The familiar rules are notoriously... incomplete in some ways.
There's been an increased discussion of how to play a Witch with a familiar in danger of melee Strikes due to the restrictions on the patron hex abilities.
To help Witch players and minimize headaches, I'd like to get some searchable discussion out there on what's RaW, what's not, and especially what is technically against the rules but most likely to be GM approved.
While the list of rules questions is longer than I'd like, I am trying to keep this limited to what will definitely need to be resolved at a table for a player to use the remastered Witch. To pick a specific Witch as a baseline that raises questions, I'll point to the Starless Shadow patron and their Familiar of Stalking Night:
Familiar of Stalking Night
Your familiar is dark of fur or feather, and light seems to disappear into it. When you Cast or Sustain a hex, and your familiar is adjacent to an enemy to which it's concealed, hidden, or undetected, the enemy becomes frightened 1.
Keeping a familiar directly adjacent to a foe is quite the ask, and that's not the only condition. The utility and reliability of such an ability varies greatly based awareness of a few oft-ignored rules, as well as a few unclear/missing combinations of rules.
Starting with what I think is quite RaW and helpful to Witches, are the cover rules. RaW out the gate, it seems that any Tiny familiar sharing a square with a Medium creature has the standard +2 cover, enabling them to Hide from opposing foes with no other requirement, and the option to Take Cover to upgrade that circumstance bonus into a +4.
I did not expect this, but it looks like the Remaster managed to delete any instruction on how to define a familiar's AC. Oof. I'll be using the prior rule that its "save modifiers and AC are equal to yours before applying circumstance or status bonuses or penalties."
What this means for a hopeful Witch player, is that a familiar sharing space with any Medium ally should have +2 *more* AC at baseline than the Witch, and with the option to spend an Action to Take cover for an additional +2. Note that RaW this is somewhat directional, dependent upon the Medium ally being in the way. If the ally is flanked/surrounded, some foes will not be hampered by the cover. Honestly, putting the Tiny token in a specific corner of choice could be a fine way to resolve that, leaving the 3 closest squares to have an angle that ignores the cover, while the other 5 would be hindered.
The Take Cover action also does not end when performing hostile effects, making it notably compatible with hexing familiars:
You press yourself against a wall or duck behind an obstacle to take better advantage of cover. If you would have standard cover, you instead gain greater cover, which provides a +4 circumstance bonus to AC; to Reflex saves against area effects; and to Stealth checks to Hide, Sneak, or otherwise avoid detection. Otherwise, you gain the benefits of standard cover (a +2 circumstance bonus instead). This lasts until you move from your current space, use an attack action, become unconscious, or end this effect as a free action.
Completely RaW, a Familiar of SN is able to Take Cover once, then spend any future actions Hiding under the skirt of any Medium friend while spreading the frightened condition, needing a Seek to be targeted, and then having a +4 to AC after that. With only the ability Independent, the FoSN already seems "doable."
---------------------------------
The first RaW problem or question is an old one for familiars. Familiars riding atop PCs. And if a familiar is allowed to ride atop a backpack without any complication/actions, would the Medium friend's movement break the condition of Take Cover? How does that carried movement affect a familiar's Hide?
The Concealed condition should also be mentioned here. While from a descriptive standpoint, it seems that it may apply, but I don't know of any specific guidance on what the threshold is for an "obscuring feature" to provide concealment, in addition or perhaps instead of cover.
You are difficult for one or more creatures to see due to thick fog or some other obscuring feature. You can be concealed to some creatures but not others. While concealed, you can still be observed, but you're tougher to target. A creature that you're concealed from must succeed at a DC 5 flat check when targeting you with an attack, spell, or other effect. If the check fails, you aren't affected. Area effects aren't subject to this flat check.
I could see a GM creating a house-ruled "Conceal" Action that is either a simple action tax or done by the familiar making one DC based Stealth check, instead of repeatedly needing to resolve Hide attempts VS every foe's perception (and perhaps repeating the rolls every turn).
One roll to see if the familiar is Concealed to all could keep the GM sane (and would leave Hide as an option if a dire situation calls for it). Though VTTs and macros could also make all the Hide rolling a non-issue.GM ruling questions:
* can a familiar Take Cover under/behind a Medium ally?
* can a familiar ride atop a backpack/ect? How does that affect Take Cover?
* does/can a PC's long robe, ect, provide concealment?
------------------------------
------------------------------
The next set of questions are based around the patron familiar hex abilites and what exactly they are. They are defined as familiar abilities, and not master abilities, so using the baseline assumption that these are things the familiar is doing, and not the Witch, seems appropriate. While it seems safe to say the familiar is "required" for the abilities to function, one in particular really puts the Witch as the active agent. FoFR explictly says "you can cause ice to form [...] [around] your familiar's space."
While some things, like a KOed familiar stopping all of the abilities (even for the FoFR), is enough enough to determine, other means of hindering/disabling the familiar are far less clear.
How should the familiar's little hex be classified for the sake of resolving action rules and disabling conditions? Is it appropriate to inject a house-rule label them as Free Actions? Reactions? Do all familiar hex abilities get the same classification, or are there splits between some of the more "active" ones such as Resentment's "your familiar can curse a creature..." versus rather passive abilities like FoSN's "enemy becomes frightened 1" without any written action by the familiar?
Some conditions, like:
You're frozen in place. You have the off-guard condition and can't act except to Recall Knowledge and use actions that require only your mind (as determined by the GM). Your senses still function, but only in the areas you can perceive without moving, so you can't Seek.
Paralyzed stop any bodily motion that a spellcaster would need to gesture, but does not block actions that are mental-only. Would a paralyzed FoSN still make creatures frightened?
And while a paralyzed familiar may seem rather niche, the familiar ability Absorb Familiar is why that particular question will / is causing headaches at tables.
Your familiar can transform into a mark you carry on your flesh, typically seeming like a birthmark, tattoo, or gem that vaguely resembles its normal form. When transformed, the familiar can't act except to turn back into a familiar. It isn't affected by area effects and must be targeted separately to affect it, which requires knowledge that it's a creature. This means you and your allies can heal or assist the familiar while most enemies stay unaware of its true nature. Creatures must attempt a DC 20 Perception check to Seek to realize a it is actually a familiar. Your familiar can still communicate its feelings empathically. Transforming the familiar between forms is a 1-minute activity that has the concentrate trait.
This ability's restriction lacks the mental ability permission of Paralyzed, yet does mention the empathic link is intact.
Based on Stunned, Unconscious, Petrified, and other conditions, it is matching the "can't act" language that disables creatures, and I think RaW it is pretty safe to say that absorbed familiars can't perform the magic needed to use their patron hex abilities. Otherwise, things get messy with Stunned familiars being able to hex foes.
However, the fact that the familiar is conscious enough to communicate empathically, and the undefined pseduo-action nature of the hex abilities has already resulted in arguments claiming the RaW says the opposite.
While I would be happy for any table with a GM to allow for a fun houserule or modification to enable a partially-absorbed familiar to use it's patron hex ability, I think that it's important to determine what the RaW is first before making changes to it, and especially before possibly repeating RaW claims online.
As the main goal of this thread is to provide help to Witches, I do want to add advice where I can, so I'll emphasize a helpful, missable rule on those hex abilities.
The benefit can occur only once per round when you Cast or Sustain a hex, and you can choose whether it occurs before or after the effects of Casting or Sustaining the hex.
This is especially notable for any Witch with a FoSN, as you will want to do both. If the FoSN has no cover/concealment, you can use your hex cantrip first to (attempt to) conceal the FoSN and allow the ability to function. Other times you will want to Frighten the foe first to reduce it's ability to save against your subsequent spell.
GM ruling questions:
* should the familiar hex ability be classified as a familiar-used Reaction? Free Action? Left undefined?
* is the familiar's hex ability disabled by "can't act" conditions? Some of the conditions? Is that for all the familiars?
------------------------------
------------------------------
Other misc questions that don't need so much dang text. Many are easy answers, but ought be findable online:
RaW, companions (familiars + animal companions) cannot Activate any item, even with Manual Dexterity. I'm putting this here because while that's repeated all over, the actual rule is not often linked, and is in the Companion Items section:
[... companions can wear/use items with the companion trait] Other items can qualify at the GM's discretion, but a companion can never Activate an Item.
That includes potions and elixirs. That said:
* do you allow familiars to Activate items that seem "logically appropriate" (feeding comestibles like elixirs) ?
* do you allow familiars to benefit **from** consumables, like elixirs, used upon them?
* do sudden changes to the Witch's item bonuses boost the familiar? (thanks mutagens for making this a significant question. Drakeheart's +5AC in particular.)
* do you allow for familiars to "hide in the bag" and not participate in combat when desired?
* do you allow for mixing "hide in the bag" play with combat relevant effects, such as the patron hex abilities?
* do you allow Small PCs to offer the Tiny familiar cover same as a Medium, or must that size difference be there?
* can a familiar use foes for cover? Is a KOed Medium foe standard cover, or must they be upright and standing? What about a KOed Large foe?
* What other house-rules have you found to be helpful / headache reducing in the context of combat familiars and Witches?
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I haven't gotten through the entire post yet, but thought I should mention this one right off:
I did not expect this, but it looks like the Remaster managed to delete any instruction on how to define a familiar's AC. Oof. I'll be using the prior rule that its "save modifiers and AC are equal to yours before applying circumstance or status bonuses or penalties."
Familiar, as far as rules go, is an extension of Pet and the Pet rules do include things like how to calculate AC and skill bonuses.
The only one that I am aware of that it lost is the familiar's ability to use the trained-only actions of skills that the familiar has training-equivalent in (when it adds the master's spellcasting attribute to the skill bonus). Remaster, familiars can only ever use the untrained actions of skills.
GM ruling questions:
* can a familiar Take Cover under/behind a Medium ally?
* can a familiar ride atop a backpack/ect? How does that affect Take Cover?
* does/can a PC's long robe, ect, provide concealment?
1) I would allow a familiar to Take Cover under/behind a Medium size ally including their master.
2) A familiar can ride on an ally. It might affect the ability to take cover depending on if the GM is wanting to know distinct positioning of the familiar or not. It would not affect actions gained by the character that the familiar is riding on - the rules for riding sentient creatures (first listed in the Sprite ancestry) specify that the rule about only gaining two actions is specifically for non-minion intelligent creatures.
3) I don't think that being behind/under another creature causes concealment unless I am just not noticing it somewhere in the rules. It is a viable houserule though even if it is not RAW.
[Familiar AC is defined inside the Pet Feat now]
Ugh, that's frustrating. The Familiar rules have a section:
For Perception, Acrobatics, and Stealth, you can have your familiar use your spellcasting attribute modifier + your level instead of 3 + your level if it’s higher.
So it's still labeled as if the AC should be there, but is simply missing.
And yup, you're quite right, the Familiar Rules in the Remaster have "You gain the Pet general feat, except..."
Personally I only forbid familiars from both activating the item and benefiting from it. So they can't drink a potion themselves or activate a wand to cast a spell at an enemy.
As long as an ally is involved in the process, then I allow it. So a familiar with the appropriate familiar abilities can feed a potion to an ally. And an ally can feed a potion to the familiar.
That is probably not strictly RAW.
By RAW it would. Only circumstance and status bonuses are not transferred to the familiar. Drakeheart Mutagen and Runic Armor would both transfer. It may be hard to remember to do.
PFS allows this. For good reason. I don't see any good reason to not allow it as well.
I would require the player to choose which the familiar is - in the battle or not - and stick with it for the most part. Climbing in or out of a Pet Cache has an action cost, and if the player wanted to switch their familiar in or out of combat, I would probably base my ruling on that.
For passive benefits to the master, probably. Things like Familiar Focus, or Cantrip Connection, or even Valet.
For things that require precise positioning of the familiar on the battlefield, probably not. Things like Spellcaster and all of the Witch familiar special abilities. For those the familiar needs to be on the battlemat and available as a target.
According to the Cover rules they could. It would only be lesser cover though instead of standard cover that you get from a creature 2 size categories larger.
Again, the Cover rules don't make any mention of needing ally status of the creature you are using for cover. Not for PCs and not for familiars.
I don't think that there are rules saying that you can use an unconscious or dead character for cover. There are rules saying that you can share the space of an unconscious enemy, though the body is considered difficult terrain. So with the rules treating these two scenarios as different, I would not allow the soft cover rules to work with unconscious/dead creatures without a rule specifically for that scenario.
Rubber-banding. If the battle shifts location (a running battle), then the familiar will automatically follow the master if the master gets too far away. That distance being set by the GM and may be adjusted depending on how close the enemies are getting to the familiar.
Concurrent movement. If the familiar and master are sharing a location, even if not described as the familiar riding on the master, then when the master moves, the player can choose to have the familiar move along with them for no action cost.
For your house-rules, are those simply granted freely, or do you create costs/requirements to allow those options?
Such as needing a "familiar ability: Chaser" to allow for the free movement? Or perhaps tax the PC with the bulk 1 of a Familiar Satchel in order to have a ride-able / hide-able perch?
While it is unsaid, I presume that Manual Dexterity is a requirement for item use.
---------------------
I don't think that there are rules saying that you can use an unconscious or dead character for cover.
Ha, well, the reverse is also true. Nowhere in the cover rules is it stated that a creature need be conscious / standing to provide cover for those 2 sizes smaller. Though, there may certainly be an RaI argument for that extra restriction.
----------------------
Alch mutagens being item bonuses is typically a problem/quirk that limits their efficacy, and it's not hard to see that some GM's would consider temp buffing the Witch's item bonus as a disallowed loophole exploit to get around how strict the system is about familiars/companions benefiting from items.
Allowing a familiar to stack a Drakeheart's 3 or 4 extra item bonus to AC with Take Cover's +4 Circumstance is... quite potent, lol.
If not enough to break it, that one combo is at least enough to seriously fracture the game balance. I'm pretty sure my usual GM would not allow it.
Item bonuses are almost always static or very long lasting magics. Allowing a +1 from Runic Armor is quite different from boosting a familiar's AC so high. In part that number is due to familiars lacking a Dexterity cap to AC. The mutagen is **supposed** to be a tradeoff to allow one to be 1/2 at most higher than normal dex capped armor, as it boosts item bonus while lowering dex cap.
Uh-oh, checking again, there may be a rule conflict here.
Modifiers and AC Your pet’s save modifiers and AC are equal to yours before applying circumstance or status bonuses or penalties. It uses 3 + your level as its modifier for Perception, Acrobatics, and Stealth, and just your level as its modifier for other skill checks. It doesn’t have or use its own attribute modifiers and can never benefit from item bonuses.
Not sure how to resolve that with how its AC is defined. "**benefit** from item bonuses" really seems like it may be intended to exclude master-sourced item bonus, perhaps armor and their potency runes. Rather contradictory.
Armor aside, I certainly think that RaW the mutagen is out. Though house-rules are house-rules.
I don't think that there are rules saying that you can use an unconscious or dead character for cover.Ha, well, the reverse is also true. Nowhere in the cover rules is it stated that a creature need be conscious / standing to provide cover for those 2 sizes smaller. Though, there may certainly be an RaI argument for that extra restriction.
Actually, I absolutely agree with that.
My ruling is that you couldn't use the unconscious/dead creature for cover. But trying to prove my ruling as unambiguous RAW runs into Argument from Ignorance fallacy.
I use the fact that unconcsious/dead creatures have different rules for moving through and stopping in the creature's location than a living, active creature does as justification for my ruling (it seems to be RAI that unconscious/dead creatures are treated differently). But that is far from being proof of strict RAW.
Allowing a familiar to stack a Drakeheart's 3 or 4 extra item bonus to AC with Take Cover's +4 Circumstance is... quite potent, lol.
Literally not any more than the master PC can get by doing the same tactics.
The Witch is also drinking the Drakeheart Mutagen - which the familiar then gets the exact same AC value. And then the Witch can also use Take Cover.
They may have to find something larger and more sturdy than an ally to take cover behind, but the numbers can be the same.
And the Witch likely has more HP than the familiar does.
As far as the dex cap goes, the Drakeheart Mutagen is still limited by the dex cap of the Witch drinking the mutagen. And by the non-stacking of any other AC item bonus the Witch may already have. The familiar doesn't get a +3 or +4 to whatever value their AC was at previously. They get the same final AC value that the Witch gets after they drink the mutagen.
Uh-oh, checking again, there may be a rule conflict here.
... It doesn’t have or use its own attribute modifiers and can never benefit from item bonuses.
With the Spellcasting ability, I could cast Rank 1 Mystic Armor.
But it wouldn't do me any good because I can't benefit from item bonuses.
That doesn't prevent Eoran from casting Mystic Armor and raising my AC as a byproduct.
Similarly, even with the ruling that I can feed Farien elixirs, feeding him a Drakeheart Mutagen would not raise his AC. Though it would allow him to use the Final Surge action.
Using examples to point to is always helpful, thanks.
Ugh, I get the norm of setting the familiar's AC & saves equal to the Witch's and calling it a day, but no matter how many times I read that rule blurb I can't twist past "can never benefit from item bonuses."
The Witch adding a Resilient rune, casting Mystic Armor, even wearing heavy plate, is clearly an item bonus that benefits the familiar. Being indirect does not nullify that benefit.
I'd sure like to cleanup/rewrite that rule blurb.
It would suck to be a nooby juggling at least 3 different pages (Witch, Familiar, Pet) and trying to parse/estimate the capabilities of the Class' familiar.
4 'hide in the bag' is not really a thing, unless they're in an extradimensional space like with Pet Cache.
Familiar Satchel. Though that also leads to the question of how an attended item like a Familiar Satchel ever takes enough AoE damage to break.
7 Oh, I wish there were rules for dead bodies. In previous editions they were difficult terrain at least, and sometimes a real obstacle.
There is the rules for Prone and Incapacitated Creatures, but they aren't as complete as I would like either.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
4 'hide in the bag' is not really a thing, unless they're in an extradimensional space like with Pet Cache.Familiar Satchel. Though that also leads to the question of how an attended item like a Familiar Satchel ever takes enough AoE damage to break..
I can answer that. They don't. Unless you drop the bag your familiar will be forever safe. Of course, it also won't have line of effect to use its own abilities, making this a poor choice for witches.
[...]
The game does a pretty good job of separating Interact Actions from Activate. All your worries about opening doors, ect, would be Interacts.
And to be clear, the game has an explicitly written rule saying "a companion can never Activate an Item." It's not just outside the game word of dev.
Especially as an Alchemist player who has scrounged the entire Lvl<10 item list, I have to personally agree with that rule.
Familiars can already help immensely with items via Valet and other Interacts (post Remaster they can throw items into PC hands) but allowing them to actually Activate things would be handing players a bat and asking them to please not break the pinata.
Minions pour Haste potions down throats for 0 actions, strangely dexterous cats "throwing fireballs" via Necklace of Fireballs / Frozen Lava, ect.
Letting familiars Activate is far too much in a system that was balanced around 3 PC actions.
Especially with Witch's Cauldron, even blanket "drinkables like potions are okay" leads to the 0 Action Haste from L8 and onward. Better than a free spell cast.
------------------
Also super surprised at the "might even work when they're dead" answer, did not expect that. The patron hex abilities are familiar abilities, not master abilities.
------------------
I also find that most tables/GMs are eager to hand-wave and otherwise do what they can to not need to put the familiar token on the map.
I've got 2 (initially) identical Chiurgeons (one campaign looked dead at start, revived after started the 2nd) with a modified familiar feat to represent the familiar as a mutant face/tongue just to simplify things. It's a down-grade from a real familiar, but considering the slowdown caused by an animal companion, Kin's Tree, ect, I'm happy with the trade.
Not to mention how many players/GMs think of attacking a familiar as unacceptable and verboten. When the Remaster hit, there was quite a bit of outcry/arguing about "I don't see why a cat using Ongoing Misery's hex would cause a creature to attack it!" from players that now had to face the notion of a combat-active familiar being in danger.
Two new questions.
The Patron's Puppet hex has a trigger of: Your turn begins. As a GM, do you enforce that trigger in conjunction with the minion rules that have it's 2 Actions occur just after the Command?
In other words, RaW, if Patron's Puppet is used, the familiar **must** spend both actions before the Witch is able to act.
This is incredibly stifling for the usability of Patron's Puppet, as there are many, many scenarios in which the Witch needs to perform some amount of setup first, especially with the strict conditionals on many of the patron hex familiar abilities.
Meanwhile, Phase Familiar is a Reaction hex. Meaning that if the other conditions are still met, you can trigger the familiar's hex ability outside of the Witch's turn.
That opens an entirely new set of possibilities, to the point that having an ally include a familiar in a damaging AoE may often be desired for the hex ability, such as no-save Frightened 1.
____________________________________
As a GM, do you let familiar-related Feats of the Witch qualify for the Feat lockout requirement of Familiar Master? Most notably, the FM dedication lacks Witch's Incredible Familiar entirely, but it seems that other familiar-enhancing Feats ought to "thematically" qualify.
For a Witch that comes with a familiar, the FM Dedication is a bit problematic in that RaW, the Witch is forced to take 2 of the Conduit Mascot, Improved, and Mutable options. Three of these are exclusive to FM, but it is likely that only 1 is desired.
Basically, the FM Dedication is significantly worse for a Witch than it is for the other classes that use a Feat to acquire a familiar.
Especially in games without Free Archetype, it would be extra painful to be forced to use a Class Feat on a Feat that you don't want, even when you are investing Feats into the familiar.
The Patron's Puppet hex has a trigger of: Your turn begins. As a GM, do you enforce that trigger in conjunction with the minion rules that have it's 2 Actions occur just after the Command?
In other words, RaW, if Patron's Puppet is used, the familiar **must** spend both actions before the Witch is able to act.
That is the only way that I have found to interpret that and still be able to call it RAW.
As a GM, do you let familiar-related Feats of the Witch qualify for the Feat lockout requirement of Familiar Master? Most notably, the FM dedication lacks Witch's Incredible Familiar entirely, but it seems that other familiar-enhancing Feats ought to "thematically" qualify.
No. The feats may be identical in their rules text, but they may have different levels. And they are not the same feat when one is coming from an archetype and the other is coming from a class feat list.
Basically, the FM Dedication is significantly worse for a Witch than it is for the other classes that use a Feat to acquire a familiar.
Doubling down isn't always the best idea. See also Monk with Martial Artist Archetype, or Gunslinger with Pistol Phenom or Unexpected Sharpshooter Archetypes.
Doesn't FM get Incredible Familiar, just at level 10 instead of level 8?
I think that's just normal archetype behaviour, granting a class feat with 2 level delay.
Welp, you are correct, good callout.
It looks like there is some jank around this, most of the time Feats like Enhanced Familiar have 1 unified Feat page with the *(at a diff level) disclaimer if there's an archetype delay.
For whatever reason, Incredible Familiar (Familiar Master) is it's own isolated Feat on a unique page, and the FM Dedication on AoN does not list that Feat on the Dedication page.
That's what I get for not fully dissecting AoN before making a statement.
- - - -
If a Witch does want the full +4, then they can take FM for the +2, Conduit for the meta-magic at L4, then wait until L10 for the +4 if they don't want the other Feats.
If a Witch delays taking the FM Dedication until later, that Feat does give them another option for escaping the lockout RaW.
IMO it's still a significant speedbump many tables will want to houserule, especially in FA games.
- - - -
I think pf2e could benefit from a general rule that allows matching Feats to satisfy lockout requirements.
Worst case for Improved is picking up something "cheap" and having a net positive of abilities due to the discount.
The whole idea was to avoid spending the junk Feat on Improved, hence presenting the option to delay the Archetype. In a F Arch game, if I was committed to FM, I'd likely take it at L8, getting Dedication + Conduit in both slots then, and unlock out at L10 with Incredible.
Yes, it would suck to leave the familiar unimproved until then purely for mechanical reasons. (and suck to delay the genuinely good L8 / 10 Feats). But, that plan would allow for a Dedication + Feats at 2, 4, 6 to break the lockout of a prior Archetype.
- - - -
The Improved Familiar Feat, and specific familiars in general, have real issues.
Much of the appeal of the familiars is the "pick each day" flexibility, yet specific familiars are permanently locked into that one choice and the list of specific abilities.
The notion that you can instead get a Feat to +2 to the familiar's abilities rather than a -2 discount is... kinda silly. It puts a clear order to preferring the +2 first, then maybe considering the -2 discount if you want a specific familiar *and* those extra abilities.
- - - -
For any future player reading the rules on specific familiars, it's worded in a way that looks worse than it is. You are not banking and spending the required # of abilities to grab each from the list of granted abilities.
Instead, think of it like spend --> receive.
You spend the # of required ability slots, and the familiar that pops out has that set of familiar abilities, plus unique stuff below. If that spend leaves you with abilities remaining, then you may use the leftovers as normal.
Meaning that Improved Familiar is always +2 abilities (if the familiar cost 2 or more), but only if you use a specific familiar.
- - - -
I do wish there were Common versions of the genuinely good (and thematically flexible) options like the Rare Spirit Guide. No way my GM would allow that pick as written, and it's honestly just frustrating / silly that clearly superior options are thrown behind a rarity tag and left blatantly unbalanced.
It forces the table to either: allow access as written to a way above norm option, homebrew away the OP nature of the option, or just say no.
- - - -
For those looking to involve your familiar in combat a bit more, the Master ability Spell Delivery enables you to more or less throw your familiar at not just allies for the rare touch buff, but **at foes for touch attack spells**. No Familiar Master's Conduit required. The cantrip Gouging Claw is good enough that I've reshuffled my planned Witch to take Adapted Cantrip instead of Natural Ambition: Witch's Armaments.
I haven't given up on playing a Strength Witch, but even when lacking that Str to dmg for melee-spells, it looks like trying to Strike as a Witch is just never going to compare well VS AC cantrips. Still going to have Trip, ect, prioritized for the 1-Action options, as Athletics does not suffer from the lagging weapon training.
The entire genesis of that PC was trying to make Witch's Armaments work (and a Witch that can survive w/o a frontline), but a "Witchy attack" via cantrip carries that spirit well enough.
For Strikes, it seems the double-dip of penalties of Str being at best a 2nd stat, paired with a caster's weapon training, seems too much for a Witch to really overcome. (In a direct comparison to amazing cantrips like Gouging Claw). But, that is off-topic.
Going for the touch cantrip adds a genuinely new wrinkle to make the familiar more of a threat right from L1. While limited in comparison to Familiar Conduit, the cost/return comparison of the ability vs the Feat seems genuinely spot-on.
You're way overthinking it.
Picking something like a wisp will cost you 1 ability and give you Flier, Speech, Elemental (which has several immunities) and some miscellaneous other things.
Or you could pick Poppet and spend one ability to get fire weakness and the ability to not be healed.