| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
I don't see why we shouldn't ask for both fun flavor and strong math for every class. We live in a digital age, things can be tweaked and patched like a video game. If indy devs can stick to a two-week patch cycle it seems like that isn't too much to ask from an RPG publisher.
They could even paywall it if income is the issue. Subscribers get their updates a month early but everybody eventually gets a better game as the balance is tweaked, rules are clarified, and snippets of fluff are added.
I don't see why we shouldn't ask for both fun flavor and strong math for every class. We live in a digital age, things can be tweaked and patched like a video game. If indy devs can stick to a two-week patch cycle it seems like that isn't too much to ask from an RPG publisher.
They could even paywall it if income is the issue. Subscribers get their updates a month early but everybody eventually gets a better game as the balance is tweaked, rules are clarified, and snippets of fluff are added.
As long as they stay first and foremost a book company, we won't see it happening(at least not to a degree you're talking about).
But hey, we wouldn't be able to bash one another with meaningless arguments over petty things then :)
Jokes aside, as a GM I play my familiars RAW to the core during initiative, but I allow them to attempt simple tasks in exploration mode without constant supervision(simple like flying over a castle for bird's eye view and report back, or take a message as a carrier pigeon to a familiar location, or stand guard and send danger emotes if something happens while running back to me). I don't think that low utility or low intel it provides is broken or OP. I use them as plot devices, hook finders and hint throwers. When in doubt, I use above average trained animal intelligence to roleplay them.
If you want them to do complex stuff, then yeah, you have to command them constantly for them to perform
As a player I never try cheesy stuff or push my luck with them or hog the stage.
that's my common sense regarding familiars
Well, make it double, for there is another.
The RAW doesn't say familiars get a free pass on checks that PCs have to do just because the circumstances may permit it. Arguing that they do is not RAW whatsoever, and yet it gets passed on as if it's RAW or "common sense," when it's further from that truth. It's fine to run things different, but don't pass it as RAW.
As an FYI, "common sense" is an oxymoron. If you had "common sense," you would know this. Goes to show how much you really developed in all 27 of those years.
anyone with common sense can see that there were no RAW disagreements in my posts or advocating freepass checks. It's just game style preference - some people like to use common sense to make rulings, some people like extrapolating to absurdity. What I never saw in my 27y is a full table that prefers the latter and I bet that neither have you
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Well, make it double, for there is another.
The RAW doesn't say familiars get a free pass on checks that PCs have to do just because the circumstances may permit it. Arguing that they do is not RAW whatsoever, and yet it gets passed on as if it's RAW or "common sense," when it's further from that truth. It's fine to run things different, but don't pass it as RAW.
As an FYI, "common sense" is an oxymoron. If you had "common sense," you would know this. Goes to show how much you really developed in all 27 of those years.
anyone with common sense can see that there were no RAW disagreements in my posts or advocating freepass checks. It's just game style preference - some people like to use common sense to make rulings, some people like extrapolating to absurdity. What I never saw in my 27y is a full table that prefers the latter and I bet that neither have you
My very first gaming table always did. We played 3.x and they liked building some pretty interesting stuff, we all played by strict RAW because the build was the game. If you have a group like that, common sense rulings that give abilities beyond the rules aren't something people are interested in.
My very first gaming table always did. We played 3.x and they liked building some pretty interesting stuff, we all played by strict RAW because the build was the game. If you have a group like that, common sense rulings that give abilities beyond the rules aren't something people are interested in.
Sure, but I don't think that in my case I'm giving it any extra abilities any more than any of you expand on PC abilities in context of movement and spacing that I gave as an example. If familiar can fly, speak and see, what is preventing it from flying over a castle and telling you something about it later? Sure, you as a GM may say that it doesn't want to, that it forgot what it saw or whatever else you wanna say. But telling me it's a voice operated drone and that I'm an elf that acts like a 5ft cube of flesh with pointed ears is not what VAST MAJORITY of ppl wants from this game.
Everybody draws the line somewhere bc technically speaking this game is unplayable by strict raw.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Careful, that kind of talk will bring in the Players for the Empirical Treatment of Familiars to call badwrongfun on us for using RAW against their little rays of sunshine.
Oh, wait, they're already here. Nevermind.
oh no, the familiar grinch is here, he'll ruin all the goodrightfun for us with his "the world is a mathematical simulation" talk, don't listen to him kids! save yourselves!
As far as the forums are concerned, I'm a bit too realist in situations that require abstraction to function. IMO, Battle Medicine should not even work by RAI, since realistically, you can't meaningfully patch somebody up in 2 seconds of real time, give or take. And we had people argue that you don't need hands available to Battle Medicine, which is even more absurd. But the rules and demand for functional options require that I handwave that shenanigans away, simply because the game assumes non-magical healing has to be viable.
Telling me that I'm treating the game as a math simulation also makes no sense since Paizo quantified and scaled the math in this game such that it, in fact, is, and with how tight the numbers are, Familiars become far less impactful by 8th level or so due to scaling and them simply not having it. All of which is by Paizo's design, not mine. Pointing that out doesn't make my opinion of familiars badwrongfun. Saying you are not following RAW and then telling people that your table houserules is RAW is highly misleading and promotes people having improper expectations when it comes to what the developers intended, and what the rules will probably be at a table. PFS set a standard for that for a reason.
It's the same when Finesse weapons were clarified not to work with skill checks like Athletics, just like how Familiars were clarified not to be able to activate items. Go ahead and tell Mr. Seifter that he's making badwrongfun rules for PF2, because that's what we're really talking about here, in which case, me parroting the RAW doesn't make me the bad guy. Don't kill the messenger.
Just found a neat little interaction with Familiars that have Skilled Medicine and Manual Dexterity can use Treat Wounds if someone casts Healing Plaster (since it does not have a Bulk of 1 or more and counts as tools).
As far as the forums are concerned, I'm a bit too realist in situations that require abstraction to function. IMO, Battle Medicine should not even work by RAI, since realistically, you can't meaningfully patch somebody up in 2 seconds of real time, give or take. And we had people argue that you don't need hands available to Battle Medicine, which is even more absurd. But the rules and demand for functional options require that I handwave that shenanigans away, simply because the game assumes non-magical healing has to be viable.
Telling me that I'm treating the game as a math simulation also makes no sense since Paizo quantified and scaled the math in this game such that it, in fact, is, and with how tight the numbers are, Familiars become far less impactful by 8th level or so due to scaling and them simply not having it. All of which is by Paizo's design, not mine. Pointing that out doesn't make my opinion of familiars badwrongfun. Saying you are not following RAW and then telling people that your table houserules is RAW is highly misleading and promotes people having improper expectations when it comes to what the developers intended, and what the rules will probably be at a table. PFS set a standard for that for a reason.
It's the same when Finesse weapons were clarified not to work with skill checks like Athletics, just like how Familiars were clarified not to be able to activate items. Go ahead and tell Mr. Seifter that he's making badwrongfun rules for PF2, because that's what we're really talking about here, in which case, me...
As I've said, I run familiars and minions RAW during initiative encounters, same as I run movement and spacing during those precise moments of play. I view all those weird rules for encounters as necessary evil for the game to be fun and balanced. But to claim for those silly interactions to be the laws of physics and universe is kinda misleading to say the least. Nobody really really plays by strict RAW bc it would be unplayable and we all know it.
this whole argument is about where do we draw the line?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Minions are creatures that directly serve another creature. A creature with this trait can use only 2 actions per turn, doesn't have reactions, and can't act when it's not your turn. Your minion acts on your turn in combat, once per turn, when you spend an action to issue it commands. For an animal companion, you Command an Animal; for a minion that's a spell or magic item effect, like a summoned minion, you Sustain a Spell or Sustain an Activation; if not otherwise specified, you issue a verbal command as a single action with the auditory and concentrate traits. If given no commands, minions use no actions except to defend themselves or to escape obvious harm. If left unattended for long enough, typically 1 minute, mindless minions usually don't act, animals follow their instincts, and sapient minions act how they please. A minion can't control other creatures.
I still interpret the minion trait as not applying much outside of an encounter.
If you ask a sapient minion to scout ahead in exploration mode it may or may not do what you want, just like any other NPC. If they end up in an encounter because they're discovered, then they'll take no actions except to defend themselves or escape obvious harm.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Just found a neat little interaction with Familiars that have Skilled Medicine and Manual Dexterity can use Treat Wounds if someone casts Healing Plaster (since it does not have a Bulk of 1 or more and counts as tools).
And it would still be a waste the moment a PC took Continual Recovery. Unless said PC was incapacitated, no one would risk 1 hour immunity from the familiar when they could be treated every ten minutes by the PC.
People claiming familiars are too weak or too powerful for a feat (or couple of feats) is one thing, but the idea that they could ever truly step on another PC's toes as written is downright laughable.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Just found a neat little interaction with Familiars that have Skilled Medicine and Manual Dexterity can use Treat Wounds if someone casts Healing Plaster (since it does not have a Bulk of 1 or more and counts as tools).And it would still be a waste the moment a PC took Continual Recovery. Unless said PC was incapacitated, no one would risk 1 hour immunity from the familiar when they could be treated every ten minutes by the PC.
Why would it be a waste if we're talking about a Wizard who probably doesn't have Medicine or Medicine feats in the first place?
Besides, if the main party healer is a Cleric who didn't dump all their feats into Medicine, a backup familiar healer isn't like a bad thing. And god forbid main healer with Continual Recovery goes down (because level + spellcasting mod to roll is almost always going to as good as Trained and 14 WIS).
Its supplementary, not a replacement for healing.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
As I've said, I run familiars and minions RAW during initiative encounters, same as I run movement and spacing during those precise moments of play. I view all those weird rules for encounters as necessary evil for the game to be fun and balanced. But to claim for those silly interactions to be the laws of physics and universe is kinda misleading to say the least. Nobody really really plays by strict RAW bc it would be unplayable and we all know it.
this whole argument is about where do we draw the line?
Abstraction works both ways, either to permit something or deny something. Just as it can be seen as absurd to allow Battle Medicine to work in-setting, it can be absurd to say people cannot move through a line of 80 feet full of people in combat, but can do so out of combat without problem. But that doesn't mean it's not RAW and shouldn't be a rule that gets enforced like you are suggesting. If people don't like it and want to change it, that's fine. But don't go around spouting that your change is RAW.
A lot of familiar freedom by not needing to roll checks or not follow specific restrictions being spouted as RAW is precisely how this topic came to be.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Is it really that wrong to use the rules of the game as physical limitations of the game's universe? Like how do we know that PF2 doesn't actually neatly divide up into discrete 6-second chunks and that creatures don't have auras that take up 5ft. of space around them?
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Yes.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Asserting that the game mechanics describe the actual physics of the universe is absurd. Like it should be possible to move 3 1/2 feet in a direction.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Asserting that the game mechanics describe the actual physics of the universe is absurd. Like it should be possible to move 3 1/2 feet in a direction.
As I said before, abstraction works both ways, whether it's a boon (makes a 2 second activity possible) or a bane (can't fit two creatures in the same square). It's called game mechanics for a reason. If we wanted true realism, we'd pitch the Core Rulebook into the firepit (which I am surprised many of you haven't done already for its lack of flexibility to suit your demands) and just play in Theatre Mode.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Asserting that the game mechanics describe the actual physics of the universe is absurd. Like it should be possible to move 3 1/2 feet in a direction.
It's a constructed universe, maybe it was just easier for the gods to build it that way. Just like it's easier for us to build a grid-based board to show tactical combat.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Asserting that the game mechanics describe the actual physics of the universe is absurd. Like it should be possible to move 3 1/2 feet in a direction.It's a constructed universe, maybe it was just easier for the gods to build it that way. Just like it's easier for us to build a grid-based board to show tactical combat.
It's all a VR game. It's why you have HP's and vancian Magic ;)
I actually GMed a Jumanji style campaign where PCs were nerds from year 2060 and just got a prototype of GM3000 a new VR machine(that became sentient and trapped players inside and tried to escape to the internet...bla, bla, save the world from skynet)
we had all those gamey tropes, together with question mark icons above heads of quest NPCs and merchants willing to buy every little thing you try to sell
It was a fun game, but we grew kinda tired of that style by the end of it
As I've said, I run familiars and minions RAW during initiative encounters, same as I run movement and spacing during those precise moments of play. I view all those weird rules for encounters as necessary evil for the game to be fun and balanced. But to claim for those silly interactions to be the laws of physics and universe is kinda misleading to say the least. Nobody really really plays by strict RAW bc it would be unplayable and we all know it.
this whole argument is about where do we draw the line?
Abstraction works both ways, either to permit something or deny something. Just as it can be seen as absurd to allow Battle Medicine to work in-setting, it can be absurd to say people cannot move through a line of 80 feet full of people in combat, but can do so out of combat without problem. But that doesn't mean it's not RAW and shouldn't be a rule that gets enforced like you are suggesting. If people don't like it and want to change it, that's fine. But don't go around spouting that your change is RAW.
A lot of familiar freedom by not needing to roll checks or not follow specific restrictions being spouted as RAW is precisely how this topic came to be.
I never claimed that my change is RAW, or that skill checks should be avoided, so please stop putting words in my mouth, it's annoying.
How do you play familiars in your game? what do I allow that is a hard no for you?
Asserting that the game mechanics describe the actual physics of the universe is absurd. Like it should be possible to move 3 1/2 feet in a direction.It's a constructed universe, maybe it was just easier for the gods to build it that way. Just like it's easier for us to build a grid-based board to show tactical combat.
If "people can only ever move in 5' increments" were actually a property of the physical universe Golarion exists in, people would most certainly notice that and it would crop up all over the setting, instead of "solely in combat".
Like you couldn't have an 8' long sofa.
Asserting that the game mechanics describe the actual physics of the universe is absurd. Like it should be possible to move 3 1/2 feet in a direction.It's a constructed universe, maybe it was just easier for the gods to build it that way. Just like it's easier for us to build a grid-based board to show tactical combat.If "people can only ever move in 5' increments" were actually a property of the physical universe Golarion exists in, people would most certainly notice that and it would crop up all over the setting, instead of "solely in combat".
Like you couldn't have an 8' long sofa.
Could you have an 8' long sofa that's 3' wide? Sure.
The problem is that if/when combat breaks out, that 8' long 3' wide sofa is now consolidated to a 5'x5' square or a 10'x5' square, depending on the GM, because the game assumes you are playing in a square grid that is quantified solely in increments of 5 feet, and those ancillary numbers are removed or simplified for ease of play.
It's also the reason why they have diagonal rules the way they are, and the High/Long Jump rules are wonky and don't work correctly in a square grid map. You can't move 3' and have it mean something mechanically.
As I have said, abstraction works on both sides of the spectrum. If you want realistic numbers to mean something, don't use a gameplay style that handwaves it out, like gridmaps. Theatre mode gameplay is a thing, maybe you should try it if you think gridmap gaming creates absurdities that are unacceptable to your immersion.
Asserting that the game mechanics describe the actual physics of the universe is absurd. Like it should be possible to move 3 1/2 feet in a direction.It's a constructed universe, maybe it was just easier for the gods to build it that way. Just like it's easier for us to build a grid-based board to show tactical combat.If "people can only ever move in 5' increments" were actually a property of the physical universe Golarion exists in, people would most certainly notice that and it would crop up all over the setting, instead of "solely in combat".
Like you couldn't have an 8' long sofa.
Just look at all the maps... Things suspiciously fit quite well into grids... It's almost like it's built that way!
And there is no issue with 8' sofas: it just means only 1 medium/small creatures can sit on it but that also means that a familiar/sprite could also sit on it too.
Asserting that the game mechanics describe the actual physics of the universe is absurd. Like it should be possible to move 3 1/2 feet in a direction.It's a constructed universe, maybe it was just easier for the gods to build it that way. Just like it's easier for us to build a grid-based board to show tactical combat.If "people can only ever move in 5' increments" were actually a property of the physical universe Golarion exists in, people would most certainly notice that and it would crop up all over the setting, instead of "solely in combat".
Like you couldn't have an 8' long sofa.
Just look at all the maps... Things suspiciously fit quite well into grids... It's almost like it's built that way!
And there is no issue with 8' sofas: it just means only 1 medium/small creatures can sit on it but that also means that a familiar/sprite could also sit on it too.
I generally disagree with things fitting quite well into grids, considering a lot of APs I've seen maps for have "half-squares" where PCs can't stand in them because, well, you can't stand in a half-square, or they throw in things that are partially drawn into a square, creating a similar situation.
Granted, I have seen less of that in PF2 APs, it's still been pretty problematic back in PF1, and I can still see parts of that in some PF2 AP design.
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Taking an entire day doing one thing (in this case scouting) would be something I would run as downtime mode. But scouting is generally something that I would run in exploration mode because it is part of adventuring.
I have run days and days of Exploration Mode at a time when I was running a hex crawl, so “an entire day,” doesn’t really mean a lot to me in this context.
In presenting the hexploration subsystem the GMG states “While you can represent long, heroic journeys using normal exploration, if you want something more detailed, you can use the hexploration subsystem instead.”
The Core Rulebook discusses daily overland movement in Travel Speed in the Exploration Mode section.
If you are summarizing one activity for an entire day, that would be downtime mode.
If you’re summarizing a non-adventurous activity for the day, that would be downtime mode. If the all-day activity is adventurous, that’s exploration mode.
|
|
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
But don't go around spouting that your change is RAW.
A lot of familiar freedom by not needing to roll checks or not follow specific restrictions being spouted as RAW is precisely how this topic came to be.
I figure there's a decent chance that this is talking about the sorts of comments I was making earlier in the thread, so I'll chime in once more to clarify that the content I was talking about can't be breaking RAW. What does the bandit do when they see the bat overhead? I really hope there's not a rule for that, it'd be hellish to remember every possible situation. I'm not sure what you mean about not follow specific restrictions, but in terms of not needing to roll checks - I don't think almost anyone suggested not rolling a check if they were trying to do something the check would require a check. If a familiar were to be hiding in the shadows trying to observe the camp, they should roll stealth (perhaps with different outcomes on being seen than if they were a humanoid creature), but what skill check do you make for the bat flying over the camp? They can't make a stealth check, they won't have cover or concealment, and they're not trying to hide. I guess one could argue for a Deception check, but that implies a level of familiarity with the body language of a bat that I don't think most would have. I'd be happy to run it as a Deception check vs the enemies' Nature DC, or a standard Deception check with a significant penalty to most people's Perception DC in this case? But the key point here is: there is no RAW on how creatures respond to seeing a familiar, so no-one can be breaking the RAW by suggesting their method of determining how a creature responds.
They can't make a stealth check, they won't have cover or concealment, and they're not trying to hide.
I disagree! They can totally be trying to not be noticed while doing their scouting, in a similar fashion to Avoid Notice, which last I checked does not require cover/concealment.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
They can't make a stealth check, they won't have cover or concealment, and they're not trying to hide.I disagree! They can totally be trying to not be noticed while doing their scouting, in a similar fashion to Avoid Notice, which last I checked does not require cover/concealment.
The states of detection prevents it.
Observed: "You’re in the creature’s clear view." I can't see how a creature in the sky wouldn't be in clear view unless there was some atmospheric activity like fog involved or it managed to stay in the sun somehow.
Being Stealthy: "Some actions can cause you to become observed again, but they’re mostly what you’d expect: standing out in the open, attacking someone, making a bunch of noise, and so forth." So even if you where unseen before, standing in the open [of flying in the open], makes you observed.
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
They can't make a stealth check, they won't have cover or concealment, and they're not trying to hide.I disagree! They can totally be trying to not be noticed while doing their scouting, in a similar fashion to Avoid Notice, which last I checked does not require cover/concealment.
I don't think many GMs would be happy with you saying "I know it's an entirely empty and featureless room with the guards in the middle of it, but I'm going to use Avoid Notice to gather information around them". I'd wager that most GMs would rule that there needs to be a plausible mechanism by which you're not being seen, I think.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
They can't make a stealth check, they won't have cover or concealment, and they're not trying to hide.I disagree! They can totally be trying to not be noticed while doing their scouting, in a similar fashion to Avoid Notice, which last I checked does not require cover/concealment.
Furthermore, the consequence to failing to Avoid Notice is being noticed. Which for a bat flying in the woods is to say, no consequence. I do try to avoid rolling dice where the results don't matter.
I don't think many GMs would be happy with you saying "I know it's an entirely empty and featureless room with the guards in the middle of it, but I'm going to use Avoid Notice to gather information around them". I'd wager that most GMs would rule that there needs to be a plausible mechanism by which you're not being seen, I think.They can't make a stealth check, they won't have cover or concealment, and they're not trying to hide.I disagree! They can totally be trying to not be noticed while doing their scouting, in a similar fashion to Avoid Notice, which last I checked does not require cover/concealment.
True, but that's not what we're talking about, are we? We're talking about a scouting animal trying to stay unobtrusive and blend into the background, despite the fact that they're prowling around an intelligent enemy camp. They're trying to avoid notice by blending into the background with the rest of the animals.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
True, but that's not what we're talking about, are we? We're talking about a scouting animal trying to stay unobtrusive and blend into the background, despite the fact that they're prowling around an intelligent enemy camp. They're trying to avoid notice by blending into the background with the rest of the animals.
But how is the lone bat flying over the camp as given in the example blending in with the rest of the animals?
But how is the lone bat flying over the camp as given in the example blending in with the rest of the animals?
True, but that's not what we're talking about, are we? We're talking about a scouting animal trying to stay unobtrusive and blend into the background, despite the fact that they're prowling around an intelligent enemy camp. They're trying to avoid notice by blending into the background with the rest of the animals.
Please suggest a skill that actually applies, then, that isn't just "nah, you autofail".
And don't even suggest Deception, because the whole point is that the animal is trying to avoid interaction with enemies.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Please give examples of other animals the lone bat per the example is blending into the background with.
Welcome to why DC adjustments exist.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
And yet still no example
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
An appropriate skill check, if required, is really going to depend on the situation and what, exactly, the familiar is attempting to do. This is why we have GMs.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I figure there's a decent chance that this is talking about the sorts of comments I was making earlier in the thread, so I'll chime in once more to clarify that the content I was talking about can't be breaking RAW. What does the bandit do when they see the bat overhead? I really hope there's not a rule for that, it'd be hellish to remember every possible situation. I'm not sure what you mean about not follow specific restrictions, but in terms of not needing to roll checks - I don't think almost anyone suggested not rolling a check if they were trying to do something the check would require a check. If a familiar were to be hiding in the shadows trying to observe the camp, they should roll stealth (perhaps with different outcomes on being seen than if they were a humanoid creature), but what skill check do you make for the bat flying over the camp? They can't make a stealth check, they won't have cover or concealment, and they're not trying to hide. I guess one could argue for a Deception check, but that implies a level of familiarity with the body language of a bat that I don't think most would have. I'd be happy to run it as a Deception check vs the enemies' Nature DC, or a standard Deception check with a significant penalty to most people's Perception DC in this case? But the key point here is: there is no RAW on how creatures respond to seeing a familiar, so no-one can be breaking the RAW by suggesting their method of determining how a creature responds.But don't go around spouting that your change is RAW.
A lot of familiar freedom by not needing to roll checks or not follow specific restrictions being spouted as RAW is precisely how this topic came to be.
Same thing a person not totally comfortable with bats might do: they might swat it away or shoo it off, with aims to kill if it continues its persistent bothering. It's not much different than a fly in the room; some people go straight for the flyswatter, or use other methods of disposal or removal of the creature.
The restrictions refer to downtime/exploration benefits that should not be conferred to a familiar, where they can be commanded to do an all-day activity with complete autonomy while disregarding the limitations of the minion trait. We can say that the rules could use clarification, but their plan of attack is not RAW. It's about as RAW as Free Archetype.
Several posters have literally said in the past that they were not required to roll checks for hiding or passing off as a mere animal against creatures that, if a PC were in the same shoes, would otherwise force checks to be made. Screw the familiar, what about a spellcaster with an Animal/Insect Form active? Should they not roll checks to pass off as a normal creature of that type? An intelligent, sentient being behaves and operates quite differently from one that doesn't know any better, and even if they aren't well-versed in common animal behaviors, they could still feel something is "off" with the creature, which might be all they need to investigate it. Just as well, it's not like creatures don't have statblocks or preferred behaviors that let us simulate these situations when they come up. Oh wait...
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
And don't even suggest Deception, because the whole point is that the animal is trying to avoid interaction with enemies.
I mean, pretending to be something you aren't (a normal animal and not an intelligent, magical familiar) seems precisely the kind of thing deception is designed for though.
Not interacting with the enemies is fine, it just means they don't get free perception checks to identify the familiar, which is obviously a good thing.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
So after reading through all of this, my conclusion is as follows:
Allowing scouting or other activities without making any skill checks at all is too powerful. Come up with some skill that would be applicable. For scouting, Stealth or Deception are the two that come to mind first for me. But pick something and roll it.
Allowing a familiar to be completely on its own full-time for things like long-term exploration or downtime activities is too powerful. The familiar does still need to be commanded. So for long-term tasks and downtime, the familiar and master have to work as a team.
Thinking that a familiar and any collection of abilities chosen for them is going to ever approach the power level of a PC that is even moderately built for a task is just silly. The math doesn't support it, and not getting skill feats seals the deal. The amount of character build investment needed to outclass a familiar is trivial. A familiar can be a backup option if no other player character has built for a task at all, but that is it.
Saying that a 2-ability familiar is too powerful when compared to other level 1 feats is also not justified. The option is configurable, but is generally less powerful than the actual feats that it could be configured to emulate. Manual Dexterity + Trained (Medicine) vs Ward Medic for example - Sure, both options let a character treat two patients, but the patient being treated by a familiar is going to have a much worse outcome than the second patient of a Ward Medic character.
And, of course, requiring commands every 6 seconds and causing anything that the player wants to do with their master and familiar characters to become an exhausting activity is too crippling. It relegates the familiar to nothing more than an item - which is unsatisfying to anyone who wants to actually have a familiar as part of their character.
Thinking that a familiar and any collection of abilities chosen for them is going to ever approach the power level of a PC that is even moderately built for a task is just silly. The math doesn't support it, and not getting skill feats seals the deal. The amount of character build investment needed to outclass a familiar is trivial. A familiar can be a backup option if no other player character has built for a task at all, but that is it.
Well there are things that just work or needs a body: for instance Scouting from a familiar and Scouting with a PC ends up with the same bonus. And in some cases, the familiar is superior: for instance, that 2 ability familiar can Aid with automatically successes and when a PC could get that the familiar upgrades to auto crits.
Saying that a 2-ability familiar is too powerful when compared to other level 1 feats is also not justified. The option is configurable, but is generally less powerful than the actual feats that it could be configured to emulate. Manual Dexterity + Trained (Medicine) vs Ward Medic for example - Sure, both options let a character treat two patients, but the patient being treated by a familiar is going to have a much worse outcome than the second patient of a Ward Medic character.
I don't agree with this: Accompanist and Threat Display give the of 2+ skill feats and the various Aid feats automatically give out +2 to +4 circumstance bonuses. Innate Surge can allow you to recast a 10th level spells and Familiar Focus gets you a focus point per day. Any of these are WAY better than a 1st level feat.
And, of course, requiring commands every 6 seconds and causing anything that the player wants to do with their master and familiar characters to become an exhausting activity is too crippling. It relegates the familiar to nothing more than an item - which is unsatisfying to anyone who wants to actually have a familiar as part of their character.
This doesn't make sense for me either. There isn't anything inherently wrong with a familiar as an item. If you made an item that did everything a familiar can do and priced it so any 1st level character could buy it, I think you'd find a LOT of PC's would be quite satisfied with it. IMO, people are unsatisfied that the PF2 familiar can't do things like in PF1: I think it'd be totally different if familiars showed up in PF2 first and they where evaluated on their own. And as far as "anyone who wants to actually have a familiar as part of their character", nothing stops that is someone wishes it: you can role play with your familiar all you want.
Fun fact though: familiars can't speak unless it's your turn as you can only speak if you can act and familiars can only act on your turn when you command it.
I don't agree with this: Accompanist and Threat Display give the of 2+ skill feats and the various Aid feats automatically give out +2 to +4 circumstance bonuses. Innate Surge can allow you to recast a 10th level spells and Familiar Focus gets you a focus point per day. Any of these are WAY better than a 1st level feat.
all 1st level feats have the potential to wreck havoc in the hands of well built 20th lvl characters in niche situations, what's your point? That it should stay gimped at 1st lvl bonuses?
Fun fact though: familiars can't speak unless it's your turn as you can only speak if you can act and familiars can only act on your turn when you command it.
Yup, that what it says RAW, along with "unlimited" range of command and some other silly interactions all over the game. We already established that most RP games are unplayable by strict RAW. Too many situations don't have rules elements, assuming that players will fill in the blanks to their liking(or just use "common sense" or "real world" experience)
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Well there are things that just work or needs a body: for instance Scouting from a familiar and Scouting with a PC ends up with the same bonus. And in some cases, the familiar is superior: for instance, that 2 ability familiar can Aid with automatically successes and when a PC could get that the familiar upgrades to auto crits.
Minions don't traditionally have reactions and thus can't usually aid anybody.
Saying that a 2-ability familiar is too powerful when compared to other level 1 feats is also not justified. The option is configurable, but is generally less powerful than the actual feats that it could be configured to emulate. Manual Dexterity + Trained (Medicine) vs Ward Medic for example - Sure, both options let a character treat two patients, but the patient being treated by a familiar is going to have a much worse outcome than the second patient of a Ward Medic character.I don't agree with this: Accompanist and Threat Display give the of 2+ skill feats and the various Aid feats automatically give out +2 to +4 circumstance bonuses. Innate Surge can allow you to recast a 10th level spells and Familiar Focus gets you a focus point per day. Any of these are WAY better than a 1st level feat.
No one disputes those abilities. They are explicitly allowed. If anything it gives more weight to the argument that allowing familiars to do things that the player cobbles together from various multiple ability interactions is allowed. Because the power level of a familiar should be that high.
And, of course, requiring commands every 6 seconds and causing anything that the player wants to do with their master and familiar characters to become an exhausting activity is too crippling. It relegates the familiar to nothing more than an item - which is unsatisfying to anyone who wants to actually have a familiar as part of their character.This doesn't make sense for me either. There isn't anything inherently wrong with a familiar as an item. If you made an item that did everything a familiar can do and priced it so any 1st level character could buy it, I think you'd find a LOT of PC's would be quite satisfied with it. IMO, people are unsatisfied that the PF2 familiar can't do things like in PF1: I think it'd be totally different if familiars showed up in PF2 first and they where evaluated on their own. And as far as "anyone who wants to actually have a familiar as part of their character", nothing stops that is someone wishes it: you can role play with your familiar all you want.
Actually, that is the state that I am in. I only ever played PF1 for two sessions. I played D&D 3.5 for quite a while, but never with a character with a familiar. So I am looking at familiars with fresh eyes.
Perhaps you are the one over reacting because of your history with PF1 familiars?
And while I see your argument, I don't think your response is actually addressing my argument. My point is that the familiar is unsatisfying if run with a restrictive interpretation. Even the role playing can get shut down. A familiar can't set up the tent, cook breakfast, deliver notes or spoken messages to other party members in a different room, or even carry on a conversation with you. Why? Because they can't use items, speak unless commanded, or remember what they are doing for more than 6 seconds. It portrays the familiar as a complete and total imbecile.
If you want a little role-play buddy that has no mechanical benefit, take a look at Bonded Animal.