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.
True.
Taking a crack at making this work:
Statements of action, which allow a player to flip a coin to determine success, must be phrased in a fashion which presents only binary pass-fail outcomes. Success is tied to a flipped coin showing heads and failures tied to a flipped coin showing tails. Coins that land on edge are always ignored for the purposes of resolving an action and flipped again.
On a failure the player simply doesn't succeed at the action they were attempting with no other consequences.
It is suggested that no sequence be allowed to result in defeat unless 3-of-5 rolls towards that result are heads, but as this is a rules-light game feel free to play as you wish.
Taking a crack at making this work:
Well, this should be amusing at least. I would worry about derailing this thread, but since it has already been hashed over in at least one thread previously and no rules have changed since...
Statements of action
And what are those defined as? Or do I flip a coin to see if something I want to do has the possibility of failure?
And what are those defined as? Or do I flip a coin to see if something I want to do has the possibility of failure?
Any action which a character can take that has reasonable odds of failure. Essentially, meaningful actions that impact the game world which also have an acceptable degree of difficulty.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
How do we estimate whether a chance of success or failure is reasonable? Like "I want to jump over the 6' wall", is that reasonable? Since "distance" is a continuum we can scale the height of that wall up or down however we want, at what point does it become reasonable or unreasonable?
Then how can we systematize this?
How do we estimate whether a chance of success or failure is reasonable? Like "I want to jump over the 6' wall", is that reasonable? Since "distance" is a continuum we can scale the height of that wall up or down however we want, at what point does it become reasonable or unreasonable?
Then how can we systematize this?
Given that we have a legal system that uses a reasonable person standard I'd use that here.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
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.
The thing is they ARE useful: they just aren't very useful as ACTIVE participants. For instance, Master Abilities are quite useful. And they have abilities like Snoop, Toolbearer or Valet that they have a supporting roll. There is NO requirement for familiars to take an active roll in exploration/downtime for them to be useful, especially when we're looking at a 1st level feat: if anything, I'd say it's cost of a 1st level feat means that is shouldn't be as useful as higher level feats that allow for extra Activities let alone multiple ones added together.
Useful doesn't mean that they should get the full allotment of abilities an NPC or PC should have out of combat: for instance, a familiar with Accompanist gets to be useful in downtime without needing to get it free activities.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
[Pedant mode]
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.
It would also be an incredibly awful game, mind you
That's how PF2 balances leveled DCs tho-
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Given that we have a legal system that uses a reasonable person standard I'd use that here.How do we estimate whether a chance of success or failure is reasonable? Like "I want to jump over the 6' wall", is that reasonable? Since "distance" is a continuum we can scale the height of that wall up or down however we want, at what point does it become reasonable or unreasonable?
Then how can we systematize this?
The very definition of GM Fiat.
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.The thing is they ARE useful: they just aren't very useful as ACTIVE participants. For instance, Master Abilities are quite useful. And they have abilities like Snoop, Toolbearer or Valet that they have a supporting roll. There is NO requirement for familiars to take an active roll in exploration/downtime for them to be useful, especially when we're looking at a 1st level feat: if anything, I'd say it's cost of a 1st level feat means that is shouldn't be as useful as higher level feats that allow for extra Activities let alone multiple ones added together.
Useful doesn't mean that they should get the full allotment of abilities an NPC or PC should have out of combat: for instance, a familiar with Accompanist gets to be useful in downtime without needing to get it free activities.
Mmm Hmmm. And all of the other familiar abilities that were printed are just troll/trap options then?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The very definition of GM Fiat.
In a rules-light game, such as our coinflip example, it is perfectly valid for a group to set what requires a flip at session zero as a means of defining the scope and genre of the game itself. A superhero might clear that wall easily while an after-school detective club made up of school children would need to flip for it. This is expected of a game with no other theming and a desire to keep rules simple.
The issue with the rules for familiars in modes beyond tactical combat is that Pathfinder 2e is not a simple rules-light game. Thus, due to rules being unclear and/or incomplete, two reasonable people can easily conclude different things based on what little text we do have. Thus it behooves Paizo to rectify this with, as an example, a sidebar that says something like, "We don't recommend that familiars and animal companions be allowed to scout without their owner being there to command and observe them."
They could also publish a book that gives exploration a large spotlight and codify rules there.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Mmm Hmmm. And all of the other familiar abilities that were printed are just troll/trap options then?
How is that any different than other rules in the game also being trap options? There are trap spells, trap feats, trap weapons, trap armor, trap consumables. The game is full of bad options, it's just rare that they are attached to something so beloved as familiars.
Mmm Hmmm. And all of the other familiar abilities that were printed are just troll/trap options then?
Not at all: it just requires the PC actively controlling the familiar. Want something on that 20' shelf or tree branch? IE, send your familiar off to do so like a real life drone. Again, nothing necessitates that BOTH have to be active for it to be useful.
Secondly, they could be used in combat: how else are you going to use Final Sacrifice if it can't use fly, swim, ect to get next to it. ;)
And I'd also like to point out that there are some other parts of the game that seem far more like "troll/trap options", IMO, than Familiar Abilities. How about Armor Proficiency/Weapon Proficiency not scaling? :P
The problem is that a game can't do this
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?
if it is also doing this
In a rules-light game, such as our coinflip example, it is perfectly valid for a group to set what requires a flip at session zero as a means of defining the scope and genre of the game itself. A superhero might clear that wall easily while an after-school detective club made up of school children would need to flip for it. This is expected of a game with no other theming and a desire to keep rules simple.
If you want a rules-lite game, go play one of those. Where GM Fiat is the core mechanic.
If you want a game that relies less on GM Fiat - that has plenty of rules support and provides a reasonably consistent game experience from one table to the next, a rules-lite system is not going to work.
And in any system - rules-lite or not - there will come a point where GM Fiat or rules adjudication is necessary. It is literally impossible for it not to. Godel's Incompleteness Theorems prove that.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
And in any system - rules-lite or not - there will come a point where GM Fiat or rules adjudication is necessary. It is literally impossible for it not to. Godel's Incompleteness Theorems prove that.
Note that I said less interpretation in my post on the topic, not zero interpretation. Nobody is arguing for the impossible and you stretching things to make it seem that way is both dishonest and rude. We're asking for well-proofed rules with a useable layout and errata that come in to fix commonly debated issues.
So yeah, I do expect the second-largest player in the game to swiftly fix issues. They have the staff and money to do it, even if it costs one AP per year.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
OK, so if familiars only do what you want from them when you command them, what would happen in your game if master and familiar got separated? like out of sight/sound range....is that game over for your relationship unless you stumble upon them again? they just go off and become an animal acting on their instinct, and that's that? What if it continues to live it's life instinctively as an animal and doesn't die? can you even get a new one then?
since command has an auditory trait, what would be the range for it? can you issue a command to a familiar 2000ft away flying above enemy castle?
what does an auditory command even mean if the familiar doesn't speak or understand a language? Can you emote commands to it as vaguely described in your 1 mile range communication thingy? Could you use a signal whistle to issue commands(half a mile range across open terrain)?
Could you use message cantrip to "whisper" commands to it?
how does a speaking familiar act in social encounters? do you have to issue commands to it so it continues to speak every few seconds? or does it stops mid sentence every round unless you yell at it in a powerful voice(auditory)? It says it can attempt trained skill actions if it has your key stat added to it's skill. What happens if you command it to do a 10min activity(like identify an item)? or send it to gather info with diplomacy? do you really have to yell at it to lie before it attempts it's deception check?
it's impossible to write rules as detailed as some of you guys want it and still make sense in all modes of play. GM fiat is present in all games to a degree...extended rules with monthly errata would quickly grow to an immense size and discourage any new players to even give this game a chance...
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
OK, so if familiars only do what you want from them when you command them, what would happen in your game if master and familiar got separated? like out of sight/sound range....is that game over for your relationship unless you stumble upon them again? they just go off and become an animal acting on their instinct, and that's that? What if it continues to live it's life instinctively as an animal and doesn't die? can you even get a new one then?
since command has an auditory trait, what would be the range for it? can you issue a command to a familiar 2000ft away flying above enemy castle?
what does an auditory command even mean if the familiar doesn't speak or understand a language? Can you emote commands to it as vaguely described in your 1 mile range communication thingy? Could you use a signal whistle to issue commands(half a mile range across open terrain)?
Could you use message cantrip to "whisper" commands to it?how does a speaking familiar act in social encounters? do you have to issue commands to it so it continues to speak every few seconds? or does it stops mid sentence every round unless you yell at it in a powerful voice(auditory)? It says it can attempt trained skill actions if it has your key stat added to it's skill. What happens if you command it to do a 10min activity(like identify an item)? or send it to gather info with diplomacy? do you really have to yell at it to lie before it attempts it's deception check?
it's impossible to write rules as detailed as some of you guys want it and still make sense in all modes of play. GM fiat is present in all games to a degree...extended rules with monthly errata would quickly grow to an immense size and discourage any new players to even give this game a chance...
You could just say something like:
"Free from the pressure of combat minions are able to follow orders more efficiently. As such once issued a command they are able to follow it for 10-minutes or indefinitely as you wish. In the case of an indefinite command, they do only that for the span so a scouting minion would keep scouting until you give in a command to do something else, or it becomes dangerous to keep following that order."
It's not perfect, but it gives a better framework for how to treat minions in non-combat situations.
You could just say something like:
"Free from the pressure of combat minions are able to follow orders more efficiently. As such once issued a command they are able to follow it for 10-minutes or indefinitely as you wish. In the case of an...
you're 100% right, and I bet that's the RAI in this case. That's why insisting that they only act encounter mode all the way is a bit silly IMO.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
you're 100% right, and I bet that's the RAI in this case. That's why insisting that they only act encounter mode all the way is a bit silly IMO.
That's literally the only thing the rules tell us, so if it's not RAI they wrote the rules badly. Plus, it really doesn't fit with general PF2 design to give a level 1 feat this level of utility.
That's literally the only thing the rules tell us, so if it's not RAI they wrote the rules badly. Plus, it really doesn't fit with general PF2 design to give a level 1 feat this level of utility.
I agree that additional sentence was needed for exploration for minions for it to make sense, but it's not OP to interpret it like that.
I agree that nibbling on bowstrings is way too much without 7 stealth checks of which one is bound to fail. Same goes for detailed scouting(getting close past guards needs a stealth roll).
familiar trained skills are kinda weak, so it's not really that OP utility, unless you're willing to risk it's life for not so great chances of success, bc as soon as initiative is rolled it's fvcked without you
It's just OK-ish and can give you some information for a task at hand(like birds eye view) or a quicker means to resolve some problems that you could have solved without it, just a bit harder or with more time
ofc you can do all those crazy tropes if you're a 20th lvl familiar master that's harassing a 3rd lvl village for the lolz of it
I have personally seen others feel familiars where stealing their thunder.
This, I don't understand. You have mentioned things like this before, and I didn't understand it then, and I don't understand it now.
Useful doesn't mean that they should get the full allotment of abilities an NPC or PC should have out of combat
The thing is - they don't. Even under a permissive reading of the rules, they still only feel like about 0.8 of a character outside of combat. They don't get any proficiency modifier to their skill checks. And they don't get any skill feats.
So even if we allow them to make Treat Wounds checks, they can only ever use the base version - not the heightened versions that require expert or higher proficiency. And they can't use Continual Recovery, Battle Medicine, or even Risky Surgery.
Same with scouting. Their skill bonuses are not great, and they don't get access to things like Terrain Stalker.
I have been trying to come up with a less aggressive and combative way of saying this next thing, but I haven't been able to. So I apologize in advance for it because I think it needs to be said anyway.
If you have built a character to perform some role in a non-combat situation and a familiar can do the job better than you can and is regularly stealing your thunder, then you built your character wrong.
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.
Do the Wizard and Witches deserve to get the same melee combat ability that the Fighter and Rogue do too?
Not every character is going to be equal in all aspects of the game. The Rogue doesn't get to be miffed that the Ranger is fielding 1.8 characters during combat because the Animal Companion is contributing at about 0.8 of a full character. Similarly I don't think that they should be miffed and upset that the Witch is fielding 1.8 characters during exploration mode because of the familiar.
As far as I can tell, everyone on this thread that has actually played a character with a familiar has been disappointed with the power level that the RAW gives. Some houserule better rules to play with. Some stop playing with familiars entirely. But there is no way that I can honestly believe that the Paizo game devs would intend for familiars to have practically no benefit during combat and practically no benefit outside of combat.
So maybe it would help if you better explained this:
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.
What is the scenario where someone is upset about a familiar doing something useful?
Because my assumption currently is that there definitely is a spotlight hog at your table. Whether it is the player with the familiar, or one of the other players getting overly jealous, I can't tell. But in either case that is definitely a player problem, not a game rules problem.
But when I consistently disagree on a particular topic with someone that I regularly respect the opinions of, that usually indicates that I am missing some important information.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Familiars are only better at scouting in very particular type of scenarios: when you're dealing with enemies that wouldn't just attack a little critter on sight, which removes most actual monsters. They also can't open doors (though they may be able to scurry under them sometimes) or windows.
And if they do get attacked they are far less likely to survive than a PC, at which point the caster just lost a class feat for the rest of this particular excursion. The only class that gets around this is the witch, who everyone thinks is bad and underpowered. But a good replenishing familiar scout creates a really solid niche for them.
Also, there's a very real opportunity cost in using a familiar to scout. The basic familiar only gets 2 abilities. At bare minimum you need Speech or Touch Telepathy, and/or Share Senses, to be able to have information relayed. You probably want a flight or climb speed to keep the familiar out of reach, but you also want the speed boost in case something can reach them. And if it is dark you want darkvsion too.
And you only get to allot familiar abilities during daily preparations, so if you guess the wrong abilities you'll need, you're out of luck unless you can can sleep. Getting enough abilities to comfortably fill the role means sinking your most valuable resources (class feats/features) into padding your ability list. My witch is going all in on the familiar but it is costing them access to some really powerful focus spells, for example.
By comparison, a PC scout only has 3 must have feats: Fast Sneak, Foil Senses, and Legendary Sneak. (And the skill increases, but you also gain serious combat advantages to using stealth for initiative, among other things, so I don't feel that counts.) The really clutch scouting feat is Terrain Stalker, which I would say is higher impact than any of the other feats, but only if the stars align in getting to use it.
And the familiar's master is giving up a lot of really solid passive benefits to gain the potential for scouting as well. Extra cantrips, spell slots, focus points, or reagents. Automatic aid bonuses on a variety of skill checks. Free Demoralize every round (Independent plus skilled.)
Familiars aren't replacing PC scouts with a single feat. They are creating a whole niche new niche for themselves.
This, I don't understand. You have mentioned things like this before, and I didn't understand it then, and I don't understand it now.
Since I can't figure out why you wouldn't understand it, I'm not sure what I can do to make you do so.
The thing is - they don't. Even under a permissive reading of the rules, they still only feel like about 0.8 of a character outside of combat. They don't get any proficiency modifier to their skill checks. And they don't get any skill feats.
#1 note I said PC or NPC and NPC don't always have the full range of abilities [like feats]. Second, .8 still means the PC with one is 1.8 vs another PC's 1.
So even if we allow them to make Treat Wounds checks, they can only ever use the base version - not the heightened versions that require expert or higher proficiency. And they can't use Continual Recovery, Battle Medicine, or even Risky Surgery.
On the flipside, it can have a higher roll as it adds your casting stat instead of wisdom and could allow you to treat more people in the same time. So it's not as bad a situation as you make it out to be.
Same with scouting. Their skill bonuses are not great, and they don't get access to things like Terrain Stalker.
#1 your ooc comment says it all here but even without, they have improved chances to hide as they only need Tiny cover plus the option for various movement types means flight, swim and burrow are added to their possible terrains to scout in. Just the ability to quickly swim across the moat and burrow into the sewer pipe is a lot better than PC. And that is they can't squeeze through the crate as a Tiny creature, or fly down a chimney, fly into an open window, ect. Just the ability to fly leaves a PC in the dust until higher levels and in an outdoor setting, a high flying bird could easily spot enemies on the ground while staying far enough away to prevent most from wasting ammo on trying to shoot them down.
I have been trying to come up with a less aggressive and combative way of saying this next thing, but I haven't been able to. So I apologize in advance for it because I think it needs to be said anyway.
Ok.
If you have built a character to perform some role in a non-combat situation and a familiar can do the job better than you can and is regularly stealing your thunder, then you built your character wrong.
I'd LOVE to build a character at 1st that can fly, burrow, swim, climb, have dark vision, pick ANY skill needed for the day and have it work off my best stat [even without the prof bonus], breathe under water, speak to animals, automatically succeeds [or crit] at some Aid checks... There is just SO much they can do at low levels that they blow away what a PC can do especially when you take into account they can switch things up to have the best possible combo of options per day. My PC build for the desert gets shanghaied into a sea adventure and I can pick up a swim, fly and/or climb speed to check out another boat. :P
Do the Wizard and Witches deserve to get the same melee combat ability that the Fighter and Rogue do too?
If every fight was melee sure as every PC deserves to have an impact in the different modes: I have no problem if the percent varies a bit between the modes for the various classes but one shouldn't jump ahead 1.8 in 2 modes of the game unless they have almost no impact in the 3rd.
Not every character is going to be equal in all aspects of the game. The Rogue doesn't get to be miffed that the Ranger is fielding 1.8 characters during combat because the Animal Companion is contributing at about 0.8 of a full character. Similarly I don't think that they should be miffed and upset that the Witch is fielding 1.8 characters during exploration mode because of the familiar.
This doesn't follow as the ranger has isn't 1.8, but 1.25 [2 ranger actions + 2 animal actions = 4 vs normal 3] and would get them out of combat too then: if it fair to expect they to pay for the extra actions in combat, why is it unfair to expect them to pay out of combat? Why turn 1.25 into 1.8?
As far as I can tell, everyone on this thread that has actually played a character with a familiar has been disappointed with the power level that the RAW gives. Some houserule better rules to play with. Some stop playing with familiars entirely. But there is no way that I can honestly believe that the Paizo game devs would intend for familiars to have practically no benefit during combat and practically no benefit outside of combat.
I'm disappointed in th minion rules in general: it just leads to wonky things like your animal companion being unable to ever catch up with or stay pace with another of the same animal [3 actions running vs 2]. The thing is that a familiar DOES give out the power level of a 1st level feat: the problem is that it gets compared to PF1 familiars.
Take a bard with a familiar for instance: at 1st they can have Accompanist [+1 circumstance bonus to Perform], Ambassador [auto (or auto crit) Aid you on a Diplomacy check to Make an Impression], Partner in Crime ([auto (or auto crit) Aid you on a Deception or Thievery], Second Opinion auto (or auto crit) Aid you on a Recall Knowledge], Snoop [auto (or auto crit) Aid you on a Diplomacy check to Gather Information, Threat Display [ignore penalty on Intimidation check to Demoralize when your target doesn't understand the language] or Valet.
Any ONE is worth that 1st level feat but they get to pick one option each day [or maybe 2 like Threat Display and Accompanist which is the equivalent to Intimidating Glare and Virtuosic Performer (with EVERY Perform)]. And several are useful in exploration/downtime like Snoop, Partner in Crime and Ambassador. And ALL of this without needing to have it's own activities.
What is the scenario where someone is upset about a familiar doing something useful?
Maybe the low level special movement [swim, climb, fly and/or burrow], Tiny scouting, eavesdropping, ect?
Because my assumption currently is that there definitely is a spotlight hog at your table.
Tables: the ones that allow the familiar to be it's own NPC with full activities out of combat.
Whether it is the player with the familiar, or one of the other players getting overly jealous, I can't tell. But in either case that is definitely a player problem, not a game rules problem.
No, it's a rules [well a LACK of rules problem] when a 1st level feat is allowed to do things better than a PC [and safer too]. A low level PC just can't compete with the special movements, the tiny size [+2-4 stealth for tiny cover] and just the ability to look like a normal animal when a Dm is loose with the minion rules out of combat.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
it is very funny that in the edition switch the Witch went from "Protect your familiar at all costs" to "I'll get a new one of you tomorrow, you can be my poison tester".
Also, there's a very real opportunity cost in using a familiar to scout. The basic familiar only gets 2 abilities. At bare minimum you need Speech or Touch Telepathy, and/or Share Senses, to be able to have information relayed.
They don't need it for scouting: you can wait until the next day to swap it out and find the info: in fact it's better this way so you can pick skilled with a Recall Knowledge check they you might need before they tell you what they saw.
it is very funny that in the edition switch the Witch went from "Protect your familiar at all costs" to "I'll get a new one of you tomorrow, you can be my poison tester".
Yep. With it's extra abilities and the next day replacement service, they make good expendable scouts, trap finders, final sacrifice vehicles, ect.
So how do y'all handle familiars dying? Pg 294 gives DM discretion on who gets death saving throws outside of PCs so I give that to animal companions and familiars.
So how do y'all handle familiars dying? Pg 294 gives DM discretion on who gets death saving throws outside of PCs so I give that to animal companions and familiars.
Well it depends: usually if the familiar is with the PC's, it'll get the death saves and if it's not with the party it's usually just dead. That said, I've encountered no death saves at all all the way to completely handwaving it so the familiar lives.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
The rules are explicit that PCs and their companions use Dying mechanics. Houseruling instant death onto familiars seems pretty mean and is unequivocally a houserule.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The rules are explicit that PCs and their companions use Dying mechanics. Houseruling instant death onto familiars seems pretty mean and is unequivocally a houserule.
Well, it wasn't clear until secrets of magic [and even then, it can be debated].
Knocked Out and Dying [Core Rulebook pg. 459] says "Player characters, their companions, and other significant characters and creatures don’t automatically die when they reach 0 Hit Points." This doesn't specifically mention familiars and other places that mention companion are specifically aimed at animal companions. As such, a Dm could rule that they aren't significant and reserve it for important/critical NPC from the adventure/game.
With Secrets of Magic, it says "When “companion” is used in a stat block, it refers to animal companions, familiars, and future types of companions—such as construct companions—but not eidolons" so we get some clarity but it can be still argued that the dying rule isn't a "stat block" so it doesn't apply. IMO, it shows RAI.
So in the end, it's not technically a houserule if they do so. [though it might be mean ;)]
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
How can a familiar or companion not be significant to the PC ?
It doesn't say significant "to the PC" though: it just says "other significant characters". So it doesn't seem crazy for a DM to come to the conclusion that a familiar isn't significant to the games plot [ie, the game doesn't depend on them].
Add to that that some seem to think the power level of them is low: breithauptclan said "As far as I can tell, everyone on this thread that has actually played a character with a familiar has been disappointed with the power level that the RAW gives" and that doesn't SOUND like they think it's a significant boon. The only person that NEED one is a witch and it comes back every day.
So how do y'all handle familiars dying? Pg 294 gives DM discretion on who gets death saving throws outside of PCs so I give that to animal companions and familiars.Player characters, their companions, and other significant characters and creatures don’t automatically die when they reach 0 Hit Points.Animal companions and familiars are called out as companions in the items section, so I would assume they're counted as that here. So to my understanding they should also get recovery checks.
It might be what is intended but that's not the only way companion is used: for instance,
Knight Vigilant has the ability Vigil's Walls Rise Anew! where "you and all drilled companions within 30 feet who are wielding shields Raise a Shield." I'm pretty sure they aren't expecting animal companions and familiars to have shields to raise.
Pathfinder Agent's Archaeologist's Warning allows you to "warn your companions of danger, granting them a +1 circumstance bonus to their initiative rolls".
Folklorist's Narrative Conduit "You act as a conduit for your companions just as your stories are a conduit between teller and listener" and "allowing the hero to calculate range and cover to the villain from your space instead of their own if they prefer."
An elves Avenge Ally allows you to "outlive your companions, seeing them at death's door brings clarity to your attacks."
You'll also see various classes, races and monsters that use companion that seem to not be use in the same way it is in the Companion trait/items. It's not that clear or obvious the companion in "their companions, and other significant characters and creatures" means animal companions and familiars as opposed to them using relaxed speech to mean various game NPC's.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
The rules are explicit that PCs and their companions use Dying mechanics. Houseruling instant death onto familiars seems pretty mean and is unequivocally a houserule.
Yeah, that kind of malicious reading is very obviously reversing the intent of the rule. And as RAI is RAW, instant familiar death is unequivocally a houserule.
breithauptclan said "As far as I can tell, everyone on this thread that has actually played a character with a familiar has been disappointed with the power level that the RAW gives"
Not me. I've never been disappointed with the familiar rules; just with a few GMs. ;P
The rules are explicit that PCs and their companions use Dying mechanics. Houseruling instant death onto familiars seems pretty mean and is unequivocally a houserule.Yeah, that kind of malicious reading is very obviously reversing the intent of the rule. And as RAI is RAW, instant familiar death is unequivocally a houserule.
Well my first GM in the playtest did it this way. Because familiars where not explicitly included he excluded them. Fortunately it is clearer now.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
breithauptclan said "As far as I can tell, everyone on this thread that has actually played a character with a familiar has been disappointed with the power level that the RAW gives"Not me. I've never been disappointed with the familiar rules; just with a few GMs. ;P
You don't actually follow the rules, so how you can be disappointed with them?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
You don't actually follow the rules, so how you can be disappointed with them?breithauptclan said "As far as I can tell, everyone on this thread that has actually played a character with a familiar has been disappointed with the power level that the RAW gives"Not me. I've never been disappointed with the familiar rules; just with a few GMs. ;P
Says you. Heh.
By my interpretation, I follow the rules just fine.
Sorry I have been away for a bit dealing with real life.
This, I don't understand. You have mentioned things like this before, and I didn't understand it then, and I don't understand it now.Since I can't figure out why you wouldn't understand it, I'm not sure what I can do to make you do so.
OK. Trying to explain better what I am confused about.
From what I have seen when playing, when the players are building out their characters and party, they are generally excited about the awesome things that the other player's characters are able to do.
'Hey, you are playing a Fighter. Awesome. Crit's all over the place.'
'So you are building a Monk. Excellent action economy. You will have actions to spare after attacking.'
'A Magus. Nice, you have both spells and weapon attacks. Cool.'
So when the response is instead
'A familiar. That sucks. They are always hogging the spotlight when we aren't in combat. Why can't you play something else?'
It seems a bit jarring and unexpected. Why aren't the other players happy that my character can bring that to the team?
The thing is - they don't. Even under a permissive reading of the rules, they still only feel like about 0.8 of a character outside of combat. They don't get any proficiency modifier to their skill checks. And they don't get any skill feats.#1 note I said PC or NPC and NPC don't always have the full range of abilities [like feats]. Second, .8 still means the PC with one is 1.8 vs another PC's 1.
My point is that characters with familiars aren't the only type of characters that have that to a limited extent. Summoners are even more so.
So even if we allow them to make Treat Wounds checks, they can only ever use the base version - not the heightened versions that require expert or higher proficiency. And they can't use Continual Recovery, Battle Medicine, or even Risky Surgery.On the flipside, it can have a higher roll as it adds your casting stat instead of wisdom
The familiar only ever has a higher bonus on a skill if the character being compared to has either a +1 or lower bonus in the ability score or is untrained in the skill. At that point can you really say that your character is built for the role?
and could allow you to treat more people in the same time.
The familiar alone is not going to be treating more people at the same time than any other character that can do Treat Wounds. Even a character and their familiar together will not be treating more people than a character that has taken Ward Medic unless the familiar master character also has Ward Medic.
And this illustrates my point from the top of this post. Why are you upset that my character/familiar pair can Treat Wounds on two player characters at the same time and yours can't? Do you feel the same way about my character if I took Ward Medic instead of Familiar? If not, why not?
Take a bard with a familiar for instance: at 1st they can have Accompanist [+1 circumstance bonus to Perform], Ambassador [auto (or auto crit) Aid you on a Diplomacy check to Make an Impression], Partner in Crime ([auto (or auto crit) Aid you on a Deception or Thievery], Second Opinion auto (or auto crit) Aid you on a Recall Knowledge], Snoop [auto (or auto crit) Aid you on a Diplomacy check to Gather Information, Threat Display [ignore penalty on Intimidation check to Demoralize when your target doesn't understand the language] or Valet.
Any ONE is worth that 1st level feat but they get to pick one option each day [or maybe 2 like Threat Display and Accompanist which is the equivalent to Intimidating Glare and Virtuosic Performer (with EVERY Perform)]. And several are useful in exploration/downtime like Snoop, Partner in Crime and Ambassador. And ALL of this without needing to have it's own activities.
Of these, I would agree that Threat Display is actually equivalent to the feat Intimidating Glare.
And I find that all of them are basically only useful in exploration/downtime. Gather Information, and Make an Impression are pretty much exclusively exploration/downtime. Stealing things with Partner in Crime usually is. Not sure how often players would be trying to steal stuff during combat under circumstances where a familiar would be able to help.
Also, a lot of these are useful only to Bard characters - which don't get a familiar from a class feat. So for a Bard, it is costing an archetype slot or an ancestry feat to get a familiar.
And my last point on this isn't regarding those reaction familiar abilities. In general for the exploration/downtime tricks that you might want your familiar to do: You can only do one or maybe two of them on any one day - at the expense of the master abilities that would be powering up the main character. At least with only a basic familiar. Two abilities is not very many. Especially if one of those abilities has to be spent on Manual Dexterity or Speech in order to get the trick to work. So it feels a bit like a contingency wizard argument to say how powerful all of the familiar abilities are when they are all combined on the same familiar. Having that powerful of a familiar requires several rather high level class feats.
No, it's a rules [well a LACK of rules problem] when a 1st level feat is allowed to do things better than a PC [and safer too].
If that is how familiars actually are in power, then that would be a problem. But I am not seeing how it would actually fall out that way. The familiar is a configurable augmentation of the main player character. It does still have to be given commands even if those commands last for minutes at a time. It can have equivalent skill bonuses as a low level PC - if you put ability slots to take Trained instead of spending those slots on something else. And even then it doesn't get skill feat support.
I haven't seen a case where a familiar on its own is able to do something 'better' than a PC. A familiar can help their master do something better than they could before. But I don't see that as the same.
A low level PC just can't compete with the special movements, the tiny size [+2-4 stealth for tiny cover] and just the ability to look like a normal animal when a Dm is loose with the minion rules out of combat.
Where are you seeing this +2 to +4 bonus for tiny size when using stealth?
The only thing that I can think of that would make being tiny size better than small/medium is that more things would qualify for providing standard cover. There may be locations that the GM decides would only provide lesser cover or no cover to a small creature, but gives standard cover to a tiny creature. But that still doesn't provide any bonuses to the stealth checks to actually do the hide/sneak.
Also, if you are doing stealth in encounter/combat mode, that is where the rules for cover when sneaking would come in to play more. Sneaking during exploration mode probably would be more abstract and wouldn't use any particular place of cover.
And if a familiar is doing stealth in combat ... for what purpose? Is it going to be making a sneak attack? It sounds like it would be consuming action resources from the PC and providing no benefit for them and is therefore an active detriment to the player. The familiar would have a negative score for its player-equivalence rating. It may be rated at 0.8 outside of combat, but I have found that unless it is in a pet cache or a tattoo, it is at about a -0.2 in combat.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
OK. Trying to explain better what I am confused about.
From what I have seen when playing, when the players are building out their characters and party, they are generally excited about the awesome things that the other player's characters are able to do.
'Hey, you are playing a Fighter. Awesome. Crit's all over the place.'
'So you are building a Monk. Excellent action economy. You will have actions to spare after attacking.'
'A Magus. Nice, you have both spells and weapon attacks. Cool.'So when the response is instead
'A familiar. That sucks. They are always hogging the spotlight when we aren't in combat. Why can't you play something else?'
It seems a bit jarring and unexpected. Why aren't the other players happy that my character can bring that to the team?
Well, frame it differently:
player thinking about an Investigator: 'I'm playing someone like a spy/scout that can break into places, search for clues and stuff'
Witch player: 'Oh, my familiar can do all of that plus a lot more and if they die they just come back in a day'
player thinking about an Investigator now rethinking things: 'Maybe I'll play another character'
When you can cover what another person wants to do with a single feat, it would be jarring to me if they didn't see it as hogging things.
My point is that characters with familiars aren't the only type of characters that have that to a limited extent. Summoners are even more so.
Summoners are even more less so IMO: they have strict range limits [100'] and share hp. Even then, they HAVE specifically been given the ability to have 2 exploration activities by using from Act Together, something Familiars and Animal Companions do not have.
The familiar only ever has a higher bonus on a skill if the character being compared to has either a +1 or lower bonus in the ability score or is untrained in the skill. At that point can you really say that your character is built for the role?
Who ever said they it was built for it? It's a free heal activity based off high stat so even if it's not the best that can matter especially if your on a clock.
The familiar alone is not going to be treating more people at the same time than any other character that can do Treat Wounds. Even a character and their familiar together will not be treating more people than a character that has taken Ward Medic unless the familiar master character also has Ward Medic.
It'd be one more, and that is all that matters.
And this illustrates my point from the top of this post. Why are you upset that my character/familiar pair can Treat Wounds on two player characters at the same time and yours can't? Do you feel the same way about my character if I took Ward Medic instead of Familiar? If not, why not?
It's that they take it's own action in addition to yours, not what the action is. It's that you can Treat Wounds while it scouts or it keeps watch while you change spells. It's that you're doing twice what another is doing, like a rogue, and can be doing so at any distance. Only Act Together allows 1 character to get 2 unfettered activities in exploration/downtime.
Of these, I would agree that Threat Display is actually equivalent to the feat Intimidating Glare.
And I find that all of them are basically only useful in exploration/downtime. Gather Information, and Make an Impression are pretty much exclusively exploration/downtime. Stealing things with Partner in Crime usually is. Not sure how often players would be trying to steal stuff during combat under circumstances where a familiar would be able to help.
Yes, I picked out things that are mostly useful out of combat to show that things that a familiar can do in those modes without needing to use an activity.
Also, a lot of these are useful only to Bard characters - which don't get a familiar from a class feat. So for a Bard, it is costing an archetype slot or an ancestry feat to get a familiar.
Every single one is useful to other classes, even the Performance ones as you can use it to Earn Income and for Cha classes can be better than your other options. They favor Cha characters but so too do a lot of the activities that are available.
Where are you seeing this +2 to +4 bonus for tiny size when using stealth?
The only thing that I can think of that would make being tiny size better than small/medium is that more things would qualify for providing standard cover. There may be locations that the GM decides would only provide lesser cover or no cover to a small creature, but gives standard cover to a tiny creature. But that still doesn't provide any bonuses to the stealth checks to actually do the hide/sneak.
You got it. "Standard cover gives you a +2 circumstance bonus to AC, to Reflex saves against area effects, and to Stealth checks to Hide, Sneak, or otherwise avoid detection. You can increase this to greater cover using the Take Cover basic action, increasing the circumstance bonus to +4." With their Tiny Size and different movement modes it's easier to find cover and then to Take Cover and Hide if they want to eavesdrop.
Also, if you are doing stealth in encounter/combat mode, that is where the rules for cover when sneaking would come in to play more. Sneaking during exploration mode probably would be more abstract and wouldn't use any particular place of cover.
Even abstracted, to Sneaking during exploration the terrain in question has enough cover to do so: From playing a sprite a few times, I've seen stealth work for me in places it wasn't possible for bigger people.
And if a familiar is doing stealth in combat ...
Not really: Familiars in combat = dead familiars.
If that is how familiars actually are in power, then that would be a problem. But I am not seeing how it would actually fall out that way. The familiar is a configurable augmentation of the main player character. It does still have to be given commands even if those commands last for minutes at a time. It can have equivalent skill bonuses as a low level PC - if you put ability slots to take Trained instead of spending those slots on something else. And even then it doesn't get skill feat support.
I haven't seen a case where a familiar on its own is able to do something 'better' than a PC. A familiar can help their master do something better than they could before. But I don't see that as the same.
Well they can fly and for a lot of levels that's way better: things like that. The ability to pick just the right combo of abilities can allow things a PC [at low'ish levels] can't do.
Well this thread has convinced me that using familiars to scout should use PC stealthing rules. You shouldn't invalidate PCs with a feat. I've also come to see familiar abilities as fluff abilities to shape your rp with your buddy, and master abilities as mechanical ones to augment your caster's power (largely by being a spell battery). I think that's a good spot for familiars to be for the cost of one or two feats depending on how many abilities you want. The only exception is witch and maybe wizard (though thesis plays a smaller part to power budget than a witch's familiar).
OK. Trying to explain better what I am confused about.
From what I have seen when playing, when the players are building out their characters and party, they are generally excited about the awesome things that the other player's characters are able to do.
'Hey, you are playing a Fighter. Awesome. Crit's all over the place.'
'So you are building a Monk. Excellent action economy. You will have actions to spare after attacking.'
'A Magus. Nice, you have both spells and weapon attacks. Cool.'So when the response is instead
'A familiar. That sucks. They are always hogging the spotlight when we aren't in combat. Why can't you play something else?'
It seems a bit jarring and unexpected. Why aren't the other players happy that my character can bring that to the team?
Well, frame it differently:
player thinking about an Investigator: 'I'm playing someone like a spy/scout that can break into places, search for clues and stuff'
Witch player: 'Oh, my familiar can do all of that plus a lot more and if they die they just come back in a day'
player thinking about an Investigator now rethinking things: 'Maybe I'll play another character'When you can cover what another person wants to do with a single feat, it would be jarring to me if they didn't see it as hogging things.
Except the Investigator is always going to have a better Perception, and is very likely to (and guaranteed to after ~5th level) have better Stealth, and can use Thievery without needing to burn 2-3 separate Familiar Abilities (Independent is probable, Manual Dexterity to be able to use a pick kit, and Skilled to be able to use Thievery). Tell me how the Witch's rat is meaningfully stepping on the toes of the theoretical Investigator?
My point is that characters with familiars aren't the only type of characters that have that to a limited extent. Summoners are even more so.Summoners are even more less so IMO: they have strict range limits [100'] and share hp. Even then, they HAVE specifically been given the ability to have 2 exploration activities by using from Act Together, something Familiars and Animal Companions do not have.
TRUE! I won't argue there
A free trained heal activity, on a relatively low-mid stat. It gets level+casting mod to it's roll, and can never use the Expert or higher uses of Treat Wounds, which means at 20th level, that familiar is only healing 4d8, a minimum of 4, an average of 18, and a maximum of 36... On characters with over 300HP. And at level 1, it has ~+5, you know who else has +5? Everyone trained in Medicine with a +2 Wisdom, which is supposedly par for the course on an optimized character.The familiar only ever has a higher bonus on a skill if the character being compared to has either a +1 or lower bonus in the ability score or is untrained in the skill. At that point can you really say that your character is built forbuilt for the role?Who ever said they it was built for it? It's a free heal activity based off high stat so even if it's not the best that can matter especially if your on a clock.
Understandable, but in practice at the tables I've seen, that either doesn't matter at all, or everyone is thankful for the faster recoup time.The familiar alone is not going to be treating more people at the same time than any other character that can do Treat Wounds. Even a character and their familiar together will not be treating more people than a character that has taken Ward Medic unless the familiar master character also has Ward Medic.It'd be one more, and that is all that matters.
And this illustrates my point from the top of this post. Why are you upset that my character/familiar pair can Treat Wounds on two player characters at the same time and yours can't? Do you feel the same way about my character if I took Ward Medic instead of Familiar? If not, why not?It's that they take it's own action in addition to yours, not what the action is. It's that you can Treat Wounds while it scouts or it keeps watch while you change spells. It's that you're doing twice what another is doing, like a rogue, and can be doing so at any distance. Only Act Together allows 1 character to get 2 unfettered activities in exploration/downtime.
To be fair, there is a 1 mile leash on the familiar in the form of the emotional telepathy, which depends on the GM but can be treated as a hard leash (and I don't know why it isn't RAW). But keeping a lookout while you're changing spells is exactly the role I'd expect the familiar to have... Keeping in mind the likelihood of it failing a spot check against anything meaningful since it's perception is as good as yours (a caster) or worse (unless Wisdom is your dump stat... more power to you then?)
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Well this thread has convinced me that using familiars to scout should use PC stealthing rules. You shouldn't invalidate PCs with a feat. I've also come to see familiar abilities as fluff abilities to shape your rp with your buddy, and master abilities as mechanical ones to augment your caster's power (largely by being a spell battery). I think that's a good spot for familiars to be for the cost of one or two feats depending on how many abilities you want. The only exception is witch and maybe wizard (though thesis plays a smaller part to power budget than a witch's familiar).
I don't think anyone is arguing they aren't subject to the same PC stealth rules. Just pointing out the consequences of then failing a stealth check are not necessarily the same.
And while a familiar can provide a retinue of caster augmentation, they can also INSTEAD invest those abilities into scouting. If familiars weren't meant to scout, why are things like Darkvsion and Share Senses even options? Especially options with such opportunity cost.
And to everyone but the which there's a huge risk your familiar just gets killed, and the witch frankly needs that edge by most estimations.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Except the Investigator is always going to have a better Perception, and is very likely to (and guaranteed to after ~5th level) have better Stealth, and can use Thievery without needing to burn 2-3 separate Familiar Abilities (Independent is probable, Manual Dexterity to be able to use a pick kit, and Skilled to be able to use Thievery). Tell me how the Witch's rat is meaningfully stepping on the toes of the theoretical Investigator?
I've pretty much already gone over that: the investigator can't change to fly, swim or burrow per day. They can't take cover [and thus hide/stealth] in places a Tiny creature can. They can enter places they can't do to movement types and size. And it can do all that when the wizard if doing other things is it gets it's own activity. All the Perception in the world doesn't help if you can't get to someplace to use it. Plus, it comes back to life at no cost if things go wrong.
A free trained heal activity, on a relatively low-mid stat. It gets level+casting mod to it's roll, and can never use the Expert or higher uses of Treat Wounds, which means at 20th level, that familiar is only healing 4d8, a minimum of 4, an average of 18, and a maximum of 36... On characters with over 300HP. And at level 1, it has ~+5, you know who else has +5? Everyone trained in Medicine with a +2 Wisdom, which is supposedly par for the course on an optimized character.
This is mostly a low level issue. For instance, when someone can fly and use Shrink, Invisibility, ect then the familiars scouting abilities aren't very good too. However, they'd still be just as good at high levels in some activities that just require a warm body: for instance, Scout doesn't care about levels.
But keeping a lookout while you're changing spells is exactly the role I'd expect the familiar to have...
It would be mine too IF the minion trait didn't exist. With it however, it's not the same familiar as PF1 and expectations are different. I can't even have it chase down another animal of the same kind as it loses a full action of chasing because if minion.
I don't think anyone is arguing they aren't subject to the same PC stealth rules.
Some games don't. I've seen more than one that pretty much handwaved most rolls.
If familiars weren't meant to scout, why are things like Darkvsion and Share Senses even options? Especially options with such opportunity cost.
What opportunity cost? It can pick out new abilities the next day.
And for those abilities and scouting, familiars can point out enemies they can see [for any sense enhancement] or for their own targeting [skill actions or casting spells]. Share Senses doesn't require anything on the familiars side: for instance, you can hide your familiar in a room and then go to another. That means it's requires to 'scout' as well as a modern listening device and camera does. And it can work at ANY distance, so you can check in on your house if you left your familiar there. And to further counterpoint, we have familiars that have no speed [star orbs and baba yaga's] so I find it hard to believe scouting if an expectation.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I'm pretty sure "I use my familiar to scout" is an appropriate place for "fail forward" rules. You roll something and the result is not "did you succeed or not" but how much did you learn compared to how much you tipped off the opposition.
I mean, even if they don't see "a strange cat poking around the camp" as indication that something is up, that still might put them on edge.
OK. Trying to explain better what I am confused about.
From what I have seen when playing, when the players are building out their characters and party, they are generally excited about the awesome things that the other player's characters are able to do.
'Hey, you are playing a Fighter. Awesome. Crit's all over the place.'
'So you are building a Monk. Excellent action economy. You will have actions to spare after attacking.'
'A Magus. Nice, you have both spells and weapon attacks. Cool.'So when the response is instead
'A familiar. That sucks. They are always hogging the spotlight when we aren't in combat. Why can't you play something else?'
It seems a bit jarring and unexpected. Why aren't the other players happy that my character can bring that to the team?
Well, frame it differently:
player thinking about an Investigator: 'I'm playing someone like a spy/scout that can break into places, search for clues and stuff'
Witch player: 'Oh, my familiar can do all of that plus a lot more and if they die they just come back in a day'
player thinking about an Investigator now rethinking things: 'Maybe I'll play another character'When you can cover what another person wants to do with a single feat, it would be jarring to me if they didn't see it as hogging things.
This still doesn't make any sense. There is absolutely zero option for a familiar to outclass an Investigator in the scope of breaking into places, searching for clues, and other stuff.
The familiar could maybe be configured to be able to do one of those three things.
Breaking into places for example. I could configure a familiar with Manual Dexterity, Toolbearer, and Skilled (thievery). That could let them break into some location or other (assuming the permissive rulings on how long commands can last).
First, note that this takes 3 abilities. A standard familiar couldn't even be configured with this. It would take a Witch or Wizard(familiar thesis) familiar or 2 class feats to have enough abilities to pull this off.
They also don't have any ability space left for movement or vision upgrades at this point. I could configure the familiar with some of those instead of, but not in addition to the ability to break in.
And once they get in, they won't be doing any investigating. They don't have any skills for that. All of their budget was spent in getting in in the first place. If the player spent two class feats getting additional abilities, they could spend some of them on Skilled (knowledge) that would let them investigate stuff. But now we are talking about further player investment. That is two class feats at least for this.
It also comes at the cost of any master abilities that the player is accustomed to having. So there is that too.
And there is still the matter of the lower skill bonuses compared to an actual PC. And the lack of any option of skill feats.
So yeah, basically it comes down to the idea that a familiar with 2 abilities can only be configured with enough power to be approximately equivalent to a level 1 feat. Some class feats that they can replicate, some ancestry feats that they can replicate, some skill feats that they can replicate. But they don't (for one feat at least) have enough space to do more than that. And that sounds about right. A level 1 class feat that is approximately as powerful as other level 1 feats.
So it feels like other configurable/configuration feats. Things like Bard: Versatile Signature, Summoner: Flexible Transmogrification, or Wizard: Metamagical Experimentation thesis, Universal Versatility, and Infinite Possibilities which are all also 'you get to choose, but you only get one'. And familiar is less than ones like Bard: Versatile Performance or Monk: Fuse Stance where you get multiple things put together at the same time. With a familiar you have to choose - you don't get it all.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
What opportunity cost? It can pick out new abilities the next day.
Can they really in practice though? Adventures don't always let you pause for a full day just so you can reconfigure your familiar load out. Even if they do, the intelligence you gathered is now a day old and may no longer apply. In a very static environment with no time pressure, you can then readjust your familiar to get your extra focus point and cantrip or whatever, but even then most parties I've played with aren't super receptive to that level of 15 minute adventuring day.
And what do you use as your default familiar load out at that point? Do you keep your familiar passive/master focused while you are going about town in case orcs attack? Or do you keep it scouting focused in case a sink hole opens in the town square and you need to explore it?
I've yet to significantly deviate from my witch's default loadout because I don't have perfect information about what a day's challenges will bring. If I did I wouldn't need a scout. There was a single set of encounters where those master benefits might have come in handy and I had enough warning to set them up, but extra cantrips matter a lot less at that point when you're a prepared caster who can just prepare the right cantrips instead.