| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
I don't know if I fully understand the Independent changes in the APG Errata:
Independent: In an encounter, if you don’t Command your familiar, it still gains 1 action each round. Typically, you still decide how it spends that action, but, the GM might determine that your familiar chooses its own tactics rather than performing your preferred action. This doesn’t work with valet or similar abilities that require a command, if you’re capable of riding your familiar, or similar situations.
So I think this means Independent cannot work if you are capable of riding your familiar — even if you’re not currently riding it. Is this intended?
It seems a bit harsh; I wonder if the intent is instead "while the familiar is being ridden."
I am just looking to fully understand this change before I crush some corgi hearts.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
*facepalm*
No, I would only have the restriction apply when the familiar is actively being ridden. Not permanently if the familiar is capable of being ridden.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
BORK BORK!! DOGGO INDEPENDENT! DOGGO NEED NOT HEED ORDERS OR CARRY SILLY FRIEND PERSON! BORK BORK!
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
No, I would only have the restriction apply when the familiar is actively being ridden. Not permanently if the familiar is capable of being ridden.
I don't get it, ridden or not... :P How is this different from Mature animal companions and their free action when not commanded.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
No, I would only have the restriction apply when the familiar is actively being ridden. Not permanently if the familiar is capable of being ridden.I don't get it, ridden or not... :P How is this different from Mature animal companions and their free action when not commanded.
Perhaps familiars are not intended to have the same cool abilities as animal companions?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Perhaps familiars are not intended to have the same cool abilities as animal companions?No, I would only have the restriction apply when the familiar is actively being ridden. Not permanently if the familiar is capable of being ridden.I don't get it, ridden or not... :P How is this different from Mature animal companions and their free action when not commanded.
I think it's less about cool and more about getting the extra action at 1st level: a nerf hammer for balance. I can understand why they'd want to limit it, it just feels off that they don't present a reason familiars are less able than animals when not commanded.
I think it's less about cool and more about getting the extra action at 1st level: a nerf hammer for balance. I can understand why they'd want to limit it, it just feels off that they don't present a reason familiars are less able than animals when not commanded.
Familiars seem intentionally vague in this edition, at least more so than previous editions (e.g. no listed intelligence score progression). I don't see why the developers should justify this particular item; the flavor is largely left up to the player.
Anyway we could probably go in circles second-guessing intent, but as a GM who runs games in PFS and intends to use this rule in home games, I would simply like clarity on how this particular errata is supposed to work.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
No, I would only have the restriction apply when the familiar is actively being ridden. Not permanently if the familiar is capable of being ridden.I don't get it, ridden or not... :P How is this different from Mature animal companions and their free action when not commanded.
Obviously we need to nerf rideable companion free actions too.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Familiars seem intentionally vague in this edition, at least more so than previous editions (e.g. no listed intelligence score progression). I don't see why the developers should justify this particular item; the flavor is largely left up to the player.
Yes they have no listed int score but again do we really want familiars LESS able than 'normal' animals? The game at large presents familiars as capable enough to teach classes in an official module but put a person on it's back and it doesn't know what to do when a creature with an animal intelligence can? It just doesn't make sense to me that something turns on and off depending solely depending on the fact that something is sitting on them: for myself, there are dots that aren't connected.
Anyway we could probably go in circles second-guessing intent
I don't think so... They where pretty clear what they intended.
as a GM who runs games in PFS and intends to use this rule in home games, I would simply like clarity on how this particular errata is supposed to work.
Corgi mounts MUST be commanded to do anything if mounted: seems pretty straight forward. Why that is isn't explained but that's separate from the how.
Familiars seem intentionally vague in this edition, at least more so than previous editions (e.g. no listed intelligence score progression). I don't see why the developers should justify this particular item; the flavor is largely left up to the player.
Yes they have no listed int score but again do we really want familiars LESS able than 'normal' animals? The game at large presents familiars as capable enough to teach classes in an official module but put a person on it's back and it doesn't know what to do when a creature with an animal intelligence can? It just doesn't make sense to me that something turns on and off depending solely depending on the fact that something is sitting on them: for myself, there are dots that aren't connected.
Anyway we could probably go in circles second-guessing intent
I don't think so... They where pretty clear what they intended.
as a GM who runs games in PFS and intends to use this rule in home games, I would simply like clarity on how this particular errata is supposed to work.
Corgi mounts MUST be commanded to do anything if mounted: seems pretty straight forward. Why that is isn't explained but that's separate from the how.
Gray— The ask here is for clarification on the wording on the errata.
A new thread might be more appropriate for a discussion on how players want to interpret designer intent and/or setting vs mechanics.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I don't know if I fully understand the Independent changes in the APG Errata:
Independent: In an encounter, if you don’t Command your familiar, it still gains 1 action each round. Typically, you still decide how it spends that action, but, the GM might determine that your familiar chooses its own tactics rather than performing your preferred action. This doesn’t work with valet or similar abilities that require a command, if you’re capable of riding your familiar, or similar situations.So I think this means Independent cannot work if you are capable of riding your familiar — even if you’re not currently riding it. Is this intended?
It seems a bit harsh; I wonder if the intent is instead "while the familiar is being ridden."
I am just looking to fully understand this change before I crush some corgi hearts.
I think it must be meant to apply when you are riding your familiar rather than applying constantly to any familiar that can be ridden.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Corgi mounts MUST be commanded to do anything if mounted: seems pretty straight forward. Why that is isn't explained but that's separate from the how.
The confusing part is that Corgi mount familiars - and only Corgi mount familiars - must be commanded in order to do anything even when they are not mounted. Because they 'are capable of being mounted'. Therefore the Independent ability doesn't apply to them.
Actually, an enemy spellcaster could cast Enlarge on your familiar, increasing it to size large, and then it could no longer use its Independent ability since you are now technically capable of mounting the familiar (assuming you are size medium).
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Corgi mounts MUST be commanded to do anything if mounted: seems pretty straight forward. Why that is isn't explained but that's separate from the how.The confusing part is that Corgi mount familiars - and only Corgi mount familiars - must be commanded in order to do anything even when they are not mounted. Because they 'are capable of being mounted'. Therefore the Independent ability doesn't apply to them.
Ah, ok then. I wasn't getting that distinction because as you pointed out, every familiar is technically capable of being a mount so I read it to be: I didn't know anyone was reading it that way instead of reading it as being incompatible while riding... Well, it seems clear that it's not meant to negate independent completely, which it would do read the first way, so I'm going with the one that doesn't do that.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I think it must be meant to apply when you are riding your familiar rather than applying constantly to any familiar that can be ridden.I don't know if I fully understand the Independent changes in the APG Errata:
Independent: In an encounter, if you don’t Command your familiar, it still gains 1 action each round. Typically, you still decide how it spends that action, but, the GM might determine that your familiar chooses its own tactics rather than performing your preferred action. This doesn’t work with valet or similar abilities that require a command, if you’re capable of riding your familiar, or similar situations.So I think this means Independent cannot work if you are capable of riding your familiar — even if you’re not currently riding it. Is this intended?
It seems a bit harsh; I wonder if the intent is instead "while the familiar is being ridden."
I am just looking to fully understand this change before I crush some corgi hearts.
Yes they have totally screwed up again in this errata. Technically this means that tiny Sprites cannot usefully put Independant on their Corgi familiar even if they didn't want to ride it, or even for non riding purposes.
| 7 people marked this as a favorite. |
Wish Paizo would focus a bit more on buffing things like Witch and a bit less on nerfing stuff that is barely a problem.
Like, I get that they got it earlier than other ancestries could, but they also get terrible reach and can't even melee attack adjacent creatures while mounted unless they use a reach weapon. I doubt they were really competing with stuff like Human's multitalented Ancestry feat at the upper end of optimisation...
It'd be nice if they'd release a 5th, or even 9th, level Ancestry feat for Sprites (and future familiar riding Ancestries) that reenabled independent while mounted, and maybe gave an additional familiar ability so you can offset being forced to take Scent.
Ah, ok then. I wasn't getting that distinction because as you pointed out, every familiar is technically capable of being a mount so I read it to be: I didn't know anyone was reading it that way instead of reading it as being incompatible while riding... Well, it seems clear that it's not meant to negate independent completely, which it would do read the first way, so I'm going with the one that doesn't do that.
Yeah. Normally for something like that I would invoke the ambiguous rules rule. Ruling that a Corgi Mount is never able to use Independent is clearly too bad to be true.
But it isn't ambiguous in the least amount. That is clearly what it says. So instead we have to resort to 'it's RAW, it's stupid, ignore it', and only restrict Independent for familiars when they are actually mounted.
Next related question: What about independent actions not related to being a mount, while mounted?
That is a confusing sentence. How about an example.
A corgi mount with independent and skilled(intimidate). Should it be allowed to use its independent action to demoralize even if it currently also has the sprite character mounted on it, but the sprite character didn't command it to do anything?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Next related question: What about independent actions not related to being a mount, while mounted?
That is a confusing sentence. How about an example.
A corgi mount with independent and skilled(intimidate). Should it be allowed to use its independent action to demoralize even if it currently also has the sprite character mounted on it, but the sprite character didn't command it to do anything?
"Should" is a funny word here. The "use X as a mount" rules are pretty punitive in general in some ways. Once we start getting into "should", we potentially get a lot of stuff unraveling.
For the moment... well, at least for the moment, having a corgi mount lets you turn a single action (command) into two move actions. That's still potentially useful.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
"Should" is a funny word here.
I can't think of a better one though. I'm trying to avoid getting responses pointing out that RAW doesn't let the familiar use Independent for anything. I'm already aware of that. I'm looking for RAI/balance information.
From reading the intent statement of the errata:
There's been some confusion over whether an independent familiar can use abilities that require a command, like valet, or whether the independent ability overrides the normal rules for mounted combat. To make clear that neither is the case...
it sounds to me like they only want to prevent the normal mount actions. Moving around, making attacks, things like that. Since familiars can't make attacks anyway, that doesn't apply. But familiars can do other things that animal companion or regular animal mounts can't. Should they still be allowed to do those things independently while mounted?
I'd say that capable of being used as a mount requires and thus applies only while the creature's mounted (at which point Mount mechanics kick in). Not that it'd be one's first interpretation, but it works given all the irrational implications of what happens when unmounted and PCs' tendencies to mount* most any creature of size they can. Are you capable of using a creature as a mount when unmounted? No.
This would also leave room for corgis to take those familiar abilities, then simply lose them while mounted, which addresses the main issue being addressed w/o touching on other corgi builds.**
* No, I'm not going "there" even if it's true at some tables. :-P
**If there are other corgi builds. The certainty of a Sprite PC riding a corgi seems rather high, at least high enough I'd not want to be such a Sprite.
You must use the Command an Animal action to get your mount to spend its actions. If you don’t, the animal wastes its actions.Technically, this has always been the case. If you're mounted on something it gets it's actions, it just wastes them if you didn't command it.
This is actually the case for Mature Animal Companions as well with their action if not commanded.
Where are you getting this? The Mounted Combat rules are describing a case when you're riding a regular animal, not an Animal Companion, or do you think because it mentions you needing to Command an Animal for each action your mount takes that you don't get the usual AC two actions? The general rule says you have to command your mount, but the more specific Mature Animal Companion feat says it gets an action even if you don't do that, so it overrides.
Note: the general rule for Animal Companions also requires you to command them for them to get actions, do you really think Mature Animal Companion doesn't override that limitation?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
This seems like another poorly thought out errata trying to solve a problem that doesn't exist.
The solution to Sprite/Corgi was always available. Mounted characters have -2 to reflex saves. Fireball and Scatter Scree handle that problem pretty well.
Familiars are already largely regarded as fancy pet rocks if you follow strict rocks. This new errata only cements that idea even further, because by raw suggestions you always rule against the player when something is ambiguous.
I'll still play a Sprite sometimes, the rest of their ancestries abilities are competitive. But ultimately now you are paying a huge price (lack of reach) for not much.