combat change rapidly. Something that is a good idea two actions ago may not be a good idea now. The Minion is trying to do what you want. So in combat you have to constantly tell it what that is.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I'm fine leaving it up to the DM outside of combat. I only really care about a reasonably balanced, mathematically tested system for combat as you don't want it too easy or too hard.Myself, I wouldn't be happy if PC's have to have codified activities while familiars are fettered only by the DM. If familiars are given great latitude then I'd expect the same for PC's.
To me there are a nearly unlimited way for players to figure out how to do things outside of combat.Sure, I agree: the game has that built in with Improvised Exploration Activities so it gives guidelines on how it works. The issue is that familiars don't interact with it well. Again, if players aren't strictly using activities then I'd have no issue with familiars doing the same. It can leads to questions like 'why is my familiar hit with the stupidity when combat starts?' though.
I work with the players to make it happen whether they want to use their familiar, use divination spells, or some other means they dream up that would work.As long as the fighter and rogue get the same 'impact' on the story with creativity as wizards and witches then that sounds fine by me.
Overall, I'm all for better familiars but for me it a problem that stems from the minion trait.
The minion trait is problematic for almost anything outside of combat. They should have probably add some fluff for exploration or downtime activities.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Just as an FYI.
I don't have any skin or feathers in this one -- the only witch I've played to any sort of significant level uses his familiar as 'emergency rations' in desperate situations and as a reason for why he critically fails on rolls.
I know, I know, it's horrible. So's the familiar. No, they're not evil, the familiar is just quite an arse.
Has anyone made that claim, Temperans?
It can leads to questions like 'why is my familiar hit with the stupidity when combat starts?' though.Ah, now that one I have a reasonable answer for that I use for my games.
Why do Minion characters only follow commands for 2 actions during combat when they can follow commands for minutes at a time otherwise?Because the circumstances of combat change rapidly. Something that is a good idea two actions ago may not be a good idea now. The Minion is trying to do what you want. So in combat you have to constantly tell it what that is.
Yep, if you want any police/military dogs during training exercise, they will follow your last order and wait until you tell them to do something else. If you see those dudes in the cloth fat suits and the dog bites the arm, the dog will keep holding on, even at risk to itself, until it's trainer says it can let go, THAT'S why they need orders every round until they get feats/trainings that say otherwise. As an aside, I've only had 1 familiar across the several tables I've been at (and it was mine) and it didn't really do much over than deliver touch spells and went scouting once and it didn't exactly go well :P
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Regarding the OP, we used to have the familiar feed elixirs, but that was before the dev clarification that familiars can't activate items. In our current game, the witch generally used the familiar for final sacrifice.
I don't have any skin or feathers in this one -- the only witch I've played to any sort of significant level uses his familiar as 'emergency rations' in desperate situations and as a reason for why he critically fails on rolls.
See. Familiars are working exactly as intended then. [/sarcasm]
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
The rules do actually work if you let them. If you start from "How does this thing I want to do work?" instead of "Why doesn't this thing work?", you'll have a lot more fun playing this game.
This is what I always come back to when these topics come up. If something doesn't work or doesn't make sense... The game assumes you will figure out a way for it to do so.
I also agree with Arcanian and Voideternal.
I try to make the rules work. They don't. So we don't use them and that's frustrating.
Is the problem that your group can't agree on what rulings to use that do work?
Several of us on this very thread have mentioned rule interpretations or even houserules that we find do work.
It doesn't give the same over-the-top level of power that a PF1 familiar could, so if that is what you are meaning, then yeah, you are outta luck. OP familiars got nerf'ed just like OP casters did.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I try to make the rules work. They don't. So we don't use them and that's frustrating.Is the problem that your group can't agree on what rulings to use that do work?
Several of us on this very thread have mentioned rule interpretations or even houserules that we find do work.
It doesn't give the same over-the-top level of power that a PF1 familiar could, so if that is what you are meaning, then yeah, you are outta luck. OP familiars got nerf'ed just like OP casters did.
Why shouldn't we expect the industry's second largest company to deliver rules that work out of the box or get swift errata so we have rules that require less interpretation and work similarly at more tables?
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
Why shouldn't we expect the industry's second largest company to deliver rules that work out of the box or get swift errata so we have rules that require less interpretation and work similarly at more tables?
*sigh*
Go read about Godel's Incompleteness Theorems, and Rice's Theorem. Also consider that software companies also can't produce perfect rule sets right out of the box even though they get a ton more money to throw at the problem than Paizo does and are writing their rules in formal languages like C++ and Java rather than English.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Why shouldn't we expect the industry's second largest company to deliver rules that work out of the box or get swift errata so we have rules that require less interpretation and work similarly at more tables?
Because "rules that work" are different for different tables. There is a wide variety of playstyles in the Pathfinder player base. Exacting definition of what PCs can do in exploration mode would be excruciatingly stifling to many. You can't expect them to repeat the mistakes of first edition by doing that.
Both editions of Pathfinder have an expectation of adjustment and modding. What you can expect is plenty of support for making fair rules adjustments whether they be ad hoc decisions or full-on homebrew content. The GMG is full of advise and options to consider, and it is easier than ever for a GM to define how they prefer their game to flow.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Like the point of having a human GM in charge of the rules (which are written in natural language) is basically the hedge around "the rules require context and interpretation to work."
Honestly, the more we try to nail down everything so it's crystal clear, the more we get in the way of the GM running the sort of game they want to run.
Like "Yes, and" being the basic principle of improv means that it's fine to have a thing work two different ways in two different scenes, if that's what the people participating in the scene want in each case.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
Like the point of having a human GM in charge of the rules (which are written in natural language) is basically the hedge around "the rules require context and interpretation to work."
Honestly, the more we try to nail down everything so it's crystal clear, the more we get in the way of the GM running the sort of game they want to run.
Like "Yes, and" being the basic principle of improv means that it's fine to have a thing work two different ways in two different scenes, if that's what the people participating in the scene want in each case.
The rules also require consistency to work, otherwise we aren't playing fair or are playing favorites instead, which isn't what a game that sets out to make all participants equals was built to do.
Which is why it's baffling when a PC doing the same things a scout familiar is doing is required to make skill checks, but a familiar doesn't because...reasons. And people both defend this and get offended when it gets called out on.
It's a lack of consistency, which is what I am expressing my displeasure of, not that the familiar is out scouting.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Not to mention that they have consistently said to always rule against the player getting more.
I'd appreciate it if you could cite some sources supporting that.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Which is why it's baffling when a PC doing the same things a scout familiar is doing is required to make skill checks, but a familiar doesn't because...reasons. And people both defend this and get offended when it gets called out on.
Yeah. That's fair. Which is why a familiar scouting in games I run still has to make checks. Either the normal stealth skills that characters would be using, or deception to try and pretend that they are a mundane animal rather than a spying familiar.
It's a lack of consistency, which is what I am expressing my displeasure of, not that the familiar is out scouting.
That's also fair. On the other side of the coin, the consistency that I am looking for is that if I pay a class feat, ancestry feat, or class feature for something that it should do something useful. Preferably what it leads me to think that it will do.
So if I take Skilled(medicine), then my familiar should be able to use treat wounds. And I shouldn't have to worry about some miffed player coming along going, 'Hey, it's not fair that you get to do two things at once. That makes your character more powerful than mine. That should be against the rules. Hey look - it is.'
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Like the point of having a human GM in charge of the rules (which are written in natural language) is basically the hedge around "the rules require context and interpretation to work."
Honestly, the more we try to nail down everything so it's crystal clear, the more we get in the way of the GM running the sort of game they want to run.
Like "Yes, and" being the basic principle of improv means that it's fine to have a thing work two different ways in two different scenes, if that's what the people participating in the scene want in each case.
The rules also require consistency to work, otherwise we aren't playing fair or are playing favorites instead, which isn't what a game that sets out to make all participants equals was built to do.
Which is why it's baffling when a PC doing the same things a scout familiar is doing is required to make skill checks, but a familiar doesn't because...reasons. And people both defend this and get offended when it gets called out on.
It's a lack of consistency, which is what I am expressing my displeasure of, not that the familiar is out scouting.
Exactly true. A familiar doesn't get to walk around listening to big bad evil guys and acting with purpose with no skill checks because "no one cares about an animal walking around."
That's like me requiring no rolls for Deception because the fighter is dressed in plate and wields a longsword and all the other fighters there are dressed the same, so he can just walk around with no rolls to deceive or stealth because he looks like he should be there.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Which is why it's baffling when a PC doing the same things a scout familiar is doing is required to make skill checks, but a familiar doesn't because...reasons. And people both defend this and get offended when it gets called out on.Yeah. That's fair. Which is why a familiar scouting in games I run still has to make checks. Either the normal stealth skills that characters would be using, or deception to try and pretend that they are a mundane animal rather than a spying familiar.
It's a lack of consistency, which is what I am expressing my displeasure of, not that the familiar is out scouting.That's also fair. On the other side of the coin, the consistency that I am looking for is that if I pay a class feat, ancestry feat, or class feature for something that it should do something useful. Preferably what it leads me to think that it will do.
So if I take Skilled(medicine), then my familiar should be able to use treat wounds. And I shouldn't have to worry about some miffed player coming along going, 'Hey, it's not fair that you get to do two things at once. That makes your character more powerful than mine. That should be against the rules. Hey look - it is.'
Of course feats should do something useful, but the issue with this particular power combination is that if you want to use it to Treat Wounds (or any other listed actions in the Skill section), it technically can't since the requirement for Treat Wounds is that you need to either hold or wear a set of Healer's Tools to do so. Familiars cannot carry items by RAW since they do not have a Bulk Capacity; at best, they can carry items of negligible Bulk because carrying such items is not dependent on how much Bulk you can or cannot carry.
This is further compounded when you consider that Toolbearer, the other option you could use to try and sidestep this obvious limitation, only works on Light bulk tools, and Healer's Tools are 1 Bulk, meaning Toolbearer doesn't work with Healer's Tools by RAW.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Of course feats should do something useful, but the issue with this particular power combination is that if you want to use it to Treat Wounds (or any other listed actions in the Skill section), it technically can't since ...
Oh, I am well aware of the RAW rulings against it.
And if it was just this one interaction, it wouldn't be a problem. But pretty much every skill activity has a toolkit that is needed. So only Skilled(recall knowledge of some variety) actually has any effect at all.
And it doesn't even end there.
Carrying the familiar on your shoulder and having it act as lookout using its Darkvision ability? Nope, it has no actions to tell you about anything that it sees unless you spend an action every 'round' telling it to do so - which if you need to do something else too (often including following along with the party) causes the entire set of actions to become an exhausting activity.
Spell Delivery? Not really. The familiar ends its turn adjacent to the enemy, so it will likely die before the start of your next turn. You were better off using Final Sacrifice.
Recall knowledge? Meh, the bonus that it gets is mediocre at best.
The feat/class feature does literally nothing of value under a strict RAW ruling. But when I try saying something about it, I get half the people on here saying, 'No, that looks like it is working as intended. Maybe you just shouldn't play Witch.'
...
The animal companion nerfs,What are the nerfs for animal companions? I am unable to keep track of all the clarifications, etc.
If only there was a single place to go to see all of the clarifications and rule decisions :)
That might be compared to PF1.
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
Why shouldn't we expect the industry's second largest company to deliver rules that work out of the box or get swift errata so we have rules that require less interpretation and work similarly at more tables?I try to make the rules work. They don't. So we don't use them and that's frustrating.Is the problem that your group can't agree on what rulings to use that do work?
Several of us on this very thread have mentioned rule interpretations or even houserules that we find do work.
It doesn't give the same over-the-top level of power that a PF1 familiar could, so if that is what you are meaning, then yeah, you are outta luck. OP familiars got nerf'ed just like OP casters did.
Verdyn, is that you?
Verdyn, is that you?Why shouldn't we expect the industry's second largest company to deliver rules that work out of the box or get swift errata so we have rules that require less interpretation and work similarly at more tables?I try to make the rules work. They don't. So we don't use them and that's frustrating.Is the problem that your group can't agree on what rulings to use that do work?
Several of us on this very thread have mentioned rule interpretations or even houserules that we find do work.
It doesn't give the same over-the-top level of power that a PF1 familiar could, so if that is what you are meaning, then yeah, you are outta luck. OP familiars got nerf'ed just like OP casters did.
Who?
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Who?Why shouldn't we expect the industry's second largest company to deliver rules that work out of the box or get swift errata so we have rules that require less interpretation and work similarly at more tables?Verdyn, is that you?
Verdyn is another poster on these forums who has regularly expressed that same misguided belief that it is possible to create a rule set that is complete, correct, and verifiably so.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Verdyn is another poster on these forums who has regularly expressed that same misguided belief that it is possible to create a rule set that is complete, correct, and verifiably so.Who?Why shouldn't we expect the industry's second largest company to deliver rules that work out of the box or get swift errata so we have rules that require less interpretation and work similarly at more tables?Verdyn, is that you?
I never asked for that though. I said I wanted it done right OR for us to get swift errata. Is it really unreasonable to ask that Paizo pick the top 10 or 20 issues we broach here each month and issue official statements for how they should be played and/or issue corrections to the official wording?
I'd rather a new issuing of the CRB with drastic layout changes, a large FAQ section at the back, and clarified rules but I'd take a living errata document.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Considering the drain errata/FAQ were on their resources in PF1 compared to their reception by nerdragers, yes definitely unreasonable.
You realize that many other gaming companies issue monthly errata, right? Even companies with a reputation for lax rules writing, like Games Workshop, issue minor errata frequently and major errata (including changing some rules entirely) quarterly. I don't think that it's to much to ask Paizo to follow that model.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Considering the drain errata/FAQ were on their resources in PF1 compared to their reception by nerdragers, yes definitely unreasonable.You realize that many other gaming companies issue monthly errata, right? Even companies with a reputation for lax rules writing, like Games Workshop, issue minor errata frequently and major errata (including changing some rules entirely) quarterly. I don't think that it's to much to ask Paizo to follow that model.
Why then do you think they are not doing it this time ?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Why then do you think they are not doing it this time ?
Because they make more money by selling APs and Paizo seems to have a sevre lack of character within their management team if statements by the union and former employees are to be believed. In short, those at the top want to make more so they set the team to making only things that turn a strong profit while not paying a fair wage.
EVERY successful company tries to be lean by only making profitable (hopefully strong profit) product. When they spend time/money on items which do not turn an explicit profit, then they do it to either help other product lines or being a loss leader.
Then Paizo doesn't seem to think that their core rules are profitable enough to support which has to be worrying for all the people who think the company is doing well.
"Fair Wage" is actually very tough to define since it is NOT the same as living wage or proportional wage.
Except that we know other smaller companies such as Monte Cooke Games pay better and that Hasbro pays their staff more as well. Most other companies in the industry tend to be small enough that a lot of the staff are founders and they'll make the wage their products can generate for them.
I'd also say that Sean Reynolds wouldn't know better what a fair wage in this industry is than we do, so...
Not to mention that unions rarely form under conditions where wages and working conditions are satisfactory for the workers and that other RPG companies haven't had such instances occur. So that says that either Paizo has a unique staff, or that conditions there are uniquely terrible.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Verdyn is another poster on these forums who has regularly expressed that same misguided belief that it is possible to create a rule set that is complete, correct, and verifiably so.
[Pedant mode]
Actually, it is. The following is the rule set for a hypothetical gameIn any situation where you could fail, flip a coin. Heads you succeed. Tails you fail
That is complete. It covers any and all situations.
It would also be an incredibly awful game, mind you. At least for adults (it pretty much IS the rule set for Prince Valiant). But being a good game was NOT part of your requirements.
A little less Reducto ad absurdum are quite a few rules lightish games. They're pretty complete (with GM fiat being invoked a LOT).
[/pedant mode]
I suspect not, even taking into account the fact that their account was made very recently and they only seem to be posting in two or three threads, much like Verdyn did. The rhetorical style is incredibly similar though, down to the formula that most of their posts follow, so it's not outside the realm of possibility.
I've had this account since 2018. I just never bothered with the forums until now.
Actually, it is. The following is the rule set for a hypothetical game
In any situation where you could fail, flip a coin. Heads you succeed. Tails you failThat is complete. It covers any and all situations.
Ah, but it wouldn't be consistent.
I'm approaching it from a decidability theory direction. So the rules need to give the same answer for questions every time. Decidability questions also have to be binary (true/false, yes/no, ...).
Examples would be things like:
'If I stab an enemy while under the effects of level 4 invisibility, does the blood on my weapon give away my position?'
'Can I voluntarily fail a saving throw for a spell that I cast myself if I want to be affected by it?'
'Can I pull the end of my finder off, throw it at an enemy, and detonate it like a nuclear bomb which blows up the enemy and the entire city that we are in but leaves myself and my allies unharmed?'
Having an answer in the rules be 'Uhh... Flip a coin, I guess.' doesn't make for a consistent rule set or game. Same with rules-lite systems where the answer is 'Well, ask your GM.'
In order to be consistent and decidable, the rule set has to give the same answer about what is or is not allowed. Or any other questions about what is or is not possible under the rules. It isn't talking about the in-game results of a particular action. Those can be decided by dice rolls without causing the rules themselves to become undecidable. What is not allowed is to not have a fixed, unvarying answer for things like what die or dice to roll, what bonuses and modifiers to add, how many actions it takes, ...