Are Familiars Animals? (Clarifying / Errata Request for Familiar Rule)

[Tunu40]

I've been in some discussions and there are claims that a default familiar is NOT an animal because it doesn't state it has the [Animal] trait like it does the [Minion] trait. Other claims that the only trait it has is the [Minion] trait.

Per the CRB (217): "Familiars are mystically bonded creatures tied to your magic. Most familiars were originally animals, though the ritual of becoming a familiar makes them something more. You can choose a Tiny animal you want as your familiar, such as a bat, cat, raven, or snake. Some familiars are different, usually described in the ability that granted you a familiar; for example, a druid’s leshy familiar is a Tiny plant instead of an animal, formed from a minor nature spirit."

Familiars have the minion trait, so during an encounter, they gain 2 actions in a round if you spend an action to command them. If your familiar dies, you can spend a week of downtime to replace it at no cost. You can have only one familiar at a time."

To me, it's very obvious that because there are two different types of accessible familiars in CRB: tiny animals (via the Familiar ability, the Gnome ability, and the Alchemist ability) and tiny plants (via the Druid's Leshy Familiar). The APG seems to confirm this via Kinspeech (must be an animal familiar) and Plant Form (familiar must have the Plant trait).

Lastly, in the Kineticist Playstest for Elemental Familiar:
"A small creature made of elemental matter springs forth from your inner gate. This elemental familiar appears to be a small creature made of an element you can channel, though it might have some unusual or distinguishing aspects. Like other
familiars, your elemental familiar can assist you in various tasks and on adventures. **The familiar has the elemental trait instead of the animal trait, as well as the trait of one element you can channel.**"

It seems obvious to me that a familiar has the [Minion] and another trait as appropriate to the source by which you gained it (Animal, Plant, or Elemental).

[breithauptclan]

The list of traits are not the full, complete, and entire description of what anything in the game is. It is a list of what game mechanics it qualifies for and interacts with.

The lore and description is left open to interpretation by the players.

So no, a familiar does not have the Animal trait, so couldn't be healed by Heal Animal because that requires the target to be an Animal creature (something that has the Animal trait).

But if it looks like a duck, waddles like a duck, and quacks like a duck, it is probably a duck and is definitely an animal.

If it looks like a duck, waddles like a duck, and talks like a sarcastic bugger that is tired of your crap, then it is probably a familiar and might be rightfully called an animal, but it doesn't have the Animal trait.

[Tunu40]

Thank you. So it's really up to GM/Player to decide what is fun for the table?

How would this interact then with Plant Form, for example, which requires the Plant trait for a familiar?

Plant Form: Your plant familiar can change shape as a single action, transforming into a Tiny plant of a type roughly similar to the familiar's nature. This otherwise uses the effects of tree shape. You must have a familiar with the plant trait, such as a leshy, to select this ability.

Does that mean that the GM/Player can apply traits as they wish?

[Squiggit]

breithauptclan wrote:

so couldn't be healed by Heal Animal because that requires the target to be an Animal creature (something that has the Animal trait).

So even though the rules specifically tell you that the default familiar is an animal, it's your contention that a spell that heals animals wouldn't work on it?

[Gortle]

The rules describe Familiars as animals. They also say that famliars are something more.
Nowhere do they take away the Animal Trait. All animals should have the that trait. The ones that don't have the trait aren't considered to be animals.
However most mundane animals aren't listed in the bestairy. But the ones that are there do have the animal trait.

Basically all familiars are animals unless you have taken something special. So yes heal animal will normally work.

[breithauptclan]

Gortle wrote:

Nowhere do they take away the Animal Trait. All animals should have the that trait.

Nowhere do they add the trait either.

You can certainly argue that RAI basic familiars should have the trait. But RAW they don't.

[Gortle]

breithauptclan wrote:

Gortle wrote:

Nowhere do they take away the Animal Trait. All animals should have the that trait.

Nowhere do they add the trait either.

You can certainly argue that RAI basic familiars should have the trait. But RAW they don't.

That is so backwards. These are natural language rules.

We actually do have some animals. All the ones that are defined as creatures in the game have the Animal Trait eg here is the Weasel
Yes we don't acutally have all potential familiar animals. RAW 99% of potential familiars don't exist as set creatures. They are only described by the familiar rule. Indeed the familiar rule overrides their description.

However Heal Animal doesn't require its target to have the Animal Trait. It just requires a lowercase animal. So familiars described as being a lowercase animal are fine. Note that the rules go the the hassle of uppercasing the Tiny next to animal in the familiar rules so we know they are being explicit.

The Animal Trait is there to help with more complex cases. So we also know an Irriseni Owlbear, and a Silverfish Swarm are still animals.

[SuperBidi]

Outside Alchemical and Leshy Familiars, I always consider Familiars to be Animals. I also hardly see how allowing Heal Animal on a Familiar would break the game. Quite the opposite actually, it's a nice way of combining 2 niche abilities, something I prefer to encourage as a GM.

[Trondster]

But animal familiars and companions do have the Animal trait. Well - if you have an updated rule book.

My own rule book PDF says:

CRB page 217, Familiars wrote:

You choose a Tiny animal as your familiar, such as a bat, cat, raven, or snake. Some familiars are different, usually described in the ability that granted you a familiar; for example, a druid’s leshy familiar is a Tiny plant instead of having the animal trait.

So - for example a Leshy familiar is a Plant and by implication have the Plant trait, while Tiny Animal familiars are animals and thus have the Animal trait.

This should have been more explicit in the rule book, but it is quite clear from the context that they are animals and have the animal trait (unless they're something else and have a different trait).

This also goes for animal companions:

3rd printing errata wrote:

Page 214, 217: Animal companions don't technically ever say they are animals, even though some later companions that aren't animals mention they have the "dragon trait instead of the animal trait" for instance. Therefore, change to say "Your animal companion has the animal and minion traits."

[Captain Morgan]

This is a question where my answer would depend on what you're trying to do with it.

Use heal animal? Sure, that's fine.

Use some weird spell interaction to turn your familiar into a combat platform? No, shut up.

Can my speak with animals feat let me talk to my familiar? Hmm. You're technically wringing extra power from your feat by saving yourself from needing to use a familiar ability on language. Is that a problem? I'd probably allow it but I would hesitate and wouldn't count on another GM allowing it. How much one can communicate with familiars is such a hot button issue already.

[Temperans]

I have learned that every single time people try to make familiars good based on how the rules read the devs clarify to use the worse interpretation.

Here I can see them saying that all familiars are always just minions and never get the animal/plant/item trait regardless of source.

If you want to make familiars actually useable you have to do it at your own table via house rules.

[breithauptclan]

Gortle wrote:

These are natural language rules.

...

Heal Animal doesn't require its target to have the Animal Trait. It just requires a lowercase animal.

Personally, I think this stance on the topic would be better if it was consistent.

If going with natural language, then a familiar being 'more than an animal' means that it doesn't qualify as a target of Heal Animal. A familiar would be more similar to a magical beast instead of an animal.

[Squiggit]

breithauptclan wrote:

A familiar would be more similar to a magical beast instead of an animal.

Do you have any rules source that says Familiars count as Beasts?

[Mathmuse]

Squiggit wrote:

breithauptclan wrote:

A familiar would be more similar to a magical beast instead of an animal.

Do you have any rules source that says Familiars count as Beasts?

Pathfinder 1st Edition has such a rule under Familiar:

PF1 Core Rulebook wrote:

A familiar is an animal chosen by a spellcaster to aid him in his study of magic. It retains the appearance, Hit Dice, base attack bonus, base save bonuses, skills, and feats of the normal animal it once was, but is now a magical beast for the purpose of effects that depend on its type. Only a normal, unmodified animal may become a familiar. An animal companion cannot also function as a familiar.

This rule did not carry over into Pathfinder 2nd Edition, but some PF2 players forget the rule was from elsewhere. The equivalent paragraph in the PF2 Core Rulebook has already been quoted:

PF2 Core Rulebook wrote:

Familiars are mystically bonded creatures tied to your magic. Most familiars were originally animals, though the ritual of becoming a familiar makes them something more. You can choose a Tiny animal you want as your familiar, such as a bat, cat, raven, or snake. Some familiars are different, usually described in the ability that granted you a familiar; for example, a druid’s leshy familiar is a Tiny plant instead of an animal, formed from a minor nature spirit.

[breithauptclan]

Squiggit wrote:

breithauptclan wrote:

A familiar would be more similar to a magical beast instead of an animal.

Do you have any rules source that says Familiars count as Beasts?

Do you have any rules source that says Familiars have the Animal trait?

Yes there is the rather strange note in the Leshy Familiar text that says that a Leshy familiar has the Leshy trait instead of the Animal trait - that it doesn't have. But that isn't really proof positive.

[breithauptclan]

Gortle wrote:

However Heal Animal doesn't require its target to have the Animal Trait. It just requires a lowercase animal.

Also, to be clear - the inconsistency that I am mentioning is that things like Investigator: Devise a Strategem reference traits in natural language without capitalizing the term.

Devise a Strategem wrote:

provided your Strike uses an agile or finesse melee weapon, an agile or finesse unarmed attack, a ranged weapon (which must be agile or finesse if it's a melee weapon with the thrown trait), or a sap.

So lack of capitalization in Heal Animal when referencing an 'animal' is still likely meaning a creature with the Animal trait.

[Gortle]

breithauptclan wrote:

So lack of capitalization in Heal Animal when referencing an 'animal' is still likely meaning a creature with the Animal trait.

I get what you are are saying. The PF2 rules are rubbish in terms of their consistency for labelling.

But you at least have to be consistent in your interpretation. Either you give all animals the animals trait and require all animals to have the animal trait based on lowercase usage. OR you require neither.

The half and half position is senseless.

[Ascalaphus]

Aren't traits always referred to in lowercase? We say "immune to fear", not "immune to Fear", "a death effect" and not "a Death effect", and so on.

Otherwise we'd get sentences like:

provided your Strike uses an Agile or Finesse melee weapon, an Agile or Finesse Unarmed Attack (or should that be "unarmed attack"?), a ranged weapon (which must be Agile or Finesse if it's a melee weapon with the Thrown trait), or a sap.

(Melee, ranged, and weapon don't seem to be traits at all; in this case I think "unarmed attack" is a standalone ability and not a trait per se, although of course it does have the unarmed and attack action.)

That does look rather busy if it's sentence after sentence like that.

[Mathmuse]

Ascalaphus wrote:

Aren't traits always referred to in lowercase? We say "immune to fear", not "immune to Fear", "a death effect" and not "a Death effect", and so on.

I agree with Ascalaphus's point.

The Heal Animal focus spell says, "Targets 1 willing living animal creature." That use of "animal" means a creature with the animal trait.

I think this is not inconsistency about the use of "animal" as both a trait and a natural word. I think it is a failure of future-proofing. Heal Animal is a focus spell in the PF1 Core Rulebook. When it was written, only Animal Order druids could gain that focus spell. Later the Advanced Players Guide added the Beastmaster archetype that could gain the focus spell via a 4th-level archetype feat. Both sources give the player an animal companion, so the expectation is that the canonical use of the spell would be healing the animal companion.

I view the word "animal" in animal companion to be part of a two-word phrase rather than a trait. Nevertheless, almost all Animal Companions are animals. The only exceptions are the uncommon Arboreal Sapling and uncommon Riding Drake from the Advanced Players Guide and the rare Ulgrem-Lurann from Monsters of Myth.

Advanced Players Guide, Animal Companions, Arboreal Sapling, page 144 wrote:

Your companion is a walking tree, a cousin of the great arboreal wardens and regents. An arboreal sapling has the plant trait instead of the animal trait, but it otherwise functions normally as an animal companion. They are typically only selected by animal order druids who are also members of the leaf order.

All three have that wording "has the ____ trait instead of the animal trait, but it otherwise functions normally as an animal companion." Thus, if some druid or beastmaster took one of those non-animal animal companions, I would let them cast Heal Animal on it to help it function normally as an animal companion.

By the way, the seven party members in my campaign have three animal companions. The druid with both Animal Order and Storm Order has a roc, the champion has a dromaeosaur (velociraptor) as her steed ally, and the rogue multiclassed to Mammoth Lord to gain a terror bird (jubjub bird). No familiars unless we count the leshy sorcerer whose backstory is that she started as a familiar to a Leaf Order druid. Thus, I would let the druid cast Heal Animal on her roc, the velociraptor, or the jubjub bird (whose creature type should be tane rather than animal or beast), but not on the leshy PC.

[breithauptclan]

Gortle wrote:

you give all animals the animals trait and require all animals to have the animal trait based on lowercase usage.

That one. At least for mundane animals.

But Familiars are even described as being 'more than an animal'.

Quote:

Most familiars were originally animals, though the ritual of becoming a familiar makes them something more.

And since they were printed without the Animal trait, then mechanically they do not qualify for things that refer to or target an animal either.

Though like I mentioned earlier, RAI they probably should. Or at least could. I guess it depends on what the familiar is described as. As far as I can tell there is no reason that a player couldn't be rather creative with their basic familiar and have something that is clearly not an animal.

[Ascalaphus]

breithauptclan wrote:

Gortle wrote:

you give all animals the animals trait and require all animals to have the animal trait based on lowercase usage.

That one. At least for mundane animals.

But Familiars are even described as being 'more than an animal'.

Quote:

Most familiars were originally animals, though the ritual of becoming a familiar makes them something more.

And since they were printed without the Animal trait, then mechanically they do not qualify for things that refer to or target an animal either.

Though like I mentioned earlier, RAI they probably should. Or at least could. I guess it depends on what the familiar is described as. As far as I can tell there is no reason that a player couldn't be rather creative with their basic familiar and have something that is clearly not an animal.

I think now you're being stubborn. The CRB (3rd printing) says:

CRB p. 217 wrote:

Familiars
Familiars are mystically bonded creatures tied to your
magic. Most familiars were originally animals, though the
ritual of becoming a familiar makes them something more.
You choose a Tiny animal as your familiar, such as a bat,
cat, raven, or snake. Some familiars are different, usually
described in the ability that granted you a familiar; for
example, a druid’s leshy familiar is a Tiny plant instead of
having the animal trait. A familiar has the same level you do.

The part where it says that plant familiars have the plant trait instead of the animal trait is in the very same paragraph as where it says "something more". And it never says "something else". You can have the animal trait and another trait (the minion trait, as it happens).

Based on Bestiary definitions of the Beast and Animal traits the developers could have chosen to make familiars Beasts, but they never wrote that anywhere. You're not wrong that that's something that they could have done, but they didn't.

Maybe because after PF1 they realized that they were going to make familiars that were never animal-like to begin with. I mean, the leshy familiar is right there already. What would be the point? Making them beasts doesn't do very much except break some niche combos (the druid heals the wizard's familiar, stop the presses!). And it wouldn't make sense for animated plants or rocks or dolls to turn into beasts.

[breithauptclan]

Ascalaphus wrote:

I think now you're being stubborn.

A bit, yes. Though it is with the best of intentions. When a ruling is questionable like this, I feel it is best to have all valid interpretations argued effectively. People reading these forums are often looking to find the pitfalls of a particular ruling as well as to plan the conversation with their own gaming group. It is useful to know before hand what to expect as debate points and reasoning.

I don't think it is game breaking to add the Animal trait to Familiars that are described as an animal (a small dog or something like that). I also don't think it is game breaking to not add the Animal trait to such Familiars.

[Wheldrake]

I suspect the real reason people ask whether most familiars are animals is because they are trying to allow their familiar to activate items like potions.

I always assumed that familiars, like companions, could not activate any magic items (except those very few with the companion trait). The more I look at it, the more I suspect the answer is more ambiguous than that. Especially for explicitly non-animal familiars. Unless there is a specific rule I'm missing about familiars (with manual dexterity) activating items (like potions) that lack specific activation requirements.

Obviously, they can't activate wands or scrolls, since they lack a spell list. Potions? Elixirs? It looks less clear-cut.

[Squiggit]

breithauptclan wrote:

When a ruling is questionable like this

It's not though. There are multiple explicit references to familiars being animals by default that have been mentioned, including language that was added during errata passes.

While your counterargument has involved invoking rules from different tabletops entirely (that familiars are beasts) and just insisting out of hand that the multiple references to animals all don't count for unspecified reasons.

There's wanting to fully explore an issue and then there's obfuscation, and this is definitely trending more toward the latter right now.

Wheldrake wrote:

I suspect the real reason people ask whether most familiars are animals is because they are trying to allow their familiar to activate items like potions.

Per developer commentary, familiars can't Activate items anyways.

[breithauptclan]

I'm not bringing in rules from other editions. I wasn't even aware that Familiars in PF1 were classified as such. Mathmuse pointed that out.

I was going off of the Beast Trait description and the fact that familiars can follow complex instructions and even speak if given various types of Familiar Abilities.

And the simple core of my stand is that the rules don't give basic familiars any trait other than Minion. Even though they are described as being based on an animal. They are also described as being more than an animal.

[Tunu40]

Squiggit wrote:

breithauptclan wrote:

When a ruling is questionable like this

It's not though. There are multiple explicit references to familiars being animals by default that have been mentioned, including language that was added during errata passes.

While your counterargument has involved invoking rules from different tabletops entirely (that familiars are beasts) and just insisting out of hand that the multiple references to animals all don't count for unspecified reasons.

There's wanting to fully explore an issue and then there's obfuscation, and this is definitely trending more toward the latter right now.

Wheldrake wrote:

I suspect the real reason people ask whether most familiars are animals is because they are trying to allow their familiar to activate items like potions.

Per developer commentary, familiars can't Activate items anyways.

Personally, I'm a little upset that you assumed I was trying to game the system. But completely understandable and honestly, the right suspicion to have!

It's actually a tangent to that argument. Yes, someone was trying to argue that familiars can activate items because they were essentially, "traitless". I was arguing that familiars have traits, but default to animal based off AoN. I also listed how many follow-up things indicate that they are. They, however, were of the position that because it does not have the sentence "It has the [Animal] trait" therefore it is not an animal and is exempt from the companion item rule.

I personally didn't know about the 3rd printing because AoN does not have that wording.

And lastly, I agree that familiars cannot activate items, but not because of the animal argument (Mark Seifter made a whole bunch of mistakes in that video interview). I believe they cannot activate items because the items do not have the [Companion] trait. My basis is due to the Companion Items rule and also confirmed via the Inventor's Construct Innovation feature Manual Dexterity. "As normal for a companion, it still can't wield weapons or held items that don't have the companion trait, and it can't activate items." So, that made the ruling on Companion Items and Activation even more clear. Just like another qualm I have with the video: the familiar could not have wielded the crossbow because 1) it was not a Tiny crossbow and 2) the crossbow didn't have the companion trait. So, I think Mark Seifter was right that they couldn't activate items, he was wrong on why they couldn't activate items. He was right that familiars cannot reload a crossbow wielded by YOU, but he was wrong that the familiar could reload a crossbow in general.

Since companion items = familiar + companion items; no companion trait = no activate item.

But still, I wanted to find evidence that familiars do have traits beyond [Minion], because certain APG familiar abilities technically do not work when they should.

Though again, this doesn't matter as the 3rd printing clearly states they do.

So, thank you everyone for resolving this!

Edit: So annoyingly, the Errata FAQ on Paizo's website actually doesn't have the listed change. It has it listed under Animal Companions, but not for Familiars despite making the addition to Familiars.

3rd Errata CRB: "Animal companions don't technically ever say they are animals, even though some later companions that aren't animals mention they have the "dragon trait instead of the animal trait" for instance. Therefore, change to say "Your animal companion has the animal and minion traits."

Secondly, the nimble animal companion had an error in converting from the playtest and should not have kept a higher proficiency with unarmored defense, which put it roughly 4 AC above other animal companions and in some cases higher than a PC can have. This is a carryover from when proficiency only gave +1 and the savage companion used to have higher proficiency in unarmed attacks while the nimble companion had higher in unarmored defense. Change it so it raises just Acrobatics to expert, putting it back in parallel with savage raising Athletics. This also adjusts Ambusher, Daredevil, and all similar specializations in other books that raise unarmored proficiency: in all those specializations, remove the part where it raises unarmored proficiency to master if the companion was nimble."

Edit 2: Again, thank you everyone for the insightful discussion, presenting both sides of the arguments as thoroughly as you can. I was thinking that familiars not being able to activate items not as a problem, but an opportunity for Paizo to add a balanced option for players to do this. Personally, I think they could simply add a new familiar ability that temporarily adds the companion trait to a few items. This way, players would be able to use their familiar for delivering some items, but it would be highly controlled to maintain the limited active combat utility feature of your familiar.